Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Derek Pastetnik, Sheila Smith, Larry Smith and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) to reverse the decision to split the Transcona-Springfield School Division and allow it to remain as a whole or to consider immediately convening the Board of Reference to decide the matter.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Marilyn Melnyk, Norman Freedman, Richard Stokoloff and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba pass an act respecting the merger of three congregations to form one continuing congregation to be named Congregation Etz Chayim.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk please read.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth

THAT on November 8, 2001, the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) announced a split in the Transcona-Springfield School Division but despite repeated requests has been unable to identify any benefits of this decision to the students and taxpayers of said school division; and

THAT this decision was not preceded by adequate public consultation as outlined in section 7 of The Public Schools Act; and

THAT this decision would result in significant hardships for the students in both Transcona and Springfield that would affect the quality of their education; and

THAT the proposal by the Minister of Education on February 12, 2002, neither alleviates nor remedies these hardships; and

THAT this decision results in an increased financial burden on the taxpayers of both the Transcona-Springfield School Division and the province of Manitoba; and

THAT on March 13, 2002, the number of resident electors required by The Public Schools Act requested the Minister of Education to convene a Board of Reference to decide the matter.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education to reverse the decision to split the Transcona-Springfield School Division and allow it to remain as a whole or to consider immediately convening the Board of Reference to decide the matter.

Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Second Report.

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Your committee met on the following occasions:

Ms. Korzeniowski: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau), that the report of the committee be received.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, more than 100 farmers came to this Legislature. They filled the galleries looking for help from the Doer government, but this Doer government has turned their backs on these farmers.

This is what a farmer stated in the hallway: All we got was rhetoric. Mark Treichel, an Emerson farmer, said of this Government, and I quote: They do not seem to be getting the point. They just seem to be passing the buck all the time. We cannot live on that anymore.

I will ask the Minister of Agriculture: Will she do the right thing for farmers like Mark Treichel and put in place a program that will cover the losses as a result of the flooding?

* (13:35)

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The member must be aware that in Manitoba we do have a program and the program is called crop insurance. Crop insurance covers some of the losses. Certainly, it does not cover all of the losses that farmers have; but we have also raised, as we did yesterday, that there is a problem with the way that the DFA addresses the farming situation. The Premier (Mr. Doer) raised that issue. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms. Friesen), the minister responsible for DFA raised that issue and we will continue to raise it.

We have made changes to crop insurance that producers have asked for, and this year we made some adjustment to the program to address the situation in the southeastern part of the province. We will continue to work with producers to address their concerns because I realize that it is a very serious situation that they are facing, issues of drainage that have long been neglected and others that have to be addressed. We will continue to work with the producers. The producers recognized that yesterday.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, again the minister is saying the same thing she said yesterday. The farmers, the ones that are affected, are saying she does not understand it. She does not get it. She is saying the same thing again today. It is time the Doer government and this Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) took some leadership and responsibility on behalf of those farmers.

Yesterday, we saw farmers like Jerry Pappel who came to this Legislature to look for answers, not for rhetoric, from this Government. Mr. Pappel says in today's Winnipeg Sun that recent deluges have cost him more than $75,000 while killing 40 percent of his 1000-acre crop near Halbstadt. Mr. Pappel said, and I ask this Government why they are just blaming the federal government all the time. Why do they not put their money up and collect the money later?

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I think we are seeing today just how irresponsible this Leader of the Opposition is in terms of the public finances of this province. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. This Government, within two weeks, put in place a disaster assistance program which will cover an estimated $6.9 million. So let that be clear. Let it also be clear that the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) took the initiative before this flood to extend crop insurance to excess moisture. That is going to cover an estimated 500 to 700 people in the southeast.

I say to the member opposite that when it comes to disaster assistance we are going to do no differently than was done in the previous disasters because even the previous government, Mr. Speaker, when they were in government did not take that approach. It was a signed agreement in '97 in terms of JERI. By the way, in '99 they never requested a JERI program and to suggest that we should spend money beyond a program that is in place for many years is not acceptable to the taxpayers of this province.

* (13:40)

Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the minister make a comment about irresponsible, is that not interesting? What is fascinating is when you talk to farmers like Abe Heinrichs in Altona, his response as he heard from this Government, their lack of assistance, he said, maybe we should just "retire and give up." That is the message that the Doer government is sending to those farmers.

I would just like to remind the minister, when you talk about irresponsibility I would like to quote the then-Leader of the Opposition who in 1997, during the flood, said: NDP leader Gary Doer says he does not understand why the Province does not provide flood victims with cash settlements up front and worry about the details later.

For those farmers–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I recognize the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, I would just like to once again remind all honourable members when making reference to members in the House, it is ministers by their portfolios and other members by their constituency and not by name.

Mr. Murray: My question to the minister is: Will he follow his leader's own advice and provide producers with full compensation and worry about the federal government later?

Mr. Ashton: I want to put on the record that when the Leader of the Opposition talks about providing cash advances, that is exactly what we did within two weeks. A record, a response to people affected, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition I took the time as well, not only to visit the southeast which I know he has done, but to talk to people who were in the building yesterday. I will tell you what they talked about. They talked about the challenges in terms of drainage which we inherited after 11 years of neglect from the previous government. We are responding.

They talked about the unfairness of the situation in terms of part-time farmers, and we have been raising this repeatedly, and I raised it as recently as Friday with the federal minister, something again we are responding to. I want to put on the record again, Mr. Speaker, that the bottom line here is we are providing under the existing program $6.9 million of relief. We were out there with cash advances in record time. We care about the southeast and I say to the Leader of the Opposition he can politically grandstand all he wants, but–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

* (13:45)

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. This minister has no credibility when it comes to flood remuneration. This minister is holding back on the flood claims from 1997. There are still people suffering today because of this minister.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services, on the same point of order.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the member does disservice to his constituents on a point of order–

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind all honourable members, a point of order is a very serious matter, and I need to be able to hear the points of order that are being raised.

The honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services, on the same point of order?

Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have used Beauchesne 417 on occasion myself in this House.

I can tell you that my response was directly in keeping with the question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray), which was a very general comment. I say to the member he does a disservice to his constituents by, on a point of order, raising a matter which is to suggest that I am or my department is holding back in terms of disaster assistance to '97. He is talking about a flood-proofing situation which is now before the City of Winnipeg, and he should withdraw those comments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I make a ruling, I would just like to remind all honourable members that a point of order should be to point out to the Speaker a breach of a rule or departure from the practice of the House and not to be used to debate or rebut.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister to conclude his comments. You have about 10 seconds left.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here is we have responded quickly with concern for the people in southeast Manitoba, and we said yesterday that more needs to be done. In fact, we have proceeded with that; we are raising that with the federal government. It is not a matter of excuses, it is more response than we had in '97 with the previous government.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): In 1995, the now-Minister of Agriculture asked a question of the then-minister for disaster aid, and she said, The farm organizations have asked for special compensation for affected flood victim farmers. They feel that the farmers should be compensated for crop losses above and beyond what is insured and can be covered by insurance.

Is there any consideration being given to provide special compensation for farmers in areas that have suffered flooding this year? I believe there are areas that are not covered by compensation now. My question is: Will special consideration be given to those farmers?

My question today, Mr. Speaker, is very simple and very clear from the same Minister of Agriculture that asked this question in 1995: Will she today, on her own, request of her Government and provide the kind of compensation that cannot be provided by crop insurance as was clearly enunciated yesterday by all the farmers that were here? There was a reason they were here. They have not received anything. No consideration, no payment, no matter what the minister for disaster assistance says. Now will the Minister of Agriculture honour that request?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, the member is inaccurate in his comments if he says that no money has flowed to the people of southwestern Manitoba. We have made changes to–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that if the members take this question seriously, they will listen to the answer.

The member has said that no money has flowed. In fact, disaster money has flowed very quickly, much quicker than it did under the previous administration. In two weeks there was money in the people of the area's hands. There were also changes made to crop insurance that allows for additional coverage under the excess moisture insurance, but the member has to also remember that in 1995 when I asked that question for additional coverage there was not excess moisture insurance in place. That is a program we brought in to ensure farmers would get some money when they could not seed. There is also the issue of part-time farmers and changing the policy, which I hope the member will support us to get this policy change with the federal government.

* (13:50)

Mr. Jack Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture: In her response yesterday to one of the farmers who asked her about crop insurance and she tried to explain the crop insurance program to this farmer; the farmer turned to me after the minister's explanation and said, she really does not understand her own program, does she?

I want to ask the minister today: Can she tell this House whether she is prepared today to stand in her place and say that crop insurance does not cover the losses that were enunciated here yesterday by many farmers, does not cover the losses? Will she today consider doing as her Premier (Mr. Doer) said at the last major event: put the money up front and pay the farmers the losses they have incurred, as she requested herself in 1995?

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to reiterate what some farmers say about me, I can tell him I would be ashamed to put on the record what some farmers in Manitoba say about him and some of the suggestions he makes in this House. I would be ashamed to be associated with some of the things they say about him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate, and you might remind the honourable minister that all members are honourable members.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does have a point of order. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable ministers, 417: Answers to questions should not be provoking debate.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the member talks about crop insurance covering all losses producers have lost. Well, I guess he does not understand crop insurance very well because crop insurance was never intended to cover all losses of producers. So the member is inaccurate in what he is putting on the record.

The issue and the challenges facing the producers of southeastern Manitoba are serious challenges. That is why we made some changes to crop insurance in order to allow their money to flow. That is why the minister responsible for disaster assistance allowed money to flow quickly to them. We will continue to work on this issue and push the federal government to ensure the changes are made, but we have said our money is on the table.

Mr. Jack Penner: I want to ask the minister whether she recognized that in 1997 the programs were not adequate to cover the losses that occurred in 1997. Many changes were made. I wonder whether she could tell this House–

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food up on a point of order?

Ms. Wowchuk: No, Mr. Speaker. The member put a question and I was prepared to answer it.

Mr. Jack Penner: I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture would today admit her programs are not adequate and that crop insurance cannot cover the losses farmers incurred. Is she prepared, what was done in 1997, what was done in 1999, to make the changes and to provide the compensation over and above what the current programs allow for or the current Crop Insurance Program allows for? These people need extra compensation for their losses. Will the minister provide that today?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

* (13:55)

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I know the member has had some time to rally a question, a single question. We are hearing multiple questions, we are hearing preambles and postambles. Would you please direct the member to respect the rules of this House. A supplementary question requires no preamble. There should be a simple question.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Emerson, on the same point of order.

Mr. Jack Penner: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Government they have a responsibility to producers. Many questions were asked yesterday. We have not time in this Question Period to list all the questions. So, I want to say to the minister, all we are asking today is: Will she provide special compensation to those farmers according to their requests as requested yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Prior to ruling on the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I would just like to remind all honourable members when rising on a point of order that it should be to point out the breaching of rules, not to be used for debate and also not to be used for raising further questions.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, he does have a point of order. Beauchesne 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a preamble. I would once again like to remind all honourable members.

Mr. Speaker: The question had been put, so now I will recognize the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services.

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I find it really unfortunate that the member opposite, particularly yesterday in the presence of so many people from the affected area in the gallery, continues to put information on the record that is not accurate.

He mentioned 1988, Swan River, which was not a program by the government of the day; it was a dispute over the amount to be paid for equipment operation under an existing program. He mentioned 1989. It was not a program of disaster assistance; it was a dispute over the amount of firefighting costs.

Mr. Speaker, similarly, in 1997 there was a signed agreement with the federal government under JERI, and in 1999 the government of the day, the previous government, did not even request a JERI agreement.

We have said we are providing assistance as soon as possible and we have already identified some of the gaps in the assistance. That is why as recently as Friday we raised with the federal government the fact that many part-time farmers are not eligible under DFAA.

I suggest to the member opposite if he is going to try and politicize the response to the emergency in this case he should get his facts straight, at least for the people in southeast Manitoba.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to once again remind all honourable members when a Speaker rises all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence.

Order. I would ask the full co-operation of all honourable members in the decorum we are portraying in the Chamber today. I am sitting here and I really cannot tell where it is coming from, but I am hearing some members calling each other to tell the truth. You are walking a very thin line here. I am cautioning all honourable members. I could hear it on the floor. I really cannot identify where it is coming from, but I am cautioning all members. You are skating a thin line here.

The honourable Member for Charleswood has the floor.

* (14:00)

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In May, two patients at St. Boniface Hospital psychiatric ward were sexually assaulted by other patients, and now we have learned that three more patients have been sexually assaulted at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he is now prepared to do what we suggested back in May and call for an external investigation into this, because the longer he sits on the fence on this issue the longer patients are left vulnerable.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I believe when the member raised the incident in the House in May, she ran out in the hallway and said, segregate wards, segregate wards. We should have segregated dormitories. We should do all kinds of studies.

