LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, December 7, 1992
The House met at 8 p.m.
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE
(Seventh Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, when I began myremarks before
our adjournment for supper, I remarked on thewatershed that we are going
through now politically. You know, Iwish
I had a lot more time to speak tonight, because when I lookback on the
Conservative Party of 1988, pre‑election, and theConservative government
today, what a difference four years makes.
We have had members who were not here at the time. Irecognize that they perhaps did not really
realize what theConservative Party got elected on‑‑lecture
opposition membersabout being positive, that we should be more positive, Mr.Speaker. I would recommend as reading for those
members,Hansards. For example, this one
from the 1988 session. I wentthrough the
speech from the Leader of the Opposition, the nowPremier (Mr. Filmon). I could not find one positive word aboutthe
then‑NDP government, but I did find some interesting remarksfrom that
member and other members. This is why I
say we are ata watershed.
Who remembers the Conservatives of 1988 on health? We must"have community‑based facilities
in place before we cut back onhospital beds"‑‑the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), the then Leader of theOpposition, February 15, 1988. A great statement, Mr. Speaker.It still rings
true today. He said we must have thosecommunity-based
beds in place before hospital bed closures.
Nohospital bed closures for budgetary reasons, I remember thatquote as
well.
Is this the same Conservative government of 1992 that wastalking
back then? I could spend the entire 40
minutes on healthpolicy, on the fact that the Conservatives of 1988 werehypocrites
then and they are hypocrites today. I
will prove mypoint, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks by a comment by agreat
historic Tory who, I think, summed it up rather well.
Let us talk about education. Who can forget their platformin the 1988
election? Who can forget 90 percent
funding forschool districts, provincial funding of 90 percent? Mr. Speaker,in 1992, do we have closer to 90
percent funding? No, we do nothave
closer; we have less and less funding, fewer schooldivisions. Look at the list. Even since the now Minister ofRural
Development (Mr. Derkach) has left the portfolio asMinister of Education, he
knows that it has gotten even worse.As bad as it was even a year ago, it is
even worse. We couldeach spend the next
40 minutes on that.
*
(2005)
On the deficit, I wish the Minister of Culture, Heritage
andCitizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) was here, because one of myfavourite things,
from April 11, 1988, is the now Minister ofCulture, Heritage and Citizenship
saying, and this is a directquote: The
main thing a Tory government can offer is theirreduced deficit, Mr. Speaker‑‑a
reduced deficit.
Mr. Speaker, this is the same member who now sits as part
ofa government that has a real deficit of $642 million saying thatthe main
thing you can get out of a Tory government is a reduceddeficit. Well, I could spend the entire speech on Tory
fiscalpolicy, but there is something even better than that.
I ask you to think back to 1988. I ask you to think back tothe demonstrations
that were taking place outside: We are
notgoing to take it, Mr. Speaker. I
would ask you to think back to,oh, the now minister responsible for Autopac,
who was then criticfor Autopac, talking about what? Autopac increases. Well, isthat not interesting?
Let us try a little bit of history for some members who
havemaybe forgotten what had happened.
Not revisionist‑‑this isgoing to be in the words of the Tory
members, most of whom aresitting in the front benches today.
In 1985 and '86, the Conservatives at the time criticized
theNDP for what with Autopac? Not
reducing rates, Mr. Speaker. By1988,
bodily injury claims were rising in the province, and whatwere the
Conservatives now criticizing the NDP government for?For not increasing rates
so there would not be a rate shock. Ihave
the quotes here from the same person who now sits asminister responsible for
Autopac, who criticized the NDP for notrecognizing what was happening. In terms of what? Bodily injuryclaims. He said, and this is on page 441 of Hansard,
2nd ofMarch, 1988: "They couldn't
see it coming."
They could not see it coming‑‑talking
specific, and this, bythe way, was in the same speech where he had announced to
thepress at 1:30 he was going to be giving a speech at three o'clockwhere he
was going to make unparliamentary remarks‑‑he called theminister a
liar, Mr. Speaker‑‑and he was going to get kicked outof the
House. This is the same minister
responsible forAutopac. Well, is it not
interesting that indeed he was thrownout.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. The same individual whowas the critic, who
criticized the government at the time for notreacting to bodily injury claims,
now trots out an Autopacincrease that is of an equal magnitude and says, guess
what, Mr.Speaker, bodily injury claims are up; we have to do something.
Oh, how times change in four years. The minister responsiblefor Autopac says,
this is 1992. The premium increases tell
himit is time to review the program and the benefits paid out underit; I think
it is time to have a debate in the public about whatthe public wants in its
insurance package.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I seemed to be part of a debate in
1988.It was called the election, and boy, did the NDP government getthe message
at the time. People wanted changes. Well, what didthe government do, the
Conservative government that was elected?Did it lower Autopac rates? Did it act on the recommendations ofthe
Kopstein report for no-fault insurance that would cut ratesby as much as 20
percent? What did they do? They did absolutelynothing in regard to the
most fundamental recommendation of theKopstein report.
