Monday, March 2, 1992


The House met at 1:30 p.m.








Mr. Speaker:  I have reviewed the petition of the honourable   member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the   House.  Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

      The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of   Manitoba humbly sheweth

      THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of   our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and

      It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and   deal with this most vicious of crimes; and

      Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign   raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the   crime; and

      The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse   campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help   abused children.

      WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature   of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the   government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with   Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child   Abuse campaign. (Ms. Barrett)

         I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it   complies with the privileges and practices of the House.  Is it   the will of the House to have the petition read?

      The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of   Manitoba humbly sheweth

      THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of   our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and

      It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and   deal with this most vicious of crimes; and

      Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign   raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the   crime; and

      The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse   campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help   abused children.

      WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature   of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the   government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with   Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child   Abuse campaign. (Mr. Reid)

         I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms 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 province of   Manitoba humbly sheweth

      THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of   our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and

      It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and   deal with this most vicious of crimes; and

      Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign   raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the   crime; and

      The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse   campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help   abused children.

      WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature   of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the   government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with   Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child   Abuse campaign. (Mr. Chomiak)

         I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms 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?

      To the Legislature of Manitoba:

      WHEREAS the loss of elm trees to the Dutch elm disease is a   loss of property value and beauty to its neighbourhood; and

      WHEREAS in 1990 the Province of Manitoba spent over $2   million to manage Dutch elm disease and $700,000 of that amount   was allocated to the City of Winnipeg; and

      WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg has maintained its commitment to   the management of Dutch elm disease while the Province of   Manitoba reduced its support to the city to $350,000 in 1991,   half that of 1990;

      THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative   Assembly will urge the government of Manitoba to consider   restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to the City of   Winnipeg to fight Dutch elm disease. (Mrs. Carstairs)

         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?

      To the Legislature of Manitoba:

      WHEREAS the loss of elm trees to the Dutch elm disease is a   loss of property value and beauty to its neighbourhood; and

      WHEREAS in 1990 the Province of Manitoba spent over $2   million to manage Dutch elm disease and $700,000 of that amount   was allocated to the City of Winnipeg; and

      WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg has maintained its commitment to   the management of Dutch elm disease while the Province of   Manitoba reduced its support to the city to $350,000 in 1991,   half that of 1990;

      THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative   Assembly will urge the government of Manitoba to consider   restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to the City of   Winnipeg to fight Dutch elm disease. (Ms. Friesen)

* (1335)




Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and   Citizenship):  I have the pleasure of tabling the Annual Report   for 1990‑1991 of the Manitoba Arts Council.

Mr. Speaker:  I am also pleased to table the 1990 Annual Report   of the Ombudsman.




Constitutional Issues

All-Party Committee


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, we   welcome you back to our Chamber here today and hope you are   feeling well.  That is not intended to ingratiate myself for   longer preambles which I know you will cut me off on immediately,   as you should.

      I have a question to the First Minister.  The parliamentary   committee has reported over the weekend on an extensive list of   proposals to deal with our Canadian federation, to deal with a   great number of proposals dealing with Canada and our   Constitution.

      A number of people have made comments on the proposals.  A   number of people are making comments as we speak.  Mr. Speaker,   Manitoba has had a great strength dealing with the Constitution   over the last number of years, a strength where all parties work   together to develop a consensus position on behalf of Manitobans   and Manitobans' vision of a strong and united Canada.

      Mr. Speaker, rather than each of us going off in our own   caucuses tonight with our documents, I would suggest that it   would be better to continue and build upon the consensus in this   province.

      I would ask whether the Premier would be prepared to   reconstitute the all‑party committee dealing with our   Constitution, so that the proposals that are before us and before   the country today, and I recognize they are only preliminary   proposals, could be reviewed and commented on by our all‑party   committee, so that again we can work with the strength of all   parties on behalf of Canada and Manitobans, and work together in   a co‑ordinated and united way in this Chamber.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to   thank the Leader of the Opposition for his offer of support,   assistance and participation.  I certainly would acknowledge that   I believe it is important, for me as Premier and for us as a   government, to consult and to be able to in some way involve the   opposition caucuses' views in this matter.

      As the Leader of the Opposition will know, I certainly have   attempted as much as possible in expressing my views and concerns   about the document that was tabled yesterday by the   Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee to reflect the concerns that were in   the Manitoba Constitutional Task Force.  The concerns I believe   that I have expressed are in keeping with those that the task   force really laid out as areas of concern and the positions that   they took, the all‑party committee of this Legislature.

      I would suggest to him that since he, like I, probably has   not had time to go into all of the legal wording, and I am sure   the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) has not as well,   that this is a comprehensive document.  One of things that is   going to be important is that we recognize it as a point along a   process and that the process will be extensive and will involve   opportunities for a great deal more participation by us as a   government representing the views and concerns of Manitobans.

      I would certainly encourage the two opposition caucuses to be   reviewing this and to be, in effect, developing their concerns   and that some way we will find a consultative mechanism that will   allow those views to be put into the mix as far as we are   concerned.  When I go forward to the next meeting, when the   Constitutional Affairs minister goes forward on behalf of   Manitoba, we will want to know that we have the views and   concerns of both opposition parties with us when we go.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, again, I would offer up our support to   review the document in an all‑party way, because many of the   recommendations in the document we can comment on from our   all‑party report.  There are other points of departure where we   have never even discussed the proposals.  I think, again, rather   than each of us representing our caucuses, I think having all   parties around the same table dealing with the document on behalf   of Manitobans would be a valuable and continued contribution in   our province.


Unity Committee Report

Legal Opinion Request


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  A further question to   the First Minister.  He has indicated over the weekend his   concern on the devolution of powers.  I think that is again very   consistent with Manitobans' opinions in the public hearings,   wanting a strong national government, a strong federal government   and not wanting to move many powers over to the provinces.  I   think, intuitively, we all made the same comments over the   weekend on the concepts that we had heard were contained in the   report.  The Premier has indicated that his legal constitutional   advisers are going through all parts of this report to determine   all of the potential ramifications in a comprehensive way.

      I would ask the Premier:  Would he agree to provide that to   the all‑party committee if he agrees to constitute it, and   secondly, would he agree to make those opinions public in this   Chamber and for all Manitobans, so again, we can be working   together on the ramifications of these reports and the legal   opinions would be available to all Manitobans through this   Chamber?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  I am not certain that we are going   to have everything in detailed legal form, but certainly the   principles and the areas of concern that are going to have to be   addressed are ones that I will state publicly.  We have nothing   to hide when we have concerns that have to be addressed in this   constitutional process.  We want those concerns to be known and   understood, not only by everybody in this Chamber, but also by   the public, so we will utilize as the basis of this the advice   that we get.

      I see no reason why I would not share that advice with the   opposition leaders or whichever representatives we want to have   to ensure that all parties' views are brought together on this   issue.

Mr. Doer:  It is very difficult to know in this country what is   the next step.  Is it the federal government and cabinet making   another proposal?  Are the First Ministers going to be involved   in it before another proposal is made?  The whole issue, as the   Premier said, is one step along the way, but it is very difficult   to know what other steps are following from the federal   government.  The Prime Minister and the Minister of   Constitutional Affairs have been very, very vague with Canadians   on the process under which Canadians will work with their   Constitution.  Certainly, in this House, process is very   important because, as we know, we had a very open process in this   Chamber, something that was condemned by the federal government   in the past and something that, I think, served Manitobans well.


Constitutional Issues



Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  I would like to ask   another question to the Premier.  The federal document   contemplates a consultative referendum on the constitutional   proposal, either to confirm the existence of a national consensus   or to facilitate the adoption of a required amending resolution.

      I am sure the Premier, his staff and his constitutional   advisors have been reviewing this issue.  Is it the intent of the   Premier to have the referendum if the federal government calls   one before the all‑party committee will deal with any   constitutional proposal?  Is the timing going to be a potential   referendum first and then a proposal that comes back to this   Chamber after that, or can the Premier shed some light on the   process as he sees it, especially considering the vague   recommendation of the federal government to have a referendum   nationally and how that would fit with our processes in this   Chamber in terms of timing?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  I must say to the Leader of the   Opposition that it is difficult to be definitive about this one.   One does not know what the ultimate process will lead to.

      I might say that I could not just blame the federal   government for not having a process in mind or having the process   defined because I know that they are getting conflicting advice   from other Premiers.  I know that some Premiers believe that we   should just simply set aside all the rest of it, get to the table   and let the Premiers do what they did before and try and strike   compromises.

      I, for one, think that the process has to be a little more   extensive than that.  I think that there is a place for   officials, legal and constitutional officials, along with the   ministers of Constitutional Affairs to start just identifying the   areas of conflict that clearly are developing throughout the   country, and try and narrow down and focus in on what are the   difficult compromises and those sorts of things.

      Having said all that, the question on the referendum is one   that again cannot be answered directly.  The amending formula in   the Constitution is going to require the passage of resolutions   in Legislatures.  This Legislature will trigger its own process,   the process that our rules call for that involves public hearings   and a minimum length of debate that we know is set forward and a   resolution in this Chamber that ultimately will have to be voted   upon regardless of any kind of referendum, whether it be a   provincial referendum separately or a national referendum.

      That process would still have to take place in our   Legislature, in every other Legislature and the Parliament of   Canada.  It would only be the seven provinces and 50 percent of   the population plus the federal government that would trigger   in.  If there are elements that require unanimous consent, of   course, again that would require a separate process of votes in   Legislatures and Parliament.  None of the proposals, however   vague they are, could override the need to have this Legislature   debate and ultimately decide upon a resolution.

* (1345)


Urban Hospital Council

Budget Reduction Proposal


Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, at this time   last year, we raised a number of questions about $19 million   being cut from urban hospitals by this government and about the   significant number of bed closures that were being extended from   summer right through winter to this coming summer.  The Minister   of Health at that time said that we were fearmongering, that we   were making up these figures and that none of this was true, all   the while overseeing and authorizing these budget cuts.

      I want to ask the minister on what basis he has asked the   Urban Hospital Council to consider the impact of a further   $20‑million cut to their base budgets for this coming fiscal   year, and on what basis he has asked our two major hospitals, the   Health Sciences Centre and the St. Boniface Hospital, to cut 250   beds between them.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, so   pleased to see you back, Sir.

      My honourable friend again is attempting to‑‑how would I say   this genteely?‑‑obfuscate the issue‑‑is that the proper   terminology?‑‑because my honourable friend in referring to the   $19‑million, as she puts it, cut to the health care budget belies   the fact that, in the last fiscal year, the hospitals across the   length and breadth of this province received an increase in   funding, not a decrease as my honourable friend would have you,   Sir, and those casual observers in the House believe.  That is   not accurate, and my honourable friend knows that is not accurate.

      What the $19 million involves, Mr. Speaker, is the difference   between what the hospitals requested and what we finally ended up   budgeting for them.  That is the $19 million which left every   hospital in the province of Manitoba with an increased budget   this fiscal year over last, not less as my honourable friend   would have all Manitobans believe.  The premise of her question   is not correct.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis:  Only this minister could ignore the   difficult situation he has placed hospitals in.

      I would like to know from this minister, given the   $20‑million proposed cut to urban hospitals and the 250‑bed   reduction to St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, what impact   study has he done to determine the impact that such budget   reductions will have on services being delivered through our   hospitals, considering the drastic‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The question has been put.

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, there used to be a member in this   House in the official opposition that used to say, there he goes   again.  Well, I am not going to do that because the "he" is a   "she", but there she goes again talking about cutbacks when I   have explained to her that the hospital budgets were increased   last year over the year previous.

      My honourable friend can wait with some small amount of   patience until the budget and the tabling of the Estimates to   determine what will be the relative financial position in next   year's hospital budget compared to last year's hospital budget,   because I know my honourable friend would demand my resignation.   I cannot share with her any more details around the budget for   hospitals this year versus next.

      Mr. Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend that the Urban   Hospital Council is considering a number of issues, 40‑plus of   them, which involved some very fundamental issues on management   of existing resources in the health care system, a process my   honourable friend the New Democratic critic in Manitoba   criticizes, but her honourable friends the New Democrats in   Ontario are currently setting up as good government policy.

* (1350)


St. Boniface Hospital

School of Licensed Practical Nurses


Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  I have a question, Mr.   Speaker, for Manitoba's Minister of Health.

      I would like to ask the minister, considering last year's   budget reduction resulted in such drastic proposals‑‑he   considered the closure of the St. Boniface School of Practical   Nursing‑‑I would like to know if the minister has accepted the   fact that this school has almost 100 percent success rate in   terms of graduating, in terms of ensuring that graduates find   employment, and will he now indicate he is prepared to keep the   school open and ensure that LPNs are alive and well as a health   care profession in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I am not   certain I heard in detail my honourable friend's preamble to the   question.  I believe she alluded that the school of licensed   practical nursing training in St. Boniface was closed.  I do not   believe she is able to say that, because I certainly have no such   request from the board of St. Boniface and I do not believe, as   this question is being posed, that decision has been made.

      I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that issue has been discussed   by St. Boniface and is one of the issues that they are currently   coming to grips with.

      Let me tell you how government is attempting to deal with the   very issue of the value of LPNs in the nursing system.  Because   there is some concern over the training capacity at St. Boniface,   Red River Community College and elsewhere in the province of   Manitoba around LPNs, we in government have decided that we   should know what the current employment numbers are and what will   be the future requirement for LPNs in the health care system;   hence, the survey that went out in January to determine those   needs so we can provide informed advice on any request when we   receive it, if we receive it, about training school capacities   not only for LPNs but for RPNs, for Bachelor of Nursing graduates   and all nursing professionals in the health care system.  We   intend to proceed with this with a better information base than   any government previous has had at its disposal.


Constitutional Issues

Multilateral Discussions


Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.   Speaker, in listening to the Premier last evening, I thought I   heard him say‑‑and he can clarify if in fact he did not say, but   I thought he said that a representative of this government will   attend the multilateral talks on the Constitution.

      Can the Premier tell the House today why we are prepared to   go to such talks, since the Province of Quebec has indicated they   will not attend?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is   important for us to begin looking at proposals that presumably   are going to eventually be the basis upon which the federal   government will put forth a constitutional amendment to the   country.  I believe we ought to be in there expressing our   concerns about those proposals and attempting to change them.

      If indeed, as I indicated last evening, a number of aspects   of them are unacceptable to us, then it is time for us to get to   the table with the other First Ministers, or with Constitutional   Affairs ministers, and try and influence change so that we do not   get faced by the federal government with a package that becomes a   seamless web and one that may be unacceptable in a variety of   ways to this Legislature.

      When the Prime Minister asked for us to have Constitutional   Affairs ministers meet next week to begin these discussions on   the results of the Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee report, I said yes   to it, as I believe many other Premiers across the country have,   because I do not think we can afford, just simply because Quebec   is not going to be there, to stay away when important decisions,   judgments and negotiations are taking place.  I think Manitobans   expect no less.

* (1355)

Mrs. Carstairs:  Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with the   Premier of the province of Manitoba.  I think this is an   extremely slippery slope towards the presenting of a so‑called   English Canada position.  I think that is fraught with danger.

      Will the Premier now reconsider and take a leadership role   for all of Canada and say that he is not prepared to sit at a   conference table on the Constitution, which affects all   Canadians, without a principal player, one of those provinces not   being there?

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting point of view.   I might say that I felt, when the Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee   report was tabled, that there obviously were three federal   parties who were working very, very hard to satisfy Quebec in   that report.  As a result, they did a disservice to many other   provinces and regions in the country, including Manitoba.

      I do not think there is any question that, as long as the   federal government is at that table, and it would not matter   whether it was all three parties from Parliament, they would be   representing very strongly the interests of Quebec, in fact too   strongly in my judgment.  That is why I think it is very   important for the rest of the country to be there to find some   change and to effect some change in the proposal that ultimately   is presented to the country, because as it stands, this proposal   has great weaknesses and I do not have any fears that Quebec's   views are not represented.  In fact, they are too strongly   represented in Dobbie‑Beaudoin.

Mrs. Carstairs:  Mr. Speaker, we will agree to disagree on that   one.




Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  My   final question has to be asked to the Premier with respect to   referendum.

      The Dobbie‑Beaudoin recommendation on referendum is not a   referendum recognition at all.  I want to quote:  We recommend   that a federal law be enacted, if deemed appropriate by the   Government of Canada, to enable the federal government, at its   discretion, to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional   proposal either to conform the existence of national consensus or   to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions.   The copy in French makes no reference whatsoever to the word   "referendum" and refers only to a consultative process.

      Can the Premier now agree to at least giving the people of   the province of Manitoba a referendum, as I have been   recommending and my party has been recommending for some months   and is now being recommended by the constituency of the Minister   of Finance (Mr. Manness)?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  I just want to refresh, for the   understanding of the Leader of the Liberal Party, she should know   very, very well that this province has been the leader in Canada   in establishing a process for public consultation and public   input that every other province followed following the Meech Lake   process.  We were the ones who said, no, we have rules in our   Legislature that will require a very extensive public hearing   process and then a lengthy debate in this Legislature   constitutionally mandated on all constitutional amendment   proposals.  That is now being emulated by people right across the   country.

      Although I do not throw out mechanisms for further public   consultation, the reality is that, by the amending formula in our   Constitution, votes in every Legislature in Parliament will still   have to take place and the decisions still have to take place   there.  By our own process, a vote in this Legislature will have   to take place after further public consultation.  In all those   areas, we have done everything and more in order to ensure public   input to it.

      If the further taking of a poll, or whatever you want to call   that consultation, will help, I have not ruled out any of that.   I do believe that ultimately parliamentarians and legislators are   elected to exercise judgment and make decisions.  None of that   should in any way take away from our necessity to do that.  That   is one of our prime, if not the prime, responsibilities that   brings us here.

Bristol Aerospace

Environmental Concerns


Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for the   Minister of Environment.

      Dr. Lockhart Gray, head of the province's ground water   section, has said in reference to the aquifer contamination near   Stony Mountain, and I quote, this is probably the worst water   contamination situation in Manitoba.

      Another official from the minister's own department termed   the contamination an environmental disaster, yet we have a   situation where Bristol Aerospace is investigating itself and   proposing its own questionable solutions.

      Given the evidence that the contamination is spreading with   reports that contaminated wells have been found in the Selkirk   constituency, will the minister heed my request of last November   and that along with residents of the area and call now for an   independent public inquiry into this problem?

* (1400)

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, I am   not sure if the member is indicating that there are residents in   his constituency who have not been involved in the discussions or   who feel that there is some information lacking.  Certainly, we   have moved very quickly, as additional information became   available, to make sure that we supplied potable water, that we   are exploring alternative sources, and that we are working   directly with Bristol to make sure that all possible and   up‑to‑date processes are put in place to make sure that we   contain the damage that has already been done and make sure that   the health and the safety of the people in the district are taken   care of.


Chemical Burning


Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  The minister just seems to be   content to protect the images‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member for Selkirk,   kindly put your question, please.

Mr. Dewar:  Can this minister tell the House why Bristol   Aerospace is being allowed to burn hazardous chemicals at its   propellant plant in an uncontrolled environment, given the   possibility of dangerous emissions passing into the surrounding   atmosphere?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  This is a most   difficult situation, where the material that is being produced is   classified as explosive and cannot be easily transported,   unfortunately.  The site where Bristol is requesting to resume   burning on site has been improved by the implementation of a pad   to make sure that there is no possible additional ground water   contamination.  We are looking at all other options that can be   possibly implemented to deal with this material, Mr. Speaker.

      The unfortunate part about it is that, while the production   of the material is being dramatically reduced, we do not at this   time have viable alternatives, while at the same time, we are   receiving advice that the potential problems with it being stored   in large volumes may very well lead to a very dangerous situation.

      We are assessing all possibilities, but we are also   discussing with the advisory group, and they have concurred that   we need to re‑examine this option.

