LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
April 5, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (continued)
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe when five o'clock arrived,
we were debating Bill 20. It is my expectation that you will call Bill
20 at this time.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 20‑The
Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I just want to put a very few last words on this particular bill as it was presented and as we
debated earlier this afternoon.
The rules and regulations with regard to
social allowances are critical. They are critical for certain people in
this society in particular, those who
are very vulnerable and those who are
going to have real setbacks as a result of the
regulations which this government would introduce. It would
introduce regulations which will hurt those, quite frankly, who are trying to begin their lives anew, people
who are trying either because they are
refugees to this country or because they
were dropouts in high school, who are trying not to perpetuate a life on the social assistance system but are
trying to move forward in new and
exciting ways for them.
What this government has done is to close
the door in their face, and it has said
go on social assistance, social assistance
which will pay you less than student social allowance, where you are not able to go to school, where you are
not able to get a foundation necessary
for a job market which is going to become
increasingly more difficult for those who do not have high school or even post‑secondary education as we
move into the '90s and then into the
21st Century.
I deeply regret the decision that the
government has made mainly because I
cannot see that it is going to save them any
money. If that was the purpose of
this, then the purpose was to somehow or
other make their budget balance or provide for less deficit.
We are all desirous that we get our economic house in order, but I see no way in which these
changes, particularly those affecting
student social allowance, are going to do
anything but cost the government more, because if these people have to go on social allowance the cost to
the government is more than the cost of
them being on student social allowance.
So it is a regressive step in terms of
providing them with any future, any
potential to become taxpayers in the
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call Bills 5, 8 and 10 in
that order, please.
Bill 5‑The
Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), to
resume debate on second reading (Bill 5,
The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord), standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill
to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 8‑The
Insurance Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of
Bill 8 (The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les assurances), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill
to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 10‑The
Farm Lands Ownership Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of
Bill 10 (The Farm Lands Ownership
Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois), on the proposed motion
of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill
to remain standing? [agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call Bill 16, please.
* (2005)
Bill 16‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 16 (The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), standing
in the name of the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and standing in the
name of the honourable member for
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on Bill 16, on which I have
spoken already at some length and will conclude my remarks this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill clearly is an
infringement on the rights of
municipalities in the province of
What the government has done is to usurp the
authority of school divisions to do that
very thing for which they were elected. School trustees were elected not in 1990, as
was this government, but in the fall of
1992, October 28. They went to the electorate and they specifically asked
the electorate for a mandate to develop,
to pass the budgets of school divisions.
That is their authority. It is
not the authority of this government. That is why I object to this particular piece
of legislation.
What the government has done is to say, in
essence, nobody is fiscally responsible
except us; nobody is prepared to respond to
the taxpayers except us; nobody has a mandate except us. That is
simply not true.
The
school trustees of this province have a more recent mandate than does this government. It is not true to say they are fiscally irresponsible. The school divisions have tried year after year after year to come down with tight
fiscal budgets. In fact, the settlement of Winnipeg School
Division No. 1, which is the largest
school division in the province, with their employees was less generous than the settlement
negotiated by the Finance minister and
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) with their
employees.
So
to say that school division is irresponsible is simply false.
They negotiated an increase of 1.4 percent. That is
lower than what this government was able to negotiate. It
appears that they were able to negotiate that agreement because of good relationships which they have
developed over years with the teaching
profession within their school division.
To now say to that school
division, you are irresponsible, therefore we are taking your authority away from you,
presumably in perpetuity, to set your
own budget as you see fit, is I think irresponsible on the part of this government.
That is the unfortunate part of what this
government is doing. It would let the taxpayers of
There is some confusion that somehow or other
every school division is allowed to
increase by 2 percent. That is not true, because the special requirement does not
permit that. The overall increase of 2 percent will in fact
mean that some school divisions cannot
come close to that 2 percent.
I
doubt very, very much, judging by some of the budgets that we have already seen, that this government is
going to come in with an expenditure of
less than 2 percent increase. Yet that
is what they would impose upon their
school divisions. It is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not
just. I am not prepared to support it, nor is any member of my caucus.
