VOL. XLVI No. 5B - 8 p.m., MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1995

Monday, December 11, 1995

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, December 11, 1995

The House met at 8 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(continued)

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(Fourth Day of Debate)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): To resume debate, the honourable member for Swan River who has 39 minutes remaining.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): It is an honour to be here, to have the opportunity to speak on the throne speech but also an honour to represent the people of the Swan River constituency. I want to say that I appreciate the support that they give me and the advice that they offer throughout the year and the advice I receive from people across the constituency.

I would also like to take the opportunity to wish all members in the House and staff and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the best of the holiday season. I want to say that for rural members there are a lot of festivities at this time of the year, and urban members have the ability to take in some of those events, but those of us who are rural members sometimes feel that by having a session at this time of the year we are cheated out of the opportunity to visit with our constituents during their festivities, and we lose out on the opportunity to attend many of the concerts that go on in our constituency.

I would like to wish those people in my constituency who are taking part in these festivities and all the students who are putting on concerts the very best of the holiday season. I hope that next year we will have the opportunity as rural members to participate a little bit more in those events in our constituency rather than being here in the House at this time of the year. [interjection] Oh, I am sure when the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) goes back to his constituency he plays a very active role other than being an auctioneer. I am sure they must invite him to participate.

Anyway, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I listen to the members of government talk about the throne speech, they make it sound as though this is such a rosy throne speech and everything is so good out in rural Manitoba and here in the city. Unfortunately, I do not believe that some of these members have been visiting their constituencies very much or else they would be getting a much more different message. In particular, they would be getting a different message from health care workers who are very concerned about how the government is carrying on in the field of health care and the cuts they are making without consideration or offering alternatives as to how health care will be delivered.

There is also a concern with the rural health boards and the lack of information that is available to people. I was very pleased to hear from the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) that his staff is prepared to hold meetings in rural Manitoba for anybody who wants to know about how the rural health boards are going to work. I have offered that phone number to a couple of communities who have great concerns, and I hope the minister will follow through on that and come out and hold meetings before rural people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are other people who are concerned, one of them being civil servants, civil servants in the Highways department, civil servants in Telephones, and, of course, civil servants in the Department of Natural Resources are quite concerned by the actions of this government.

An Honourable Member: Have you been talking to them?

Ms. Wowchuk: Oh, I would not dare talk to them because they might lose their jobs. I mean, you cannot talk to civil servants anymore. Civil servants have gotten a very strong message from this government that if they express their opinion on what they are hired to do, they might get fired. So civil servants are at their desks and doing whatever the government tells them to but are not really doing the work they are educated or hired to do, and that is a big disappointment.

An Honourable Member: Wildlife can speak up for themselves.

Ms. Wowchuk: That is right. We have biologists who are hired to speak up on the sustainability of wildlife. We have people in the forestry industry who should be speaking out about how forests are harvested or how our parks should be set up, but they are all putting their heads down to their desks and writing down whatever the government wants them to say because they need a job. That is unfortunate.

The other people that are concerned about the actions of this government are the people in the farming industry. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have gone through great changes in agriculture with cutbacks by the federal government. Changes to the Crow benefit will make a change, but you know this government says that the NDP is not prepared for change, that we do not want change. Well, I want to tell you, we are not opposed to change, and even if we were, change will always happen. The world is always changing, and it will continue to change.

The government talks about a global market, and we have to prepare for a global market, but the truth is we have been in a global market for decades. Farmers were having difficulty on getting a fair return in the global market for their grain products, and they worked together, along with government, to develop a marketing agency. That marketing agency worked within the global market, but for some reason this government has decided that it is not going to work. We are very disappointed to hear members across the way saying that they no longer support the Wheat Board, and it is unfortunate. It was not in this throne speech, and it was not what we heard from this government. It is not the message we have been getting particularly from government backbenchers, nor from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), who made a statement the other day of moving towards a continental grain market.

Then we look at the hog issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we see that in Manitoba years ago, at the farmers' request, a marketing board was developed for hogs. That marketing board has worked very well for farmers, but this government is now deciding that they are going to change the marketing board against the wishes of farmers. So here we have a government saying that we have to have a changing economy, but they are taking away all the tools that farmers have so that they can get a fair return. There is no reason why the market cannot change under the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board is holding hearings and they are prepared to make some adaptations, but there is no need to say that we do not want the monopoly anymore.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

Hog marketing--now, the government commissioned a study, and a long study, with many, many recommendations in it, but what does the government do? They pick one issue out of it, out of all the recommendations, and decide that they are going to move to dual marketing, and you want to say, why? Who is going to benefit? Who is this for? Because it is certainly not for producers. The producers have stated very, very clearly--the minister will remember a meeting at Grosse Isle where the producers there told him they did not want to move to dual marketing of hogs, and they wanted a say before any change was made, but for some reason, a reason that we do not understand, this government has decided to cave into the pressures of the feed companies. They say it is the processors. The processors have stated clearly, they do not need this. They want to buy hogs from Manitoba Pork. They do not need to have the dual marketing of hogs.

We see from articles from the United States that a move to vertical integration has had a very, very negative impact on the independent producers. We hear discussions. We look at discussions in North Carolina about the ties to politics and politicians and the move to vertical integration. What has happened under this system is that the government in North Carolina has been bought off in political campaigns and caved into large hog producers. It has had a very negative effect on the independent producers and most of them have been put out of business and, in fact, are now employees of the huge hog operations. In the United States they have an open-market system and independent producers are put out of business.

So the question I ask, Madam Speaker, is there is information out there. There are other places where we have vertical integration. Why would this government move towards the dual marketing of hogs without doing a study of the impacts? There might be some good points in it, and there might be some bad points. So why will the government not, why did the government not fund a study through the Rural Development Institute and look at the impact on producers, look at the impacts on our small communities? Our small communities are dying.

So, Madam Speaker, there is a real concern as to why this government would be moving in the direction of dual marketing of hogs when there is clear indication that this is not what producers want. This is not in the best interest of small producers. It is in the interest of the feed-packing plants, and I worry about in who else's interest this is because I believe this is a very secretive deal. It appears that very secretive deals are going on. [interjection] Yes, I have to say to the minister that I have to wonder why they would move in this direction.

Madam Speaker, there are many other issues that are raised by this government that I want very much to address and, certainly, we will see change in the agriculture industry. We will see value-added jobs, but we do not have to take away the supports that farmers have worked very hard to get. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) will not listen to farmers and give them a say as they have asked for. They have asked for a vote. They have asked for a vote--

* (2010)

An Honourable Member: I drive through snowstorms to listen to them.

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I am very pleased that the minister was able to drive through that snowstorm and get to the meeting. I was not able to get there. So I will look to share his information on that meeting.

But going on to other issues, certainly we will see value-added jobs. We should be looking at more processing and the government did a study through the Rural Development Institute on the value-added jobs.

An Honourable Member: What are all the announcements about?

Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, there have been lots of announcements. We have not seen any construction. We will see when they come and certainly there will be growth. There will be growth in the hog industry, that is where markets are. But you do not have to destroy the opportunities of the independent farmers with this legislation. Certainly, the minister and this government are not listening to Manitoba Pork, how they operate. They are not listening to how they operate and what services they offer to farmers, nor are they listening to producers.

Madam Speaker, there are other issues in this throne speech that I want to address and one of them we hear some discussion on distance education. Well, in the last throne speech we heard about distance education, but in this throne speech we do not. We heard the minister talk about distance education through cable services, but distance education through cable service is not what we need.

We have satellite sites that need two-way communication for distance education. There are people who have worked very hard at that, particularly the people at the Swan Valley School Division, and this division is being held back by this government because they have not negotiated an educational rate for distance education.

We have the opportunity, as the minister of telephones talks about, of cable service and distance education through cable service, and that is one opportunity. I hope that opportunity can be used in some areas, but we also have to look at the other side of distance education which is the two-way communication, and that is where I believe we have a real problem because we have heard nothing negotiated as far as an education rate for that service. [interjection]

The minister says that the CRTC sets tariffs, but my understanding is that if a government is committed to distance education, they can set an education rate and then take it to the CRTC. At least set the rates. It is important. If we are going to have education in rural areas, we would look at what the Swan River division has done. It is a model for the other parts of the province, and it would work very well if we could have an education rate on it. It would offer real opportunities for rural students who cannot afford to come to cities to get their education.

The minister stated quite a few things under telephones, and there is a lot of work to be done. He made the comments about the 911 service, and I look forward to that, but I raised with him before that I believe that it is unfair that there should be a charge on the telephone bills. In the urban centres, there is no charge on the telephone bill. [interjection] Then if it can be paid by municipal tax, then we should be looking at that, as well, instead of a tithe on telephone bills.

I offer that as a suggestion to the minister. It is one that I have heard in the rural communities. People are upset about the idea of having to have this charge on their telephone bill. I think that it should be considered--[interjection] I certainly want 911 service as well, but we have to look at how we can get it so that the cost is distributed fairly. If it is on the tax base as it is in the city, then perhaps the cost will be distributed more fairly, instead of for people who cannot afford those extra costs on their telephone bill, particularly if we end up having our telephone services privatized. Then we will have real costs that rural people cannot afford.

