LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, February 24, 1992

The House met at 8 p.m.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 5‑The Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women Amendment Act

Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the House now come to order.

The honourable member for Inkster to resume debate on second reading of Bill 5 (The Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women Amendment Act). The honourable member has 21 minutes remaining.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is always tough when you have a break of that nature, you are somewhat inclined to revisit some of the things that I might have put on the record a bit earlier, because I know there are different members in here. I am going to try to refrain from doing that because after all the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) who is in a major role on the comments that I made earlier this afternoon, but I have saved another. I would not disappoint her, because I am always somewhat hopeful that she would be able to hear this.

You know, in talking about how they say one thing on one hand and do another thing on the other hand, Madam Deputy Speaker, what really gets most members of the Chamber somewhat upset with the New Democratic Party is when they take that‑‑can I use holier than thou‑‑attitude on a number of issues. I think the member for St. Johns said a lot in one of the statements that she made in regard to Bill 5, when it comes to that whole concept of the holier than thou attitude. I want to quote what it is the member for St. Johns said. It was in regard to women's issues and the whole question of equality and so forth. She says, regrettably that the advice was not taken seriously by her own colleagues or by the Liberal Party for that matter and sexist language continues in this Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it was interesting right after she made that comment. I believe there was some heckling from across the floor, and then she quickly tried to couch those comments by saying, well, for some, it is an educating process and we have to sensitize some, possibly even from within our own caucus. I think it is fair to say that, if there is any party in this Chamber that has a sexist attitude, it is the New Democratic Party. All we have to do is revisit a few of the speeches that some of the members, and I do not really necessarily want to point out any members, because I think without even having to say those names that the individuals inside this Chamber know who some of those people are.

I would ask the member for St. Johns to reflect very seriously on the speech that she gave and to do what maybe the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) did. As I said at the beginning of the speech, I thought that was an honourable thing to apologize on some of the remarks that she had made. I would suggest to you that the member for St. Johns should review what it is that she in fact said and call into question in terms of what might not necessarily have been stretching truth, maybe not quite as truthful, and come forward when we go into the committee stage and hopefully come with an open mind. I know she is on the record already saying: Bill 5, no, I do not support it; it does not matter if the women in the province support it, but I personally am not going to support it.

We have to believe that the Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party was speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party when she said that they do not support that name.

As her colleague who spoke right after, the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) was very clear in terms of what they felt was in the best interest of women, but they have really closed the door to any type of ability to be able to listen to what women might actually have to say about Bill 5. That is because, Madam Deputy Speaker, they already know what it is that they want.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that is something I am hoping the member for St. Johns in particular, but the NDP caucus as a whole, will revisit the arguments that they put forward to take into account really and truly what is in the best interests of the women of the province.

I guess I somewhat feel for the member for St. Johns, because I really and truly believe that she unintentionally boxed herself into that corner. Now she is put in a situation in which maybe certain members have made her feel somewhat uncomfortable now that she is not going to be able to change her mind. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is some honour in flip‑flopping. It is something we have seen. It is not like it would be a new precedent.

I would encourage the member for St. Johns. I am not saying that she has to fall in love with this bill and support it, but at least go to the committee stage with an open mind. Do not go to the committee stage with your mind already set in stone in terms of what is going to be going on.

It is not like, after all, we are debating the final offer selection or some philosophical point of view, Madam Deputy Speaker. You can approach this committee with an open mind, so that when there is someone before committee, whether it is a woman or whether it is a man, that the NDP caucus be open‑minded, that they listen to what they have to say, that the recommendation they are suggesting is not necessarily the best way to do it, that other individuals outside the New Democratic Party can come up with good ideas.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would encourage very much so, that they do open their minds. I know that on Thursday we were prepared to pass it into the committee, and I do not necessarily want to hold it up, because I think, as the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) said, we want this bill to go into committee. [interjection]

The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) asked me if I want unlimited time. I suggested to the Leader of my party that she could possibly designate me on this particular bill, but I found‑‑

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, the NDP say leave.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to see the bill pass into the committee stage and would suggest to all parties, because I had made clear in terms of what the Liberal Party's position is on this, that we walk into the committee with an open mind, and if more debate is given and a better idea comes up from the committee stage, that the minister be receptive to any amendment.