Today, the minister, faced with the prospect of a 95
percentincrease in rates over the next number of years, says, we areopen to
suggestions. My God, Mr. Speaker, if any
party shouldhave the answers, it should be the Conservative Party, aftergoing
around in 1988‑‑[interjection] Well, they clap, and here in1992,
what do they say? We have the
answers? No. They aresaying, give us some hints, give us
some ideas. Well, start byimplementing
the Kopstein report, no‑fault insurance, somethingwe have been pushing
for, something our critic has been raisingfor the last four years, something
they have sat on.
Mr. Speaker, let us deal with this Conservative
government,the reality of Autopac and the reality of what is happening.There
was another thing they did. The did not
just criticize therate increases, they said there would be, and I will make it
veryclear. It was another quote from a
Conservative member at thetime: Our plan
with Autopac would be to avoid politicalinterference with the rates and no
hiding the losses. The rateincreases
should have to apply to the Public Utilities Board.
What they did not say, Mr. Speaker, is that in 1992,
beforethe Public Utilities Board could even deal with the entirerecommendations
of Autopac, they would have a cabinet meeting anddecide that while Autopac had
come up with a suggestion thatwould save a combined $2 million for motorists in
*
(2010)
I mean, did anybody on that side not see what just
happenedin the American election? Does
anybody remember another commentfrom 1988, George Bush, read my lips, no new
taxes? Well, herein
(Mrs.
Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Is it just the NDP that is saying that this Conservativegovernment
has sat on the issue of Autopac for four years?
Well,no, there is someone else.
It is not Frances Russell. It is
notArlene Billinkoff. It is Fred
Cleverley. Indeed, Fred Cleverleyhas
been saying, if you have any concerns about Autopac, who doyou call? Glen Cummings, the Minister responsible for
Autopac.Indeed, what did Fred Cleverley say in two columns earlier thisyear? What did he say? He said, bring in no fault, and he said,cap
the payments to insurance agents in this province.
What did the Conservative government do? They did nothing onthe one, not only did not
cap the insurance agents' fees, theyhave now overruled in cabinet, the kind of
political interferencethey said they would not impose on Autopac‑‑they
have preventedAutopac from saving the motorists of this province $1 million.The
word is hypocrite. Whether it is on
health, whether it is oneducation, whether it is on fiscal policy, the word is
hypocrite.
The quote I was talking about is one I have used in thisHouse
before from Benjamin Disraeli who said:
"A conservativegovernment is an organized hypocrisy.", Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Well, this government has proved it is definitely
hypocrisy.Whether it is organized or not, I am not sure at times, MadamDeputy
Speaker. I am not sure if they are
particularlyorganized, but hypocrites they are.
I say that, indeed, there is a watershed to this
government,and I say to them that people have longer memories than theythink. You know, I talked to a lot of people this
weekend in myown constituency who could not believe that this government isnow
going to be increasing Autopac rates by up to 13.5 percent.
I could not believe it because, you know, I remember
sittingas part of the NDP government at the time and the discussion thattook
place, and I remember saying at the time, you cannot raisepremiums as
dramatically as occurred in that one year in oneyear. That is what people said. That is what the people of thisprovince said
in 1988. Boy, did we get a message in
the NDPcaucus, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Boy! Some of us remember it well,having
survived, and those who did not. [interjection]
We know which side the member is speaking from. I am notblaming the new member for
You know, the bottom line with this government is that
theycan only go so far with those kinds of developments, andthroughout this
session, I think we are going to see the rest ofthe veneer stripped away.
You know, they ran on a platform in 1988 of no additionaltaxes,
but they have been offloading so much, Madam DeputySpeaker, that not only are
they not maintaining health andeducation services, but in terms of education
services in manyareas throughout this province, there are major increases
takingplace in terms of property taxes.
If that is not a tax, what isit?
Is the property tax payer not a taxpayer? Is the increaseof property taxes because of
the actions of this government? Isthat
not an increase in taxes, another platform of thisgovernment from 1988 that is
rapidly eroding away?
*
(2015)
So as I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is going to be aninteresting
session and it is going to be, in my view, anabsolute watershed for this
government. If they want to sitthere and
think that Autopac is not going to be a major issue topeople out there, they
should talk to them now. They should
talkto them, because you know as bad as it was for the NDP back in1988 in terms
of Autopac, at least we had not run on the platformthat this party, the
government now ran on in 1988. There was
nodoubt in anybody's mind.
I have the quotes here, Madam Deputy Speaker, in detail
fromGary Filmon saying, oh, we are not going to have big increases.We are not
going to have political interference‑‑well, famouslast words
indeed. We are not going to take it, no
new bigincreases. We are not going to
take it, no politicalinterference. We
are not going to take it anymore.
