Tuesday, December 1, 1992


The House met at 1:30 p.m.




Speaker's Statement


Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Routine Proceedings, I have a statementfor the House.

            I must inform the House that Elijah Harper, the honourablemember for Rupertsland, has resigned his seat in the Houseeffective November 30, 1992.  I am therefore tabling hisresignation and my letter to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Counciladvising of the vacancy thus created in the membership of theHouse.






Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to present thepetition of Donna Hardman, Ellen Enns, Michael Kalmakoff andothers requesting the government of Manitoba pass the necessarylegislation/regulations which will restrict stubble burning inthe province of Manitoba.

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to presentthe petition of Marie‑Jeanne Buccini, Alice Szarkiewicz, MaureenMonk and others urging the government of Manitoba to pass theregulations which will restrict stubble burning in the provinceof Manitoba.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to presentthe petition of Chief Louis Stevenson, Lloyd Stevens, LeslieDaniels and others requesting the government of Manitoba show astrong commitment to aboriginal self‑government by consideringreversing its position on the AJI by supporting therecommendations within its jurisdiction implementing a separateand parallel justice system.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, I beg topresent the petition of F. Pyryhora, I. Pyryhora, T. Weiss andothers urging the government of Manitoba pass the necessarylegislation/regulations which will restrict stubble burning inthe province of Manitoba.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to present thepetition of Monica Linklater, Sylvia Spence, Eileen Moody andothers requesting the government of Manitoba consider reviewingthe state of Highway 391 with a view towards improving thecondition and safety of the road.


* (1335)




Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to table the Annual Report of the Department of UrbanAffairs.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to table the report of the Teachers'Retirement Allowances Fund Board, the Annual Report, 1991.


Introduction of Guests


Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attentionof honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us thisafternoon, from the F.W. Gilbert School, thirty Grade 5students.  They are under the direction of Ms. Merle Stepaniuk.This school is located in the constituency of the honourableMinister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).

            Also, from the Linwood Elementary School, we have thirty‑fiveGrade 5 students.  They are under the direction of Mr. Ed Hume.This school is located in the constituency of the honourablemember for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).

            On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcomeyou here this afternoon.




Poverty Rate

Provincial Increase


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, we havebeen saying for some time now that the government is out of touchand this Premier is out of touch.  Unfortunately, today thepoverty figures have been released for the province of Manitobaand for Canada.  Unfortunately, the poverty numbers indicate thetragedy that is taking place in our communities, where Manitobanow has the second highest poverty rate of any province inCanada, and the child poverty rate remains the highest ofanywhere in Canada.

            Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated two weeks ago, in a speech hemade to his own faithful, that all Manitobans are better offunder Conservative government.  Given the fact that the number ofpeople in poverty between 1988 when this Premier took office and1990 has grown by 10,000 Manitobans, can the Premier pleaseexplain to us and to all Manitobans, if they are better off, whythere are 10,000 more people unfortunately in poverty today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, certainly we as agovernment, as I believe all people in elected office ought tobe, are concerned about the trends for continued poverty in oursociety, and we as a government have taken some very determinedaction since these figures, which relate to 1990, have indeedbeen collected.

            I am sure that the member opposite knows that we continued toincrease our social allowance rates at, for instance, 3.6 percentlast year, which was the second highest rate of increase in thecountry, and this year again at the rate of inflation.  We addedincome assistance for disabled at $60 per month, which is risingto $70 per month as of next month, and a monthly supplement toreplace the provincial tax credit.  It is also one of the reasonswhy we are placing great emphasis on economic priorities to getthe economy rolling again.

            Mr. Speaker, we take no solace in these figures.  In fact, weare very, very concerned.  I would say that I would hope themember opposite would recognize that this is not a partisanissue.  If it were so, it would have been settled and it wouldhave been addressed during the time when the member opposite'sadministration was in government, because the figure that ispublished in this report for 1990 is lower than it was in 1982,'83, '84, '85 and '86 and at the same level that it was in '87.

            That is not good news, but we are doing things that arewithin our power, and we would hope that the members oppositewould continue to work with us to try and improve the lot ofthose who indeed have to live in poverty in this province andright across the country.

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier to look at thetrends and look at the numbers.  The amount of people thatdecreased in the poverty list between '82 and '88 was a 40,000decrease in the number of people living below the poverty line inthe previous government, and now we see a 10,000‑person increasein people living in poverty in the province of Manitoba.  ThePremier on the one hand said this is not a partisan issue, andthen he proceeds to produce partisan numbers.  Well, we canrespond to those partisan answers of the Premier if he so desires.

            Mr. Speaker, the government said that they remain committedto strengthening and supporting Manitoba families, caring forthose less fortunate and protecting Manitoba's vulnerable anddisadvantaged citizens.  That is in the Speech from the Throne.Why do we see an increase of 10,000 people under his first twoyears in government, and how many more are going to be living inpoverty with the actions and economic policies of thisgovernment, because we see a decrease of 25,000 jobs in ourprovince and decreased opportunities for our people?


* (1340)


Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, the figure is 17.8 percent of peopleliving below the poverty line.  In 1982 it was 20.5 percent inManitoba; in 1983 it was 18.6 percent; in 1984 it was 18.4percent; in 1985 it was 18 percent; in 1986 it was 18.6 percentagain and so on.  So those are the figures we are talking about,and I am saying that that is unacceptable.  I am saying that thisgovernment has increased the rates, the welfare rates, that wepay at rates that are greater than what is being increased inmost provinces in the country.  In fact, last year only oneprovince had a higher rate of increase, plus we added theparticular additional payments for disabled people who were at aparticular level last year and are rising again as of January.

            We are working as well on the economic side because we knowthat ultimately, as the report indicates, that the ultimatesolution to this, of course, is to ensure that we restore theeconomy to economic health, because that is the long‑termsolution that we have to address in this issue.  That is why thethrone speech deals with the economy as the central focus,because it is jobs, it is a healthy economy that is the long‑termsolution to improving the lot of these people.


Poverty Rate

Provincial Increase


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, thePremier is right.  It was 20 percent in 1982, and it went down to16.6 percent in '88, a decrease of 40,000 people.  From 1988 to1990, it went up to 17.8 percent, an increase of 10,000 people inthe poverty rate.  That is exactly the point.  You know, you donot have to listen to these statistics.  The Premier could go 200yards across from his office, across the street, to really seewhat is going on in this province, and we have been saying thatthis Premier and this government are totally out of touch withwhat is going on in terms of the realities of people in thisprovince.

            Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of months, this governmentchose to offload millions of dollars on social assistancepayments to municipalities or the larger municipality of Winnipegand other municipalities that were paying provincial rates, whichwill result in either a decrease in provisions like food forchildren or increased taxation.  Now the Premier had promised noincrease in taxation, so I would ask the Premier what is theimpact of the cutback on benefits, such as food for children, onthe poverty rates of Manitoba.  I would ask the Premier to standup and answer this question, because he did not answer it lastspring when we asked him the very same question.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Mr.Speaker, I would like to point out to the Leader of theOpposition that the number of recipients on social allowances isa small component or a partial component of the people living inpoverty that this study reflects, and I think that what happenswith statistics like this is that you draw a national povertyline based on the cost of living in some of the urban centreslike Toronto and Vancouver, yet the cost of living in Winnipeg,for instance, is lower than 11 other major urban centres acrossthis country.  I would also point out that we have the thirdlowest incidence of citizens on social allowances per capita inthe country, and our rates are about the sixth highest in thecountry.  So Manitoba is relatively positioned with the socialallowances that other provinces pay at this time.


Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Autopac Rate Increase


Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):  Mr. Speaker, I would like toaddress a question to the minister responsible for Autopac (Mr.Cummings).  The Conservative‑appointed Public Utilities Board hasnow approved the request of the Conservative‑appointed board ofMPIC for the highest real increase of Autopac rates in thehistory of this province.  Non‑merit private passenger vehiclesapproval is 13.5 percent which is 10 times the rate ofinflation.  The average increase of 9.7 percent is about seventimes the rate of inflation.

            Mr. Speaker, how can this minister who led the charge a fewyears ago, how can this minister sit there complacently andjustify these unconscionable increases?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  First of all,Mr. Speaker, I reject the member's reference to the quality andthe standard of the work being done by the PUB.  We deliberatelymade sure that the Public Utilities Board was given theopportunity to look at the rate structure and make sure that itwas properly reflecting the costs and the real cost of coveragethat the corporation was taking on.

            Mr. Speaker, in looking at the recommendations of the PublicUtilities Board, it very clearly demonstrates to us why it wasthe proper thing to do in referring these types of rates to thePublic Utilities Board, because it clearly references the factthat we need to make sure of what is required, that the level ofcoverage in this province is correct and adequate and make surethat no increases are brought forward that do not reflect theactual costs of the claims that have been incurred.


* (1345)


Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, my next question is, talkingabout costs, why did the government interfere in the MPIC requestto limit agency fees?  How can you interfere on behalf of thebrokers, but not on behalf of the consumers of Manitoba?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the corporation isundergoing a major review of the Autopac agents compensationpackage as we bring forward Autopac 2000.  That is the fair andpractical manner in which they have brought forward theirpresentation to the agents, so that as they review thatcompensation package and as they change the entire method ofwhich we do business with the public and with the agents, thosechanges will be incorporated.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, my final question is for theMinister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh).  I would ask theMinister of Consumer Affairs if she at least will act on behalfof the consumers of Manitoba who are now being asked to payoutrageously high increases in Autopac rates, given the fact thatthere are so many Manitobans who have not got a job‑‑they arelosing their jobs‑‑and given the fact that incomes are decliningin this province.  Will this minister at least stand up on behalfof the consumers?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, that demonstrates the lack of acumenon that side of the House.  They are asking that we now run thecorporation into the ground in order that we not reflect the realcost of insurance.


Poverty Rate

Provincial Increase


Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, I want to ask some questions on behalf of those peoplewho cannot afford an automobile, the genuine poor of the provinceof Manitoba.

            On December 13, 1991, the Premier, in his speech to thisHouse, said that he was willing to work co‑operatively with alllevels of government on any programs designed to eradicatepoverty with respect to the children of our province, anyprograms whatsoever.

            Can the First Minister of the province tell us, if that washis genuine desire less than a year ago, why was child poverty,which for two years in a row is worst in this province of anyother province in this nation, including Newfoundland, not evenmentioned in his Speech from the Throne?




Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I would point out thatthe figures which the Leader of the third party is referring toas being for two years in a row date back to 1990, before thespeech that I gave that she references.  As I said earlier, thisgovernment took action during the past year and raised welfarerates in this province at a rate of 3.6 percent last year, whichwas greater than any province but one in the country and, inaddition to that, brought in additional income assistance fordisabled, $60 a month, which is rising to $70 a month inJanuary.  In addition to that, we used a monthly supplement toreplace the provincial tax credit, but we know that this is notenough, and we have said‑‑[interjection]

            Mr. Speaker, the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), if herLeader allows her, will be able to ask a question later.  I amsure that we on this side would be happy to respond to herquestion.  All she has to do is convince her Leader that it isher opportunity to speak.

            We on this side have indicated that we must continue tosearch for ways to improve the economy so that we do not justhave people relying on government social programs for support,and that is in the report that was released that she is quotingfrom the newspaper article on, the report by the National Councilof Welfare that the long‑term goal has to be work on the economy.

            That is what the throne speech is all about, is improving theeconomy so that people do not need only to be dependent onwelfare, social allowances and provincial government for theirsubsistence, that they must have the opportunity to go andimprove their own circumstances, and only through a healthiereconomy will we be able to accomplish that.


Social Assistance

Food Allowance


Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, the Premier likes projections.  Well, I think that heshould take a look at the projection of the National Council onWelfare.  The projection of the National Council on Welfare isthat the figures on poverty will be worse for '91 and worse againin 1992 than they were in 1990.  At the same time, thisgovernment has made it an unfortunate circumstance that foodbudgets will be cut for those 93 percent more people on welfarein the city of Winnipeg.

            How can this Premier justify less money for food for thechildren already suffering and living below the poverty line?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  As I indicated, our provincialgovernment increased welfare rates by some 3.6 percent, which wasthe second highest in the country last year, and again by therate of inflation this year.  In addition to that, the member maybe aware of the national program, the federal program, entitled:Brighter Futures, which is to add support to the children.[interjection]

            Mr. Speaker, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is on hiscampaign box, and perhaps he would like to give the answer to hisLeader because he does not seem to want to listen to my answers.


Social Assistance

Food Allowance


Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, the government's offloading to the City of Winnipegamounts to some $5.6 million in money that should have gone tosupport the 93 percent additional plus those already on socialassistance.  That money is used for food.

            How does the Premier of this province think that singleparent moms, who suffer from the greatest poverty levels in thisnation and in this province, are supposed to feed their kids?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status ofWomen):  I would really like to respond and ask the Leader of theSecond Opposition party to get her facts straight.

            There is not one single mom who will receive any less underthe new system that has been put in place than before.  Allsingle mothers in the province of Manitoba are on provincialwelfare, not on city welfare, and they will receive a 3.6 percentincrease in funding as a result of this government's decision.