In fact, as indicated at the time, there was an internal review at St. Boniface and an external review. In addition, the deputy minister contacted every facility in the province to–[interjection] Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) wants to answer the question, he could answer it. But I do not think he has even a close semblance of the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I want members opposite to know that we put in place a bill called The Protection for Persons in Care Act, something members opposite opposed and opposed and opposed when they were in government, and we were able to put in place.

Mrs. Driedger: Well, I would like to ask this Minister of Health then based on the answer he just gave: What has he done to protect these patients? We have patients that are still being sexually assaulted. He is talking about internal reviews. What has he done to protect these patients?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, there was a series of protocols that were put in place in the mid-nineties when the members opposite were the government, and since then we have put in place The Protection for Persons in Care Act. We have also contacted every institution and asked for a review of all the policies with respect to the sexual assaults that have occurred since then, that occurred during the nineties and have occurred in the system.

I can indicate that with respect to the one that occurred both at St. Boniface and at Selkirk, there are investigations that have been undertaken in that regard by the police, by the internal agencies externally and by The Protection for Persons in Care, Mr. Speaker, hardly a characterization by the Member for Charleswood that nothing has been done.

Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, well, I would like to ask this Minister of Health today if he is prepared to commit to an external review to look at the whole system, not just at those isolated situations where the patients have already been assaulted. What about the rest of the patients in the system? Will he commit today to look at the whole system, so we can see that this kind of situation is prevented, and will part of that review look at possibly a solution being a segregated unit?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issues related to sexual assaults, and any assaults, in any institutions, at any time, as I indicated there were both internal and external reviews of the situation with respect to St. Boniface, plus police reviews.

We also contacted all regions and all facilities to ask for the review, and I am prepared to outline that there are extensive policies in place at Selkirk. We have–[interjection] You know, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite likes to jump to conclusions, likes to make–[interjection]

The policy of segregated units that was eliminated, I believe, when members opposite were in office, is one that is not practised across the country. I might add to the member opposite that sexual assaults occurred not just with respect to heterosexuals but amongst all individuals. So the issue is a much broader one than the simplistic solution offered by the Member for Charleswood.

Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Last October the Justice Minister indicated a new Chief Judge of the Provincial Court would be selected soon. It is my understanding this list of candidates has been on the minister's desk for the past four months. Why has there been such a long delay in the selection of a new Chief Judge of the Provincial Court?

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm the time line the member puts on the record but I can advise all Manitobans we are hoping to make an announcement, perhaps even this week.

Mrs. Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to this House if the list of candidates does not meet his approval? Is this why the delay has taken so long?

Mr. Mackintosh: Unlike the former administration, we have no interest in meddling with an independent process in sending a list back. We respect the process. In fact, what has made the decision difficult for the Government is the high calibre of each and every person who has been nominated for this position.

Mrs. Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact this Justice Minister has had this list on his desk for four months, could the minister please indicate and give a specific time line where we can expect a new Chief Judge of the Provincial Court? It is much needed.

Mr. Mackintosh: Same question, same answer. It could be as early as this week.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): The Government had contracted with Dr. Glenn Nicholls to do a study on class size and composition. He indicated there should be a three-year moratorium on that issue. I wonder since the Government has had this report for in excess of two months now whether there is a formal report from government on this report.

Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education): I thank the member for his question. I am happy to report, as we all know, that the Nicholls report, of course, is about the education of children in the province of Manitoba. The report we have is helping us to focus on the main issues, where our priorities should be on early grades, on kids with special needs and on the fact we have in Manitoba very few classes with excessively large numbers of students, I am happy to report.

We know that Doctor Nicholls worked on this report for well over a year. Mr. Speaker, he has provided us, as members opposite know, with a very thorough and thoughtful consideration on a whole range of issues. Our priority is to discuss the report with trustees and with teachers. My colleague the Minister of Education, Training and Youth (Mr. Caldwell) has met with trustees and discussed this issue with them.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Given that Bill 42 contains a sunset clause that allows this issue to be referred to arbitration beginning in November of this year, can the minister indicate whether a bill will be brought forward this session to deal with this, or are they simply going to allow this issue to go to arbitration this fall?

Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education): Mr. Speaker, as I was going to say but I did not really get to finish it in my last question, the minister wishes to meet with both school trustees and with teachers. He has met with school trustees and he will soon be meeting with the other educational stakeholders in the next little while.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Can the minister indicate whether a commitment has been made to the Manitoba Teachers' Society to allow class size and composition to be arbitrable?

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is this Government believes in consultation and we will be consulting with teachers.

* (14:10)

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. A large study in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows there are more risks than benefits to using the combination of estrogen at 0.625 milligrams a day and progesterone 2.5 milligrams a day as hormone replacement therapy. Clearly, the expenditure of public funds on drug regimens which cause more harm than good is inappropriate.

I ask the Minister of Health: What is he doing about this situation, and would he also clarify for physicians and the general public that the results apply to the combination estrogen-progesterone hormone therapy but not to estrogen therapy alone?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I believe that was recently reported with respect to a study out of the United States. In fact, I understand that study, the 16 000 women that were participating in the study were advised they should no longer continue the study because of the slightly but potential increased risk for cancer for participants in that U.S. study.

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary: Do I interpret the minister's remarks to say he is advising women in Manitoba the same way, and will the minister stop spending public funds on areas that would do more harm than good to the health of Manitobans?

Mr. Chomiak: I believe that is the very basis of the Hippocratic oath.

Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary to the minister, who, I know, is very concerned about the rising cost of drugs: Is the minister going to end the use of drugs in this province which cause more harm than benefit?

Mr. Chomiak: The member, I believe, did research on a number of items with respect to pediatric oncology, as I understand it. As the member knows, there are numerous studies on both formularies and drugs and on the application of health care. We rely on our experts, I rely on our experts, in terms of evaluating, assessing and providing us with the appropriate recommendations vis-à-vis coverage or non-coverage in application.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Good infrastructure is important to all communities in all regions of the province, which is something the previous government never did understand. Could the minister advise this House of some of the infrastructure projects with which this Government is assisting northern communities?

Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would like to thank the honourable member for the question and to advise the House: Of the 103 rural northern infrastructure projects that have been announced, 17 projects were for northern communities and they affect a wide range of northern communities from the R.M. of Kelsey to the town of Lynn Lake, to Camperville, The Pas, Duck Bay, Meadow Portage, the city of Thompson, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, these projects represent significant investment in green infrastructure of water and waste water usage. They also represent municipal, federal and provincial partnerships, which I think are quite significant. In addition, they do represent regional co-operation across boundaries of First Nations communities, rural municipalities, as well as the towns.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the advisory committee that worked with us on the infrastructure program representing the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, as well as the mayors and reeves of northern communities. They do a great deal of work under difficult situations, and I want to thank them for the invaluable advice they offer.

Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Conservation. The Grand Beach Entertainment Centre has postponed its grand opening for the third time this year because it cannot give proper mortgage security to a lender to secure a loan to complete construction of the site. The Province agreed to transfer two parcels of Crown land to the R.M. of Alexander and the municipality has agreed to transfer this land to the Grand Beach Entertainment Centre. It is this land that is to be used as security for the necessary loan.

Will the minister advise, since the holdup to this project is the transfer of land by the Province, when will this Crown land in question be transferred to the R.M. of Alexander?

Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. Manitoba Conservation has reviewed this request from the R.M., and that is to return the lands that were held in trust for them by the Province. A decision is currently pending until further conditions have been met by the developer.

Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Crown land should have been transferred to the R.M. of Alexander months ago, will the minister undertake to have this matter resolved within the next week?

Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to repeat for the member there are certain conditions that will have to be met by the developer before the request can be accommodated. As soon as those conditions are met, the Conservation Department will be moving forthrightly.

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I would ask the House if there is leave to revert back to ministerial statements on very serious and very unfortunate news that we have just learned about.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to revert back to ministerial statements? [Agreed]

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have just learned, and I know in discussions with the House leaders and other members that we have just learned that the Honourable Sid Spivak has just passed away last evening.

Mr. Speaker, we on all sides of this House honour his tremendous contributions to public life and service here in this Legislature and across Canada. He has been, of course, a representative for River Heights and a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I believe elected in '66 or '67, and served in the Roblin Cabinet with distinction as industry trade minister in that government, and served again under the leadership of Walter Weir.

Subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Spivak was elected Leader of the Opposition. He led his party in 1973 to an increase in seats in the Legislature, and he served with distinction and dignity in that role. Mr. Spivak then served in the former Honourable Sterling Lyon's Cabinet in 1977, and I believe, by memory, that he ran in the 1979 general election and left this Legislature to serve in his vision of Canada and the Canadian government.

He is an individual that had tremendous insight, knowledge. He was a very bright individual. He, I believe, won the Isbister Scholarship in his academic career, went on to law at the University of Manitoba, went on to law at Harvard, where he received his Master of Laws degree. He was an individual that was involved in business, in the Chambers of Commerce and, of course, served the public so well as a member of this Legislature and as a Leader of his political party. He is an individual, besides his intelligence and his dedication to his community, was an individual that was very considerate on provincial, national and international issues.

I recall just a couple of years ago quoting from Sid Spivak's speech to the synagogue on the wars in the Middle East and some of the conclusions he had come to on how we could achieve peace, instead of the wars that were taking place on a regrettably habitual basis in that very, very troubled part of our world.

I know that we will all miss his tremendous contributions to our community. We, today, stand with his family in condolence, Mira, Lori, Harold and Diane, and I know I join with all members in our sadness and condolences to the family.

* (14:20)

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments from the Premier, and I believe that we on this side of the House certainly feel the loss as a member of our political family, if I could say it in those respects, as well as somebody who, as the Premier mentioned very eloquently, is not only a great Manitoban but also, I believe, a great Canadian.

The Premier quite rightly outlined Mr. Spivak's wonderful accomplishments and his ability to come into this Chamber as a minister elected, I believe, at the same time as the honourable Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns). I think there were some similarities there, and there are obviously some tremendous memories that will be talked about, I am sure, at a later date in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

I know that I had numerous opportunities as one who has taken over as the Leader of the PC Party of Manitoba and find myself in the same position as Mr. Spivak did as Leader of the Opposition. I used him as an adviser and as a sounding board, and he was certainly one who was prepared to give, I believe, to anybody who was interested his views on politics.

I think although he had obviously a relationship with our party, he loved politics and would discuss it with anybody. As the Premier mentioned, you talk about the Gulf War, and I know he was very involved, Mr. Speaker, behind the scenes assisting the Prime Minister of Canada with the negotiations that were going on in the Gulf War, particularly with the State of Israel.

I know as we have seen time go by Sidney Spivak is one who has made a life in politics. He has certainly made a tremendous impact in a political stance, but he has also gone on to run a business and to be very successful in his business career and always, always, I think the role that Sidney Spivak wanted was to ensure that Manitoba was a better place to live for his family and for generations of families that would come behind him.

As we know his wife, Mira, who is another strong advocate, another strong voice from Manitoba who speaks on the national stage, believes, as Sidney did, in the importance of the political system and in being involved and making a contribution.

On a personal note, Sidney's granddaughter and my daughter are very, very close friends. I know that this very, very sad day for Manitoba will be felt not only throughout the province but personally will come into our household.

So I know I speak on behalf of all of our colleagues on this side of the House and members of our party and I think Manitobans who are very shocked by this sudden loss of somebody who has made a great contribution to our province in Mr. Sidney Spivak. We, too, on this side, Mr. Speaker, stand in sympathy, but also in strength on what he has done with his wife Mira, Lori, Harold and Diane.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I would ask for leave to speak to the Premier's statement.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to speak to the ministerial statement? [Agreed]

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sid Spivak who is a former Member for River Heights, the riding which I presently represent. Sid Spivak served for some 12 years and 10 months as the MLA for River Heights, was a member of the government, held several portfolios, industry and commerce, a minister without portfolio and co-chairman of the Task Force on Government Organization and Economy and, in 1978 and '79, the Minister of Government Services and responsible for Manitoba Data Services. He also was Leader of the Opposition and provided, I would say, an example to all of us in representation that he provided for people and in the leadership that he provided as a representative in this House.

I would like to extend my condolences to family and to friends, to Mira, to Lori, to Harold and Diane. Mira has served admirably as a senator and has been a champion of some environmental causes, in the experimental lakes area, among others. I think that all of us here can remember Sid Spivak's passing as a significant event and one that we should look back to as an important era in Manitoba politics. Thank you.

Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, if I may have the indulgence of the House to add my name to those already spoken expressing condolences to the Spivak family.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed]

Mr. Enns: In many respects, our political lives were very intertwined. We, as already mentioned, both were elected in the same election, both brought into Cabinet by the then-Premier, the Honourable Duff Roblin, I as Minister of Agriculture and Mr. Spivak as a very vigorous and well-remembered Minister of Trade, Industry and Commerce. I have a further connection with him as, in 1970, I participated in an active leadership race with Mr. Spivak for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. Mr. Spivak had the good fortune of enlisting the support of youngsters at that time, like Bill Blaikie from Transcona, now the leadership contender for the national NDP party, and Mr. Domino, and succeeded in defeating me in that leadership race in 1970. It was then my privilege to go on and continue serving Mr. Spivak for a good number of years as we did our best as members of the Opposition.

