ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Would you please call Bills 17, 6, 23 and then the balance of the bills as listed on the Order Paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 17--The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2)

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and join in the debate on Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2).

The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has already addressed the pellet gun issue and the city's desire to establish an amendment which would permit the city, by means of a by-law, to regulate pellet guns, BB guns and air guns. I think that many of us believe that these weapons are currently being misused. Some of us wonder if there is a proper use for such firearms, other than perhaps for target practice or shooting. Some of us wonder indeed whether these firearms serve any useful practice. Personally, I do not know.

What I do know, Madam Speaker, is that in my neck of the woods, that is in the Osborne constituency, especially under St. Vital bridge and at other places along Churchill Park in the Osborne constituency, places where I walk every day along with my dog, I know it is not uncommon here to encounter young boys with pellet guns who are out there basically to shoot pigeons. This is especially true in winter when the river is frozen and these young people go out on the river with their guns.

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

This seems to me both a violent and an inhumane practice and one that is not conducive to citizenship, but, I think, as well, it is a very dangerous practice and I am going to explain why.

The park that I am referring to is in an area where small children, seniors, families, as well as not-so-senior people like me go for walks, bike rides, stop to fish, take the kids to swings and, in winter, enjoy the sports of that season.

Obviously, the presence of firearms--and no firearm is innocuous--does nothing to add to the atmosphere. Certainly, constituents of Osborne feel uneasy around these weapons, and then, of course, there is the moral issue associated with these weapons.

Certainly I hope that if this amendment is accepted by the House that the city moves very quickly to enact the new by-laws which will indeed work to protect citizens and increase the possibility of public safety.

After the terrible incident with a pellet gun in Libau, Manitoba in early October--I am sure most of us recall that incident--some of us on this side of the Legislature are wondering whether we need some legislation which would include all of Manitoba.

I know that I, as the critic for the Status of Women, have consulted with our critic for Justice and both of us believe that we need to be vigilant in monitoring reports of abuse which involve pellet guns, BB guns and air guns. Certainly, if any additional incidents of misuse of these weapons begin to emerge from other areas of Manitoba, we will certainly be calling for a careful reconsideration of the current legislation.

We believe, of course, that rural and northern Manitobans deserve and need the same kind of safety--both safety and the sense of safety--that urban centres like Winnipeg need.

Just to wrap up this section on weapons, I want to note that pellet guns, BB guns and air guns are not the kinds of guns used to put meat on the table in order to feed a family. As I said earlier, some of us wonder if there is any reasonable use for these firearms and if they have any valid role in our province whatsoever.

Anyway, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has already spoken about pellet guns, and undoubtedly the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) will address the entirety of this bill. My main focus is the part of the amendment which permits council to establish a program of tax credits and grants for renovations to heritage buildings and amendments to the planning and development legislation.

So I want to turn to the question of tax reliefs for heritage buildings. When the minister introduced this bill in the House, he made the point that there were a large number of heritage buildings in the city of Winnipeg, and he pointed out that these buildings were an asset and a legacy to the city. I could not agree with him more.

Some of us who have lived in Winnipeg for a long time regret that some of our heritage buildings have vanished; they have been demolished or generally worn down in states of disrepair. I am going to return to that and talk a bit about it later.

I think when the minister introduced the bill into the House he also made mention of Winnipeg's history and its reputation as the Chicago of the North. I believe he made mention of Winnipeg's rapid expansion during the late 19th and early part of the 20th Century. I think he pointed out that because of this rapid expansion great numbers of buildings went up in the city of Winnipeg, particularly in the areas that we know as the Exchange District and Market Square.

I think we all have our favourites in these areas or along Main Street. Some of our heritage buildings of course exist in other areas of the city. Some of them exist in the Osborne area. This is true along Roslyn Road where there are several fine heritage properties, homes. I also point out the Roslyn Apartments which is at the corner of Osborne and Roslyn Road, that very famous red brick apartment which most of us I think have been in at one time or another and recognized as a beautiful heritage property.

* (1430)

In speaking about this bill, I want to congratulate the City of Winnipeg on its excellent work and research on heritage buildings. I refer specifically to this report called A Report on Proposed Municipal Initiatives to Promote Retention and Use of Heritage Properties in the City of Winnipeg.

I believe it is this particular report that gave birth to these particular sections of Bill 17. I would also, as well as congratulating the minister, like to congratulate Giles Bugailiskis who is the urban planner for the City of Winnipeg and has his office in a very fine heritage building, 395 Main Street, the old Hamilton Bank, and also Councillor Glen Murray who has been extremely active in heritage planning and heritage work. In fact, I am told by Mr. Bugailiskis that without Glen Murray the city would not have done the work that it has done.

So congratulations to all these people, to Heritage Winnipeg, as well, particularly to its president and people there who have tackled many heritage issues like the Union Tower, the elevator in the Bate Building, Greenway School, and this is just to mention a few.

I want to point out too that early work in heritage was done by Eugene Kostyra in the 1980s. I think that the work undertaken by Mr. Kostyra at that time was very, very important in formulating and subsequently moving heritage policy.

The point that I am making here is that Winnipeg has recognized the need to preserve its heritage buildings, and this is certainly something that we can be proud of.

Sadly, of course, there has been the loss in historic buildings, which I mentioned earlier. We have not always protected our buildings. We have not always recognized the historic importance of our buildings.

Personally, I regret the loss of the old City Hall, that famous gingerbread building, and I am sure there are members on both sides of the House who share my regret. I also point out the loss of the Alexandra Hotel, which was an embodiment of a historical era in Winnipeg, and it is shameful that we no longer have that building; also the loss of the Childs Building, that beautiful building that we used to have near the corner of Portage and Main.

These are classic buildings and in losing these buildings, we lose not only the buildings, but of course, our heritage and our culture because these building are irreplaceable manifestations of Winnipeg's character and Winnipeg's history.

Most of us, I think, are familiar with the fact that several years ago Winnipeg's steam plant shut down, and certainly the closure of that steam plant did nothing to further heritage buildings in Winnipeg. The closing of that plant left many downtown heritage buildings and their owners not only high and dry but one assumes, in winter very cold. The shutting down of the steam plant also left the owners of these buildings in an economically unviable position because how could they sell the buildings without heat, how could they use the buildings without heat and especially since there appeared to be no hope of heat.

Two examples here are the Capitol Theater and the Metropolitan Theater. These are buildings that I remember from my past. They certainly have a place in my personal history, and of course, they have a place in Winnipeg's public history. We hope that this kind of legislation will do something to assure that those buildings will not go the way of all flesh. In other words, we appear to have lost much, and it is important to protect the rest and so the legislation is most timely. It seems to me that the minister is behaving responsibly in introducing this enabling legislation.