Mr. Dewar:  Is this minister able to ensure that the health of   the residents of the area and the health of the employees will   not be compromised during this burning process?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, this is a process that has been used   for some 30 years at the site, and we are doing everything we can   to make sure that, as I said, we explore all possible options for   dealing with it.  At the same time, I want to assure the member   and assure the residents of the community that we are going to   put additional high volume samplers on site and in the area to   make sure that we can determine if in fact there is anything that   could be dangerous to the population.  The burns will be of a   test nature until we have satisfied ourselves that this is not   causing an unsatisfactory situation.


Repap Manitoba Inc.

Cutting Area ‑ Swan River


Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, in March of 1989,   this government dealt a devastating blow to the community of Swan   River by signing the Repap deal and expanding the cutting area so   that they are putting an end to the wafer board proposal, a   proposal that would have resulted in 200 jobs, turning down $15   million in Western Diversification funds.

      The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Minister of   Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), have been to Swan River to admit   that they have made a mistake.  Since the Minister of Finance, in   his letter to Mr. Kass states that the government has sole   discretion to remove the southern forest licence from the   original agreement, can he tell this House if he is prepared to   renegotiate the cutting area for Swan River so that Swan River   will have a chance for some real jobs, or is this renegotiation   going to result even with a stronger deal for Repap of a larger   cutting area?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):  I was in attendance   with community leaders of Swan River on Friday, at which time I   tried to give greater detail with respect to the restructuring   process that we are about to embark upon.  Mr. Speaker,   hindsight, of course, is perfect.  The member says that there   could have been 200 jobs today from another alternative.  Let me   indicate that, at the time that the proposal came forward,   two‑thirds of the financial support for that endeavour was   expected to come from government.  Let me say also that a   significant number of wafer board plants and plywood board plants   are a strong competitor to OSB production.  I am led to believe   that a significant portion of them have gone out of business over   the last two years.

      It is easy to say, of course, that if we had followed a   different course, events may have allowed for greater production   or greater employment.  I am here standing saying that would not   have been the case.

Ms. Wowchuk:  There are no jobs in Swan River‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member kindly put   your question, please.

Ms. Wowchuk:  Since the minister has been to Swan River, there   has been a decision to hold a public meeting on March 14.  I   would like to ask the minister if he will be attending that   meeting to hear the concerns of the people of Swan River?  Will   he be taking their recommendations seriously‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The question has been put.

Mr. Manness:  My first awareness of the meeting on the 14th comes   from the member opposite, although I feel that our visit on   Friday was probably the rationale for the calling of that   meeting.  I asked the community at that time to try and bring   their thinking as to whether or not they wanted to be part of the   Repap restructuring.  I am led to believe also, Mr. Speaker, that   as of today, as a result of Repap being involved, there are 60 to   70 jobs that are in the Swan River community today that would not   be there.  The member says no.  I had two individuals at the   meeting who told me that right in front of all of the town   councillors.

      I am wondering then who is going to resolve the dispute.   There are 60 to 70 people being employed today.  There has been   some loss of activity as a result of Abitibi no longer buying out   of that area.  There are some other people in Saskatchewan no   longer buying forest product out of that area.  If it were not   for Repap, there would be no jobs in the Swan River forest at all.

Ms. Wowchuk:  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister   again:  What commitment is he prepared to make to the people of   Swan River?  What initiative is he prepared to take so that there   will be some real investment, since it was his doing that   resulted in the collapse of the wafer board plant and no real   jobs for Swan River?

Mr. Manness:  Again, there is a little bit of revisionist history   being spoken here, Mr. Speaker.  The reason that the wafer board   plant did not go forward is because the proponents of it wanted   two‑thirds of the funding to come from government.  Manfor told   us that $250 million were lost when government got involved in   the forest product industry.  That is what happened.

      With respect to whether the community of Swan River wants to   continue to be involved with Repap or not, that was the question   that I asked the community.  No doubt, over the course of the   next number of weeks, they will tell us whether or not they feel   there is still some continuing benefit beyond the 60 jobs that   exist today with respect to being actively involved and   committing the southern wood forest to Repap.

* (1410)


Health Care System

Cataract Surgery


Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for   the Minister of Health.

      Almost two years ago, we asked the minister to address the   issue of the lengthy waiting period for eye surgery.  Today 2,600   Manitobans are waiting for eye surgery, and the waiting period is   anywhere from six months to one year.  While these individuals   are waiting, there are private eye clinics who are charging   $1,000 per patient as a facility fee.  They are coming up because   this government has failed to address a very serious problem.

      Can the minister explain why the waiting list is so long and   why this government has not addressed this very important issue?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I presume   my honourable friend is deriving his information from the   February 25 letter from the president of the MMA which in an   apolitical way, with carbon copies to both opposition critics,   was pointing this issue out to me.

      The waiting list as surveyed by the MMA may be accurate   because I believe it was obtained by their internal survey of   practitioners.  However, my honourable friend, not that I am   trying to diminish the waiting list, et cetera, but even Dr. Ross   indicates that there may be a 25 percent overlap of patients on   the waiting list, and they are unable to determine that.

      It presents a problem in terms of using waiting lists to   establish what might be the impression that there is less service   being done in a given area of service delivery.

      Mr. Speaker, I just want to share with my honourable friend,   because I know he is deeply interested, that since we came into   government, the number of cataract surgical procedures has   increased by 21 percent.  That is a service of just under 4,500   procedures in the last full year that I have numbers for compared   to just over 3,500 in '87‑88.


Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery


Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, we do have an aging   population then.  First it was hip surgery, knee surgery, now it   is eye surgery.  Can the minister tell us today why he is   appointing another committee to study the problem of hip and knee   surgery when on January 14 he said that he will come to this   House and tell the people of Manitoba what is the cause of the   delay of surgery?  Why another committee to study the problems of   your department?  It is really sad that this minister does not   address the simple problem.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, when my   honourable friend describes those issues as simple problems, I   presume he has a simple solution that he would refer to the House.

      My honourable friend says absolutely, and I would like to ask   my honourable friend if his simple solution is simply asking   government and the taxpayers of Manitoba to put more money into   the delivery of health care services.  If that is the simple   solution that my honourable friend offers as the Liberal critic   for this House from opposition, he might want to discuss that   with four provincial governments who have Liberals in government   making those decisions, who are saying, addition of money is not   the answer, that it is management of the system.


Cataract Surgery


Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, one of the ways is   to have the out‑patient expand its surgery.  Can the minister   tell this House today if they would expand the day surgical   procedures so that at least these 2,000 people who are on the   waiting list can get surgery done?  It is an economical issue.   These people are suffering, and the taxpayers are suffering   because‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I know   that my honourable friend sincerely wants to seek solutions to   this problem and indeed so do we.  That is why I take his advice   very seriously, because that is exactly what we have done over   the last three years.  That is why we were able, since 1987‑88,   when there were some 3,500 cataract surgical procedures done in   the province of Manitoba, through an enhancement of out‑patient   procedures, we have been able to increase that to just under   4,500 in the last fiscal year, an increase of almost 1,000 based   on budgetary increases and out‑patient surgery.

      I thank my honourable friend for his suggestion, and we will   continue to work on it as we have for the last three years.


Rent Regulations



Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to   me and to thousands of tenants in Manitoba that three   Conservative cabinet ministers responsible for housing   legislation have failed to proclaim The Residential Tenancies   Act, unlike the NDP government who proclaimed The Rent Regulation   Act and amended The Landlord and Tenant Act within one year of   assuming office.  In the meantime, The Rent Regulation Act is   still in effect.  Under The Rent Regulation Act, landlords have   the right to rent increases based on legitimate expenses.

      What is the policy of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate   Affairs when a landlord submits expenses, has a legitimate rent   increase approved and subsequently expenses go down?  Do tenants   benefit from this by having their rent rolled back?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate   Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, if this occurs in that year, they may   have that rollback occur.  With all of these issues, it is all   tenant initiated.  The tenant brings forward the concern by   application, and the response is made.

Mr. Speaker:  Time for Oral Questions has expired.


Introduction of Guests


Mr. Speaker:  I would like to draw the attention of honourable   members to the gallery where we have with us this afternoon six   visitors from the Bemidji State University.  They are under the   direction of Mr. Timothy Ball.

      On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this   afternoon.


Speaker's Ruling


Mr. Speaker:  On Wednesday, February 19, 1992, the honourable   member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) raised a point of order which   was taken under advisement by the Deputy Speaker.  The honourable   member for Thompson alleged that the honourable Minister of   Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) had obtained the floor, had not   indicated that he was rising on a point of order, but that the   Chair had assumed that the minister had risen on a point of order   and had made a ruling to that effect.

      I have reviewed Hansard, and it is very clear that the   honourable minister did indicate he was rising on a point of   order, therefore, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)   did not have a point of order.




Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate   Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical   statement?

Mr. Speaker:  Does the honourable minister have leave to make a   nonpolitical statement?  Leave?  It is agreed.

Mrs. McIntosh:  Mr. Speaker, the Assiniboine Memorial Curling   Club has an outstanding record for excellence in this province.   Eight times in the last 14 years they have produced the junior   men's curling champions.

      Last night, in Virden, this year's winning team from the   Assiniboine was Scott McFadyen, Kevin MacKenzie, Ross McFadyen,   and Chad McMullan.  They, along with their coach, Don Harvey,   deserve congratulations and commendations.  I am very proud to be   the MLA wherein this curling club exists, and I am also very   proud to be related to one, and perhaps two by marriage, of the   participants on that team.

      I am pleased to enter commendations to the Assiniboine   Memorial Curling Club into the record and to wish the junior   men's curling champions all the best as they proceed to the   nationals.

* * *

Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Orders of the Day, I would like to advise   the House that at five o'clock when we get to Private Members'   Business, Resolution 4, I have not dealt with this matter yet,   and I will not come down with a decision at that time, therefore   we will be dealing with Resolution 5 at five o'clock.

* (1420)




Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker,   would you call second readings, Bill 48, to be followed by   adjourned debate on second readings starting at Bill 6.




Bill 48‑The Personal Property Security Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  Second reading, Bill 48, The Personal Property   Security Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les suretes   relatives aux biens personnels.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):   Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of   Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 48, The Personal Property   Security Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred   to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. McCrae:  Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed to The Personal   Property Security Act are needed to eliminate the impact of a   recent Court of Appeal decision on the operations of Manitoba's   Personal Property Registry.  This registry provides a central   place for recording of interests in property other than real   property.  It makes it possible for someone planning to buy an   article like a car to check and ensure that there are no   outstanding liens or other restrictions against it.

      The Court of Appeal ruled that a requested search should   cover not only a person's actual name but also variations of the   name.  However, this raises two types of problems for the   registry and potentially for Manitoba taxpayers.

      First, the registry's computer system is not set up to   produce the kinds of search certificates required by the   decision, and it is not technologically possible to develop the   kind of system that would identify all possible variations of a   given name.

      Second, the registry is exposed to compensation claims from   parties who receive a registrar's certificate showing only those   registrations against the individual name spelled out exactly as   in the request for service with no variations.

      At present the registry issues every year about 15,000   certificates concerning individual debtors.  The Personal   Property Security Act provides for payment of up to $25,000   compensation per certificate to anyone who suffers loss or damage   because they relied on a certificate that was invalid through   error or omission.

      The amendments add a new subsection to the act.  It will   specify that an error in the spelling of any part of a debtor's   name, set forth in a financing statement or document registered   in the registry, invalidates and destroys the effect of the   registration unless a judge believes the error has not actually   misled someone whose interests are affected by the registration.

      Finally, the amendments are retroactive.  We have been   advised that if they are not made in this form an increase in   compensation claims from the registry should be expected.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the   minister might answer questions on this particular amendment.

Mr. McCrae:  I suppose, Mr. Speaker.  It depends on the question,   but normally I take note of comments made by honourable members   at second reading debate and prepare myself to answer questions   at the committee stage.  If it is something that I can easily   answer, I would attempt to do so.


Point of Order


Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):  On a point of order,   it has been the practice, although never enshrined in our rules,   to allow questions on second reading.  The minister might not be   aware of that.

      For a time period, I believe, if memory serves me correct,   leave was not required in recent years because it has not   specifically been in the rules.  We have been doing it by leave.

      I believe the proper way, until this matter is resolved by   the Rules committee, would be to ask leave of the minister.  I do   believe it is fairly routine practice on second reading.

Mr. Speaker:  The minister has indicated that he would attempt to   answer the question of the honourable member.

* * *

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Speaker, my question is relatively straight   forward.  With respect to the submission of the name on the   financing statement, will that include errors by the staff at the   personal property registry or does that only include errors, as I   suspect, that relate to the individuals who actually fill out the   forms to submit to the personal property registry?

Mr. McCrae:  I believe, Mr. Speaker, the case that we are talking   about in this matter relates to a mistake made by a person filing   a document.  I expect to have staff available to me at the time   we do discuss this, and I can perhaps get informally, between now   and the time of committee perhaps, for the honourable member the   precise answer to that question.

Mr. Chomiak:  I thank the minister for those comments.

      I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that   debate on the matter be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker:  It has been moved by the honourable member for   Kildonan, seconded by the honourable member for Selkirk, that   debate be adjourned.  Agreed?  Agreed and so ordered.

      Order, please.  I would like to clarify, on the point of   order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, he did not   have a point of order.

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):  Mr. Speaker, I have no objection   to the bill standing in the name of the prior speaker.

      I would like to comment on this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker:  Is there leave for this matter to remain standing   in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan?  Leave.  It is   agreed.

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a deceptively   short bill in the sense that it has I think quite significant   results.  I appreciate the minister's comments which he has just   put on the record about the difficulties the branch is having as   a result of the Court of Appeal decision.

      Mr. Speaker, I have the same concerns that the member for   Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) had, that is I wonder if this is an   exoneration or if this deals with both mistakes made by the   registrant himself or herself and the staff at the department   themselves.  That is an important point because, of course, this   section purports to invalidate any such registration done with   even the slightest deviation which would mean that it was not the   actual name of the debtor.  It is not always easy to get the   exact spellings, and it is an unfortunate regular occurrence that   people file in the wrong names and that misleads any potential   creditor who searches these goods and then, of course, according   to this would invalidate the registration.  It is a concern,   however, I think that the proviso, that actual misleading, is   still the key and if actual misleading has occurred then the   registration in fact remains valid.

      Mr. Speaker, with those comments I do not intend to object to   this bill going forward to committee stage.  I simply indicate   that I too share the concerns of the member for Kildonan (Mr.   Chomiak).  I am concerned that this addition to The Personal   Property Security Act has been done with full consultation with   the bar.  The minister did not mention such consultation, but I   would hope that has occurred.

      I will look forward at the committee to hearing from his   staff as to what consultation with the members of the legal   profession has occurred, what the response has been and whether   or not they are supportive of this.  I do not know that at this   point.  I look forward to that information at the committee stage.

Mr. Speaker:  For clarification purposes here, the matter had   already been adjourned by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.   Chomiak).  Leave was needed to allow the honourable member for   St. James, and I think I inadvertently said leave to remain   standing‑‑just for clarification.  I appreciate that from the   House.




Bill 6‑The Denturists Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister   of Health (Mr. Orchard), Bill 6, The Denturists Amendment Act;   Loi modifiant la Loi sur les denturologistes, standing in the   name of the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms.   Wasylycia-Leis).  Stand?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  Mr. Speaker, I believe the member   for St. Johns wishes to speak on this.  I would like to speak   prior to that.

Mr. Speaker:  Is there leave to have this matter remain standing   in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns?

An Honourable Member:  Leave.

Mr. Speaker:  Leave.  That is agreed.

Mr. Ashton:  Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate the reason I   have asked for leave of the House to speak currently is that when   the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) does speak, she   will be closing debate from our side and perhaps the government   members might wish to advise the Minister of Health (Mr.   Orchard).  I do not know if the Minister of Health has any   comments, but the Minister of Health might be advised that the   bill will potentially be passing today depending, I believe, on   whether the Liberals have any‑‑

An Honourable Member:  We have spoken.

Mr. Ashton:  The Liberals have spoken, so the bill will indeed be   passing today.

      It is a very straightforward bill, Mr. Speaker, but in the   true tradition of this House, as members of the opposition, we   have reviewed it because sometimes there are straightforward   bills‑‑or at least those that appear on the surface to be   straightforward‑‑that prove to be quite complicated and   controversial for reflection and particularly upon consultation   with groups involved.

* (1430)

      This is fairly basic in terms of dealing with the composition   of the disbarring committee in terms of denturists, and as the   bill itself outlines, would change that and bring it more into   line with other similar bodies, Mr. Speaker.  We could talk at   quite some length, I am sure, about how this fits in in terms of   overall government policy with regard to the dentistry   profession, denturists, dental assistants.

      There certainly has been a long history of that in this   province going back to the Schreyer government which brought in a   child dental care policy in this province, the movement on behalf   of the then NDP government in terms of establishing a role for   paraprofessionals, dental assistants in particular, the move of   the then provincial government of Sterling Lyon in the late '70s   to essentially kill a lot of the progress in that area‑‑many of   the people who trained for that found that they were no longer in   a position to be able to do that‑‑the move by the previous NDP   government under Howard Pawley to strengthen the child dental   care program, and the unfortunate moves on behalf of the current   provincial government in terms of restricting the role of that   program which has provided excellent service in rural and   northern communities, in particular, where there is not the same   kind of access to dental resources that we have in other areas.

      This was brought to my attention most recently by a   constituent, and I wanted to raise this because I think it shows   the kinds of problems we run into in assuming that we have a   system of adequate dental care.

      When this constituent of mine, Mr. Manaigre, had the   unfortunate situation develop of a major problem that began with   a dental matter, dental surgery, and later progressed to problems   that infected his jaw, he had to pay for the entire cost of going   to Winnipeg, including air fare, hotel, $652, and was unable to   get any of that back from the Northern Patient Transportation   Program, which even with the $50 user fee brought in by this   government, he had hoped to receive some type of assistance from   the government.

      The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, once again was, here was a   procedure that I believe is medical‑‑and I will be taking up the   specifics of this case with the minister‑‑but which had dental   complications in the initial stages, the type of facility that is   not available in northern Manitoba, the type of procedure not   available in northern Manitoba.  I think it is important to   reflect on that because I think one of the unfortunate aspects of   health care in this province is the fact that, despite the   progress that has taken place, we still do not have adequate   dental care available to all Manitobans.

      Many poor Manitobans, particularly the working poor, find   themselves particularly in difficulty, Mr. Speaker, often in a   real dilemma because if they are on social assistance, dental   fees can be covered.  I have talked to many a working Manitoban,   not making a particularly exorbitant salary, not covered by   dental insurance, who often asked the question whether they would   not be better off on income assistance, particularly when they   have children.

      As I said, there is an excellent program in place, the child   dental care program, although it is unfortunate that the   government, instead of attempting to build on that, is   essentially eroding it with the restriction they brought in in   terms of the application, in terms of ages, because it is one   thing that is particularly noticeable in northern Manitoba, Mr.   Speaker, particularly in remote communities.  It has become an   increasing problem in all communities.  The degree of junk food   consumption is horrendous.  I know of many communities of   children as young as four and five years old, the vast majority   of their teeth having gone rotten because of the consumption of   highly sugared foods, and there is not that kind of care   available.

      I am raising this matter in the context of this bill because   we want to see, I know in terms of the New Democratic Party,   continuation of the types of policies established under the   Schreyer government.  The bottom line is we want to see more   accessible dental care.  We want to maintain the advances that   have taken place.  It is a combination of using professional care   in terms of dentists, but also using the care of dental   assistants and denturists.

      I think this is, in many ways, parallel to the kind of   developments that we are going to be seeing in the health care   area in the next number of years in terms of the role of not only   professionals, but paraprofessionals, Mr. Speaker.  I think it is   interesting in a way that the situation in terms of dental care   in many ways provides some lessons for medical care in   establishing a very clear role for paraprofessionals and also for   preventative dental care as we have seen in the child dental care   program.