But, Madam Speaker, there is another issue that is very important to my constituency that I want to talk about, and, of course, as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) knows, this is to do with the plant that has been built in my constituency, the Louisiana-Pacific plant. [interjection] You know, we hear them all chirping from the other side, why do you not want this plant. The government should put on its hearing aid or do something because never once have we said that we do not want this plant in Swan River. We have never said it.

What we have said all along, Madam Speaker, is that we want this done right. We want this done right. We want assurances that they will be long-term jobs, that the forest will not be cut too fast. We want to know that there will be enough wood to operate that plant, that there will be wood for the loggers who have sawmills right now to continue to operate. The minister knows. We have been asking the minister now for over a year to spell out some things clearly for us, and he has not done it.

It would be so simple to tell the independent loggers how that 20,000 cubic metres is going to be allocated. Is it going to be on a permit basis? The minister says yes. These are permit guys. These are not quota holders. We know that. We know that they are not quota holders. They know they are not quota holders, but they have asked the minister to find a solution on how they can continue to operate, but the minister keeps turning a deaf ear to it.

When we had the hearings in Swan River, his departmental staff said that it was not worked out yet, how this was going to be allocated, so all we ask the minister is to please work out how it is going to be allocated for the independent loggers who are permit holders, who do not have quota, before the licence is issued. [interjection]

Madam Speaker, the minister says these are one-year permits. We know that and the loggers know that. They have come to the minister. They came to Winnipeg to talk to him about this. They invited him to Swan River to talk about it. So just spell it out. Just say to them, no, you are not going to have it any more. You are just going to have it for one year. Spell it out so they know what their future is. Tell them if they are going to have to get their permit for L-P. Just a simple answer.

But, you know, Madam Speaker, this government would rather joke about this because to them it appears like a laughing matter. To me it is the livelihood of people in my constituency who make a living sawing logs at their sawmill, and they create many jobs. There are about 70 jobs involved, and in my opinion that is not very small potatoes, although this government may think it is. This government is making a joke about these 70 jobs and will not address it.

We have said right along, do not shift one set of jobs over for another. Let those sawmills operate. [interjection] Certainly, if the minister's figures are right, if the minister is afraid that there is not enough wood for L-P, that these sawmills have to shut down, then tell them.

The minister keeps asking, Madam Speaker, if we know the difference between a quota and a permit. I most certainly know the difference. The producers who are permit holders are waiting to see how the minister is going to allocate these 20,000 cords. Is he going to allocate it on quota? Is he going to--[interjection] There is wood for quota holding.

* (2020)

You have said, your department has said, there is enough wood for the quota holders, there is enough wood for L-P, and there is enough wood for these people who operate on permits. You have said that. I take your word for it, but what I am asking you is to tell these people how it is divided up. If they have to pay for it, fine, give them a quota and let them pay for it. [interjection]

Well, the minister and I could discuss this a long time, but he does not seem to want to listen to what I am telling him. If you are listening, Mr. Minister, you are not answering the question, because these people have been waiting for over a year now for you to spell this out, and your department has said you have not figured it out yet or your department has not figured it out yet, how it is going to happen. [interjection] Yes, they are cutting now, but they want assurances that they will continue to cut, and that is not clear yet.

Madam Speaker, the other issue that has to be addressed is the issue of aboriginal land claims, and, again, I am disappointed that this government has made so light of that issue. The treaty people in my constituency have said that they are not opposed to Louisiana-Pacific, they just want a fair share of the pie. They want their treaty land entitlement settled so that they can have jobs.

Again, this government has refused to negotiate with the people in that area, and that is very, very unfair, Madam Speaker. It is very unfair that people in our area have to feel that they cannot speak up on these issues, because they will be ridiculed, or if they happen to work for the department, that they will lose their job if they speak up on this important issue.

Madam Speaker, we look forward to having all of these issues addressed. Certainly, we were critical of the government because they have not put out very good information in some areas. There is still doubt in the minds of some people as to whether there is an adequate wood supply, and that is the government's job, to spell that out clearly to ensure--

An Honourable Member: You want to shut her down, eh?

Ms. Wowchuk: You know, what nonsense, Madam Speaker. You hear this minister across the way saying, shut it down. He is not very well informed, because the plant is not running yet, so I do not know what he is going to shut down. But obviously he is not very well informed. We all know the plant is going to get a licence, we all know that the plant is going to operate. The mill is built. I do not believe that you would be that ignorant to shut the mill down. I know that they are going to get a wood supply, but let us be sure that all the issues related to it are addressed.

Madam Speaker, there are many other issues that I would like to address with respect to this throne speech. The government has put forward a throne speech that is just very much a puff, very little positive information. It is just a regurgitation of an old throne speech. They talk about change and new ideas but, basically, there is very little new in this.

I guess the one area that I want to talk about is this issue of a task force that will be established to travel throughout rural Manitoba to listen and consult. When I first read about that and heard about that, I thought, well, I am very pleased that the government is going to go out and listen to rural Manitobans, because I think that is a good idea. But, when I asked if--and I saw some hope in this because I took this to mean that the minister had maybe had a bit of a change of heart on hog marketing and was going to go out to people and listen to what they were saying about the future of the hog marketing board and the changes about how we would have marketing, but we see now that this appears to be just window dressing, because the government is not going to listen to rural Manitobans. They are not going to give them the opportunity to speak out on this issue, Madam Speaker, so that part of the throne speech disappoints me.

There are other issues that have to be addressed, and one that I want to talk about is the issue of elk management. I have raised this issue with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) I believe last June and I asked him to look into a very serious matter that has arisen in my constituency. It is an issue where farmers--the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) should listen to this as well, because we have a very high elk population in the Swan River Valley.

Farmers are losing a lot of crop, losing a lot of their income, losing a lot of their hay. The crop insurance does not compensate them fairly now, and last spring one farmer became so desperate, because he could not get help from Natural Resources, from the staff, because there was no direction from government as to how this problem should be solved, that he shot one of the elk. He ended up in court, and now that case has been thrown out. It has been thrown out of court.

So basically the court has told the farmers that if wildlife is damaging your property, you can protect your own property, and this is a result of this government neglecting to address a very serious issue. There have been recommendations. I should tell you that the biologist that you fired has a study on his desk on how to handle this elk, but you have fired him. So you will not be able to get those recommendations now. Now you are going to have additional staff to deal with it.

An Honourable Member: You tell us. What did he recommend?

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister is asking what he recommended. He should go to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger). I met with these people last week, two days ago, and they are desperate. They have said to the government, if you do not help us, we are going to have to take this into our own hands and deal with the numbers. The court has said we can do it, and I think that the Minister of Natural Resources has neglected a very serious problem and has to come up with some solutions.

So, Madam Speaker, we have here a government that has put forward a throne speech that has very little content, no real hope for Manitobans, but a government that also is neglecting many, many issues in rural Manitoba. I hope that they will take seriously what people are saying and come forward with positive suggestions of how farmers can make a living and how we can manage our resources so that they are there for all people to enjoy, whether it is our forest, our wildlife, all of our resources. This government has to put forward a plan that will see us have a long-term use of our resources and do some management instead of letting people get into these situations where they have to take the law into their own hands.

Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Thank you for the opportunity to put a few words on the record.

Firstly, I would like to thank all the people in my constituency for electing me. I hope that in my time here, I will spend it serving their needs to the best of my ability. Also, Morris is a very great constituency, and it is only truly great as a result of the greatness of its people, Madam Speaker.

I would also like to, at this time, thank my family because, during the election campaign, you need much family support. Hours and hours and hours of time is spent in terms of getting their support through the election campaign. Equally as much, after the campaign, that support is needed on a very constant basis throughout my tenure here in the House. The wife and I have learned that together, the rigorous demands that are put on the time of a public official, and I rely upon her patience, understanding and her love.

I would also like to thank my colleagues on the government benches for helping me to adapt to the House. Sometimes it is pretty confusing coming in here as a rookie and trying to learn very quickly protocol, learn the rules and regulations, and I find that the learning process is a continuing process because there is always something changing that we have to learn about. So, with that, going from day to day sometimes is hectic, but we will try to make it through.

I can also say too that with all my government colleagues, I have never worked with a more talented and committed group of individuals than we have in our government. They are just a tremendous group of people.

I would like to give special thanks to the leadership of our government, particularly our Premier (Mr. Filmon). We have many difficult challenges to face, but we do so knowing that we have the direction and leadership to ensure we meet them successfully.

An Honourable Member: And the public support.

Mr. Pitura: And the public support.

I would like to say a special thanks to all the Pages in the Legislature, because, if I ever forget why I was elected, I look at the young Pages that are working here, and I realize that they are the future of this province. The reason that we are here is to make decisions that will make their future a promising one for them in this great province of Manitoba.

I would like to spend a little bit of time, Madam Speaker, talking about rural Manitoba. I listened with interest as my colleagues from Pembina (Mr. Dyck) and from Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) described the energy and the renewal that is taking place in their constituencies, and I was struck at how similar the sentiment of this hope was displayed in other constituencies, so closely parallels that of what is going on in Morris.