My heartfelt condolences to the Spivak family.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On a matter of House business, in recognition of this loss, would you canvass the House to determine if there is leave to adjourn tomorrow at 3:30, recognizing the service is at four tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adjourn the House tomorrow at 3:30 for services? [Agreed] So tomorrow we will adjourn the House at 3:30.

We will now revert back to Question Period?

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker–

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think there was an answer.

Just to remind everyone that we are reconvening, I guess for Hansard, we are reconvening for Question Period.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, although it is difficult to focus one's attention back to Question Period, I know that Mr. Spivak himself would have wanted us to carry on with the business of the province. My question is to the Minister of Lotteries. Some time ago, the Government of Manitoba fired the general manager of the Club Regent gaming centre, who was Mr. Charles Devenney. I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Lotteries if she could provide the rationale for the dismissal of Mr. Devenney as the general manager of Club Regent.

Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, this is a confidential matter, and I will not be discussing it in the Legislature.

* (14:30)

Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Speaker, this just once again shows the secrecy that this Government operates under. On a new question.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell, on a new question.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that this Government fired the general manager, Mr. Devenney, as the general manager of Club Regent. It is also a known fact that Mr. Devenney was paid a settlement.

I would like to ask the Minister of Lotteries if she could, for the province of Manitoba, for the people of this province, identify the amount of the settlement that was paid to Mr. Devenney.

Ms. McGifford: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, I have made the point that this is a confidential matter. All aspects of this matter are personal pertaining to the individual under question and, of course, I will not answer, but if the member wants to know the cost overruns for the casinos, the ones incurred by his government, I could tell him they were $145 million total, an overrun of a hundred million dollars. That is also public information.

Mr. Derkach: On a new question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell, on a new question.

Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Devenney was first fired by this Government as the general manager of Club Regent; then Mr. Devenney was paid a settlement. Subsequently, Mr. Devenney was offered a position as an investigator with the Gaming Control Commission. This is a matter that was known by the First Minister (Mr. Doer), because he made comments from his seat regarding this matter.

I would like to ask the First Minister to explain why Mr. Devenney was first fired by his Government, paid off, and then rehired under the Gaming Control Commission.

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the Gaming Commission, this may come as some surprise, particularly to this member, but I can tell you I do not interfere in the hiring process with the Gaming Commission. If this individual or any individual was hired by the Gaming Commission, it is because the Gaming Commission went through a proper process and hired that individual.

We as a government, and, I tell you, I as minister do not interfere with the day-to-day activities as minister. I know that may be somewhat strange to the member opposite, given his tenure in government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all honourable members, when presenting on a new question, to state immediately, not to use a preamble and then state a new question.

Mr. Derkach: On a new question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell, on a new question.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, on a new question. The mismanagement of this Government is obvious. First, they fire the general manager of Club Regent, then they offer him a settlement, which is accepted, and then they hire him as an investigator under the Gaming Control Commission.

I have a new question for the Minister of Lotteries. I would like to ask the Minister of Lotteries if she could tell me what position Mr. Jeff Hildahl [phonetic] worked in under Manitoba Lotteries.

Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): No, I cannot answer that question, because I have absolutely no idea who this particular Mr. Hildahl [phonetic] is. I could bring to the member's attention that there are 2000 employees at Lotteries. I simply do not know the names of the 2000 employees or the positions they have held. It is an arm's-length corporation, so, no, no, I do not know this individual. I have never heard of him. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Yesterday we had better than a hundred farmers in this building. Basically, what they came for was answers to their flooding concerns. Most of them have had very major crop losses, who were here yesterday. Mr. Speaker, there was no way any crop insurance program or any other program that is currently in effect can cover those huge losses these farmers had identified yesterday. The questions they had were brought before this Legislature. We brought those same questions to the Legislature, asked these questions of the minister. Constantly they are trying to divert the attention away to other issues.

I think it is really unfortunate that this Premier (Mr. Doer) of this province has not already taken the leadership and, as he suggested in 1995, or 1997, when the NDP Leader Gary Doer said he does not understand why the province does not provide flood victims with cash settlements up front and worry about the details later. He says: If we can build the Brunkild dike in four days and trust the contractors with tens of millions of dollars in public money, then we can trust the victims to rebuild their lives.

That is really what the farmers here said yesterday. Why does the Premier not tell his minister to announce a program that will cover the losses that are incurred by farmers, the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of losses per individual that are being incurred by these farmers, and cover them, and look for the agreements later with Ottawa? That was his philosophy before he came to government.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what has changed in the mind of this Premier and why he will not stand by his farmers, as the previous premier of this province did when we had losses in Swan River, when we had losses in the Red River Valley, when we had losses in the Interlake from the fires; the premier then made the announcements and went to the federal government later.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): On June 25, I had the pleasure of attending, on behalf of the Minister of Education, Training and Youth (Mr. Caldwell), the ribbon-cutting ceremony to unveil Oak Park High School's new student showcase: Celebrating Achievements.

Chris Gibson and Adam Barron acted as co-chairs and emcees for the event.

The project, a beautiful display case for students awards, was the result of the hard work of a group of the students who are members of the student issues committee. This committee is made up of students who take pride in their school and have worked to overcome its physical appearance. Benches and pillars of the school have been repaired and restored.

The student issues committee benefits from the help of many dedicated staff members. Oak Park teacher Colin Turnbull, one of the advisers for the committee, is described as a woodworker extraordinaire. He crafted the case, and the students spent hours planing, sanding and finishing the paneling. Principal Wayne Thompson helped greatly by providing the necessary funds for this project from sources such as the school's canteen. As well, Carol Pawluk provided her indispensable support to the student committee.

I would like to thank all these staff members for their valued assistance. I also want to congratulate the students involved for the success of their endeavour.

The display case itself is very impressive. It is made of black walnut and it is so large it covers the whole wall. The display is encased by glass and features an etching of the school's coat of arms. The display goes a long way in beautifying the school, as it is in the area first seen by visitors to the school.

Mr. Turnbull called it a testimony to past alumnae and to the future graduates of this great school. It truly is an asset because it is important to motivate, recognize and celebrate students' successes. It will allow students to be honoured for their achievements in the academic, athletic, citizenship and fine arts areas.

It was an honour to be among those who got to cut the ribbon at this event. I congratulate everyone involved for creating such a beautiful display and encourage Oak Park High School students to endeavour to fill the case with monuments to their achievements.

Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, one of the fastest-growing communities in Manitoba is Niverville, and that is in my constituency. So it is my honour to rise today to express my sincere delight on the community of Niverville's plans to convert the Heritage Club into the Niverville Heritage Centre, a facility that will bring families and members of the community closer together.

This $6.5-million package will include a new multi-use facility, a renovated arena, and an 18-suite seniors supportive living complex. Residents of Niverville are absolutely thrilled by this proposal. Mothers are saying it is a wonderful idea. A former councillor, Alex Fast, commended the town council by enthusiastically designating it a proactive council that dreams. Another resident even commented optimistically that six million does not sound like a lot of money, considering the benefits the town will enjoy once the council's dream has been turned into a reality.

Now why is everyone so excited about this project? The Heritage Centre would provide attractions such as swimming pools, waterslides for the energetic little ones, a fitness centre, gymnasium and more for the active adult.

Furthermore, the town of Niverville would benefit from a new health care centre, more commercial space and even a day care facility. Who could ask for more? I have no doubt the Heritage Centre will have a profound impact on Niverville and area residents. Everyone from children to the elderly will feel a strengthening bond between themselves, their families and the people in the community around them. For example, grandparents will be able to live in that centre where they could watch their grandchildren swim and not be isolated from their friends.

* (14:40)

The new Heritage Centre is so fascinating it almost seems like a dream come true. Perhaps Mayor Clare Braun said it best when he asked the people to dream with us a bit. I ask you to be open-hearted and open-minded.

I congratulate the community of Niverville on their aggressiveness and their ability to stand on their own two feet to be the fastest growing community in Manitoba.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say how pleased I am to see that a new family has moved into the Flin Flon constituency to take over an existing business, Bakers Narrows Lodge. I am equally pleased to say this family of 10 has been drawn from their home province of Saskatchewan to live and work in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Rod and Peg Baynton, their sons, Brett and Brock, and daughters-in-law, Angela and Jenny, to Manitoba. I would also like to welcome Brett and Angela's children, Callista and Brody, and Brock and Jenny's daughters, Hanna and Gracie. As well, I extend a welcome to Peg's parents Lial and Flo Lindquist, who are spending this summer here away from their home in Calgary.

Bakers Narrows Lodge is a well-known and picturesque lodge located on No. 10 highway, a kilometre or so southeast and across from the airport. The Bayntons have done a commendable job in getting the lodge up and running again for the summer.

The lodge provides a restaurant and dining room, a full convenience store and 15 two-room fully modernized log cabins. The Bayntons offer boat rentals, canoe guiding and instruction, historical interpretations, children's recreation in the summer, a float plane for scenic tours, fly-in fishing trips to remote lakes, flight training and charter and fly-in dining.

As well as the current services offered, the Bayntons hope to expand and renovate some of the lodge's facilities. They hope to construct a new main lodge with a seating capacity of up to 80 people. This will be an added attraction to visitors and customers who come from all over the globe.

In addition, I look forward to hearing of the successes of their planned winter events, which include snowmobile racing and the burbot derby.

At the lodge year-round, Mr. Speaker, the friendly Baynton family will fit in well in the northwest region of friendly Manitoba. People in the region value the continued service offered by Bakers Narrows Lodge.

It is great to see that people are coming to northern Manitoba to work, to live and to enjoy the pristine beauty of this region. Again, I welcome the Bayntons to Manitoba and wish them the best of luck.

Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): I rise today to recognize Bruce and Phil Seddon for their contributions to the revival and well-being of natural habitat in our province.

Today there is often significant impact on natural habitats. The protection of natural habitat that provides a home and resources to hundreds of thousands of species is increasingly important. To that end, the brothers Bruce and Phil Seddon decided to do what they could. They have just donated most of a quarter-section of what was part of their grandfather's original homestead, the Marchington property near Tenby, as a wildlife habitat and to be left in its natural state.

Their grandfather homesteaded this area in the late 1800s and his two sons, the uncles of the Seddon brothers that are referred to, had for many years grown agricultural crops and raised cattle on this property.

Now Phil Seddon explains that his uncles, he believes, would be extremely pleased with what has happened to their land. At a ceremony in recognition of the donation the brothers were presented with a commemorative plaque. Ted Poyser, chair of the Habitat Heritage Corporation, announced it is a great contribution to Manitoba. This land has the potential to provide homes for more than 100 species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians.

Tim Sopuck, manager of operations at Manitoba Habitat, also noted: We know one thing, that this will be a dedicated wildlife habitat because of the generosity of the Seddons. The impact this contribution will have and already has had on the community will be tremendous. Not only will wildlife be saved but it will also create an awareness that habitat preservation is of utmost importance.

This awareness may be seen as being one step closer toward the replenishing of natural habitat in this province and across our country, and even can be taken in the global sense. It is because of this profound and noteworthy initiative that I, on behalf of the members of this Chamber, would like to say thank you to the brothers Bruce and Phil Seddon.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Would you canvass the House to see if there is leave to deal with Bill 14 tonight, if not dealt with earlier, to sit from 6:30 till 10 p.m.?

Mr. Speaker: Is there will of the House to sit from 6:30 till 10 to deal with Bill 14 if it is not dealt with by 5 p.m.? Is there a will of the House? No? No, there is no agreement.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would you please call report stage Bill 14.

Mr. Speaker: Report stage Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act (Public Schools Act Amended), and now the proposed amendment to Bill 14, standing in the name of the honourable Member for River East, who has nine minutes remaining.

Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to complete my comments yesterday and so today again will indicate, to my dismay, there are several members on the government side of the House that have not stood to support their Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) on Bill 14 and put their thoughts on the record, specifically those members, like the Deputy Premier (Ms. Friesen) now, who, when in opposition, stood in her place and put out a news release and indicated very clearly that there was no sense or no reason or no rationale to amalgamate school divisions because there would be no cost savings.

She, in her wisdom at that time, had very definite views on what amalgamation of school divisions would do in the province of Manitoba. Yet now that her Government, Mr. Speaker, has rammed through forced amalgamations, I would have thought that she would have at least stood in her place and indicated clearly to Manitobans what made her make the decision to now support forced amalgamation. But she has been completely silent on the issue.

Does she support–a very simple question–the so-called analysis that the Minister of Education has that there are going to be $10 million in cost savings, savings that he is not prepared to stand up and table in this Legislature or present in any way to Manitobans? I guess I just question again why the Deputy Premier now has taken a completely opposite point of view around forced amalgamations.

We also have not heard from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines (Ms. Mihychuk), who, when in opposition, was adamantly opposed to amalgamation of school divisions. These two members, Mr. Speaker, have been silent on the issue, and so it leads me to question why this Government would have moved ahead with this decision and what political motivation there had to be to force amalgamation of certain school divisions and leave other school divisions untouched.