Whatever does happen, Madam Deputy Speaker, we support what the women of the province want. [interjection] The member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) asks if we are going to suggest an amendment. Well, unlike the member for St. Johns, I will not take the position in suggesting that this will be the amendment. This is the name that is best suited for the women of the province. You have already made up your mind.

I am not going to take this opportunity to box myself in and sit inside the committee and really not listen to what presenters might have to say, because my mind in going into committee will be open to them. We will support what the women of the province want. All indications were, back at the committee stage, when the member for St. Johns was sitting right beside me when the whole matter came up in the first place, that the women support this particular amendment.

The minister had a letter which I had read verbatim into the record earlier this afternoon. The indication from all of the different outside organizations, Madam Deputy Speaker, if they are all supporting it, well, I think we have a responsibility to live up to what those expectations from those outside organizations, women's organizations, are talking about. At times, and this is one of those issues I would suggest to you, the parties should be a bit more sympathetic. I know at least two are, but the NDP should also be a bit more sympathetic to what the women outside the New Democratic Party want. Hopefully, they will do that, they will not try to manipulate the committee in any fashion in order to try and force their amendment that they are going to be proposing.

If the women of the province and the presenters feel that is the direction that they want to go, Madam Deputy Speaker, let them take the opportunity to come forward to make the presentations, because at least the Liberal Party will be going to the committee with an open mind, and we will do what we feel is in the best interest from the women. What the women support in this province is what the Liberal Party will support on this particular issue. I can only encourage that the New Democratic Party do likewise and do what is in the best interest of the women of the province of Manitoba.

On that note, because I know they were wanting to pass it on Thursday, I will sit down and allow the bill to go to committee. Thank you very much.

* (2010)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to those that have been made already in this debate. I would like to begin by indicating that we on this side of the House support organizations and individuals being able to be called what they wish to be called. We support the name changes outlined in the bill, because the women involved want that change. We support their right and the right of all individuals and organizations to choose their own names, unlike the indication we have received from the official opposition who support choice, it appears, only when it is a choice acceptable to the NDP. I believe in the rights of individuals to exercise choice in their lives, unlike, as I made reference earlier, the official opposition which says it believes in choice and then advocates stifling all choices that are different from their choice.

The member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) took exception to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women's comments when she said, and I quote from Hansard: "The Minister responsible for the Status of Women is suggesting that we should do what the women want."

Imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Imagine the nerve of the minister that we do what the women want. Why, if we let them run amuck making their own choices, they may choose to do something other than what the NDP want.

Let me quote some other remarks made by the member for St. Johns in this debate, remarks which indicate her desire and that of her party to restrict choice for women, and remarks incidentally which I found personally offensive.

The member said, and I quote from Hansard: "We have seen every step of this way under the Conservative government of Manitoba an erosion of progress achieved by women in this province over the years." She goes on: "We have seen for all the steps forward taken by women and women's organizations over the years gone by, many steps taken backwards under the Conservatives of Manitoba. We have seen that in substantive ways and in symbolic ways . . . . On the symbolic side," she says, "we have seen many examples of how this government really feels about women's equality. . . . It follows after a number of other symbolic gestures made by members of the Conservative government. . . . We have seen the debate," she says, "when it comes to how women are addressed and choose"‑‑choose‑‑"to be addressed with the clear demarcation made between Liberals and Conservatives and New Democratic Party women in this Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker," said the member for St. Johns, "let me elaborate for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,"‑‑that is me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I take offense to this next portion‑‑"It has been a clear decision on the part of Conservative and Liberal Parties to choose the terminology Mrs. when being addressed in this Chamber or outside this Chamber. It has been a clear and deliberate choice"‑‑a choice, which the member says she supports choice, but here she is criticizing us for making a choice that is not like hers‑‑"It has been a clear, and deliberate choice on the part of women on this side of the House"‑‑meaning hers‑‑"to choose the terminology, Ms."

I do not mind them choosing the terminology "Ms." because we support choice. We, however, are not accorded that same courtesy in the other direction. The member then says, "Clearly," says the member who does not support choice, "Clearly, we have touched a sore spot when it comes to the real intentions of this government. It is a step backward. It is a move to eliminate choice for women. We on this side of the House," said the member for St. Johns, "will defend to the day the right of people to make choices."