* (2030)

I would like to talk a little bit about the constituency of Morris. Morris is a large constituency, approximately 100 miles long and approximately 50 to 60 miles wide. It has a few large communities, Madam Speaker. There are the communities of Carman, Morris, St. Pierre and Miami. [interjection] Miami, that is the right place to be at this time of the year, you bet. Carman, which is the largest centre in the constituency, is also known as the agribusiness centre of Manitoba. We find a lot of agribusinesses that are located in Carman that distribute products and services all over the province. Carman has also been undergoing some change. Carman is now marketing itself as an area where 55-plus can come and retire comfortably. They have an excellent golf course, recreation facilities, health care facilities that most of those people will enjoy, and there are a lot of people moving there from the city to retire.

Rosenort is another community in the constituency that is small in terms of size, Madam Speaker, but, in terms of manufacturing, it probably has more dollars worth of manufacturing per capita than probably any other community in Canada and, I would dare say, probably more than in North America and even in the world because most people that come here from out of province that take a look at Rosenort cannot believe how many manufacturing industries there are in this little town. But why is Rosenort a manufacturing centre? I dare say that the main reason that Rosenort is so successful at what it does is because of its people. People there show ingenuity, have the right attitude towards risk. They are not afraid to invest in this great province because they know that this is a great place to live.

In the Morris constituency, Madam Speaker, we also have some bedroom communities because the Morris constituency butts right onto the edge of the city. We have communities such as La Salle and Oak Bluff that are communities where the majority of the people living in those communities commute back and forth to Winnipeg for their work. Those are two very nice communities, and there are some great people living there.

In Morris, the greatest asset is its people, Madam Speaker. Throughout the entire constituency, you find strong families. You find entrepreneurship skills. You find people there with a very positive attitude towards risking and investing capital in their area. Most importantly, they have a great work ethic. They are not afraid to work hard.

One of the biggest issues facing the Morris constituency over the next little while is the issue of water and water development. We would like to see the Pembina Valley water development co-op proceed with their plans to supply water to most of the area of the Morris constituency on the west side. What we are waiting for--the province right now has committed to its portion of the development monies for this water development project, and we are still awaiting an answer from the federal government as to whether they are going to put money into this project or not. We have been trying to impress upon them that, in terms of creating value added and diversification in the west side of the Morris constituency, water development is very critical for this development, and that if these dollars are invested by the federal government, they will get them back very quickly in terms of taxes.

There is a real feeling in my constituency, Madam Speaker, that the opportunities we were used to seeing flow towards the urban centre have turned around, and now rural Manitoba is the hot spot for development and investment in Manitoba. Certainly, rural Manitoba does not mind leading the way in economic development, and there is little doubt that all of Manitoba will benefit.

There have been many major announcements in the agribusiness sector that will greatly benefit our communities in rural Manitoba. Certainly, my riding was most excited by the announcement that the Canadian Agra Corporation would be investing some $55 million in Ste. Agathe to build a canola crushing plant, and this plant would have the capacity to crush 2,000 metric tonnes of canola per day. Madam Speaker, if we take all the crushing capacity in Manitoba and add it up, the crushing plants in Manitoba will consume 65 percent of our canola crop. This is a major, major achievement.

Canola is the crop that was developed in Manitoba at the University of Manitoba by Dr. Baldur Stefansson many years ago, and this crop has taken off from a real fledgling crop to the boom crop that it is today.

These plans by the Canadian Agra Corporation also call for a $200 million interlinked family of agricultural processing plants in an industrial park surrounding the plant, and plans are to add an alfalfa dehydrating plant to the facility, an export-type feed mill, an ethanol plant and a large grain storage facility. This is just a fantastic opportunity for people around the Ste. Agathe-Morris-Aubigny areas for employment opportunities.

Of course, we have seen other significant investment opportunities in other regions in Manitoba as well. For example, the Schneider corporation has decided to invest $40 million to build a technologically advanced hog slaughtering and processing facility in Manitoba, maybe in St. Boniface, maybe somewhere else in Manitoba.

McCain at Portage has recently announced a $75 million potato processing expansion plant in Portage la Prairie, and our potato crop has the potential to reach $90 million, representing thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in value-added exports. Much of that spin-off investment will directly benefit my constituency in terms of increased potato acres in the Carman-Graysville area and also the storage facilities and employment opportunities for people associated with the potato business.

Recently, I had the opportunity of visiting the McCain plant out in Portage, and we were given a tour through the plant facility. It is an amazing facility to tour, and I would suggest that if any member in this House has an opportunity to tour the facility that they do so.

Through that facility, it is almost like the one pass through, where the potato comes in the one end and out the other end it comes into a variety of different products. The thing that amazed me about this facility was that if you have french fries from the colonel or you have french fries from McDonald's, McCain makes them both, but they make them to their specifications so that there are countless numbers of french fry varieties that come out of that plant that are designed for different restaurant chains, all using the same type of potato.

We are also told that Simplot has committed to a $200-million expansion of its fertilizer plant in Brandon, Madam Speaker.

* (2040)

We will have a lot of jobs during the construction phase. These announcements are not isolated undertakings. They represent investment that is drawn to Manitoba as a result of the belief by investors that Manitoba is a secure economic climate to invest in. This is an environment that has been created by this government over the last eight years and, as a government, we take pride in that. These announcements have given rural Manitobans the belief that there will be opportunity for their children. This belief has not always been there. As rural Manitoba watched their communities dwindle in size, many wondered if their lifestyle that rural living afforded them would be there for their children.

Madam Speaker, the fiscal control that this government has shown, one that required many difficult decisions, is beginning to pay dividends to our rural communities and will be a long-term benefit to Manitoba, to all of Manitoba.

Much of the renewal that is occurring in Manitoba must be attributed to this government's willingness and desire to work with the local communities. This desire has again been shown in our government's throne speech, which announces the establishment of a rural task force to work with rural Manitobans to help continue the development and progress that has been made. We always listen. In the past, the desired co-operation has been shown in such initiatives as rural Grow Bonds, the Rural Economic Development Initiative, or REDI, and the agricultural diversification loans program.

Madam Speaker, this government has not just talked of co-operation and partnership, but it has acted upon this commitment, and all Manitobans have benefited from it. We have given rural Manitobans the necessary tools to create jobs and enhance their communities. Our government has put $20-million worth of funds into the Rural Economic Development Initiative, which has in turn resulted in over $160 million of investment and over 1,100 jobs.

The Manitoba Grow Bonds Program has helped Manitobans raise in excess of $7 million and has leveraged that money into approximately $21 million in new capital investment and nearly 450 jobs. That is local investment. The most recent example of the partnership that has been established and perhaps the most significant one to date is the announcement of the Community Works Loan Program.

This program is a clear example of how this provincial government responds to the local needs of its communities in a locally based manner. Through the program, municipal councillors will work with local groups and organizations, for example, the local Chamber of Commerce, as well as the community round tables, to establish a community development corporation known as a CDC. Now, a lot of towns, rural towns and communities in Manitoba, are already parts of a CDC, or a combination of towns and municipalities.

The CDC will work together with the local community development corporation to establish a jointly funded pool of capital. Under this program, up to about $125,000 can be raised as part of the CDC to be used.

This capital can be used by new or expanding local businesses and they can use it to help with their new business ventures. Loans for up to $10,000 can be accessed by an individual business at a competitive rate of interest.

The uniqueness of this program is that if this business uses its $10,000 and pays off this money, it can then reborrow the money back to continue to expand its business venture. So a lot of individual entrepreneurs in rural towns will be able to access this program and develop their individual businesses.

The province will contribute $7 million to this fund. It is expected that the Community Works Loan Program will create some 3,500 jobs and that it will inject over $12.5 million of direct investment into rural and northern Manitoba small businesses.

Most importantly, the program will allow the local community development corporation to make the final decision, and that is, people looking after people in their own local areas as to the allocation of these funds. Those people are in the best position to make those decisions about the local entrepreneurs.

This initiative is a recognition that the community knows best what its own needs are and that they are best suited to administer to those needs.

I would like to spend a little bit of time now talking about agriculture. The many initiatives that our government has put into place to serve rural Manitoba over the last eight years have helped and will continue to help our agriculture sector diversify itself.

There is little doubt that we live in a world of change and development. It seems that the only constant factor about the world today is change. We have seen change in Manitoba reflected in the federal government's elimination of the Crow rate for Manitoba farmers. While this certainly creates a new challenge for Manitoba farmers, we have seen their ability to adapt and prosper time and time again and, together with this government, I am certain, they will do so again.

An important part of the new agricultural environment we are in is the need to be diversified. This is an exciting time for the agricultural industry in Manitoba, certainly the most exciting time that I can remember. Last year our farm cash receipts remained at near record levels after having increased nearly 20 percent each of the previous two years.

Another exciting aspect of our agricultural sector is the opportunity we have to export our product to the world abroad. Our ability to produce product that is recognized as the best in the world at a competitive price puts us in an enviable position. Last year we exported nearly $1.3 billion in processed and unprocessed grains, oilseeds and other crops, but over the past half decade, we have seen the value of canola production more than quadruple, increasing by over $400 million. As mentioned before, the canola crushing plant for Ste. Agathe shows that we are not finished growing in this area yet.