We also know that members on the other side of the House have sat in their place or stood in their place and indicated that Manitobans just want to get on with this amalgamation, especially again the Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg), who has indicated that the people of River East love amalgamation and want it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I happen to represent many of those whose children attend River East School Division, and that is certainly not the message that I am getting and that is not the message that others are getting in River East either.

* (14:50)

I do know that the constituents in River East School Division do not want to have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for the forced amalgamation of River East and Transcona school divisions. I know that the constituents in Transcona constituency do not want to have to dig deeper into their pockets. They are not looking forward to the day when the tax bills come out, and, as a result of forced amalgamation, they are going to have to write bigger cheques in order to accommodate this Government's ill-thought-out process for school division amalgamation.

I want to read into the record from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press that says, and I quote, txpayers do not love amalgamation. The Member for Rossmere, on June 17, told the Legislature that the people of River East love amalgamation and want it. The writer of this letter to the editor says, who have you been talking to. In a survey of over 10 000 homes in River East, the respondents were overwhelmingly opposed. And why wouldn't they be? Salaries are projected to increase by $2 million in River East. There will be an additional need for millions of dollars in costs to blend the two divisions. As of June 18, River East School Division was told by the Education Minister that he is unwilling to offset the shortfall per student. Well, that says it all.

Not only does the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) want complete control over the budgets in the school divisions that are being forced to amalgamate, but he is indicating that the Government of Manitoba is not going to pick up the additional costs that will be incurred. Who does this Government think is going to pick up the costs? It is the taxpayers in River East School Division, River East, Transcona school divisions, that will have to dig deeper into their pockets, that will have to write bigger cheques as a result of this ill-thought-out, forced amalgamation process.

Who are the winners, and who are the losers? The losers truly are the taxpayers that will have to pay more as a result.

Some of the divisions that are represented by members on the government side of the House will get away scot-free with additional costs, because the boundaries were drawn in an extremely political fashion.

This decision will come back to haunt this Government and this Minister of Education, but there is certainly a sense and some discussion out there in the community that, as soon as this bill is passed and this session is over, the Minister of Education will be relieved from his duties as the Minister of Education, because he has mismanaged and mishandled and made a disaster of this whole process of school division amalgamation. The rumour is out there running rampant that he will take the fall when this session has ended and will be removed as the Minister of Education because he has bungled so badly this whole process. He is a bit of a laughingstock among those that are involved in the education system, especially those parents from the Springfield school division whose words went unheeded, who were not listened to and were not consulted in any way before this process was forced upon them.

We certainly cannot support this bill moving forward and would not support the kind of process that this Government has followed. It will come back to haunt this minister and this Government for many years to come.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): It is a privilege for me today to rise and speak in the House with regard to the proposed amendment to Bill 14. I wonder, though, as it has been my third occasion to rise in the House on Bill 14, why, at this late stage of debate, is the minister still continuing to modify his legislation which has been before the House since May 2. It must be highly evident to the public, and there must be public pressure upon the minister to continue to recognize the shortcomings of this piece of legislation. So, if after three months, we are still having to see modification to the legislation, perhaps there should be even more modification and perhaps maybe this legislation should be withdrawn so that all considerations that have been mentioned in debate can be fully appreciated and the new legislation drafted for the betterment of education here in the province of Manitoba.

We hear a lot of rhetoric in debate of legislation, but we must always remain focussed on what is the true purpose of our work here in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and as it pertains to passage of law as to where and how that particular law affects Manitobans. When we speak of education, we are referring to the next generation of Manitobans, those that are in our public schools system and those that will be immediately affected by educational statutes passed into law by this Assembly. Well, with that particular focus, we must always hold any piece of legislation and undergo this litmus test to identify whether it is in keeping with the best interests of young Manitobans.

We have heard on numerous occasions as to the questions that the current Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) has yet left unanswered, and that is: Does this legislation indeed enhance education for the young people of Manitoba? That answer has not yet been put in front of this Assembly. So why do we then debate a piece of legislation where the fundamentals, the reason or rationale behind legislation, have not been satisfied? So I really struggle to understand why we have spent almost three and a half months debating a piece of legislation which fundamentally has not been introduced into this House for the right reasons.

We now have a series of amendments before us that is supposed to enhance this particular piece of legislation. But we first have had to ask the question about whether it is beneficial for the students, but we also have to keep in mind the other parties to the educational system in this province and that is the local taxpayers, the taxpayers of Manitoba and ultimately those that serve in the school system, the educators and administrators. So, as we progress down the line of those parties that will be affected by Bill 14, I look to the significant cause for concern from various areas of the province as it pertains to the parents of the students, as well as those that are paying the bills at the local school board level. In fact, we have been informed that there has been a submission to the courts which ultimately was denied, and the question was asked as to whether or not school boards had the ability to amalgamate on their own, and that dismissal by the courts left that answer unknown.

* (15:00)

However, inadvertently, it did answer the question, because not hearing the submission by parent groups left us with the understanding that Bill 14 is unnecessary, because there is opportunity to amalgamate under the current legislation. However, the current legislation provides for mutual understanding and mutual agreement, and, if not agreement, an agreed-upon mechanism to resolve the points that have yet to be agreed upon.

There is a mechanism. This mechanism has been used on numerous occasions. Right here in the city of Winnipeg the Norwood School Division amalgamated with the St. Boniface School Division. There were a number of points that came into argument at the time, but those points were resolved. Currently the St. Boniface School Division is functioning and functioning in a fine manner, offering quality education to the residents of St. Boniface.

Also, a little closer to my own constituency was that of the school division by the former name of Tiger Hills. That school division entered into discussions with Mountain School Division and Pembina School Division. Ultimately, the Mountain School Division decided not to join in the amalgamation, but Tiger Hills and Pembina school divisions came to an agreement and formed Prairie Spirit School Division.

So that amalgamation did take place. In fact, it was so successful that now the administrators, the trustees, staff, students and others of the Mountain School Division have petitioned the Prairie Spirit School Division to enter into discussions, to join that amalgamated entity that was formerly Pembina and Tiger Hills school divisions.

I do look to the examples which I have mentioned here today to demonstrate to my colleagues of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly to state unequivocally that Bill 14 is a highly unnecessary piece of legislation. What this legislation does provide is additional authority to the minister, which we all recognize is important in certain circumstances.

However, when one is challenged, one rises to the occasion. What we are looking at right at the present time is that there are situations around the province where amalgamation is recognized as a potential option to provide a higher standard of quality education as well as a cost benefit to those taxpayers of the area that are paying for the programming.

There is recognition that amalgamation can provide benefits, but, having said that, I believe amalgamation comes together in a more amicable way based upon individuals resolving their own disputes and not relying upon the minister, far and away from the situation, making a decision perhaps that he or she does not fully comprehend or understand, and, ultimately, even further disputes may result.

I believe wholeheartedly that, by example, amalgamation can take place in this province. It is done in a fashion where both parties are provided with an atmosphere of resolve so that the amalgamation takes place for the benefit of all. So we continue to debate Bill 14 and the questions have to still be asked as to what benefit Bill 14 will provide.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I looked through Bill 14 as it is referred to, the modernization of The Public Schools Act. I do not believe that there is anything that is modern. I believe everything in and about this bill is from a long history. I do not believe that it is something that we in this Chamber have not heard before, and a lot has been referred to the public consultation process which is the foundation of this bill as being the Norrie report. Well, the Norrie report is a report published some seven, almost eight years ago, and a lot has changed in that time.

I also referred in my past debate in the House that the Norrie report was not the end-all, the be-all to school divisions here in the province of Manitoba, and I cited the community of Elie which under the Norris study was recommended to be amalgamated into the Portage la Prairie School Division. I stated at that time that if one was to look at the economics of that community one would recognize that Elie, by its very nature, had a greater working relationship with areas to its east rather than to its west. Those residents brought forward that particular argument when it potentially appeared that the Norrie report would be acted upon, and expressed their concerns to the Portage la Prairie School Board of which I, at that time, was a member. It was the previous administration that decided not to act on the Norrie report because of very specific concerns such as those that were expressed by the residents of Elie.

So, Mr. Speaker, when one comes from somewhere else to make a decision, imposing their influence on someone that is not fully apprised of the local situations, that is not the way to go. We must recognize that those who reside in communities understand the dynamics of those communities and recognize that they are the ones who have the greatest desire to improve the educational opportunities for their young people because ultimately their communities will benefit by the education provided to those young people and ultimately future leaders of those communities.

So, when we rely on outside influences or outside entities to make decisions for us in local jurisdictions, ultimately those decisions have a higher possibility of being wrong decisions. In Bill 14, there are two jurisdictions that are actively petitioning the courts because Bill 14 is wrong for their area. This particular legislation, when residents are taking the steps to petition to the courts that is the action of last resort, and the minister of this New Democratic Party in the field of education has forced these residents to do just that because he has not listened. The government of the day has not listened.

* (15:10)

They say that they are a government of consultation, yet there has been no consultation whatsoever because they rely upon an eight-year-old report, and may I say that this eight-year-old report is not being implemented in its entirety. Only small elements, only selective elements of the report are being enacted upon. If anyone, including the author, were to comment on the selective use of a report, they would say that that is the wrong way of going about implementing the recommendations because, as we can appreciate in this House as many of us are in the business community, when we are very selective in implementing consultants' reports to us, we sometimes lose the value of that report because that report, all of its recommendations come together to put before us a game plan. If we only implement certain segments of that game plan, ultimately we run the risk of not having the desired outcome.

Mr. Speaker, the desired outcome in this Legislative Assembly is to provide for an enhanced educational system for the young people of Manitoba, and that, in two areas of this province, is not the case. So why then is the minister being so bullheaded as to not recognize the shortcomings of the legislation and the number of amendments that are before us today, including the minister's own amendment? Why does he not pull this legislation from the Order Paper and take it back to the drafting board and really, truly examine the needs of the educational system here in the province of Manitoba and come forward with legislation addressing, now having had the benefit of, effectively, the consultative process, because this Legislative Assembly has provided for that through the public hearings that were held on Bill 14? There was a lot of very, very significant information brought to this Assembly through the committee hearings.

So I request that the minister take this honoured member's suggestion and pull Bill 14 from the Order Paper, so that we can have the opportunity to move on to other pieces of legislation which I know that the members of the Government's side of the House would like to see debated in the House and passed into law prior to our summer recess.

I will say that there are numerous individuals in the House who are looking forward to summer holidays. I will admit that I am one with a younger family that is on school break, that I would like to get on to other pieces of legislation which are more than 50 now, Mr. Speaker, important pieces of legislation that many on this side of the House support and would like to see move through the legislative process here in the Assembly.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the proposed amendment, but I am not in support of Bill 14, even with the amendment. If I may liken it, it is perhaps a bandage on an amputation. Thank you.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to once again rise to speak on an amendment that is proposed before the House today in regard to Bill 14, an amendment brought forward by the minister himself in this particular circumstance.

I find that while there are a number of things that he could have brought forward from the committee meetings that took place on this, Mr. Speaker, it is with interest that I speak today to the only one that the minister brought forward in this particular case, that being in regard to Springfield-Transcona and that area of bringing the division's concerns in those areas to light. Given the number of circumstances that those people have raised publicly and even in the courts, it is incumbent upon me to make a few comments in regard to their concerns. Because of the area that I represent being, of course, Arthur-Virden, most of the area of Antler River and Souris Valley is included in the amalgamation and the process in my constituency that is taking place in that area.

I would like to just put a few words on the record today about some more of the activities of this Government in regard to forcing people to do what in many cases was against their will in Manitoba, not that they might not have wanted to have come forward with amalgamation, as other divisions have, on a voluntary basis.

I believe when I spoke to another previous amendment on this bill, I talked about how the minister, as part of this bill, was forcing school divisions to put their books on his desk to in fact prove that there would be a $10-million saving to the citizens of Manitoba, that those savings could be passed on to the classroom and the students of this province. Of course, that amendment spoke to the crassness with which the minister labeled the boards that he forced to amalgamate to be the only ones involved in that process, and, very clearly, against their will in this particular case as well, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is incumbent to make the comments about the fact that the minister says he is hearing some of the concerns in the committee of the over 50 reports of citizens of this province that came forward on this. It is a very large number of citizens and groups that came forth, represents far more than 50 citizens, because some of these are some of the largest groups to deal with education that we have in the province of Manitoba, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees and others involved in this process.

I know that there is a lot of concern from all of our members here in the House on the opposition side. I would daresay that there is quite a bit of concern amongst a few of the Cabinet ministers in Cabinet today, never mind a number of the backbenchers on the government side. We know from discussions that they are not all happy with every issue that has been put forth on this bill as well.