Indeed, all I can say is, let us see the current reaction
interms of the public. We will see who
they believe from now on interms of Autopac, whether they will give any
credibility acrossthe way to a party that in the first place never agreed with
theAutopac concept and now after four years has a minister who ranthe main campaign
in 1988 against the NDP in terms of rateincreases and political interference
and now has the nerve to sayin 1992, if you have any ideas, let us know.
Well, I have a lot of ideas. Our caucus has a lot of ideasin terms of
Autopac. We put them on the table: no fault,capping agency fees. We are not alone. There are so many otherareas. There are so many areas, and we will not be
as trite asthe Conservatives were.
Well, I look at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay),who used to sit in his seat‑‑the most that members
opposite whenthey were in opposition would advise was, call an election. Letus have a new government. We could respond in kind, Madam DeputySpeaker. We know that the election will come not soon
enough forus or for the people of this province. We will take our case.We will not respond in
the same kind of tired, old rhetoric thatthey applied in 1988 talking about
calling an election, thatbeing their only platform.
Madam Deputy Speaker, how they have the nerve to stand
heretoday, how they can face their constituents when they go back onthe weekend
and look them in the eye when they are now going tobe bringing in increases in
terms of Autopac that are some 11,12, 13 percent above the rate of inflation,
in the range of 600percent of the rate of inflation, how they can turn and looktheir
constituents in the eye when they had just said no to $2million in savings for
the motorist, how they can look theirconstituents in the eye on political interference
and do anythingother than recognize that they have no credibility left is
beyondme.
Indeed, a Conservative government is a hypocrisy, MadamDeputy
Speaker. It may be an organized
hypocrisy, but it isbecoming increasingly disorganized. It is very clear we havereached the
watershed. This is going to be a
watershed sessionfor this Legislature.
Unless the Conservatives recognize whatthey are doing, which is, they
are burning their credibility onissues that got them elected in 1988, the
bottom line is, theverdict will come from the
I just remind them, as indeed happened in the election in
the
Believe you me, having remembered and having seen in
blackand white in Hansard reading just again today some of the thingsthey said
when they were running for election and seeing how theyhave acted when they
were in government, indeed, their time willcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we
in the NDP will be remindingthe people of
The bottom line is we cannot wait for the opportunity to
letthe people of
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Madam Deputy Speaker, I justwant to take this
opportunity to speak on the throne speech.Before I do that, I just want to pay
tribute to my Leader, whohas chosen to step down after nine years serving this
party.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Mrs. Carstairs has worked very
hard.She is a very honest person and she is a very honest politician.I think we
are all going to miss her, and I just want to saythank you to her. It is very difficult to get people in thisHouse
who are really true to their convictions and who do not getderailed by a narrow
political vision. Mrs. Carstairs has
shownus all a very good example.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is my fifth throne speech
reply.Since 1988, as a member of this Assembly, I think I have maturedand
learned many things in this House. I
feel it is veryimportant that I must do what is right for the people of
Manitobaas a whole, not only what is right for the people who voted forme. That is my principle when I come to this
House. I make surethat my views reflect
the opinion of my constituents andManitobans as a whole.
*
(2020)
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many things we have seen
forthe last two years, and I just want to touch base on one of thethings the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was saying‑‑call anelection. We just had two by‑elections and what
has happened inthe Crescentwood by‑election, I want to talk about
that. I thinkthat honesty in politics is
the most important thing.
We went door to door in the Crescentwood area, and what Ifound
there at the doors‑‑because of my involvement in healthcare and
being Health critic for five years and peoplerecognizing me, they were simply
asking me if I was supporting acut in health care. That was the question all the time. Are wesupporting the health care cuts? My answer was tell me who issupporting the
health care.
Then we saw a note there, a letter from Tim Sale, aCrescentwood
by‑election candidate. I can stand
anything butsomebody who is going to lie and manipulate the facts, I cannotdo
that. It said, and I will read it, the
Liberals endorsed theTory cuts to our health care system. Their candidate has notsaid a word about the
potential economic disaster resulting fromMexican free trade.
What they have done, and actually if you look at the results,more
than 65 percent of Crescentwood voters rejected that kind ofpolicy and the kind
of abuse against us. That was a major
topicof discussion. The discussion
basically here is a question ofhonesty and dignity that you do not tell lies or
tell thingswhich are not right. Say what
is right and what you say here,believe that.
It was very, very frightening, but we did not hear that
in
I want to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, something. I wasreading the 1992 Canadian Medical
Association magazine and thereis a
*
(2025)
In this case, Madam Deputy Speaker, everyone, except a
few,knows that the right things are being done.
It is a very, verydangerous road because this government is not going to
have thefruits of health care reform, not what I am going to get out ofthis, or
my party is going to get out of this.
Manitobans aregoing to have the beneficial effects not in one year, two
years,three years, four years, probably five or 10 years time, and thensomebody
else is going to have the benefits. I
think if they arereally interested in the public that they should say it is theright
thing to do and let us see this reform take place. That iswhere we will differ with the
minister.