As to the value of historic properties and buildings, I do not think I probably have to convince people on this side of the House or on the other about the value of historic buildings. I would probably be preaching to the converted. I am sure that we all know, love and value Manitoba's history and these visible manifestations of its history, otherwise why would we undertake to serve our province as legislators.

The old buildings in Winnipeg have the elegance, the craftsmanship of earlier eras, particularly the buildings that were put up at the turn of the century. The warehouse buildings in Winnipeg have been acclaimed as the finest grouping in terms of style and variety and size in Canada, so I think it is important for us all to know and recognize that these are not just old buildings but are buildings of continental significance.

I think it is important too, once again, to recognize that these buildings are outward and visible signs of our cultural ethos. They are part of the informing spirit of a historical period. History is given specific and concrete shape in these buildings. To lose the buildings is not to lose a few acres of bricks and mortar but to lose our cultural and historical roots, to lose part of whom we are. My side of the House's respect for who we are is clear in our defence, among other things, of Grade 11 history in the school system.

I want to add in passing, and some of this has already been done, that government at all levels could perhaps be more active in honing and preserving our image as protectors of heritage buildings if we would set an example, if we would move into heritage buildings, if we would actually use these buildings and I know some of this has been done here and some of it has certainly been done elsewhere in Canada.

I have been speaking a little bit about the cultural value of our buildings. I think it is important to recognize that our heritage buildings also have economic value. It would indeed be foolhardy to speak of heritage buildings without pointing out their economic value. Historic buildings and properties have a wonderful record in attracting tourists and generating revenues. Historic buildings are fascinating; they appeal to our curiosity, our fascination with the past. All of these qualities are embodied in our historical buildings. When we think of the relationship between the economy and historical buildings, we can think of places like Halifax's Historic Properties, the Old Town in Quebec, Gastown in Vancouver, Old Montreal, and, of course, for Winnipeggers, we can think of The Forks in Winnipeg itself. These are all wonderful examples of partnerships between business and historical properties and they have all been extremely successful, in fact, incredibly successful.

But let me add again that the economic argument is not the only one, and indeed the economic argument may not be the most important one. Nonetheless, a thriving and vibrant business and commercial district, as experience shows, does attract tourists. It does bring added capital to our community.

I am sure that many of you, as I have done, have attended the Cobblestone bicycle race, for example, on July 1 in the Market Square, Exchange District. It is not just tourists who attended that, but, of course, citizens of our city interested in going to the core of our city to see what was happening.

One of the other, I think, important reasons for supporting this amendment and supporting tax credits for heritage buildings is the revitalization of the core area. I know that a program of grants has already been established, but certainly a program of grants and tax credits would be valuable in bucking the trend, or maybe I should say the race to urban sprawl, which seems to have characterized this government's policy.

The government's urban policy seems to have been a duel between developers and planners, with developers invariably winning. Since most of our heritage buildings are in the core of the city, tax credits would be one way, and perhaps an important method, of revitalizing the inner city areas, creating interest in the inner city, filtering some funds away from the outlying areas to the core of the city.

* (1440)

As I have already said, tax credits may assist in filling--I guess I want to look at the metaphor of the doughnut--in the hole of the doughnut. So important here, I think, also is the question of safety, or, at least, the question of perceived safety. If our downtown buildings are restored and so bring retailers, business offices, government offices, if these areas are renewed, if the garbage is picked up, then people will begin to feel safe in the inner city, and then people will begin to go to the inner city. Citizens, I think we all agree, have the right not only to be safe but to feel safe.

If citizens conclude that an area is safe and interesting, as well as offering a variety of goods and services, then there is no stopping people, as we have already said, The Forks, the historic properties in Halifax. Trying to park at The Forks on Saturday morning is increasingly difficult and, I think, attests to the fact that people love The Forks. People want to go there. It is attractive to them.

Having been in Halifax this summer and having spent a lot of time in the historic properties in the core of that city, I can certainly attest to the fact that it is almost impossible to move. In Halifax there is this wonderful meeting of natural beauty with careful and intelligent planning, the same kind of meeting, I think, of natural beauty and sound planning that we see in The Forks.

One of the other things that I wanted to mention briefly was that a few years ago I was part of a committee called the Urban Safety Project for Women and Children. What we found in that committee was that if there were lots of people on a street, if there was a diversity of buildings, all these kinds of things contributed to the success of a neighbourhood.

So it seems to me that granting tax credits can only work for safety as well as beauty and economic security in downtown Winnipeg.

To date, I have been talking about buildings, but I just wanted to say a word about houses because I do not see anything in the proposed legislation which would prevent heritage homeowners from benefiting from such a program of tax credits or grants.

Although it seems to me that this could be open to abuse and become a scam for funnelling benefits unfairly, it would seem to me that if the by-law was carefully prepared and judiciously administered that homeowners could also stand to benefit from the by-law, because the truth is that owners of heritage homes are often constrained by what they can do with their home, and of course they should be constrained because if they are not restricted they may destroy the heritage quality of their home. But one of the problems with the restrictions is that these owners often have trouble selling their houses. It seems to me that this is all wrong, that we want a city where heritage homes are desirable, where there is encouragement to preserve the character and grace of Winnipeg heritage homes.

I do not know how many character homes have been lost because of a lack of tax credits or whatever. I know that there are some grants available, but it seems to me this proactive legislation is desirable when it comes to homes too.

Before closing, I have three other points that I want to make. First of all, I want to comment on the use of the term "renovation" in Bill 17 because this term "renovation" in Bill 17 disturbs me, even though I have been using it.

The problem is that I think there is a need not to strip away the history from a building, and I want to quote from William Morris here. William Morris, of course, was a Victorian master of all trades but especially those related to architecture, to design, to craftsmanship--[interjection] A socialist too, and especially a master of craftsmanship in the preservation of buildings.

Morris said, we must not follow the fatal idea to strip from a building its history. Let us put protection in place of restoration. Thus and only thus can we protect our ancient buildings and hand them down instructive and venerable to those that come after.

My point then is that it is our duty and ultimately the duty of the by-laws from the City of Winnipeg to respect the historical character of our buildings, and I am sure the city has every intention of doing this. I think there is a need, too, to point out, as is pointed out in the Appleton Charter of 1883, that there are a variety of activities or a variety of ways of caring for heritage buildings and the way in which we choose to do this depends on many factors.