Bill 70  Impact on the City of Winnipeg


Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, there is no limit tothe hypocrisy of the Filmon government who in their throne speechcriticized the federal government for offloading expenses to theProvince of Manitoba and at the same time have offloaded millionsof dollars to the City of Winnipeg.  Regrettably, the Minister ofFamily Services denied on April 13 that this would happen.

            Now that the minister has announced the regulations to Bill70, will this minister admit that is the effect of Bill 70,offloading millions of dollars of expenses to the City ofWinnipeg?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Theintent of Bill 70 is to standardize the intake procedures and therates across this province.  We have many municipal corporationswhere the rate was below the provincial rate.  We had twomunicipal jurisdictions where the rate was higher.  Bill 70 willallow for one rate across the province, and municipalcorporations at their own expense have the ability to give higherrates if they wish.

            I would like to point out the many other enhancements that wehave added to the social allowances program in addition to the3.6 percent.  Recently we announced the ability for certainrecipients to keep their health card as they make their way fromsocial assistance into the work force, I think a very progressiveway of allowing people to leave social allowances and get intothe work force, something that my honourable friend has failed tocomment on.

            We have also increased the supplement for the disabled.  Thiswas a new initiative last year.  We have been able to increasethat by $10 a month this year.  These are just two of the manyreforms that we have brought in in the last two years.

Mr. Martindale:  Mr. Speaker, why has this minister offloadedexpenses and forced the City of Winnipeg to pick up millions ofdollars of expenses, since we know that Manitoba has the secondhighest rate of poverty in Canada?  We have the second highestrate of poverty for families and the highest rate of childpoverty.

            How can this minister offload millions of dollars of expensesto the City of Winnipeg which may force more people to becomedependent on food banks and soup kitchens and force familiesdeeper into poverty, deprivation and hopelessness?

Mr. Gilleshammer:  Mr. Speaker, the number of people living indifficult circumstances in Manitoba and in other provinces acrossCanada is a concern of all governments.  We have seen with therecession an increased number of people added to the socialallowance rolls right across this country.

            Again I would point out that we have the third lowestincidence of citizens accessing social allowances across thecountry.  We also have the sixth highest social allowance ratesacross the country.  If the member is suggesting that Manitobashould have the highest rate, that is not in keeping with thecost of living across this country.  Manitoba is placed relativeto the cost of living, well positioned at sixth place with otherprovinces across this country.

            At the same time, we have also addressed many other issuesthat the member has raised in the last two years.  We haveincreased the liquid assets exemption, something that has beendiscussed by poverty groups and something we were able to act onlast year.  As well, we have dealt with the head of the householdissue, something that was a long‑standing issue that had not beendealt with through the '70s or the '80s, but something that wehave been able to deal with in recent months.  Those are againtwo more of the reforms that we have brought in in the last twoyears.

Mr. Martindale:  Why has this Minister of Family Services, byoffloading $5.6 million of expenses, forced the City of Winnipegto choose between cutting rates, especially for people infamilies, many of their rates were higher, especially forinfants, or to increase property taxes when everyone knows thatproperty taxes are a regressive form of taxation?

            Why is this minister forcing the City of Winnipeg into thatkind of choice?

Mr. Gilleshammer:  I can tell you that this government has haddifficult choices on raising taxes, and we have made thosedifficult decisions over the last five budgets.  I think that theCity of Winnipeg, all municipal corporations, have to make thosesame decisions.  These are tough times to be governing in, toughdecisions to make.  I am sure the City of Winnipeg will give itdue consideration and make the appropriate decision.

            Again, I would point out that besides increasing the rates by3.6 percent we have also dealt with a tremendous volumeincrease.  Last year we put an additional $40 million into oursocial allowances budget which we expended, and we overexpendedthat by another $40 million.

            The rates would seem to be appropriate when you compare themwith other provinces across Canada.  I think the reforms that wehave brought in have been very well received by the groups thatlobbied for additional rate increases and enhancements, thatlobby government regularly on that.  We have brought in at leasta half a dozen, if not eight of these enhancements, over andabove the general rate increase.




Grain Transportation Proposal

Tabling Request


Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Speaker, the Crow benefit hashistorically been put in place to provide a level playing fieldfor producers to ship their grain to export markets, but thereare enemies to this proposal, some of them right here in thisLegislature.  The latest effort to dismantle this historicbenefit was made in an alarming proposal by the federalgovernment at the Agriculture ministers' meeting in Toronto onNovember 16 and 17.

            I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he receiveda copy of a draft proposal on grain transportation reform and, ifso, will the minister table that proposal in this Legislature sothat we all can see what is being proposed by the federalgovernment on this important issue?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, thequestion the member raises is an issue of grave importance to thegrain industry of western Canada and we all know the GATT processis moving along.  We all hope there is a resolution, and there isno question that it will create disciplines on the kinds ofsupport we put in place for our farm community.  It will have amajor impact, on particularly the WGTA as it is presently paid tothe producers.

            Certainly we also have issues like the pooling of the costson the Great Lakes, as to who is paying for them.  We know thatthe Alberta Wheat Pool and the Alberta government and theCanadian Wheat Board are certainly putting pressure on changingthat, and if it is changed without our involvement in theprocess, it will have negative impact on us.

            A proposal was brought to the Ministers of Agriculture acrossthe country called the Whithers proposal, commissioned by thefederal government, which we received at a meeting not too longago in Toronto.  From that we had a fair bit of discussion andput together a framework for further reform, which I have takenback to the stakeholders in this province.  I met two days afterI got back with about 40 different people representing 30different farm organizations to lay out those proposals and haveasked for a response from them.  I am receiving those responsesfrom those stakeholders and we will decide how to respond when weget all those responses in.


Government Support


Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  This minister continues to use GATTas an excuse for change, Mr. Speaker.  The fact is that we have acopy of that draft and he should have tabled it in this Housewith the opposition in this House as well.  If he is going toconsult, consult with the opposition in this Legislature.  I havea copy to table.

            Does the minister support the proposal that would see thelifting of protection on the branchlines according to thatproposal and a tripling of the grain transportation rates on railover the next four years?  Does the minister support thoseproposals in that draft that was proposed to the ministers?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  As I indicated, Mr.Speaker, in my first response, we have asked our stakeholders,many and varied across Manitoba, to give a response, and we areawaiting all those responses to come in.  There are about 20 or30 issues in that paper, one of which the member has raised andcertainly if there is branchline abandonment there is significantimpact on the province.  There is no question about it.