That is what she said. She said, with her words she said she will defend choice. With her actions she revealed that she would restrict choice. They will defend to the day the right of the people to make choices, will they, Madam Deputy Speaker?‑‑except for my choice. I choose. The member is correct. I choose, and she is afraid to look at me when I say this, I choose to let my marital status be known by using the title "Mrs." That is my choice. I do not have to explain or justify or present rationale for why I have made this choice. It is my choice.

Contrary to the member for St. Johns chirping away in her seat, chirping away self‑righteously about how she supports choice while condemning me publicly for my choice and condemning my colleagues for their choice for one reason only, because my choice is not the choice that she made.

I support the member for St. Johns and any other member of this House who chooses to keep their marital status private by using the title, Ms. I support them in that. I ask for the same consideration in return for my choice.

The main differences between that side of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this side of the House is that we say we support choice and we do; they say they support choice and they do not.

I would like to ask which side of this House is more open‑minded, which side of the House has no tunnel vision, which side of the House is a true advocate for choice for women. I think the record stands for itself; the comments in Hansard stand for themselves. We support choice; they do not.

The member for St. Johns, twice in her comments, made reference to me in my role as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. She said in her speech that because we on this side of the House opt to use the title, Mrs., as is our choice, that we are somehow backward and do not care about the advancement of women and do not care to see women achieve and get ahead.

Let me put this in a personal context. I was the first woman to chair the St. James‑Assiniboia School Division Board, at that time the second largest school division in the province of Manitoba. I do not consider that a backward achievement for women. I was one of the first women to be a service scouter in the Boy Scouts movement, not the Girl Scouts, not the Girl Guides. I was the second woman in our parish church to become a lay reader and lay administrant. I was one of the first handful of women to serve as president of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees.

My colleague, the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), was the first woman in Canada to fly in a CF‑18 last summer. How many on that side of the House have done that‑‑in North America, the first woman to fly in a CF‑18, to do a loop, to do a twirl. How many over there say that is not presenting a positive role model for equality of achievement in women?

I could go on about the list of achievements on this side of the House, but I only have 40 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

All I want to say is that there are just as many female MLAs on this side of the House as there are on that side of the House, and the people who voted for us voted for us on merit, on competence, not because they felt pressure to vote for us because of our gender. They had faith in our ability to get the job done. No one, no single constituent ever mentioned to me, in fact, no one has ever mentioned to me until the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) the other day that because I chose a title, which is my right and my choice, when I chose the title Mrs. instead of the title Ms. nobody has ever suggested that I am somehow unworthy or lacking in backbone or drive, or spirit, or intelligence, or in capability. [interjection] You know you have to consider the source of the comments.

I listened earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who spoke highly of the abilities of individuals, of men and women, of the individual MLA, and who supported them in their right to choose their own title. What do I hear from the NDP male MLAs? Let me tell you what I hear from the NDP male MLAs. You on the other side all cringed when the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) made his comments about women in the House. You cringed but you condemned not. You did not deny, rescind, condemn, criticize in any way the comments of that member, but you stand in the House and criticize me for making a choice as to what I choose to be called.

* (2020)

I submit that the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) displayed a narrowness of mind when she said that she believes in choice for women and makes it abundantly clear that what she really means is choice for women if, and only if, that choice is the same as hers. How narrow, how controlling. The members opposite would control all our choices, our vision, all our preferences, all our values and traditions, and yet we on this side support and applaud them in their response and desires, their specific needs and their specific choice as to what to be called. We support them but they do not support us. Who is the real advocate for choice? But I digress.

Let me quote again from the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who expressed views that members opposite have never disclaimed. I am paraphrasing, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not have the Hansard here. I do not have the direct quote, but I do recall the intent of the quote, many, many quotes, but the one that sticks in my mind as being particularly offensive was the quote that went something like this: A man makes a decision to marry, and that is the last decision the man ever makes.

That statement and others of its ilk were left uncondemned by the members opposite, and I want to ask if that is how the NDP feels about partnerships, that in order for the male not to be dominating, the female must be dominant? Whatever happened to co‑operation, to shared responsibilities, to true partnerships? No, if the male is not to be dominating, then the female must be dominant. What about partnership?

How about the scandalous comments made by the former NDP cabinet minister, Andy Anstett? I am sure you all remember them. Those I do have here. Andy asked‑‑[interjection]

The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is burbling in his chair again, honking on and on in his self‑righteous way about all the things that we have done, but he does not want to hear what they have done. He does not want to hear. He wishes to have the record expunged of everything that they have done that shows they have a problem with sexism on that side of the House unparalleled in this Chamber.