      I think it is important that when we pass any bill such as   this, we reflect on that and also bring the government to task   for really essentially putting us back in terms of the situation   in terms of dental care in this province, particularly in terms   of child dental care.

      It may not be a matter of concern to members of this Chamber   personally.  Members of this Legislature have insurance for most   dental costs.  Many people who are fortunate enough to work for   major employers may have that kind of insurance, although it   obviously does not cover all the costs.  There are many   Manitobans who are in the position of having no insurance   whatsoever.  In many ways, I think it parallels the situation   prior to medicare, Mr. Speaker, when many Manitobans, many   Canadians, did not have medical insurance, the situation in the   United States in terms of health care currently, where 40 million   people do not have medical coverage.

      It is the same people who suffer.  It is the working poor in   particular.  It is people on low and modest incomes.  It is for   them that we should be, I think seriously, when we look at health   care reform and particularly preventative health care reform, not   just look at traditional medical practice, but also in terms of   dental care.

      When we are looking at the kinds of models that are   available, I look not only at Manitoba, but I look particularly   also, for instance, to Saskatchewan at some of the programs that   are developed based on the community clinic model.  Those I think   are the roads, the directions in which we should seek to go.

      It is very, very sad, Mr. Speaker, in this province, I   believe, that we can have a medical system that up until recent   years certainly was fairly universal, but a dental care system   that I believe is very much an arbitrary distinction from what is   traditionally considered health care, which has many, many major   gaps.

      This individual I referenced earlier ran into that when he   had to have surgery, but because it was dental in terms of origin   of the original infection‑‑I could go into the details but I will   take that up with the minister‑‑that individual found that the   costs were not covered at all by the government in terms of   transportation.  He was fortunate enough to have dental insurance   for at least the procedure itself.

      It shows the kinds of gaps that exist in society.  That is   why while this bill is fairly straightforward, it does deal with   denturists and the role of denturists, I think it is important to   put it in the broader context, the principle, I think, that this   act and other acts represent and a principle that has to be built   on, and that is improving the access and the quality of dental   care in this province.

      With those few words, I know our Health critic has a few more   words to offer on this particular bill, and then we will be   passing it through to committee, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:  Leave has already been granted for this matter to   remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St.   Johns.  Now I would like to ask leave of the House to reverse   their decision on that to allow the honourable member for St.   Johns to speak at this time.

An Honourable Member:  Agreed.

Mr. Speaker:  That is agreed.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate   the will of the House for giving me leave on this matter.  We   are, as my colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)   indicated, certainly prepared to have this matter moved to   committee for deliberation at that stage, knowing that there will   be full opportunity to hear from the denturists' association   itself, to hear from interested members of the public and any   other representatives of organizations concerned about matters in   this bill.

* (1440)

      Based on the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) comments on   Bill 6 and the actual wording of the bill before us, it would   appear to be a matter of routine business and of a housekeeping   nature.  We will be assessing the bill at committee from that   perspective.  It would appear to us that this bill does bring the   denturists' association in line with other bodies who have the   ability to license and discipline their own members.

      Mr. Speaker, it is certainly in all of our interests to   pursue this matter further at committee stage.  I would, however,   just like to make a few comments about the broad area of   dentistry since that is the topic at hand and put three concerns   on record and make inquiries about government actions to respond   to those three concerns.

      The first, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the state of the   children's dental program.  We all expressed concern on this side   of the House last spring when news was received that this   government had moved to cut back the children's dental program by   reducing the age for eligibility.  That cutback, that reduction   in service to children throughout rural and northern and remote   Manitoba, caused us all a great deal of concern.  It is our view   that the children's dental health program is an important   preventative aspect of our health care system and that, in fact,   this program does save money for taxpayers in the long run.

      The program was initiated to ensure that children who did not   have regular access to good dental hygiene and dentistry programs   would have such access.  The program was intended to ensure that   problems pertaining to children's teeth were identified at an   early stage to prevent much more costly investments at some point   in the future hence representing a saving for individual families   and for taxpayers as a whole.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

      So, Mr. Acting Speaker, we became very concerned when this   government moved to reduce, to cut back this program, to reduce   the numbers of children who would be eligible for service under   the children's dental program.  It is, in our view, a step   backwards.  It is a move to be penny‑wise and pound‑foolish   because certainly any savings now to the government‑‑and they are   small savings‑‑will mean astronomical costs in the future for all   of us.  So we feel it is in the best interests of the government   of the day, however difficult the economic realities are for it,   to act responsibly in the interests of future generations and not   to be simply addressing matters from a very pragmatic, practical,   daily point of view.

      It is, furthermore, Mr. Acting Speaker, a concern of us that   this cutback of this past budget reflects a sign, is a signal, of   things to come, of very worrisome things to come.  There is   certainly speculation and concerns coming out of the Department   of Health which give us reason to believe that this, in fact, was   the first stage in a deliberate plan to phase out the children's   dental health program.  There are concerns about filling staff   vacancies in this branch of the department.  There are concerns   about this government's intentions to follow the footsteps of the   Province of Quebec when it recently phased out entirely its   children's dental health program.

      Mr. Acting Speaker, as I have already said, we recognize   these are difficult times, that changes to our health care system   are in order, but it is our view that changes and cutbacks which   get at the very heart of health prevention and health promotion   do not make sense and should not be considered a part of health   care reform, and in fact, really do indicate that this government   is really using the words, the title, the rhetoric around health   care reform to disguise and camouflage its real intention, and   that is straight health care cutbacks, without worry, without   concern, about the full impact that such decisions will have on   people today and on generations to come.

      So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I put that concern on record and   attach to it a plea that this government not cut back any further   the children's dental health program, and in fact ensure that the   program as it is, remained intact and that it rededicate itself   to restoring the program to its previous criteria and, when   possible, to move beyond that and consider expanding the   children's dental health program to all parts of the province of   Manitoba.

      The second concern I have is with respect to the   long‑standing request before this government from the dental   association.  The Manitoba Dental Association has been seeking   for well over a year now changes to The Dental Association Act   which would allow the Manitoba Dental Association to order   upgrading or remedial retraining for its members.

      I refer members of this Chamber to an article in the Winnipeg   Free Press of Tuesday, May 21, 1991, when Dr. Michael Lasko of   the Manitoba Dental Association indicated that it had been asking   for some time for the province to provide to the association the   power, and I quote from this article:  to abandon secret   disciplinary trials and order incompetent dentists back to school.

      The concern was raised at that time that the government was   not moving expeditiously to make necessary changes to The Dental   Association Act, and I believe that those concerns are still   outstanding.  Given that the minister has indicated that the   Manitoba Dental Association is co‑operating with the government,   and with the denturists association in supporting Bill 6, I would   hope that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and this   government gives us some indication soon about its intentions   with respect to the long‑standing request from the Manitoba   Dental Association.

      Finally, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have a concern to raise at   this time during this debate on dentistry with respect to the   dental auxiliaries of this province.  Members of this House will   all be familiar with requests, letters, calls and pleas from   representatives of the different dental auxiliary associations in   Manitoba for legislation that recognizes dental auxiliaries as a   profession unto its own‑‑an association, a discipline that,   hence, requires and needs the ability to license, set educational   standards, and discipline its own members.

      The move to recognize dental auxiliaries is not uncommon in   this country.  It has happened in other jurisdictions.  It has   been commensurate, it has taken place in line with health care   reform throughout this country because it recognizes a more   cost‑effective, more efficient approach to the provision of   dental hygiene and work provided by dental assistants.

      Mr. Acting Speaker, along with this legislation that we have   before us today, we are anxious to receive a progress report from   the government, from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), about   this long‑standing request from the dental auxiliaries.  There is   some concern on their part that this government is not moving as   quickly as possible and has yet to give a sign, a signal when   concrete action will be taken to address the outstanding concerns   of their members and their associate members.

      While we support at this stage the general provisions of Bill   6, The Denturists Amendment Act, we are concerned that this act   is before us in isolation of any other attempts and moves and   initiatives to redress some wrongdoings and some gaps in policy   in other parts of the field of dentistry.

* (1450)

      We would have hoped to have had at this point in our   legislative session, at this point of the government's term in   office, a package of legislation pertaining to denturists and   dentists and dental auxiliaries, because, in fact, Mr. Acting   Speaker, there is much that needs to be done in all of those   areas.

      We hope that very shortly we will see a sign of such action   being taken in these areas of outstanding concern, and above all,   we hope that this government is prepared to rethink its reduction   in service under the children's dental health program, is   prepared to put any thoughts, any plans for a further cutback in   that program, or in fact, the cancellation of that program, on   the shelf, on hold, out of sight, and, in fact, move toward   redressing inequalities in this area and expanding a much needed   service that provides cost savings and better health for all in   the long run.

      On that note, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am prepared to indicate   that we, at least on this side of the House, are prepared to see   this bill proceed to committee for further deliberations.  Thank   you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson):  Is the House ready for the   question?  The question before the House is the second reading of   Bill 6 (The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur   les denturologistes).  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt   the motion?

Some Honourable Members:  Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson):  Agreed and so ordered.


Bill 9‑The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson):  On the proposed motion of the   Honourable Mr. Filmon, Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and   Technology Council Act (Loi sur le Conseil de l'innovation   economique et de la technologie).  The honourable member for   Transcona (Mr. Reid) still has 35 minutes.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to   rise again today to continue my remarks about this Bill 9, and   the impact it is going to have on the province of Manitoba.  I   started my remarks last sitting with some comments about northern   Manitoba and the Port of Churchill, and I would like to pick up   from there.

      I hope the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger), who is   with us here today, will listen seriously to those concerns and   carry forward with the recommendations that we made to the   federal Minister of Transport some week and a half ago, when we   met with the two ministers in Ottawa.

      At that time, Mr. Acting Speaker, in meeting with the federal   Minister of Transport, we put forward the proposal of a   partnership arrangement that would see the stalemate broken that   is currently in place in the province of Manitoba today, where it   would allow us to move forward with revitalization of the bayline   to the Port of Churchill through the various communities along   the way.  That includes communities such as The Pas, Wabowden,   Pikwitonei, Thompson and others.

      We think that this revitalization of this rail line is very,   very important to the province of Manitoba, and that is why we   wanted to break that particular stalemate.  We knew at the time   that if we did not go forward with our meetings with the federal   Minister of Transport with some concrete proposal or some new   ideas to break that stalemate, the minister would just see us as   another lobby group.  That is why we carried forward with these   recommendations.  For Manitoba's Minister of Transport's   information, the federal Minister of Transport looked very   favourably upon those comments and those suggestions and thought   there was some merit in them.

      That is why I had the opportunity to ask questions of the   Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province, to ask whether the Premier   and his government would be willing to take part in the sharing   or the partnership arrangement that we had proposed.  The Premier   unfortunately did not see fit at the time to commit his   government to that partnership, and I am asking the Manitoba   Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) if his department would   see fit to undertake a role in that partnership.  The partnership   that we proposed to the federal Minister of Transport was one   that could take the form of a four‑partner arrangement, and that   four‑partner arrangement would include the province of Manitoba,   possibly the province of Saskatchewan, the federal government and   the railway, CN Rail, that is responsible for the rail line   currently.

      CN has been very reluctant to undertake any upgrading of that   rail line to Churchill and through the communities along the way   because they feel that there is not, in their words, sufficient   revenue to support that revitalization of that rail line, even   though the railways receive hundreds of millions of dollars in   benefits from the grain subsidies that they receive to transport   grain over these lines that are deemed grain dependent.  With   that, I think that the railways have a role to play in that, and   that is why I included them in the partnership arrangement.

      Now what I am asking of this Minister of Transport is to take   a very small sum from his overall capital expenditures that we   see his department expending in this province on a budgetary   year, and committing those funds toward the revitalization of   that rail line.

      There was a report that was released by the province of   Saskatchewan in August of 1991, and the figure that was used in   that report was some $35 million that would be required to   upgrade that rail line to full main line status; in other words,   to improve the roadbed that would allow that rail line to carry   the presently used standard hopper cars in the grain system today.

      If you had taken that $35 million, which I must add is a   figure that was proposed as well, taking into consideration cost   of living increases over the time since the Manitoba IBI study   was done, and they had similar recommendations on the funding   that it would require, it comes nowhere close to the estimates   that CN Rail has been saying over the years and the $100 million   that they figure would be required to upgrade that line, so the   Manitoba IBI study and the SAL Engineering study for the province   of Saskatchewan have recommended that funding of $35 million   would be required to upgrade that rail line.  If you broke that   $35 million down over three years or four years and broke it down   over the four partners who would be involved or could be involved   in this suggestion and this upgrading of the rail line, you would   see a very modest investment by the province of Manitoba to the   sum of some $3 million per year over that three or four year   period.

      To my way of thinking, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is a very   modest investment for us to have in our own province and for our   own port in this province.  We want to see opportunities in the   North expanded.  The government has talked from time to time, and   I know the Minister of Transport here had talked about the   reactivation of the rocket range at Churchill.

      All members of this House know full well that without that   rail line to Churchill, that rocket range is not going to   happen.  We are not going to see any opportunities develop   there.  That is why it is so important for us to make an   investment in our own province.  That is why we have come forward   with this recommendation to make this modest investment in our   province.

      I ask the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) if he   will look at his budget for this year and see if he can secure   the funding from his capital portion to invest in that rail line,   and at the same time to initiate the process of communicating   with the federal Minister of Transport to strike that   partnership, to sit down at the table and talk about how we are   going to accomplish this task, not just merely to let the status   quo remain, because if we sit like that, the Port of Churchill   will die and will never make any steps forward, and the north of   our province will suffer as a result.  I ask the minister to   undertake that, initiate those meetings, so that we can improve   the opportunities for northern Manitobans.

      Bill 9 itself, there is quote I would like to pull from the   news release which the government released on November 8 of last   year, where it says, and I quote:  "Now it is time for government   to put its energies and priorities towards economic growth and   development."

      I think that is a very important statement for the government   to release, and I could not agree with that more, but if we do   not seize on the opportunities, as I spoke about a moment ago, to   invest in the north of our province, we are never going to see   those economic growth and development opportunities in northern   Manitoba.  That is why it is so important to take those steps   today, to invest in those opportunities as they come forward.

      In the same news release, November 8 last year, it also   talked about important transportation links.  The transportation   links do not just occur on the highways and the rail lines and   the airlines in the southern portions of our province; they occur   all over the province.  It is incumbent upon this government to   recognize that fact and to make the investments where it is   important to retain the delivery of services to the portions of   our province which find themselves isolated, more importantly, as   well as to the other areas, not just to build the highways so   that we can link our communities together by a better structure   of road systems.

      The northern part of our province is presently faced with an   unemployment rate, I believe it is near 25 percent, and that is a   very serious position I am sure the working people in northern   Manitoba find themselves in.

* (1500)

      I believe that if we undertake to invest this modest $3   million per year, we will secure job opportunities for these   peoples in our northern part of our province.  We will secure the   opportunity for the rocket range in the community of Churchill.   We will improve the export of our grain products through the Port   of Churchill because I believe that would be hinged on this deal   as well, and this would create the economic wealth which we so   much want for our province.

      In talking with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism's   (Mr. Stefanson) department, they have made us aware of how this   rocket range is going to impact or could impact upon us in this   province economically and for the job opportunities.  It is my   understanding, in talking with the various people in I, T and T   and the mayors of The Pas and Churchill, that this rocket range   could employ some 200 to 350 people, direct jobs opportunities   for Churchill.

      As a result of those direct job opportunities, there are also   the spin‑off opportunities, anywhere between three and five to   one, which means that those 350 jobs potentially could create   between 1,000 and 1,500 new job opportunities.  That would see a   doubling of the employment opportunities in Churchill.  The   current population I believe is somewhere between 800 and 900 for   that community, down significantly from the 7,000 figure which   had been there some years past.

      I believe that is why it is important for us to take the   steps to invest in that rail line, so that we can create those   1,500 new jobs, those jobs that are so hard to come by in the   northern part of our province, to reduce that 25 percent   unemployment level in northern Manitoba, to give people a sense   of pride, give them their sense of pride back.  That is why I ask   this Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) to take those   steps, to secure those opportunities for Manitobans.

      As well, that rocket range will create job opportunities for   us, I am sure, in communities like Winnipeg where we have plant   operations here which produce the products that would be   necessary for the range.  There are a lot of spin‑off services   that go along with that rocket range.

      The government talks about the research and development in   our province, how important it is and the role which it plays in   our province.  Had they been so seriously concerned by that, Mr.   Acting Speaker, I believe they would not have cut back on the   grant assistance to the Manitoba Research Council.

      This new Economic Innovation and Technology Council I believe   is window dressing, nothing more than that.  You cannot strike   this council and give it a modest budget as they have with no   long‑term commitment‑‑I believe it is $10 million for one   year‑‑and expect it to perform the miracles that the government   wants it to perform.

      I do not see that there will be any lasting benefits come as   a result of this Bill 9, or what it was intended to create for   our province.  Unless you make a long‑term commitment and attach   the necessary funding to support that, we will not have that   long‑term commitment to research and development in our province.

      To get back to the grant assistance to the Manitoba Research   Council, in 1990‑91, the government had granted some $2,714,000   to the Manitoba Research Council.  That council provides and   maintains a technology transfer infrastructure and related   services for Manitoba industries using the Canadian Food Products   Development Centre and the industrial technology facilities.

      What the government has done since that time, in the current   budget which we are operating under, the 1991‑92 budget, is   reduced that grant assistance by some $700,000 to the Manitoba   Research Council.  Now if they were very serious about research   and development in this province, they would not have cut back   that grant assistance to this organization because we need to   have those opportunities made available through research and   development to create the job opportunities for us here in the   province of Manitoba.

      Manitoba, of course, finds itself in the unenviable position   of having 57,000 unemployed.  That is a very serious position   which we find ourselves in.  We have not seen any actions on the   part of this government to recognize the seriousness of this   situation.  They seem to sit there and wring their hands and not   be too concerned because it has not impacted personally upon   their lives.

      I invite them, if they want to see the impact on what this   means to the various communities, come out to my community of   Transcona, and I will take you to one of the food banks.  I will   let you talk to the people there.  I will let them relate to you   how it impacts upon their families when they had their jobs   eliminated.  They were laid off, their unemployment insurance has   run out, and they are forced to go on welfare.  They do not want   to be on welfare.  They want to have job opportunities.  I have   people calling my office nearly every day asking me if there are   job opportunities available, if I can assist them in some way.   [interjection] I tell them that if this government was serious   about creating economic opportunities they would have done it a   long time ago, but they do not recognize the 57,000 who are   unemployed.  They have no long‑term commitment, no strategy to   deal with this situation as we find ourselves in.

      They prefer instead to offload the responsibility onto the   world economic situation and the high interest policy created by   the federal government.  I do not think that is the right   position to take.  We have to seize the initiative in our own   province, to make those opportunities for our people in this   province, not just the Grow Bond opportunities that we see in the   communities in southern Manitoba, but all over the province of   Manitoba.

      Do not just draw that imaginary borderline above   Roblin‑Russell there and say that the rest of the province does   not count.  We need to take the steps to create the employment   opportunities that these people so desperately need.  I do not   see the government taking this action.  We have hundreds and   hundreds of families in my community that desperately want to   have jobs.  They do not want to be on welfare.

      We had in this province profitable government agencies, and I   talk particularly about the Manitoba Data Services.  The Manitoba   Data Services, of course, had created some high quality jobs for   us in this province.  Then the government, in their wisdom, took   this agency and they sold it.

      That business, on top of the job opportunities that were   created, created wealth for us in this province.  We created   revenue for us that we could have taken and invested.  The   revenue that it had created for the government was some $3   million per year.  That ties back to the figure that I was   talking about in my comments to the Minister of Transportation   (Mr. Driedger) here.

