LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
March 17, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Orton Harrison, Susan Joyce, Joanne Wallace and others requesting the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the
Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is substantial
likelihood of further family violence.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Robert Mooney, Myrna Oehlerking, Eleanore Verplaetse and others requesting the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend
the Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is
substantial likelihood of further family violence.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): I beg to present the petition of Alice Vorst,
Minerva Burgess, Jim Burgess and others requesting the government show its strong
commitment to aboriginal self‑government by considering reversing its
position on the AJI by supporting the recommendations within its jurisdiction
and implementing a separate and a parallel justice system.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the
House and complies with the rules (by leave).
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an
examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal
people; and
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an
examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal
people; and
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* *
*
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that
accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be
released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at
large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
The
bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that accused
offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be
released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at
large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* (1335)
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the
House.
Yesterday,
I, along with the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), the
honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), Mayor Rick Borotsik and Mayor
Bill Norrie, travelled to
The
views put forward to the advisory group were unanimously supported by the all‑party
committee of the Manitoba Legislature.
Our presentation also reflected consultation with interested citizens,
groups and local government representatives from
My
colleagues and I welcomed the opportunity to present our concerns to the
advisory group. Too often decisions
regarding the fate of military bases have been made without public
participation and in an atmosphere of secrecy.
Communities have often suffered through months of rumour and speculation
regarding the fate of local bases. Such
speculation can be devastating for citizens who depend on the bases for their
livelihood.
Our
recommendations to the advisory group focus on the need for greater openness
and public consultation in the decision‑making process. Communities that might face potential cuts
should be notified at the outset to avoid needless anxiety. All studies and
impact analyses conducted must be available to the public.
The
federal government must also put in place mechanisms to assist those
communities affected by military cutbacks.
We
urged the advisory group to remain cognizant of the pride and valour with which
Manitobans have historically served our nation's armed forces.
With
the closure of such facilities as CFB Churchill, CFB Gimli and more recently
CFB Portage la Prairie,
We
will continue our efforts to ensure that
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his
statement and would say that I appreciated the opportunity to be there along
with the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) as well as the mayor of
I
must say I was disappointed, and I continue to express the disappointment that
we never, ever have yet been able to meet with the Minister of National
Defence, which has been attempted for many a month now. We did meet with the other caucuses. We had a good hearing with the caucuses. I only wish there were a few more Tories in
the Tory caucus. We only met with Mr.
Lee Clark, but I would have liked to have met with some of the cabinet
ministers from
In
hindsight, it may not matter because ultimately this decision about base
infrastructure across
I
would agree with the minister; we had a very good hearing with the advisory
group. It was an excellent panel. It was a productive discussion, excellent
presentations. Everybody participated,
and it was productive.
It
is important to know that the mandate of the advisory group is to set out the
guidelines, the parameters, the criteria that a government should use in making
rational decisions about future base infrastructure. The mandate of the committee is not to say
whether or not Shilo or Kapyong Barracks should remain or be closed.
* (1340)
The
next step, Mr. Speaker, is for the report of this committee to go to the
minister and ultimately to the parliamentary committee on defence where there
could even be more hearings, we are not sure.
The point is a new government, whatever government there may be, could simply
ignore the report. We have to keep on
trying. We have to continue to voice our
concerns on behalf of
Yesterday's
meeting was productive with that committee.
As I said, it was a good panel.
The frustrating part of it is there is no guarantee that anyone will
listen to that particular panel's report.
Therefore, there continues to remain a great deal of uncertainty.
With
regard to mitigation and economic offsets that could make up for the loss of
defence spending or the loss of jobs, it is a very difficult task. We have had experience in the past in Gimli,
in Rivers and now in
Having
said that, we will continue to try to do our very best on behalf of the people
of
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):
Premierement j'aimerais remercier le ministre
de nous avoir demande de participer comme delegues hier pour faire la
presentation au comite consultatif pour le gouvernement federal. Pour moi, comme delegue c'etait une tres
belle experience, comme premiere fois a une conference comme telle. On etait bien recu par le comite qui etait
mis sur pied. On etait la comme groupe
unis avec les collegues de la Legislature et le maire de la Ville de
Winnipeg. On avait l'appui, j'en suis
sur, de tous les elus de la province, puisse que ce n'est pas seulement un
probleme des environs de Brandon, c'est un probleme pour toute la
province. Puisque ce n'est seulement un
probleme des environs de Brandon, c'est un probleme pour toute la province.