We can preserve buildings. We can restore buildings. We can rehabilitate buildings. We can reconstruct buildings and we can redevelop buildings. All of these may be very valid levels of intervention, and what is important is respect for the existing fabric. That is absolutely fundamental, respect for the existing building itself. The level of intervention should depend on many things: the nature and heritage value of the building, the goals of the conservation, the scale of the artifact and the financial and human resources available.

My point again was that the term "renovation" as it appears in the proposed amendment is slightly disconcerting as it implies a major overhaul and a high degree of intervention. But, as I said, I have great faith in the leadership of those interested in heritage at City Hall, Glen Murray and Giles Bugailiskis, so I am sure that they will be very anxious to preserve the heritage character of buildings.

The second point that I want to make in closing is to note that this is enabling legislation, an amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act. Once this bill leaves this House, one hopes that the City of Winnipeg will expeditiously proclaim the amendment and enact the necessary by-law in order to protect the heritage buildings and, by implication, to encourage the city to thrive economically, physically and socially, for I think we all know that a diversity of buildings, a blend of old with new ensures a variety of uses, ensures a variety of activities which, in turn, encourage people and business, which, in turn, mean and encourage community.

In a healthy community, people become keepers of the street peace, and this gives way to a peaceful atmosphere for individuals and business. If we can revitalize our buildings, if we can preserve our heritage, we may also create community and we may also do something about the street peace.

The third point I want to make in closing is that, and I have made this point already, but, again, it is important for Winnipeggers to take credit for the significant renewal of buildings, homes and communities in the inner city. We have done fine work, and though we have done fine work, much remains to be done.

If we can manage our regional growth, if we can keep regional growth under control, if we can encourage the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to provide broadly based, comprehensive leadership, and I certainly encourage him to do that, to provide broadly based, comprehensive leadership, then we may be able to protect the advances we made in the '80s, the advances and the protection of heritage buildings, and the advances made in the early '90s.

In closing, then, I want to point out that our heritage buildings do not live by bread alone. All the tax credits and all the grants to heritage buildings and properties will come to nothing if this government continues its current policy of no regional growth management.

The lack of policy these days leads one to imagine a widening circle, dead in the middle with decay, slowly spreading outwards, a city that eats itself from the inside out.

That is exactly what has happened in the city of Detroit. That seems to be happening in the city of Winnipeg. I think we see this evidence in the boarded windows downtown, for rent and for sale signs, litter and garbage everywhere, homeless people, citizens afraid to be in the streets of their city.

* (1450)

You know, in many ways the downtown sections of Winnipeg appear to be a modern wasteland where alienation and dislocation and despair are the order of the day, so I call upon the minister once again to demonstrate some sound leadership to turn this around. I suggest that the minister chat with his cabinet colleagues, tell them to send some of their high-flyer developer friends flying and then sit down with some regional growth management people, invite some downtown residents, invite some business people, invite some ordinary people, and then he will be in a position to inaugurate a broadly based political process which will involve the whole of the community. It is time to turn things around in Winnipeg, and I think it is time to put people first.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave for this matter to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to close debate on Bill 17 from our side of the House, and I will be quite brief in my comments.

Both the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) have spoken very eloquently about two of the major components of Bill 17, those dealing with the enabling legislation to enable the City of Winnipeg to enact by-laws dealing with pellet guns within the city of Winnipeg limits and also the ability of the city to deal with taxation issues around heritage buildings to enable the city to, one would hope, strengthen and increase our stock of heritage buildings.

The other general area that the legislation includes, or as the minister said, more minor issues dealing with planning and development legislation and granting of land use variances.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, my own comments are that this legislation is good legislation. We have stated and spoken with the minister that we will be approving this legislation and not attaching amendments when it goes to committee. I would like to commend the minister and the government for implementing this legislation.

I would like to make a couple of comments more generally. One is that the member for Osborne spoke earlier about the minister's comments that Winnipeg was the Chicago of the North. As a resident of Chicago for eight years in the early to late '60s, I can understand where the minister has the connection in some ways. There are many beautiful buildings in the city of Chicago, many of them newer than our heritage buildings, but I would like to suggest that in one area, and this goes more to the issue of pellet guns and that part of Bill 17, I would hope that we do not become the Chicago of the North in the whole area of safety and crime because Chicago has a well-deserved reputation as being not one of the better cities in North America to live in that context.

As the minister stated in his remarks when he opened with this bill, it is essentially a bill that provides opportunities for enhanced local government autonomy and accountability. In the areas that Bill 17 deals with, that is true. We see this as an example of something that we would like to see a lot more of, which is co-operation between the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba. We all know that there are several major issues under--not under investigation--in the public eye today as we go down to the last week before the municipal election campaign.

There has been a creative tension between the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba for as long as there has been a city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba. That will never change, given the control that The City of Winnipeg Act gives the province over the dealings of the city itself, and given the fact that the city incorporates the vast majority of the population of the province of Manitoba as well as the financial resources and social and economic resources of the province. There will always be those tensions. It is important that we try as legislators and as people who live in the city of Winnipeg to bridge those gaps that appear and to alleviate those tensions wherever possible. Bill 17 does that in the areas that it deals with; Bill 7 did that in the last session.

I would just like to close my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by asking the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to take a look at the requests that have come to the province from the City of Winnipeg's city councillors over the last 10 years. I have received a listing from the mayor's office, and I know it is available if the minister would ask for that, some very interesting areas that the city has asked for action on the part of the province.

They cannot do anything about these requests until the province makes changes and amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act. So I would ask the minister to carry on the good work that he has begun with the government with Bill 7 and now Bill 17, take a look at the requests the City of Winnipeg has sent to the province in the last eight years and bring back in the next session another bill amending The City of Winnipeg Act to deal with the other issues of importance that the city has requested of the province, or, at the very least, hold discussions with the new city council on some of these issues that have been raised. In some cases, they have been raised by more than one city council.

With those words, I, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, would commend the government, and we are prepared to pass Bill 17 through to committee.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, very briefly on Bill 17, we understand the main component to the bill is to include new legislation to allow council to regulate the sale and possession of weapons other than those covered in the Criminal Code of Canada, and we think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is, on the surface, a very positive thing.

Legislation is also to allow the council to establish a program of tax credits and grants for renovations to our heritage buildings, and Winnipeg has this very distinct downtown area, in fact, not only within the downtown core area but virtually throughout the city of Winnipeg, characteristics to it.

You compare, let us say, Winnipeg to Edmonton or to Calgary, what many people will talk about in terms of the difference is, of course, how much heritage so many of our buildings have. This is something in which the newer cities--and, in most part, if you take a look at Calgary, it is a fairly new city, especially when you compare it to Winnipeg. So, if there are things that we can do to encourage that preservation of our heritage, I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is positive.