      If we had had that $3 million from the Manitoba Data Services   company, we would have been able to take that $3 million and   invest it on a yearly basis over the next three or four years to   upgrade the rail infrastructure on the bayline to the northern   parts of our province, yet we sold off that opportunity and we no   longer receive the revenue for it.

      That was an opportunity that we could have had that would   have allowed the northern part of our province and northern   Manitobans to prosper, but we no longer have those revenues   available to us.

      The National Research Council building on Ellice Street is a   nice building to look at, but other than that I do not think it   performs the function that it was intended to perform.  It was   intended to create research and development opportunities to   allow research and development to be ongoing, an attempt to   create new job opportunities, new technology for our province.

      It is unfortunate that the provincial government, in   conjunction with the federal government, has not undertaken to   see that industry has filled this office space to start with the   research and development that is so necessary to create those   opportunities in this province.  Of course, it is attempting to   change the mandate of the building, to do more primary research   in the health care field.

* (1510)

      We all feel that health care is very important for us here in   the province, and there is obviously going to be ongoing   long‑term research and development opportunities that are going   to be needed.  I do not believe that will ever disappear.

      We need to do more than to just hang our hat onto one peg.   If we put all our eggs into that one basket, and that one basket   suddenly has a downturn, those opportunities in that basket have   a downturn, the whole province will have a downturn.  If we   diversify and spread those opportunities out amongst other areas   in our province, then we would have created more opportunities in   the province of Manitoba.

      I do not think the government has done enough activity in   this area and I would like to see more opportunities created.  I   hope that by this Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology   Council Act, that the government will seriously bring forward the   research and development that we so desperately need, and so   seriously lack in this province.

      By the same time, we have to have opportunities in our   colleges, our universities and our high schools to give our young   people the opportunity to become involved in this research and   development.  If this government is not willing to make that   investment in our young people, then we are not going to see   those opportunities develop, and our young people are going to be   destined for a life of poverty because the job opportunities are   not going to be there for them.

      That is why I hope the government is serious when they bring   forward this Bill 9 and that they are going to make more than the   $10 million investment into this fund, and that they will make it   a long‑term ongoing structure that will look into the research   and development needs for the province of Manitoba, and create   those desperately needed economic opportunities for Manitobans so   that we can reduce the 57,000 unemployed who we have in our   province, and to improve the quality of life for all people, so   that we no longer have to have the food banks in our communities   as we find them today where we have hundreds of families that   make use of these food banks, to create these new opportunities   for these people.

      With that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to conclude my   remarks.  Thank you for the opportunity.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I would   like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on this bill   that we are discussing now, and to talk a bit about the economy   of our province.  I believe that we all want to improve the   economy of the province and we will all admit that we have   serious problems here in this province at the present time with   the high unemployment rate that we have, with the large number of   people we have on social assistance, with the problems that we   are having in the farming community.

      We have to look seriously at what we can do and I would be   more than supportive of a government that would show some   leadership in these areas, particularly in the area of creating   jobs, and something that would help our province, but in   particular our rural communities, because that is where I am   from, and I am sure that there are other members in this House   who realize the devastating things that are going on in the rural   communities at the present time when we have no job creation.

      I would like to relate this a little bit to my own   constituency, this issue that hits very much at home with the   people in the area, and it is something we mentioned earlier in   the day.  That is the lack of employment in the Swan River area   and the lack of initiative and leadership on the part of this   government to have any commitment to the Swan River community.  I   refer to what I spoke about earlier in Question Period, and that   is the Repap deal, and when the government signed the Repap deal,   the devastating effect it had on the Swan River community.

      When the NDP was in power, they were working very closely   with the Swan River community and a company by the name of   Penn‑Co group that had an excellent proposal put in place that   would have created many jobs and a market for a lot of material,   material that could have been sold, not material that had a large   amount of chlorine bleach in it.  There was a market.  If we look   at the draft proposal, we are told that markets had been   identified in north, central and western United States where few   Canadian plants were expected to be active.  There was a real   market.

      All it would have taken was a little bit of initiative on the   government's part.  They could have followed through with the   Western Diversification funding that was in place for the   agreement.  We could have had real jobs in the area instead of   having the deal we have now that is hurting not only the Swan   River area, but the whole northern area when we have such   uncertainty with a company that is not quite sure where they are   going.  I hope the government can address this matter and also   address the needs of the Swan River people, so that we can have   some economic growth.

      Mr. Acting Speaker, the other area that‑‑there are many   people who are suffering, and the government has not chosen to   address them‑‑and that is also the fishing community.  The   members of the fishing community have petitioned this government   many times to ask them for assistance to improve markets, also to   give them assistance with various problems that they are having   on the lake, but instead, the government just sets those things   aside and has no idea of what level of poverty these people are   living in.  They must show leadership to get some jobs into those   areas.

      As I said, we have very high unemployment rates, very high   numbers of people on welfare.  There are people in my   constituency who have come up with very good ideas, particularly   in the area of tourism.  They have proposals that would take   numbers of people off welfare and invest the money in the   community and create jobs.  I think that this is an excellent   idea and one that the government should give very close   consideration to.  I know that they have written to the Premier   (Mr. Filmon) on the matter, and I hope he will follow through   with his commitment to look at it and hopefully develop some   economic growth in that part of the province to help those   people, because as you know, Mr. Acting Speaker, the majority of   people would rather be working than having to wait for a handout   from the government in the form of welfare.

      There are times when people have no choice, but there are   times also when government can step in and deal with those   issues.  They must show the leadership and must be prepared to   invest in people.  I do not believe, at the present time, that we   have a government that is prepared to do that.  They seem not to   be too concerned when we have 54,000 people unemployed in   Manitoba, when we have the number of people on welfare double   since this government came into power.

      Part of the economic growth of this province is also in the   farming community, and I hope that the government will continue   through with some of the promises they made that would help the   rural communities grow and have some diversification on economic   growth that would be a spin‑off from the farming industry.  We   very much need, in many parts of the province, to have gas   distribution.  I know the previous Minister of Rural Development   had indicated at the municipal convention that he was prepared to   look at that and look at ways that we could get services brought   to different parts of the province.

* (1520)

      The Swan River area has been talking about this a long time.   They have written to the minister.  They have lobbied the Premier   (Mr. Filmon) on this matter, and I hope that the government will   show leadership and take that initiative forward so that there   can be growth in that part of the province as there is in others,   but it is not only the Swan River area that needs natural gas.   There is the Interlake area where there is an excellent   proposal.  Again, the government must show leadership and look to   bring these services to different communities, and I hope that   that is what we will see by this new council.

      I know we have the Economic Development Board that the   cabinet has put in place, and I have talked to some people who   are on that board.  I hope, as a person who is on the board said   to me, that this just is not going to be another bunch of paper   shuffling and another report that is going to sit on a shelf.   They are very much prepared to work with government, to come   forward with ideas that will result in development in the North,   but I would hope that when people come forward with ideas that   this government will take those ideas seriously and not just put   forward a committee that is a figurehead, one that is going to   shuffle paper and write another report that is going to just sit   on the shelf.

      We must have economical growth in all parts of Manitoba, in   the North.  We must have economic growth in the rural community,   and the government must be prepared to invest.  We must be   prepared to provide services for the people.  That does not mean   selling off every Crown corporation that is there because it is   not needed anymore in the government's mind.  There are many   corporations and things that this government has let go of,   thinking that we do not need them.  I would hope that they would   show more leadership and support to keep these corporations in   their place.

      We also have to have research for us to have development in   the province.  When I see that the government has cut back the   budget by approximately $700 million in the last budget, it   disturbs me that we, on one hand, could talk about economic   growth and technological change and then cut back on the research   that is required for a province to keep up with the changes that   are going on in this world.

      The other area is the Manitoba Data Services.  It provided   the province with much revenue, $3 million in fact, that could   have been put into research and other areas of development, but   instead the government has chosen to sell off the data services   branch and now has lost the revenue from that.

      So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I hope that, in passing this bill,   that the government will pay more than lip service and go forward   and have real initiatives that will help the economy of our   province and create jobs for Manitobans and show leadership in   the field, so that we are able to show leadership in the field of   technology.  With those words I will close.


Point of Order


Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise on a point   of order.  The Leader of the Liberal opposition (Mrs. Carstairs)   referred on Friday to comments that were attributed to the   honourable member for Portage and myself.  I want to just correct   the reference that the member made in this matter.

      I did not indicate that the Dutch elm disease was a total   economic failure.  I did say that in the Red River Valley, south   of the city of Winnipeg, we had lost the Dutch elm disease   battle, and I maintain that that is the case.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson)  I thank the member for his   comments and I will take that under advisement.

* * *

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I am rising   this afternoon to speak on Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and   Technology Council Act, which we are debating in the House today,   and I am sure for several days in the future.  As colleagues of   mine have indicated before, we on this side of the House have   absolutely no disagreement or argument with the need for economic   innovation.

      We certainly need a stronger Manitoba economy.  We certainly   need to put our Manitoba house in order.  We certainly need to be   innovative, to look at new technologies, to look at the ways that   we as Manitobans work and live together and the impact that the   economy of our communities, our cities, the provinces within the   country, the country as a whole, North America and the world as   whole operate in conjunction one with another.

      I think that today, perhaps more than any other time in the   history of North America, we must look at ideas and at thinking   and at ideologies and at concerns and at values that we have   taken for granted over a long period of time.  We have, certainly   in North America and certainly in the northern half of the North   American continent, for a very long time, as long as there have   been people who have come from other areas across the sea, always   had as one of the things that we have brought with us as new   Canadians, as we all were when we first came to this land, some   of us newer than others.

      Speaking as a new Canadian, we all brought from, certainly   from the European continent, an idea that progress was in and of   itself good, that movement was in and of itself good, that change   and forward motion would be the end result if we only worked   hard.  If we only planned and were careful, we as individuals, we   as families, we as communities, we as nations would move forward   and would see progress made.  I think that, in the last few   years, and longer than that for some of us‑‑but I think everyone   now understands the fact that we have to rethink all of those   values and those assumptions in the light of our economic and   social, financial, historical and cultural current situations in   our entire society.

      We do need to be innovative.  We do need to look at   technology.  We do need to look at ways that we in Manitoba can   better work together to provide a quality of life for our   families, ourselves, our children and future generations.  As   other members of my caucus have stated, we agree with the need   for innovation and a need to look at technology, the role of   technology in our society, what do we need to do in order to make   Manitoba a more productive, higher quality province within which   all of its people can live.

      We need also to look in the long term.  Again, we have   historically been able to look more or less from budget to   budget, from government to government, at the most, at the   outside and, in some cases, go fairly smoothly from budget to   budget and government to government.  In other cases, we would   lurch a bit, but we always had the idea and the sense that, if we   did something, if we made some changes, if we put this in place   or did that, we would be able to come out at the other end in a   more positive economic situation and with a stronger base for our   members of society, our members of the province, of the city, of   the continent.

* (1530)

      Governments for a long time have always said that they wanted   to put a long‑term economic plan into place, and statements like   that have been made by governments for a very long period of   time, of all political stripes.  It has been very difficult for   all governments to implement those long‑term plans for a variety   of reasons, not the least of which is that we are a political   group as legislators, as member of a government.  We are a   political group.  We are responsive, one would hope very   responsive, to the needs, wishes and desires of our constituents.

      However, we also must be aware that periodically, as a   government, we are obliged to go to the people for either a   renewed mandate or, in cases which all members in this House on   both sides are very familiar, a sharp slap on the wrist, if you   will, by the voter saying, no, we are not in favour of the way   you are approaching the situation, the way you are approaching   government now; we want to give another government the   opportunity to govern.

      While we always talk as government, opposition and members of   the Legislature about the need for a long‑term development, it is   very difficult for us to actually implement that.  As I said   before, in the past, it has not been as urgent as it is today.   We could go from one election to another stating and restating   the same kinds of ideas that we had in the past and more or less   get away with it.

      Today we are not allowed to do that.  Today our society,   municipal city‑wide, provincial, nation‑wide, continent‑wide and   globally will not allow for us to be that complacent, will not   allow for short‑term strategies in and of themselves, short‑term   strategies, strategies that deal with the immediate issues.  The   medium‑range issues as well as the long‑term issues and problems   all need to be addressed.  We cannot address the short‑ and   medium‑term issues without a long‑range strategy.

      Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, we on this side of the House   applaud the concept of a long‑term economic plan, applaud the   concept of innovation, applaud the concept of working together to   come up with a response that hopefully includes short‑, medium‑   and long‑term elements to the crisis that we are facing in our   world today.

      We are in a crisis.  The debate is going backwards and   forwards and to and fro as to whether we are in a worse recession   than we were in the early 1980s or whether we are not in a worse   recession.  I think it is almost a debate that begs the question,   while the recession did not get as deep, the trough did not get   as deep this time or has not gotten as deep as it did in the   1981‑82 recession, the recovery, if you could call it that, has   been very slow, very sluggish, and we are facing the possibility,   if not the probability, of a double dip, of the economy going   back down again.  The lines are quite graphic, if you will,   showing the '81‑82 recession having a very sharp drop and then an   incredibly fast improvement.

      The economy by the mid‑80s had gone past, had recovered up to   above where it had been in the late 1970s when we went into the   recession.  This time, the economy has been in a recession for up   to, if not longer than, 18 months.  While the depth has not been   reached of the earlier recession, the line is less sharp in its   recovery.  As a matter of fact, it has not recovered at all, and   there are many economists who believe that we could very easily   be headed for another dip in the economic indicators.  We have   many indicators that show that we are in the midst of a crisis.   We have talked in this House a great deal.  It does not appear to   have been heard, but we will continue to talk in this House a   great deal about the scourge of unemployment.  I choose that word   very carefully.  I do believe it is a scourge in the most   biblical extensive use of that word.

      There are a million and a half Canadians who are unemployed.   The figure is much larger when you take into account the hundreds   of thousands of Canadians who have given up even looking for a   job because they know there is no job to be had.  The figures   become even more reprehensible when you look at the fact that   there are people who are working part time who want and need and   should be entitled to full‑time employment, who are not working   part time out of choice, are working part time because there is   no full‑time employment.

      If you added all those statistics together you would get well   over 10 percent of the entire population of Canada and an   enormously high percentage of the adult population, the   population from 15 to 64 who should be able to be in the work   force, unable for one reason or another to participate to the   full extent of their abilities and the full extent of what they   would like to be able to do.

      In Manitoba, we have 57,000 Manitobans unemployed.  Again,   Mr. Acting Speaker, that is only the tip.  That does not include   those Manitobans who have given up looking.  It does not include   the Manitobans who are underemployed.  It does not include the   Manitobans who have not only given up looking, but have not begun   to look because they know there are no jobs available.

      We have put on the record, on this side of the House, the   enormous unemployment statistics for the northern part of this   province, highest in the country.  We have put on the record the   enormous unemployment statistics for people in the inner city of   Winnipeg, for the youth of Manitoba.

      The unemployment statistics, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would   suggest in the rural areas of Manitoba, the devastation that has   visited itself upon the rural areas of this province probably is   still not completely felt.  I would hope that members on the   government benches, many of whom come from rural constituencies,   are talking to their constituents and finding out exactly what   kind of blow the current economic situation has dealt residents   of rural Manitoba.

      Another indication is the housing starts in the country.  The   housing starts in Manitoba are dismal.  The housing starts in the   nation as a whole are dismal.  I would say that the federal   government in its latest budget on the surface made a stab at   doing something about the construction industry, which provides   an enormous number of jobs throughout the country, by freeing up   to $20,000 of RRSPs to be able to be used for purchasing a home.   There are a couple of problems with that program and problems   that are a good indication, I would suggest, of the lack of   innovation, the lack of a long‑term economic strategy that the   current federal proposal states.  We are not opposed to   individuals and families being able to use RRSPs on purchasing a   home, but because the RRSPs can be used to purchase either a new   or a used home, the impact on the construction industry will be   diluted.

* (1540)

      There will be many people who, I am sure, will choose to   purchase with their RRSPs homes that have already been   constructed.  The spin‑off of those purchases of used homes as   opposed to new homes is much less in the economy.  You lose the   appliances purchased.  You lose the curtains and draperies, all   of those kinds of things.  You lose all of those kinds of   economic spin‑offs that this federal government proposal does not   allow for.

      Also, Mr. Acting Speaker, when you put this proposal, which   allows for up to $20,000 of RRSP money, side by side with the   same federal budget which cut the co‑op housing proposal, you see   a true picture emerging of the lack of long‑term strategy on the   part of the federal government, the lack of any concern or caring   about Canadians who do not have access to large sums of money.

      The Co‑op Housing Program would, in Manitoba, have meant 200   additional housing units.  Two hundred additional housing units   in a province where last year the new housing starts were   something like 1,700, almost a 50 percent reduction over the last   few years, would have meant a large percentage increase in the   amount of home construction that could have been undertaken.  It   could have had an enormous positive impact on the construction   industry and the spin‑off industries that go along with new home   construction.

      On the other side of that, the Co‑op Housing Program would   have provided 200 Manitoba families with decent, reasonably   priced housing, something that is sorely lacking in this   province.  But the Conservative government, while they gave with   people who have money on the one hand, took away from people who   do not have money on the other hand.  They cut a program that   would have provided social housing‑‑this federal government.  It   would appear from the bits and pieces that we have seen from the   provincial government, the word "social" is turning into being a   dirty word as far as Conservative governments are concerned.  The   last thing they are concerned with is social programming.

      Another thing that has been undermining the economic   situation in this province, and which I am not sure Bill 9   adequately addresses, is the whole area of consumer confidence.   Unemployment has a major role to play in consumer confidence.  If   you have 57,000 unemployed Manitobans with tens of thousands more   underemployed or not even looking for work, you have a very high   percentage of the adult population in the province not having any   financial resources with which to spend.  Of course, consumer   confidence is going to go down.  Of course, consumer spending is   going to go down.  Any number of economic innovation councils and   other pronouncements on the part of the government that are not   followed by action are going to be looked at and are being looked   at more and more by the people of Manitoba with a great deal of   well‑earned suspicion.

      Is this just another shuffle?  It would appear on the surface   that it might very well be just another shuffle in this   government's long line of using working groups, committees,   advisory committees, support groups.  You name it, there is a   group that this government has put into place to advise, to work   with, to make recommendations to the government, and they do not   listen.

      The people of Manitoba are justifiably skeptical about the   role that this Economic Innovation and Technology Council will   actually have.  They are not skeptical about the people on the   council.  Please let it not be stated that I have anything but   the highest regard for the names of the people who are on that   council.  I do think it is a bit light in the number of   consumers, in the number of people who are most affected by   economic strategies and plans, and it certainly is light on the   labour side.  The people who are on this council, whose names   have been put forward at least on paper to sit on this council,   are very well‑respected members largely of the business   community.  They certainly are not lacking in expertise and,   perhaps, very good ideas as to what to do about our deepening and   ever‑expanding economic crisis, but back to the consumer   confidence.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson):  Order, please.  All   honourable members wishing to carry on conversations, please do   so at a very low level or move into the loge or outside the   Chamber, please.

Ms. Barrett:  Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to put on record   that the conversations are a lot less loud than they have been at   several times when I have spoken in the past. [interjection] I   certainly hope I am provoking debate.  I think that is the point   of this whole process.

      I was speaking about consumer confidence.  In the last eight   years, since the federal Conservative government was elected and   the last almost four years since the provincial Conservative   government has been elected, the people of this province have had   very little positive as an outcome of any actions taken by either   level of those governments.  I am not talking about the higher   income levels; I am talking about the people‑‑[interjection] I   seem to have engendered some debate here which is well and good,   but I would appreciate some quiet.

      The people of Manitoba and Canada, who have been hardest hit   by the policies of the federal and provincial Conservative   governments, are the people who I represent in Wellington.  They   are middle‑income families, they are senior citizens, they are   new Canadians, they are young families, they are families with   teenagers, they are families whose children have left home and   are trying to make their own lives with their own families, they   are people who live modestly, they are people who have worked and   who want to work all of their lives, they are people for whom   work is a productive, necessary part of life.