This government not only offloads
responsibilities onto the municipalities
and school divisions of this province on the one hand, but it also takes responsibility from
them on the other hand. It is simply not fair. It is bad legislation and it should be defeated.
Thank you very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)?
[agreed]
* (2010)
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to add my comments to
Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment
Act. There has been some debate on this
bill to this point, and, of course, we
are waiting for some comments from the
honourable members opposite to find out what their position is with respect to this‑‑
An Honourable Member: The minister gave you our position.
Mr. Reid: Yes, it was not much of a position. On top of that I do not see any other members of that caucus
supporting the minister's position on this
piece of legislation.
I
know that this bill, this particular piece of legislation, is going to have a significant impact upon my
own community. I know I have been going through my notes now,
Madam Deputy Speaker, for a period of
time, and I have been doing some further
calculations to determine the impact, and, of course, I have had regular consultations with trustees‑‑[interjection]
The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) thinks that only one person from his caucus should have the
opportunity to speak on bills that they
introduce and that it should only be the minister introducing the bill. I do not see why members of their back bench over there do not have the same
opportunities that we on this side of
the House have. Why is he denying them
the opportunity to represent their
constituents' wishes? [interjection]
I
notice that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) likes to chirp from her seat
quite often, but I have never seen her
stand up in this House and speak on
particular pieces of legislation like this to find out what her position is and how‑‑[interjection]
That is true, the Minister of Finance did
introduce it. Has he stood up and told us what impact it is
going to have on his community? Or maybe his community is going to receive
the benefits of this type of
legislation. Is there going to be
some rewards for your constituency, while
others like mine are being penalized for
this type of legislation?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Reid: I notice that the members opposite are a bit
sensitive on this topic, and it is
probably with good reason that they are
sensitive because they are starting to hear the comments from the various communities, trustees and school
divisions throughout the province, the
impact that this legislation is going to have upon them.
But
I like to think of the opening comments at the start of this session when we were looking at the
Speech from the Throne. I will quote
from the Speech from the Throne, Madam Deputy
Speaker. It says: "My government realizes that education
and training are the keys that unlock a
world of opportunity and a future of
economic growth and prosperity."
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was heartened to
see those words and to hear those words
in the throne speech when it was
introduced at the end of last year at the start of this session, and I thought that maybe we are on the right
track, and that education was going to
play a prominent and important role for us
in the province. That has not
come to pass, and that has never been
better explained than through the trustees in my own school division, Transcona‑Springfield School
Division No. 12.
The
member for
The
Minister of Agriculture, of course, has not stood up for his constituents. He refuses to take an active role. I will
grant you, he has attended one meeting with the school trustees, but have I seen any actions, any positive
actions as a result of the attending of
that meeting? None whatsoever, and that
is unfortunate.
* (2015)
I
am sure the constituents of his in
This Bill 16, of course, creates several
problems for my own community and for
the trustees that have to make decisions that
control and direct the type and quality of education within the Transcona‑Springfield area.
I
listened to the minister's comments here that she has made from time to time when she talks about
education. She says that she is going to have a 2 percent cap on the
way special levy requirements will be
allowed to rise within the province. She also says that she is going to roll back
revenue from the provinces by 2
percent. Yet the figures that were
released by trustees within my community
show that the level of funding support
from the province is dropping not 2 percent but 3 percent and that we will sustain a real loss of
nearly a million dollars for this fiscal
year.
Now
this million dollars, coupled with the fact that the division has, much like other divisions,
uncontrollable costs, costs that have gone
beyond their control, utilities, some
contracts that they have to sign or contracts that have been signed that they have and should honour‑‑these
costs are beyond their control.
They have calculated that it is going to cost
the division nearly a million and a half
dollars this coming year. That
means that this division is going to
have to find ways of cutting programs
for teachers or services within the community to the equivalent of a million and a half
dollars. They had in past budget years‑‑they have had to
already eliminate programs within the
school division. They eliminated the
industrial arts program.