            We have grave concern about what that impact will be, so weare in due process of analysis and the discussion will continue.We will continue to consult with the stakeholders in the provinceof Manitoba.  The member has a copy; I would welcome his commentson the draft proposal.




Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Speaker, the minister talksabout due process.  Then will he support the government ofSaskatchewan's position that they will not negotiate these kindsof draconian changes until there has been extensive consultationwith the producers throughout this province as was asked for bythe producers at transportation talks and meetings last year?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, as Ihave indicated in both my answers previously, we are involved inextensive consultations in an ongoing way and many groups havethanked us for that opportunity.  We do not take a knee‑jerkreaction this way or that way.  We are in continuousconsultation.  That process will not stop.  We will not take aknee‑jerk reaction like that member would like us to take.


Health Care System

Community-Based Services


Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, my question is forthe Minister of Health.  When the minister released the ActionPlan for Health Reform last May, we said it was better late thannever.  We supported that plan in principle.  We in this partywanted the health care reform to succeed and therefore we wantedthe minister to succeed.  The progress has been very slow and wehave many more questions for the minister.  In fact, we gave theminister an advance copy of a question last week when we releasedthe report to the media.

            My first question is:  Will the minister provide more detailson the new community‑based services that will replace the bedswhich are going to be closed at St. Boniface as well as HealthSciences Centre?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I verymuch appreciate my honourable friend's continued support for theprocess of change in the health care system of Manitoba, becauseI think my honourable friend recognizes that that type of changethat we have proposed is essential to be undertaken if we aregoing to preserve medicare for the provision of health careservices to Manitobans and Canadians.

            Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend makes the case thatprogress to date has been quite slow.  I simply say that that isa matter of perspective, because in fact I have been buffeted atrecent occasions that the process is moving much too quickly bysome of those involved in the shift of services from our teachinghospitals to the community.  So I take my honourable friend'sobservation seriously, but I would suggest to him that theprocess of change is on target as we had announced May 14 in thetabling of our action plan document.

            The announcement 10 days ago of the 246 beds and theidentification of those beds at our two teaching hospitalsinvolve a process of retirement from service over the next fourmonths approximately, with replacement services being enhanced inthree community hospitals and the concurrent provision ofcommunity‑based services which my honourable friend I will sharewith him as they are in place and as the beds are retired fromservice.

Mr. Cheema:  Mr. Speaker, the health care reform has to succeed,because in this province and in this country we have no choicethan to have the health care reform.  The question is that tohave that success, we have to have an alternate way of services.

            Can the minister tell this House exactly what new servicesare going to be put in place to make sure those patients who aredisplaced will be provided care in the community?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, depending on the type of service beingprovided, the new services range from a reinforcement of ourContinuing Care program, a reinforcement of mental health serviceprovision in the community through enhancement to the crisisstabilization unit which is proposed for early next year, anincrease in the number of mobile crisis team individuals inservice to provide early intervention at the place of residencerather than admission to an acute psychiatric facility.

            Those types of services, although new to the system, are notnew in concept and build upon a success that we know is availablefrom a community‑based services basis, the redirection of somemillion dollars from our departmental expenditures in mentalhealth services three years ago to invest in community‑basedsupports which we know work and will serve the system well as,for instance, it changes to more community‑based, orientatedservices.


Obstetric Services


Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, one of the majorconcerns from the parents as well as the physicians and the otherhealth care providers is that when you are transferring servicesfrom the teaching hospital to a given community hospital whatback‑up services for neonatal, for anesthesiology, for emergencytransfers will be put in place to make sure, for people who needthese services in their teaching hospital, they will beprovided?  Finally, who will be paying for those transfers?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I presumemy honourable friend is referring primarily to the issue ofobstetrics.  I think there has been a substantial amount of quiteopen discussion around the safety of obstetrics, both within ourteaching hospital environment and in the three communityhospitals, the Victoria, Grace and Misericordia.

            Mr. Speaker, I can say it no more eloquently than theadministration of Misericordia Hospital, who shared statistics ontheir experience over the last five years of a very safe birthingenvironment for women in their hospital facility, an environmentthat they believe, within existing resources, they cansubstantially add to, creating a win‑win situation across thesystem.

            The second piece of information that I know my honourablefriend will want and I will share with him is the review of theLDRP program at Victoria Hospital, where for about a quarter of amillion dollars less in spending in obstetrics, they haveincreased the number of deliveries by 20 percent.

            Mr. Speaker, the important point to remember here withVictoria General Hospital is that 20 percent increase was chosenby women to be there because they liked the environment, thesafety and the benefits of having that program and their birthingat Victoria Hospital.


* (1410)


Lockport, Manitoba

Tourism Promotion


Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for theMinister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson).

            It now appears that the Lockport bridge will be closed formost of 1993, and this would effectively and unfortunatelydestroy the tourism industry in that region.

            My question to the minister is:  What action is he preparedto take to promote the tourism industry in the Lockport region?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation):Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the member that we are stillproceeding with negotiations with the federal government in termsof seeing whether we can get a plan in place.  The problem thatwe have faced as a province is that Public Works Canada has notapprised us of all the information that we require and certainlythat the merchants' association requires out there.

            We have ongoing meetings that are taking place as of todayand some more following this week, and we will try and resolvethe issue.


Lockport, Manitoba

Tourism Promotion


Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, my question was to theMinister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

            What is he prepared to do to help the tourism industry inLockport when the bridge closes?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):Mr. Speaker, obviously the honourable member did not listen tothe answer from the Minister of Highways as it relates to theprospect of the bridge closing.

            In terms of particular programs that are available to theindividuals and businesses in the Lockport area, we have acurrent agreement with the federal government, a Canada‑ManitobaTourism Agreement that has various programs available in terms ofmarketing, product development and so on.  Certainly thebusinesses of that area have access to that program, as dobusinesses throughout Manitoba.  We will work with them toencourage that they use those programs to promote Lower FortGarry and other tourism attractions in that area, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dewar:  The government has already failed Selkirk very, verymiserably, Mr. Speaker.


Bridge Closure


Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Will this minister then demand, incabinet, that his colleague the Minister of Highways (Mr.Driedger) meet soon with the Minister of Public Works to resolvethis issue?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation):Mr. Speaker, not to belittle the concern that the member has forhis constituents, but if he had really checked this out, two ofmy colleagues, along with representatives from the merchants'association, flew to Ottawa and met with the Minister of PublicWorks, Elmer MacKay, as well as with the Manitoba representative,the minister Jake Epp, and this is ongoing.

            Mr. Speaker, further to that, I thought that the member mighthave gotten up and sort of given accolades to my department fordoing the bridge job in his town of Selkirk, which basically wasappreciated much by the people out there, and we had the openingthere.