      These people, to use a very trite phrase but one that I think   has a certain degree of currency here, are the backbone of our   nation, the people who have come here over the last 300 to 400   years, who have worked hard, who have said all along that they   are more than willing to pay their fair share.  They understand   the role that each of them must play in a co‑operative society,   that there are always going to be requirements that the society   as a whole needs to put into place.

      As we as Canadians have over the years evolved, those   requirements that individuals and families are willing to pay   their fair share to ensure are things such as medicare, a public   education system, a basic system to provide for individuals and   families who for one reason or another largely, vastly the   majority of which are legitimate reasons, cannot pay for their   own basic necessities.

* (1550)

      To that we have also recently added the sense that Manitobans   are willing to pay and see the importance of a clean environment   so that we can pass on to the future generations a world that is   worth living in, a world that we actually physically can live   in.  There is some grave doubt as to the ability of people in the   next generation or two to be able to have a world such as that.

      These are things that Canadians in general and for sure   residents and people in my constituency of Wellington say are   vital and of major importance to them.  All of these areas are   under attack by the Conservatives in this province and by the   Conservatives in Canada.  All the economic innovation and   technology councils in the world are not going to have a positive   impact on that as long as the provincial government and its Tory   cousins in Ottawa continue on their road of goods and services   tax, of the Free Trade Agreement, of strongly supporting the   North American free trade agreement, of deregulation, of   privatization, of saying, no, we all do not have a responsibility   one for another, no, government does not have an active role to   play in ensuring that the things that Canadians feel are   important are available to all Canadians.

      This government and its Tory counterparts across the country   and in Ottawa are saying, hands off‑‑the best government is the   least government.  We are not concerned basically with the people   who are most impacted by our legislation, our values and our   ideology.  We are not concerned with those who have worked for   years and who see their savings eaten away, whose children are   unable to find jobs, whose families and grandparents are under   threat of not having adequate housing, of not having an adequate   pension income, of not being able to take advantage of what is   rightfully theirs and for which they have put years of work and   years of taxes into the system.

      This is why the government can come out with all the   economic, innovative technology councils it wants to.  It can   have working groups on a range of things.  The Minister of Health   (Mr. Orchard) has an enormous number of working groups.  We have   seen very little, if any, impact that those working groups have   had on the health care system, other than in a negative context.

      The Department of Family Services has had several working   groups, one in particular, a working group on daycare that for 18   months believed what the Minister of Family Services (Mr.   Gilleshammer) was telling them that the government was going to   listen to what they had to say, was going to take into account   what they had to say because they are the people who are working   in child care.  They are the people who know what the needs are.   They are the people who are actually doing the jobs.  They are   the same kind of people that this government is saying they are   going to consult and use in the Economic Innovation and   Technology Council.

      I suggest that the people in Manitoba take a really close   look at what happened with a working group on child care because   the same thing might very well happen with this council as well,   which is, they bought off the child care community for 18 months   and then they totally, virtually disregarded the recommendations   and the timetable that the working group had implemented, had   made recommendations to.

      Since the restructuring in the child care system, the   government has not listened one iota to the thousands of parents,   child care workers and boards of child care agencies, family   daycares who have come to the minister, who have said publicly   and in letters and in presentations to the minister, we cannot   live with this restructuring that you have put in place over the   recommendations of your working group.

      I say to you, if this is an example‑‑which it is only one‑‑of   what this government has done in its use of advisory councils, in   its use of supposedly listening to the people who are the   experts, then we do not hold out very much hope for this   particular council either.  The only positive thing, the only   possible reason why this council may have more of an impact on   the government, is that it is made up largely of people whom the   government already listens to.  It certainly is not made up   largely or even remotely proportionately of working Manitobans   working for a salary, people who work in the middle‑ and   lower‑paid occupations.  It is made up of CEOs and heads of   corporations, a very valuable input but certainly not balanced   and complete.  It is not made up of members of the labour   movement who have a great deal of input and should have a great   deal of input.

      This government and its Tory counterparts talk about a level   playing field, talk about the need for us to be competitive, talk   about all kinds of ideas that on the surface would appear to be   positive, or at the very least, innocuous; but what a level   playing field really means to this government is low wages,   nonunion, high unemployment, so that there is a wage pool just   ready for the corporations to take advantage of, an economic   climate very much like the economic climate in the southern   United States.

      Mr. Acting Speaker, I watched Venture last night after the   national report on Sunday evening, which I am wont to do on   occasion, and found it was a very interesting story about a   garment manufacturer who had just moved from Winnipeg to southern   Florida.  He was asked very clearly by the Florida business   community to relocate his operation in Florida.  He went down   there, assuming there was going to be a lot of trained skilled   workers, that there would be bank loans necessary for him to   operate.  There would be all kinds of positive things there.  He   was given that to understand.  He gets down there and finds out   that is not the case.  The work force is untrained.  There are no   bank loans that are guaranteed to him.  There are major problems   with this supposedly wonderful move.

      This program then talked to several manufacturers in Canada,   part of whose manufacturing had been removed to the United   States.  What they said, Mr. Acting Speaker, was that far from   being the answer to a corporation's or a manufacturer's dream,   much of what goes on in the United States is a nightmare, because   the basic thing that any manufacturing sector, any technology   sector, any business needs in this day is to be productive.  If   you are productive, then you are competitive.  If you are   productive, then you can live in this very tough economic climate.

      You know what these people said was part of the   productivity?  They were saying that you have to take into   account the fact that if you pay low wages, you are likely to get   a high turnover in your employed work force.  If you pay higher   wages and give benefits, you are likely to have a stable,   well‑educated work force.  That is what we in Manitoba have had   over the last years, a very highly educated, stable, motivated   work force with, up until this Tory government came into power,   one of the lowest days lost to labour stoppages of any government   in the country.

      Mr. Acting Speaker, I would suggest that one of the things   that this new Economic Innovation and Technology Council should   take a very close look at is what some of those business people   are saying, that truly to be competitive you need to have a   well‑educated, motivated, stable work force.  We on this side   absolutely agree with that.  Do you know how you get a   well‑educated, motivated, stable work force?  You provide the   social and educational infrastructure that allows for that.

      What has this provincial government done?  Not very much, I   will tell you, Mr. Acting Speaker.  They, through their   restructuring of child care formulas, have made it impossible for   many of the middle‑income families who used to be able to afford   child care who no longer can afford child care, so they   have‑‑[interjection]

* (1600)

      The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is talking   about the situation in day care in Toronto, and I would like to   say that that is exactly my point.  There the system that was   brought in by the former Liberal government in Ontario is exactly   the kind of system that this government has brought in here, and   every child care worker has told the Minister of Family Services   that that is going to be the outcome.

      There are also, Mr. Acting Speaker, cutbacks in education.   This government talks, all the time, about the need to be   competitive, how we have to have an educated work force, how we   have to increase our competitiveness in the global economy and   our level playing field, and all those kinds of things, while on   the other hand, what does it actually do?  Not what does it talk   about it?  Not what kind of working group does it put in place,   but what does it actually do?

      It provides virtually no increase for many school divisions   in this province.  It cuts back the training programs, it cuts   back access programs, it cuts back BUNTEP programs, it cuts back   social allowances for students, it cuts back the programs that   are specifically targeted to the people who need to be educated   and retrained so that they can be productive.

      On the third hand, what the provincial government has done,   as a job training exercise, it has created a heck of a lot of   jobs in provincial social assistance‑‑$30‑million increase for   social assistance in the last budget.  An acknowledgement of   failure, an acknowledgement that there is no job creation   program, there are no education programs, there are no upgrading   programs to allow the youth of this province, the new Canadians   in this province, the people who have been through deregulation   and privatization, kicked out of employment at the age of 40 and   above, there is nothing for them in this government.

      There is not a thing for them in this government, except a   $30‑million increase in social assistance.  What kind of long   term economic planning is that?  Not very good economic planning.

      If you are a single parent in this province, woe be to you to   try and get off social assistance, to try even to do something as   simple and basic as to have some prevention programming put into   place, like the parent‑child centres, an excellent program that   came in under Core Area Initiative.  Very low cost, five years of   good solid programming, basically run by volunteers, basically   run by the people who are the users of the service.

      This government talks an enormous amount about the role of   volunteers, while it cuts back child and family service   volunteers, while it eliminates 600 volunteer positions from the   98 housing authorities.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

      What this government really wants to do is to get out of the job of helping people entirely unless they are wealthy   corporations, and then it is more than willing to help.

      What has this government done to the farm economy?  What has   this government done for rural development?  What has this   government done for people with mental and physical   disabilities?  What has this government done for anybody other   than Great‑West Life and Investors‑‑not much, not much.

      Yet the government talks about economic innovation and   technology.  I would suggest, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the   government take a look at its overall strategy, its overall   programming, its overall budgeting, and broaden its focus from a   narrow definition of economic development and strategy and   actually start doing something for all Manitobans instead of   putting into place, yet again, another council made up of people   that the government already listens to.

      It should start listening to 57,000 Manitobans who are   unemployed.  It should start listening to the tens of thousands   of Manitobans who are on social assistance and govern for all of   the people of Manitoba and not just the narrow elite who already   have, at least, their fair share.  Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):  I move, seconded by the honourable   member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that we adjourn debate.

Motion agreed to.


Bill 10‑The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):  On the proposed motion of the   honourable Minister responsible for The Manitoba Hydro Act (Mr.   Downey), Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act (Loi modifiant   la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba), standing in the name of the   honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).  Is there leave to   allow the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member:  Leave.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):  Agreed and so ordered.


Bill 11‑The Bee-Keepers Repeal Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):  On the proposed motion of the   honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 11, The   Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les   apiculteurs), standing in the name of the honourable member for   Swan River.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Acting Speaker, it gives me   pleasure to raise a few points about this bill today.  We will   not be passing the bill today.  The member for Dauphin (Mr.   Plohman) has indicated that he would like a little bit of time to   consult with a few more people.  We will be doing that, but we   will be prepared to pass the bill shortly.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

      As I said, I would like to say a few words about the bill,   but I would also like to take this opportunity to make a few   comments about the orderly marketing system and supply management   and the beekeepers who are also impacted by this type of system.

      I guess when I look at this bill, I wonder, if the bill was   only passed in 1987, why we are in such a short time coming about   having such changes made.  I did not hear the comments from the   Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), but if he has consulted   and this is what the beekeepers want, then we would probably be   prepared to support, but I wonder and look forward to hearing   what the impacts of this bill will be.  What will be changed as a   result of it?  I look forward to going to committee and hearing   what they have to say.

      Mr. Acting Speaker, I guess the other comments that I would   like to make relate to the other jurisdictions as well as honey   that are controlled by marketing boards.  Marketing boards play a   very important role in the economy of our country and in the   economy of Manitoba.  We have many, many commodities that are   managed by marketing boards, and we have heard a tremendous   amount about them in the last little while, particularly in light   of the fact that our marketing boards could be in danger as a   result of the GATT agreement.  I think that we have to work very   hard to see that our marketing boards and supply management are   protected and that we do not lose this through the GATT   negotiations.

* (1610)

      It is very important that Canada take a very strong position   at GATT to have Article 11 strengthened rather than weakened.  If   we lose supply management, there are many people who are going to   lose our marketing boards as well.  There are many people who are   going to be affected, and it is going to have a devastating   effect on our Manitoba economy.

      I was at a meeting in the Interlake just a few weeks ago and   talked to some people who are not beekeepers, who are not under   the honey marketing board but are under different marketing   boards, and they are very concerned about what is going to happen   to the economy of this province if we lose our supply management   and our marketing boards.  The government has done a good job of   setting up one group of people against the other saying they   cannot take a position on supporting the marketing boards because   it would then hurt the grain sector of the industry.

      The comments that came from these people were very   interesting, and that is the fact that they have said, if we are   not going to any longer raise chickens or raise turkeys or   produce eggs, who is going to buy all of the grain that we are   now buying?  We, in turn, are going to start growing grain and   flood the market.  It all ties in to marketing boards and supply   management and I think that the minister should think very   carefully about not supporting the supply management and the   marketing board people when he refused to sign the document   submitted by the Agriculture ministers.

      I think that supply management and marketing boards are   something very unique to Canada and we have to be sure that they   are protected, and I think that it is very important that this   minister take a strong stand on it and that Canada take a strong   stand on all of these marketing boards that so much affect our   economy here, in Canada.

      There are, as I said, thousands of people who are employed in   the industry, thousands of people who are concerned about it.  In   fact, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with three people   from the Maritime provinces who are here visiting in Manitoba   dealing with women in the rural economy.  Two of them were in the   potato industry and the other was in the dairy industry in their   province.  They have marketing boards there just as we have here   in Manitoba.  They also are very concerned about what is going to   happen to their economy.

      It is a big issue here not only in Manitoba, right across   Canada, that we protect our supply management industry.  They   also indicated, as many people here in Manitoba have, that if we   do not have marketing boards to control the prices, if we do not   protect our borders through marketing boards and have   tariffication, we will see a real influx of product, as we will   see with the honey industry if tariffication is put in place. If   we do not have the protection of our product, the market will get   flooded, and for a short time prices will come down, but in the   end it will be the consumer who will pay the price.  We will lose   a large industry here in Manitoba and across the province.

      Mr. Acting Speaker, as I said we will in a few days be   prepared to pass this bill.  There are still a few people whom we   would like to talk to.  In fact, the previous Minister of   Agriculture, Mr. Bill Uruski, is someone whom we will be talking   to and have talked to him because he was an excellent Minister of   Agriculture.  He implemented this bill in 1987.  We will be   talking to him about what his feelings are on why this has   changed.  We will also be talking to honey producers.  There are   many producers who produce honey only as a sideline, as a hobby.   We would want to know whether this is going to have any impact on   them.

      We will continue to consult, and in a very short time we will   be prepared to pass this bill, and then look forward to what the   producers have to say at the committee hearings as to whether or   not they are satisfied this is a good move.  Again, Mr. Acting   Speaker, I would like to reinforce that I feel marketing boards   are a very important part of our economy, and we must make every   effort not only to protect them here in Manitoba, but our   government must take a strong stand at GATT on this.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

      I am a little skeptical about this government taking a strong   stand, because it is my understanding that at one time Canada   proposed that marketing boards be removed and was not in support   of them.  Canada was not taking a strong position on them and now   to be sending these same people off to the GATT conference to   defend the marketing boards is in a sense like sending the fox   into the henhouse to defend the chickens.  I hope that this   Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has taken a strong position   and given a strong position to Ottawa that we want those   marketing boards protected.  I trust that he has, but I wished   that he would have shown that he had a strong position on it by   signing that document that other ministers signed to support the   marketing boards.  He has given us an explanation on why he has   not signed that document.  We have to take his word on that.

      Mr. Speaker, it is indeed very important that we continue to   protect the marketing boards, because, as I said earlier, if we   do not have marketing boards, if we change not only particularly   the honey industry but if we lose our poultry producers, if we   lose the right to protect our turkey producers, our egg   producers, our dairy producers, it will have a devastating effect   on the economy here in Canada.  I think we should be doing   everything we can to protect something that is looked at as a   model.

      There are dairy producers in the United States who would   dearly love to have the same system that we have.  In fact, many   of those producers were in Ottawa at the rally a couple of weeks   ago offering their support to the Canadian people to protect the   marketing boards.  I think that is a very good sign that we have   a good system, and people in Canada not only want it protected   but people in the United States look at the systems that we have   here and admire them and would like to have the same kind of   thing.

      Rather than going to GATT with a weak position and saying,   well, what the heck, we have to have an agreement so let us sign,   even if we are going to give up the marketing boards.  I think   what we have to do is fight for those to protect them and take a   leading role that other countries can follow and help other   countries establish a system such as we have, so that they can   raise their standard of living and raise their quality of life   rather than trying to take something away that is very good here   in Canada and lower our standards.

      Again, I find it very disappointing that the government would   try to set one group of people against the other saying that, if   they protect marketing boards then the grain producers are going   to suffer; if they protect the transportation systems, then   somebody else is going to suffer.  I think we have to look at the   best things that we have in our system and do what we can to   protect them.

      Mr. Speaker, just on that I would like to reinforce and   encourage the minister to do whatever it is he can to protect our   marketing boards and protect all of those people who now make a   very good living and have a quality of life within the   community.  There are a large number of producers who are   involved‑‑in fact, I believe there are over 450 million‑‑no, I am   sorry, 800 producers in that part of the industry that we must   look at protecting.  I would hope that government would continue   to do that.

      With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks and‑‑

An Honourable Member:  Pass it on to committee.

Ms. Wowchuk:  No, Mr. Speaker, the member for Portage (Mr.   Connery) asked if we were ready to pass it on to committee.  I   had indicated earlier that we are not prepared to pass it on to   committee.  We still need the time to consult.  There are a few   people who want to get back to us.  I think it is very important   that we listen to all people who might be impacted by this   legislation.  As the minister has said, it is very minor   legislation, but it also is an opportunity to‑‑[interjection]

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

* (1620)

Ms. Wowchuk:  Mr. Speaker, the member across the way has   indicated that the bill was introduced some time ago, and I have   indicated to him that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) will   be very shortly prepared to let this bill go to committee.  With   that, I will conclude my remarks.  Thank you very much.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway):  Mr. Speaker, I would like to place   a few remarks on the consideration of Bill 11, The Bee-Keepers   Repeal Act.  The purpose of this legislation is to transfer the   assets and obligations and liabilities of the Manitoba   Bee-Keepers Association to the Manitoba Honey Marketing Board.   It is a case that by consolidation and integration of the   activities of one association there will be more efficiency in   the administration of its affairs.  The important consideration   in the transfer of assets and liabilities from one organization   to another organization is the protection of the interests of all   the parties concerned.  In the transfer of assets and in the   transfer of obligations and liabilities, all the interests should   be protected.

      It is very important that, when arrangement of organizational   structure is being done, the people who are primarily affected   will be consulted.  We need to consult all the interest groups   that are involved in this kind of activity. [interjection] Well,   nobody is an expert on bees.  You always hear about bees and   honey and things like that.

An Honourable Member:  Conrad, have you heard about the birds and   the bees?

Mr. Santos:  The birds and the bees?  Yes, I have, but these are   fairy tales, and you have to sometimes talk about the reality of   life to the children other than the bees and the birds.

      We are talking here about the consolidation of the   administration of the affairs of an organization.  It concerns   the integration and unification.  All I am saying is that if we   are trying to rearrange the affairs of an organization and   transfer the assets and obligations of one group from one   organization to another, all the various interest groups should   be able to willingly consent to that transfer by process of   consultation so that the interests can be protected.  That is why   we have to consider and debate this legislation in more detail   and look at all its implications.  We have the moral obligation   to consult with the people who are affected.  There might be some   economies of scale and some kind of efficiencies that can be   gained in this consolidation, but those are factual, empirical   investigations that can only be determined after some kind of   experience in this matter.

      I would not prolong my analysis in a subject matter of which   I am totally ignorant, so I am going to say my piece and take my   seat.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by   the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.


House Business


Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, I   only ask that you do not call Bill 20 at this time as you move   toward the list of bills that you are calling.  We will call that   bill at this evening's sitting.


Bill 12‑The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister   of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry   Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'elevage, standing in   the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).   Stand?  Is there leave that this matter remain standing?  Leave?   It is agreed.


Bill 14‑The Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister   of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 14, The   Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act; Loi   modifiant la Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et du Transport,   standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.   Reid).  Stand?  Is there leave that this matter remain standing?   Leave?  It is agreed.

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):  Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure   to rise and speak today on Bill 14, The Highways and   Transportation Department Amendment Act.  I have had the benefit   of the minister's comments, which I found very helpful, as well   as my own analysis of this bill.