We
are quite fortunate in our community to have a French Immersion program that I would say is
probably second to none. They also have
an English‑Ukrainian program‑‑I thank the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It has a fair number of students enrolled in the English‑Ukrainian
Immersion program and, of course, the
kindergarten portion of that program has been
eliminated, as has above Grade 9 been eliminated. So there are
only a set number of years that the Ukrainian language can be taught or instruction can be provided for the
students that wish to avail themselves
of that.
On
top of that, the late French Immersion program was cancelled, so that those students wishing to
enroll in the French Immersion program
to learn one of
They have also cut swimming programs and other
programs within the school division
itself. On top of that, the school division has had to decrease the number of
teaching positions by 17. They eliminated 17 teaching positions last
year when they had an enrollment
increase of 185 students, so we are seeing
fewer teachers and more students.
Now obviously that only leads to
larger class sizes.
It
was interesting to note in my discussions with the trustees at the meetings that I have attended
with them, and they draw this to my
attention very clearly, that the
I
am not sure if this is coincidence or not that the school division that the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) resides in, I am not sure if
they have better management of their resources,
or is it that they have opportunities that are afforded them that are not afforded other school divisions? Could it be that the school division of
* (2020)
That is one thing that the Minister of
Education fails to take into
consideration when she decreases funding to my school division, and that is one thing that this
Bill 16 will impact upon because what it
does, it prevents the school trustees from
generating, through a special levy, the necessary funds to sustain the type of program that we have
become accustomed to within our
community.
I
have asked the minister questions on this at various points of this session, as I have in the last
session. I have raised the concerns of the parents and the educators
and the trustees of my school division
and made her aware of the concerns of my
community with respect to this unfair funding formula.
Transcona‑Springfield School Division
has a modest enrollment, nearly 8,000
students. Yet our expenditures per pupil are the second lowest in metro
Our
transportation costs are the highest of any of the school divisions in metro
I
think that the main reason for that is the
Transcona‑Springfield School Division is comprised of approximately one‑third rural. The division itself comprises an area of approximately 400 square miles, which
is a very large school division, and we
have to transport a fairly significant number
of our students, of our total student population, to the schools in the rural areas. I talk in particular about schools that are in the Minister of Agriculture's
communities that he represents, in
Anola, Hazelridge, Dugald, Oakbank, Cooks Creek
and others. These are the costs
that are borne out by the division that
have not been taken into consideration in the
formula calculations in providing offsetting funding for the division, to provide transportation and
education for these students.
One‑third
of the approximately 8,000 students there in the division have to be transported, and yet the
minister by her own funding formula will
only allow a school division to use the
calculation of divisor of 20 full‑time equivalents. Whereas if
the school division had been in a complete rural setting like we might find in Brandon or other rural
communities around the province, we
would have been able to use the divisor of 18.5
full‑time equivalent students to determine the level of
support for transportation costs and
other costs within the division.
So
the minister, through her own department, has totally ignored the component, the rural nature of
the Transcona‑Springfield School
Division. School division trustees over the course of the last year and more
have written to the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) on several occasions, first saying that the funding formula is unfair and
raising their concerns with the minister
and asking for a meeting with the
minister.
What does the minister write back? The minister writes back and says that she thinks that the trustees
were generally satisfied with the new
funding model which is totally contrary‑‑[interjection]
The Minister of Education said that. The
trustees have told me that they were dissatisfied with the funding formula that is in place and the
inequities that it creates within the
school divisions of the city of
* (2025)
After a considerable period of time, the
trustees had written to the minister
asking for a meeting to address their concerns
with the minister. The minister
stalled and stalled, and after finally
four months the trustees became so frustrated with the minister's ignoring their request for a
meeting, the trustees contacted the MLAs
who are within their school division:
the MLA for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli), the MLA for
One
of the unfortunate parts about this Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act, is that it forces the
trustees, the duly elected trustees, to
make decisions that they do not feel that
they should have to make. It
forces them to cut back in areas where
they feel that there should not be a need to cut back, because they have cut their costs, I believe,
to nearly as low a level as they
possibly can. At the same time, this
legislation will take away the opportunity
for the trustees, it will take away the
local autonomy of the trustees to make decisions within our own community.