I think that is shown by the fact that while this was such an important bill that the minister just absolutely downgraded everyone through his answers in Question Period to our critics, to our leader, to our members that were concerned about their own divisions that were in amalgamation. He absolutely downgraded anyone that would dare question any of the issues that he had on Bill 14 before this House and said it was absolutely imperative that these issues go forward forthwith, immediately, as this House is sitting, and that if we did not get this bill passed by July 1, which, Mr. Speaker, was something that he had in his mind that he wanted to do, it did not seem to appear to be very pertinent in the bill anywhere, but he has made comments to divisions and others in the province that July 1 had to be the day. You have got to get this thing through.

It was like, get this thing through on Canada Day or we will have to save Canada. It is just one of those areas of concern that the sky is falling and everything will, you know, the fine work in administration that every school division has in Manitoba would just come to a screeching halt. They will not know what to do and they will be asking the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) for all the help in the world, because they will be in such a fuddle that they will not know what to do.

Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously if the minister felt that he was going to get this kind of a bill through without us trying to make sure that the citizens of Manitoba know what is in a bill like this, then he does not know what the role of the Opposition is. If it was that important, why did we not come back into this House until the 22nd of April with a Throne Speech? We could have been here on the 22nd of February. We very much could have been here earlier to debate this bill for two solid months more than what we have had to do it in this House if there was a rush to get this through. I mean, it was only last November that he announced that something should be done by July 1. Where was he with his concern for his colleagues? If he has that much power in the Cabinet, which I rather doubt, then why was he not able to convince his leader to come back earlier and debate this bill in the House on the terms of the people of Manitoba, so that they could all have had an opportunity to do it?

* (15:20)

I know that there are many more speakers who would have liked to have come in to speak to this bill, and our side of the House decided we had better move forward and give the people of Manitoba an opportunity to come to committee and hear this bill. We did that here, Mr. Speaker, in the latter days of June and early July to hear their concerns. In the latter part of June, people get away and schools are out. The people go on holidays, and we did not want to prohibit anyone coming to make a presentation to this committee anymore than had already been done by the Government in their own bill, in delaying the bringing forth of this kind of legislation and other legislation that is coming before this House.

If I might add, there are a number of bills that we think will still be introduced. I know the Government has indicated that we will look at other kinds of legislation that is coming forward before this House, and, as always, I think that some of their backbenchers are looking around and saying, you know, we have activities in our constituencies and so why were we not here in April and March and February to discuss this bill? Well, Mr. Speaker, it was the Government. If they are looking for someone to find fault in, they should look at their own Premier (Mr. Doer) and their own Education Minister and bring forth their concerns in Cabinet or in caucus and let them know why they are here to debate this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to a lot of constituents about this bill, and I have talked to parent advisory councils. I have talked to trustees. I have talked to administrators in this particular area. I have talked to school teachers in regard to this particular bill, and there is a considerable amount of unanimity out there that they will be able to get through the fact that we are still debating this bill. No one wants to bring more costs to the system than it can bear, but I think with the minister bringing in late public announcements in the paper that he will force all those school divisions that are in for amalgamation to bring their budgets and put them on his table to be determined by him so that he can meet his $10-million savings, this is just not on the cards.

As the Premier (Mr. Doer) said, we will not do that. Last fall, he said we will not do that; it is not the Manitoba way. We will not force amalgamations. Now they are not only forcing amalgamations, they are forcing the people in charge of the public funds in those divisions to come forward and put their books on the minister's desk for scrutiny, whereas the other divisions in Manitoba do not have to do that, Mr. Speaker. I think that that double standard is typical of a number of issues that this Government has dealt with and the way they have dealt with the citizens of Manitoba, and I think they could well take a second look at how they are treating citizens all over this province.

Mr. Speaker, I guess if it gets right down to it, if this was such an important issue, why did the minister not just move forward last fall? He did not need Bill 14. He did not need to bring Bill 14 in and use the heavy hand of government to force school divisions to amalgamate.

I know that while I may represent an area of the country, of the province of Manitoba, that even according to Statistics Canada has gone through a depopulation as a number of areas of Canada have over the last 10 to 15 years, particularly even in the last 5, and as we look at the number of students that are reduced in each of the school divisions that I have represented over the last few years, then I think it is very incumbent upon all of us to take a look at what kind of administration and shape our whole system will have down the road, not only in education but as is being done in health care.

But to do it in piecemeal fashion, as this Government has put forward, by forcing citizens to do these things without any kind of consultations and, as the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) speaking ahead of me just indicated, referencing as their study an eight-year-old study which anyone can figure out they were not in power when that study was done, Mr. Speaker, if there had been savings to have been done, I know my colleagues would have moved forward with that.

But this minister has taken upon himself to dust that off and say we will demand that you save $10 million, not that, well, we think we can go out there and provide some opportunities and some tariffs to allow people to amalgamate. That would have been the Manitoba way, but, no, they said thou shalt do this and thou shalt save $10 million, and to make sure you do, I am going to put it on my desk. You are going to put your financial statements on my desk, and I am going to make sure that you save $10 million.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think he is going to be able to even by forcing these people to put it on his desk, which is a very undemocratic thing to do. I think he is going to find that he is going to have a great deal of difficulty without closing schools, without taking courses away from students, without cutting teachers, without doing a number of cuts, and where will he do those first? I would say that he will do it in the amalgamated divisions that he has forced to amalgamate, and a good deal of those are in rural Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that was a thread of concern throughout all the school divisions that I represent, on this particular issue, is the concern that while, yes, now that this thing has been forced upon us, let us move forward, maybe we will want to get it done. They were not aware, when the bill came in, that perhaps they would be forced to put their budgets on the minister's desk. They were not totally aware that the minister would say, by the way, if you have any concerns like the people in Springfield-Transcona area did, like the people of Morris-Macdonald and Antler River and Souris Valley and others, while some of those have taken the minister to court, they were unaware, when this bill came forward, that perhaps the minister would say, well, any of the court proceedings that, of course, you might be successful in will not have any impact on me as a minister or my Government. I think that kind of concern needs to be raised in this House time and time again in regard to the heavy hand of government being there to, in this case, help the citizens, who, by the way, were doing a fine job, in most cases, of being able to manage their budgets, of being able to look at the needs of their divisions.

I know, from speaking to each of them, that if some kind of plan had been there that said, well, you know, as the minister stated, divisions should have at least 2000 students in them, maybe they could have started working together over a term of a government or two terms of a government. We have taken this long in Manitoba, and forced amalgamation is certainly going to take years. The minister acknowledges that in the fact that he has said that no changes will take place in schools for three years anyway. I think that very much concerns a lot of our local citizens as well, particularly in rural areas, as it does here in the city. How far then are their students going to have to go if after three years this Government is re-elected and they decide to close a number of those rural schools just to meet the size qualifications that this minister has dreamt up to put in and then not even followed himself?

This minister said that school divisions should have 2000 students, and he has amalgamated a number in this province that even after the amalgamation, and I am representing two of those divisions after they have amalgamated, still only have 1700 students.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the quite capable trustees that are in place in those divisions today, let me tell you, could put their heads together and manage this scenario without the heavy hand of government coming in and demanding that they do something different.

It does take money. There is no doubt that they acknowledge that, but they could have done this in a manner that would not have created the kinds of tension that are out there today in some of those divisions. I speak very politically on this issue that this Government has not touched very many, if any, of the divisions that they have representatives in, and if they were following the previous study that had been done, they might have looked at all of Manitoba instead of picking the issues and areas where they thought they could stir up the most concern for our side of the House.

This does not go over well with citizens in our areas, and yet they are living with it, in many cases. They are, however, very concerned that this Government has done nothing to help the cause, nor did it listen or give them the opportunity to have input, never mind listen, to any of the concerns that they have heeded, or in the concerns of a number of the areas that they have heard representation from at committee.

* (15:30)

I think, other than this one amendment that the minister has come forward, he could very well have looked at a number of amendments that our side of the House has put forward, that the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) put forward. I know that there are a lot more areas of concern that could have been looked at in this area.

Transcona-Springfield was a division that was heavily hit by this. I just want to say that in a quotation from their area the board of trustees has reviewed the potential for amalgamating with neighbouring school divisions using the criteria that you provided, referring to the minister himself. It has concluded that there is no compelling reason for amalgamating at this time. That pretty much summarizes what I have been saying here, that these divisions have looked at this and said what is more compelling to do this now than it was a year ago, eight years ago.

We know that change occurs in all of our societies and that change will continue to occur.

I guess if I was the minister in charge of doing something like this, I would want to sit down with those divisions and say here is the game plan, here is where we think the future is, this is our vision, now, what is yours? Where are we wrong? What can we learn from you? How can we get together to make some of these things happen? You may go out to them with a plan and say 2000 is the number that we will have. I have an objective to reduce spending in these areas. Be up front with them and say this is going to impact your budgets. This is going to impact your decision making. This is going to impact the number of trustees that you are able to have in your areas, that you are going to represent larger numbers of people. I think that a number of areas of Manitoba would have been prepared to have dealt with some of these issues on those kinds of terms, but not after the fact, the way this Government has done it.

Another quote from that division is, and I quote: As a full-service school division, we do not see the educational opportunities for students being improved by amalgamation, especially with the advent of schools of choice.

In closing today, I just want to say that this is not just about Transcona-Springfield School Division. It is not just about the new amalgamation of Antler River and Souris Valley. It is about all of the divisions in Manitoba. It is about the heavy hand of this minister. It is about not providing ample time to have all citizens at this time of the year come to make their presentations to committee. This is about the minister trying to do what he thinks the union bosses wanted to be done in Manitoba.

I do not think our kids, our students in our schools are going to get a much clearer or better education because of the passing of this bill. I have a lot of concern on it. So, while I close today, I believe that there will be other opportunities to speak to either further amendments to this bill, or I will have more to say on this bill at third reading.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): This is my second occasion, I think, that I have had the privilege of speaking to this bill. Of course, we are speaking on the minister's amendment.

Let me start by saying I am rather amazed that at the 11th hour the Government is still bringing amendments in on a piece of bad legislation. We saw some amendments at the committee stage that tinkered with the bill. The minister again is tinkering with the bill. The usual state of affairs when you have a bad piece of legislation is that you pull the bill and come back at another time with a bill that is more acceptable.

There are many reasons why this is bad legislation and why Manitobans across this province, a number of them who came to committee spoke against this bill. The Government has obviously heard a lot of that criticism. They heard the criticism on the micromanaging the minister was doing with school divisions, and they tinkered with that at the committee stage. The minister came with amendments in hand. Again, he is bringing another amendment at report stage that makes the bill slightly better. People have to support this amendment, but the best thing the minister could do would be to actually pull the bill and go back to the drawing board, do a wider consultation with the public, with the trustees. I know that he has, time and time again, pulled out the Norrie report and indicated that he is relying on the Norrie report for his advice on amalgamation. The only problem is there was nothing in the Norrie report that they accepted. The Norrie report, of course, was a well-thought-out, well-researched document back in the early nineties. Much has changed in this province since that time. The minister and the Government certainly do not recognize this.

Rather than bring in an amendment that makes some slight changes to the legislation, the most appropriate thing would be to actually pull the bill off the table, and, you know, some of the amalgamations could go forward on a voluntary basis.

The minister has talked many times about how well things are going. I would refer him to the headline in the Brandon Sun of a few days ago where the chair of the Antler River board says if he thinks things are going well, I do not know who he has been talking to, because they have major problems on their hands in trying to get this amalgamation in place to the point where they are refusing to speak to each other. Sure, school divisions have done all of the easy things. They have selected a new name. That was done in a consultative way. But, when it comes to tougher decisions like where the superintendents and the staff are going to be housed, many of them are saying they are going to keep two and three board offices open. I read recently, I think it is in Dauphin, Duck Mountain and Intermountain that they are going to go this direction. I know that in Antler River and Souris Valley they are going to keep two superintendents on.

This minister keeps talking about the savings that he is going to generate. In fact, I think he is so caught up in trying to find those savings that, in a story in the July 6 Free Press just a couple of days ago, he says that there are 150 trustees that are being replaced. Well, that is interesting, because his press release that he released when he announced them said there are 100 trustees that are going to be replaced.

This minister is desperately looking for a way to find savings to the point where he is exaggerating. I mean, there are other synonyms for the word exaggerate that we probably cannot use in this House.

In his press release, the day he announced this back on November 8, he said there would be 100 less trustees. I would question that, whether there would, in fact, be that many trustees displaced.

Just the other day he says it is not 100, it is 150. He had bumped it up to 150. So he is desperately looking for that savings. Yet, time and time again, trustees and school board chairs and others are saying there is no savings. In fact, the spokesperson for the Antler River-Souris Valley amalgamation said maybe 10 years from now we might find some savings, but all we see is costs at this time.

This is a desperate government, a desperate minister who is attempting to tinker with his legislation to make it more acceptable.

Certainly, all of us heard at committee at least six or seven very, very well-informed and passionate speakers who came there. I think most of them were women as well who spoke to the committee. I remember very, very well what many of them said. The one who asked him to put down his papers and quit shuffling and to look her in the eye when she was speaking to him, I can tell you that she had a full load on her mind that she gave the minister that night. Yes, I think he must have heard her.

