NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

Seniors' Christmas Dinner

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge two local restaurant owners and their remarkable community spirit and sense of sharing. This weekend, George and Gus Tsouras, owners of Branigan's and Bridgeport restaurants, sponsored a Christmas dinner for 145 seniors who reside in the downtown area.

Restaurant staff and local business people, including some political people, including our own Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) and the transportation supplied by King's Transfer, all participated in acknowledging and providing this worthwhile function for the seniors.

The event was held at the Branigan's restaurant in The Forks, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to congratulate all the people, especially the restaurateurs and King's Transfer for providing this for the seniors.

United Nations Day

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Wellington have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the United Nations Day for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. I believe it is important for us all to reflect on the many areas in our own lives and in our own province where women are still not equal, areas such as violence, in the economic areas, social areas, in the justice system and in our health care system. Everywhere we look women are still not equal.

I would hope that we would all recommit ourselves, as people with the ability to effect change, to working as hard as we can to eliminate discrimination wherever we find it. Over one-half of the world's people deserve no less. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order of Sports Excellence Award

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Norbert have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, later today, the Minister of Sport (Mr. Ernst) will have the pleasure of awarding the Order of Sports Excellence to this year's provincial high school volleyball champions.

The Oak Park Raiders (Kim Willoughby, Sharon Morrison, Jennifer Paddock, Julie Andresen, Shannon Walterson, Heather Newsham, Robin Behlke, Cheryl Jacques, Shannon Storozuk, Crystal Johnson) won the girls' title. The Lord Selkirk Royals (Todd Dmitruk, Troy Coppock, Chris Pearson, Dean Hacking, Dale Monkman, Ryan Howanyk, Mike Pittman, Rory Coppock, Brad Ander, Darcy Pritchard, Wes MacLean, Tom Pawluk, John Blacher--coach) took the boys' crown.

Winning the provincials in Manitoba is a difficult task. In fact, the two teams are repeating as provincial champions. These schools have an outstanding history in volleyball. I hesitate to use the word "dynasty," but if you look at the schools' records, it does come to mind.

With Jim Schreyer as coach for the past 15 years, the boys have been in the nine provincial finals and have won six championships.

Oak Park coaches Tannis Tilston-Jones and Sandy Newsham are coaching the team for the first time, having played on the 1990-91 Oak Park provincial champions.

Both the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg have had many of these fine schools' graduate wearing their colours. I hope that the players off this year's teams will be playing at the college level next year.

I would like to congratulate the coaches and the players for an outstanding season and wish them the best of luck in the new year, Mr. Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Speaker: The honourable government House leader, what are your intentions, sir?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill 6.

SECOND READINGS

Bill 6--The Northern Flood Comprehensive Implementation Agreement (Split Lake Cree), Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 6, The Northern Flood Comprehensive Implementation Agreement (Split Lake Cree), Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'accord d'application globale de la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain (première nation crie de Split Lake), modifiant la Loi sur l'énergie hydraulique et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of the House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to introduce for second reading this particular piece of legislation, because it comes at what, as a relatively newer member of this Legislature, I can say is a long drawn-out period of time to settle some very old issues that quite frankly, in my opinion, should have been settled well over a decade ago by others who occupied these benches.

Mr. Speaker, the particular bill that we are bringing forward today is one that gives effect to an agreement that has been reached under the Northern Flood Agreement with this particular band, the Split Lake Cree. I intend to discuss the details of it a little later in my remarks.

I wanted to use today as an opportunity, for members of the House, to put in context this particular legislation and the negotiations around Northern Flood, the process, because certainly we are quite proud of the fact that during our tenure in government since 1988 we have been able to see some very, very significant progress in the settlement of these Northern Flood Agreements.

In fact, I can tell members of this House that where we started in 1988 was with a long process. It cost everyone, particularly the aboriginal people of those communities that were involved with Northern Flood, a great deal of time and money.

In the space of the last almost seven years of this administration we have been able to bring through the process virtually all of the communities--and I hope that we will have a significant announcement to make shortly with respect to the last community and its involvement in this process--to the point where we are able to have concluded comprehensive agreements that are now working about the detail of settlement, so that those who have waited for almost a generation to see these matters come to conclusion are now seeing us move into, I would expect, the final phase of settling these long-standing issues.

By way of background to this agreement, which is a settlement agreement under the Northern Flood Agreement, we must go back to the early 1970s when the then-NDP government of Premier Schreyer proceeded with the Churchill River diversion and the Lake Winnipeg regulation projects regarding the development of hydroelectric generation on the Nelson River system. Those projects resulted in altering the natural water regimes on the Churchill, Rat, Burntwood and Nelson River systems and associated lakes. The communities of South Indian Lake, Nelson House, Split Lake, York Landing, Cross Lake and Norway House are all located on the rivers and lakes affected by these projects.

There were many, many, very, very terrible impacts on those particular communities. Flooding and access to trapping areas were denied. Hunting displaced wildlife populations changed part of the natural harvest for hunters out of those communities. Fishing, both commercial and domestic, was certainly reduced, if not, in many cases, eliminated. Debris and the flooding of lake shores made it difficult to carry on a fishery.

Community infrastructures like docks, buildings and roads were flooded and damaged in those particular communities. Many Indian reserve lands, federal government lands held in trust for those bands, were inundated by water and were either damaged or made totally unusable.

Traditional transport routes in summer and winter, whether they be water routes or they be the ice roads, were altered or damaged. Recreational use of land and water areas were also affected and flooding areas of aboriginal cultural significance also took place.

* (1430)

I am sure for anyone who has travelled to those communities, and I know some of the members opposite who represent those communities in this House, know all too well that damage. In fact, I remember some of the comments about areas that were flooded, where trees were not cut, for example, and left to snag fishing nets or interfere with boat traffic on those particular lakes.

I have flooded areas in my own constituency from the first power dams built in our province. I know the areas. One can see the damage done by not doing a simple thing like cutting out the timber before flooding a particular area.

That all took place under those projects by the Schreyer government and with very, very little regard to the people in those communities. Shall we say it was done with little regard for those people by the governments of the day, the Schreyer government being one of them and, quite frankly, was very indicative of a time in which we did not count into the costs of these massive construction projects, of the environmental damage. We did not take into account the damage we did to people who used those particular systems. It is one of those things, I believe, that quite frankly is a blight, a black spot on the history of our particular province.

(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

From the period 1974 to 1977, the Schreyer government--the government of the day--undertook to negotiate some form of a compensation agreement relating to persons who were adversely affected by the Churchill River and Lake Winnipeg regulation projects. I understand that a draft, a Northern Flood Agreement was prepared at that time, but was not agreed to, was not signed, was not executed.

In fact, one of my early political memories, remembering the 1973 and 1977 provincial elections, particularly the 1977 provincial election, was a cartoon. I think the government of the day used the slogan: Re-elect the people's government. I remember the cartoon of Premier Schreyer in a helicopter flying over a lake, and some people in a canoe were on the roof of a house looking up and saying, where is our flood agreement, and the cartoon showing the Premier with a sign saying, re-elect the people's government. It was very indicative of the view at the time by many in our province, maybe not just that government of the day, but many in our province that compensation did not have to be provided to the people who were so adversely affected by the construction or those diversion systems that resulted in increased power generation for Manitoba power.

Madam Deputy Speaker, obviously, the signing of a Northern Flood Agreement was an issue in the 1977 election. The failure of the Schreyer government to do that became an issue. My party, campaigning under the leadership of then soon to be Premier Sterling Lyon, committed to sign such an agreement if they were in fact elected. In that general election of October of 1977, the Conservative Party was returned to office and did in fact complete the agreement and sign it. [interjection] It was signed, I point out to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), by the Lyon government. I did indicate it had been negotiated to a point, to a degree, but not executed by the Schreyer government.

I remember very clearly, as I said to the member for Thompson, that that became an issue, the fact that it had not been executed. I remember the cartoon in the Winnipeg Free Press of that particular day, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure many in that administration that did go down to defeat regretted the fact sincerely that it had not been executed during their term of office, and I say "regret" sincerely. It was probably a sense that should have been executed. [interjection]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is, it was signed in 1977. Then we began a period of trying to implement it. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talks about some of the problems in the way this particular agreement was to be implemented. That is an area where we find some agreement, because good intentions aside of everyone involved in that process, the fact of the matter is, from '77-78 when the document was executed until the latter part of the '80s, virtually what was created in Manitoba was a Northern Flood Agreement industry. I am sure there are many in the legal and consulting professions who have made significant amounts of money on dealing with that particular agreement, of trying to resolve those issues, again an agreement that was to be on a person-by-person basis.

I can say that in those early years a number of steps were taken towards the implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement, for example the selection of a Northern Flood Agreement arbitrator, the establishment of an office and administration arrangement to enable the arbitrator to begin carrying out his responsibilities. Assigned staff and budgets were provided for to enable Manitoba to participate in the Northern Flood Agreement compensation process. There were activities associated with the selection of compensation lands, Manitoba having to provide four acres of land for every one that was flooded. As well, the province participated in various negotiations and partial settlement of claims made on behalf of trappers and fishermen from the five First Nation communities.

Madam Deputy Speaker, those were in the early years. As members of this House know, in November of 1981 a new administration, of which the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was part, was elected in that particular general election and re-elected in 1986. I noticed the member for Thompson had their problems with the agreement. During that period there was ample opportunity I think to have moved to resolve those particular problems, and a great regret I think for all of us as Manitobans. I do not blame members opposite entirely, but I do know through that period of six years--well, more than six years, 10 year period--the movement towards resolution was a slow one and a frustrating one, from what I am told by many who were involved in that process, for a host of reasons, not all to be blamed on any government, some perhaps to be blamed on government, but again the push to resolve it through a whole period not being there--and I say this very candidly, many of my profession and those in the consulting profession I believe making large amounts of money, a lot of money--[interjection]

The member for Thompson said a lot of Jaguars bought out of dollars destined for settlement and for working out the detail of an agreement by those I am sure not living in the communities involved, those living in southern Manitoba, who are selling their services to the process of settling this Flood Agreement.