Agricultural diversification has also taken place in the livestock industry, as well, livestock such as bison, ostriches, pheasants, rabbits, wild boars, goats, horses and other nontraditional livestock such as emus and llamas and livestock products. These have resulted in $77 million of sales last year, and this was an unknown commodity 10 years ago, so change has taken place in agriculture. It is taking place rapidly, and farmers in Manitoba are responding.

These types of value-added initiatives are needed to lessen the negative impact of the elimination of the western Canadian grain transportation subsidy. These types of value-added diversification are even more important in light of the enhanced export opportunities they provide us.

We have found markets for honey in Japan and Europe. We are shipping beef breeding stock to Mexico. We are selling pork to South Africa, Japan, Mexico, Korea and New Zealand. We are exporting geese to Germany. We are shipping lentils and navy beans to South America, Mexico and southeast Asia. We are shipping french fries to Japan and the United States, poultry to Germany, China, Japan, Hong Kong, the West Indies and France. Indeed, our farmers through initiative and a willingness to change are developing new crops for new markets every year.

Madam Speaker, our government is laying the groundwork to ensure that this diversification continues to take place and develop. Through initiatives such as the Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre and its satellite offices, our government is helping Manitoba farmers further diversify into areas of agriculture that are both productive and sustainable.

Our government has also created loan programs to ensure that farmers have the necessary capital to diversify their operations. Fourteen million dollars is available to encourage the development of bison, hog and cattle production. In fact, Madam Speaker, MACC, the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, which is a Crown corporation, currently has a loans portfolio of some $215 million circulated in the farm economy.

* (2050)

These programs have certainly paid dividends and will continue to do so as the demands of the world market changes, and we are prepared for that change. More opportunities are arising in crops such as sugar beets, potatoes, buckwheat, peas and fava beans. However, we are not just experimenting in new crops. We are taking a look at new uses for the fibre from hemp, one of the oldest crops in the world. This is being examined, proving that we are looking at doing new things with old ideas. In fact, our diversified crops have accounted for nearly 25 percent of the total farm income in Manitoba, a significant change from years past.

Madam Speaker, these are encouraging signs for the agricultural sector in particular and rural Manitoba in general. In a world that demands flexibility to respond to change, diversification helps to solidify our position in the international market. This is particularly important in light of the tremendous opportunity that we have as an exporter and facilitator for exports.

Madam Speaker, earlier this afternoon, my colleague the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) talked about the many visions in transportation with Winnipeg being a transportation hub, that one of the real opportunities we have in this province is with the finishing of the twinning of Highway 75 and having the rail move south, that we have access to the eastern seaboard of the United States, approximately 125 million people in that market.

We also have access directly across the United States to Mexico, where we can export product to Mexico. Already we are starting to develop trade relations with Mexico. So this is a great opportunity for Manitoba both to export our product and to facilitate as an export route for the rest of western Canada to travel through, exporting goods.

Manitoba's product is considered by our international partners to be of the highest quality. We have developed a reputation on the international market as a clean environment for agricultural products. Our products are recognized as safe, an important quality in today's marketplace.

We have also seen enormous growth in the production of hogs. The industry has more than doubled in the last 15 years, and I am certain that it will continue to grow.

Last year about 2,200 commercial hog operators produced over 2.5 million hogs to the tune of more than $280 million. Over two million of those hogs were slaughtered right here in Manitoba, creating further employment, and it is the desire of this government to ensure that all the hogs are processed here in Manitoba.

The hog industry is on the upswing, and we must be prepared to do everything we can to develop and maintain this growth. The export market for hogs is strong. Markets such as Japan have told us that they want more Manitoba pork products.

There exists market expansion opportunity that would allow for the doubling of processing and production of pork in Manitoba that would create another approximately 8,000 jobs and add over $500 million in new money to this industry. Clearly, these are vibrant and opportunistic times for Manitoba's farming community.

Our government has and will continue to develop initiatives to ensure that the momentum is maintained and that our agricultural community arises from a period of change to an unparallelled opportunity for growth.

The balanced budget legislation that our government passed during the last session was seen by the constituents of Morris as government coming to grip with a reality that has long been recognized by Manitobans that government must become fiscally responsible.

The residents of my constituency know that annual deficits will not only hurt their future but would most severely impact on the future of their children. We have come to understand that the best way to protect the social services that we value is to control our finances.

Since 1980, over $5.7 billion has been spent on interest payments. That is $5.7 billion that is not available for health, education, social services or for protecting our citizens or indeed agricultural investment.

Nearly 50 cents of every personal income tax dollar has been going towards the cost of interest of our outstanding loans. In the past, certain members of the opposition have suggested that their administration's repeated deficits were incurred to stimulate economic development in the economy. In fact, that kind of fiscal reasoning leads to disaster, not development.

We have seen in other provinces the enormous cutbacks. Our government has, through foresight and a willingness to take proactive measures, avoided this. We have seen over the past several years the cost of our overspending. While the growth of our program expenditure has generally declined over the past 20 years, the amount of interest we pay annually has generally increased, so we are losing programs and our interest costs are going up. Therefore, it is clear, Madam Speaker, that the price of annual deficits is the reduction of programs that Manitobans desire.

There was a clear relation between the economic reform and renewal that our government has been committed to and the positive developments that we see in our agricultural sector. Businesses know that they can trust our government to maintain and foster a stable economic climate. By balancing the budget for the first time in 23 years and by holding the line on all major tax increases for the last eight years we send a signal to investors that Manitoba is a secure and stable place for their capital.

Madam Speaker, our balanced budget legislation also recognizes a reality beyond the bottom line. We have recognized that the way we balance the budget needs to be addressed. That is why the legislation first requires that any major tax increase be approved by referendum, recognizing the fact that Manitoba taxpayers are providing their fair share and that it is incumbent upon government to control its spending and make do with what it has.

Therefore, our government has achieved what previous administrations and other provinces have not. We have balanced our annual budget, held the line on taxes, created an economic environment that is ripe for growth and job creation. This was not an easy task and was filled with difficult decisions. However, it was done with a vision of a future, a future where all Manitobans would find an opportunity, and it was done with effective leadership.

In the area of health, Madam Speaker, one of the areas in which change has taken place is the health care system. Our government spends more per capita on health care than any other province in Canada. In fact, over 30 percent of our annual expenditures goes towards the health care system. This represents about $1.85 billion annually, and is over $500 million or 38 percent more than when this government took office. That is a very, very important statement, and yet with more than $200 million of transfer payment cuts expected from the federal Liberals we understand that we will be asked to do more with less.

Our government has recognized and our throne speech indicates that there are better ways to provide health care and spend taxpayers' dollars than just placing more and more money into institutionalized health care facilities. Preventative health care, keeping people out of the hospitals and community-based initiatives are needed. Through the establishment of such structures as the rural and northern regional health boards, communities are better able to determine the needs of communities, needs that may differ from region to region, so that all the communities out in rural Manitoba, in northern Manitoba, can direct themselves in their own health care.

* (2100)

Community-based primary health care will be fostered by community nurse resource centres. Madam Speaker, in fact, this initiative proves that you can offer quality health care and be fiscally responsible at the same time. This government has been innovative in its response to the health and welfare of the people in Manitoba. We have fostered quality research and turned that research into quality care.

Madam Speaker, this government has recognized that we need to get as much as we can out of every health care dollar we spend. This is particularly true in light of the substantial funding cuts from the federal government. Manitobans are steadfast that they desire quality health care that is both affordable and accessible. Our government has shown that it is able to fulfill this desire.

In education, Madam Speaker, the constituents of Morris have always been very proud of the education that they have been able to provide their children, and I would like to pay a special tribute to all the teachers that teach school within the Morris constituency. They do a great job and spend a lot of time and effort in teaching our young children. To prove that they are doing a good job, a lot of the high schools, when their students go on to university, they are coming back with grade point averages above the norm for the university, so that steads itself quite well with the quality of teaching within the Morris constituency, yet we recognize that the changes that are occurring in our workforce demand there be changes in the education we provide our young people.

Today's world demands a high level of specialized training for our students to be successful in the international market. In fact, it is estimated that during the '90s and into the beginning of the next century, 45 percent of the new jobs created in Canada will require over 16 years of formal education and training. Our government's initiative to give students experience in the developing fields of education is a key component of preparing Manitoba students to be the future leaders of our province.

Another key component is the ongoing consultation that is taking place with the providers of education, the teachers and the parents of today's students. Just as our government feels that our communities are best able to determine what their needs are in the area of loans and health care, so we also believe that the teachers and parents are able to offer valuable insight as to the educational needs of Manitoba's young people. Through standardized testing, we can help to ensure that our children are competitive with other students within Manitoba, Canada and indeed the world.

Our post-secondary education is also facing a challenge. With decreased federal funding, our post-secondary schools must ensure they are providing the best quality education in the areas that they are best qualified to do so. These centres of excellence would help to reduce the amount of duplication that occurs throughout Manitoba's post-secondary education and would allow resources to flow in a more logical and systematic direction. Increased levels of funding are also being directed towards the community colleges reflecting the specialized training desired by today's business.