He has brought in at the last minute this change to the legislation. But in fact it is too little, too late. The Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) maybe wants to get into the debate. This is bad legislation. He knows that often the making of legislation is compared to making sausages, that nobody should have to watch. Well, I can tell you that this is a prime example of legislation that has been a nightmare for the minister, a disaster for the Government, and one that is impossible for us to support.

* (15:40)

The members who spoke at committee brought to the minister's attention the situation that this legislation is putting the people of Springfield in. These are people who are truly, truly involved with their children's education, who want to be sure that they have access to the schools that have historically been serving them, to provide education in the French language, to provide industrial arts education, some of the shops, that this bill, the way it is crafted, is going to take that chance away from them.

So the amendment that is brought in puts a three-year horizon on what they are going to be able to benefit from. So the minister has brought in legislation which is going to give them, over a period of three years, the right to access Transcona schools for French immersion and for some of the shops that their children now are involved in.

I can tell you one of the presenters, Maja Kathan, who is very interested in French immersion and the French language education her children are receiving, said this is fine as an interim solution, but she asked the question: what happens after 2005? That does not help my other three children coming along.

That is why this is just a Band-Aid solution. These people are feeling that they have been totally cut off from the schools that have historically provided the programming and the education for their children, and this is simply a Band-Aid.

In fact, the minister has made much of the agreement that has been signed between River East and Agassiz to provide shared services. One of the trustees from that area who was interviewed, Rod Giesbrecht, indicates that they actually had a gun put to their head. They were told that if they did not go along with this, they could be fired the same way Morris-Macdonald trustees were fired. So this is the attitude that this minister has. This is the atmosphere that he has created for his relationship with school divisions, and I can tell you, in the long run, this is a very, very damaging way for a minister and a government to treat school divisions.

I know that the Minister of Industry and Trade (Ms. Mihychuk), who herself was a trustee in the school divisions in Manitoba, would not put up with that type of behaviour, would not put up with a minister who said, you do this or else we are going to fire you. In fact, I am wondering how she could sit in Cabinet knowing how they have treated the Morris-Macdonald trustees, and now they are threatening to do that to other trustees, too, if they do not fall in line. This is the kind of atmosphere that the minister has created in the education community.

I can tell you the Minister of Industry and Trade, when she spoke on the Norrie Commission, she had done a lot of work on it, and I think she understood it. She spoke against amalgamation at that time, and I am surprised that she has been silent since that time. In fact, I expect that maybe there were some orders from the guy who sits in the front row there who said, listen, we are just going to hold our nose and let this thing go through. We are going give the Minister of Education a free hand here.

Well, that was a terrible mistake because he has not done a good job of this. You just have to look at the map that he crafted and wonder just what criteria did he possibly use. In the city of Winnipeg, a few school divisions were amalgamated. In the rural area, where he had put out that school divisions should have a minimum of 2000 students, people accepted that. I think people would accept that 2000 students is a base, and they were prepared to work with that. In fact, he could have gone ahead with the voluntary amalgamation, telling them, you know, you come back with a plan to me with 2000 students and we will–well, I am pleased to see the Deputy Premier (Ms. Friesen) is here because I know she, too, has a great interest in amalgamation.

But he could have put out a plan that said 2000 students would be a minimum for school divisions, and people would have bought that. I think they would have worked together. You put some incentives in place, and we could have had an amalgamation where people were happy, and the Government, too, would have been happy.

I am surprised that the Deputy Premier would have sat in Cabinet and allowed this amalgamation to go through the way she has. Turtle River School Division, with 700 students, is crying out to be amalgamated. In fact, I remember a letter from the reeve that was written to the Premier (Mr. Doer) saying: What is going on here? We are losing students quickly. We need assistance. We need better programming for our students. Why were we left out of this?

Well, I do not know what the answer is, but I think the Deputy Premier knows the answer. She had colleagues running around the province cutting deals. Some of the amalgamations were on; some of them were off.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the same as the health board amalgamations where Marquette and South Westman were recently amalgamated, and, until the last minute, Brandon was going to be a part of that as well. In fact, people had been told that, I think, the day before the announcement. All of a sudden, that was off the table.

Similarly, in the southeast part of the province, there was going to be a forced amalgamation of RHAs and that was taken off the table at the last minute. Is this good public policy? Is this the way a government should go about doing amalgamations and working with presumably partners out there? I know the Deputy Premier did a pretty in-depth study on the cost of amalgamation. It must bother her that the Minister of Education is running around saying there is going to be a $10-million saving.

In fact, I was just sharing with the House, and I will repeat it for the benefit of the member, that the minister in his press release talked about a hundred trustees that were going to be displaced. Now, to try and get that $10-million savings, he says, no, it is not a hundred, it is a hundred and fifty. Well, I think the first number was in error because I do not think there are going to be a hundred trustees. In fact, now he is saying there are 150 trustees that are going to be displaced. He is trying desperately to find that $10-million savings. Trustees are telling him, board chairs are telling him, superintendents are telling him, that saving is not there.

Probably it would, you know, if you have a chance to give him some advice, he maybe should back away from that sort of suggestion that there was a saving because people are saying there are no savings here to be found.

At any rate, I digress, and I want to get back to this amendment because, as I have said, I think it strengthens the bill that is already very weak. It does allow the people of Transcona-Springfield a three-year horizon to benefit from programs that they desperately want. What is going to happen in the future? Is that three-year horizon going to be extended? Are they going to build facilities in the Agassiz School Division close to where the Springfield people live to accommodate them? Something will have to be done because this is only a very temporary, temporary solution.

The minister, and I wish that I could speak to him today about this, you know, he is giving the impression to the media and to the public through press releases, where he is not challenged, of course, when he puts a press release out, that everything is going well. Well, you know, I can tell the Deputy Premier (Ms. Friesen) and others who are here that things are not going well there, that they have sort of motored through some of the easy decisions, easy decisions that can be made through the amalgamation, and of course, they have left the heavier lifting and the more difficult decisions to the end. This is where they are running into problems.

The employee that the Minister of Education has hired to run around the province to try and facilitate is, I can tell you, running into some major problems because these things are pitting community against community. You know, these are major changes, and I am not sure what the solution is, that there needs to be some sort of mediation, perhaps some sort of arbitration to assist these people. The minister has sort of stumbled and bumbled his way through this legislation and, rather than pulling it off the table, he is moving forward with it.

We are going to vote against this legislation I can tell you because there are a large number of people, particularly in the rural areas, but throughout all of Manitoba that are seeing this legislation for what it is. It is very–[interjection]

* (15:50)

Well, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I mean, should be concerned about this. This is not the kind of government that I think he wants to be associated with, where they are heavy-handed, that they are imposing these solutions. The minister who, I think, took some delight in firing the board of Morris-MacDonald, is employing the same tactics today, that if you do not do it my way, if you do not find solutions, I am going to either replace you, or we are going to penalize you in some way. This is what the trustee from River East said the other day, that they felt they had no choice in this, that there were going to be consequences if they did not sign an agreement between Agassiz and River East for shared services. So this is the kind of legacy–[interjection]

Well, my friend from Rossmere is back here, and he is the one who has totally supported this legislation and told people how wonderful it is. I would advise him to get out in the field, talk to some of the citizens out there about this legislation and, I think, he is going to find that people are not so happy with it. In fact, when they start busing people from further east and north of his area, and they are going to have to go to a school, they are going to feel rather displaced. The member from Rossmere is not going to be too happy about the fact that he wholeheartedly supported this legislation when so many of his constituents are against it. I think it is advice that he should take to heart. It is not unknown, and the member from Lakeside is here, for a backbencher to separate himself from government and to vote against a piece of legislation. In fact, members of his constituency might feel rather proud of him if he broke ranks on this bill. But I can tell you that there are going to be some consequences, that people in that area are not happy with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, you have to ask about who actually likes this bill. There are people who are tolerating it. There are people who are saying that they are going to sort of hold their nose and let it go through. The minister has said that he would not do this again, that redrawing boundaries should just happen every 50 years, but yet he is leaving on the table school divisions that should be amalgamated, that want to be amalgamated, yet because he had no process by which these people had a voice in this, he is unaware of the fact. In fact, if he is aware of it, he is ignoring it.

So I can tell the member from Rossmere that there will be consequences from this, and he should maybe stand up in his caucus or stand up in this House and vote against this bill. In fact his constituents, I think, would appreciate him even more if he took a stand on this because he is going to pay a price for this and one that he is not going to be happy with, but it goes back, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the process was flawed from the beginning, that rather than follow the legislation that is in place and talk to people about amalgamation–well, the member from Rossmere is coming over. I think maybe he has listened, and we will find him a seat over here. We will find him a seat over here. But the process has been flawed from the beginning, and as a result, I think that people are going to pay a price on this, and the minister at that time should have put in place some consultation and not rely on a report which is almost 10 years old. That was mistake No. 1, and as a result, he has flawed legislation. He has had a difficult time with this, and I can tell you that the populace of Manitoba is not supportive of this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the proposed amendment to Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act, that was proposed by the honourable Minister of Education, Training and Youth (Mr. Caldwell).

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

Now we will move on to the next amendment, which is the proposed amendment to Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act, that was proposed by the honourable Member for River Heights.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer),

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the goal of this amendment is to restore some level of democracy to the situation in school divisions and some ability of school divisions to appeal to the arbitrary decision making of the Minister of Education. The amendment would delay the coming into force of sections of Bill 14 which go against or subvert the normal principles of democracy.

The objective is to provide a continuing ability to appeal the actions of the minister for a period of time of about 18 months, which would allow the spate of ministerial decisions which have occurred, rupturing Transcona-Springfield and rendering it asunder. Ministerial decisions which relate to changes to Morris-Macdonald School Division would allow some legitimate and responsible appeal process.

The basis for this amendment comes out of considered presentations at the committee stage by quite a number of the presenters. The basis for needing an appeal mechanism to continue is really to make sure that there are some checks and balances to arbitrary ministerial decisions to cut and slice, chop and dice the school division of Transcona-Springfield and that there are also some legitimate appeal mechanisms to arbitrary decisions that have occurred relative to the future of Morris-Macdonald. There could be other school divisions where there are enough concerned individuals and citizens to want to have some appeal of decisions which have been taken, but, in any event, it seems that it is important to have some ability, to have a legitimate appeal process.

I would like to quote the presentation made by the trustees of Evergreen School Division. The recommendation was that there needs to be an ability to retain the right of appeal concerning the Board of Reference decisions and other decisions would exist in the current Public Schools Act. The presentation by the trustees in Evergreen School Division suggests that the right of appeal is a fundamental part of our democratic society. Certainly, members of the Liberal Party believe this very strongly, that we should have democracy in this province rather than a situation where the Government has free rein to cut and slice and chop and dice divisions.

The presentation by the Garden Valley School Division Board of Trustees also addresses this issue. The changes affecting the Board of Reference will substantially inhibit the voice of local communities and school boards, says this presentation. The right to appeal a decision is paramount if we are to be heard. Under the proposed legislation, the right to appeal would become a right to judicial review, which looks at only the process by which a decision is reached rather than the substance of the decision itself. Most alarming is that the proposed legislation will not allow for discussion through an appeal process about important community issues that have significant relevance to the decision.

* (16:00)

The delay in the implementation of the clauses which would delete or abrogate or throw out the existing appeal mechanism is to provide an opportunity for appeal of decisions made recently or currently or enacted through this legislation in other clauses, but it also provides a time period when there can be some reflection on what should be a long-term, legitimate appeal process under this act.

Clearly, in order to have a democracy with checks and balances, there needs to be some form of appeal process. With the other changes made under this act, we could consider that there are alternate options for an appeal process to those which have existed in the past, but, at the report stage, it is only possible to make certain types of amendments to this act. It is not possible to provide an amendment which would provide a new structure for an appeal process. So this amendment would at least continue the existing appeal mechanism for a limited period of time until this issue can be thought through and a longer term decision can be made.

The consideration of this amendment, I suggest, should be taken in the context of a variety of presentations that were made during the committee stage of hearings on Bill 14. The presentation made by Winnipeg School Division No. 1 to the committee said, and I quote: "We would strongly suggest that the bill be amended to ensure that the minister and Cabinet cannot make unilateral changes without an opportunity for input from affected parties." The continuation of some appeal process or mechanism would be important to ensure that there is this sort of dialogue on a continuing basis and that the minister in charge of education, Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell), does not have an unfettered right to alter school division boundaries, to cut and chop and slice and dice school divisions as he has chosen to do with Transcona-Springfield.

I would refer, Mr. Speaker, to the presentation made by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. The Manitoba Association of School Trustees points out that the right to appeal is a fundamental element of a democratic society. I agree. The Manitoba Association of School Trustees argues that we must not take lightly any attempt to limit unduly consideration of matters that are important to us, such as matters related to public education. Certainly the current right of appeal, as the Manitoba Association of School Trustees argues, has rarely been used, but, say the members of MAST, that is all the more reason to retain that right in revised legislation.