One of the unfortunate things that I have never really had the opportunity to see--and it is somewhat tragic--was the old City Hall. I have seen pictures. I was too young, I guess, possibly to see it. I do not know when it was actually taken down. I believe it was during the '60s. I was born in '62. So I believe it was still there when I was born, but, unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to see it at least live. I can only see it in pictures. I think maybe this piece of legislation will assist or will be of benefit in terms of future generations with the many other heritage buildings that we have throughout the city of Winnipeg. To that end, again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what it does is it allows the city to proceed in an orderly fashion in doing what it can to preserve some of these wonderful, beautiful buildings that we have.

* (1500)

Amendments to planning and development in legislation, again, is something else that is talked about. We have no problem in terms of seeing this bill go to committee at this stage. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act(2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 6--The Public Schools Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), is there leave for this matter to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.

Standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), is there leave that this matter remain standing?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No? No, leave has been denied.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise and finish off the minutes that I have left to speak on Bill 6.

Bill 6 is a very important bill to consider as legislators because it deals with the area of education which I think is of the utmost importance to not only students and staff within the province of Manitoba but for the future economic viability and sustainability of our province.

My concerns with Bill 6 are basically in four major areas. The first area that I have a problem with is the lack of public input before the bill was put together, before the bill hit the floor of the Legislature. I want to reiterate the comments that others have made on Bill 6 in terms of the importance of obtaining the views of the public before legislation comes into the House. I suppose that could apply to any bill that hits this House but in particular Bill 6 since it does deal with the public schools in our province and the fact that the vast majority of our students and graduates and people who live in the province have come through the public school system.

I think that in itself right there should qualify people to have some kind of input into legislation that we pass in this House that has a bearing on the people of Manitoba but, also, because the rules and the regulations and the legislation that we pass in the area of education represent such an opportunity for this province to grow.

I want to make sure that in any future legislation concerning education that comes to the House that this government make an absolute, honest, complete, thorough attempt at collecting public opinion and soliciting public input right from Day One when considering legislation.

The second major concern that I have with Bill 6 is that the final result of the proposals contained within Bill 6 will increase the amount of responsibilities on each and every school staff from one end of this province to the next. In particular I think the administration of each school is going to find themselves with a continuing growth in the amount of responsibilities that they have to undertake while at the same time this government reduces the amount of resources available to the principal and vice-principal in the schools from one part of the province to the next.

It makes no sense to me at all to increase the responsibilities of the school's administration on the one hand and take away the very tools they need on the other hand to help them do their jobs in a satisfactory manner. This is the reality of what this government is doing right now, and Bill 6 is no help in that regard.

The other staff within the school who are going to be negatively impacted by the proposals contained within Bill 6 are the teachers who are on the front lines and deliver directly the education to students in our classrooms. I believe the same principle applies here as what I talked about just a minute ago in terms of the administration.

What we see as a trend in our schools these days is an increase in the amount of responsibility put on teachers, fewer teachers within the system to take on that responsibility and fewer resources in terms of dollars, in terms of time and in terms of personnel to help teachers to deal with the increasing load of responsibilities that are being put on the shoulders of teachers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, my backup in saying this, my background is that of a school principal. I have seen firsthand the kind of results you get when you take a group of people and arbitrarily increase their responsibilities without, at the same time, increasing correspondingly the amount of resources available to the people who are expected to teach our students within the schools.

Another area that I think is going to end up with a big shift in its responsibilities as a result of Bill 6 are the school trustees we elect every so often to represent taxpayers, to provide the authority to offer good quality education to the young people in our province, and that of course being the trustees who sit on the various school boards across the province.

My worry about the role of the trustees is that it is my concern that the provisions of Bill 6 will, on the one hand, take some of the responsibilities away from the trustees and centralize it within the office of the Minister of Education, but at the same time we are taking a lot of the responsibilities that the trustees have had in the past and giving them to a parent advisory council.

As a school principal at Rorketon, I helped in setting up a parent advisory council, and I understand the value of parent input and parent advisory councils in each of the schools. But we have to remember some very important things about parent advisory councils. First of all, they are advisory. They do not have the legal responsibilities, the legal liability, the insurance liability that an elected school board has. They do not have the protection in certain areas that trustees have.

We have to remember that school boards are incorporated; parent advisory groups are not. Through that incorporation, trustees have a certain amount of protection in dealing with everything that a school division deals with over the course of a year. Parent advisory groups do not have that advantage. Therefore, we must be careful in the kind of responsibilities that we shift from the school board in any area to the parent advisory groups.

Of course, I really fear that the other shift that is taking place in education today is a shift of responsibilities from the trustees to the Education minister's office, and that while it does not present the kind of legal and insurance problems that may occur as in the first case I outlined, I think there are some political problems that occur with centralizing to too great an extent the decision making in education in the hands of one person, the minister.

The fourth major area of concern that I have has to do with the amount of commercialization of our schools that I fear will take place as a result of the provisions of Bill 6. What the bill is attempting to do--I think probably in this area the heart of the bill is in the right place insofar as they are trying to provide some sort of protection to students from the selling of illicit drugs, illegal weapons of some sort, goods that are illegal or harmful on school properties.

Now, on the surface of that, I think that is okay. I would always agree that we have to take steps to protect the students and to protect other staff members at schools. My worry, though, is that what would maybe start out as a good plan might evolve itself into something a little more hideous.

* (1510)

My first concern deals with the legitimate school fundraising activities that go on in every part of our province. I would not want to see a school be put in a situation where a fundraising event became jeopardized because of provisions contained within Bill 6. I think that is a concern that all MLAs in this House should have. I think it should be a concern of the cabinet, and in particular, the Education minister must keep that in mind as we proceed through the debate on Bill 6.

The other part of this section on commercialization that I worry about is the effect that the large corporations, the large parts of the business world, will have on local business. The schools in which I have been a teacher and school principal have basically been small schools within small rural communities, small rural communities that are battling it out with larger towns, larger centres, larger cities, who have larger corporations set up within their jurisdictions to do business. The business community of very small communities in rural Manitoba cannot compete on a toe-to-toe basis with large multinational corporations, and I fear that this could be another way of funnelling money from rural Manitoba into the larger centres.

After all, I question whether it is the right thing to do. Do we actually want to subject our students in schools to yet more commercialization? My feeling is that they are subjected to enough of that on television, on radio, in newspapers, the gazillions of fliers that end up in our mailboxes every day. I think that commercialization has gone too far already without--inadvertently, maybe--introducing it into our schools through the provisions of Bill 6.