Il
y a bien des choses qui sont ressorties hier a cette conference, cette
presentation qui a ete faite par le gouvernement ici. Alors on est en support de ce qui s'est
passe. Moi j'ai eu l'occasion de dire
quelques mots sur la dualite canadienne lorsque c'etait un critere qui avait
aborde alors que le ministre de Defense avait envoye demandant au ministre ici
au
Alors
il m'a fait plaisir d'elaborer les services en francais qu'on a dans la
province, toute, non seulement a Saint‑Boniface ou a la Ville de
Winnipeg, mais dans les communautes francophones qui entourent
Pour
conclure, encore une fois j'aimerais remercier le ministre de la Justice (M.
McCrae) de nous avoir apportes a
[Translation]
First of all I would
like to thank the minister for asking us to participate as delegates yesterday
to make that presentation before the federal government advisory
committee. For me, it was a wonderful
experience, as it was my first time as a delegate at such a conference. We were well received by the committee that
was set up. We were there as a united
group with our colleagues from the Legislature and the mayor of the City of
Many things came out yesterday
at this conference during the presentation by our government, and we are in
support of what happened. I, myself, had
the opportunity to say a few words regarding Canadian duality, which is a
criterion that was examined at the request of the Minister of Defence.
It was my pleasure to
discuss the French language services that we have here in the entire province,
not only in St. Boniface or in the city of
To conclude, once again,
I would like to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) for taking us to
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 64‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach),
that Bill 64, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille, be introduced and that the same be
now received and read a first time.
His
Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of
this bill, recommends it to the House. I
would like to table the message.
Motion agreed to.
* (1345)
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Department
of Government Services
Consulting
Firm
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister confirmed
that indeed an RCMP investigation was being conducted into the Government
Services leasing department. Search warrants were issued; investigation is
proceeding. Some of the answers of the
minister raised more questions that we have today.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Government Services, in light of his answer
yesterday that the investigation arose out of irregularities between the
administration and the consulting contract, who employed the consulting firm
that the minister referred to yesterday in his answer in the questions of the
House?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I gave as much information as I could yesterday. That is the question involved in the
investigation. That is part of the investigation. In fairness again to the employee, I gave him
as much information as I could give him yesterday until that investigation is
completed.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister did also say that it
had no relation to the landlord. Given
the fact we have a consulting firm hired dealing with the government's own
department, and the minister himself volunteered yesterday that it had nothing
to do with the landlord, will the minister please answer today who hired the
consulting firm in terms of the allegations an investigation is proceeding?
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that our department
did not hire the consultant. That is
what the investigation is about. Our
department did not hire the consultant.
That is what I mentioned yesterday.
That is between the employee who is being investigated and the
consultant.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, if the department did not hire the
consulting firm and the consulting firm did work, and the minister has stated
in the House that it had no relationship to the landlord, what relationship
does the landlord have to the consulting firm that is under investigation with
the RCMP?
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, that is why it has been
investigated‑‑none.
Dutch Elm
Disease
Program
Funding Restoration
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, there are four quite common‑sense
reasons for the provincial government to reinstate its support of the Dutch elm
disease program: It is cost effective;
it is labour intensive in a city where unemployment is growing and is already
over 11 percent; thirdly, the conservation of elms has a direct effect on the
economic competitiveness of
I
would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, would he make the same
commitment to the House that he made yesterday outside the House, that he is
now willing to reconsider his government's position and restore the provincial
funds for Dutch elm disease control?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, we have been fighting Dutch elm disease in the city of
Mr.
Speaker, we have in my department, along with others, in keeping with the
realities of our budget requirements and on the advice of professional
foresters who recognized that the drought cycle had been broken‑‑that
we could bring it back to the $350,000 level without jeopardizing the program
which we are completely dedicated to. I
want that put on the record that it was a Conservative administration that on
two occasions recognized the importance of saving our elm trees.
I
am prepared to answer a question. I am
prepared, as I am prepared for many things, to review that program. I invite her questions on that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Friesen: I think the minister should be‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1350)
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister, Mr. Speaker, in all his
modesty, prepared to take a truly courageous and popular decision and withdraw
the money that he has applied to the Oak Hammock Marsh and the Ducks Unlimited
project and apply that money to the Dutch elm disease program?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, because it essentially falls
under the responsibility of a Conservative government to do the conservation
measures and programs in this province, like the North American Waterfowl
Management program that will safeguard our pothole country in the southwest,
that is, of course, a ludicrous suggestion.
That program will enable and hopefully educate hundreds of thousands of
Manitobans in the importance of wildlife, the importance of its preservation
and its continued support.