In summary, Madam Speaker, Manitoba is and always will be the best place to live, to work, to invest, and, most importantly, it is the best place to raise a family. In closing, my family and I would like to take this opportunity to wish all members peace, joy and good health this Christmas as we celebrate the birth of our Christ with family and friends. We would also like to wish all our members many blessings in the New Year. Thank you.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to represent my constituents of Wolseley in this the second throne speech since the 1995 election.

Madam Speaker, in this case, there is an air of unreality about the throne speech. It was accompanied by a pomp and circumstance appropriate to the occasion but one which is detached from the lives of ordinary people.

On some occasions, there has been quite a crowd to witness the event, but what was noticeable this time is that the galleries were empty, and I think there are two reasons for this. One is that the government designs the throne speech as little more than an exercise in self-congratulation, and the second is that most of the public have begun to recognize that this is so. It is the budget which will shape their lives, not the platitudes that the government selects for inclusion in the throne speech.

Moreover, the throne speech is not to be trusted as a guide to the government's intentions. The most significant elements of this government's plans have not always been included in throne speeches.

The last throne speech, in September, did not include mention of the transfer of taxation to community colleges and universities, a transfer of $22 million. Nor did it discuss the government's intention to override the wishes of farmers and end single-desk marketing in the hog industry. Other throne speeches, such as those that ended FOS and introduced Bill 22, never highlighted those in the remarks prepared for the Lieutenant Governor.

My advice to those groups who have breathed a sigh of relief as they saw some anticipated changes not mentioned is to be watchful.

Tory throne speeches are exercises in self-indulgence. We should remember the 18th Century philosopher who wrote with some feeling that self-indulgence and severity towards others are the same vice or, as I try to teach students, the test of historical documents is not only the expressed word and the intellectual assumptions underlying them but also what is not written, what is excluded, what has been omitted by design. So it is for throne speeches.

The privatization of Crown corporations is not mentioned here. The results of the government's supposed review of the teacher arbitration issue are not mentioned here and, yet, we know quite clearly in some cases that the government is moving on some of these issues and intends to act in the near future. It is salutary to remember that any examination of a throne speech should examine the entrails that are visible and the ghosts that wait off stage.

This throne speech, Madam Speaker, had all the qualities of the first one that I heard in this Chamber. I do not know if honourable members remember the talk of barn raising and quilting bees as the hallmark of Manitoba life. The only trouble with the cliché, and I suppose we all have our own, is that this government seems incapable of moving beyond them.

As we come to the end of Manitoba's 125th year as a province of Canada, it might have been expected that the government would have had something to say about the year's events, the changing place of Manitoba in confederation, the lasting impact of the 125 celebrations, perhaps even the modest allusion to the hopes for the next century, but there was very little.

Here was a ceremonial occasion where it would have been proper to have given voice to some of those reflections, but there was only a passing sentence, and we should not be surprised. The celebrations of 125 have not left the mark they could have. We might ask ourselves, what has there been of lasting value added to the province as a result of these celebrations, and we would be hard pressed to find something.

That is in great contrast to the earlier Canadian and Manitoba Centennials where a great deal of community building was accomplished. Think of the Centennial Hall, the curling rinks and community facilities that were created. We will find little of that this time. The 125 celebration seemed from the government perspective to be little more than an exercise in tourism.

The buffalo logo, an attractive one, attached itself to many community events, but its presence was fleeting. The song that was developed seemed to be little heard after the press release. I am not convinced that we have added greatly to our understanding of the history of Manitoba, nor that the children of Manitoba will remember this with anything like the tenacity that we remember 1967 or 1970.

During its 125th year, Manitoba was presented with a magnificent gift, the collections of the Hudson's Bay Company, coppers, scrimshaw, parkas of feathers, embroidery and beadwork and an archives of international stature, and the honourable company, to its credit, also created a historical foundation which will provide the money for the care and interpretation of the collections and for a national historical foundation to support a national historical journal run from Winnipeg, The Beaver.

It was fitting that this transfer of ownership be completed and that it was done with generosity and forethought is to the credit of the company, which has always been concerned about its contribution to the history of Manitoba.

* (2110)

Have we ever heard the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of Manitoba or the Minister of Culture (Mr. Gilleshammer) raise this in the House? Perhaps I have missed the ministerial statement acknowledging this gift. I was disappointed, Madam Speaker, as I listened to the empty phrases of the throne speech. The government is capable of better, I believe, and it has a responsibility to act as government and not simply the club car, to use a railway phrase, of the Tory party.

Having endured the orgy of self-congratulation and the empty sounds of one hand clapping, which constituted this throne speech, what is there that I can respond to on behalf of my constituents? Madam Speaker, the government has promised a rural task force to listen to the concerns of Manitobans, yet, on January 1 of 1996, the government intends by regulation, not legislation, to change the nature of the important hog industry in Manitoba. This is in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the farmers, which have been made very clear to the government. The move is opposed by other farm and agricultural organizations too, and again the government is well aware of the opposition of these organizations which represent a broad spectrum of views across rural Manitoba.

Indeed, it is hard not to know of this opposition. As you walk through the halls of the Legislature, you come across ministers and backbenchers surrounded by concerned farmers trying yet again to get their point across. This must have made life a little difficult for many on the government benches, and it is difficult to believe that such a move has the wholehearted support of all those Tories. It is perhaps lucky from the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) perspective that this will not come to a vote in the House. How many of his rural members could be counted upon to support this in such a public manner?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) defends the move in a stalwart manner. He is careful not to respond to the issues of democracy that are raised by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Farmers have not been offered a vote on this issue, and the expressed wishes of their elected organizations have been specifically ignored. The minister does not challenge those views because they are unassailable. He prefers to argue on the basis of the report commissioned by his department, submitted by Clay Gilson, Dave Donaghy and Gerry Moore in 1994. The expertise of that committee, Madam Speaker, is unquestioned although the range of their consultation with producers may be in question.

But even putting aside the issues of democracy and process, let us look at what the smaller pork producers fear and what Professor Gilson's response has been. If we look at the impact of accelerated hog production on a community, we must look at what has happened in the last five years in North Carolina. That state has doubled its hog production in four years, exactly what the Gilson report is proposing for Manitoba and which the minister has accepted. The consequences have been dramatic, and serious concerns are being raised about the future prospects for corporate farming, environmental protection and, in the specific case of North Carolina, the very intimate relationship between government and large corporate farmers.

The loss of small, previously viable farms and farm families should be of serious concern to all Manitobans. In 1984, in North Carolina, there were over 20,000 hog farms in the state. By 1994, in one decade, there are only about 6,000 farmers left. In the same time period, the hog inventory has increased from two million to seven million, and North Carolina is now the No. 2 state in the Union for hog production.

If North Carolina offers us any evidence, then the small producers of Manitoba, the 20-or-so-more percent of our production, which is currently coming from small independent farmers, is at risk, and the farmers know it.

The small farmers of North Carolina say that the integrated hog companies are saddling hundreds of small farmers with huge debts. In North Carolina, it is the farmer who takes the risk, not the hog company. In the typical contracts that are offered, the small farmer becomes, in effect, a servant or a sharecropper of the company.

A typical hog contract farmer borrows anywhere from $200,000 to a million dollars to construct his barns, a loan that is typically secured by his house and land, but while the grower carries the debt for the seven or 10-year life of the loan, the hog company can pull out with 30 days notice. Most of the contracts run for only a year and contain an exit clause that allows either side to withdraw, but it is the farmer who is left with a small amount of money for his labour. Roughly, it is calculated about $7 an hour, not the paid holidays, not the other benefits that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) was just talking about.

In the eyes of some operators, indeed what have been family farmers, the backbones of their communities, have become within a decade or even less little more than sharecroppers in corporate North America. Is that what we want to happen in Manitoba?

Madam Speaker, the Gilson Report is aware of this issue, but its response is brief and I would argue quite unclear. In laying out options for the government's consideration, option B looks at the possibilities of a fully integrated system such as is happening in North Carolina where one corporation can have complete control of the product from conception to consumption. He calls it a Tyson-type operation. Tyson, in fact, is the No. 4 producer in North Carolina, although it does have big operations elsewhere and of course is closely followed by Cargill.

What does Professor Gilson say on this? I quote: It is to be noted that a Tyson-type operation in Manitoba would call for a very fundamental change in the present pork production. Whether a change of this magnitude in Manitoba is feasible and appropriate at the present time is a fair question, he said. But, he continues, the presence of the Tyson-type operation in the international marketplace cannot be ignored when considering options and alternative systems in Manitoba.

That is it. That is what he says. That is option B.

Madam Speaker, it is hardly what I would call conclusive. It is not even what we might call advice or evaluation. Here are the most obvious consequences of the changes the government is proposing and that, what I have just quoted you, is the level of analysis that is offered. I may be missing something here. I am not a farmer but I think I know how to read a research report and it seems to me that that brief discussion of option B raises more questions than it answers in an area of serious implication for the future of our rural communities.

I will leave to my colleague for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) further analysis. I will say that there are other parts of the report which are most interesting. The emphasis on sustainable development, the implications for education, for land-use planning and public information are all of great importance and the government has a long way to go to convince Manitobans that these issues have even been touched.