Those four areas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the areas that I am mostly concerned about with Bill 6. I realize that I have more minutes to talk on this, but there is no point in going any further when I have made all the points I need to make, and I would like to close off what I have to say on that note.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to make a few statements about Bill 6, an amendment to The Public Schools Act.

When the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) moved Bill 6 for second reading on June 7, 1995, she clarified more or less the intent of Bill 6. In a relatively short preamble she stated that Bill 6, an amendment to The Public Schools Act, was part and parcel of the government's grant strategy for educational renewal. In fact, the word she used was transform. Now, after seven years of that kind of transforming, eyebrows automatically lift for members of this side of the House, especially when they hear the word transform.

Let us hope that the transformation will be somewhat positive, but I believe that students, parents, educators and the public have reason to be jittery, have reasons to be sceptical. The transforming may well be toward a leaner, meaner system, not doing more with less but doing less with less. The transformation may well be ideologically driven and top down. It has the potential to stress law, rule, regulation, dictum, overcollaboration, co-operation and flexibility. This piece of legislation appears to have been created in relative isolation and does not appear to have been based on broad consultation or wide public input.

In her introduction of the bill for second reading, the minister stated that one of the primary aims was to increase school effectiveness by improving the environment for learning in the classroom. That was the primary aim. Other aims, secondary aims, were not mentioned. No one is going to argue against improving the environment for learning in the classroom. Improving the classroom learning environment is exactly what thousands of teachers in Manitoba do every day, and they do this day after day after day.

The minister stated that this improved learning environment in the classroom is somehow the result of Bill 6 or will be the result of Bill 6. Her exact words were, and I quote: The Public Schools Amendment Act will ensure--will ensure--that the environment for learning is safe, secure and nonthreatening.

I am not sure why the minister used three adjectives which are more or less identical: safe, secure, nonthreatening. He is basically saying that Bill 6 will ensure a secure classroom learning environment.

Is the assumption that classroom learning environments were not secure before Bill 6? That is an assumption with which very few teachers would agree; besides, how can a bill ensure this? How can a classroom environment, allegedly not secure, suddenly change because of Bill 6? Is this the magic transformation, the magic renewal the minister hinted at earlier?

But the minister could argue that I am nitpicking, that I am splitting hairs. Perhaps what she really meant to say but never actually stated was this: In a few schools, conditions exist that are not optimal for students and for teachers.

The minister should have said that. Is she saying, as Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), I am putting in place some legislation which will give more power to principals to deal with these abnormal or irregular situations which negatively affect students and teachers because, after all, a positive, progressive school climate is very important for learning. We all agree with that.

The all-encompassing nature of the bill, however, suggests that harsh measures are needed now, and they are needed everywhere. The minister herself says, and this is her quote: The bill will increase the authority of school principals to deal with persons whose actions or proximity threaten to compromise safety within the school or interfere with its safe and orderly management.

Now, principals have always zealously guarded the safety of their school. I am not sure that principals were consulted or that their opinions were asked for with regard to this bill. Normally, if a threatening situation arose in a school, let us say, if the life or the welfare of students or teachers were threatened or endangered, the principal would not hesitate to telephone the police.

I am not sure whether all principals need or want this new authority. Once again, all school principals are affected by this bill. All are lumped together, there is no discrimination, no realization that the extra discipline, the extra muscle that might be needed by a few principals in a few particular schools, is probably not needed at all in the majority of schools.

It is a question of overkill. In Tommy Douglas's unique phraseology, it is like cracking a peanut with a sledgehammer.

Also, the bill has the potential for a very wide variety of interpretation. When the minister stated that the bill would give increased authority to principals to deal with persons whose actions and proximity threatened to compromise school safety, what exactly does that mean?

The minister probably meant that the principals should have extra clout to deal with dangerous trespassers. However, it could be interpreted far differently. In how many ways could school safety be compromised? Let me count the ways: a student running down the hallway, a janitor carrying a stepladder. A bill's interpretation could be significantly different from what the minister intended.

Another phrase that is open to all kinds of semantic acrobatics is the phrase: Persons whose proximity threatens to compromise school safety.

How are we to judge proximity? Does it mean in the classroom? in the school? on the school ground? near the school? How far from the school? Persons are being judged, supposedly by the principals who did not ask to be judges, on their actions and their proximity to schools.

Now, schools are pretty open-ended places. All kinds of community events and meetings take place in schools. All kinds of interesting people visit schools. In many northern schools elders wander in and out, participating whenever their input is needed. Schools hold open house. Schools have fundraisers. I would hate to see the school become a closed, paranoic little cubicle with a principal looking over his shoulder for intruders.

The partnership among the school, the parents and the community needs to be open, trusting and flexible. We learn from one another; a heavy-handed boot-camp approach is anathema to real learning.

Fear and paranoia have no place in the learning situation, in the learning environment. Education should be immune to fear and paranoia, but I am a realist enough to know that a certain degree of fear and paranoia is out there and that it is a moot point whether this bill, Bill 6, decreases that fear and paranoia or paradoxically increases it.

In a two-tiered world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where the have-nots soon outnumber the haves, a certain degree of uneasiness can be expected, and this is the most painful part of Bill 6, that it addresses only symptoms and not causes.

It is an attempt to instill some kind of rigour or discipline in the educational body, aimed at the mistaken belief that a few dangerous individuals can be separated, identified or punished, because they are a threat to that educational body.

There is no recognition that, as more and more people are fighting for survival, the stresses generated cannot be wished away with merely a get-tough attitude and a few provisions from Bill 6.

* (1520)

There is no crisis situation yet, and as the minister herself admitted, we have a good educational system run by dedicated professionals, but as the economic prosperity promised to Manitobans keeps eluding them, then there will come a time when the pent-up frustrations and anger and hopelessness felt by so many Manitobans, especially the more disadvantaged ones in Manitoba, will also be felt within the educational system.

It is very easy to drift into a law-and-order mentality, let's-get-tough-with-crime mentality, let's get tough with those who hinder the creation of positive learning climates, while ignoring the real reasons, the economic reasons, for that unrest.

As I stated earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act, deals with symptoms, not causes. It is legalistic, and it overreacts. For example, in the minister's own words from June 7, as she introduced Bill 6 for second reading, she said, quote: The amendment provides a legal basis for removing and prosecuting drug pushers, sexual predators, gang leaders, nonstudents and other undesirables who pose a threat to the students at the school.