When Andy Anstett, NDP municipal affairs minister, said this joke to the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities in convention, he told the story about a woman who was stuck in the mud on a country road‑‑[interjection] You do not want me to go down that path? The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) does not want to go down this path again. I am quite convinced the member for Thompson does not want to go down this path again. When I stop hearing self‑righteous comments from that side of the House, we will not have to go down these roads again.

The joke went like this: It told the story about a woman who was stuck in the mud on a country road. She asks a man with a tractor to pull her out. The man says, you are the third pregnant woman I have pulled out of the mud today. The woman says, but I am not pregnant. The man says, you are not out of the mud yet.

What was the political commentary on this particular quote? Well, Frances Russell, the writer for the Free Press‑‑[interjection]

An Honourable Member: Who?

Mrs. McIntosh: Frances Russell, columnist for the Free Press. I know the members opposite do not want to hear this, but I am having to shout just to be heard over my own voice.

Some Honourable Members: We are listening.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much. Here is what Frances Russell had to say about the NDP. New Democrats, she said‑‑

An Honourable Member: I am glad you are quoting Frances.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am, too. I am delighted to quote Frances on this. New Democrats could do with some humbling on that score, she said. They are prone to be holier than thou about social causes. They give the impression that they, and they alone, are pure of thought, word and deed on all matters having to do with human rights. That Anstett joke, she said, is not the first taste of humility for Manitoba New Democrats.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I really hate to have to bring these things up. When the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) rose and spoke the way she did about the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) and the women on this side of the House, the Leader of the Liberal Party chose to speak on a point of privilege, I was tempted to do the same. I felt though, however, I would have an opportunity in debate to address the insults she had hurled at us. I say that you live by the sword; you die by the sword. Hurl insults at us, and we would seek then to have our position clarified.

Our position is that we do believe in choice for women. One other comment that was made. When the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) said that a name is important and that was a statement I agreed with. She made the statement that a name is important, and that was a correct statement. I just wish that she felt she had an understanding of the importance of my name to me and of the names of hundreds of thousands of Manitoba women who opt to choose some title other than Ms. for their names, hundreds of thousands of women who have opted for some other title than Ms., who also would like to have their names considered important and not a step backwards for women because they have exercised choice.

Someone I respected very much once said, my grandmother was a lady, my mother was one of the girls, I am a woman, and my daughter is a doctor. Women can call themselves doctor or reverend or minister or professor or Ms. or Miss or even Mrs. It is still allowed. Any of those titles are fine by me, and any of those titles are fine by the people on this side of the House. It is unfortunate they are not fine by members opposite. We wish the same courtesy was provided to all women by the member opposite and her colleagues who have not distanced themselves from her unfortunate and discourteous statements.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if the women's organizations wish to alter their name to avoid confusion, then I support them. The members opposite have made their intentions crystal clear. They have put on the record that they will not support this bill. They have put on the record that they will not vote to allow these organizations to have their names changed. They have put that on the record. They do not support choice. That is narrow. How narrow. How very sad.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to this piece of legislation going to committee and listening to the women who have clearly come forward to this government and asked for this name change. They have chosen for their own reasons to have a change of name so that, in fact, they could clear up the confusion that exists between the two organizations with the same acronyms and very similar names.

* (2030)

I respect their choice to request a name change. We as a government and, I know, the Liberal Party are supporting the women in the community who have asked for this. They have recommended to government a change of name and, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will accede to their wishes. We look forward to those women who come forward in the best interests of all Manitoba women and, indeed, all people of Manitoba.

As we go through the process of public hearings on this issue, I do know that the majority of women who support this will come forward. In fact, we as a government will support their request.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 5. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 10‑The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act

Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), to continue debate on second reading of Bill 10 (The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act), standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): It gives me pleasure to speak to this bill because I think it is a very important bill for all Manitobans and especially for individuals who live in the North, for the northern aboriginal people and for northerners and all Manitobans.

When this bill was introduced, it has raised in the funding of $150 million to $500 million for Manitoba Hydro, so if you look at the raising of funds to borrow and to spend, what would that tell you? I think it would tell you that it looks like it is really the Conawapa bill, in order to get the money through to start access in the construction of Conawapa. This bill deals directly with Manitoba Hydro and Conawapa falls under Manitoba Hydro, so I would like to address a few comments on Conawapa.