Yet on January 1, without consultation, without consent, the province will move to dual marketing and closer to an economic environment similar to that of North Carolina. Professor Gilson recommends that issues of environmental regulation and guidelines be addressed, that liability for financial institutions be addressed. He talks, too, and recommends the encouragement of co-ops and I quote again, the fostering of a commercial climate in Manitoba which accepts, promotes and encourages smaller processors to compete within rapidly merging structural and commercial changes in the industry.

Well, again, Madam Speaker, I am not a farmer but it seems to me, given the North Carolina experience, that unless the government moves very quickly on these recommendations there will be fewer small producers in Manitoba. Is that the result they want?

It seems hard to believe that that can be the case given the rural basis of the Tory party. But then again, political support comes from many agricultural corporations in Manitoba.

In any case, Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the government has had a year to plan the implications of this report. They waited until after the election to spring their decision to go to dual marketing on the farm community, and the financial community and educational issues have not been touched. They are the ones that will determine the nature of Manitoba's rural society, and the nature of that rural society is one of consequence for the people I represent. The city is linked to its hinterland, and we are all affected by what happens there.

Many of my neighbours work directly with vegetable growers during the summer and fall, receiving and contributing to a share of the harvest. The bakery on Westminster, the Tall Grass Prairie bakery, takes pride in its philosophy of working directly with many kinds of producers in rural Manitoba. At their fifth birthday celebrations, a street festival this fall, they made a special effort to personally introduce their suppliers to their customers in a concerted, philosophical effort to make sure that we understand the ties that bind us, and we appreciated that.

* (2120)

Madam Speaker, the throne speech proposes then a rural task force after the fact. I would be willing to bet it does not even start until next fall, probably after the end of this session of the Legislature. In all aspects of this matter, it seems that the government is acting belatedly, under duress, and long after it itself has opened the gate for the horse to bolt from the stable.

A secondary that the government promised in the throne speech is the, quote, lifting of the veil of secrecy over public-sector accountability, including salaries. This is something we have been suggesting for some time and we are pleased to see this. Civil servants have had their salaries publicly known for some time. In British Columbia this has long included schools and universities.

In any situation where there is a contract, of course, the levels of pay and the number of people at each level are already public knowledge, but the biggest mysteries have been in administrative salaries in public institutions. It is right that they should be known. I am glad that the government agrees with this and that they will act.

I hope that the principle will be a wide one, so that salaries and other forms of accountability in the many institutions which receive public funding will be incorporated. As the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) has said a number of times, let us start now by knowing what salary the public is paying the president of the Winnipeg Jets. I wonder how much it is. I wonder if we will ever know. Will it ever be part of this legislation?

I enjoyed the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) response to these questions. I thought they had a little bite to them. He seemed stung by the question about the Jets and replied that he could not do this because the legislation had not been passed yet. It reminded me of the story of St. Augustine. Lord, make me good--or was it make me chaste--but not just yet. And there we are, St. Augustine and Gary Filmon.

We have reason to be suspicious of this government on Freedom of Information issues. I could take the rest of the time allotted to me to tell the House of the many delaying tactics used by the various ministers of the Crown, but we would be here all night.

There are some ministers who would take a month to move a letter from one side of their desks to another; there are others for whom the release of information that is legitimately public, and indeed may even have been published, is an agonizing decision. Others cannot commit themselves on straightforward questions of policy after six months and five attempts on my part. Freedom of Information in the hands of this government is like a waterproof tea bag, it is a self-defeating invention. The Winnipeg Free Press has rightly drawn attention to this on one or two significant issues. They should try dealing with it on a weekly basis.

The throne speech spent a great deal of its time in blaming the federal government for offloading and for following exactly the same ideological path that the Tories themselves would follow were they in Ottawa, and, indeed, did so when they were there. Their cries ring a little hollow when we see them going down the same blind road, downsizing and reducing the public services that so many of my constituents depend on.

They, my constituents, have no other form of health care. They have no access to private home care. They have no cars. They have no telephones to make the calls that would keep them in contact with the broader community. Yet it is their hospital that is being cut and their emergency services which will not be available at night.

There is no comprehensive emergency service which has yet been instituted. Ambulance costs in Winnipeg are up to $200, and I frequently am called by constituents who do not qualify for social assistance who must pay ambulance bills which are way beyond their means.

What message are they going to get from this? Do not call the ambulance. Wait and see if the heart attack goes away. Wait and try and call a taxi. Wait till morning when your condition has deteriorated. These are the decisions that more and more of our citizens are being asked to make as health care in the community becomes more unstable and uncertain.

Madam Speaker, there is little recognition in the throne speech of the impact of the health care cuts on individuals and families.

I have asked the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to reconsider his closure of the emergency ward at the Misericordia, but with no response. The number of patients seen in the Misericordia emergency ward has increased by over 33 percent in the last few years at a time when the use of many other emergency rooms has declined. Patients who come to the Misericordia, an inner-city hospital, are frequently in much poorer condition than elsewhere. They more frequently arrive by ambulance and must be admitted to hospital far more often than in other hospitals.

All of this is known to the government. They have had a report on the emergency services at the hospital since August. Yet in spite of such evidence, there has been no commitment to reopen that emergency ward, though the government may indeed be reconsidering the opening of some others.

Is it little wonder that neither I nor my constituents can take seriously some of the pious and self-congratulatory words offered in the throne speech. I was particularly disappointed, Madam Speaker, that there was little to offer on education, and indeed the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press noted the same thing.

In haste, just before the Legislature opened, the minister announced her appointment of an interim committee to put in place the mandate and the legislation for a post-secondary education council. There are those in the community, and I am one, who would like to have seen a broader representation on that committee.

There is no question of the ability and the concerns that members of the committee have for post-secondary education, but it is heavily weighted in favour of business and the professions. I wish it well in its endeavours and will perhaps suggest that immediate and wide consultation and information for the communities involved would be welcomed.

These are very difficult days for post-secondary education institutions in the province and for young people and their families. Accessibility and affordability, high quality and innovative teaching and a research capability which benefits us all and which offers opportunities to young Manitobans are all areas in which the government and young people need to hear strong voices.

I regret, as do so many others, that the government has waited so long to move on this committee, only two years since Roblin reported and a mere eight years since they first took office. It does not speak well of their intense interest in the issues we are facing.

What was so disturbing about the last Minister of Education was his belief, apparently shared by the Roblin commission, that the universities of this province made too small a contribution to Manitoba and Manitoba research topics. The current minister has not made the same claim and I remain hopeful that she does not share that view.

I hope that she and all her colleagues will take note of the recent study released by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy Evaluation at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Manitoba. This is very closely based on Manitoba statistics and speaks directly to the experience of my constituents and to the changing face of Manitoba.

The study found that for every 100 people in the highest socioeconomic group who died over a two-year period, 120 died in the second-highest group, 160 in the third and 140 in the lowest socioeconomic group.

This applied whether their status was measured by income or education, and the difference in mortality between the wealthiest and the poorest Manitobans is the greatest between the ages of 30 and 64, a group which is, in fact, very well represented in parts of my constituency.

The study examined the use of the health care system and found that visits to physicians increased with an individual's level of education regardless of income, an interesting perspective and not one that the government usually gives us, particularly when it is describing access to emergency services.

Hospital stays increased as income and education levels declined. The poorest women spent an average of 26 days in hospital for pregnancy complications compared to seven days for the wealthiest women.

According to the report published in The Manitoban, the university paper, even finishing high school seems to confer some health benefits. It is clear that your health improves or declines in proportion to your individual income and education, and it is not an unusual outcome for a study. There have been many studies like this in Europe and the United States, and it confirms both in detail and in principle many of those similar studies. But it is Manitoba-based. It was done by a Manitoba university, and it has direct applicability to the issues that we all face as a community, the future of health care, the future of a universally accessible education system and the future of a society where government has a responsibility to ensure equity and justice in a world which is becoming increasingly unequal and without mercy for those who are poor and ill-educated.

It is the policy and the principle of the Tories to move both health care and education to market systems. They are doing it at different rates. There are some strategic retreats as they get close to elections, but that is indeed their intention. It is part of a free trade context. It is part of the framework of the new Ottawa and it will, in the end, lead us to a society which is far from the one in which most of us grew up and from which we benefited.

Madam Speaker, the market does not distribute social goods fairly. It is cumulative in its brutalities. It never makes sense for Tories, as they often do, to argue for the law of the market and at the same time to wonder where family values went. When you cut jobs, when you cut public services, when you individualize society, when you shift the salaries to the executives, when you privatize public and Crown corporations, you get a society where young people are alienated, where there is no prospect of jobs, where there are fewer jobs, where there is less work and you get an increasing gap between wealth and poverty, and that is precisely what is happening in Canada and in Manitoba. It appears to be the end game of free trade, and we have seen it before.

* (2130)

Madam Speaker, I am always amazed at Tories who want to talk about change as though free trade has never happened before, as though Manitoba has never traded overseas, as though the fur trade was not an international economy, as though the wheat trade was never an international economy, that lumber and timber were never international in their context. All of a sudden, it seems to me, 10 years ago the Tories discovered free trade. Of course it is not new. Of course globalization is not new. Neither of them are.