Now that is quite a catalogue of evil, one that I would hardly associate with education or educational institutions, but perhaps I have lived a sheltered life and the schools in which I have taught did not experience threats from drug pushers, sexual predators, gang leaders and other undesirables. In fact, I am not sure whether those people ever existed in our world or in our communities, but perhaps they did and perhaps they still do. If they did exist and if they are a threat, one still wonders why nonstudents are lumped in with sexual predators and drug pushers. In fact, most teachers and most principals do not really consider themselves students, along with janitors, carpenters, school committee members and so on. As for the phrase "undesirables," the minister's own phrase, "undesirables," it is a most unhappy phrase. It could refer to just about anything or anybody an education minister or a principal or a person authorized by the school board could want it to refer to.

Undesirables, like beauty, are often in the eye of the beholder, and, again, we are not dealing with causes. Of course, no one wants drug pushers in or near their school. Of course, no one wants gang recruiters in or near their school, but pushing the gang recruiter one block back from the school does not address the cause of gangs or gang violence. Furthermore, drug pushers, pushing them one block further back from the school does not really remove the drug abuse.

What the minister is using is the American get-tough-on-crime approach and sticking that approach into an educational framework where it probably does not belong. But, in reality, that only sanitizes the issue; it does not deal with causes. It is a California model because, in California, if the streets become more violent, you hire more cops, you build more jails. Never mind what caused it, never mind that bad tax laws which protect the rich leave no money for social programs or job creation and that the disenfranchised keep lashing out more and more. It becomes a vicious cycle, and, of course, once that starts, there is more violence, more need for more policemen, more need for penitentiaries. It goes on and on. That is the kind of growth industry we do not need in this province.

Surely the issues of child poverty in this province, the lack of housing in the northern part of this province, the lack of meaningful jobs or any jobs for the young in this province cannot be viewed as isolated phenomena. Now, I was happy that the minister, a few days ago, did say some jobs are created for our young people in the summer. She mentioned 700 jobs for the urban Green Team, 400 for the rural Green Team, and I am very happy with this, but it is only a drop in the bucket. Thousands and thousands of other young people did not find jobs.

So, when the minister talks about undesirables and keeping them out of the school environment, who created the undesirables? Every child born in this province has the potential for greatness. Why are there undesirables? Do we once again blame the victims? Certainly, we do not want drug pushers near our schools, but would the young person selling drugs be doing so if that young person could find decent employment, and would the gang recruiter in schools? Would the teenagers that feel a need to join gangs, would they still have that need if they had decent self-esteem, if they were grounded in those solid altruistic family values that the Tories are so fond of holding up as an ideal?

The undesirables that the minister makes reference to, would they still be undesirables if other criteria were used, if they had been raised in affluence instead of poverty? I will point out to the minister when she uses the word "undesirables" that great leaders and teachers from the past, from Christ to Mahatma Gandhi, did not scorn the outcasts and the undesirables. In fact, they created their kingdom for these undesirables. They created hope for them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 6 gives principals the right to document an act of trespass and engage the assistance of police officers if warranted. By decree this act increases the penalty from The Petty Trespasses Act with a penalty of $25 to a major monetary penalty of possibly $1,000 to $5,000. That is a tremendous increase, a two-hundred-fold increase in some cases. I am not sure how trespass will be defined. Some people who are neither students nor teachers can normally and legitimately be on school property. Cocurricular activities, community meetings in schools, adult education, late night usage of gymnasium could all create problems with identifying who should and should not be in a school at a given time.

We do not want to limit community access to our schools. We had an adage in our last school; at least our principal used it extensively. The adage was, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now that may not be a great adage for educational innovation, but it is for the kind of restructuring the minister is advocating in Bill 6. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Bill 6 is cracking peanuts with a sledgehammer. In the few cases where principals feel they need more power to safeguard the learning environment, the school climate, I am sure solutions could be worked out among the stakeholders, which include educators, parents, students, advisory councils, school boards, law enforcement agencies. In fact, in the past there have existed community police projects in several high schools which led to a reduction in violence in schools. Community police projects might well have been part of that answer that the minister did not look at.

Bill 6 attempts a global solution for localized problems. It does not mirror flexibility or even sensitivity. It reflects a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucratic approach to education, an approach that Tories usually condemn. Therefore, it is surprising that the laissez-faire, hands-off approach they espouse for business they do not espouse for education. It is nonintervention for the marketplace, and it is heavy-handed intervention for the schools.

I assume, and I admit to being somewhat biased as an ex-teacher, that if there is one group in society that knows what it wants it is a group of educators. It is doubtful that much consulting was done with educators before this bill was drafted. I doubt that this bill, Bill 6, reflects the most serious concerns of educators. This bill is not entirely without value but broad-based consultation does not underpin it. As a housekeeping bill it has some merit and I am sure many recommendations at committee stage could improve this bill. My colleague for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has referred to this bill as thin. Well, it is emaciated, it is starving, it is indeed very thin.

It is hardly the bold vision that the minister mentioned when introducing an earlier bill, Bill 5, when she stated and I quote: The status quo is no longer sufficient for a society that is moving toward a new millennium, unquote. I agree. Schools are infinitely adaptable, and, yes, schools must be safe. Indeed we need to work out detailed policies and programs that address the root causes of violence in our schools. Bill 6 addresses symptoms, not causes.

In working out detailed policies and programs, we must work from the bottom up and not the top down. Conflict resolution and violence prevention can be built into the school curriculum. Schools should continue to focus on early and ongoing identification for prevention of violence, and in some cases more staff development is needed. But in the era of cutbacks, Filmon Fridays, lost professional development days, it is difficult for teachers and principals to muster the resources and the time needed to properly address the issue of school safety that is so urgent for some schools, not all schools.

We all want safe schools, we all desire a safe learning environment for our children, but if we are serious then we are not interested in cosmetics. We are interested in addressing root causes of violence in schools. It would be naive and irresponsible to assume that we can address the issue of violence in schools from the top down when the real issue is the fact that the violence we decry is spawned by poverty, by unemployment, by lack of hope.

The minister talked about the new millennium and the fact that the status quo is no longer sufficient. She is absolutely correct, but let us make certain that Bill 6 is heading in the proper direction. We cannot nor do we want to maintain the status quo. The new millennium the minister talks about, the new century indeed, but I hope however that the new century we are aiming for, that Bill 6 is aiming for, is the 21st Century, a century of bright hope and not, and I repeat, not the 19th Century whose dogmatic factory-model educational system has been so colourfully chronicled by Charles Dickens.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

* (1530)

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

I just want to clarify one thing with the House first. The honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), the resolution had been standing in your name with 22 minutes remaining and leave had been denied.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I rise to speak to Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act.