First of all, when the Conawapa project was brought before the Public Utilities Board, it was proven at that time, or it seemed to be economically sound at that time with the figures that were presented to the Public Utilities Board. That was before Manitoba Hydro bought into Power Smart program and put more emphasis on the conservation of energy. Now what we are seeing is that Manitoba Hydro is starting to cut back or saving more power and is able to reduce its power consumption all across Manitoba. So when we see that if we have a stronger conservation program in place, as we see here as the years advance, then what is to say that we could not really save 10 percent of conservation?

When we initiated a resolution, we were looking at consumption of 6 percent reduction in the use of energy and we were told, well, that is really foolish. How do we know if it could be 6 percent, 2 percent, or if it could be 10 percent or 20 percent? No one can really answer that. We were talking about that during Estimates at that time, and now we see where even Manitoba Hydro is coming out and saying that, yes, we can conserve energy and, yes, we do not know if Manitoba needs the power from Conawapa until the year 2012. Some are saying 2009. Some are saying 2007. Well, what is the real year?

When everything went before the Public Utilities Board with the figures and everything that they had, they said we need power in Manitoba by the year 1999 or the year 2000, and that is where they made their decisions on. Then they said we should go ahead with Conawapa in order to have it built in time to meet Manitoba's needs.

A lot of those figures have changed. Why can we not have the real figures of today presented back to the Public Utilities Board and see what they say to us? We asked the minister during Question Period last week, I asked the minister, and he, and even the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had stated, we have the figures, we do not need to go back for hearings.

I do not know if even Ontario, if they need that kind of power today. I, for one, am not against building Conawapa, and I do not think anybody on this side of the House is against Conawapa. I do not think anybody is. The only ones I heard state right flatly who were against Conawapa were the Liberal Party‑‑they are the only ones. Initially, they were against Limestone anyway, so what is the difference?

What we are saying on this side of the House is that we have rules and regulations to follow. We have the Public Utilities Board that gives directions to Manitoba Hydro, so let us take it to the Public Utilities Board with the information that we have today. If they say go ahead with it, and we meet all the requirements and barriers that are there for the construction of Conawapa, if we can overcome those, then let us go ahead with the project. I have no problems with that.

The other thing that we hear is the whole thing about the environmental assessment act. I hear over and over, and I have only been in this Chamber since September 11, 1990, and I am not sure what has happened in the past, but I know that I hear the government side say, well, what about Limestone? What about Limestone? Where was The Environment Act for Limestone?

If you go back in Hansard, you will see where it was the NDP that brought in The Environment Act in 1987. It was the NDP. Sitting here without knowing all of the past, I was sitting here and I thought, well, they must have brought the act in because they were so proud of the act, and they kept throwing the act at us. They said, well, what about The Environment Act, what about The Environment Act?

Then I realized, holy smokes, that is the first time since I have been here where the other side had really shown strong support of NDP initiative. I only learned this shortly after coming into the House, and I was very surprised, but it was a pleasant surprise. I am glad to see that if it is a good act, they will support it. It was proclaimed in 1988, and like I said, it is a good act. We are very, very proud of it. Let us utilize and use that act for the right purpose why it is there.

What happened to the board or the committee that was struck by the government, when the individuals who were concerned about the environment would have had their chance to have their say and the pros and cons of the whole environmental act? I was hoping, with those environmental hearings, that I would have heard and would have seen some aboriginal groups and organizations come out and state their opinion on it, and what they are concerned and worried about.

I was fortunate enough this past weekend to spend quite a bit of time with some aboriginal leaders. There is some concern out there. There is some worry, and they are wondering where all this is going. During Question Period I asked. During Estimates I asked again, and I was told by the former minister that the aboriginal people will be at the top of the list to consult and to meet with and to make sure that aboriginal concerns will be addressed. Aboriginal organizations and their leaders will be contacted and consulted with very closely. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that is happening.

I stress to the government that it is very crucial, and it is very, very important to make sure that the aboriginal communities and the organizations and the leaders are not only consulted with but are brought in as equal partners to discuss this, and to come to the right conclusion that will meet Manitoba's needs and meet the aboriginal needs. I think that is very important.