Madam Deputy Speaker, ultimately we have to ask ourselves, is that in anyone's interest at the end of the day? Certainly, not at all. We do know during that period prior to 1988, from the signing of agreements, 1988, very few claims were settled, very little money reached the hands of those who had made claims for compensation and, in the minds of many, had become simply a cottage industry for consultants. [interjection]

Well, the member says, look at the amount of settlement. I can tell the member from the information that I have been provided by those who have been working on it, in their view, there was very little progress made in that almost decade from the initial signing in terms of the flow of particular dollars.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in April of 1988, when this administration came into power, under the direction of the Honourable Jim Downey, who was then the minister, our cabinet, I think, made the decision very clearly that these were issues that we wanted to move to settlement, that we wanted to see an impetus into this process to bring about agreements and move towards a final conclusion of this particular set of issues, and not only just in this area.

* (1440)

I digress just for a moment, but I know in the area of treaty land entitlement, which the federal government is the lead jurisdiction having the responsibility, there has been--

An Honourable Member: And the ones that blocked the settlement in the mid-'80s.

Mr. Praznik: Well, I just say that the movement to settle those issues began--

An Honourable Member: Was Jake Epp the minister then?

Mr. Praznik: No, he was not in the mid-'80s.

An Honourable Member: Who was?

Mr. Praznik: I cannot remember. It was not Jake Epp.

An Honourable Member: The federal government blocked. They had an agreement.

Mr. Praznik: The member raises a point about blocking treaty land settlements. My point simply is that during that period, the prime responsibility has been the federal government. It is the provinces' responsibility to provide unencumbered Crown land pursuant to the 1930 transfer agreement, the Natural Resources transfer agreement. The willingness was certainly there on the part of, I think, provincial administrations, but the process had slowed down. It has since been moving forward, and we have seen some of our first settlements take place, Island Lake communities being one and, certainly, the Long Plain First Nation in southern Manitoba being the second. I was very honoured to be signatories to both of those documents on behalf of the people of our province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, during the 1990-91 period, the government of Manitoba sought to bring about a new process which would lead to the settlement of obligations under the Northern Flood Agreement. Manitoba provided leadership and, along with the other parties through the Northern Flood Agreement, undertook negotiations to set out a proposed basis of settlement for all five First Nations involved. In 1991, the proposed basis for settlement was put together, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Split Lake First Nation was the only First Nation to accept the proposal at that time and negotiations continued and concluded with the signing in June 1992 of a comprehensive implementation agreement.

Perhaps this underlined some of those early problems with the initial agreement that was negotiated in the mid-1970s and signed in '77-78 that it was an individual agreement and it did not allow at that time for the settlement of claims en bloc for a community. So this administration with my predecessor the Honourable Jim Downey was able with our negotiators to begin the option of a comprehensive settlement agreement.

As I have indicated, we were able to conclude the first comprehensive agreement with the Split Lake First Nation. Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, in establishing the Northern Manitoba Development Commission one of the most important findings of that commission was the desire or the statement, the comment, that the settlement of these issues, the Northern Flood issues and treaty land entitlements, were fundamental building blocks to allow aboriginal people in northern Manitoba to get on with issues of economic development and building their communities and their lives. It is interesting to note that point. Again, this ties into the effort to do the comprehensive settlements which made final resolution of these issues possible.

The government of Manitoba has also aggressively pursued a course of securing comprehensive implementation agreements with Nelson House, York Factory, Cross Lake and the Norway House First Nation. Memos of Understanding to negotiate comprehensive implementation agreements have been signed with all four First Nations. Agreements in principle respecting comprehensive implementation agreements have been signed with Nelson House, York Factory and Cross Lake. An agreement in principle with Norway House is anticipated to be signed very early in the new year.

As members opposite may be aware, there is an issue in the Norway House First Nation now with some dispute between the majority of councillors, if not all councillors, and their current elected chief. That chief, I understand, has been acting in a different course, shall we say, from the majority of a quorum of councillors respecting the fundamental importance of a body of council. We have been negotiating with the council as a duly constituted entity, and we hope we will be able to announce very shortly an agreement in principle on a comprehensive agreement with them.

The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) may be particularly interested to note that I understand the chief, acting with a group of other individuals, sought an injunction to this particular process and to my knowledge was not successful in securing that. So I believe we are on the right course currently and hope to have included the last of those five First Nations in this process or will have them included very shortly.

Although, Madam Deputy Speaker, 17 years have passed since the signing of the Northern Flood Agreement, this government of Manitoba, during that time I believe we can take credit, particularly my predecessor, Mr. Downey, for taking various initiatives which have resulted in concluding its obligations under the Northern Flood Agreement. The significance of moving this along I cannot really stress or emphasize enough.

In my brief period as the Minister of Northern Affairs, when one has to deal with many diverse groups, many First Nations, many communities in the North talking about their hopes and aspirations to build on economic opportunities that they do possess, one really realizes very quickly that it is so fundamental to people to have control ultimately of their own land and territory, of being able to pursue opportunities there.

Government is not the answer to all. Government cannot provide for the needs of everyone. Residents of the North, like residents of most parts of Canada, want the opportunity to pursue their dreams and their hopes and their lives and the opportunities that are there for them, to pursue them and make the best of what is available to them and earn a living to support their families.

When issues of land and settlement, whether they be treaty land or under the Northern Flood Agreement, are there they become a dominating set of issues, a dominating force in a community in which so much energy is focused, because obviously a lot is at stake in the life of a community. So it commands the attention of the citizens and leadership of that community.

When I look at these particular communities who are involved in this process, Madam Deputy Speaker, one comes to the conclusion very quickly that in the 17 or so years that this has dragged on and dragged on one really has to ask what amount of energy, what amount of effort has this process drawn out of those communities that could have been put to other issues and other opportunities and other projects that those communities would have liked to have pursued. It becomes very important for us as a province to see these particular issues settled.

Madam Deputy Speaker, with the specifics to this particular bill, this piece of legislation ratifies by an act of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba the Northern Flood Comprehensive Implementation Agreement signed with the Split Lake First Nation. I understand that a copy of that agreement had been tabled some time ago by my predecessor in this House. A copy of it is available to any member who wishes to examine that particular document. If they wish, one is also available from me in my offices or from my department, and we would be pleased to provide it.

* (1450)

As members opposite may note, it is a very lengthy and substantial document. It explains why it has taken some years to put together, but it is in fact done and carries forward to resolution a process for resolution of many of those outstanding issues.

The effect of this legislation is to prevent any claims for compensation against Manitoba being brought forward by Split Lake persons under the Northern Flood Agreement, recognizing the importance or the new strategy of dealing with the claims of citizens of this community on a comprehensive basis.

Claims against Manitoba can only be brought forward under the terms and conditions of the comprehensive implementation agreement. Manitoba, under the terms and conditions of the Split Lake comprehensive implementation agreement, is released from present and future obligations. Obligations of Manitoba to Split Lake will then be concluded by this agreement and the process it creates.

Obviously, I am sure members opposite can appreciate the need to have such legislation, because the initial Northern Flood Agreement provided for claims by persons. So, in accepting the comprehensive approach, this community has decided to see the end of obligations to individual persons, individual citizens of that community as provided for in the original Northern Flood Agreement.

I can tell members of this House as well that a similar piece of legislation to this is currently before the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Has it passed yet?

Mr. Praznik: The member for Thompson asks, has it passed yet? I understand that the newest senator for Manitoba, a former member of this House, was the sponsor of this bill in the Senate of Canada, and it was expected--

Mr. Ashton: Who might that be?

Mr. Praznik: The member asks, who might that be? It was the former member for River Heights whose seat is now vacant.

An Honourable Member: You mean the former Leader of the Liberal Party who was against patronage?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Deputy Speaker, just by way of identification of the sponsor of this bill to the Senate, yes, I can confirm to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who speaks from his seat, that the sponsor in the Senate is the former Leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba who, if memory serves me correctly, was a very strong opponent to patronage appointments and patronage appointments to the Senate, but in the interests of the public, I assume, decided to abandon her principles and accept the appointment of a seat to the Senate.

The member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme) asks if she took a long time to make up her mind. Perhaps she had to wrestle with the thought; perhaps she had to struggle with it; perhaps she consulted her provincial caucus. I would have hoped she would have. I would have hoped she would have consulted the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who is the ethics critic, about saying one thing and doing another. But we have seen much of that in this House from members of the Liberal Party.

An Honourable Member: I am glad to see she is keeping busy.

Mr. Praznik: As the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) points out, we are glad to see she is keeping busy. It is just we sincerely regret that she had to put her principles to such a test, but we wish her well.

So the newest senator from Manitoba is the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation in the Senate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it should, we would hope, pass in the near future, this being the companion legislation in Manitoba that authorizes this particular agreement and extinguishes obligations under the old.

I know some of the members of the New Democratic Party have raised with me some technical questions, and we would be more than pleased, should there be any technical questions about specifics, to provide for a briefing of our negotiators and staff to answer those particular questions.

I would point out that this agreement clearly calls for the extinguishment of obligations of Manitoba to persons under the Northern Flood Agreement being replaced by this process. The agreement bears the signatures of the chief and councillors and trustees of this particular community, and one would expect has the support and ratification of this particular community. I wanted to put that on the record for the benefit of members.

This act, Madam Deputy Speaker, also makes some amendments to The Water Power Act, which legalizes the granting of land easements to Manitoba Hydro made without the approval of the Legislature in past days, by past administrations. Of course, in the future, legislative approval will not be required for such conveyances. Again, that is part of the understandings reached under this comprehensive settlement agreement.

As well, there is a consequential amendment, subsection 111(1) of The Real Property Act regarding the inundation or storage of water--

An Honourable Member: This is Second Readings. You cannot make reference to specific clauses.

Mr. Praznik: I apologize if I have broken the rules of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe I should start again.

The effect of these consequential amendments to The Real Property Act is to permit for the inundation or storage of water on lands, example, the reservoirs created by dams. These were oversights in past days that obviously led to some difficulty and are being corrected by this particular piece of legislation.

As I began my remarks about the importance of settling these outstanding obligations that the people of Manitoba have to many of its own citizens, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this portfolio, Northern and Native Affairs, that I have served for a year and a half, and in my work as MLA for Lac du Bonnet, I have come to appreciate so fully the importance of settling these long-standing obligations, not just because they are in fact a bad mark on the history and people of this province, not just because there are matters, compensation, that we would offer to anyone in southern Manitoba if we expropriated their land for the construction of a highway or flooded their land for the construction of a public reservoir, not only because it is important to settle these to ensure that proper compensation is payed for damages done to people's property, but also, and equally important, to recognize that citizens of this province have a right to be compensated whether their properties are damaged, whether lives are severely hampered by works that are done for public benefit.