An Honourable Member: Especially after they have cut funding by 2 percent or more.
Mr. Reid: Three percent.
They have cut funding by 3 percent in
Transcona‑Springfield. Now
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
and this government‑‑something that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) supports obviously
because he has never stood up to say
anything to the contrary‑‑has taken and cut the special levy requirements.
Now
I believe that the only reason that this government has taken that action is for their own political
gains. Every taxpayer wants to keep their cost down. I am sure all of us recognize and realize that. At the same time, the school trustees are elected by the communities to
represent them on school board matters
dealing with education, and yet this
government by this legislation has taken away that decision making from the school trustees themselves,
and now forced the trustees for the
first time in a hundred years to make program
decisions that fit the provincial government's policies.
The
trustees, on top of that, have raised with myself and my colleague the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) the impact that this decision
is going to have upon the school division itself. When we realize that our assessment in our community
is decreasing, the assessed value of our
property is decreasing, and it is
decreasing significantly to the point where the
Transcona‑Springfield School Division is going to lose on the average home $24. Now the taxpayers, of course, may think
that is significant that they will see a
decrease in their taxes by $24, but this
will do nothing to improve or even protect the
quality of education within the community.
This is $24 per home based on many thousand
homes, probably in the range of 10,000
homes within the school division that will
see a decrease in their taxes.
That means $24 per home decreased
revenue that the school division desperately needs to support the programs that we currently have. That means that while we already see classroom sizes in the range of
25, 26, 27 in our division, while
classes in the Fort Garry School Division are 18 to 20 range, we are going to see larger class
sizes, I believe, within the school
division.
Unfortunately, that will put pressure upon the
teachers themselves, who I believe are
doing a good job in providing a quality
level of education within our community but now would put increased pressure on those teachers because
not all students within the classes
themselves, as I am sure we all well know, are
equal in their learning capacity.
There are special needs
requirements within those classes, maybe not special needs in the sense that where you have to require
paraprofessionals to come in and assist
or special needs instructors within the class
themselves, but children that learn at different rates. The
teachers with larger class sizes will then not be able to dedicate the time necessary to provide that
one‑on‑one instruction to
the students. So it is ultimately going
to be the students themselves that are
going to pay the price over the long
run.
* (2030)
An Honourable Member: Daryl, he is not listening.
Mr. Reid: I know he is listening. We have discussed this many times.
In fact he was quite‑‑the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) was quite instrumental in
facilitating meetings with the Transcona‑Springfield
School Division trustees and our caucus
when the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) refused to meet with the division trustees. So I thank the member for Dauphin for
his interest in the educational needs of
my community.
I
hope the Minister of Education is listening, because she has refused to recognize the differences
within the division. I can see, by the response of the trustees,
that they were not optimistic that we
would see any changes by this Minister of
Education or this government with respect to the Transcona‑Springfield School Division.
They finally had, after many months of
waiting, their meeting with the
minister, addressed their concerns to the minister and the minister gave no assurances or no
understanding that she would do anything
to assist them with their dilemma during this
current and coming budget year.
She has left them totally on
their own, while at the same time handcuffing them in their abilities to generate the necessary revenues
within the community.
On
top of handcuffing them by placing the 2 percent cap, we have seen a significant decrease in the
equalization funding from the provincial
government to the school division. In
1987, the school division received over
$5 million from the province in
equalization funding. Now we are
going to see, for the '93 and '94 year,
some one and a half million dollars, just slightly over one and a half million dollars. That is a difference of $3,375,000.
This is funding that was used to support the programs within the division.
Yet
the minister thinks that it is appropriate for her government to continue to support funding for
the elite schools within our province,
mostly within the boundaries of the city of
The
Premier (Mr. Filmon), in his comments on December 13, 1991, indicated that he would work co‑operatively
with the federal government and all
levels of government on any programs,
whether they be education, whether they be social programs, health care programs, any programs designed
to eradicate poverty with respect to the
children of our province. Yet we see
today, on the very steps of this
Legislature here, several hundred young
people that want to get off the social assistance treadmill, want to improve their quality of life, to go out
and to be productive members of society,
and yet find themselves trapped as this
government slashes funding and programs.