      Mr. Speaker, this bill, I am going to conclude my remarks by   indicating the Liberal carcass is willing to see passed to   committee stage. [interjection] Caucus‑‑caucus.  The member for   Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery) wants to put words in my mouth.   He has been thinking about bees or other animal husbandry or   something, but I am talking about the highways and traffic act.   Our caucus‑‑caucus‑‑is pleased to see this bill go to committee.

      I always have some concern when higher levels of government   discretion are being given out of the parliamentary procedure by   way of regulation, but further in this bill, out of the realm of   Orders‑in‑Council and simply into the hands of departmental   officials.  Of course, that is the major thrust of the amendments   here, to take the ceiling from $5,000 to $25,000 that can be done   without Order‑in‑Council, that is, departmentally.

      Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I generally like to   preserve, as I think many parliamentarians do, as much control in   the hands of the Legislature.  However, I do recognize that in a   department such as this where there are many leases, many land   acquisitions to be done in any given year, we do have to place   trust and faith in our senior officials.

(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

      In this case, I think it is not unwarranted to expand the   $5,000 to $25,000.  This, of course, in this bill not only deals   with land which is to be let, but the value of property to be   sold, so that the minister on his own will be able to sanction,   and his departmental officials, his delegates, sell land up to   the value of $25,000 without an Order‑in‑Council.

      The bill also, I note, provides for land that has been   acquired for departmental road, airport or docks, to be leased   out when it is not immediately needed for the purposes of the   province and the public good.  That, I think, is relatively minor   and, I am sure, important in the ongoing workings of the   Department of Highways and Transportation.

      There are, of course, other components to this act.  I note   that it is being brought into line with The Public Works Act with   respect to the $25,000 value.  There is no reason to think that   The Public Works Act in that regard has been unworkable.  I have   not heard any indications from members of the public or members   of the civil service that we should not go to this $25,000 limit.

      The Public Works Act has been there, and I do not have any   information that it is out of line.  The other parts of this bill   I believe are relatively minor, and I note that the minister has   said that he welcomes any questions at committee stage on the   remaining parts of this bill.

      I have reviewed them.  I do believe that in keeping with his   indication, they are relatively minor housekeeping amendments.   The major amendment is to take the higher level of discretion   departmentally to $25,000.  We are prepared to pass this to   committee on that basis, to hear members of the public at that   point‑‑if there are any, and I do not know that there will be   speaking to this issue.

      With those comments our caucus, as I have said, will allow   this bill passage to the committee stage where we can have a   fuller discussion with the minister on the finer points of this   bill.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

Mr. Speaker:  As previously agreed, this matter will remain   standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.   Reid).


Bill 15‑The Highway Traffic Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister   of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 15, The   Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route,   standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.   Ashton).

An Honourable Member:  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand?  Is there leave that this matter may remain   standing?

An Honourable Member:  Leave.

Mr. Speaker:  Leave, it is agreed.  The honourable member for St.   James (Mr. Edwards).

* (1630)

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):  Mr. Speaker, this is another   Highways department bill.  This one is somewhat lengthier.  I was   not particularly concerned with the bulk of the amendments which   are proposed in this bill.

(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

      I must thank the minister for his very helpful spreadsheets   which the minister hands out and I find particularly useful in   analyzing this bill and others.  I think it is a practice which I   simply want to speak to as thanking those departmental officials   who prepare these, because I find them generally candid and I   find them thorough.  They are extremely helpful as they show what   the law has been, what it is going to be, with an explanation.   It is very useful.  I want to start with those comments.

      Madam Acting Speaker, I note that this bill does make some   very important amendments, I am sure, for the people it affects,   specifically at the outset, the war veterans.  There is an   amendment in here that ensures disabled war veterans may be   exempted from the registration fees for trucks.  I gather that is   without controversy and that is relatively minor, I think,   probably important to those whom it directly affects.

      There are other relatively minor changes.  The only one that   I wanted to flag for the minister at this point that I would like   to comment on at the committee stage would be the proposed   Section 319.1 which is a new section.  That section, Madam Acting   Speaker, ensures it is indicated that Manitoba meets a national   commitment made by every Canadian province to introduce a   periodic vehicle inspection program for commercial vehicles by   September of 1992.  My only comment for the minister is, why are   we not introducing that same mandatory vehicle inspection program   for all vehicles?

      Now I know that this was an issue dear to the heart of my   predecessor critic, the former member for Assiniboia, who spoke   at length and quite eloquently, I must say, on the issue of   vehicle inspections, the point being that we must ensure insofar   as is possible‑‑and it really does not take much to do it‑‑that   the vehicles on the road are safe.  We know they are safe when   they are sold, certainly new vehicles.  We hope that there are   adequate protections in place for the sale of used vehicles, most   of which occur privately or at least those that do occur   privately.  We have some concerns about the safety of those   vehicles.  I, having lived in Ontario, know that they do have a   far more sophisticated vehicle inspection program for vehicles   ensuring that we do not have older vehicles that are simply   unsafe.

      I suggest, Madam Acting Speaker, that the vehicle safety   system breaks down if we do not ensure through regular   inspections, increasingly regular inspections as a vehicle gets   older and older, that these vehicles are in fact safe.  I do note   that Manitoba has been inspecting truck trailers and semitrailers   on a regulated basis since 1989 and that we are broadening that   eventually to include all vehicles over a certain limit, but that   at this point we are giving to the registrar the ability, by   regulation, to prescribe the standards and the inspection   procedures which will be put into place.

      Madam Acting Speaker, with those comments, we are willing to   have this bill passed to committee.  I do note that there are   further amendments dealing with the wearing of seat belts.  I   intend to question the minister at committee stage on that and on   the proposed exemption for individuals who are travelling in the   care of peace officers.  I am not sure‑‑I would like to have an   explanation as to why we need that.

      I have personal knowledge of individuals who were travelling   in a vehicle driven by a peace officer and who were involved in   an accident, the peace officer himself driving and being   seriously injured, in which they were not with seat belts and, of   course, it was not held against them because the car, in the back   seat, did not have seat belts.  They were very, very seriously   injured.

      I do not know why we would exempt necessarily people who are   being transported by peace officers in all cases to be exempted   from wearing seat belts.  I note that some individuals who are   intoxicated, violent, unco‑operative, difficult to force to   buckle up‑‑of course, there are exceptions, but I am not sure   that we should be exempting as a matter of course people from   wearing seat belts while travelling with peace officers.  I look   forward to some questioning on that.

      Madam Acting Speaker, with those comments, I look forward to   a more thorough discussion of this bill at committee stage.   Again, let me say that I have found the minister most forthright   on this, and I think we can clear up some of the questions I   have.  I am sure my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus will   have similar concerns.  I flag the ones that I will look forward   to discussing at the committee stage where the officials, I am   sure, will be present.

      Madam Acting Speaker, with that, our caucus is pleased to see   this bill pass on to committee stage.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

Mr. Speaker:  As previously agreed, this matter will remain   standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.   Ashton).


Bill 21‑The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister   of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 21, The Provincial Park   Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les parcs   provinciaux, standing in the name of the honourable member for   Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).

Some Honourable Members:  Stand.

Mr. Speaker:  Stand.  Is there leave that this matter remain   standing?

Some Honourable Members:  Leave.

Mr. Speaker:  Leave.  It is agreed.

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):  Mr. Speaker, this bill, in fact,   has provoked some controversy, and I want to acknowledge the work   of the group that has come to me with complaints about the effect   of this bill.

      I do not pretend to be an expert at this point on the finer   details of what park areas‑‑what residents in what park areas in   this province have experienced difficulties and what they pay and   what they do not pay in local taxes.  I can assure the minister   that I have encouraged the members of the public who have come to   me on this bill to make their views known at the committee   stage.  I warn the minister at this point that there will be some   serious debate at the committee stage on this bill, because very   strong feelings have been brought forward to me about the level   of ministerial discretion which is built into this bill and what   the future will hold for the residents of provincial park lands.

      I start from a fundamental principle which was the genesis of   the American Revolution, that no taxation without representation   was the battle cry.  Anybody who purports to tax, any authority   which purports to tax, must expose itself to public scrutiny and   must be accountable to the public through the democratic   process.  That is a principle upon which we have based our   democratic system.  To allocate to the minister the discretion   which is embodied in this bill, to set taxes over people at no   prescribed rate but simply through regulation, in my view, takes   us some significant distance from the direct accountability which   we have come to enjoy as citizens of this city and this country   over our elected representatives.

* (1640)

      Of course, there is an indirect link in the sense that the   government of the day sets those amounts, and the government of   the day is ultimately accountable to all citizens of Manitoba,   but there is no direct link between the residents who will be   paying these taxes and the tax imposer.  There is certainly no   guarantee that the minister of the day will represent an area   that he is taxing through this.  In fact, there is no way that he   would represent all areas that would be affected, so the link is   indirect, and I am not sure that is good enough.

      I want to raise for the minister now, that there will be some   serious questions to be asked at the committee stage, in   particular by the members of the association of private   landowners in Manitoba's provincial parks, who have taken the   position, I think quite responsibly, that they are willing to pay   their fair share of taxes for the services which they receive,   but to allocate at this point this level of discretion to the   minister, leaves a potential for abuse.  I am not suggesting this   minister would exercise it, but I am simply indicating that one   of the protections we all have come to rely on is a direct link   to those representatives who do impose taxes.  That is a problem   for this association; that will be a problem at the committee   stage.  I look forward to some assurances from the minister, some   amendments perhaps, to assuage the concerns of this group.

      Mr. Speaker, the powers which are allocated to the minister   are quite clearly general in nature and sweeping in nature in   terms of imposing taxes on these landowners.  We will want to   find out exactly what the minister is intending by the word   "fair" which is in this legislation.  What is "fair"?  That is a   nice concept, but I think if we are talking about taxation we   have to be a little more specific than that.  We will have to   know, at least, what the criteria are that he is intending to use.

       As well, within the boundaries now considered Manitoba   provincial parks, we know that there are several distinctly   different categories of rights to property.  There are private,   fee simple ownership, there are leasehold estates, there may be   others.  What effect will that distinction have is a question   left open.  As well, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that there have   been various discussions between this group and the Parks   department and the provincial government for years.

      These individuals have been promised on several occasions,   indeed, by the current minister and the current director of   Parks, that this group, that is the private landowners' group and   its executive, would be involved in the analysis studies relating   to existing real or claim services that are provided to the   cottagers; that, likewise, regarding any other objectionable   policies including planning and development, this group would be   involved, and that the minister advised the private landowners   that complete revision of existing parklands act was planned for   March of 1991, and that group would be invited to participate in   that and then have input into the final drafting and that none of   these promises were kept.

      That is the allegation and a serious one indeed.  There were   discussions leading to a framework of development dealing with   this issue that the private landowners were brought into, were   kept abreast of it and went along with the process, and then see   this legislation come forward and tell us, as members of the   Legislature, that none of the commitments of the senior officials   and the minister of the day were kept.

      The minister will have to answer to that at the committee   stage.  I was hoping he would have answered at the time that this   bill was dealt with, but he did not.  I can tell him that there   are going to be strong felt feelings, because when people start   to see that they are going to face unspecified taxation without   direct ability to control the political masters who imposed that   taxation they get upset.

      I agree it is a leap, but the principle is the same, as did   those who started the American Revolution.  It is a fundamental   principle that people want control over those who tax them.  I do   not think it is taking too much licence to suggest that principle   is an important one for this minister to respect in this   circumstance.  We will want some assurances that what he is   proposing has limits, has criteria, that there is a framework for   discussion and for input from those affected and that there are   some guarantees that any minister, not necessarily this minister,   any minister in the future, will have curtailments on their   ability to tax these individuals and remain accountable to them.

      Let me be clear, let me represent the private landowners   correctly.  No one is saying that they should not pay their fair   share of taxes‑‑no one.  The only issue is how do those taxes get   set, and what is the accountability for the politicians that he   uses to set those rates?  It is a grave concern that the minister   seeks through this legislation to confer upon himself and his   department the unnecessary and, some say, unwarranted privilege   to apply those taxes without restriction.

      Mr. Speaker, we obviously have these very serious concerns.   I think there is probably a better way to deal with taxing these   individuals, so they have the assurances they are asking for   which are reasonable indeed.  I am going to, prior to this   getting to committee, give some serious thought to how that can   be done because the minister obviously has not.  I hope that the   minister, by the comments I have put on the record today, will   come to that committee prepared to meet these people on the   discussions and deal with their allegations of his promises over   the last months, if not years.  I hope he will be coming prepared   to answer them and their concerns and accusations that he has not   lived up to the promises because I anticipate they will be   there.  I will certainly be listening closely to what they say,   and I will use every opportunity that I have, and our caucus   will, to give them sufficient protection and political   accountability for taxes which the department seeks to levy on   them.

      This minister does not operate, this government does not   operate, no government should operate to impose taxes on   individuals, on citizens without being willing to make itself   directly accountable to those that it taxes.  That is the essence   of the system that we live under, and I am very concerned that   this bill takes us well beyond that both in practice and in   principle.

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:  As previously agreed, this matter will remain   standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr.   Clif Evans).


Bill 22‑The Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing and

Consequential Amendments Act


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister   of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 22, The Lodge Operators and   Outfitters Licensing and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur   les permis relatifs aux exploitants de camps de chasse et de   peche et aux pourvoyeurs et apportant des modifications   correlatives a d'autres dispositions legislatives, standing in   the name of the honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif   Evans).

      Is there leave that this matter remain standing?

An Honourable Member:  Leave.

Mr. Speaker:  Leave.  It is agreed.

Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):  Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that   this is yet another bill which gives a very high level of   discretion to executive authority in this province over people   trying to earn a living as lodge operators and outfitters.

      Again, I think it is important for the public of this   province, regardless of what government is in power or may be in   the future, that we respect the right to know what the law is, to   have it set out clearly and to know exactly the rules under which   someone is expected to operate, and further and most importantly,   to have recourse, to have direct, political recourse for those   who seek not only to tax us in the past legislation that I talked   to, but who seek to regulate through licensing and inspections   and going to get warrants to come into somebody's lodge to tell   them how they should operate.  That may be a very valid purpose   in ensuring that certain standards are met, but it is not without   restriction.  We have rules governing that.

      As I read through this bill, I became increasingly concerned   that the framework for licensing, the framework for examination   of how someone runs their business is there, but there is no   detail.  There is no setting out what exactly we are looking   for.  I mean, it just goes on and on about, well, the allocation   of licences the minister may limit the number of licences.  The   minister may do this.  The minister may go and get a warrant.  An   inspector may at any reasonable time‑‑listen to this:  "The   inspector may, (a) at any reasonable time, enter any premises and   make any inspection that is reasonably required for the purpose   of enforcing this Act or the regulations."

* (1650)

      What are the standards in the act that he is going to   enforce?  I do not have a problem perhaps with some of the goals   that the government is seeking, but what are they?  What are the   regulations then?  What are the standards we are looking at?   What is the terrible thing that we are going to send inspectors   into somebody's lodge to solve and give them these quite   substantial powers, Mr. Speaker.  We need to know, we need to   know in the detail of this bill.  It is not too much to ask the   government to come forward with the criteria to limit itself to,   in exercising these powers.  I know that many of the members of   the government have been in business.  I look at the benches of   the government.  I know they have been in business themselves.

      Mr. Speaker, I know that they would be the first were they   lodge outfitters or lodge operators and outfitters, they would be   the first to say what are you doing?  Why should we submit   ourselves, exempt ourselves from the normal course of business   because we happen to be running these lodges?  Why are we asked   to submit to this very substantial governmental incursion in the   operations of our business?

      Now, I am sure that there are reasons, and I look forward to   hearing them.  There are reasons for this, I am sure.  You know,   we want to maintain certain standards.  I personally am not aware   of what they are, and, boy, if I sat and read the bill, I sure   would not know.

      Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing exactly what the   terrible, terrible sins that lodge operators would be foisting   upon the public that would require an inspector to have the   ability at any reasonable time to enter any premises and make any   inspection that is reasonably required for the purpose of   enforcing this‑‑(interjection)

      Yes, I mean, you know, what exactly is the problem that this   bill addresses?  I searched every line of this bill for an   indication of what these substantial and very, very serious   rights which are given to the government.  I searched for a   reason for those, and they may well be there, but it is a mystery   to me and anyone looking at this act, what they might be.

      I can tell you I have received numerous calls.  I have a   meeting tomorrow with these people, and they are upset.  I can   see their point.  I am looking forward to hearing their point of   view, and I am sure the minister is going to hear it loud and   clear when this bill gets to committee.

An Honourable Member:  It is the War Measures Act for lodge   operators.

Mr. Edwards:  Yes, it appears that we have a serious problem with   the lodge operators and they are out of control, and who knows   what is happening up there?  It could be terrible.  Well, boy,   this is the first I have heard of it, and I think it is the first   a lot of lodge operators have heard of it.

      Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this.  Boy, you know   it certainly goes into detail on the offences.  I mean, there is   no mistaking just what the result of failing to let the inspector   in your door is going to be.  You fail to let the inspector in   the door, we do not say, they do not leave you in any doubt about   what the penalty is.  The penalty in the case of an individual is   up to $2,000; in the case of a corporation, up to $20,000.  There   is no lack of specificity there.

      By the way, where any contravention of Section 2 which sets   out the licensing requirements and all of the conditions which   may attach to a licence‑‑and who knows what those would be?‑‑but   where you happen to be in breach of one of those, each day will   qualify as a new offence, each day.  You could be in serious   trouble here, were you to breach one of the unknown licensing   requirements under this act.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  We   would not do that.

Mr. Edwards:  The minister just says, we would not do that.  Were   I inclined to agree with the minister that he would never do   that, and I might be inclined to do that, I would not say that   any member of the government would abuse this authority.  That is   not the point.

      The point is not the individual involved, the government   involved, and what they are going to do, and what they are not   going to do.  The point is that the public deserves clarity in   exactly what the government is seeking.

      What we have here, just like we had in the last piece of   legislation I just spoke to, is the government consistently‑‑and   it is a pattern‑‑granting to itself larger and larger amounts of   discretionary authority, which will not enter this House and be   the subject of debate and public scrutiny, no, but which will be   done in the offices of the ministers and just sent out as edicts.

      I am very concerned that this government is going on a power   trip, both in the prior legislation which I spoke to and in this   one.  You look and you say, well, look, I am sure they will say,   why are you getting so upset?  It is a little piece.  It is a   lodge operator.  Why are you getting so upset?

      You know what?  If I was a lodge operator, I would be very   upset.  This is your livelihood.  You are giving the government   here powers, which in my experience are unknown in other acts, in   other industries‑‑powers to walk into your business and to   essentially demand compliance with inspectors who are going to   walk in at any time they please, and tell you, and review your   property.  I mean, you would think these people were running some   kind of illegal activity.  That is the assumption here.  The   assumption is here that we have to keep them in check because   they must be running some kind of bad operation, and, boy, you   just want to have that power to send in an inspector at two in   the morning, you know.

      Mr. Speaker, I do not see the need for these kinds of   Draconian powers in government.  I look forward to the minister   telling us exactly what the blight is that he is trying to cure.   Even if there are, and there may well be, problems which he needs   these powers for, I look forward to hearing from him, but if they   are there, they should be in this legislation.  They should be   there so that everybody knows what the problem is that will   warrant an inspector coming any time, four in the morning, any   place, and making any inspection.

      Further, one thing I left out, it is not just a physical   inspection, no, Sir, this inspector has the right to examine or   audit any documents, any records, any books of account,   or‑‑listen to this‑‑it is not just books, audits, records, he has   the right to examine any thing found in the premises.  There is   no other power left to be had.  He has the whole shooting match.   He can come in any time, any premises and examine any thing.

      We cannot tolerate this level of executive discretion in a   province and call ourselves a representative democracy.  We   cannot tolerate that unchecked.

      This legislation must have limits, and we must know from the   minister exactly what he wants from this legislation.