This piece of legislation increases the authority of school principals in dealing with persons whose presence or activities on school property threaten the learning environment or the safety of persons rightfully on school property.

The legislation gives principals the right to engage the assistance of a police officer in removing a person from school premises who is misbehaving. This bill increases fines that may be imposed.

In response to this question from opposition members, when the bill was introduced in the previous Legislature, the then-Minister of Education stated that the impetus for the bill was ambiguity in the present law surrounding the rights of principals in evicting undesirables from school property.

The then-Minister of Education stated that the present legislation does not provide sufficient deterrents nor basis of prosecution of offences.

I will take the then-Minister of Education's word for it, but my experience as a community police constable in the north end of Winnipeg, we dealt with many incidents of youth that had to be evicted from schools, and we always found and a ways and means in order to do it.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

Once again, this bill bears the marks of the simple solution that this government applies to so many problems. We support this bill, as it will protect the interests of students and educators. However, we point out that the impetus for this legislation is an increase in the number of dropouts and graduates who hang out at schools, threatening the learning environment. This legislation will do nothing to prevent this problem. It can only give educators an iron fist power to push the problem off school property. It has been amply demonstrated in the past that the increasing penalties and enforcement powers do little to change people's behaviours.

Madam Speaker, we welcome this bill passing on to committee, and we look forward to presentations from the public. Thank you.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act. It is a privilege to be able to speak on something so important as the education of our children and our public education system.

What we are talking about here is really a bill that is a shallow attempt to deal with something that is very serious, and that is the fact that we do have some trespassers, some interveners in our school system, people that some have described as undesirables who are attending and coming into our public school system.

I know a case in point in the north end of our division, a group of individuals, not students, individuals that we would probably call members of a street gang who came forward in a concerted, organized fashion--what would it be?--to seize, enter and apprehend an individual that was a student in this one high school. That type of organized criminal--I would say--activity is truly one that is unacceptable.

However, Bill 6 is not going to prevent that; Bill 6 does not deal with prevention. It is a valuable bill in that it increases the fine from $1,000 to $5,000, but it does not deal with the real issue; it does not deal with the need for more police officers in our communities, a closer link between our law enforcement agencies and the public school system. That is why this bill is a shallow attempt at dealing with a serious situation.

This situation is not unique to schools in Winnipeg. In fact, it also happened in The Pas that I am aware of, happens in numerous situations where individuals will attempt to enter and disrupt the school system. It is not only street gangs, but there are other individuals who will come in with their own agenda, and these are few and far between, Madam Speaker.

For the most part, I would say that the public school system is opening their doors to the public, and I think that that is a positive event. We are looking at more and more what we call community schools, schools that are linked with our public library system, schools that are attached to our community centres, schools where we encourage the participation of our community and parents.

These are models that we indeed want to cherish and promote. This bill, I think, is really dealing with a small number of cases and not dealing with it very well at all, Madam Speaker, not dealing with it at all.

The issue of identifying trespassers is one that we hope will not in fact impede the public school's process of opening doors. For example, Madam Speaker, if you have an administrator who is not particularly eager to have the public join us as partners, some of these questions must be dealt with. It is truly a measure that is dealing with a very small and organized group of individuals hardly concerned about this penalty. Their objective is to sometimes gain access to what they would consider customers, young people who may be vulnerable to their sales pitch in terms of perhaps trying to gain access to the student body to sell drugs, to recruit young people into gang-related activities. These members of society need to be excluded. We do need protection from--we do need programs that deal with these things.

This bill is really, I believe, Madam Speaker, an attempt by the Filmon government during the provincial election to say they did have a plan; and, when you look at the bill, you realize that it is nothing more than a few words. It is a very shallow attempt at dealing with a very serious situation, and, again, it is mostly wind, not substance. When you look at the government's record of dealing with disruptive behaviour, both external influences and within the school, it is very shallow, very minor, and not treated seriously. It is a shocking record from a government that actually says they will take a strong stand in terms of youth crime, that they will take a strong stand in terms of dealing with street gangs, but the record proves that there are a lot of measures that are really what we are now referring to as Casper committees, committees that we get the press release long before the formation of the committee, long before any real substantial action is taken. Basically, an attempt to say, yes, we are there to deal with the issue when in reality the issue was to have the appearance of doing so, not the reality of doing it.

* (1540)

Madam Speaker, what we need is for a serious review of preventative measures in terms of dealing with trespassers, dealing with students that are excluded from the public school system. Much of the problems are now being dealt with in a very reactionary way. They deal with punishment, and very little is being done with prevention. For example, the move by many school boards, and encouraged by the government, to move towards expulsion is one that is--and I support a zero tolerance policy that many jurisdictions have taken, zero tolerance towards students being violent, to carrying weapons into schools.

The question is: What is the role and responsibility of the government to provide another avenue for those young people to have an education? Where are those students who are not functioning in a regular classroom going to go when you expel them, Madam Speaker? Out on the street, seems to be the only option provided by this government. As they are expelled from the public school system, their options are very limited. Their options are, you stay at home, you go and associate yourself with other like-minded individuals, not something that we particularly want. I mean, are we saying that we are encouraging street gangs? They are not functioning in school, expel the kid onto the street, and there they are going to be a very easy victim for any street gang to pick up.

What the responsibility of this government is, which they have neglected to do, is to provide an alternative setting for people who are not functioning appropriately in the public school system, a program which addresses the needs of those young people, reaches out to them, find out why they are behaving in that way, provide programs and have them go back to school.

Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility, through The Public Schools Act, of this government to provide an education for all students. What is their mandate for those students that are expelled? What options have they given to those students? Indeed, it is very limited. The only options available are often those that are provided by individual local teachers who are providing homework for these students, who are providing opportunities for them to continue to get an education, but there is no leadership from this government, no leadership, no alternatives for young people.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a situation that is going to require, I think, collaboration, collaboration on the part of this government, collaboration by individual school divisions and school boards, collaboration by the students and collaboration from the communities.

However, this bill and this government, through its inaction, lack of consultation and regressive policies, has meant very limited opportunities for young people. What we are looking for is a change. What we are looking for are alternatives and options to deal with some of the important situations that are occurring in our neighbourhood.

What has happened to the program that was extremely successful, and I had the opportunity to talk about earlier, was the police in schools program? Our member from The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) is very familiar with the program, a program that was successful, a program that actually worked jointly. We are not talking about our law enforcement officers patrolling the halls to take care of disruptive students; we are talking about partnership. We are talking about the police officer being in the school, conducting regular hours. Only once a week for a couple of hours a week made a drastic difference in those communities. That program was pulled, a program that was successful, that had a record of success, that was a preventative program, and one that we do not have in effect now.