* (2040)

When I start addressing aboriginal and northern issues and aboriginal concerns, one area that I am very concerned about, and we here on this side of the House. We have not heard a thing about it and I do not know when it will be addressed, but I hope the government will address it. It is the whole area of the potential training programs for northern and aboriginal people, to ensure that the preferential hiring clauses will be enforced, which is northern aboriginal people, then northerners. Those are the first two on the priority list. To ensure that those are carried through, you have to have a strong aggressive training program in place.

I was part of that Limestone Training Program, and I heard the former Education minister attacking that program. I can tell you, I have kept close contact with a lot of aboriginal northerners, and I know today that a lot of those individuals are still gainfully employed because of that training initiative. It is not a big pat on the back for the NDP party at that time or even now. It is for whoever is in government to take that initiative to address aboriginal issues and aboriginal concerns seriously.

When we talk about training programs, those training programs should be open for all northerners, and they should be delivered in northern communities and somewhere in a northern area. I hope that this government will reverse some of the trends that they have set since the last election where some of the initiatives and some of the issues for northerners and aboriginal people in the North, where they were moved from their own communities to say, a bigger centre, into Thompson, have uplifted their families and have gone into Thompson to further their own careers and to hopefully gain employment opportunities, where some of those programs they could be in their final year and bang, they are uprooted again, moved to Winnipeg to go to Red River Community College. Is that fair to those individuals? I say no. It is not fair to those individuals. They already had to uproot their families and move once already, and after coming from a remote community they have made contacts and support systems in place with their friends and family, say in Thompson, and all of a sudden they are told: To continue and finish your engineering program, you have to move to Winnipeg.

I think that is a drastic mistake for the government to be making. Also, if you look at how many people are in those communities and in those training programs;, and how much are the communities benefiting from families renting homes, buying their groceries, using movie theatres and attending hockey games? That is bringing money into the economy of those northern communities. They have been drastically hit, seriously. In the past we had cuts from Northern Affairs and we have cuts from other government agencies‑‑Department of Highways.

Those few jobs or the money that is coming into those pockets that are spent in those communities mean a lot. Getting back to the whole issue of Manitoba Hydro and Conawapa; I do not know why the government cannot come out and say, look‑‑or take it back to the Public Utitilities Board. For them to say, look, it makes financial, economic sense and that is why we should go ahead with it.

Even if it means that the only reason for building Conawapa today is to export power for sale. Even if they would come out and say that: to export power for sale, but how can you export power for sale when the agency that was out there negotiating and finding contracts for Manitoba Hydro has been‑‑poof‑‑disbanded? It no longer exists. Manitoba Energy Authority was the key player and was put in place to find markets for Manitoba Hydro, for consumption. Where is all that expertise today?

They are no longer there. Who is out there negotiating and seeking contracts for this government? [interjection] Well, it might cost you $400,000 a year, but if you get a sale that will bring you a good return and generate revenues for all citizens of Manitoba, I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

I hear a lot of people say, to make money you have got to spend money. You do not get rid of a whole agency that is out there doing a job for the government and then say sure, we have a contract with the Ontario government right now, but what do you do with that other 300 megawatts that is going to be sitting there? Because we in Manitoba‑‑Manitoba Hydro stated, even a former Minister of Energy even questions, do we need that power in 1999 or the year 2000 for the consumers of Manitoba?

I do not think so. That is what people are saying, but we do not really know, do we? Nobody knows for sure. Everybody is guessing. I mentioned earlier, you hear all kinds of different numbers thrown at us, but nobody knows for sure. So let us find out what those real numbers are. Let us find out how much energy we are going to be saving with our conservation measures and conservation programs that we have in place right now.

Even Ontario right now is utilizing conservation measures. How much are they going to be saving? Do they need that whole 1,000 megawatts? I bet you they could not even tell you that. They do not know that. Nobody knows how much. They do not know how much they are going to need or how much they are going to save. The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) says, how much? We do not know.

Last year in Estimates, when we brought that amendment to state that Manitoba Hydro target 6 percent conservation, we were almost laughed out of that committee room. They said, what do you mean 6 percent? That is pretty high. That is really high. The members who were part of that committee will remember that very clearly. They said, you are way off your rocker‑‑6 percent. Now, I bet you if you went back and asked these experts, I bet you they will even tell you 10 percent is not out of the question. It is not out of the question.