      Mr. Speaker, while I note that the government, I am sure,   wants to promote these activities and harness our natural   resources so that they are used effectively for the purpose of   tourism.  There may well be some reasons for some government   regulation in this area.  This goes way too far, Mr. Speaker,   without clarity or specificity.  We will be looking for those   answers as this bill makes its way through the Legislature.

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:  As previously agreed, this matter will remain   standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake   (Mr. Clif Evans).

* (1700)




Mr. Speaker:  The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for Private   Members' Business.




Resolution 5‑Crime Prevention Council


Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by   the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)

      WHEREAS the province of Manitoba has consistently had a crime   rate substantially higher than the national average in recent   years; and

      WHEREAS crime prevention must be supported by the whole of   society, and political leaders must encourage the development of   a feeling of solidarity among community members; and

      WHEREAS the community is the focal point of crime prevention,   and governments at all levels must nurture community based   anticrime efforts; and

      WHEREAS society must go beyond a response by our criminal   justice system of law enforcement if we are to prevent crimes in   our communities, and develop a long range approach to dealing   with crime which will be responsive to immediate needs; and

      WHEREAS fear of crime is a serious problem for all law   abiding Manitobans, in particular women and the elderly; and

      WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has failed to respond to   the desire of Manitobans to be leaders in the area of crime   prevention.

      THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of   Manitoba recommend that the Minister of Justice consider striking   a Crime Prevention Council for the Province of Manitoba; and

      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Minister   of Justice to consider appointing experts from the areas of   housing, social services, education, the police, and the courts,   who represent insofar as possible Manitoba's ethnocultural and   geographical makeup, to this Crime Prevention Council.

 Motion presented.

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, this issue of crime prevention, I am   sure, my colleagues are becoming tired of hearing me speak   about.  Every opportunity I have gotten since coming into this   House in 1988, I have used to encourage this minister to get   serious about crime prevention.

      Now he knows, and you will hear today, I am sure, he knows   all of the buzzwords, he knows all of the catch phrases.  A crime   prevented is a victim saved.  He says that all the time.  Crime   prevention is the way of the future.  We have to act on crime.   He knows all of those phrases and all the catchwords, but what   has he done, Mr. Speaker?

      Mr. Speaker, it has been a legacy of inaction.   It has been   a legacy of turning a blind eye to the real benefits that crime   prevention can bring.  I am becoming increasingly concerned and   increasingly disillusioned that this minister does not really   understand crime prevention.  He got bogged down in a morass of   confusion when he was issued the report a couple of years ago.   His department came up with the victims' services fund and they   floated an idea that they were going to split the funds and send   some into crime prevention and some into victims services.  That   was shot down by just about everyone who saw it.  He was wanting   to abandon victims services in favour of taking some money to   crime prevention.  That will not do.  It is necessary for this   minister to come to grips with crime prevention as a separate and   equally important aspect of his role as the Attorney General in   this province.

      Mr. Speaker, we have no better evidence than the various   cases we have seen recently and indeed in past years wind through   the courts that violence is still a very large part of daily life   for thousands and thousands of Manitobans.  It is simply   unacceptable and when the minister has done something about it, I   have applauded him.  When he came forward with the family abuse   paper and the Pedlar report and commissioned that, I applauded   that.  Now since it has come out, he has not done anything.  The   committee which was supposed to have gotten together after the   report has not even met yet.

      The Aboriginal Justice report that he came out with was one   of the most pathetic examples of political inaction and   about‑face from the pre‑report rhetoric that anyone has ever   seen.  There were national reporters there when this minister   came forward with the Aboriginal Justice report who were shocked,   who could not believe that after three years and $3 million this   minister just flapped his lips.  He had nothing to say about the   Aboriginal Justice report.  Well, this is not an opportunity to   say anything about it.  This is just an opportunity to release   the report.  Well, he had had it for a month.

An Honourable Member:  That was when he was wearing those Mickey   Mouse socks.

Mr. Edwards:  Yes, that was when he was wearing the Mickey Mouse   socks.

      Did he say anything about it?  Did he even appoint a   committee which was recommended by the AJI to oversee and   prioritize and be involved in a consultative process?  No, he had   to keep it all in‑house.  Oh yes, we have a committee in‑house.   We have some bureaucrats looking at this thing.  Well, Mr.   Speaker, that is not good enough, and he has been the subject of   ridicule in the aboriginal community every since.  He will   continue to be, because the rhetoric which was associated with   this report and with the grand work of the commissioners led a   lot of people to believe that this minister might actually do   something when the report came down.  As with the Pedlar report,   so with the Aboriginal Justice report.  The point is, this   minister always has great things to say before he sees the   report.  Once he has seen that, action is way behind the rhetoric.

      Mr. Speaker, this minister knows that some time ago there was   an international conference.  Hundreds of delegates from around   the world came to talk about crime prevention.  He knows, and I   am going to refresh his memory, that the international body which   co‑ordinated that brought together politicians, elected officials   above and beyond those who had sat in at the plenary sessions to   have an executive session for the last day and a half.  He was   invited and did not go.  He did not bother to attend the   international gathering which brought people from around the   world.  He did not think it was important to talk about crime   prevention.  We did.  We went down and we listened to what these   people had to say.  I can tell you that I have gone to crime   prevention breakfasts‑‑how many?‑‑three, four years in a row, and   I have heard this minister every time.

      He always rolls out the same speech.  Oh, I am sorry, no, no,   I am sorry, one year he gave it to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), but   it was the same speech.  He says the same thing every time.  Oh,   Crime Prevention Month, good work, get out there, secure your   homes, crime prevention is a wonderful thing.

      The rest of the world is just passing this minister by.  He   does not have any ideas about the way that France is dealing with   this, the way that Denmark is dealing with this, the way that   Sweden is dealing with this, the way that many of the American   jurisdictions are dealing with this.

      You know what they say to us, you know what the American   cities say to the Canadian cities?  They say, you are just so   fortunate to have cities that are not at the level that some of   the American cities are.  They say, we are now spending millions   and millions and millions of dollars which, if you were smart,   you would not ever need to spend.  They are saying that we should   be acting now.

      That is the lesson from the American cities, that Canadian   cities still have an opportunity to preserve and enhance inner   city neighbourhoods and, in fact, all neighbourhoods in cities as   safe places to live.

      This minister has turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to all of   that consistently year after year after year.  Mr. Speaker, the   point is that there are many communities, whole communities in   this province, and I know that The Pas is one that is often   singled out.  I think things are somewhat improving there, but   The Pas, as a city, as a community in this province, has had in   the past the highest violent crime rate, one of the highest in   the nation for a community, and have had to tolerate that.  No   citizen should have to put up with the crime rates, the violent   crime rates that people in that community and indeed many others   in this province have.

* (1710)

      There is a better way.  The better way is the establishment   of a crime prevention council which brings together people from   the various disciplines, the various professions, the various   levels of expertise in any given community and draws upon that   volunteer effort.  I emphasize for this minister that I have   proposed, and I have on many occasions, and I propose again, this   effective tool which, Mr. Speaker, I suggested could be set up   for no cost at all.  This is a no‑cost proposal.

      If you look at the models in France, there is no cost   associated with setting up those crime prevention councils.  They   have found people have responded to the desire, the call to   participate in their communities and to stand up for the safety   of citizens on the street.  Mr. Speaker, that has been a   volunteer effort.  There is no question that we have had some of   that.  We have Neighbourhood Watch, we have Crime Stoppers.   There are some volunteer things which are doing very, very well   and are laudable.

An Honourable Member:  I hear you had to go to jail the other day.

Mr. Edwards:  Yes, I did have to go to jail for the fourth year   in a row at the Crime Stoppers Bail‑a‑thon.  I think the minister   did as well‑‑no, he got someone else to go for him.

      Mr. Speaker, those efforts are laudable.  I do not mean to   demean or diminish them.  What I do say is that this minister has   to become sophisticated about this issue.  The rest of the world   is passing him by.  He has every reason in this province, which   suffers from unreasonably high violent crime rates, to lead in   this country.  The people of this province deserve better.

      The various organizations and project prevention, with whom I   discussed this resolution before putting it forward, I have had   no organization, none, do anything but express support for this   resolution.  I have consulted with the existing organizations in   the crime prevention area.  I have consulted with existing   professionals in the area, and not just in this province but   elsewhere.  This is the way to go.  It is time that this minister   used his authority to act in what is so clearly the best   interests of this province.

      I again draw to his attention that I am not proposing   something here which is off the wall and has not been tried and   is a spurious recommendation.  I am proposing something which has   worked, which has the proven ability to work without being a cost   burden on the government.  That is what I am proposing.

      I take seriously the government's indications that the   province does not have funds available for new programs.  I take   that seriously, because I believe in being honest to the taxpayer   and in not spending future generations' monies.  I believe in   that.  That is why I am one who suggests that it is not untoward,   and it is not deserting one's responsibility to call on the   citizens themselves to come forward.  We want to facilitate that,   but let us not turn a blind eye to the volunteer efforts and the   volunteer ethic which is there in so many of our communities.  I   am constantly surprised and encouraged by the volunteer ethic   which we all see, I am sure, in our communities.  What it   requires is some leadership, and in this case‑‑not always, not   all cases‑‑the leadership should be political.

An Honourable Member:  That is why we have Jim McCrae.

Mr. Edwards:  The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), just as he   went out and went on a campaign to work against drinking and   driving‑‑and he and I have had lots of debates over how he did   that‑‑

An Honourable Member:  You opposed it.

Mr. Edwards:  But no one has ever opposed the fact that an issue   was done.  In fact, it was our party that raised the issue, and   he responded to it two weeks later, in June of 1988.  That is   what happened.

      This party proposed a drinking and driving initiative, and   two weeks later the minister came up with one which looked like   it had been put together in half an hour, and it turns out it   had.  Three months later, he had to bring in twice as big a bill   to fix it up, and then he goes around saying, Bill 3.  Well, what   he did not tell the public was it was not Bill 3, it was Bill 3   and Bill 54.  Bill 54 was twice as long as Bill 3 and was there   to fix up Bill 3, because he did such a hack job at the outset.

      Eventually, they all got around to fixing it up, and before   it ever came into power they brought in Bill 54.  Lo and behold,   the recommendations put forward at committee were by and large   there, Mr. Speaker.

      This minister sees his role in crime prevention as only   enforcement, and he is missing the boat.  Let him not rely on the   punitive measures of drinking‑and‑driving legislation which are   important.  Let him not confuse enforcement and punishment with   the role of crime prevention, which is positive and proactive and   is not of the same nature as the punitive measures which this   minister so dearly clings to as so‑called crime prevention.  They   are not.  They are one aspect of the law enforcement area, and he   has concentrated on that, I believe, and neglected the   preventative, proactive approach to crime in this province.

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):   Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the   government to respond to the resolution of the honourable member   for St. James (Mr. Edwards).  There is no doubt that every member   of this Assembly can support a great deal of what we find in the   honourable member's resolution.  In part, that is because the   resolution is couched only in generalities.  The crux of the   resolution, however, is to be found in the call on the Assembly   to recommend the striking of a crime prevention council, which   would have appointed experts from the areas of housing, social   services, education, the police, and the courts, while   representing Manitoba's ethnocultural and geographical makeup.

      We on this side of the House, however, recognize that what is   required in crime prevention, as in so many other fields, is a   judicious use of the taxpayers' dollars to ensure that the people   of Manitoba get effective programs.  We are far more interested   in practical results than we are interested in theory or   philosophy.  What is notable about the resolution brought forward   by the honourable member is the way it takes a leap from   premises, which I am sure we can all support, to a condemnation   of this government, a government which in the last four years has   repeatedly shown its decisive leadership in crime prevention.

      The Department of Justice has many ways of developing crime   prevention policy.  In some cases a council as proposed in this   resolution would not be a useful tool.  A clear example of this   is the government's anti‑impaired driving program.  Even the   honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), despite his   initial opposition to Bill 3, will admit that this program has   been a success.  That anti‑impaired driving program would, I   submit, probably never have come out of a council as is being   proposed in this resolution.  Policy development for this program   was almost purely internal.  A small working committee consisting   of officials from the Department of Justice and the Department of   Highways reviewed programs across the continent, and indeed   around the world, to find the programs that had been most   effective.  We adapted to Canadian circumstances the American   administrative licence suspension program, which has been most   effective there, and is turning out to be most effective here in   Manitoba.

      At the same time we developed the impoundment program in an   effort to make the punishment of having a licence suspended far   more effective and, therefore, a far better deterrent.  We also   strengthened the hands of the police by providing a stop‑check   van for the RCMP.  Our antidrinking‑driving efforts were   reinforced by a public education program.

      When we look at the appalling problem of spousal and child   abuse in our society, we immediately realized that it cannot be   attacked in the same way that we have attacked impaired driving.   These crimes occur behind closed doors, in private homes.  This a   field where the real key is changing public attitudes.

      To deal with the appalling crime of domestic violence, I   commissioned Winnipeg lawyer Dorothy Pedlar to examine how the   justice system responds to domestic violence.  Ms. Pedlar's   report, which I released in November, offers a comprehensive   blueprint for government action.

* (1720)

      While we have and will continue to move ahead on improving   the justice system, the real challenge rests in changing public   attitudes.  There is a role for the whole of society in working   to reduce domestic violence.  However, in the case of family   violence, I submit that handing the problem over to a crime   prevention council, as suggested by the honourable member, would   seriously delay taking decisive action.

      This government has been very proud to work with community   groups such as Block Parents, Neighbourhood Watch and Rural Crime   Watch in launching successful community‑based crime prevention   programs.  There is a great deal of very worthwhile work being   done in crime prevention by groups throughout this province.   This government intends to continue to work with these groups and   to continue to foster their activities as being the basis of   successful crime prevention programs.

      A perfect example of the role of community in the prevention   of crime can be found is in The Pas.  I met with representatives   of the Town of The Pas, the reserve, the Metis community and the   LGD to address increasing crime rates in their community.  In   consultation with them, a community consultative group was   developed.  This group, which is solely run by The Pas community,   has proven to be very successful.

      In fact, last November I was pleased to present the mayor of   The Pas and the chief of The Pas Band with crime prevention   awards for their efforts.  There is a place for experts, of   course, but I believe the best results will always be achieved by   involving the general public.  Strong community and family values   are irreplaceable.

      Crime grows where parents do not inculcate in their children   respect for themselves, respect for their teachers, respect for   the law.  No experts and no council can replace this vital role   of families.  Therefore, this government will continue to do   everything within its power to strengthen family and community   values, including fighting pornography and prosecuting vigorously   cases of domestic violence.

      What I noted in the resolution put forward by the honourable   member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) is a complete lack of facts to   support his proposal.  I am concerned that even with the best   will in the world, a crime prevention council consisting of   experts from various areas will not act as a deterrent for   Manitobans getting involved in crime.  Do we want our tax dollars   to be used for a council or do we want to use the money directly   to support proven crime prevention initiatives and programs?

      Finally, I believe the honourable member for St. James is,   regrettably, still trying to play politics with crime   prevention.  As an early opponent of our anti‑impaired driving   program, as a critic of our reorganization of the Prosecutions   department to eliminate the backlog of trials, the honourable   member has consistently preferred to try to score political   points rather than analyzing critically the government's program.

      A perfect illustration of the attitude of the honourable   member is in the last WHEREAS of this resolution and indeed in   his speech moving the resolution.  This government has done much   to fight drinking and driving, to prosecute pornographers, to   overhaul the Prosecutions branch, to break the cycle of domestic   violence and to support community and crime prevention   organizations.

      I have no doubt that the honourable member for St. James will   continue to take cheap shots at the government and will continue   to put forward impractical ideas.  We will not be deflected from   our programs and we are prepared to be judged by the actions we   take.

      Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that we must   reject, in its present form, the motion put forward by the   honourable member.  We reject it because we sincerely believe   that a council composed of experts would be a hindrance to real,   community‑based crime prevention efforts.  We prefer to see these   efforts arise from the grassroots and to use government funds to   support those ideas rather than using government funds to support   a council of experts.

      Now, I know representatives of the New Democratic Party are   going to speak on it today, and‑‑

An Honourable Member:  How do you know that?

Mr. McCrae:  Well, they usually get involved in all debates in   this House, and that is appropriate‑‑

An Honourable Member:  Very constructive, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McCrae:  But I want them, as the honourable member for   Wellington (Ms. Barrett) suggests, to be constructive, and I want   them to address the issue of Daryl Bean and the‑‑

An Honourable Member:  What did Daryl Bean say to the . . . .

Mr. McCrae:  Daryl Bean, Mr. Speaker, has his own ideas about how   to deal with certain people in our society.

An Honourable Member:  No, that is Jack London saying that.

Mr. McCrae:  He has adopted Jack London's ideology about hanging   people or drowning them for their activities in our society, and   I want the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) or the   member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) or the member for Thompson   (Mr. Ashton), or whoever it is who is going to be addressing this   matter this afternoon, to deal directly with the issue of Daryl   Bean, because the issue of Daryl Bean has a lot to do with crime   prevention.

      Instead of having a man who represents 170,000 federal public   servants in this country out suggesting violence against   grandmothers‑‑it is contrary to everything the honourable member   for Wellington talks about in the House.  When have I ever heard   her speak out against the attitudes portrayed by Mr. Daryl Bean,   the leader of the Public Service Alliance of Canada?  I have not   heard that, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard that from the   honourable member for Wellington or any other member on that   side, including the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) or the   member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis).  I believe we need to   hear from those honourable members.  They need‑‑[interjection]

      The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), in   protecting Daryl Bean and those people who portray his type of   attitude, wants to get involved from her seat.  Well, I am asking   the honourable member for Wellington to get on her feet and have   the strength of character to say something about Daryl Bean and   to say something to Daryl Bean about his attitudes towards   grandmothers working in the federal public service.

      I do not think it is right to suggest that grandmothers   working in the federal public service who want to work ought to   be drowned or hanged, and I would like to hear the honourable   member for Wellington say that and join me in calling for the   resignation or removal of Mr. Daryl Bean.  Mr. Bean is a very   powerful individual.  He represents many hundreds of thousands of   Canadians‑‑does not represent the point of view we on this side   of the House want to put across.  Does he represent the point of   view of the honourable member for Wellington?  If not, let the   honourable member say so.  We have not heard from her today about   Daryl Bean.

      Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to move,   seconded by the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst),

      THAT the Resolution be amended by deleting the first   "WHEREAS" clause and deleting all the words after the 5th   "WHEREAS" clause, and substituting the following:

      WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has introduced such   initiatives as the toughest anti‑drinking and driving legislation   in North America; and

      WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has supported   community‑based initiatives that focus on and promote the   involvement of the community in the fight against crime.

      THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Members of the Legislative   Assembly encourage the government of Manitoba to continue its   cooperative efforts with the community at large to reduce and   prevent the incidence of crime in Manitoba.

      With those brief comments, Mr. Speaker, I would commend this   amendment to the attention and support of all honourable members,   and I invite honourable members in the New Democratic Party to   put Daryl Bean in his place.

Motion presented.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  I note, Mr. Speaker, with a slight   bit of dismay, that the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), as he   does on occasion, has managed to crank up the Minister of Justice   (Mr. McCrae) on this particular matter, or perhaps the member for   Thompson (Mr. Ashton), in some of his comments, but I am   approaching this matter in a very serious vein because I think   that the resolution was introduced in a serious vein and deserves   some serious discussion.

      It is regrettable that the particular debate on this   particular issue has degenerated to a partisan debate.  I believe   that the resolution was put forward by the member for St. James   (Mr. Edwards) in a serious vein, and that the minister's   proposals and his amendment were also put forward in a serious   vein, but I note that politics has superseded the process in this   case.

      That is regrettable, because, Mr. Speaker, this is one issue   where I thought we could deal with it in a largely nonpartisan   sense and perhaps could hear some constructive comments from   members on all sides of the House with respect to the issue of   crime prevention in general, and the recommendations of the   member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) dealing with the crime   prevention council.