I want to speak for a minute of where I grew up. I grew up in a place that was devastated by free trade. It was Lancashire, and the effects of free trade are visible on every street corner. In the early 19th Century, the new industrialists promoted free trade and it was like a religion, spoken of in much the same ways that many of the Tories here have spoken. Two mill owners, John Bright and Richard Cobden drove the issue, and it was portrayed in moral terms in much the same way that the government portrays its own perspectives on free trade. It was progress. It was change against the older values of the traditional, and in this case, the landed classes.

For a time, Madam Speaker, Lancashire prospered. Oldham, where I grew up, symbolized the explosion. It was a small town in the 1830s but by the end of the century it had more spindles than all of France and Germany combined. For a period, Lancashire had the technical and financial advantage, and then the rest of the world caught up. The mills of Oldham were doomed and nothing has replaced them.

You know, when I grew up in the 1940s you could not see the skyline in Oldham. You did not know where the moors were except for two weeks when there was a wakes week and all the mills stopped and you could at last see the distant horizon. But over the time that I grew up there in the '50s and '60s, those mills, one by one, great, huge monuments, closed down. The skills and the labour force were cheaper elsewhere and the capital moved, just as it has and just as it will under free trade of the 1990s. Nothing replaced it.

It bears repeating: The race to the bottom, the division between rich and poor, happens very quickly.

Yet I grew up under a Labour government in the 1940s, which was the best fed and the best educated that had ever been in Britain. We all had our cod liver oil during the war. We all had our National Health orange juice, our National Health milk. We were the best nourished, the tallest, the best-educated generation there had ever been, and we could not, in the north of England, overcome the effects of free trade.

We had the advantages, we had skills, we had education, but those mining towns, those mill towns are desolate and they still are. For those of you who want to talk about free trade, think in the short term because the long term is written there on the streets and the street corners of every town in the north of England.

We are often accused, Madam Speaker, of negativism on this side of the House, always a typical Tory inability, I have thought, to understand the significance or value of evaluation, critique and, yes, sometimes criticism. I prefer to remind ourselves, as we look at this throne speech and we look at the prospects of the new, changed--yes, changed--meaner Canada of Filmon, Harris, Klein and Paul Martin, to keep in mind a philosophic perspective, this, too, will pass.

Yes, I, particularly, have a pessimism of the intellect but an optimism of the will, because I do believe that Manitobans and Canadians have a will, and it is a will to maintain here a community of co-operation where there is, and will be, a sense of a shared commonwealth.

Mr. David Newman (Riel): The applause demonstrates that the wish to have the evening come to an end, Madam Speaker, is near and probably the prime motivation.

Good evening, Madam Speaker, and all members of the Legislative Assembly. It is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

Madam Speaker, there is always a lot of discussion surrounding a Speech from the Throne. Indeed, we debate them for eight days in this Chamber. That being the case, I felt it would be useful to assess the throne speech based on a universal test, a yardstick, if you will, for evaluation which is accepted worldwide.

Let me just put this in context, first, because we have a tendency to measure things against our own perspective of what perfection is. However, let us be honest with ourselves. After all, Shakespeare said, to thine own self be true so thou cannot play false to any man. A good thing to remember from time to time.

So let us, when we are evaluating the throne speech, look at how we run our own families, how we run our own charitable organizations, how, when we are in churches, how they perform, whether they be in parishes that are at a broader level.

Let us look at how we do those things, and then look at this throne speech and how this throne speech indicates how we run this government, but let us be realistic.

In this case, Madam Speaker, I am speaking of a universal test called the four-way test. This test developed by Herbert J. Taylor in 1932 has in the ensuing years been adopted by many groups worldwide, including Rotary International. Today it is translated into the languages of hundreds of countries and is used by large organizations, corporations, nonprofit groups, schools, colleges, cities and banks as a means for the development of policy. So I thought, why not use it for government?

It uses four criteria alone to determine the value of any course of action: (1) Is it the truth? (2) Is it fair to all concerned? (3) Will it build good will and better friendships? (4) Will it be beneficial to all concerned? These are four simple questions, and I have found that when applied to this throne speech, we as a government are passing the test.

In answer to the first question, is it the truth? The answer, I submit, is evident. Madam Speaker, the Speech from the Throne centres around the government keeping our commitments. These are commitments which we have made to Manitobans during our years in office, have kept, and are continuing to keep as is indicated by the throne speech. We have committed ourselves to strengthening our economy, creating jobs, providing better health care, building a stronger school system and ensuring safer streets. One has only to look at our record to know that we have followed through on these commitments.

Madam Speaker, we continue to strengthen our economy by nurturing an environment which facilitates business development in the province of Manitoba. Companies such as Schneider, McCain, Palliser Furniture, Standard Knitting and Prosperity Knitwear have expanded in Manitoba, indicative that our economic development policies are working. The Moscow Narodny Bank, one of the world's leading Russian-owned banks, recently chose Winnipeg as the site of its first North American office citing Winnipeg's status as the grain capital of Canada, its proximity to commodities such as oil and gas, minerals and forestry products, its climate and the province's commitment to developing trade links with Russia as key factors in their choice of location.

I also commend all members to read those Bootstrap Three and Bootstrap Four, those publications of the Rural Development department which show what small business does in this province, thanks to the environment which has been created to nurture them and encourage them to develop. Clearly, when our government states that it has a continued commitment to economic development, our record proves that it is true.

* (2140)

Madam Speaker, we have also stated that job creation is a priority. This also is true. We have helped to put 22,000 more Manitobans to work, an increase of 4.4 percent over the same period last year and our commitment to job creation goes an extra step. Our changing economy has made it necessary for a workplace to develop a new set of skills in order to be adaptable and flexible. We are implementing new programs so our youth will gain experience in emerging fields of employment such as information technology.

As I have already mentioned, Madam Speaker, our government has been contributing to the creation of jobs through our economic development initiatives. For instance, Palliser Furniture, which has the help of a $7-million repayable loan from this government will be able to hire at least 284 more Manitobans after they complete a $14-million expansion. Another repayable loan of $700,000 to Prosperity Knitwear is helping them to expand and create at least 36 new jobs for Manitobans. A further 122 new jobs at Standard Knitting will be the result of a $1.75 million-repayable loan from the Province of Manitoba for the expansion of their Winnipeg plant.

By helping companies in Manitoba expand, we are allowing these companies to create jobs. This does not represent any hardship to the people of Manitoba. These are repayable loans which means these expansion projects will only be of benefit to this province. A strong business environment combined with job creation is evidence that we are fulfilling our commitments, that the recent Speech from the Throne is true.

Madam Speaker, we have also restated our commitment to protect Manitoba's health care system to ensuring that it is secure for future generations. Evidence of this commitment is found in the fact that we have the highest proportion of health care spending in Canada. Federal government reductions have made it necessary for us to be careful in setting our spending priorities, and we have focused our health care funding where it will achieve the most benefit.

By introducing community-based health care measures such as regional hospital boards, we are bringing the decision making to the community level. By operating under the premise that communities know best where their needs are, our health care resources will be targeting to those areas of need, thus minimizing or eliminating waste in our system.

Madam Speaker, we are also living up to our promise to build a stronger school system. We are giving parents a voice in how their children's school is run through the establishment of advisory councils for school leadership. These school advisory councils have unlimited potential to enhance the uses, quality and appreciation of our educational facilities and programs. We have expanded our core subjects.

By increasing the authority of principals and teachers, we are ensuring that there will be more order in the classroom. We have set new standards for achievement and testing which will allow us to assess how our students are doing and how to better their performance.

Madam Speaker, we are providing more resources for computers, which gives our students the necessary resources to prepare for the 21st Century.

These are all areas of priority for Manitobans which came out of extensive consultation. We will continue to implement necessary changes to our education system so that it can adapt to changing circumstances and challenges.

The Employability Skills Portfolios kits distributed last Friday to honourable members, designed to assist students to choose careers and find jobs, is a splendid example of the innovative and collaborative approaches of this government.

The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, led by the efforts of its chair, Trevor Hayden, and the efforts of Bruce Chegus, deserve credit for investing volunteer time and leadership in collaborating to make this useful initiative possible. Likewise, the support of St. James-Assiniboia School Division No. 2 and Manitoba Education and Training led to the development of this state-of-the-art tool.

Madam Speaker, our efforts to help students adapt include a focus on post-secondary education, which is becoming more and more important as our economy diversifies and specializes. We will make it easier for students to get the education they need by co-ordinating and integrating the system and allowing students to transfer between institutions as necessary.

As needs change, so does our focus. We have made a commitment and are keeping it, making sure Manitobans have access to the education they need in order to allow them a more secure future. Sure, there are more ideas to be received, listened to, understood, and these ideas come from the people themselves. They come from the students at those schools, they come from the parents, they come from the people who want to employ the graduates of these schools. The ideas are many, the ideas are encouraged, and this government encourages ideas. It encourages even ideas that are constructive from the honourable members opposite.

I toured Red River Community College last Friday with its President, Tony Knowles, and its Community Relations Officer, Jim Daly, a new position, I might say, that reflects the sorts of needs that every institution has to reach out to the community to get ideas and get support. I was impressed by the facility, its teachers and programs and, above all, the attitude at the facility, one which supports accessibility and excellence. My own middle son attended that institution and graduated from Creative Communications and developed skills which I am still working on after 26 years of practice.