Mr.
Speaker, I can report, while I am on my feet, that the building is 65 percent
completed. We are well ahead of schedule
on the building. In fact, I understand
that a group of science educators and nature school studies are planning a
symposium at the
Ms. Friesen: The last of the Dutch elms in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Multiyear
Planning
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Will the minister make a commitment to work
with the city or at least with his colleague the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst) to develop the multiyear program which this cost‑shared program so
obviously needs?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to acknowledge that we will do that, and we have been doing
that. I also remind, as my colleague the
Minister of Urban Affairs said, the city this year is receiving, I believe, a 4
percent increase in their overall block funding. It is certainly within the decision making of
the city if they wish to add some additional monies toward this very important
part of the well‑being of the city of
My
forestry people work daily with the city forestry people. We are engaged in a
$2‑million program, not $350,000.
We are engaged in a $2‑million program to fight Dutch elm disease
in the
So,
Mr. Speaker, I offer the commitment of this government to any public scrutiny,
to any accountability, as to our sincerity in fighting this disease.
Department
of Government Services
Lease
Information Tabling Request
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): My
questions are to the Minister of Government Services. There has been a great deal of controversy
with regard to the MHRC space from the very beginning, since it was granted as
we debated in this House before, outside of the bounds of the normal tendering
process.
Mr.
Speaker, there is some information which we recognize the minister cannot
release. However, there is other
information which we believe should be in the public purview. Will the minister release today a copy of the
original lease signed by this government?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, let us get on the record that the landlord is not
involved. This is between an employee
and a consulting firm. Secondly, I will
take your question under advisement and I will check to see if that is public
record now, then I will be glad to release that particular lease. There is no reason not to.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I thank the minister for taking it under
advisement, and I think there is no reason why that lease cannot be provided to
all members of the Legislature.
Mr.
Speaker, a number of leasehold improvements were to be done to the building
before it was leased to MHRC. Will the
minister table the list of improvements that were to be done to the building in
order to achieve the provincial requirements necessary for leasing the
building?
* (1355)
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, first of all, all improvements
were done to the building. That is to go
on record. Again, while this
investigation is occurring, I feel that leading up to the investigation of this
particular employee and the consultant that he has consulted with and hired, I
would suggest that stay until the RCMP have completed their investigation.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the leasehold improvements are
quite simple. It is a list of things
which must be done in order for this building to meet specifications laid down
by his department. Can the minister tell
us why he will not release those leasehold improvements that were to have been
done?
Mr. Ducharme: All I can assure the member across the way is
that they were all done. However, I will
not release that information until the RCMP have completed their
investigation. Also, Mr. Speaker, there
is an employee involved here. That
employee, through his agreement that he has as an employee of the
Manufacturing
Industry
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, many of the Minister of
Finance's comments in the budget related to developing an economic base, a base
for economic growth in the
Last
week I was sent a copy of the latest manufacturing shipments by industry from
the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which shows that 1990 was a disastrous
year and 1991 was even worse.
My
question to the First Minister or the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism is: When is this bleeding going
to stop? When are Manitobans going to
have an opportunity to look forward to being employed in the manufacturing
sector in the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, of course, I find it interesting
that the member opposite, who was a part of the government that did everything
possible to destroy the economic base in this province by bringing in the
second highest overall tax regime in the entire country, that brought in job‑destroying
measures that were specifically aimed at business investment such as a payroll
tax that deliberately destroyed jobs in this province, such as a 2 percent tax
on net income, making us the highest personal income tax regime in the country,
all of these measures, would now try and find some interest in economic
development after he did everything possible, when he was a minister of the
former government, to destroy jobs.
The
fact of the matter is, as the member will note from reading the budget, this
province is expected to have the highest investment in manufacturing of any
province in the country, the highest increase in manufacturing investment in
this coming year at 31 percent. That is
an indication of confidence in this government's policies and desire by private
manufacturers to get involved in increasing their production capability in this
province. That is the best indication
that we are on the right track.
Mr. Storie: I wonder when the First Minister is going to
stop using the first envelope as an excuse for‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is, I guess, to the
First Minister.
We
know that the three leaders of
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Our involvement has been as much as, if not
more than, the involvement of most other provinces. This province took the initiative to put in
writing the concerns that it had about any potential North American free trade
agreement including
We
went further than virtually any other province in stating our concerns and
putting in writing‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I wish that the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) would stop interrupting and trying to shout
me down while I am answering his question.