I do not think anyone denies that governments of this province have a right, an obligation, to ensure that public works are built for the betterment of the province as a whole, but with that right is also the equal responsibility to ensure that proper and fair compensation is paid to those who suffer certain damages to that property in the course of the construction of those public works. That is a very important principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, which, quite surprisingly, was ignored by this province. [interjection] I would love to get into this. A very, very important fundamental principle that was ignored in this province for many, many years.

* (1500)

As I have said before, I have also seen the importance of some of the symbolic recognitions that we have made as a Legislature, and I think of the recognition that this Legislature gave to Riel as the founder of the province of Manitoba and the work that my colleague the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) is doing now to ensure a proper recognition of Riel on these legislative grounds. Incidentally, the fact that there was not a proper recognition dates back also to that period in government in the 1970s, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has made some comments from his seat, and we know that the Northern Flood Agreement is one which, when settled, will allow those communities to get on with concentrating their energies on economic development, and I know that is a very important part of Northern Flood and, I know, a matter of great interest to the member for Thompson.

I know, just as an aside note, the member for Thompson would be most interested to know that I recently received, on this matter of economic development for aboriginal people in the North, a letter from my federal Liberal colleague, the federal Liberal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Honourable Ron Irwin, who wrote to me. The member for Thompson will be most interested in the content of this letter because, again, it pertains to economic development and the opportunities that Northern Flood settlement may present.

But a Liberal federal minister wrote to this government requesting a meeting with myself and Grand Chief Phil Fontaine to pursue what in essence--I look to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) because I know he will be most interested in the content of this request for a meeting between myself and the Grand Chief for--remember a letter coming from a federal Liberal minister wanting to discuss the expansion of gambling in the province of Manitoba. I must admit I was most surprised to see the federal Liberal minister wanting this government to lift its moratorium on gambling to allow for more gambling. The member for Thompson asks as to whether or not the Liberal Party--

Point of Order

Mr. Ashton: Since the minister was quoting from that letter, I am wondering if he could table it for edification of other members in the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order.

Indeed, Rule 29.1, a member who quotes from a letter can indeed be requested to table the letter, but that is up to the individual discretion.

* * *

Mr. Praznik: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am just going through my notes to ensure I had a second copy so I can continue to reference. I have no problem tabling this particular letter because the Liberal government which is famous for pilot projects would like to get into a pilot project gambling model that would require us to lift the moratorium on gambling that we now have in place.

I found it most intriguing that a federal Liberal Party could ask us to do one thing while a provincial Liberal Party was advocating another. It does give me some concern whether or not this bill will pass the Senate in its current form because there may be some disputes within the Liberal Party. It does give me some particular concern, but it was most revealing about this particular matter. I had offered to meet them, do the courteous thing, of course, and meet them, and the federal minister had to depart for Ottawa very quickly so the meeting in fact did not take place. It is a most interesting letter because I think it underlines how one can try to talk out of both sides of one's mouth at the same time with such force, you know, and--[interjection]

Well, the member asks, how could we read this out of this letter? It is because, and I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the House leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Lamoureux) who also campaigned on casinos, why would a federal minister want to have a meeting--and by the way the . . . is very clear. What he wants to build are casinos. There has been some discussion, there are a number that want to do it. Some of them may be in these Northern Flood communities, and yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, to do that would require us to lift our moratorium on gambling, because we have put on a moratorium.

The only expansion that takes place is if a First Nation community signs a gaming agreement with us that allows for VLTs and a licensing of a variety of things. That we still allow for. We have not foreclosed that on any First Nation community. But what they are asking for, of course, is more than what is available under those agreements which, by logical extension--I mean, you cannot do that unless you in fact lift the moratorium.

I know the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who is interested in some consistency on the part of the Liberal Party in this matter, in reading the letter would agree. I am sure the member would agree that it is a request for the lifting of the moratorium. That is the logical conclusion of what is being requested, and it is just somewhat ironical, of course, that the Liberal Party in Manitoba would be campaigning so hard against gambling, saying we do not want it in the province, when in fact they are promising 25 percent of the VLT revenue to municipalities, and their federal colleagues are asking us to remove the moratorium. I hope that they do not present such a divided argument on this bill. They are always with their friends.

I would hope that this type of inconsistency on these issues, since the federal Liberal Party is committed to this legislation, is not going to be part of their view and expression of that view in this Legislature on this bill.

I know members from northern constituencies would like to see these matters resolved, and we hope the Liberal Party does not use that kind of split personality on issues to hold up the support on this piece of legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, when we think there may be some concern over split personality, and I note again, from the same party, an editorial in a local Manitoba newspaper regarding Provencher M.P., Mr. Iftody. It points out that he might have shot himself in the foot with a soon-to-be-registered rifle, and it points out again that the Liberal Mr. Iftody's flip-flop on this issue is very similar to the Liberal Party's flip-flop on the GST, which they said that they promised to scrap if they got elected, and the editorial points out that GST was paid on this newspaper.

So, again, I worry as minister that the Liberal Party will be able to get itself together on this to support this important legislation, which I believe the people of the North and of those five communities involved will want to see, Madam Deputy Speaker, brought to fruition and passed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, my time may be becoming somewhat short--

An Honourable Member: No, unlimited time.

* (1510)

Mr. Praznik: Unlimited time, an invitation, Madam Deputy Speaker for someone who only spent 15 minutes on the Throne Speech Debate to allow other members to speak, but I must stay on the topic. I may stay on this topic; I must.

I ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my colleagues opposite, are they betting on time? Can I help? When I shall sit, can I help fix this bet?

On issues like Northern Flood, I can remember some long speeches made in this Chamber by the former member for Churchill constituency, Mr. Jay Cowan. I can remember long speeches on that particular issue and many revealing comments about the process, the agreement and about Mr. Cowan, and they were very interesting.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the important points I think to be noted in this legislation, as members consider its passage, is that this legislation is needed in order to extinguish rights and responsibilities under the Northern Flood Agreement, because the comprehensive agreement replaces that agreement and it requires an act to do that, and without this happening, it in fact will hold up the completion of the comprehensive settlement agreement which has been arrived at after a far-too-long process of negotiation over two decades.

The comprehensive agreement--what I am very proud of is the fact it was this administration under my predecessor, the now Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Downey), who gave the authority, working with our negotiators, to change gears from the old proposals under Northern Flood to a comprehensive approach which has become acceptable to four of those five First Nations who have now signed on in this process and hopefully to the last of the five who will do so very shortly.

By moving to the comprehensive approach, it extinguishes Manitoba's responsibilities and obligations once the settlement process has been reached and the compensation has been paid. It allows for a settlement to be reached that will deal with the issues, provide for fair compensation to those communities, distribute it in a fair manner to meet a real need and allow five Manitoba communities to get on with their lives of building their communities, pursuing opportunities and spending their efforts, not on concentrating on consultants and lawyers' fees on negotiating this agreement over two decades, but allow them to concentrate their efforts on building their communities and building their economic opportunities, pursuing those, and getting on with life and with supporting their families. That becomes a very, very important principle.

I am very proud, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be part of this administration that has brought this process to a conclusion, because it really and truly is a matter which the province of Manitoba should have settled many, many years ago and was not able to for a host of reasons. I know from time to time we hear members opposite, particularly in the New Democratic Party, make comments about these issues, where are they at? But in fairness to all, the greatest movements towards settlement of these issues have come during the tenure of Conservative governments, which is somewhat ironical, and they have come sincerely with hard effort to resolve these issues. I am very proud of that fact. That fact may not be recognized by everyone. It may not be recognized by many in the media.

It may not be recognized by many in those communities, but the fact of the matter is that members opposite, their party in government, over many years, has had opportunity to settle these issues. They have been in these benches. They have had control of the levers of power. They have had the tools that could have led to the changes that were needed in the process that ultimately led to a process of resolution and will eventually lead to a resolution, but they were not exercised. They may have been talked about. But they have been exercised here, and we have made more progress in the last few years than any government before us. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not say that to pat ourselves on the back.

I say that because it really begs the question, why did it not happen in the past? Why were those who continually get up in this House and are wont to say that they support those people and those communities and their aspirations when they were in the desks of power to be able to resolve those issues, why were they not resolved?

I know there are always problems. I know there are always issues. I know it is not easy, but the movement to the resolve did not happen in a successful way. I know in this process in talking with our negotiators that many of those same obstacles that other governments have faced over the last two decades were also there, but there has been innovation and good will and, most importantly, a very sincere and strong effort. An effort, Madam Deputy Speaker, not just talking about it but an effort to resolve these issues that ultimately have brought us to this point. That effort, the persistence and the genuine desire to see these issues resolved are bringing them now to a conclusion.

For almost two decades that did not happen in our province. This point may escape many, may escape many in our media, may escape many who listen day after day to those who get up and say, we are legitimately concerned about those people. The question anyone who really has an interest in this area has to be asked is why were they not settled? Those facts ultimately speak very loudly about all of us.

So I am proud that matters that began before even I was in school are now being resolved in a way that is long overdue and fair, fundamentally fair to the people who suffered, those communities that suffered the damage. The individuals have had 20 or 30 years, 20-some years, of living with those effects. Maybe this agreement is not going to be compensation necessarily to them, but it will be to their community. I for one just find it, again, so very ironical that so many can stand up and be critical day after day and have all the answers and yet never the action and never the result.

So is this a proud day for us as a government? I think it is. Is this a proud day for us as Manitobans? I believe it is because it means we are finally into a process of resolving issues that should have been resolved by our governments many, many years ago. Is it the completion of unfinished business for the province? It is.

If I may say to those communities who are affected by this legislation and if I may say to those and other First Nations, the Metis community of Manitoba, who looked to this provincial government and say, where are you at with respect to us as citizens in this province? I can tell you this speaks volumes, this process of settlement, about the sincerity we have in working with people to help them take control and charge of their own lives, to reach fairness and to do what ultimately the vast majority of, I believe, Manitobans want to do, the opportunity to live in their community, to earn a living, to support their families and to have a decent opportunity and future for their children. That is what it is about. Day after day my colleagues here, we sit and we take the questions and we listen to the statements of members opposite who come at government as if government has the solution to every problem and can solve every difficulty.

Madam Deputy Speaker, today we spoke about the issue of fires and the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) raised an issue about childproof lighters, and certainly there is an issue there, and we have to deal with that and we are canvassing the players in the field and seeing what our authority is to deal with it. But we have every year many children in this province who die in fires in northern communities where their homes are heated by wood stoves and they were left unattended, and government cannot solve the problem. Government cannot solve that, because people have to take some responsibility for their own lives.