The amendment being proposed here would retain that right for a period of 18 months so that there is an opportunity to appeal, there is an opportunity for checks and balances, an interim period until there can be put in place some long-lasting mechanism for appeal that would be appropriate to the changes introduced in this legislation.

The Manitoba Association of School Trustees argues that this protection of fundamental rights, that is, the right of appeal, has not proven to be an unduly onerous strain on our judicial system, but it is an important symbol of the principles that we as a society value.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the NDP do not value appeal processes. Clearly, the NDP do not value democracy or fundamental rights, as many of the presenters have argued for, fundamental rights to an appeal mechanism, a legitimate appeal mechanism and legitimate checks and balances to the arbitrary use or abuse of ministerial power. It does not matter what party is in power, it is important that we have checks and balances. It is important that we have in this province democratic process by which decisions can be appealed in a legitimate fashion.

The NDP have rather manipulatively and craftily designed this legislation, as became clear when there was an attempt by parents and others in Transcona-Springfield to bring judicial action in relationship to this legislation. The judicial ruling, as I understand it, was that the appeal that was brought forward was not legitimate because the amalgamation had not yet occurred. Yet, at the same time, as soon as the amalgamation occurred and Bill 14 was passed under the NDP legislation, the NDP legislation would bring down a trapdoor and shut down any legitimate approach to appealing their arbitrary decisions.

What the NDP did was create for the people in Transcona-Springfield a no-win situation. The NDP are trying to make a lose-lose situation for the people in Springfield. They are trying to make losers out of people in Springfield, and that is not a legitimate approach to governing this province. We should make winners out of people in this province, not losers. Clearly, the NDP have a strange and odd approach to being a government in this province. It is a strange and odd approach for which we need some changes in this legislation to try to rectify.

I would refer to the presentation made by Bruce Alexander, Chairman, on behalf of the St. James-Assiniboia School Board, the presentation made at the committee stage. The presentation says, and I quote: "If allowed to stand, the right of appeal that currently exists would become a right to judicial review, which looks only at the process by which decision is reached rather than the substance of the decision itself. This is totally unacceptable, as it substantially reduces the power of local residents to impact decision making and, at the same time, deems Board of Reference . . ."or ministerial decisions, determinations" as infallible."

Well, I think we have already had plenty of experience in the Legislature to know that the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) is not infallible. There needs to be, clearly, some sort of appeal mechanism in this bill, a legitimate process by which the arbitrary decisions of the Minister of Education can be taken to an appeal stage by which there can be public input and public discussion and a legitimate process through which there would be some level of checks and balances. I think, Mr. Speaker, clearly this legislation without this change or one like it would be quite deficient.

I would like now to refer to the submission made at the committee stage by the Brandon School Division. A further concern, says the Brandon submission, regarding Bill 14, relates to section 5, the Board of Reference decisions. The legislation that is proposed no longer provides for a school division to request changes to boundaries unless amalgamating with another division or by applying through the minister who would then determine whether or not to submit the request for consideration to the Board of Reference. Groups of resident electors would also lose this right. Further, the Board of Reference decisions would no longer be subject to appeal but solely to review of process only, thus unfairly restricting the opportunity previously available for public input. This is a diminution of local democratic practice in public education.

* (16:10)

Submission after submission at the committee stage called on this Legislature to act to restore some democracy after the acts taken by the NDP government in this bill to try and take it away.

This is an important amendment, Mr. Speaker. We need to restore some level of democratic accountability in this bill, some ability to appeal the decisions which are made at an arbitrary level, so that people who are ordinary citizens, people who are parents, people who are school trustees, people who are taxpayers, can have some ability to appeal and make sure that their input will be listened to in a judicial court or other fashions so that there is not an unfettered ability of the Minister of Education to add costs to taxpayers; there is not an unfettered ability of the Minister of Education to cut and chop at school division boundaries; there is not an unfettered ability of the Minister of Education to make changes which would affect large numbers of people without the ability to appeal.

I would like to bring forward the comments made by members from the Fort Garry School Division No. 5 to the standing committee. The Fort Garry School Division suggests that the proposed legislation would deny to local school divisions the right to make application to boundary changes, save and except for the purpose of amalgamating divisions.

Where school divisions have the need to make adjustments to their divisional boundaries, they must, under the proposed legislation, apply to the minister, and the minister would decide whether or not the request has merit and may or may not submit this request for consideration to the Board of Reference rather than allow the Board of Reference to consider the merits of any application. Groups of residents would be denied this right.

Time and again, what we have seen is that school divisions and school trustees have come forward with objections and concerns about the proposed legislation and particularly about aspects which relate to the appeal process of ministerial decisions.

Certainly, from the people, the presenters that I have already referred to, there are already, as you can see, quite a number of school divisions representing many, many people in this province who have come forward and said there needs to be some substantive and legitimate approach to appealing.

I would refer now to the presentation from Duck Mountain School Division No. 34. This presentation says, and I quote: "The existing regulation referring to the 'Right of Appeal' in Public Schools Act be retained. In light of the fact that the 'Right of Appeal' has seldom been used. It is a fundamental aspect of our democratic flavour and should be respected as an integral aspect of the society in which we live. Elimination of the 'Right of Appeal' denies basic democratic right accorded by current Public Schools Act legislation."

The NDP would deny to Manitobans normal and usual and existing democratic rights. That is what this Government is trying to do to this province.

Mr. Speaker, members of this Legislature should be standing up to object to the railroading of the Minister of Education and his party.

This comes not from isolated individuals. If you were to add up the number of people in the Duck Mountain School Division, the Fort Garry School Division, the Brandon School Division, the St. James-Assiniboia School Division, the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, Mr. Speaker, the objections we have already heard from people in Transcona-Springfield, from Morris-Macdonald School Division and, indeed, from the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, you have very broad representation saying to the members of this Legislature, there needs to be a right of appeal. There needs to be a fundamental democratic process.

This Government is trying to take away the appeal process. This Government is trying to take away the normal democratic process in this province, and it is time for people to stand up and say, no, this is inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the Government has decided that the democratic rights of people in relationship to education and school divisions are not important. It is sad that the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) has seen his way to bring in legislation which will remove normal democratic processes to which citizens of Manitoba have had access and, indeed, have had access to for many years. It is unfortunate for the people in many areas of this province who would like, at the very least, to be able to say in a legitimate forum where they have some not only legitimacy but power that these decisions were not in the best interests of parents and children and students, and, therefore, there should be a review.

Whether we are talking about people who live in Transcona-Springfield, whether we are talking about people in River East or Agassiz or Morris-Macdonald or whether we are talking about people who live in Snow Lake, all over this province we have representatives who are saying there should be some right of appeal. Rather than necessarily continuing exactly what we have forever, let us at least continue the appeal process for long enough that this can be given some consideration and that we have the opportunity to put in place and make sure there is, in the future, a substantive and legitimate appeal process.

Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people of Manitoba deserve democratic processes in which there are checks and balances to the arbitrary power of government. It has been a fundamental tenet of Liberal thinking for many, many years that there needs to be approaches by which individuals, citizens, taxpayers, parents can exercise their democratic right and appeal ministerial decisions like the one that the Minister of Education has taken recently.

* (16:20)

It, perhaps, would have been one thing if the Minister of Education had taken the map from the Norrie report and used those suggestions, but, no, the Minister of Education chose to make his own arbitrary decisions. Indeed, there are some aspects to the decision-making process which have puzzled me and many others. I believe, for example, that there was a meeting in Transcona-Springfield at which the board considered this issue, and they made a recommendation that Transcona-Springfield stick together.

I believe there were two motions that were put on the board that evening, and one of those that the division not be split and the other, which was related, was in a sense reinforcing the concerns of local residents. That recommendation, that motion was passed by a legitimate democratically-elected board of school trustees representing Transcona-Springfield, and it is my understanding that the second motion, I think, was to look at the possibility of merging with Agassiz or River East, one or the other.

It is my understanding that, within 24 hours of this, the minister had used his underground channels to let it be known that that was not what he wanted, that the minister really wanted some arbitrary split of Transcona and Springfield, that he wanted to cut the division in two, that he seemingly was not very happy with people in the area and wanted to rend asunder what people had worked for many years to try and put together and work together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a sad fact that this bill and this debate is occurring at the very same time as the NDP government has established a task force under Paul Thomas and it has gone around and looked and consulted with people about the future of the capital area, about how people can work together inside and outside of the Perimeter, how we can have a new vision in this province with people working together, how there are enormous opportunities for people inside and outside the Perimeter to work together and to build a wonderful economic and quality of life for people in the whole Capital Region and at the very same time that the NDP have put together this committee headed by Paul Thomas, and it has been out and consulting and talking with people.

At the very same time, the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) has said, no, I do not want co-operation between people inside and outside the Perimeter. I am going to use my axe and bring it down and cut it off. The Minister of Education, my honourable friend from Carman, is making a unilateral decision on behalf of his Government that there should not be co-operation between people inside and outside the Perimeter. The Minister of Education is trying to make sure for his own politically seemingly devious purposes that there continues to be on the east side of Winnipeg and in Springfield, a level of Perimeteritis which is unacceptable to people in this province.

People in this province want to start working together in a Capital Region inside and outside of the Perimeter. There have been good examples, and one example has been the effort of people in Transcona-Springfield to work together. This, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is highly relevant to what we are about today, because where the people want to work together and where they would like to appeal ministerial decisions which prevent them from working together, the NDP government is going to take away their democratic rights, your democratic rights, my democratic rights to work together with other Manitobans.

So, clearly, there needs to be the ability to take forward, in a legitimate way, an appeal to the decision made by the Minister of Education. As a number of presenters have pointed out, one of the results of the arbitrary decisions made by the Minister of Education will be to change the situation for residents of Springfield so that, instead of a division of, I think, about 8000 people, there will now be a division of about 5000 students, that they are taking away the opportunities for people in Springfield over time, maybe not the next three years, but over time, to make use of facilities that taxpayers in Springfield have contributed to in Transcona, that they have been involved in paying for over the last number of years, by taking away the legitimate opportunities and rights for people in Springfield by putting them into a smaller school division with fewer opportunities, it would seem.

The Minister of Education has used and abused his arbitrary power which he has given to himself under Bill 14. So, when we rise to consider how we are going to vote on this amendment, I would ask that members give consideration to the importance of ensuring that there is democracy and good democratic processes in this province and in the education system in this province. Residents, Transcona and Springfield, have a lot of local history and experience. Their ability to have a democratic appeal process should not be cast aside by the Minister of Education. People in the Morris-Macdonald School Division, many feel rather offended by the high-handed approach that has been taken by the Minister of Education. They should not be denied the legitimate opportunity to appeal the unilateral ministerial decisions.

We have been in this Chamber, over the last course of this session and the last two and a half, going on three, years, engaged in the democratic process of trying to improve the laws of this province, of improving democracy in this province, that the Government, the NDP have used opportunities to try and undermine the democratic process. It is time to send a message to the Government that this has got to stop.

* (16:30)

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I do wish to put a few short comments on this particular amendment on the record. It is a strange bill that we are dealing with. I think this amendment is most appropriate. Often, during the cold war, you would see countries would call themselves the opposite of exactly what they were. You would hear the people's republic and then whatever the name of the country was. So, too, is this bill. It calls itself The Public Schools Modernization Act, which is exactly the opposite of what it is. It actually goes backwards in history of humankind instead of going forward. It takes away the right of a citizen to appeal a decision against a government. In a parliamentary democracy, where we have had lots of developments that have taken place that have gotten us to this point, you would think that would be one of the treasured things that all of us in this Chamber would want to protect, that in the end, if you cannot get satisfaction through a political means, rather than picking up arms or doing it some other fashion, you go to the courts and you try to have it settled there. The Government is shutting that down.

This bill is not a modernization bill; this is a punishment bill. This is not a modernization bill; this is an anti-democracy bill. It is shameful that a party that has democracy in its name, New Democratic Party, is the one that is taking democratic away. There is nothing new about the NDP and there is nothing democratic about it. It is shameful what is going on here.

What is it that people are trying to appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I will tell you what people are trying to appeal. I will lay it out for you. You have students attending River East Collegiate and other schools in River East School Division who will be put on a school bus from St. Clements–and I am surprised that the MLA who represents that area is silent again, says nothing about it, as is par for the course on that side. So students from St. Clements and East St. Paul will get on a bus and for over an hour, with pickup time included, will be driven past three high schools, plus there is Elmwood High School as well. They will be driven past all those high schools into Transcona, and there they will get their education.

Then there will be students in the southwest corner of Springfield who will be bused for over an hour, plus with pickup time, will be bused past high schools in Transcona and will be bused to the northeast corner of the province.

Any and every parent would oppose that kind of a policy being brought in by the neither new nor democratic party that is governing this province right now. Of course, citizens should have the right to challenge their Government, and, of course, they should have the right to have their voices heard. This bill is shutting it down, and the amendment is giving people the right back.