I think we should‑‑because our role is to
make sure thatsomebody thinks what they have said‑‑make sure they
do that andthat is why we are going to continue. It is not easy to be onthe same side, but for
the right thing we must do it.
I want to read a few quotes, because I think it is veryessential. It is not essential what I say about the
thronespeech. There are many experts in
this province. There are goodjournalists,
good reporters, good politicians, very, very smartpeople, better than all of us
probably. But simply by cominghere, it
does not make us an expert and a genius overnight,because we have 24 percent of
the votes, so we are the saviour ofthe whole world, but at least we should try
to do the rightthings.
I want to read, it was April of 1987, and the quote
is: Iasked the advice which would
refocus the emphasis on health careservices from the traditional, institutional
framework. I wishto reaffirm that
commitment to support the growth of thisprogram, so that we can bring the
refocusing away from ourinstitutional model.
Who was that? It was not this
Minister ofHealth (Mr. Orchard). It was
not the Premier of Manitoba (Mr.Filmon).
It was not the Leader of the third party, but it wasthe then Minister of
Health.
The Minister of Health, on May 25, 1992, said on MikeMcCourt's
Report that he was going to talk to the member forConcordia (Mr. Doer) and the
member for
I think that is the issue here. There are some partiesafraid that this is
going to be successful. It will not be
anissue in the next campaign. I think
that is the trouble here.It is very, very dangerous because‑‑[interjection]
Madam DeputySpeaker, we do not have to defend anybody. People know what theyare doing. There is no need to defend it. They know exactlywhat is happening, because
that has been proven by twoby‑elections.
It is going to be proven in Rupertsland also. We will knowthat in November of 1993 who is
going to win that seat because weknow we are doing the right things. We know that these peopleappreciate it,
because it does not matter which way you go, thirdparty or second party or
first party, if we can keep them awayfrom that side of the House that will be
our biggest service toManitobans.
I want to talk about the total hypocrisy of even havingcolour
blindness for the logos. In the
Crescentwood by‑election,we had two red colours going all over the place
and the questionwas, who was the real candidate? That was the question, who thecandidate was,
because we had one orange sign in
Madam Deputy Speaker, since May of 1992, we have been tovarious
health care conferences. We have kept
the same message.The message is still the same, that we want to make sure thathealth
care reform will succeed, and we want to make sure ofthat. We have to make sure that we keep this
minister on track,and that is our role.
We have seen from some other party, whichwe all know, that every place
they go they have a separatemessage.
They go to a union and they will say, oh, well, theyare cutting all the
beds, you are going to lose all the jobs.They go to doctors and they say, no,
it is really bad, you know,they are against doctors, and then they go tophysiotherapists‑‑oh,
no, no, they are against you. It is kindof
the social and critical warfare which is their philosophy, andit is very
dangerous. Again, that is why we are low
in thecredibility poll as politicians in this country. That is verysad.
I want to express my views, because it is very tough for
meas a health care professional when I go to institutions, and theyask me as
their health care provider, how can I support the bedcuts? But they fail to understand that the
government was givena mandate by the people of
*
(2030)
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is one which is going to be
shownat the next campaign, because everything is going wrong with ourNDP.
That is not the case‑‑health care reform will
succeed whetherthey support it or not, that is not the issue anymore. Theyshould talk to the minister in
I think this is so important that even as a member, a
singlemember of the Assembly, if we can even help to make a change‑‑Iam
not afraid of anyone, because people, when they elected us,have told us this is
an important issue; please do it carefully.
If the NDP can think of one reporter who has said that
healthcare reform is not right‑‑just pick one. Not even one so far hassaid health care
reform is not the right thing. In fact,everyone
across this nation has been saying, follow the exampleof
I think it is so essential, and we want to make sure that
thePremier (Mr. Filmon) will understand that the issue of healthcare reform,
what his government has started, must carry on andnot get derailed by some of
the negative things that are beingcreated by self‑centred, self‑motivated
and very, verynarrow‑minded people, because if you get afraid and change
theminister, say, for example, next year, that will derail yourhealth care
reform more than anything else, because it takes along time for somebody to
understand health care reform.
The health care system is very, very complex. It changes sorapidly from day to day. It is a responsibility that is sosensitive
that anything you touch, you are going to have somenegative impact in the
initial stage, but in the long run, thiswill be the most important thing for us
to do.
Then we can discuss in 1994 who was right because people
willdecide that, and they have already shown in the by‑election thathealth
care reform‑‑when the NDP said that was the issue‑‑I amreading
from their brochure, that was the No. 1 issue‑‑that issuewas
defeated, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is so
essential that wecontinue to do the right things.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very easy in this House tocomplain
and not have a single positive suggestion orconstructive criticism. It is very easy, and we did that in1988. I do not think there is anybody in this House
who hascriticized more the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) than myself.