* (1520)

Madam Deputy Speaker, we hear members opposite get up on a host of issues in which the prime responsibility for the actions involved, the individual has some role in that, in the choices that they make. Anyone who comes here, it might be quick media attention to get up and say, I stand against this or I stand for this, and we are going to solve this problem. But this party has not been in government all the years of this province's history. Members opposite have been on these benches too, and those problems are still with us. Perhaps the reason they are there is because governments cannot fundamentally solve them. People sometimes need some help, yes. Sometimes they need some direction, yes. But ultimately they have to accept some responsibility for their own lives and the choices that they make and the courses that they act upon.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in many ways what makes me very proud about this particular piece of legislation is that it allows people who we as a province have frustrated for many years to now concentrate on their own lives and their own future. I will tell you, I would bet on the citizens of these communities improving their lives because they control them and they make decisions. However humble the circumstance, I would bet on them far more than I would on any government of this province or any government of Canada coming in and saying, I can solve your problems for you.

Perhaps that says loads about why these issues may never have been resolved in the past, but today we bring forward one small piece in that resolution. As I have said before, I am proud of the fact that we have been able to bring these to resolution, and I know that I will be very proud of the people of these communities in what they will be able to achieve as individuals and as communities as they work towards their future. Perhaps a lesson for all of us in this House, as we think to grab a few minutes of television headlines standing up for one group or another, is that the public out there, Madam Deputy Speaker, is asking where people are taking responsibility for their own lives and actions.

In many ways this bill allows five communities--allows one community particularly--but the process allows five communities to get on with their lives and take responsibility for their lives, and I am proud to see that happen.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the House.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was wondering if, by leave, I could ask a question for clarification, as has been the custom on second reading.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the honourable member for Thompson to ask a question of the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik) relative to Bill 6? [agreed]

Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to indicate that I most certainly would appreciate the opportunity to have a detailed briefing on this bill and hope to arrange that perhaps as early as tomorrow. I want to ask one question for clarification, and that is that one of the issues that has been raised in discussions and negotiations related to the Northern Flood Agreement is the status of the NFA and also subsequent settlements. In particular I would like to ask the minister whether it is the position of the government as is included in this bill that the Northern Flood Agreement and subsequent settlements are considered to be modern-day treaties as, for example, was outlined in the AJI report? Is that the import of this particular bill?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member raises an issue that has been raised by First Nations on many occasions with respect to agreements that are signed, and the word "treaty"--I need a moment, I think, just to put it in context--the word "treaty" has come to mean a lot of things to different people, and the definition used often by First Nations can be from time to time somewhat different as those who are not members of First Nations would necessarily view it. There is a lot of emphasis put on the use of that term as if in some way it creates another level of obligation.

This is an agreement between this community by this band, is represented by its band and ratified by its citizens, the Province of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, the players involved. It is an agreement that sets out a host of responsibilities and rights and processes for settlement. It requires the extinguishment of right under the Northern Flood Agreement to be subsumed in this agreement for process of settlement, the compensation for persons versus comprehensive agreement argument. We as a government view this as an agreement.

I am sure that there are some who will view it as a treaty. They will view it in that way, and quite frankly, I do not think it is appropriate for me as a minister. It may be appropriate for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who represents some of these communities, to use that phraseology or terminology or be comfortable with that, the implied definition, but for we as a government, we view it as an agreement. Should others wish to view it otherwise, they are certainly free to do so. I know we have this difficulty on a number of particular issues because of the relationships and the views that have grown up around the word "treaty," particularly with respect to the treaties signed between the federal Crown and First Nations in the last century.

From our point of view, it is an agreement to settle an outstanding compensation agreement and it is one to which the province of Manitoba is bound.

Mr. Ashton: I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Acting Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call Bill 8 please.

Bill 8--The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 8, The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les véhicles à caractère non routier, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Findlay: It is my pleasure to be able to give second reading to Bill 8 today, to some--I guess we will call them housekeeping amendments through The Off-Road Vehicles Act on four different areas. Two of the proposals have been brought forward at the request of Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

You will recall that during the last session of the Legislature The Off-Road Vehicles Act was amended to introduce a mandatory annual coterminous registration, an insurance cycle for off-road vehicles. Those amendments last year were designed to be sure that off-road vehicles that would be operated in Manitoba would have insurance as well as registration to protect not only the operators but the other individuals that might be involved in a particular accident.

After further program review, the corporation identified the need for two additional amendments to The Off-Road Vehicles Act. The first amendment relates to the introduction of a staggered registration renewal for off-road vehicles. Off-road vehicles are currently registered for a fixed period, October 1 of one year to September 30 of the next year. Under a staggered renewal system a vehicle owner will be assigned a renewal date based on the customer's birth date, plus an offset of four months. This parallels the corporation's plan for the staggering of motor vehicle registrations. It is currently in place and will become law or come into action on March 1, 1995, under the corporation's Autopac 2000 initiative.

* (1530)

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

The corporation will determine the period under regulations. An individual operator may choose to have his on-road vehicles and off-road vehicles come due on the same day, or he may choose to have them come due on different dates in the year. Once he chooses a cycle it will be an annual renewal on those particular days. By staggering renewals for off-road vehicles Manitoba Public Insurance will be able to provide greater convenience to the customer by consolidating all registration renewal requirements on the day of choice of the person.

The second initiative being proposed by the department is also being introduced on behalf of Manitoba Public Insurance and relates to the authority for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to cancel the registration of an off-road vehicle due to an indebtedness by the owner to the Manitoba Public Insurance or the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The Registrar currently has the authority with respect to indebtedness from motor vehicle registration and the driver's licence, and due to the compulsory nature of off-road vehicles registration and insurance it is necessary to have such a mechanism in place. Without this authority there are no consequences for a person who pays off-road vehicle registrations and insurance fees by an NSF cheque or is indebted for other reasons related to the registration of an off-road vehicle.

Thirdly, the accident-reporting threshold--Mr. Speaker, there are two remaining amendments, both of a housekeeping nature for the department.

The first is the increase of the property damaged threshold for off-road vehicle accidents required to be reported to the police. Currently, you must report an off-road vehicle accident if the cost of repair is $500 or more or if there is an injury or a death associated with that accident. What we are proposing is that the threshold for accident reporting be raised from $500 to $1,000 of total property damaged. This will ensure consistency of reporting of all motor vehicle accidents in Manitoba, because the current threshold for on-road vehicles is $1,000, and by this amendment we will have off-road vehicles also at $1,000. It will also bring Manitoba into harmony with many other Canadian jurisdictions.

We have called 12 jurisdictions in Canada. Currently seven jurisdictions have a thousand dollars as a threshold. Five other jurisdictions, including Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario and B.C. have the threshold less than a thousand, and we are going to be part of the major group of seven by having a reporting threshold at a thousand dollars.

Strange as it may seem, the average accident reported for on-road vehicles is around $1,800. I can give you the statistics for the last three years where off-road vehicles are actually higher than the average reported accident with an on-road vehicle. In 1991-92 there were 108 off-road vehicle claims with an average first-party property damage claim of $2,100. In '92-93 there were 227 claims with an average dollar value of $2,300. In '93-94, 220 off-road vehicle claims paid out an average of $2,700. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the average on-road vehicle claim is only $1,800.

The fourth item we would like to have in this particular bill is that the proposal introduced in this bill is necessary to ensure the legal integrity of the certificates the registerer provides as evidence in court on driving-related charges, the charges related to a legal technicality raised in the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision regarding the court certificate provisions of The Highway Traffic Act.

The relevant provisions of The Highway Traffic Act were amended in the last session of this Legislature. Similar provisions in The Off-Road Vehicles Act were not the focus of the court appeal decision at that time but could in the future be subject to the same criticism. We would prefer to amend them at this time so there is some further consistency between on-road vehicle accidents and off-road vehicle accidents with regard to registerers' court certificates.

Mr. Speaker, with that overview I am pleased to introduce these four amendments which have been put forward in the interests of serving customer needs as well as harmonizing some of the administrative rules to complement legislative changes to The Highway Traffic Act that we did last session and look forward to discussing this bill in detail with the committee at a future stage.

I will provide spreadsheets for the opposition critics that cover the essential elements of this particular bill in the four areas that I have mentioned. I am sure that as the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation institutes the staggered renewals for on-road vehicles come March of 1995 it will be an opportunity for citizens to elect their off-road vehicle registration time and increase the convenience and efficiency for our citizens of Manitoba in registration of these vehicles.

One may wonder why we have raised the threshold from $500 to a thousand dollars--[interjection] I was just saying, one looks at the cost. What is the average cost of a car today, maybe $20,000? The average cost of a snowmobile is $10,000 to $12,000, significant. What I mentioned earlier was that the actual reporting accidents for off-road vehicles is higher for incidence than on-road vehicles.

An Honourable Member: How much higher?

Mr. Findlay: About a couple of hundred. Let us face it, I said 200 accidents in off-road vehicles at this time. Actually, with cars, I do not know what the number is, but it is obviously several thousand. So you have a lot more incidents with cars.

With off-road vehicles, we are all concerned with safety. Clearly, we are strong advocates of use of helmets. In fact, my seatmate here a while ago just told me of an accident his son had on an ATV. We all know the speed with which they travel, and the safety factor is something that must be continually stressed. I think, in the process of these amendments and other things we did last year with off-road vehicles, we constantly try to stress safety. They are used in places and locations that are not maybe where those kinds of vehicles should be used, used at speeds that are unsafe.

It is always very distressing to hear of the, particularly, snowmobile accidents that happen in the winter. Certainly we all know that unfortunately alcohol is involved in many of them, and they are operated at speeds and in locations where accidents just do happen. I think it is imperative that all members of this House try in every way possible to be sure that people who operate these vehicles do it in as sensible way as possible.