We have heard from this government, we are going to look at tackling youth crime; we are going to tackle street gangs. I say one of the ways to do that is to reinstate a program that works, a program that is not a Casper program, a program that was working, that does work and does mean that you are working with the police department in harmony with schools, a program that I know that every school that I am familiar with wanted the program to be included in their schools.

Every high school in Winnipeg No. 1 that I am familiar with requested that program be extended to their schools, a program of success. That is a program, and I know that there have been many success stories because of that program, stories we do not hear about because the media like to draw attention to cases where there is some glamour, there is some violence. There has been something that has happened that is inappropriate and you see that it is splattered on the front page of the paper, and you have youth gangs controlling schools or some other headline that is totally inappropriate. A program that was in effect like the Police in Schools program, in effect prevented those types of youth activities, organized youth gang activities, in fact, mediated between various factions in our communities and prevented those programs.

Do we see a headline, Prevention Works? It is very difficult, Madam Speaker. What we have tended to do is sensationalize cases, and I think this is what this bill in fact does. It feeds right into it. What really is meaningful are programs like the Police in Schools program, programs that are dealing with the community, bringing in community members into schools so they feel like it is a partnership. Those are the types of things that we would like to see in our public school system. We want to see a public school system that can deal effectively with trespassers but has an open-door policy to the community. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is second reading of Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 23--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 23, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Stand. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few comments on the record on Bill 23.

Bill 23 appears to be not a major piece of legislation, certainly not of the scope of other pieces of legislation, such as the balanced budget legislation that this government has brought in this session. However, Madam Speaker--

* (1550)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask all those members who are having private meetings if they would either move to the loge or outside the Chamber.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, the provisions of this act are basically in three major sections. The first sections are provisions that permit the government to examine medical practitioners or former medical practitioners who are under investigation. The second group of sections protects members of any government board or review committee from liability in the performance of their duties if they act in good faith. The third area deals with trust accounts to be held and administered by personal care homes.

Madam Speaker, of course, prior to hearing any public presentations at the public hearing process, we do not have major concerns with the first two sections of this piece of legislation. However, the section that deals with accounts to be held and administered by personal care homes, we do have some concerns with this and would hope that the government in debate on second reading and most assuredly in the public hearing process will address some of the concerns that I will be raising briefly and that others in our caucus will be addressing in more detail, most particularly the critic for Health in our caucus.

The present act allows personal care homes to hold funds in trust for residents and allows the government to make regulations for them. That is a legitimate thing for the government to do. Personal care homes do have and should have some connection with funds in trust for some of their residents if it is deemed necessary. However, the new act seeks to outline some of the factors by which personal care homes can deal with these funds.

Now, I guess generally one could ask, well, why would you have any problem with legislation that clarifies something. I would suggest that often we would not have trouble with that kind of situation, but we do not believe that the sections of this act that deal with that clarification in fact clarify in the right way. We have some major concerns with that.

Personal care homes under this act would be allowed to deposit funds from residents in trust in interest-bearing accounts and the interest from those accounts could be used for the quote, benefit of residents generally.

Now, we do not know why this is in here, and it is quite a general kind of statement, that the interest could be used for the benefit of residents generally. I suppose an argument could be made that the specifics of that would be dealt with in regulation. However, we have had concerns expressed on this side of the House with the fact that there are pieces of legislation that this government has brought in where literally every single element of the legislation is dealt with by regulation instead of being dealt with in the legislation that we have the authority to debate in the House.

That is the problem you get into when you leave the area so wide open that is dealt with by regulation when you do not have an opportunity to debate in the public domain the implications of those regulations. Granted, Madam Speaker, it is a fine line, because the whole reason for having regulations is so that you do not have to have every detail outlined in the piece of legislation.

That is the reason for regulations. We do not disagree with the concept of the need for regulation so the legislation itself is more policy document, and the details that provide the government with the guidelines as to how to implement that policy are dealt with in regulation.

However, we feel that you need to have enough information on the policy in the bill itself to ensure that the public at large and those of us who represent the public at large in this House have a degree of comfort or, if not comfort, at least understanding about what those regulations will do. It is kind of a convoluted way of saying that we think this piece of legislation is not nearly as clear enough as it should be.

We wonder why the government puts in the legislation. Why is it that personal care homes need to have this ability? The only thing that we can come up with is that the government is, through this portion of Bill 23, giving private, proprietary personal care homes the ability to finance some of their ongoing operations through the interest accrued in these interest bearing accounts.

If that is the implication and the will of the government as it is spoken through Bill 23, we have some major concerns with that. This is money that belongs not to the proprietary personal care home, this is money being held in trust by them, and this money belongs to the residents of the personal care home. I personally would have a question as to why the proprietary private personal care home should have control over the interest in that account instead of that interest being held for the use of the individual to whom the money belongs in the first place?

If the legislation is not clear in saying that this interest would be used for the benefit of residents generally, then we have some major concern. What does it mean, "benefits"? Clearly, we know who the residents are, but is this money--if I am a resident in a personal care home and I have $100,000, the interest on that is $10,000 per annum. Under this element of Bill 23, is the interest, that $10,000 in interest, to be used for my benefit as a resident whose money it is that is generating this interest?

Is it to be used for the residents as a whole? Who determines what constitutes a benefit? Who determines what constitutes a resident? Is it resident individually or residents severally? What does it mean "generally"? "Generally" could mean anything from the interest on those accounts will be used to improve the physical surroundings of the personal care home. It could be used to pay for more staff. It also could be used for things that the residents themselves might not see as essential. It could be used for things that the owners feel will be to the benefit of residents generally.

Madam Speaker, these are all questions that are raised by these words in this piece of legislation. When the minister says, as my understanding is the minister has said, do not worry, trust us, the regulations will make everything clear, that is when the red flag is raised on this side of the House very clearly--the red flag of caution, Madam Speaker, not the red rose of socialism as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) has--

An Honourable Member: It is somewhat wilted in Ontario these days.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I would just like to say that we on this side of the House have some major concerns with certain provisions in Bill 23, which others of our caucus colleagues will deal with in due course. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

Order, please. Can I just get clarification from the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)? If she wished to conclude her remarks at a later date, the honourable member would have 30 minutes remaining.

Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. No, I have concluded my remarks.

* (1600)

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Wellington for that clarification.

The hour being 4 p.m. and, as previously agreed, time for private members' hour.