      At the onset, I can indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I have been   active in politics for well nigh of 20 years, and I have door   knocked on a regular basis, and I was struck by an observation I   made on my regular door knocking that now when I go door‑to‑door   knocking in my constituency, I note that almost every single   residence and every single habitant has a security system and/or   a dog.

      It is interesting, because I did not note that even 10 or 15   years ago, and it speaks volumes about the impression and the   impact that violence and crime in our society has had on the   average citizen.  Not only have I noticed it in terms of the   observation of the security systems, but I note it in   conversations with people, particularly, elderly, that there is a   climate of fear.

      It may not be as profound or as widely held as in American   cities, for example, but because of the effect of the media,   because of the effect of particularly gruesome crimes recently,   Mr. Speaker, and some of the publicity attached to them, there is   a conception and there is a perception of fear.  It is   particularly felt amongst the poor, and amongst those who have   difficulty getting about, and amongst the elderly.  I think that   is tragic in our society, a society that has prided itself for   years on providing a safe environment.  I think it is sad and   tragic.  It is an issue that we have to address as a society as a   whole, and we must address in a creative fashion and in a   co‑operative fashion and not one dealing in a partisan sense.

* (1730)

      I too could speak about the recommendations of the AJI and   our disappointment about the response of the government, but I   will refrain from that for purposes of getting into some of my   comments dealing with the resolution and amendment as proposed by   the minister.

      I do want to touch upon the Pedlar Commission report because   it was mentioned by both the minister and the member for St.   James (Mr. Edwards).  I note that there were a number of   recommendations in the Pedlar report with respect to the   prevention of crime.  I believe that there is truth in the   statements of the member for St. James, but that there tends to   be a reaction on the part of this particular administration to   deal with the enforcement end of crimes or perhaps a   preoccupation to deal with the enforcement rather than dealing   with some of the preventative measures in dealing with crime.  We   see that in the Pedlar report.

      I just urge the government that they should move quickly to   deal with the recommendations, particularly those dealing with a   preventative sense.  The one that comes to mind most notably is   the entire question of counselling and preventative services   provided to individuals who might perpetrate crimes or repeat   those very same crimes.  We do not go any further ahead by   incarcerating someone and then having to go out and incarcerate   them again, et cetera.  We are not doing justice to society in a   fair sense, Mr. Speaker, if we continue that cycle of violence.   There are recommendations that we are pleased to have moved on   the Pedlar report, but I would certainly urge the government to   look at the preventative aspects of the Pedlar report with   respect to the prevention of this terrible scourge on our society.

      It is ironic today that in the Winnipeg Sun there should be   mention of the number of incidents involving handguns in the city   of Winnipeg this year:  January 6, January 7, January 7‑‑that is   twice‑‑February 2, February 8, February 8 and February 13, and an   entire two or three pages devoted in The Sun to the issue of   violence and weapons in our society.

      This only serves to generate fear amongst the public and to   be counterproductive to our pulling together and working   co‑operatively as a society in dealing with violence and in   dealing with the perception of violence in our society and adding   to this perception of fear that is being felt by many members of   our society.

      I think as members of this Legislature we should look at   these things very, very seriously, because they deal with so much   that is entailed in the social fabric of our society; so much of   our beliefs have grown up on the basis that we are safe from   physical and social harm as well, Mr. Speaker.  When that breaks   down, the reaction as we have seen in many other jurisdictions,   most notably the American South and other jurisdictions, can be   tragic.

      So, Mr. Speaker, I would approach this particular debate with   an open mind.  I believe that there are seeds of positive   recommendations in what the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards)   has called for in terms of a crime prevention council, but I am   also disappointed that the member spent more of his time   criticizing the minister and engaging in rhetoric rather than   dealing with the substance of his particular resolution.  For   example, I do not have a lot of details of this particular   council.  I listened very closely to the comments of the member   for St. James in order to ascertain specifically what he was   moving towards.

      Unfortunately, he got caught up in the rhetoric; admittedly,   I have done so myself in the Chamber, but he got caught up in the   rhetoric, and I was not able to ascertain some of the roles and   responsibilities of this council.  For example, in his comments,   he made mention to the Swedish model and other European models in   other jurisdictions.  I was hoping, in fact, going into this   debate, I had made a note to listen carefully to hear what other   jurisdictions were doing, and that is one of my specific   questions.  What are other jurisdictions doing?  What are the   experiences that we in Manitoba can learn from in order to   implement better approach to crime prevention.  Unfortunately, I   did not hear what those particular recommendations were.  All I   heard was, unfortunately, as I indicated earlier, rhetoric.

      Further, as the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) predicted,   the response from the minister was, as well, predictable, dealing   with the whole question of the drinking and driving legislation.   I have been in this Chamber now for a year and a half, and I   admit to hearing the government response to almost every single   initiative.  Every single issue of the government response is to   come back with their drinking and driving legislation being the   toughest in North America.

      We admit that.  We are supportive of the government's   measures.  We have gone on record on many occasions in this House   of doing that, but let us move on.  We can move on.  There are   other initiatives that can be taken.  By falling back on   rhetoric, by falling back on what we have done and what the   government has done, it does not serve to move the process   forward.  It does not serve to foster proper debate; it does not   result in any progressive or any innovative new approaches to   take place.

      From my perspective, we have a situation of a relatively   valid suggestion from the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), a   council which would be of some assistance to the government, I   would presume, in terms of crime prevention.  We have the   government's response saying that money is already funneled in   other programs.  As I understand, from the minister's comments   this afternoon, we do not want to channel money from the actual   enforcement and the actual implementation of other government   measures into this particular crime prevention council.

      Somehow, I think, Mr. Speaker, there may be some answer in   the middle.  I am not certain if the member for St. James was   advocating any great deal of expenses or money would be spent on   this crime prevention council, but, again, the member did not   elaborate.  I saw it as an advisory body to the minister or to   the department, which would be an assistance, an advisory body of   experts, who would provide and assist the government with some   understanding of other jurisdictions and other measures which   might assist in crime prevention.

      On its surface that bears some scrutiny, and that bears some   positive evaluation because, unfortunately, we have seen in   government, with the reduction of government and its employees,   an undercutting of the services available to government for   things like analysis on a comparative basis.  We have seen a   mistake, I think, the government has fallen into by eliminating   research and policy areas of the government in terms of saving   costs.  The government has prevented itself from having any kind   of insight into other means, into policy analysis or into perhaps   policy alternatives that were formerly available to them.  The   government really has no alternative suggestions available to   them other than their own bureaucracy, which has been reduced and   which is already overloaded doing other things, and/or members of   this side of the House who make suggestions to government, which   we know, for the most part, the government generally does not   listen to.

      By cutting out the infrastructure of government, the   government has hindered its own efforts to approach the matter in   a creative sense.  I think the idea that a type of advisory   council, which would be, as I gather, not a major expense item,   would be of assistance to the minister in providing him with   policy alternatives and suggestions for dealing with crime   prevention.

* (1740)

      On the surface, again subject to specifics from the member   for St. James (Mr. Edwards), we do not see any difficulty,   particularly because of the fact that the council would bring   together experts from the area of housing, social services,   education, police and the other individuals involved in the area   of justice.

      I might add, Mr. Speaker, I think I would go further in terms   of the body.  I am a little bit suspect on occasions of bodies   that are only comprised of "experts."  I would see on a council   of this kind, again subject to elaboration, because I do not   understand precisely what the member had in mind‑‑but this is   only my own belief as to what he was proceeding to   do‑‑representation from members of the public, from affected   groups, from victims groups and from other interested   individuals.  There are enough of them around and other members   of the public who would provide some kind of meaningful input and   assistance to this group to deal with crime prevention.

      Mr. Speaker, we see the suggestion, we see the refutation   from the minister, but we are in a gray area because we do not   have elaboration from the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) as   to what the crime prevention council would do.  We have only   refutation from the government, and dealing with its past   practices, we do not have any innovation from the government.  I   am suggesting that the idea be explored further, particularly if   ideas and innovations can be brought to light, can be provided to   the government that would allow it to implement new policies that   in fact may not cost anything at all, may cost just effort and a   little bit of energy.  It is certainly worth looking into.  I   would be interested in hearing what happens in other   jurisdictions.

      Clearly, though, I would think that, whatever the basis of   it, it would have to be community based, it would have to be   empowering of the community and it would have to deal with the   general public and would not simply be captive of experts at a   community council.  It would deal with more of a grassroots kind   of response, because that is where we are seeing the difficulty   and that is where we are hearing the complaints.  That is where   the problem must be dealt with.

      I see that my light is flashing, Mr. Speaker, and on that   note I will conclude my comments.

Mr. Edward Connery (Portage la Prairie):  Mr. Speaker, I just   want to make a very short few comments.  The member for Inkster   (Mr. Lamoureux) wants to close debate on it and he would like   about 10 minutes, so I would just have a few comments on the NDP   form of justice, what the NDP called justice in their words.

      Mr. Speaker, the NDP wax eloquent, they wax pious when they   get up in this House and talk about justice, and yet the member   for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) obviously does not want to hear the   comments about brother Daryl Bean, so one must rush off and not   hear it.  I think the member for Wellington, who is the critic   for the Status of Women, should listen to the comments because   they are very pertinent to her critic portfolio.

      Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP talk about members of the   unions and themselves as brothers and sisters and embrace each   other as being very close to each other.  They talk about brother   Daryl Bean.  The unions do not understand what freedoms and   rights are in this country, and the NDP, who are funded by them   and actually controlled and run by the unions, embrace their   ideas and their doctrines.  They do not allow for freedoms within   the union movement.

      Let me just make a little, short quote here.  Actually on   October 10, Daryl Bean, president of the 170,000‑strong Public   Service Alliance of Canada, wrote the same letter to three women,   all grandmothers, in which he called them scabs.  He called them   scabs.  The three women are public servants who chose to exercise   their freedom to earn a living during the recent nationwide   strike by PSAC.  Bean's letter quoted this passage‑‑this is a   passage from Jack London‑‑to three grandmothers and this is what   the quote is.  He said:  After God had finished the rattlesnake,   the toad and the vampire, he had some awful stuff left with which   he made a scab.

      This is a union member who chose to exercise their rights and   their freedoms.  He says:  A scab is a two‑legged animal with a   corkscrew soul and a waterlogged brain and a backbone of jelly   and glue.  Where others have hearts he carries a tumour of rotten   principles.  No man has a right to scab as long as there is a   pool of water to drown his carcass in or a rope long enough to   hang his body with.

      Mr. Speaker, when the NDP get up in this house and talk about   justice and rights‑‑and the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)   talks about, the critic for the Status of Women‑‑did we hear one   condemnation of that letter that Daryl Bean wrote to three   grandmothers?  We heard not one comment.

      I want to save time for the member for Inkster (Mr.   Lamoureux).  I just wanted to put on the record what the NDP feel   are rights and freedoms and privileges, but they embrace that   sort of viciousness.  We saw it in eastern Europe, where they   finally threw out the barbarians who acted in this way.  There   were no freedoms in eastern Europe under the communism regime,   and we see people up in the ranks of the NDP who profess Marxism,   and so forth, who profess communism.  They do believe in it,   because this is the same thing we see from Daryl Bean who says   you do not have any rights if you are a union member.  You have   to listen to the dictates of the leader or else you are a scab.   What did they do to them?  They even said, you are going to have   to pay back the money you earned because they ostracized them out   of the union.  They ostracized them out of the union for   exercising their own freedoms and their rights to earn a living.

      Mr. Speaker, when we see the kind of diatribe we get from the   NDP, I get pretty upset.  I think it was just important that we   put back on the record once more the kind of people that they   support.  Not all union members are this way, but they do.  Yes,   the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) sits there and smiles and   thinks it is great.  Well, this is what they enjoy is when they   have control over people, but people do have rights.

      I thank you for those few moments to put on the record once   again the Daryl Bean story, the man that they call brother, just   so that the people of Manitoba know that we on this side of the   House, and I think the Liberals also, respect the rights of   people.  Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):   . . . in terms of Mr. Bean and   Mr. Bean's comments, but suffice to say‑‑and I can assure the   Chamber that in fact the first opportunity that I do get to   debate it at length, possibly on a piece of labour legislation,   Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to give my opinions and   the Liberal Party's opinions on Mr. Bean.  Suffice to say that we   were less than impressed and would have hoped that Mr. Bean would   in fact have done the honourable thing and retracted and, in   fact, because he has not done that, the New Democratic Party   would have at least disowned Mr. Bean and at least distanced   themselves away from those types of comments.

      I do want to get to the resolution at hand.  You know, Mr.   Speaker, at different times‑‑[interjection] I did want to talk   about the resolution, and the New Democrats are encouraging me to   talk about other things.  I do feel that this is an important   resolution to talk about.

      On numerous occasions the Liberal Party has brought forward   recommendations, things that the government could in fact act   upon.  I take very seriously what the dean of this Chamber, the   Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and to some degree,   maybe not quite as much, but the Minister of Health (Mr.   Orchard), when they talk about it is important for opposition   parties to bring forward positive ideas, to bring solutions to   problems that we have.  I was very encouraged when the member for   St. James (Mr. Edwards) was introducing the resolution that in   fact the Minister of Health was applauding.  The member for St.   James has the Minister of Health's support, because I saw the   delight and how pleased the Minister of Health was when the   member for St. James was introducing the bill.  You know what,   Mr. Speaker?  I think that the Minister of Health would be very   disappointed because I did not see him clap when the amendment   was brought in.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  I was not here.

Mr. Lamoureux:  The Minister of Health says that he was not   here.  I cannot say that because that would be unparliamentary so   I will not say that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Orchard:  So I am going to applaud now.

* (1750)

Mr. Lamoureux:  He would like to give a retroactive applause.   Well, you should hear the amendment before you applaud, to the   minister.

      As I was saying, the Liberal Party, whether it is through   resolutions, whether it is through bills have brought in a number   of good ideas.  In fact, many would argue‑‑myself and my   colleague from St. James‑‑that we have more ideas and more of an   agenda than the current government does.  We take a look at the   throne speech and we do not see anything in terms of ideas.

      We are a humble party.  We would be more than happy for the   government to adopt some of our good Liberal ideas.  After all,   Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, as the member for St. James   pointed out earlier about the drinking and driving legislation, a   couple of weeks later he noticed a good thing.  When the Liberal   Party made a good statement he acted fast.  We applaud him for   taking that good Liberal idea.

      We have yet another good idea relating to that particular   department.  I would encourage the Attorney General to take it   seriously‑‑

An Honourable Member:  Absolutely.

Mr. Lamoureux:  He says he does‑‑and to support the resolution.   It is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, for him to move amendments, to   pat himself on the back, because even if we look at the amendment   itself, what does he include in the WHEREAS?  He talks about the   popular Bill 3.

      All three political parties in this Chamber support anything   that would ensure that we have less people drinking and driving   on our roads.  There is no doubt in that.  The minister himself   brought that particular legislation, after it was enunciated from   the member for St. James on behalf of the Liberal Party.  Then   when he brought in the legislation, because he had to do it in   such a hurry‑up fashion, known as Bill 3, he had to bring in a   follow‑up bill, that was Bill 58.  What was Bill 58?  It was in   fact all the amendments that the member for St. James proposed,   but the minister did not want to give the Liberal Party too much   credit so the next time round he brought in a new bill.

      I do not know if the member for St. James received any form   of remuneration.  I would suggest to you that he should have   because he put in a lot of time. [interjection] Okay, some say   that it might be a conflict.  I will withdraw whatever might have   been a conflict.  It was not my intention to say something that   would in fact be a conflict.

      Suffice to say, on this particular resolution, that is   another good, solid Liberal idea.  You know what, it should   appeal to the Conservative Party because it is not going to cost   them a dime.

Mr. Orchard:  There you are.

Mr. Lamoureux:  The Minister of Health says, there you are.  I   really do believe that the Minister of Health supports the   resolution as the member for St. James originally proposed it.

      I think I believe that had the Attorney General brought it to   cabinet or brought it to caucus and debated it, it would have   passed, because I have heard the Minister of Health speak inside   this Chamber.  In listening to the Minister of Health‑‑and I will   give credit where it is due‑‑he is a very good speaker.  He gets   his points across.  He gets his message across.  He dislikes the   New Democrats much in the same fashion as I do.  That is not to   say that I am a Conservative.  I do not want to say anything of   that nature or that I would endorse him.

      Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is in fact a good resolution.   What does it really do?  It brings together a number of   volunteers.  We have an idea that has really no cost to it.  We   have other countries, whether it is the United States or France,   that are using this idea.  France is one of the leaders with the   whole concept of a crime prevention council.  All we need to do   is to look at what is happening in France where we see that the   committee works within the different systems, whether it is   education or social services.

      Mr. Speaker, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in a very   serious fashion commented in terms of, well, what type of things   are actually done?  What type of ideas or examples could the   member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) have cited?  I wanted to refer   to one, and if you would look in terms of what some of these   councils have done and you look in terms of housing‑‑housing is   something that I have a major interest in, because it is   something that I hold very close to my heart.  If we take a look   in terms of what some of the recommendations are coming from some   of these crime prevention councils from abroad dealing with   housing, they talk about nonprofit housing and how you can   develop or integrate nonprofit housing so that it will prevent   crimes or minimize the amount of crime in the areas.

      Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that an organization   of this nature can do.  We need to have experts coming from the   housing and social services, education, our court systems.  The   member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) made reference to the average   person.  I think that we have to look across board at all   sectors.  We have to take into account that there is an   ethnocultural factor to it, that there is a geographical factor   that needs to be taken into account.

An Honourable Member:  Put it on paper, Kevin.

Mr. Lamoureux:  The Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) says to put it   on paper.  In fact, it is on paper.

An Honourable Member:  It looks good on paper.

Mr. Lamoureux:  He says it looks good on paper.  It would have   been more productive for the Attorney General to tell us why it   looks good on paper but in reality it would not work, but we did   not really hear those comments.  Rather, Mr. Speaker, we heard   more of a confidence that, as the member for St. James (Mr.   Edwards) alluded to, in terms of those buzzwords, the things that   in fact the minister claims that he has been doing.  I trust the   member for St. James, who, I know, has done a lot of work and   watches very closely what the Attorney General does; and, when he   says that he is fairly disappointed, I think that he likely says   it with just reason.

      I know that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has asked if   he would be able to have a minute or two to speak on this   resolution, and I am somewhat reluctant to give up the   floor‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I know there are other   things.  There are other good ideas that have been brought   forward.  I would encourage the government to take all of the   resolutions more seriously.

      I have said this so many times.  It seems every time I stand   up to speak on a resolution I am telling them to stop patting   themselves on the back, to give some credibility to the   resolutions by allowing them to be thoroughly debated, allow them   to be debated so the parties can take a position on them, that   they do not have to change them, feel free to take hold of the   good Liberal ideas.  We do not mind even if you want to attempt   at taking credit to it.

      There are other programs that I would like to talk about.  I   do want to give the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) at least a   minute and a half to be able to say a few words.  Having said   that, I will conclude my remarks and hope that next time this   resolution comes before us, the resolution as proposed from the   member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that it will be voted upon.

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, I always want to speak on these   resolutions, when they are such good resolutions, that have been   proposed by the Liberal second opposition party, but more   importantly, when they are so significantly improved by the   Justice minister in the crafting of a modest amendment which   makes a good resolution even better.

      I was greatly disappointed that the member for Wellington   (Ms. Barrett) was not able to share with the House, particularly   on such an important topic of crime prevention, that she would   not express the disgust that she holds for Daryl Bean and his   comments of hang 'em or drown 'em when it comes to three   grandmothers that dared to contravene the union.  I mean, where   is the New Democratic Party when it comes to crime prevention,   when one of their soul mates, union leaders, are advocating   violence against people who happen to disagree with them?

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  When this matter is again before   the House, the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) will   have 13 minutes remaining.

      The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now recessed until eight   o'clock.