If we even went at conservation in a stronger measure than what we have today, who knows how high we can get it‑‑15 percent, 20 percent‑‑we do not know. How many government buildings are there in Manitoba? I am sure that there are quite a few‑‑hospitals, schools‑‑that government pours money into. If the government took the initiative, even one small step, to replace all the light bulbs in all government buildings or government‑supported buildings, it would cost us a pile of money initially. It would cost us a lot of money. When you talk about one light bulb you are looking at probably about $1, oh, I do not know, could be a $1.50 compared to 20‑some dollars for‑‑[interjection] Yes, I guess maybe $2 with GST. I do not know who brought in GST, but it is there now. I am not sure what party. It was the federal Conservatives. They have no ties with the provincial. I found that out the last election.

If you replaced all those light bulbs with energy‑efficient light bulbs, sure it will cost you a lot of money up front. Eventually, through the years, how much are you saving? You would save quite a bit‑‑quite a bit.

* (2050)

How much is Conawapa costing us? Thirteen billion dollars. Even what it is, that would be a lot cheaper measure than to build future dams. I do not have a problem with Conawapa. I was born and raised‑‑

An Honourable Member: Are you for it or against it, which way? Just tell us.

Mr. Hickes: Do it right. What we are saying is, do it right.

An Honourable Member: Are you for it, George? . . . you are getting pretty sore on that fence.

Mr. Hickes: No, no, I am not sitting on a fence anywhere. If the government would follow the rules and regulations that were put out, and we have the Public Utilities Board there to make sure that the economics outweigh, that economics are for the profit of Manitoba‑‑

An Honourable Member: You ignore that, eh?

Mr. Hickes: What is that? I did not hear you.

What we say with Conawapa is, do it right. That is all that we are saying is, do it right.

I will speak for myself right now, that I would much prefer to see the building of Conawapa or a dam then I would see where our neighbouring provinces would have to build nuclear power plants. I do not believe in that. I do not want a thing to do with that. I have read about it. I have seen some of the negatives that happened in Russia, and I personally would not want to be in the middle of two provinces and surrounded by nuclear reactors. I do not think that is the way to go, because we all know that hydro‑‑[interjection] No, I do not believe in nuclear power. We all know that dams are a lot cleaner supply‑‑[interjection] Well, to be honest with you, I am totally for it, but do it right. That is all I say. I talked about the aboriginal people training and northerners for training programs? Where is that? I have not heard a thing about that. Where is it?

An Honourable Member: Well, they do not know how to vote, George.

Mr. Hickes: Well, I am not going to get into that kind of debate because I am trying to be very serious here. [interjection] No, because I am very concerned because the North and Manitobans right now, we need jobs. We all know that, but you do not sacrifice the proper processes that are in place just to create jobs for the needs right now. We need to hear about the training programs. We need to hear that Northern preferential hiring clauses will be enforced‑‑

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Should we not give them an environmental licence first, George? Are you not a little ahead of things?

Mr. Hickes: I am talking about the whole idea. Environment, well, I have already mentioned that.

Mr. Orchard: Why do you want a training program for a dam you are against? Make up your mind.

Mr. Hickes: Well, if the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) would sit and listen, I have mentioned the environment and that gives me an opportunity. Maybe I will remind you again that in 1987 it was the NDP that put The Environment Act in. It was under 1988‑‑[interjection] No, it was shortly after Limestone. [interjection]

We learn as we progress. Who says today‑‑okay, like if you want to go back one year, what would your government and Manitoba Hydro say? We need Conawapa. We need to start it in 1993, because we need that power in the year 2000. Ask the same people today. That is only one year later. Ask the same individuals. What are they going to tell you?

An Honourable Member: We are going to ask them next year.

Mr. Hickes: Oh, no, ask them. Phone them up tomorrow and ask them. They will tell you‑‑[interjection] Of course it is going to change next year.

An Honourable Member: Well, there you go.

Mr. Hickes: That is the point I am making. That is the point I am making.

An Honourable Member: Well, there you are. You have made my point.

Mr. Hickes: You have made my point for me very well, thank you. When Limestone was built there was no environment act in place, and the NDP recognized that. All throughout the years past, under Conservative governments, under NDP governments‑‑no, I do not think there was a Liberal government‑‑

An Honourable Member: No, there has not been.

Mr. Hickes: No, I do not think so.

An Honourable Member: There has not been for a while.

Mr. Hickes: So under the NDP, even under Conservatives, nobody realized we should have an environmental act in place. It was the NDP government that recognized that in 1987, and it was proclaimed in 1988.