I think as elected officials, we have the responsibility
tomaintain a standard of criticism and also maintain a mutualrespect so that we
can achieve something. It is much easier
toachieve with co‑operation than with a fight. I think that hasbeen happening. We have been able to resolve many
things. I canbring every day's caseload
with the names attached, but we havenot done that because that is unfair‑‑unless
we are forced andaction is not being taken.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am simply asking my
colleagues onthe right side of this House, please, make sure that what you aresaying,
can you deliver that tomorrow? For
example, in 1994, ifyou become the government, can you do that? You will not be ableto do that. It is very tough.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are stories and stories andscientific
evidence all across this nation. One can
take asingle topic and go on health care reform all along, but theimportant
thing, what I wanted to convey were the right things.
I just want the minister to know that we had our six‑monthreport,
and we have sent to the minister our report, andbasically what we have found is
that many things in this healthcare package are being done at a slow
speed. We want them to doit at a faster
speed, because it is so essential that thingsshould be done as soon as
possible. Otherwise if it is nextyear,
then there will be again a fear of backlash or worse. Ithink they have the right and they can do it
right now, so wewill encourage the minister to that.
One positive thing that came out of the throne speech was
thePharmacare card. The Pharmacare card
is a good issue, and wehave all been working on that. Now I think everybody is tryingto claim who
really had the idea, but it does not matter as longas it is being
implemented. Somebody said, we had it in
1985;
somebody said '86,
somebody said '88 or '90. The important
thingis the Pharmacare card is there, and we want that card to stayand make
sure that Smart Card will come eventually.
When initially the Smart Card idea was coming, I remember
themember for Concordia (Mr. Doer) said it was terrible. I rememberthat because that was a
question. But then when the Ontariogovernment
said, we are going to do it, oh, it is a good idea,you know? It is not that bad. I think some people are slow inremembering,
but that is fine.
Madam Deputy Speaker, why I am spending so much time on
thisis because I have seen what they did in the Crescentwoodby‑election
and what they were doing in the civic campaign.
Iwant to talk about that. We have
seen social warfare, but in thecivic campaign we saw a kind of new
warfare. It was an ethnicwarfare they
were trying to start, and we worked very hard in allthe ethnic communities to
make sure that this party does notexploit any ethnic group anymore.
[interjection] Well, the memberfor
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not wasting my time, because Iknow
I am not wasting my time. The member for
*
(2040)
Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] I just
want to tell themember for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) that I will give him the
copiesof all the speeches of all House critics.
Their agenda and theTory agenda are almost the same, basically, reform
for healthcare. So I will give him
copies to read that. It is soimportant
because he seems to witness in person but he does notknow what they are
doing. He wants to do the right thing‑‑butevery
day they are frightening people. They
are sayingeverything is falling apart.
The health care is going down thedrain, come down and save us. We want to have this public shownow. Twenty people called them and said, oh well,
we have anopen debate on health care reform.
What is happening? Themembership
of the party goes from one place to another, and wehave seen the same
presenters for five years. That is what
Ihave seen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the same presenters, the samequestioners,
the same question in the same fashion, they havebeen asking. I am really forced to say these things todaybecause
I will not be able to have a good sleep if I do not getthis off my chest. I mean, when I was going to the Crescentwoodby‑election,
that was the issue‑‑bed cuts, bed cuts, everythingis falling apart,
antiunion. These people do not know what
theyare doing. It was terrible. I wish that people would change.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many things that have
gonewrong in the past, many things that have gone wrong, and if wecontinue to
follow the same path, then we will do more thingswrong. That is why we are cautioning that all of us
must do whatis right for the people of
It is very tough to face the lies, but it is very easy toface
the truth, even if it hurts. I think
that is the issuehere. Let us face the
truth, let us really follow what you saytoday and what you are going to do
tomorrow. It is very tough,that we have
seen. We have seen it in 1988 and
1990. It wasvery tough to do that,
because we were immature in some ways.
Wedid not have experience. I did
not know about politics. I didnot know
too much about health care. We thought
that that wasprocedures here. You will
come and you have to do all thosethings.
That is not the real thing, because that is not gettingthem votes. That did not get any votes to us. People wanted atruthful government, and I
think that is our role, to make surethis government stays on the course.
I saw something very strange today. The Minister of Sportmade an
announcement. It was a good thing for
It is so painful what we saw in the civic campaign. The NDPsaid, we have this WIN group. It was so‑called veryindependent. Then we saw each and every MLA working hard
in ourarea promoting ethnic rift, the kind of underhanded approach Ihave never
seen in any part of the world. The
candidate wassaying, we have to fight and make sure that that kind of thingwill
not exist in north
What has happened is exploitation, total exploitation ofinnocent
Canadians, new Canadians. Do you know
what they havedone? What they have done,
I have seen their multiculturalpolicy.