I guess one could argue that with the kind of snow we have this year, it is not the greatest snowmobile season. Maybe where the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) comes from it is a little better. I was out in the country this past weekend, east of the city. There are lots of trails around, but they have pretty well taken care of the snow in the ditch. They have driven it right through to the bottom of the ditch to the grass. I think a lot of these people, particularly the people who are in the business of selling these, would like to see a little colder weather and a little more snow to stimulate people to buy the units and to operate the units.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) has worked hard with the Snowman citizens group to be sure that we have good trails in this province, and the activities on snowmobiles, particularly in the Whiteshell area and south and into the United States, are very significant recreational activities. As I watch on Highway 15, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays, there are a lot of vehicles going east with snowmobiles on the trailers on the back, obviously going out for a little bit of fun to enjoy the recreational activities of their ATV.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House would see fit to move this particular bill along. I know that both the Manitoba Public Insurance and the DDVL believe that these four amendments will move a long ways to helping customers who do business with those two corporations do the business they have to do.

* (1540)

Mr. Speaker, in the process of the last number of days in this House, we have a lot of acrimony every once in a while between members on both sides, and this being the 19th of December as we move on to the Christmas period, I would certainly on behalf of myself and my family like to wish everybody in this House a good Christmas period, a joyous new year, and the events of 1995 will be maybe interesting for all involved. The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) is smiling. We will see if he can come back. He has a challenge out there that will be interesting, and I am sure we all will find challenges in the process of trying to get into a position of representing our constituents again.

Mr. Speaker, when we deal with items of legislation of this nature that accentuate public safety and public convenience in the duties that our corporations must carry out, it is very important that we all support them in a very responsible manner. So without any further discussion, I have indicated already I will send to my critics the spread sheets for this bill with four amendments. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 8, we share a number of the concerns that MPIC has brought to the ministry's attention. I guess, in principle, we support the gist of what is being suggested. To that end, we are quite prepared to see this bill in fact go to the committee stage as early as today so that we can have some form of public hearings and see if there might be individuals interested in expressing the concerns that they have.

In general, we made note of the minister's comments in second reading, and we will wait for it to go into committee stage. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Acting Government House Leader): Bills 9 and 10.

Bill 9--The Wills Amendment Act

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 9, The Wills Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les testaments, now be read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of The Wills Amendment Act. Although the bill makes only a small change to the English version of Section 23, its effect of making sure that the wishes of the makers of wills are not defeated by technicalities is very important.

As honourable members know, The Wills Act sets out the requirements for a valid will. A holograph will, one that is entirely in the maker's own handwriting and signed by the maker, is valid in Manitoba. However, formal wills with typewritten text are more commonly made.

The Wills Act sets out a number of very specific, formal requirements for the execution of these wills. For example, the signature of the maker of the will must be witnessed by two persons who must also sign the will in the presence of each other and in the presence of the maker.

At common law, the failure to comply with even one of the formal requirements of The Wills Act had the effect of invalidating the entire will. This was so even where it was perfectly clear that the document in question accurately represented the intentions of the person who made it.

In 1980, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission recommended that this be changed. It recommended that courts be given the power to waive those sorts of technical errors and to give effect to wills where errors had been made in complying with the formal execution requirements of The Wills Act so long as the court was convinced that the document represented the true testamentary intentions of wills' makers.

The commission argued that the technical rules of quorum should not be allowed to defeat the substance and the clear wishes of wills' makers.

In 1983, the Legislature adopted the recommendations of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission with the enactment of Section 23 of The Wills Act. Manitoba thus became the first jurisdiction in North America to give courts the power to waive technical errors. Since that time, Saskatchewan has adopted a similar measure, and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada has recommended a similar provision to all of Canada's provinces and territories.

Unfortunately, the Manitoba Court of Appeal recently interpreted Section 23 of The Wills Act in a way which narrows the discretion of the courts to overcome the technical errors.

The court held that it could recognize a will containing errors in the execution formalities only if the maker of the will had substantially complied with those requirements. In other words, the testator must get most of the execution requirements right and make a mistake only in a few of them. Only in these circumstances, the court said, could it use the power to waive Section 23.

The Manitoba Law Reform Commission reviewed this decision of the Court of Appeal and noted that Section 23 of The Wills Act was intended to have a broader effect.

It should not matter whether the maker of a will has failed to meet only one of the execution requirements of The Wills Act or whether that person has failed to meet all of those requirements. What is important is whether, considering all of the circumstances, the document represents the true testamentary intention of the maker of the will.

Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to restore to Section 23 of The Wills Act a broad and generous scope and to allow the courts to truly do justice.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 10--The Trustee Amendment Act

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 10, The Trustee Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les fiduciaries, now be read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased to move the second reading of The Trustee Amendment Act. This bill adopts a recommendation of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission that in the absence of direction from the trust instrument, a trustee who holds money or property on behalf of beneficiaries should be allowed to consider nonfinancial criteria when formulating investment policy or when making an investment decision, provided that the trustee always meets the usual standard of prudence that is expected of trustees.

A trust can arise in a number of different circumstances. For example, it may arise where an executor holds and invests money for a number of years on behalf of infant beneficiaries of a will. A trustee pension plan is an example of a trust with many more beneficiaries. No matter the size of the trust, every trustee has an obligation to obtain the best financial return possible for his or her beneficiaries.

* (1550)

Unless the document creating the trust permits it, it may be argued that considering nonfinancial criteria could be a breach of the trustee's duty for which the trustee could be sued. However, as honourable members know, it has become increasingly common in recent years for some investors to consider nonfinancial or ethical criteria while making their investment decisions. Such criteria are often of a social, religious, environmental, political or other philosophical nature. These investors may not want their money to be used to advance purposes with which they disagree philosophically or, alternatively, they may see investment as a tool to implement a special purpose which they wish to promote.

Ethical investment can pose problems in a trust situation. Can a trustee consider such nonfinancial factors? The answer is clear if the document setting up the trust covers the issue. However, the answer is not at all clear if the document is silent. Neither the general law of trust prevailing in Manitoba nor our Trustee Act answers the question.

Continued uncertainty in this area is undesirable because of the increasingly significant sums of money invested in trusted funds and the equally increasing and legitimate concerns of both trustees and beneficiaries concerning the investment use of these funds. The proliferation of ethical investment funds in Canada highlights the growing general concern with issues of this nature.

This amendment to The Trustee Act, recommended by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, will balance recognition of the use of nonfinancial criteria with restraints to prevent unreasonable financial detriment. Where a trust instrument is silent concerning the use of nonfinancial criteria, its trustee should not be under a legal disability to consider nonfinancial criteria. Of course, the predominant goal should remain the securing of a reasonable return. A trustee who uses nonfinancial criteria should continue to be obliged to meet the usual standards of prudence.

Mr. Speaker, this moderate approach is designed to remove the present uncertainty and clarify the acceptability of considering ethical and other nonfinancial considerations while preserving the primary obligation to maximize the financial benefit to the beneficiaries of the trust.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bills 3 and 4.

Bill 3--The Education Administration Amendment Act

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 3, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to place before this House for second reading The Education Administration Amendment Act. As minister I am very proud of Manitoba's education system. It is innovative, progressive and constantly evolving to meet the needs of the community. Our education system is in fact the cornerstone of our entire social structure. But even as I am proud of the system, I am also aware of its evolving nature and issues confronting it. Times change and the system must reflect this reality.

Mr. Speaker, the changes I am introducing in this bill address this fact. The proposals before this Chamber concerning changes to education legislation will increase the duties and powers of principals and teachers and give parents a stronger say in educational matters through advisory councils.

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting and waiting day after day for members of the opposition party to lay before the record of this House their approach to education reform. I am hoping that the members will seize the moment with respect to second reading debate on this bill to be much more definitive with respect to their approach, not only specific to the bill, Bill 3 that is before us at this point in time, but with respect to many of the issues that are part of the blueprint for change, the document that I have referenced on many occasions; members opposite have also. It is called Renewing Education: New Directions, A Blueprint for Action. We brought forward as a government this blueprint in July 1994.

Members opposite of the political parties who would want to govern in this province have sat on that report now for five months and have not offered any commentaries. What is the reason for that? Why would it be that a government very rarely seen in Canada today would come forward with a document that lays out its view as to education and how it should develop for the rest of this decade into the next century? Yet, members opposite, in using the document extensively, I think, when they are out addressing their constituencies and trying to read innuendo in many respects between the lines, trying to go out and make statements based on not fact but indeed on something that they have heard, try to make it appear that although it may be acceptable some places, they would reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative, as I stand here and talk about Bill 3, obviously a major plank, one of many in the Renewing Education document, I have to assume that members opposite are in total opposition to the renewed approach that this government wishes to bring to the public school system within our province. I am troubled. Those individuals within the education enterprise who are also trying to determine a philosophical difference as between the provincial parties are also troubled, particularly the Liberal Party.

One looks at the information of some of their candidates, many by the way who have, in one way or another, practised within the enterprise--when one looks at exactly what they say, these candidates for the Liberal Party are calling for excellence in education. Mr. Speaker, how do they believe that society, 500,000 or 700,000 potential voters in our province, are going to be duped into believing that general statement is going to become the essence of the education plank within the Liberal Party and that they will be able to move through the period leading up to an election, through the election period and be able to sell that as their vision of education into the future. If the members opposite think that is going to be the case, I am here to serve notice to them, that will not be allowed.

The veterans in this party, the new candidates in this party, all of the people who support are not going to let the Liberals stand behind the shadows and on one hand promise that they are for excellency in education without providing any sort of details. [interjection] The education critic for the Liberal Party says it is going to be well detailed. Well, what would prevent the Liberal Party from reacting at this point to the government's document?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I have been.

* (1600)

Mr. Manness: Well, the member for Inkster says I have been, using his words. I heard him say only this. I heard him in this House state for the record that there are no relevant bills dealing with the issue. The issue at the time--does one remember what the issue was. I forget, what was that relevant issue of the day? What were the relevant fields dealing with that issue? I did apologize to the member for Inkster when he sort of qualified in some other preceding paragraph that he was not referring to Bills 3 and 4. I still take very seriously the fact that the Liberal Party does not take seriously the education bills before this House. I sense that this is not in keeping, in any way in keeping with what their views are and indeed how the classroom should be strengthened.

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

Mr. Acting Speaker, I listened very carefully to musings by members opposite--and not to leave the NDP out of this discussion at all because I will certainly move to them. I say that the Liberals, particularly, I find troublesome in their respect. It was just last session I think the member for Inkster asked me a question leaving me with the feeling that he was against teachers being dealt physical blows. He was against the teachers being hit. He was against the teachers having some students run at them with physical objects that would do violence.

Mr. Lamoureux: You are not?

Mr. Manness: The member for Inkster asks me, and I am not? That so far is the essence of the Liberal platform on education. They are against violence being directed towards teachers. Hallelujah, Mr. Acting Speaker, who is not? I defy one member of this Chamber to rise and say that they are in favour of violence being directed towards teachers.