They cut the students social assistance
program. I had a young woman in my community come to see me
the other day. She is a single parent. She is just over 20 years of age. She has a
high school education and is trying to improve her education to allow her to move into a workforce that will
provide for herself and her young
child. She is told that effective with
the new budget that is coming at the end
of the current school year, right in the
middle of her post‑secondary education training, she is going to have her student social
assistance terminated. Then she will not know which way to turn, because
she will not have the skills and the
training and the education necessary to allow
herself to go out and get a decent job to provide for herself and her young child. She will therefore be forced to go to
either minimum wage jobs if they are
available and, if they are not
available, to get back onto the social assistance rolls, something that she is desperately trying to
avoid.
Yet
this government fails to recognize the initiative that these young people are displaying as they try
to better themselves so that they do not
have to avail themselves of social
assistance. People who are on
social assistance do not want to be
there. They want to have a quality job
and a good quality of life, something
that this government obviously fails to recognize.
This Bill 16 will create other inequities and
create other problems for my school
division. The minister talks about
school divisions using their surplus to
support the programs that are necessary
that the school division chooses to continue, but she fails to recognize that there are school
divisions within the province that do
not have that type of surplus. In my own
school division the surplus that we have
is approximately $18,000. Now some members of the House may say that that
is unreasonable for any school division
to maintain a surplus at that level, and it
may be, because it is my understanding that the auditors for the division have recommended that a 2 percent
level of surplus be maintained.
The
school division chose, the trustees chose, over the course of the last few years to keep the tax
increases down within the
community. They chose to do that. It was a conscious decision they made. Now they are forced to pay the price for those decisions. It is not that they did not make some
mistakes along the way. We know that they did, much the same way we
all do from time to time.
The
school division had applied to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to have some special
consideration given for a funding
shortfall for the division itself, just under $300,000 I believe it was. The minister did I believe give that
approval just recently to the school
division to allow them to recoup those
monies from past budget years but, at the same time, while the minister gave approval for that, she ties
their hands and does not take into
consideration the decreasing apportioned
assessment for the community, which is causing a shortfall in the funding and at the same time fails to
recognize the urban‑rural split,
or component I should say, of the division itself.
* (2040)
The
minister by her formula fails to recognize these differences and the problems that it
creates. It is interesting to note that the government has introduced
other legislation as well, and it is
going to have an impact upon the community.
I have to wonder what the
thoughts are, or the logic, behind the
government's introduction of this legislation. They talk about limitations on school boards and leave
without pay and how that is going to
impact upon the ability to provide a quality
education to the students in my community. The leave without pay is to be taken by teachers, and days to be
set aside shall be the teacher in‑service
days and the parent‑teacher conferences.
Now
I have to wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the intent of this government is to say that the teachers
must provide their services free of
charge and must meet with the parents of the
community on their own time away from the job and that they will not receive compensation for that. I do not think that is proper.
I think the teachers need to be there to have that co‑operative atmosphere, to give
parents the opportunity to hear first‑hand
on the progress of their children. I
believe that this legislation will take
away that opportunity, that level of
interaction between parents and teachers. One member of the Chamber here indicated that this legislation
borders on a management style that is
similar to a dictatorship, and other
members may agree with that. In
the sense that it ties or handcuffs the
school trustees, it may be closer to that reality.
We
also heard‑‑and I know the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) raised this on several
occasions. We talk about the loss of the speech and hearing clinicians
within the province‑‑[interjection]
The
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) may not have had the opportunity to listen to
my comments earlier, or may not have had
the opportunity to listen to the
comments of the trustees that finally, after four months of waiting, came in to meet with their
colleague, the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) where they expressed to the Minister of Education the unfairness of her funding
formula.
An Honourable Member: There is nothing unfair about the
Minister of Education.
Mr. Reid: The Minister of Education herself may not be
unfair, but the funding formula that she
uses to calculate the support for the
divisions is unfair, and she has been told that time and time again.
She fails to listen to those democratically elected representatives of our community that have to
make the decisions of hopefully
providing a quality education for our children.