They did not appoint a single person on any board orcommission where
they had some responsible position. They
didnot appoint anybody, but at the same time, when somebody else isdoing it,
they are fearful. That is why I said,
they are notfearful that people are not going to get the benefit; they arefearful
of the success of others. That is their
problem. Thatis their trouble.
Everybody is spending so much time and effort and workinghard
to make sure that people have jobs, people will have theirlivelihood, they will
work together, but you see some of thepoliticians going and exploiting
them. Madam Deputy Speaker, Ihave to
speak on this issue. It may not be part
of the thronespeech, but it is part of my constituency's code. It isbasically what has happened in the civic
campaign, it was verydangerous but we were able to stop it. It is not putting newversus old, yellow
versus brown, colour versus noncolour.
Thatkind of politics has to stop, underhanded below‑the‑belt
kind ofapproach‑‑very dangerous.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that some of them are not
goingto be very happy, but people have to be told what they are upto. If we can even do it, that is a risk I think will
savedisasters to happen. Some of the
members in this House have donevery well, but we are talking about the whole
structure, the kindof planning that goes into the communities to make sure they
arebeing exploited, that kind of politics has to stop.
That is why it is so important for people like me or
somebodyelse to come here and speak on the issues. I do not want to sitat the back and just clap
when somebody stands up. I want to dosomething
that is right, but they are not interested for peoplewho would like to come and
sit in this House, they want toexploit them.
That has to be stopped.
It is so sad because they want to go out in the
communitiesand say, well, you know, we are going to say we are thesocialists,
we have a social conscience. We are the
socialconscience of this province, but that is not fact. That is notfact. If you had such a social conscience, how come
you couldnot get even one ethnic candidate to run in a winnable riding?Not even
one.
It is good to put the names on the ballot paper and say,
oh,we are going to have you, we are going to have you, but not getthem in a
winnable riding, because when they come, they are goingto see what you are up
to. That is the tragedy.
It is the kind of policy that is so deep‑rooted,
and Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak against that policy anytime insidethis
House, outside this House. I spoke about
that policy in thetemple very openly because that is where these kinds of
thingswere being said.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the most important thing from all
of usand from our party, we want to make sure that the people of
* (2050)
Madam Deputy Speaker, because these kinds of things when
yougo door to door, these kinds of things when we get theconstituents to phone
me or write to me, these are the thingsthey are asking me. They are not asking me more than that. Theyare simply asking me, are you doing the
right things for them?This question comes up every day: Are you guys doing the rightthings for
us? Because once they see the Question
Period andsomebody has a 30‑second clip‑‑oh, it is terrible,
everything isfalling apart, the province is going down the drain. Really thatdemoralizes people more.
What we have to do in tough economic times is to make
surethat we say some positive things to make sure people's confidenceis there
so that they can work because, without their work, wewill not be here. We will not be able to afford anything. Soyou have to go back to the people, make
sure you take the bestadvantage of their positive attitude, their abilities,
theirfunctions and really work with them in a more open andco-operative
fashion, but not have the social warfare or ethnicwarfare or a class warfare
which will divide people. That willnot
work in this country and in this province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is why we want the government
tohave the openness for people to come and talk to the ministers.We have good
success with some of the ministers. If
anythingneeds to be done in my constituency, we go to them and it isbeing done,
and we are not sending a note there that, you know,we got it and so vote for
us. We are simply saying, this isright
for you. It does not matter which party
you voted for inthe past. As
constituents you deserve the fair share ofresources, and that is why we are
going to request even from theMinister of Health (Mr. Orchard) that in my
constituency, whichhas the Seven Oaks Hospital‑‑and the member for
Kildonan (Mr.Chomiak) is asking the government to relocate the ophthalmologyprogram,
a teaching program which could be a very valuable assetto the
I know that the hospital has made the submission to theminister's
office, and I have advocated for the same thing as of1988. It is not the first time I am doing it. So, we will askthe minister to look at the
ophthalmology program to make surethat program is established at
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) issaying, share the care. I do
not know, but I will share with themember for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak),
definitely, and I think wewill work together on this issue. I will share with the ministeralso all the
good things which are going to come out of thishealth action plan.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to just end up by saying
that wehave to do what is right for the people of
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
We will be honest, we will be direct, and we will make
surethat the Minister of Health will follow the Health Action Plan sothat we
can have a health care system which is going to be goodfor the province, which
is going to be good for the people ofManitoba, and which is setting up a
standard for the rest of thecountry.
So, Mr. Speaker, let us not be afraid of success. Let ustake the success and run with it. Thank you.
Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, it is always anhonour to reply
to the throne speech as it is to say how nice itis to see you back in the
Speaker's Chair.
The first time I replied to a throne speech, I said all
theright things about the Speaker. I
understand it is traditionalto compliment the Speaker, but this time I can
speak from twoyears' experience. I think
all of us sort of recognized that weenjoyed the fact that you used a little bit
of humour when it isnecessary, a small frown, a shake of the hand, or a wee bit
ofexasperation maybe creeps into your voice when you try to keeporder in this
House.