So, Mr. Acting Speaker, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says, but you take it out of context, it was in terms of a code of behaviour. In other words, what the member in the Liberal Party is saying is that if you pass a law dictating what the--and they have never been definitive on this. I do not know what they are going to do, what they are going to lay in the hands of the duly elected representative, the power to develop their own code, or whether they are going to suggest that this Legislature impose a code of conduct on its 200,000 students within the public school setting.

Of course, we do not know this because the Liberal Party will not show us, they will not tell us--[interjection] Well, province-wide, does that mean that there is one code, because that is when I will question the Liberals as to who is going to develop that code? Is it going to be the Liberal Party?

An Honourable Member: The Department of Education.

Mr. Manness: Ah, it is going to be the government.

So, Mr. Acting Speaker, the Department of Education is going to determine then what the code of conduct is going to be in the Hanover School Division. They are going to tell the MLA for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) and all of his constituents, indeed the MLA for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), who represents also part of the Hanover School Division, they are going to tell their citizens what it is that the code should be in their schools.

Mr. Acting Speaker, is that going to be the same code of conduct now that exists in the Seven Oaks School Division in the city of Winnipeg? Is this going to be the same code of conduct that is going to be embraced and expected to be received by the Transcona-Springfield School Division?

An Honourable Member: A basic code of conduct.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Speaker, the member is starting to qualify now. He is starting to slide and say, the basic code of conduct. So that means then you are going to be able to have what, an improved code of conduct or something, a bonus code of conduct in your particular school division? Are you going to be able to have an add-in, or is there going to be one rule in the basic provincial code of conduct brought down by the Liberals, and it will be: Thou shall not hit the teacher?

Who supports striking the teacher? Certainly not the law of the land, it is against the Criminal Code. I want to hear more about this provincial code of conduct brought forward by the Liberal Party.

What we are saying in the essence of this Bill 3 is that empowering, first of all, the parents by way of committees, we are going to say, those local school communities, they will develop their code of conduct, their code of discipline, and the government, if it is our government, will support them.

Furthermore, Mr. Acting Speaker, the essence of Bill 3 points out in our view some of the weakness with respect to the legislation that exists now. In our view, current legislation addresses only the duties of teachers. The inclusion of principals, and I am talking about duties now, will allow ministers to make a clear distinction between the duties of classroom teachers and of principals. The very essence of Renewing Education: New Directions recognizes something that we have recognized in our province, in our heritage, in our history for many, many years, that somebody is to take responsibility for being the instructional leader of the school.

Mr. Acting Speaker, it was always assumed and expected that would be principals, and it has been, but something has happened. I look at, particularly, the member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) who has been an educator by profession. What has happened towards our drive towards much larger schools, society's drive, of course, has brought into place incredible, in my view, bureaucratic responsibilities for principals, the instructional leaders of the school, people who, I think, are bogged down in an awful lot of paper work, people who are called upon to in essence become the societal leaders and yet who, I sense, in some cases, have just too little time, no fault of their own, too little time to be able to direct towards programming, other than timetabling, to the day-to-day programming realities of the school.

Mr. Acting Speaker, that is why this document tries to put into place a clear distinction as between principals and teachers, recognizing that somebody in the confines of the school has to know what is happening within the classroom on a daily basis and has to be able to answer to the parent groups who, I know, are going to come forward and are going to be more demanding of the programming needs, not only of their individual children but collectively of all students within the school. That is one intent of this bill, to clearly lay out and distinguish as between duties of classroom teachers and of principals.

Mr. Acting Speaker, another main point of the bill, in keeping with the education reforms previously announced, intends to allow the creation of school advisory councils as a method of bringing a new level of local responsibility into the management of our schools. These advisory bodies will be comprised of parent, community and business representation. These councils will be responsible for working and consulting with principals in the day-to-day management of the schools. Of course, these councils will enhance the interaction between the community and the education system, ensuring a stronger more effective partnership for the students of today and tomorrow.

I just could not help but hear the Leader of the official opposition, the NDP party, say nothing new here, these have been in place for 30 years. I guess there is nothing reactionary. I should not overreact to his statement, because I know in some fashion or another parent-teacher associations have existed for a period of time. There is no question in my mind that they have been successful or they have failed as a result of a number of conditions, a set of circumstances.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I am convinced, not only after the forum of parents held, but indeed in talking to countless numbers of people, that there was a real strong belief in many of the school settings in which parent-teacher councils existed that there was something badly missing. I am saying what was badly missing was the recognition, recognition by the government of the day that these organizations were to be, first of all, more than just parent-teacher. They had to reach out to the community in a broader context. More importantly than that, they had to be recognized by government in some fashion, officially recognized, because what obviously has happened over many, many years is that individuals, for the most part, who do not have the same level of education as people who are administrating and teaching their own children, began to feel that their contributions, for whatever reasons, were not being listened to. Their contributions were not being significantly addressed and their contributions carried very little value.

* (1610)

Mr. Acting Speaker, as I have said on many, many occasions, the solutions to many of our educational problems today will not be found in the Ministry of Education, will not be found in the Department of Education, will not be found in the faculties of education, will not be found in the Manitoba Teachers' Society, will not be found at the Association of School Trustees and certainly will not be found if there was a massive additional amount of money that could be found to be injected into the system.

Philosophically, members probably disagree. The reality is simply this. Many of the solutions are going to have to be found right again in the local school community. That is the essence of Bill 3 in one of its dimensions, because without empowering, it goes as close as it can to, without empowering, providing real support to those councils that wish to come forward. Is it forcing a council to come forward in every school community? The answer is no. As 10 people come forward, though, will it give the full force of the department to help those parents begin to initiate that type of council within a school community? The answer most definitely is yes.

It will call upon the principal to be the lead catalyst to help form those that are in locations where they are not formed now. But more importantly, Mr. Acting Speaker, the member--and some people like to say that roughly 90 percent of our schools now have these councils in some fashion. The reality is, I am expecting an awful lot more out of the councils in the future than has existed in the past. I want them to become involved in the programming decisions of that school, not in just simply and possibly raising funds for equipment that is needed.

A worthy cause, yes, but the primal reason for a council, in my view, no. In my view, the primal reason that these councils have to come into place is to once again reintroduce more and more parents to what is happening in the classroom with respect to the programming, because I honestly believe that if this love of learning does not come back into the household, all the laws in the land and all the money in support of the laws of the land are not going to go far enough to coming to grips with this illiteracy rate that we hear about, regardless of whether or not we agree as to what the actual magnitude of that number is.

Members opposite, particularly members of the Liberal Party, can go around talking about how it is that they are going to introduce excellency into education without definition, without ever, ever saying what it is they are going to do. Yet I want to know how it is they are going to do it, whether they are going to do it from on high with the model--because the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says, pass a law; it does not hurt; we will make it better.

Mr. Acting Speaker, that is generally the statement, I believe, of the Liberals particularly: pass a law. I want to know, because I know and indeed members of this House know, who is lining up to be part of their team.

I talk to the trustees, and the trustees say, we have got to have change. We worked very closely. Our government worked very closely with the trustees, and we said, well, what do you want to change it to? They said, do you believe in these principles that we have enunciated in the Renewing Educations: New Directions document? They have said, well, in many respects, we do; in broad principles, we do. But then I say, well, then where should we take it from here? You know, I get this blank stare. I get this blank stare and very quickly I get reminded of how we have reduced resources.

Then I say, but do you know what has happened--I am talking to the trustees association now--and I say, do you know what is happening in the rest of Canada? They say, yes, because they know what is happening in other jurisdictions in other provinces. The reality, is it just Manitoba or is it a funding problem everywhere or is it realization of five Liberal governments provincially in Canada, three NDP governments in Canada and two Conservative provinces, basically walking in tandem, in sync with each other with respect to education reform?

Yet, I ask members of the school trustees, many who are very close to the Liberal Party these days--of the executive, Mr. Acting Speaker, not trustees, of the executive. I asked them, what would you do differently? You know, the answer I get is the same answer I hear from the Leader of the Liberal Party everywhere he goes. We would consult more and after that we would consult even more.

So, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is how the Liberal Party is going to bring excellency into the field of education in the province of Manitoba. They are going to consult. They are going to talk to people.

Well, the Liberal Party has some other dilemmas. They are going to have to come to grips also with funding to independent schools. So far they have two positions on this issue. I do not know whether the ghost of Mrs. Carstairs past, whether or not the policy statement that I heard her give coming into the 1990 election is still the official position of the Liberal Party on funding to independent schools or not.

You see, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have my doubts. I want to know. I would love to know where some of their candidates stand on this issue.

Let us name some of the candidates that have declared and have been nominated for the Liberal Party. I would love to know where Mr. Van Osch stands on support of funding to independent schools. That will be a question that will be asked. It will be asked very, very clear. Ms. Neville, I believe, is a candidate for the Liberal Party. I know Ms. Neville would love to answer that question, where the Liberal Party stands in support to independent schools. Well, it is not for me to put words in anybody's mouth, Mr. Acting Speaker. [interjection] Yes, so we will want to know the answer to that question.

We do not know whether Ms. Watson yet has been nominated for the Liberal Party, but we hear strong rumours to the effect that Ms. Watson, former head--[interjection] I am corrected by the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party that Ms. Watson has been nominated to carry the Liberal banner in the riding in Charleswood. We will want to know; I know some of her would-be constituents would want to know where she stands with respect to funding to independent schools.

One thing about the NDP and ourselves, I think we both know where each other stands on some of these issues. I think a lot of Manitobans do to. I will love to see whether or not the ghost of Mrs. Carstairs is thrown on the scrap heap and whether there is an immaculate conversion with respect to the funding issue to independent schools because right now we do not know.

* (1620)

Mr. Acting Speaker, I use that as one example of how it is the Liberals, with all these individuals who are coming from the education enterprise to run for them, how it is they are going to make policy other than saying two things to this point in time: saying, yes, they will bring in a code of conduct that is against the striking of students in the classroom; and, secondly, they will consult. So far these are the two and only planks in the education policy of the Liberal Party. [interjection] Well, there was another one that was enunciated by their former Leader. Mrs. Carstairs talked about how supportive she was of the Norrie commission or the theory behind the Norrie commission that led to studying the school boundaries within our province.