Madam Speaker, we have also promised to make our communities and neighbourhoods safer for Manitobans. In doing so, we have provided funding to put more than 40 more police officers on the streets of Winnipeg. We have provided funding to the RCMP for additional staffing and equipment. Our new maintenance enforcement legislation, which I am very proud of, the strongest of its kind in Canada, will ensure single parents receive the money which is rightfully theirs to the greatest extent practical and consistent with the concept of fairness supported by our government.

Our continued support of community crime prevention initiatives is making a real difference in our communities with initiatives such as the youth justice committees seeing wonderful results and members of the opposition, honourable members of the opposition have referred to this in even speeches I have heard today. This is something we all as MLAs can join in supporting in each of our constituencies for the betterment of the province and the improvement of safety in our streets and the development of better citizens for the future.

Madam Speaker, it is also important to address the needs of the victims of crime. For this reason, we are focusing on crime prevention as well as victim support initiatives. We continue to press the federal government for further changes to strengthen the Young Offenders Act and will take action to enforce parental responsibility.

All of this demonstrates that the Speech from the Throne does indeed pass the first part of the four-way test, is it true.

Is the government's Speech from the Throne fair to all concerned, I now ask? Again, I am compelled to say yes, and I am compelled to say yes because I believe it sincerely. It is fair, fair to all Manitobans.

Initiatives such as the recently announced civil justice review task force, which I have had the privilege of being appointed chair, has been created for the purpose of making Manitoba fairer for all. Madam Speaker, this review will help make the civil court system in our province more responsive, accessible and efficient and, hopefully, less costly as well, all to the benefit of the people of Manitoba. By holding public consultations, we are allowing everyone to have input into how our civil justice system should be run.

Madam Speaker, in a certain sense our government may be viewed as an equalizer. Through initiatives such as the Taking Charge! program we are building opportunities for those who have traditionally had fewer choices. On the other hand, by lending companies such as Palliser Furniture $7 million, we are allowing them to also build opportunities for Manitobans. By co-operating with the fashion industry in this province in their attempts to train people, we are again doing what we can to provide jobs to Manitobans, something which we should all be working for and encouraging as MLAs, it is submitted.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they work in concert with each other. Our traditional approach stems from the theory that we must help people to help themselves and we are doing this in a variety of ways. One cannot find throughout any of the policies of this government any indication that we are being unfair to any Manitoban. By creating equal access to opportunity, we are benefiting all Manitobans. Our justice initiatives are equally applicable to all. We are striving to develop all areas of the Manitoba economy, be it rural, urban or northern. We want all of our children to have access to quality education, and the health care system is being preserved for all Manitobans.

* (2150)

I was out at St. Amant Centre this morning as they explained their vision statement at the centre. They support those with the most serious developmental disabilities in this province. Our government cares that the least privileged shall have their dignity and potential respected, and it is organizations such as the St. Amant Centre which ensure that kind of protection.

Thus, the initiatives mentioned in this Speech from the Throne passed the second part of the test. They are fair to all concerned.

Madam Speaker, the third part of the test is one about which I feel strongly and is one which I have mentioned in this House several times to date. Will it build good will and better friendships? I have been firm in my stance that needless acrimony between the two sides of the House will not be productive, so this part of the test is of particular importance. The throne speech does, however, pass it with flying colours.

Building good will and better friendships implies co-operation and the sharing of ideas. We have established a clear pattern of doing just that through our co-operative and consultative approach to health care and education reform, justice initiatives and family services programs as well. Instead of governing from the top down, we have adopted the view that we are truly the representatives of the people of Manitoba and have as such consulted widely with them on a regular basis. We place a high value on the discussions we have with Manitobans and value equally highly the ideas and input they have and the spirit of co-operation which is developed into the foundation of this government.

The Speech from the Throne highlights this spirit of co-operation, and evidence of it is found in the benches opposite as well. At the end of October the people of Canada and the people of Manitoba were faced with the prospect of Quebec deciding that it no longer wanted to be part of this country. I attended the unity rally which was held at The Forks the day before the referendum and was heartened by the outpouring of affection from Manitobans, people who truly love this province and this country, a witness to true feeling of good will towards Quebec.

I also saw many familiar faces there that day, some of whom sit across from me here in this House. If we can be united on issues here in this province, it bodes well for the future unity of our country. We also will be working together in order to attempt to keep the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment operating in Pinawa. An all-party task force will go to Ottawa to present a case if necessary to safeguard this establishment, again a co-operative approach which reflects good will in this House and in Manitoba.

The fourth step of the test, is it beneficial to all concerned, represents the final caisson in the foundation of my argument. The Speech from the Throne addresses the needs of all Manitobans, rural and urban, young and not so young, business people and employees, and the employed and those hoping to be employed. We all have the same needs, a home province with a sound financial plan, safe neighbourhoods, secure sources of income, solid education, protected health care, and the assurance of future growth. We must look at this in the perspective of other jurisdictions in the world, and we must feel very grateful for what has been bestowed on us.

Our balanced budget legislation, the strongest of its kind in North America, is a financial plan which will benefit all Manitobans. Madam Speaker, we will all benefit from the retirement of our debt, which will allow the government of Manitoba to concentrate its resources on programs and services which will benefit all Manitobans, our key spending priorities of health care, education and family services.

I believe our balanced budget legislation and indeed our entire economic record provide a good example of fairness. We are doing what all families, businesses and farms in this province aspire to, living within our means.

A key aspect of our legislative package is the sanctions in place against increases in income taxes, sales taxes and payroll taxes unless prior approval has been obtained by a province-wide referendum by the people of Manitoba.

Manitobans have repeatedly told us they are unable to pay higher taxes. At the same time, Manitobans want this government to preserve our education, justice and social service system. Through a balanced budget, we will achieve both goals. A reduced provincial debt and, more importantly, reduced interest costs are of benefit to all Manitobans. It will provide us with greater financial resources to continue to fund vital social, health and justice programs. These are areas which affect nearly every Manitoban. Therefore, a balanced budget is fair and of benefit to all.

A balanced budget, while of great importance, is only one aspect of the government's economic strategy. We have set a Canadian record by keeping all major taxes frozen for eight straight years. We want to create a stable, long-term, favourable economic climate which will enable us to sustain job creation and growth.

Madam Speaker, further, our economic initiatives have been created with the intent to provide business, local communities and individuals with the tools and resources they need to create jobs and further opportunities for all Manitobans.

In both rural and urban areas, the safety of our communities and neighbourhoods is a concern. We continue to take steps which will allow for more secure neighbourhoods for all Manitobans. Increasing funding for both Winnipeg Police Service officers and RCMP officers is one step this government is taking.

The youth justice committees which are in place are doing wonderful work. The maintenance enforcement legislation will benefit all those who need its provisions. Our continued commitment to strengthening the provisions of the Young Offenders Act will benefit all victims of crime in this province.

Madam Speaker, our economic development initiatives also provide benefits for all Manitobans for now and for tomorrow. A strong economic climate is the foundation for job creation. Job creation benefits us all. The unemployed will remain in Manitoba and be full partners in Manitoba's economy. Our young people will remain in this province. Our children will have a more secure future. Companies will have larger profits which, in turn, leads to a stronger tax base in this province.

A logical next step is that the increased revenue in the province's coffers will mean more resources to concentrate on essential services such as education and health care, both of which are necessities for all Manitobans.

It is important to recognize that we are here as representatives of the people of Manitoba and make choices which will be to the benefit of this province. The people of Manitoba have seen that we provide good government and solid leadership. When faced with an alternative choice, as they were given in April of this year, they reaffirmed their faith in this government as being the best choice for their future, and we will not let them down.

Madam Speaker, the honourable leader of the official opposition went to great pains the other day to try to demonstrate that this government is not living up to its commitments. He stated that our Speech from the Throne will be a path that says we have to continue to race to the bottom; that is the only way to go. He also used his time to respond to the throne speech as an opportunity to attack the banks which operate here in Canada and which make a profit.

I do not begrudge the honourable Leader (Mr. Doer) of the official opposition the time he took to speak. Indeed, he is entitled to his opinion, and it is differences of opinion which make this job so interesting. However, I do not believe that the honourable member opposite has a clear understanding of the facts, Madam Speaker. He speaks of profit as if it were a dirty word, and I would like to take this chance to enlighten him and all honourable members opposite as to what profits mean for Manitobans and how they truly are beneficial.

Profits such as those posted by the Royal Bank of Canada and other banks have many benefits for Manitobans. For instance, we will directly benefit from the taxes we receive on those profits. Profits are cyclical. They are reinvested, meaning more jobs, more money for social programs and a more diverse economic structure in this province. As part of their charter, a certain proportion of the deposits placed in banks must be placed in secure domestic investments. This does two things. First, this bolsters our economy by reinvesting these funds in Canada; second, high profits shown by banks is a reflection that Canadian investments are performing well. The economy is strong.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Riel (Mr. Newman) will have 15 minutes remaining.

The hour being 10 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).