I would like to take this moment to thank the new Pages
whohave joined us this session and also to thank the new Clerk.
I would also like to take this time just to say to theLieutenant‑Governor
I wish him a speedy recovery and many, manyyears of good health ahead of him.
This is my first opportunity really to officiallyacknowledge,
I guess, I would say the loss of our former memberfrom
An Honourable Member: And the
smell of his cigars.
Mrs. Render: Yes, and
the smell of his cigars which wafted downto the end of the hallway.
I would also like to wish the former member for
Rupertslandall the best in whatever he does with his future.
Reference was made to another member who is no longer
here,and I too would just like to say that I enjoyed working with him,and that
is the former member for Crescentwood, Jim Carr. I hadthe pleasure of working with him on the
Manitoba ConstitutionalTask Force. I
found him to be very fair‑minded, a very objectiveperson, and very easy
to work with‑‑and very liberal too.
I would like to say at this moment that I am very sorry thatthe
Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) has decidedthat it is time to
step down. I have not had any direct
dealingswith her, but I think one of the things that I found veryinteresting
about any of her comments here in the House is thatshe spoke from the heart,
and I think of a comment that she madejust today, whenever she speaks off the
cuff.
Today she made reference to the
An Honourable Member: If you
keep this up, she is not going toquit.
Mrs. Render:
Definitely. At any rate, I just
want to say thatshe has been a good Leader for the Liberals. She has brought theLiberal Party back to
life, and I think she has made a valuablecontribution to this House and to the
province.
Of course, I would like to welcome the two new members
here:the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) whose background I knowwill be a
valuable asset to this House; and, of course, the newmember for Portage (Mr.
Pallister), my seatmate, so to speak, whois very visible, and somebody I will
never overlook, and yes, Ido have to say I look up to him. Although he may find the chairlegs of his
chair are going to be cut off so we can look eyeballto eyeball.
Now, a subject that most of us have put behind us and
nobodyhas even talked about so far in the throne speech is theConstitution. I would just like to resurrect that subject
forjust a moment because I think we should acknowledge the greatamount of time
that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and thePremier (Mr. Filmon) devoted
to trying to make a good deal forManitoba and trying to make a good deal for
Now, before I get into my comments on the throne speech,
Iwould just like to bring members up to date with what has beenhappening in St.
Vital. The
I just had a letter from the principal of the school
today,and he tells me that
*
(2100)
I think a great deal of credit has to go to a couple ofteachers
at
Now sharing the same grounds with the school is the
Windsorcommunity centre. Like the
school, the community centre has adynamic group of parents and children. These parents havesuccessfully seen the
completion of a new clubhouse to replacewhat was affectionately known as
"the castle."
I was really very pleased to have been able to work with
someof my colleagues here to help secure them a Community Placesgrant to ensure
the funding for the building of this newclubhouse went through. Just yesterday, I was out at the Windsorcommunity
centre and the new clubhouse is just beautiful.
Now Ijust want to congratulate the parents who spent so much timeseeing
this project through to completion and wish them the bestin their fundraising
efforts. I know that they will besuccessful
because of the spirit which so characterizes this area.
Now funding through the Community Places Program has alsopaved
the way for a couple of other Community Places projects inSt. Vital. One of them is the St. Vital Y, which, of
course, allof us know offers a huge selection of programs and services tothe
community. They needed some major
renovations done and againthrough a Community Places grant they were able to do
this.Another group, which I do not know whether any of you on theother side of
the House are aware of, is a group called the SaveOur Seine group and the core
group of the Save Our Seine group ismade up of residents who live along the
Seine River.
I have been working with this group since I was elected
inSeptember 1990, and along with the Minister of Natural Resources(Mr. Enns)
and Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), some of mycolleagues again have been
able to secure funding to help thisgroup in their task of, quite literally,
saving the Seine River.Of course, their prime wish is really to restore the
waterquality and the quantity to the Seine River.
I just have to say, I have really enjoyed working with
thisgroup of volunteers because they just do not stand aroundwringing their
hands and waiting for somebody else to do thework. They are out there doing much of the hard,
dirty workthemselves. In fact, their
last cleanup took place, oh, aboutfour weeks ago on a very, very cold day.
Okay, now on to the throne speech. All of us know that therationale, the reason
behind the throne speech, is for thegovernment to provide a blueprint, a
framework so to speak as tohow it is going to approach the upcoming Legislative
session andbeyond. Now, to have
effective and realistic policies, it isvital that governments know when to
strike a balance by lookingat what is happening within its own boundaries and
what ishappening outside of its boundaries.
I think it is significant that the very first sentence of
themain paragraph shows that this government is not ignoring, assome in this
Chamber think that they can do, what is happening onthe world scene. This government recognizes the dramatic
changesthat have occurred in the world.