I would hope and expect that the Liberal Party is still supportive of that activity, and I am sure they will do the honourable thing, once this report is released by Mr. Norrie, that they will recognize that it is the work of individuals who have been brought forward by the government, in keeping with the desire by all members of this House to see boundaries reviewed for the first time in some 20-some years--[interjection] Now, you see, I call upon the deputy leader to show some honour on this issue.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I am calling upon honour from all of the members opposite in how it is they are going to deal with the report once it is in final form and delivered by Mr. Norrie. So it will be interesting to watch members opposite, but I am just pointing out, I sense that education is going to be an important issue during the next election. Of course, we will be watching very carefully, particularly the Liberal Party and how it is they have changed their mind, because we sense they will be doing it on several issues.

I talked before about advisory councils. Mr. Acting Speaker, after we made the announcement for the guidelines that we issued about a month ago, I have had more calls to my office in support from parents who were afraid--they sensed, for whatever reason--parents who were afraid to take upon themselves their right and indeed their responsibility as parents to move into a more formal setting associated with the local school and make their views known.

We have not had parent-teacher councils in the fashion that is being envisaged in this legislation, Bill 3. We have not had them in place for the period of time that the Leader of the NDP party (Mr. Doer) would suggest in any fashion.

That is why the government, in spite of the fact that some--and I have not heard this from the NDP, but I have heard it from the Teachers' Society. When we brought down the New Directions document, they said it was a quick fix; we were moving too fast. Yes, we were charged for moving too quickly. Yet, the NDP have been chastising our government for the last two years for moving too slowly. So there is going to have to be a meeting of the minds here, particularly coming from the NDP, as to whether we are moving too quickly or moving too slowly.

An Honourable Member: Too slowly.

Mr. Manness: Too slowly. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am hoping then that they will talk to some of the people who are involved in guiding decisions over at the Manitoba Teachers' Society and to the extent that they have close relations, and I am not saying they do, but to the extent that they do have influence that they would call upon the Teachers' Society to either change their wording or take into account the fact that it is time to move.

We are moving. It may not be totally in keeping with the desires of members opposite, but it certainly will be moving along the road.

Let me talk about the third dimension of Bill 3. We believe that it is important to recognize the need for teachers to be able to maintain authority and control of the teaching environment. To do this, this bill will give teachers the ability to suspend a pupil from the classroom or from the school. Never before have teachers in this province had that authority.

I cannot help but look at my good friend the MLA for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg). I was not in a position to answer questions the other day, but I read Hansard. I think the essence of the question put forward by the member for Rossmere was: Well, we do not want that right as teachers; we want the--[interjection] Yes, the first question was on the advisory council. The essence of the next question was: Should the principals, the superintendents and the school board not look after this problem of suspending, or the advisory council? Give the power to the parents. I could not believe my ears. I could not believe that a person with the authority and the responsibility of the most important unit within the public school system, that being the classroom, the instructional leader in that room did not want the responsibility to be able to remove from that setting a child that was knowingly--and I underline that word "knowingly"--disruptive, and a teacher would duck that responsibility. That told me right then and there how big a problem we have here.

* (1630)

Not we, all of us have a problem--not we, the government, we, the people. How do we do it? Do we do it as the Liberals would and consult until the turn of the age? Do we do it that way, or do we get on and try and propose another method? Some would say it goes too far, but you cannot find the middle ground on this one, and empower the teachers to make a meaningful, responsible decision in keeping with the seriousness of the disruption that happens in the classroom. Call upon those teachers that want that power--and I can tell you many of them do. Many of them are prepared to use it in a judicious fashion. Many are prepared to use it in an honest, sincere fashion because they know, if they do not have control of their classroom, they cannot teach.

Yes, Mr. Acting Speaker, some have that God-given ability where, in spite of everything, they can keep control in the classroom. There is respect for the leadership that they provide. I am telling you, in today's society, they are few and far between, certainly in the setting of the public schools.

Some would shake their heads, and some would say, no, there is a better way. Some would say, we can pass a law, and it will all be fine. Mr. Acting Speaker, in all of the study I have done in this area, in all of the other examples I have looked at--and I am not one who is wanting to rush off into charter schools. I am not one who is wanting to set up a system outside of the public school system, but the reality is when you look at the alternatives, the distinguishing feature between the public school system and those other systems is order in the classroom--simply that, nothing more.

So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I refuse and this government refuses to hire truancy officers. It refuses to hire judicial officers who are going to now be part of the school setting. It refuses to add to the staff to make sure that some behave who otherwise would not. It empowers teachers to take the authority into their own hands and accordingly make decisions.

I will close on this bill. I believe I have--how much time do I have left on Bill 3?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): The honourable minister's time is unlimited.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Speaker, teachers, as I have said before, are responsible for the control of the learning environment as well as the safety of the students. Increasingly, disruptive elements in the classroom or school environment make it difficult for the teacher to maintain necessary control.

These disruptions may not only interfere with other students' education but also their own personal safety. So authorizing teachers to suspend disruptive or unruly pupils from the educational environment empowers and enables the teachers to meet their commitment to the students and the community.

The government just did not bring this forward without a lot of thought and process. Of course, we have the Education critic of the NDP party saying that she wants--I gather she is asking for research. She is looking for evidence. I was taught in statistics and I did empirical research. We all love to have that comfort, the comfort of numbers. It was some great person who said about surveys--and this is not a survey, but it is numbers--some cannot do anything without surveys. Some consider it the voice of God, because they will not do anything without them.

I have looked at some researchers who would say, I am not going to buy any of your arguments unless they have empirical research behind them. On this issue it is common sense which dictates that if the teacher is not going to accept the responsibility for the control of their classroom, today when students are coming from all walks of life with a different approach to how it is they should look to a role model or whether they will provide or direct respect to anybody, the reality is today we have to go very quickly to a model whereby teachers authorize and empower to make the decisions accordingly not for that one student necessarily but for the good of all. That is what this bill tries to do.

The Education Administration Amendment Act I have submitted to this House is an essential part of the process of evolution taking place within Manitoba's education system. It reflects current needs and realities facing our community and our educational professionals. These amendments will allow the community a stronger voice in the management of our schools and give our educators the authority to maintain a positive and safe environment for Manitoba students.

Mr. Acting Speaker, in closing on this particular act at this time I again call upon members opposite to tell us where they stand and not--I have been challenged all the way along and not so much by the Teachers' Society but particularly by the trustees who say, well, if these disruptive students are removed from the classroom, where will they go? Let us try and put a quantification to that statement, where will they go. What are we talking about? Are we talking 20 percent of the students? Are we talking 40,000 students? Well, are we talking 10 percent of the students? Are we talking 20,000 students? Are we talking about 5 percent? Are we talking 10,000 students? Are we talking 1 percent of the students, which is roughly 200 students.

I think we are talking several hundred students, but I do not think anybody who is elected to government and makes decisions will ever have such a perfect break where you are trying to help--the 97, 98 percent of the students who want to be in a learning environment where there is order are in my view today in many respects held hostage by those 1 or 2 percent who would disrupt. I do not have a lot of time for those individuals who stand up for the 1 or 2 percent.

I am standing up here today for the 98 percent of the students who know the value of schooling, who understand that the public school system is their great hope for the future, and who in a five, five and a half hour day expect that they will have imparted to them knowledge which they can build upon into the future. That is the essence of the public school system, and if that is not reintroduced into the public school system I can tell you the other models that members opposite, the competitive models that the members opposite some say they will not support financially, others say they will not support ideologically, the reality is they will continue to grow in favour.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not come here to lecture today, but I tell you, I get very offended by members who just say, oh, what are you going to do for those students who are asked to leave the classroom? What happens today? As a student, if you are suspended from the school system, as a parent you are responsible. Nothing has changed and nothing will change. If your child will not behave accordingly and is asked to go home, it is up to you as the parent to deal with that. Whereas members opposite say, no, that is the state's responsibility. Let us pass a law. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) would say, well, let us pass a law and give it lots money.

The reality is, today, if we want to once again make education a more important issue in more of our households, I am saying that we are going to have to call upon parents, in particular, to take greater responsibility. That is the essence of Bill 3, recalling parents to take on greater responsibility with respect to the programming needs of the school. We are also asking parents to make sure that their students, their children, are in a better position, are in a position to learn more in the classroom by taking into account the importance of that setting and also putting themselves, Mr. Acting Speaker, into a position for those very small percentages to behave accordingly. If those students do not, parents will have to recognize it is their responsibility to do something about it.

That concludes my remarks on Bill 3. I certainly recommend it to the House. I honestly believe Manitobans will embrace these bills. I am hoping that the majority of teachers will embrace this bill with their new powers, in spite of the fact the MLA for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) seems to say, no, it should be somebody else's responsibility. The reality is, I know the vast majority of the teachers silently, if no other way, will support Bill 3. I hope that members opposite will feel free to debate the issue quickly and will also support this legislation. Thank you very much.

* (1640)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to start our remarks prior to the private members' hour which is scheduled shortly.

This is a small bill, but a big issue for all of us. Of course, in Bill 3 it has a few sections to deal with issues we have been raising in this House arguably for the last three years, certainly, on school violence considerably for the last couple of years. The issue of dealing with education, in our opinion, is long overdue from the government. The government likes to create the impression that it is moving quickly. We believe that they have waited for six years and are now putting out papers and various pieces of legislation at the twilight of their mandate, in the last stages of their mandate, because the public senses a dormant policy on education over the last six years and now increased activity to deal with some of the issues that are very, very important to people outside of this building.

Some of the material that is being produced by the government and contained within this bill is almost like a conversion on the road to Damascus from this government, because we have raised the issue about violence in schools and other issues before in this House, and ministers were saying, oh, we have an interdepartmental committee to deal with this. Well, the minister is now the Minister of Education. We have three Ministers of Education under the Conservative seven-year period, regime. The previous Minister of Education, when we raised the issue of protocols which she has had in her hand since 1991 from trustees, from principals, from teachers, from superintendents begging for help from this provincial government. What did they get? They got an interdepartmental committee. It is almost 1995, and we still cannot get a protocol from this Conservative government that has been recommended by people on the front lines for four years.

We still do not have a protocol--and I am sure we will get one sometime in January and February just before the election. I am sure we will get a protocol just before the election. We have asked and asked and asked that the government do the minimal amount to back up the people on the front lines, and we got an interdepartmental committee from this action-orientated government.