            As we did with Selkirk, we will try and do with Lockport as well.


Education System

Program Reduction Criteria


Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  Mr. Speaker, my question is forthe Premier.

            The throne speech said that education and training are thekeys to unlock a world of opportunities and a future of economicgrowth and prosperity.  Yesterday on a TV news program, thePremier was justifying the proposed cuts to the Educationdepartment with the argument that he had not cut anything inEducation for five years.  Mr. Speaker, one can only assume thatthis is the serious discussion that goes around the cabinet tablein determining the priorities for cuts.

            My question is straightforward.  What is the criteria thecabinet is using to determine which programs and services will becut?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, the‑‑[interjection] Iwonder if the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) could hold hisenthusiasm for his leadership campaign and not try and answer thequestions of the member for Crescentwood.

Some Honourable Members:  Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to answer thequestions.  The members opposite do not show a great deal ofrespect for their colleague and her question.  It is a legitimatequestion, and I would like to answer it.

            The fact of the matter is that my response was that thisgovernment has not cut in Education, that despite all of thestatements to the contrary by members opposite we haveconsistently given increases to Education that are well beyondincreases in inflation even, that we have consistently shown thatEducation is a priority in our administration, and that when welook at serious financial issues as we do with lowering transfersfrom Ottawa with expectations that our revenues may not grow atall in this coming year, we have to look at all departments andask them to consider carefully their priorities.

            Nobody has suggested at this point that any figures that havebeen put out in a speculative story are accurate, and trying toanswer a question based on inaccurate speculation is not the wayto try and develop policy.  So the point that I was making andthe point that I will make is that until we come forward with atotal and complete analysis and review of all governmentdepartments, it is very foolish to speculate about cuts which arenot necessarily what the policy of this government will be.

Mr. Speaker:  Time for Oral Questions has expired.




Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, may I have leave tomake a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

            December 1 is World AIDS Day.  Mr. Speaker, this year theWorld Health Organization has declared the theme for the WorldDay, A Community Commitment, to stress the need for communityaction in response to HIV infection and AIDS.

            It was only 10 years ago when HIV infected about nine to 11million people worldwide.  Mr. Speaker, by the year 2000 at least30 to 40 million persons will be infected with HIV infection.  Itis a very, very serious threat to the health of all the nations.Canada has done its fair share, and it is one of the fourcountries in the world which has given a lot of encouragement interms of financial aid as well as the community involvement.

            Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all the members to getinvolved and do whatever they can to make sure that this reallybecomes a community involvement and make sure that the people whohave this disease and their families and their friends and theirhealth care providers are given their due respect to make surethat we can achieve the real commitment, and also that willjustify the team for the WHO.  Thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  May I have leave to make anon‑political statement? [agreed]

            Mr. Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge on behalf of ourcaucus that today is World AIDS Day and ask all members to joinin publicly declaring our resolve to increase public awarenessabout HIV and AIDS and to strengthen our commitment to fightagainst this devastating epidemic.

            The red ribbon I am wearing today, Mr. Speaker, is anacknowledgment of today's special occasion, and it demonstrates acommitment to work with caregivers, community organizations andpeople with AIDS.  We know about the worldwide figures.  Here inManitoba, 350 people to date have been identified as HIVpositive, 37 in this year alone, and four of those are women,with some further research suggesting the numbers may actually bemuch higher than that.


* (1420)


            Mr. Speaker, HIV and AIDS continue on an increasing basis toaffect people of all ages from all walks of life and to haveprofound implications for individuals, their families andfriends, communities and the full range of health and humanservices.

            Mr. Speaker, community commitment, the theme of World AIDSDay, is alive and well here in Manitoba.  Many health careprofessionals, volunteers, non‑profit organizations are going allout in the fight against AIDS.  Many individuals with HIV andAIDS have turned their despair into action and hope.  I think ofan old classmate and friend, Rick Koebel, who devoted the lastyears of his life to public education and awareness on the matterof HIV and AIDS here in the province of Manitoba, who wrote inhis statement for his memorial service:  My friends kept me goingduring many moments when I was ready to throw down the gauntlet.Together we taught a lot of people that AIDS is a learningexperience as opposed to being a tragedy.  Hopefully the world isa better place to live in because of our endeavours.

            Mr. Speaker, the world is a better place because of peoplelike Rick Koebel.  It is our job today and every day torededicate ourselves to the fight against AIDS, to supportindividual and community spirit that is determined to eradicateour world of this devastating and deadly disease.  Thank you, Mr.Speaker.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I wonderif I might have leave for a nonpolitical statement. [agreed]

            Mr. Speaker, as all of us endorse World AIDS Day of December1, I think it is particularly relevant for us in North Americaand indeed in the European community, where we have, I think,significant opportunities to involve the community inunderstanding the disease, in understanding how the infection isspread and in understanding how to mitigate against risk ofcontracting the virus.  That has been very important to us inNorth America and I think indeed in Europe.

            Mr. Speaker, I think we need to reflect on how we can assistthose people in Third World countries and in other parts of theworld, where they do not have the same opportunity of television,public media and awareness campaigns that have been, I think, ofreasonable success in North America in raising awareness and inraising individual opportunity to protect each individual,through their own action, against potential infection from AIDS.

            I reflect upon the story of one religious leader in, Ibelieve, Bombay, India, who has a megaphone and loudly hails, ina disadvantaged district of Bombay, to inform people in the sextrades there of the dangers of unprotected sex in his lonelycrusade in that country against the spread of this very deadlydisease.

            I cannot help but reflect how that individual would be wellserved with the kind of electronic communications and the moderntechnologies that we use in North America, coupled withsignificant researchers like Dr. Allan Ronald and others who areworld renowned in their knowledge base that they share freelywith us in North America of this disease and how it is spread.

            I think, as we approach this World AIDS Day, it would nothurt for all of us to consider on how we might become smallpartners in that information and education campaign in continentsoutside of North America, where this disease has significantrepercussions for entire populations.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.





(Third Day of Debate)


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member forSeine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for an Address to the honourable theAdministrator in answer to his speech at the opening of thesession, and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of theOpposition (Mr. Doer) in an amendment thereto as follows, and theproposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition(Mrs. Carstairs) in further amendment thereto as follows.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway):  I would like to express my welcometo the new members of the House, the member for Crescentwood (Ms.Gray) and the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister), andto you also, Mr. Speaker, for managing successfully the affairsof this Assembly.

            I would like to focus on the economy in total.  The Speechfrom the Throne had stated in the first page that the winds ofchange are sweeping the globe.  This was true two years ago.Today the world economy has already changed.