Now, just to refresh yourmemory, I will just read that first
sentence. The winds ofchange are
sweeping the globe, and the throne speech goes on tosay that history teaches us
that the most durable and enduringsocieties are those best able to cope with
change, adapt theirway of life and take advantage of new opportunities. How veryimportant these words are, and we
have put them front and centreso that people know that this government
understands that ourpolicies must take into consideration the global picture.
I think it is very significant also that the next threeheadings
of the throne speech immediately point out where thisplaces
I just want to focus on that last one for a moment. OurPremier (Mr. Filmon), our Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), theMinister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson), inparticular have been doing just that. They have been marketingManitoba to the
world. They know that in a global
marketplace,businesses that do not adapt their marketing strategies to thesocial,
technological, economic and political forces that affectconsumer behaviour
simply will not survive the '90s. They
knowthat hype and gimmicks will not sell products, that marketingwill involve
educating the customer and providing solid value,and that businesses will have
to offer high‑tech services totheir customers.
Having said that, I just want to remind all members here‑‑although
I think those on this side of the House verydefinitely know this government has
been working since we havebeen elected to wipe out the regressive, antibusiness
measuresput into place by the previous administration‑‑we have been
verysuccessful. No other government in
this country can say that forfive successive budgets they have not raised major
business orpersonal taxes. We can, and
that is a record that is unbeatable.
Now, actions I think speak louder than words, and our
actionssay that
Thus, this government does have a definite strategic plan
ofaction:
(1) We look outward to assess what is happening in the
widerscene and its relevance to
(2) We critically assess where our strengths lie, and
then wemake a concerted effort to build on these strengths. Thatassessment is another heading in the
throne speech called"Building on Our Strengths."
This province has a very diversified grouping of
strengthsthat this government will focus on and expand the opportunities.
Some of those areas are the health care industries. How manymembers here know that the number of
health product manufacturersin this sector has increased by 250 percent to more
than 60companies employing more than 1,000 Manitobans? I think this isa very enviable record. To build on this importantinfrastructure,
this government has signed an agreement with thefederal government to support
health industry development foranother five years.
Another area of great strength here in
Special emphasis will be placed on the development oftechnologies
and services to support the economic development ofgrowth in both rural and
northern
Tourism is another area of strength in this province, andthis
is an area of special importance and interest to me since Ihave spent over a
dozen years with the Western Canada AviationMuseum. One of our goals at the museum was to market
the museumnot just here in
Aerospace is another sector where we have a great manystrengths,
and again it is another area, one in which I am veryinterested in.
*
(2110)
During the years that this company was busy carving out aname
for itself on the airways side of things, others here inManitoba were
developing ancillary industries to go along withit. We have such industries, MacDonald Bros.,
which is nowBristol Aerospace, Standard Aero, just to name a couple whichhave
become world‑renowned.
I think it is a credit to this province that BristolAerospace
is located here. This company has over
60 years ofexperience in the repair and overhaul services for both fixed androtary
wing aircraft and precision manufacture of aero componentsfor various air
frames and gas turbine engines.
Bristol'sprogram for the modernization and life extension of the F‑5
hasearned that company international recognition, along with itsworld famous
Black Brant rocket. I think it is very
significantthat
Now a relative newcomer to the aviation industry here inManitoba
is GE Aerospace. I would just like to
point out thatthe engineering team there very recently developed within arecord‑setting
time of about 18 months an operational prototypeof the digital acoustic
receiver system. This is forsurveillance
applications, and the GE Aerospace facility here inWinnipeg has the world
product mandate for DARS. I think this
isa very important step in the development of
Even the Winnipeg International Airport‑‑members
oppositethroughout their responses to the throne speech have said we usedthe
word "innovate" too much. What
is innovate? Ah, there isnothing
there. Everybody is innovating. What I started to saywas, even the
Just recently, under its general manager, Lynn Bishop,
theyhave developed a brand new strategy to better utilize its spacewithin the
airport complex. This concept is called
MarketAvenue. It was just unveiled last
week. New approaches,new‑think, as
we often call the innovative and creativeapproaches which, as I just said,
regretfully, the oppositionseems to take exception to, very definitely
epitomizes the waythis government looks at things.
It also epitomizes the approach that the Minister of
Health(Mr. Orchard) and this government have chosen to ensure thatManitobans
have quality health care in the future.
It is nolonger viable simply to pour more money into the system. One, wesimply do not have the resources to
continue doing that; andsecondly, there is just simply no automatic guarantee
thatputting more money into something is going to make it any better.
This government and the Minister of Health have had thecourage
to say that we have to change the approach to the way wejust deliver our health
care. To that end, the Minister ofHealth
has spent countless hours consulting with professionals ina wide variety of
health care fields to come up with the qualityhealth plan for Manitobans.
Some of the main tenets of this plan, and I am sure membershere on thi