The government talked a lot about its vision paper, and I think we have to talk about our vision paper. First of all, let me deal with the points raised by the member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) on Bill 3. There are some inherent contradictions even within the two pages of this bill, because on the one hand we are giving parents a formalized role as advisory council members, and on the other hand we are entrenching authority for teachers in the classroom. Where is the marriage between the two? That is the point that was raised by the member for Rossmere. What is the role of parents in terms of setting expectations, and what is the role of parents in terms of who will determine the discipline necessary in classrooms?

Why on the one hand is the government saying, we want to establish the parental advisory councils, and why on the other hand on this major issue are the parental advisory councils not been given some consideration? It is an interesting contradiction and it was raised in Question Period on Friday. So we have a one-dimensional policy on advice and another dimensional policy on discipline.

I agree with the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness), everybody is concerned. We are all parents, we are all members of the community, we all have members who are either in the public school system or going to the public school system or the great majority of us do. I am looking forward to taking my daughter to kindergarten next fall, and I have already met the parents advisory council in my community.

It is a wonderful parents advisory council that is very actively involved. They even involve parents before they have become parents of students in the school. They get people involved preschool in terms of the children to get people involved and the community involved in that school. It is a school in the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, and I find that role very, very encouraging.

But, Mr. Acting Speaker, even in this bill we have to come to grips with some challenges that the minister did not deal with. He dealt with the one-dimensional issue on advisory councils and said what side are you on on this, and then dealt with the other issue of teachers in the classroom and the right to discipline and the authority to discipline. Now this is going to be a very, very important issue. Everybody wants to make sure that teachers have authority and respect in the classroom. To that there can be no debate.

The debate is how are we going to do that? Are we going to look at this bill? Are we going to look at the provisions in this bill? How can we improve this bill? Do people agree with this bill? How do parents get involved in this? How do we look at the whole issue of the whole education vision for the provincial government? Where is that leading us in terms of the whole issue of respect for the schoolteacher?

Let us look at the role even of the government's own ministers attacking the profession or attacking the professional organization. Is that enhancing the authority of the teachers? Does that enhance the respect that people have in our community toward the teaching profession?

I suggest that we have a government that after six years of doing nothing, drifting and drifting is coming in with things to act like it is doing something before the election, and we better be sure that what we are doing makes sense for our kids and our parents and our communities long past this election, for all of us. Those are some of the issues that we want to address in Bill 3 that is before us today.

Now we have had some conversations with people who are on the front lines on this issue. So has the minister. People in the front line are principals, they are teachers, they are trustees and they are parents, and they are students. I mean, students are also on the front lines. They want safe environments. They want environments that have respect for our teachers.

The issues before us are very important in terms of that respect. I would suggest today that the government if it wants to build in respect could start with its own benches in terms of respecting the teaching profession. I think the government today should end the war or the confrontation that is going on between its government and members of the teaching profession in general.

It is unprecedented for the government of the day and the Teachers' Society of the day to be taking out ads against each other. What message is this giving students? What message is this giving students here in Manitoba? [interjection]

You know, the rhetoric is not going to help us get respect. Kids watch what we are doing. Kids observe what is going on. I would recommend the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) go into the art gallery down below here today and see and what kids are drawing in terms of how they see Manitoba. The Grade 6 students are drawing pictures of the Legislative Building, and they are drawing pictures of the beauty of Manitoba, and then they are putting VLT machines in their pictures. Do you think they are not looking and listening and watching. I was shocked when I saw that.

Students are watching what we are doing. They are watching the fight go on between the government and their own teachers. It is not a healthy situation. Step one--[interjection] You know, the minister can engage in the rhetoric, but I say to you, if you are practising confrontation rather than consensus, if you have a policy that develops fights, and if all our energy in education is taken on fighting the government and fighting the Minister of Education and the Minister of Education is fighting the teaching profession, then I say to you, that you are doing a disservice to the students and parents of this province because fighting is not going to solve anything. It may get us 10-second clips but it is not going to help the students that are going in our school system.

* (1650)

I think it is a disgrace, what is going on between the government and the--now, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have a great deal, the public has a great deal of cynicism towards this government when you look back at the promises this government has made over the last seven years: Oh, we will review the school boundaries, was made in 1988. It was made again in 1990. It was promised in the Speech from the Throne in '91. It was promised in the Speech from the Throne in the second '91 Speech from the Throne. It was promised in 1992, and it is almost 1995 and they cannot even deliver a school boundary review in the province of Manitoba.

So we have on that part of your report card, we are going to give you an F, failure, because we have no way of knowing whether the provincial government will be able to deliver the school boundary review in time for us to have enough assessment of that to see whether it makes sense or not before legislation--[interjection]

Well, the minister has already been briefed on it. Is the minister suggesting that this legislature give all commissions a blank cheque? [interjection]

No, I am not, nor will we give that, but we will--obviously we supported the government when they created the commission but we criticize them for the delay.

Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, we will await the government's report, but how is this report going to be implemented in legislation prior to the municipal and school trustee elections in the fall of 1995? They have left it awfully late. Maybe we have to be a little bit suspicious about what they are doing.

The second promise this government made in 1988 is, we will fund the school divisions at the rate of inflation, second promise they made. The Minister of Education is saying today, no, we cannot solve the problem by throwing money at it. Well, the last two years this government has actually cut money indiscriminately to the school divisions. What impact has that--[interjection]

Well, you want to look at the Stonewall School Division, and I do not know whether the member from the caucus who represents that constituency has ever raised it, but you have situations where the highest new enrollment in the province is getting in essence a 4.5 percent reduction. What sense does that make, Mr. Acting Speaker, and what does that do to contribute to the alienation the parents have, because they are spending all their time on cutbacks from the government, and what does that do for violence in school? What does the increased classroom sizes--what has been the impact on--[interjection] Well, the member, you know, raises the issue. How many teaching aides have been cut from school rooms? What has that meant for classroom discipline? What has that meant for special needs kids? What has that meant for teachers that have to deal with special needs kids and they cannot deal with the disciplinary problems in the classroom?

We have been told on the front lines that the cutbacks that the provincial government has made have radically affected the ability of a teacher to have discipline and structure in a classroom, which we all agree is necessary. The government cannot tell us. On the one hand they want to help teachers, they say, and on the other hand they are reducing all the support that they have in the classroom to keep structure and respect in that classroom with the kids in those school rooms.

Mr. Acting Speaker, you know, the government--the minister says he has been talking to a lot of teachers lately. Well, I can tell you a lot of teachers are very angry with the ads that this government has taken out and very angry at the cutbacks that have taken place and affected the classroom and affected the discipline and structure of discipline in the classroom. So here we have a government that wants to increase the size of classrooms, increase the size of pressure on the school teachers in our school rooms, and then it is going to come along with a page and a half act just before the election to say, oh yes, we are really on your side too to deal with respect in the classroom.

Mr. Acting Speaker, why is the protocol between the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Health not in this act? One of the recommendations was made four years ago. Where is it? Why does it take the government five years to go from an interdepartmental committee to a protocol that teachers need to deal with the justice system?

An Honourable Member: He knows the problem.

Mr. Doer: Well, we know the problem.

An Honourable Member: Well, he knows all the other problems.

Mr. Doer: Well, you are a little sensitive. The minister is a little defensive here. He has, after all, an interdepartmental committee. We should all sleep better tonight knowing that the bureaucrats are all getting together to co-ordinate things. We should sleep a lot better knowing that this has been the real response from the Conservative Party opposite to a protocol that has been requested for four years, so teachers could have some backup from the justice system and the Health department to the Education department.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

That is not too much to ask for, I would think. Here we have a recommendation that actually has consensus. We have consensus from the teachers. We have the consensus from the principals. We have consensus from the school trustees. We have consensus from the superintendents. What do we get from the Tories? A big zero, because I guess the Conservatives do not think they have consensus on it, or maybe they cannot move it out of their interdepartmental committees.

The other issue the minister raises, he says in his speech and his flowery comments--and you are usually a straight-ahead person--oh, we cannot solve it in here; we cannot solve it in the Department of Education; we cannot solve it in all kinds of other places; we have to solve it at the school, and I absolutely agree that parents must be involved with the school. I absolutely totally agree.

But what is this Minister of Education doing then going around hiring five consultants to be the sort of ministerial group to implement--the word "implement"--the government's reform package? Where do these consultants fit with the parents advisory councils that have not been established for seven years.

An Honourable Member: Boy, you sure do not understand.

Mr. Doer: I do not understand. Maybe we do understand.

There is the first Minister of Education over there that could not implement the protocol--minister No. 1 that sat on his hands and did nothing. Minister No. 2 is over there telling us there is no problem with crime. She is having a summit and kids are stealing cars--unfortunately, only the 1 percent or 2 percent. Unfortunately, it is a lot more than before.

Mr. Speaker, so where does this government's rhetoric sit with their action? I do not think they really trust people at the grassroots, because when in doubt they hire consultants to implement their plan--the Conservative blueprint plan--without the parents advisory councils being involved.

These parents advisory councils, you do not want them to get too powerful. You do not want them to have any say on the issue of the discipline of students. We have already decided that, we the supreme beings in the Department of Education have decided that. We do not want them to get involved with these consultants. We better not take any chances about the parents wanting to implement their plan on the curriculum, so we will hire five consultants, quarter of a million dollars. What is a quarter of a million dollars?

We will close the gyms down, Mr. Speaker, but boy there is no problem getting consultants under the Department of Education to implement the minister's plan. We will close down Canadian history, but there will be no problem having five consultants to implement the government's plan of education.

Mr. Speaker, the second promise was that we would fund school divisions at their level of inflation. Promise No. 3 was, of course, that they would amend The Public Schools Act in 1988 to deal with these problems. Remember them in 1988? You remember the promises. Some of you who ran in 1988 may remember that you promised this seven years ago, and so again we have this conversion on the road to Damascus--St. Paul on the road to Damascus. The minister invoked God a number of times. Perhaps I can use some examples of--[interjection]

We tried to suggest last week that you give a man a fish and he eats for a day, you teach a person to fish, they eat for the rest of their lives, as a response to cutting ACCESS and New Careers and student social allowances, but I guess the religious theory and religious beliefs have very, very interchangeable interpretation in terms of implementation, but nonetheless, where were these amendments to The Public Schools Act in 1988, in 1989, in 1990, in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994? We did not see them. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) promised us some of these proposals a number of years ago. So now, again, in the twilight of their mandate, they are bringing in something, Mr. Speaker--

* (1700)