            As early as 1986, Peter Drucker, a well‑known author inbusiness management and writer, had stated that the world economyhas already changed in its foundation and in its structure, achange which in all likelihood is irreversible.

            The most fundamental change that had taken place in the worldeconomy is the emergence of what is known as the transnationalfinancial economy of monetary flows, credit flows, exchange ratefluctuations, capital investment directions as influenced byeconomic variables and as influenced by political events as wellas government policies and government practices.

            If there is one fundamental action in economic theory in thewestern world to which we have been educated, it is whether theeconomy is classified as Keynesian, monetarist or supply side.They all have one commonality, in general they agree at least onone thing.  The basic macro‑economic assumption is that it is thenation state economy that is controlling the economic events, andtherefore they use the individual national economy of the nationstate as the basis for economic analysis and for policyformulation.  This is followed by the United States, generallythe western world and the United Kingdom.

            However, such macro-economic axiom of the primacy of thenational economy is not accepted by all economists.  For example,Japan and Germany rejected this assumption.  Instead, they basedtheir analysis of events on the primacy of the world or globaleconomy to which the national economies are merely respondingto.  Therefore, the Japanese and the Germans, in theirassumption, in the workings of their governments have anticipatedthe patterns that are taking place in the global scale, and theyaccordingly shape their own domestic policy, economic, monetarianfiscal policy in order to bolster the internationalcompetitiveness of their national economy.

            We have seen the outcome.  While the United Kingdom has gonedown the drain in the economic development and economicprosperity‑‑and so has the United States, despite the fact thatthe U.S. dollar is the primary medium of exchange in the worldtrade‑‑the United States now is in a position of governmentdeficit and balance of payment deficit and world trade surplusdeficit.

            On the contrary, those who rejected this basic axiom, Japanand Germany, have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity, and theirmonetary unit has increased in their international exchangevalue.  The yen has climbed, the deutsche mark has climbed intheir international exchange value.  The stability of theircurrency, the prosperity of their economy, the trade surplus thatthey enjoy are indications that the macro‑economic theory of thewestern world is no longer operating to our advantage.

            What is the lesson for this in terms of our country Canadaand in terms of this province Manitoba when we deal with theoutside external aspects of the economic world?  It simply meansthat any business, any economic unit, any organization whichwants to prosper under this changed condition must now accept theprimacy of the world economy and that our domestic policy willsucceed only if we try to advance our internationalcompetitiveness or at least not impair such internationalcompetitiveness in terms of the outside world.




            Before we can understand the workings of our economy, we mustreview some of the basic concepts and basic notions ininternational economics.  For example, what do we mean byexchange rate?  What do we mean by foreign exchange markets?What do we mean by portfolio investments?  What do we mean bydirect foreign investments?  What do we mean by floating exchangerate system?  Unless we have some kind of a general overview ofall the workings of these concepts and these variables, we willnot understand why we are sinking down in our internationalcompetitiveness in the world economy.

            The exchange rate simply means the price of one country'scurrency in terms of a currency of another country.  It is thenumber of units of one currency that is exchangeable with oneunit of another currency per unit of time.  Thus, if we need$1.25 of our Canadian money to buy a U.S. dollar, that is theexchange value of the Canadian dollar.  The trouble with thisconcept is that it has its own inverse value.  It means that youonly need about 80 cents to buy the Canadian dollar.

            The foreign exchange market is the market in which thevarious international currencies are exchanged, where thehouseholds, individuals, firms, banks buy and sell their foreigncurrencies in connection with transactions involving the exchangeof one type of assets, and by assets here we mean the intangibleassets like stocks, bonds, bank accounts, in exchange for othertypes of assets.  This is the international exchange market.

            Where the owner of such intangible assets has no control inthe operation of the foreign company wherein the holder assetslike bonds and stocks and accounts, that is known as portfolioinvestments.  On the other hand, direct foreign investment is themechanism by which the owner of such assets will have directcontrol over the operation of the company which owned the assetsthat they own, such as for example by setting up foreignsubsidiaries.  If a Canadian company, for example, established asubsidiary company in another country, that is a form of directforeign investment.

            Since the Bretton Woods conference, we have deviated from thefixed exchange rate system.  The world is practically nowoperating on what is known as the floating exchange rate system,where the exchange value of one currency is permitted by thegovernment to fluctuate freely according to the forces of demandand supply in the international market.  However, there is amodification to the extent that central banks of nation statessometimes intervene in the working of the supply‑and‑demandforces in the international market and so we sometimes have whatis known as the managed float system.

            Now, money is not a commodity.  We do not eat money.  We donot use money per se, because money has symbolic value.  How comethere is demand for money?  There is supply of money, supply offoreign currency.  Our Canadian desire, for example, to acquireand purchase American goods or, in general, any foreign goods andour desire to travel abroad means that we are making out paymentsand the Canadian international transaction statement will showthat as out‑payments of our reserves.  On the other hand, when weexport commodities to the United States, or when United Statescitizens come to this country as tourists, what we are getting isan inflow of U.S. accounts, and this is the supply of ourinternational foreign currency in the form of the U.S. dollar.Thus the demand for and supply of currencies are simply the rightdemand from our desire for foreign goods and foreign services.

            Now, if our exchange position in the exchange rate systemimproves, there is an appreciation; they call it an appreciationof the exchange value of the U.S. dollar.  That means the valueof a unit of Canadian money is increasing.  On the other hand, ifthe value of a unit of Canadian money is decreasing, they call itthe depreciation of the Canadian dollar.

            Of course, government policy has some effect on thefluctuating movements of these international exchanges ofvalues.  If we pursue monetary policy in this country, which isexpansionary in nature, what we are doing is we are increasingthe supply of money.  The effect of an expansionary monetarypolicy is to increase the supply of money, but with theincreasing supply of money the effect on interest rates is thatinterest rates will decline, and with the decline of interestrates there will be a depreciation, a lowering of the value ofour foreign exchange.

            On the contrary, on the other hand, if we pursue monetarycontraction policy, then the money supply will decrease.  Whenthe money supply decreases, it will be very difficult to getloans, and so interest rates will go up.  When the interest ratesgo up and increases, the foreign exchange rate will also increaseand appreciate.  This is the effect of monetary policy.

            Contrast that with the effect of fiscal policy.  When ourfiscal policy is expansionary in nature, that means the demandfor money is increasing.  With the increasing for the demand ofmoney, the interest will also rise and increase.  When theinterest rate goes up, then the exchange foreign value of themoney appreciates and increases.

            On the other hand, any contractionary fiscal policy meansthat the demand for money is declining, is going down, and withthe decline for the demand of money, the effect on the interestrate is also a decline, a decrease of interest rate, and ofcourse a decrease in interest rate will bring about adepreciation of our foreign exchange.