With a degree of disgust, I read from a newspaper article that the Premier (Mr. Doer) had in The Globe and Mail on June 18, "What NDP should stand for." Well, we already know what it does not stand for, neither new nor democratic. He says–and I am surprised that he can actually get this kind of stuff out without gagging himself. I want to read it into the record: A sound economic strategy–and he is talking focused on education. A sound economic strategy that is based on sound education policy.

So let us get this straight. His idea of a sound education policy is busing students from St. Clements all the way to Transcona, past four high schools, and then taking students from the southwest corner of Springfield and busing them for hours past the very high schools that those students from St. Clements are going to go to, past those high schools. They will be within 10 minutes of the high schools in Transcona, and they will go for an hour, an hour and 15 minutes, to the northeast corner of the province.

That is what this Premier calls a sound education policy. Here is another one: We know that communities that invest in their futures by investing in education are the communities that lead the way in terms of quality of life and so on and so forth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the communities cannot even be heard. They do not even have the right to raise money and go to court and have their issue heard because this Government is going to shut them down. This is a disgraceful act that this Government is doing. It is a disgraceful act that this Legislature is seeing. We should be looking for more democracy, more openness, more transparency, not shutting it down and taking us backward.

When the next election comes, they will have to look the electors in the eye which obviously none of them want to do, including the Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg), who is quoted in the paper. He has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. He fears his electorate. He will not even go out and talk to them. They take him on in the newspaper and they are pointing out to him: Why do you not come out and talk to the electorate? They do not because they fear them. This never, ever once re-elected Member for Rossmere, I hope he can keep his record because at the rate he is going, the people are not going to return him.

This is the right amendment to go with, and certainly I will be voting for it. Thank you very much.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is the proposed amendment to Bill 14 moved by the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), seconded by the honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer),

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Dispense? So ordered.

27(1) This Act, except sections 2, 5, 7, 20 and 21, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in support of the amendment, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

An Honourable Member: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yeas and Nays? We have not made a ruling yet. The Chair is meditating. In the opinion of the Chair, the Nays have it.

An Honourable Member: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yeas and Nays being called. The leader of how many members? Do you have support in the House? Is there support for the honourable Member for River Heights?

An Honourable Member: He does have support.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At least four people to support him.

An Honourable Member: Yes, he has four, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question before the House is the proposed amendment to Bill 14

THAT Bill 14 be amended by replacing section 27 with the following–

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Madam Deputy Clerk (Bev Bosiak): Yeas 20, Nays 27.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.

Mr. Speaker: The hour being past 5 p.m., we will now move to Private Members' Business.

Mr. Speaker: Will we be debating on second reading, Bill 301, The Assiniboine Memorial Curling Club Holding Company Ltd. Additional Powers Act ,standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck)?

Some Honourable Members: Stand.

Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]

Mr. Speaker: Will we be debating on Second Reading, Bill 200, The Elections Amendment Act standing in the name of the honourable Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)?

Some Honourable Members: Stand.

Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there agreement for the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]

Mr. Speaker: Will we be debating on the proposed motion from the honourable Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), Bill 202, The Electoral Divisions Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh)?

Some Honourable Members: Stand.

Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there will of the House for the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]

Mr. Speaker: Now we will move to resolutions, and we will deal with Resolution 22, Conservation Districts, in the name of the honourable Member for the Interlake.

Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Dauphin-Roblin (Mr. Struthers), that

WHEREAS the importance of clean water and proper conservation has been a priority for the provincial government; and

WHEREAS there are 13 conservation districts in the province covering over 50 percent of agro-Manitoba, all of which practice watershed-based, sustainable soil and water management; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has just increased funding to conservation districts for integrated watershed management, an increase of about 20 percent over the previous year; and

WHEREAS these funds will be used for water management, soil management, ecotourism, wildlife habitat, riparian areas and water quality; and

WHEREAS funding will also be used for the development of three new conservation districts comprising 12 rural municipalities, one city, one town and two villages.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider continuing its actions that will help manage our resources for future generations of Manitobans.

* (17:40)

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Any member that wishes to debate will have an opportunity. I need to be able to move the motion forward to give the members that are so eager to debate the opportunity to debate. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mr. Nevakshonoff: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak about something that is very near and dear to my heart, the whole program of conservation districts in this province.

I am a representative of a rural constituency. Upon election in 1999, I came to realize very quickly how critical water problems are in a rural constituency, especially in a constituency such as the Interlake, which has a lot of low land, has a lot of swamp and ridge country and so on and so forth, which contributes to a lot of water management problems. Upon election, it became rapidly apparent to me, I would say, a good three quarters of the casework I had to deal with concerned provincial drains, municipal drains that had grown in over long periods of neglect and lack of maintenance by the previous government, among others, I guess. Over time, the system had largely ground to a halt, and the nature of the complaints, as I said, were largely water oriented, so I learned in a hurry. It was trial by fire, there are no other words to describe it, how important water issues were to my constituents.

It was not too long after that I became familiar with the Conservation District Program. We had an outreach program going out into the Dauphin area, and I had the pleasure of stopping in the Whitemud Conservation District central office, where I had a very good briefing by a staff member by the name of Wayne Hildebrand, who explained to me in detail of the importance of this program and how things were done, all planning was done on a watershed basis, and how they looked at the region as a whole, not just in terms of how quickly water could be drained off of it, but also in terms of establishing good riparian zones between cattle herds and the riverbeds and so on and so forth, how water retention was a part of the mix and how it was more broad based, looking at proper soil management, taking wildlife concerns into consideration and so on and so forth.

I very quickly became a strong supporter of the Conservation District Program and continue to lobby for it. Part of my efforts is to put forward this resolution today, and I certainly hope the Opposition sees fit to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker.

I might add also that our Government has moved quite quickly on this program, on this approach. The conservation districts have been around for roughly 30 years, which, I guess, would mean that they were originally created by an NDP government, probably the government of the Right Honourable Ed Schreyer, certainly a deep thinker and a man ahead of his time, a leader that brought in many very revolutionary programs such as the delivery of home care in this province and so on and so forth.

I might just add that, in the last two and a half to three years that we have been in office here, the number of conservation districts has increased by three, from thirteen to now sixteen conservation districts, encompassing some 135 municipalities and also encompassing roughly 65 percent of the agricultural land in our province, up from roughly 50 percent, where it was in 1999 when we took office. That is an increase of roughly 40 percent over a period of two years. I think that shows the commitment and dedication of this Government and this Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms. Friesen) to this program. I would take my hat off to her in that respect.

The Opposition, I understand, they created a few conservation districts in their time in office, and I applaud them for that, but I really want to emphasize that our Government is very seriously committed to planning on a watershed basis, on a regional basis, and various acts that we have taken since coming into office are a strong indicator of that.

I might reference back to our first session here as an example of that, when we amended The Water Rights Act, which was critical, I think, to the delivery of sound regional watershed planning in this province. Things had deteriorated under the previous administration. For a 10-year period, the situation got worse instead of better. I do not think they can deny that.

I think, in fact, that some of the members are on record admitting that, under their tenure in office, even though they claim to be the representatives of the agricultural community, that drainage is an integral part of the delivery of agriculture in this province. I think, if you consult farmers, they will tell you, if they had decent roads to haul their product on and good drains to run the water off, that more often than not they would not have to come to the Province for insurance and support payments, that they would rather stand alone, but what they do need is good infrastructure. I think it is quite sad that, over the past decade that members of the Opposition were in office, rather than improving on this situation, they turned a blind eye to it and let it deteriorate instead.

You do not have to look very far. The Estimates books speak for themselves. When the NDP left office back in 1988, the capital works budget for drainage was roughly $10 million. Yet, when we came back into office in 1999, that was down to a third of that, if not less than a third of that, approximately $3 million. So how is that progress, I ask you. How did the Conservatives, the so-called representatives of the farming community of rural Manitoba, how did that help the farming community, I have to ask, by reducing the capital works budget to a third of what it was more than a decade ago?

Not only did they cut the budget, but the former premier, Mr. Filmon, did a little survey and came to the conclusion that the department was overstaffed, as well, and I think roughly 70 percent of the staff in the Water Resources Branch was let go. It is small wonder today that there was such a backlog of licensing applications when there was not really the manpower on the ground to deliver the licences.

You know, we are increasing things incrementally. Yearly, we increase the budget as we bring new conservation districts on-stream. The budget increases correspondingly so that each individual conservation district does not lose by the creation of new conservation districts, which is very sound, responsible long-term planning I think, and it is an encouragement to other areas contemplating conservation districts to enter into that agreement on that basis.

* (17:50)

Now, when you talk to municipal governments, and I represent six of them in the Interlake constituency, as well as eight First Nations communities, two things that they always bring to the forefront is there is not enough money in the Department of Conservation to deliver the drainage they need, and the licensing process is too lengthy. Sometimes, it takes upwards of a year, or sometimes two years, before a licence can be approved.

So this particular program offered through the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, I think, addresses both of those problems. There is an additional $3 million-plus for the Conservation District Program, through the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, that is channelled into these areas that have formed conservation districts. Not all of that money goes toward drainage. As I said, the CDs are much more than just drainage. A lot of it is water retention. As I said, riparian zones, etc., but a good percentage of it does go toward drainage.

The nice thing about the Conservation District Program is that they can be custom-made to suit the needs of the region. For instance, most of our concerns in the Interlake are drainage related, so I think I can say confidently that if we structured a conservation district in the Interlake, it would be designed to facilitate those needs.

Their second concern was the slow pace of licensing. As I said, one to two years is normal to wait for a licence. I would draw the attention of the House to the Whitemud Conservation District, which was our first conservation district in this province. Our Government recently entered into an agreement with them where–it is an experimental program–the Whitemud Conservation District actually is doing their own licensing for projects within their district.

We have met with such a high success from that experiment in that conservation district that it has now been expanded to include the Cooks Creek Conservation District, as I understand it. So, as we go on with this program and as the conservation districts mature and consolidate their regional long-term plans, I can envision the Province passing off more and more responsibilities down to the local level to make these decisions in their own communities, in their own regions, as to how drainage and other aspects of conservation districts should be delivered in their regions.

So that is all good news from this Government, the fact that we are bringing them on-stream as quickly as we can, the fact that we have increased the budget correspondingly, that we have delegated licensing authority to the local level. All of this is good news for the people of Manitoba.

I am especially interested in the CD approach, because one thing that I did notice was that practically all of these conservation districts are located in the western half of the province, west of Lake Manitoba and Winnipegosis. The Interlake area, which I represent, has nothing. No conservation districts whatsoever. Yet you look at the old central region, probably one half to two thirds of the drains in the province are found in this area.

So this is much needed in the Interlake, and I am pleased to say that over the past two years I have managed to lobby all of my municipal governments in the area, and we are now in the stage in the eastern half of this region where we are ready to proceed with a proposal from the Water Services Board to consider setting one up in my region.

It is rather unique in the sense that it is not just municipal governments that will be participating in this one. We have First Nations communities, Peguis, the community of Fisher River also have been consulted and we want to bring them on-stream so that their needs are addressed. There are a number of Northern Affairs communities as well. So we are hoping to accomplish this in the near future, and I fully anticipate that we will be looking at the western Interlake as well.

On that note, I will sit down and I will give any others an opportunity to speak on this resolution, and I sincerely hope that all members of the House will pass this resolution accordingly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I do appreciate the opportunity to rise and debate this particular resolution. I beg to differ with the honourable Member for the Interlake on the information provided during this debate thus far. I cannot find any line in the text of Estimates that refers to some 20% increase in funding.

In fact, if one is to peruse Intergovernmental Affairs, just examine the situation that we are discussing in Estimates. In fact, there is a reduction of 0.6 percent in Community and Land Use Planning Services. There is a reduction of 1.5 percent in Provincial-Municipal Support Services. There is a reduction of 1.8 percent in Financial Assistance to Municipalities. There is a reduction of 12.6 percent in Canada-Manitoba Agreements. It continues on, so perhaps this 20 percent is in Conservation.

We now look to Conservation areas where, in fact, Water Management was spoken of very, very specifically. Let us see if there are additional resources going to Water Management. Water Management, reduction. Reduction of $200 000 in Water Management. Surface Water Management, again a reduction. Groundwater Management, a reduction. Excuse me, that stays the same. Groundwater Management.

Where this resolution speaks from, we talk about water quality. In fact, the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) is introducing a bill about water quality. Water Quality Management. Would you not think that that is a line that would be increased for support in this coming year in this New Democratic budget? No, sir, a reduction; a reduction of over $50,000 in Water Quality Management here in the province of Manitoba. There is no additional support for water conservation in this province.

In fact, the Member for the Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) did state that there are more conservation districts here in the province, and that is a good thing. However, the pie just got smaller for each and every conservation district in the province because there are no additional resources allocated towards conservation districts here in Manitoba. I do know what I am talking about, because I was one of the founding members, or my family was, in the Whitemud watershed. Our family was recognized as the farm conservation family for the whole entire province back in the nineties. I do know what conservation is all about, because I was raised with conservation in my family.

Mr. Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 12 minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).