An Honourable Member: After the fact, in other words.

Mr. Hickes: What is after the fact? What is after the fact? There were dams built in the '50s and '60s, and there will be dams built in the year 2000 and something. So how can you say, after the fact? How can that be after the fact? How can that be after the fact? When you recognize something that is good for the people of Manitoba and you put it into an act and you proclaim it, yes, that is right.

For a small example, I will give you what is right and what is wrong. I will give you a good example. Anti‑sniff bill, which is very important to the citizens in Point Douglas‑‑

An Honourable Member: That is getting a little bit off.

Mr. Hickes: No, no. I am tying the relevance to bringing in an act and proclaiming an act. So it is very, very relevant.

So the anti‑sniff bill was brought in over two years ago.

An Honourable Member: Where is it now?

Mr. Hickes: It has passed.

Are you going to wait till someone dies before you proclaim it? Sure it is‑‑

An Honourable Member: What does hydro smell like, George?

Mr. Hickes: You cannot smell it because it is very, very clean. That is why I much prefer it over nu‑‑

An Honourable Member: That is why you are not in favour of nukies.

Mr. Hickes: Oh, no. I support‑‑

An Honourable Member: Nukies?

Mr. Hickes: Oh, no. I support the development of dams any day. You can ask the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) who I know has been up north, and I know he has a lot of contacts within the aboriginal community. I saw that for myself. He has a lot of respect from those people. So do not sell him short.

When we talk about Conawapa‑‑[interjection] No, no. I am being very, very serious about this here. When we talk about the development of Conawapa, I do not know how many of you have been up north and have gone down that river.

An Honourable Member: I have.

Mr. Hickes: You have? Now, the ones that have been there, tell your colleagues how high those banks are. They are very high, and there will be very, very little flooding to do with Conawapa.

An Honourable Member: So you are in favour of it now.

Mr. Hickes: I always have been from Day One. I have never been against it. All I say is do it right. It has very, very high banks and there will be only a small area that will have any flooding in that. If you look at that area, I am not sure exactly how many acres it is. [interjection] If that. I think it is about 5 acres, but if you look at where that will take place, there are no communities there, I think, that is going to affect. If you look at the alternative to Conawapa, then that is where I would say look at it very, very closely.

An Honourable Member: Which one is the alternative?

Mr. Hickes: The alternative is on the Nelson‑Burntwood River‑‑[interjection] Yes, Wuskwatim. There is going to be a lot of damage in there if‑‑well, I do not know how you could do it, but if you start damming that one‑‑because it is an untapped river and the flooding that you are going to see is going to affect Thompson and the community of Nelson House. Then‑‑[interjection] Well, you raise the level and spread it out.

An Honourable Member: Is that what you want to do, George?

Mr. Hickes: No.

An Honourable Member: What do you want to do? How do you think it could be done? Tell us. You said do it the right way. What is the right way?

Mr. Hickes: What I am saying to do Conawapa, is the process that was in place. It is outdated information that we in this Chamber are dealing with right now, even Manitoba Hydro.

An Honourable Member: They had no policy when they did Limestone.

Mr. Hickes: I would not say we had no policy. [interjection] There was not an environmental impact in place. It was the NDP that recognized that and made sure that there was the Environmental Act put into place. Sure.

* (2100)

An Honourable Member: There was an environmental assessment.

Mr. Hickes: What is that?

An Honourable Member: There was an environmental assessment.

Mr. Hickes: There was?

An Honourable Member: Hydro did it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Hickes: If you look at the past under the Conservative government, they were going to raise the water level for flooding, for South Indian Lake, 30 feet. Thirty feet] Not even an environmental‑‑you know everybody says there was no environmental impact study on Limestone. Manitoba Hydro did do an environmental impact study. You ask Manitoba Hydro. There was [interjection] yes.

If you look at South Indian Lake, imagine the damage that would have happened if you would have gone with your plan to raise it 30 feet. To 30 feet]

An Honourable Member: Are we ready to start Conawapa this year?

Mr. Hickes: Well, if you would have had the environmental impact hearings and kept the committee in place to hear the people's concerns and you had gone through the environmental impact study, then you might have had a shot at starting it in 1993.

An Honourable Member: Are you going to go to those commissions and speak in favour of it, and say the truth?

Mr. Hickes: Look, we have our chances to debate in here.

When it gets out, let the public have their