            Now, what is the relationship between interest rate and theexchange rate, and the relationship of the exchange rate with ourinternational competitiveness?  For example, let me see, if theBank of Canada, as it has been doing, wants to control inflation,and that has been the primary policy of the federal government inthe past couple of years, and they decide that they will increaseinterest rates in Canada, what will happen?  It means that theCanadian dollar will appreciate in value in the exchange rate.In fact, that is the primary reason why they are trying toincrease the interest rate.  They want to bolster theinternational exchange rate of the Canadian dollar.

            What happened to Canadian exports with an increase in thevalue of the exchange rate?  Well, of course, Canadian exportswill decline, because it will cost more for the Americans to getthe Canadian dollars that they need in order to buy Canadiangoods.  Canadian import of U.S. goods will correspondinglyincrease because then it will be cheaper for domestic residentsto buy U.S. goods.


* (1440)


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


            Of course, the relative level of prices which defines theinflation rate is related to the level of the exchange rate.  Forexample, if inflation is higher in Canada than in the outsideworld, then prices go up, the effect on the price of goods andservices goes up.  Canadian goods become more expensive relativeto the price of foreign goods, let us say, U.S. goods.  If thatis the case, what will be the effect on the exchange rate?Americans will buy fewer Canadian goods, and the Canadiancompetitive position will, of course, decline.

            On the other hand, if the inflation rate in the United Statesis higher than the average inflation rate outside of the UnitedStates, let us say, higher than the inflation rate in Canada,then American goods become more expensive, both for U.S. andforeign markets.  Canadians will therefore buy less of U.S.goods, and we will sell more Canadian goods to the United States,because the demand for the U.S. dollar will then decline, and theAmerican competitive position accordingly will also decline.

            Thus we see that where price levels are high, the monetarysupply increases.  With the increase in monetary supply, theinterest rate goes down, the exchange rate goes down and theinternational competitiveness of the country goes down.  On theother hand, when inflation is low, prices are lower, going down,the supply of money is going down, the interest rate goes up, theexchange rate appreciates, and our international competitiveposition improves.

            However, with all these relationships, there is a time laginvolved which makes the price and the wage changes move slowerthan the movement of the exchange rate itself.  In other words,in the short run, prices are sticky; they are slow in moving.Hence, only the exchange rate will immediately respond, and thisis known as volatility, and it will depreciate excessively in theform which economists call overshooting.  However, where themoney supply increases, in the long run the price level alsoincreases and the exchange rate will depreciate.

            Where a country's inflation rate is above the world's generalaverage inflation rate, that nation's currency depreciates theexchange rate continuously, as we have seen in the case of highinflation countries like Brazil, where the cruzeiros have verylimited international value.  Of course, political variablesaffect the country's exchange rate level.  For example, if thereis a genuine fear of, let us say, Quebec separating from Canada,many Canadians will convert their Canadian funds to U.S. funds,and this will cause the exchange value of the Canadian dollar todepreciate.

            So with the overall picture of what is going on in thistransnational financial symbolic economy of money flow, creditflow, investment flow, we can imagine economic events takingplace, favourable or unfavourable, productivity levels of acountry going up or down, changes in the demand going up or down,changes in government monetary and fiscal policy.  All of theseevents are affecting the price level, the inflation rate, as wellas the interest rate.

            The changes in the price level and the changes in theinterest rate in turn are bolstered by political factors, bypsychological factors of consumers and their expectations aboutthe movements of international events, and will affect the demandand supply of foreign currencies.  The demand and supply offoreign currencies in turn will affect whether the exchange ratewill go up or down, and whether the exchange rate will go up ordown will in turn determine whether our international competitiveposition will improve or will deteriorate.  That is the generalpicture in this transnational economy of symbolic financialeconomy of money flow, credit flow, capital investment flow inthe world states.

            Now, if it is the case that it is the transnational economythat is now dominant and is shaping and is driving the economy,and it is not the real economy of trade flow of goods andservices, we have to understand that these internationaltransactions are much more voluminous in terms of the amountsinvolved, compared to just the volume of trade in real goods andservices.  For example, the foreign exchange markets involve atleast an amount 25 times more than what is involved in the worldtrade of goods and services.

            According to Drucker, the well-known management and businessauthor, these changes are more or less irreversible and havetaken place.  There is an uncoupling, a separation of the globaleconomy of primary non‑oil product items, of goods, forestproducts, metals and minerals from the industrial economy of theworld.  The two are separating ways and they are no longerrelated.

            Second, within the world industrial economy, themanufacturing production sector has uncoupled itself and hassplit from the manufacturing employment sector, and to beinternationally competitive, any country must now continuallyshrink its blue‑collar manufacturing employment sector because ofthe fact of the changes and shifts in productive processes.  Forexample, it means that our manufacturing process is now a lesslabour intensive and more knowledge‑based, information intensiveprocess.

            Let me give you an example.  To manufacture a computer chip,the one that is the heart and brain of the computer, you knowwhere it came from?  It came from the common lowly materialcalled sand‑from the sand.  Because of technological processes,we can extract silicon from the sand and from silicon we cancreate the silicon chips.  The silicon chip in its productionrequires a 70 percent component of knowledge out of research,information, technological and scientific knowledge‑70 percent.The materials involved there is about 2 percent.


* (1450)


            The material grows product from the physical matter itself.The labour component is only about 12 percent.  That is how themanufacturing process now has changed.  It is now a society ofinformation, knowledge, technology, and therefore many of ourindustrial, blue‑collar workers are no longer needed in theproductive process as much as we needed them several decadesago.  The same changes have taken place in the changes in theworld economy.

            There is another third uncoupling or separation takingplace.  The real economy of tangible and visible goods and theintangible, invisible services are now being separated from thistransnational financial symbolic economy of money, credit,exchanges, and they are no longer concurrently working in thesame direction.

            Why is this so?  Because we have changed our internationalexchange rate system from what is known as the Bretton Woodsagreement system of fixed monetary parity rates into what isknown as the floating exchange rate system that is now prevalentall across the globe.

            Now, what do we mean by this shift in the exchange ratesystem?  In the olden days, under the Bretton Woods agreement,they nominated the U.S. dollar as the international monetarycurrency of world trade.  Every country had a fixed ratioattached to the value of the dollar.  For example, the Britishpound was fixed at $2.80.  This was backed by the gold reserve inthe world.  The value of the gold reserve, regardless of supplyand demand, had been fixed at the time at $35 per troy ounce.Therefore, everybody knew exactly where they were in thisexchange of assets, intangibles, values, credits, money.  At anytime, you can always demand and convert the dollar if you wantto, but this has already changed.