The
minister gave no assurances. I suspect
that she is going to refuse to take any
action during this coming budget year to
assist the school division with the problems that they have. Yet, at the same time, she handcuffs them
when they want to make those decisions
themselves and are willing to make those
decisions and be responsible to the taxpayers of the community at the same time.
An Honourable Member: Let them eat cake.
Mr. Reid: Yes, quite possibly she did say let them eat
cake. Of
course, maybe she is saying that taxes are only for the poor‑‑only poor people pay
taxes. I think it was Leona
Helmsley from
By
the loss of the speech and hearing clinicians within my community, I think it is going to have an
impact. We have one school itself,
Now, if we eliminate those clinicians within
the school division and we eliminate
some of the support services, I think
that students in this school and others within the community are going to suffer.
The
grant that is provided to offset some of those costs will not be adequate to make up the needs of the
school division. It will not come close to meeting the
needs. So the special needs students will suffer, not only just the
regular program students suffering by
the larger class sizes and reduction of educational opportunities, but it will also create other
difficulties within the division itself
as the division is going to have to face a
decrease in programs over the course of the coming years with the decrease.
Yet
when the trustees at their recent hearings or their annual general meeting that was held in
Recent reports indicate that the Transcona
division is going to be looking at axing
teaching jobs and programs‑‑another year of cuts forced upon them because the minister
has tied their hands. It is unfortunate that the minister would do
that while at the same time giving such
a significant increase over the last few
years to the elite private schools, while putting schools in my division, in my constituency, in an
awkward position of trying to provide
programs with less money.
The
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) has provided 3 percent less funding for my school division
this year, and she stands up in her place
in this House and tells us she has cut
back by only 2 percent when I have the figures right here, if she would care to come over here and avail
herself of the figures and look at the
figures that are published saying that the division is being cut back by 3 percent.
On
top of that, their hands are being handcuffed in their abilities to provide programs to the
community. She fails to recognize the needs of the community. She has been asked, as was her predecessor, to take into consideration
the needs of the school division in providing
funding for the urban‑rural division
of the school division, but she will not take that into consideration. She will do it for the members of her caucus
that are representing rural
constituencies, but she will not do it for
a division within the city of
I am
sure I will have other opportunities to address this Assembly and to represent the needs of my
constituents with respect to the
education and the unfair funding formula as the
trustees have told us over and over again. We will be watching very closely as this Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) makes decisions that will
impact upon my community, and that I find it
very difficult under the present wording of this Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act, to find anyway
that I can support legislation like
this, knowing the impact that it is going to
have on my community.
* (2050)
So
with those few words, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to put my
comments on the record.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate be
adjourned.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It was previously agreed that the bill would remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson.
Mr. Ashton: I am suggesting that it remain standing, but
the main thing is we are prepared to
call it ten o'clock if members will.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): It is my understanding that the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton) was going to speak to Bill
16, but, if not, would you call Bills 11, 12,
13, 14 and 15.
Bill 11‑The
Regional Waste Management Authorities,
The Municipal Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of
Bill 11 (The Regional Waste Management
Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets,
modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites
et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 12‑The
International Trusts Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of
Bill 12 (The International Trusts Act;
Loi sur les fiducies internationales),
standing in the name of the honourable member
for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill
to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 13‑‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of
Bill 13 (The Manitoba Employee Ownership
Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba),
standing in the name of the honourable
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill
to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 14‑‑The
Personal Property Security and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of
Bill 14 (The Personal Property Security
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
concernant les suretes relatives aux biens personnels et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill
to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 15‑The
Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Madam Deputy
Speaker: To resume debate on
second reading of Bill 15 (The Boxing
and Wrestling Commission Act; Loi sur la
Commission de la boxe et de la lutte), standing in the name of the honourable for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the Bill
15 to remain standing? [agreed]
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Could you please call Bill 19.
Bill 19‑The
Court of Queen's Bench Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on
Bill 19 (The Court of Queen's Bench
Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour du Banc de la Reine et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois), standing
in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill
to remain standing? [agreed]
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to call it ten o'clock? Agreed.
Order, please.
The hour being 10 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).