I
repeat that this province has done as much as, if not more than, any other
province by putting in writing its concerns, by stating it would not support
any North American free trade agreement with
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, those conditions are not going to
be met. It has been made very clear‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Withdrawal
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My question to the First Minister is: Can the First Minister provide this House and
the people of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, this government has put on the
record the conditions that must be met in order to achieve a North American
free trade agreement that is acceptable to us. Those six conditions would, we
believe, make it acceptable to Manitobans, to
Unless
those conditions are met, we are not prepared to support an agreement‑‑fast
track, slow track, any track. Those are
the conditions, and we have put them forward.
That I think is a much more intelligent approach than that suggested by
the member for Flin Flon.
GRIP
Program
Premium
Levels
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister
of Agriculture why he did not announce the coverage and premium levels under
GRIP by the March 15 deadline. The
minister sidestepped the question even though his manager, Henry Nelson, at
Crop Insurance said that these levels would be announced by December 31. He said this last November. That is two and a half months ago.
Since
the GRIP contract, Clause 37, states that changes have to be mailed to the
insured by March 15 of the year, will the minister now agree that the deadline
has been missed? Will he also agree and
confirm in this House that any changes to those contracts will result in them
being null and void?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
GRIP management process involves a signatories committee which gives
recommendations to the federal government, to provincial governments. This has been an ongoing process over the
past two months.
As
I said yesterday, we dearly wanted to have that information out, but there has
been a major dispute on what the IMAP level of support will be for GRIP in
1992.
I,
as the Minister of Agriculture in the
As
I said to the member yesterday, it is unfortunate that other jurisdictions in
this country did not want to support a high level of support in GRIP for 1992
for farmers.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this minister should have used
cost of production‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Contract
Validity
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Can this minister tell the House whether he
has sought legal advice on the validity of the GRIP contracts if the support
levels are lowered or the premium levels raised as this minister is planning to
do? Will he table that legal opinion in
the House? Are they legal?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have
just given the member the information.
We are maintaining the support levels higher than some people wanted
them to be. In terms of premiums, he
said that I intend to make them higher.
I
would like to read to the member what has happened in
Also,
I would like to read from the Minister of Agriculture in
Some Honourable
Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have not recognized the honourable member
for Dauphin yet.
Mr. Plohman: Will the minister now admit that he has no
choice but to maintain the support levels at the same level as last year and
the premium levels higher than they were last year, since he has missed the
deadline and the contracts will be null and void and farmers can remove themselves
from those contracts at any time if they do not like it?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the member before
and I will have to repeat it probably for the fourth or fifth time in the last
two or three weeks, there is a signatories committee process in place that has
to report to ministers before anything can be done for the next year. We are still in a transitional year trying to
evolve a program that farmers want.
In
The
announcement that will be coming out very shortly will be very positive for the
farmers of
CRISP
Program
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Budgets
are all about priorities. How the
Premier and his government spend it reflects on their values. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the Premier: How does the Premier
justify increasing by 6.8 percent the support to his office while limiting the
increase to the CRISP program to less than half the rate of inflation?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we will discuss the increases
and the various aspects within the Estimates and debate them out. I can tell him that Executive Council
increase is less than 3 percent year over year, not 6 percent as he is portraying
it to be. So he obviously cannot read
the information given to him very well.
What
I will say to him as well is the money that is budgeted for CRISP is the money
expected to be paid out based on eligibility criteria. If more people are eligible and more people
apply and the money is there, we will still pay the money out. We will pay whatever is necessary in order
for people to qualify and receive CRISP, just as it has been in the past. We will meet the criteria and we will meet
the needs out there.
Labour
Adjustment
Program
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
* (1410)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, all of the questions with
respect to Estimates will be discussed in Estimates. We can decide whether or not the member for
We
have chosen our priorities in line with the priorities of the people of this
province, and we will go into detail as much as he would like within the
Estimates process for the discussion of the expenditures of this provincial
government. We will compare our
priorities with the priorities of any other province in this country or the
priorities of the Liberal Party when they come to this House and ask for money,
money, money for everything without telling the people that they would raise
taxes.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we are asking about priorities;
we are asking‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Department
of Health
External
Agencies Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, this government has indicated
that it is going to give a very, very high priority to economic development and
the creation of jobs. The attraction of
investment and the creation of jobs will be given a high priority by this
government.
The
Liberal Party does not want to have jobs, does not want to have investment, and
that is fine. They are looking after
themselves. They want to play politics
and do that, but they are not interested in building the base of this province,
building the investment and building the jobs, and that is what we are
interested in doing.
We will continue to give that priority to it, and we will let the people of