            Nowadays, they allow the fluctuations in the foreign exchangerate to freely flow according to the international forces ofsupply and demand, but they did not do so completely, because thecentral banks of many national states are intervening in thatnatural process in the free market in the international monetaryworld.  They are trying to influence the direction of the forces,such as the intervention of the Central Bank of Canada in orderto protect and bolster the international exchange rate value ofthe Canadian dollar.  So what we have seen here are actuallythese kinds of changes.

            Let me illustrate why technology has contributed to thischanged condition of the world economy, and we are part of theworld.  We cannot just isolate ourselves and say we want tocontrol our own economy, we want to do this.  We cannot be aclosed system.  We cannot do that.

            We live in a globalized economy.  It means an economy oftransnational corporations, multinational corporations,straddling more than one country.  They use production methodssource in one country or set of countries.  They market theproduct in another set of countries.  They effectively link allthese categories in the form of nation states, regional economicblocs, such as the European Economic Community, and we are nowforming a North American bloc very soon after the emergence ofthe EEC in Europe.  We want to counterbalance that.[interjection] I am trying to be objective here, so that we canunderstand the real situation taking place in the economy.

            According to Pilzer, the demand can take the form ofquantity‑oriented type of demand for more and more of whatconsumers want, what they already have.  For example, in 1960, 90percent of American homes had at least one TV.  Now thatincreased in 1980 to at least 98 percent.  At this point, thenature of the demand itself has changed from a quantity‑orientedtype of demand to a quality‑oriented type of demand.  Instead ofhaving just one TV, black and white, we now want colour TV.  Wenow want stereo TV.  We now want the wide‑screen TV.  That is thekind of demand that people are now wanting. [interjection] Well,you can find so many homes nowadays with at least three TVs, inevery room.

            The changing nature of the productive process also changesthe kinds of products that are available in the market.  It usedto be that when you wanted vinyl records, they were still good.Who buys nowadays the turntable record player?  Nobody, becausewith the invention of the compact disk, that has actuallyreplaced and superseded the old record player, and the demand forCD players now has practically dominated the entire market.

An Honourable Member:  What is a CD player?

Mr. Santos:  Compact disc.

            There are many other examples.  Because of our technologicalknowledge and technological processes we have invented, forexample, synthetic rubber.  That means that the demand fornatural rubber is no longer there.  It has been replaced.Synthetic fibres like nylon and all kinds of manufacturedfibers‑‑the demand for natural cotton is no longer there.  Theinvention of vinyl has replaced our desire and demand for leatherand, with the invention of hard plastics, the demand, of course,for steel and tin and all natural minerals has gone down.  Thatis the reason why copper is no longer as much in demandworldwide.  What happened to our workers in Thompson, and whathappened to the economy in Thompson?  Of course, all of these areaffected by international events outside of our small sphere ofour economy.

            It used to be that we used copper wires in order to put uptelephone lines.  Nowadays they use what is known as fibre opticcables.

            A mere 100 pounds of fibre optic cables used as telephonelines will carry as much information and messages as one tonne ofcopper wire, and they are relatively very cheap to manufactureand to install compared to the copper wire.  Hence, the demandfor copper has gone down.

            You can see now the collapse of the world demand for naturalmetals and natural minerals.  So even a country like Canada, richin forest natural products, rich in minerals, rich in resources,has found itself in trouble because of this collapse in the priceof the non‑oil forest products and other mineral products.


* (1500)


            Now, in the form of all these changes, what do we need todo?  What can we do?  In order to prosper, we need primarily tobear in mind our international competitive position.  We have tostrengthen that international competitive position or at leastnot impair such international competitive positions.

            How do we do that?  Well, we know that this is now aknowledge‑based society.  It is an information‑based society.  Itis a technology‑based world economy.

            What are some of the primary, traditional, neoclassicalfactors of production?  People, material, land, labour, capital.

            What is the most important resource that we can contribute inthere if the physical resources coming from the land are nolonger valuable? [interjection] Do you know what is the mostimportant resource?  People.  Therefore, we have to have thishuman resource developed at a very high level of literacy withtechnical, scientific, computer-oriented skills, as well as humansentiments and concern for the welfare of human beings.  Thereshould be a balancing in there of technical skills and concernfor human welfare.

            Sometimes our organized unions are fighting to protect theirjobs in the manufacturing industry, but because of thisuncoupling, of employment going down and the number of

Blue-collar workers diminishing despite the fact thatmanufacturing goods are increasing because of the robotization ofthe productive process, what is to be done?  This is a verycontroversial and contentious issue, and ideology can enter intothis.  The most difficult choice that any government can make isof course to allow its industrial working force to be taken overby robots and computerized devices and throw them out of work.

            Now, if a person, a worker, loses his job to a machine, isthat good or bad?  Of course, it is bad for the worker, but ifthere is a national training and retraining program that takescare of the worker, that is not bad because after the worker isretrained, there will be two kinds of jobs, the job that is beingproduced by the robot and the job, probably a service job that isthe growing sector of the employment industry which the workerwill also enjoy.  So we have two kinds of jobs, and we willproduce twice as much, and we will enjoy the prosperity that weare trying to enjoy.

            Therefore, the modern economy should redefine success.Success means flexibility.  Flexibility can come about only if wehave the right kind of worker who has the basic skills inwriting, in calculating, in speaking, in listening, in decisionmaking, as well as in technical skills, computer skills, inscientific and technical-oriented skills.

            Therefore our educational policy, as you see, is related toour international competitiveness.  If we allow our schools to godown and deteriorate, we allow our human resources to deterioratewith it.  We allow our economy to deteriorate, and we lose ourinternational competitive position.  We need to more than educateand graduate people in our educational institutions, in ourschools, in our colleges, in our universities.  Indeed, the callof the hour is for people to continue to go back to school atleast one day a week for the rest of their working lives, so thatthey will be up‑to‑date‑‑

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Order, please.  Thehonourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek):  It is a pleasure to standbefore this House today and to offer my reply to the Speech fromthe Throne.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, since being elected, I have spoken onevery throne speech and every budget speech.  It is interesting,as I look back over the past years, how overwhelmed we felt asnew members at the thought of speaking for 40 minutes.  Now it isjust a short time ago we have begun to feel that 40 minutes isnot enough.

            On this occasion, Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to take adifferent direction in addressing this Chamber and myconstituents, and the reason is not because anything is changed,but because of what I have been hearing Manitobans think of thesedifficult times and what they think government should be doing.This really hit home to me when I saw a video of a lecturer andeducator, Joel Barker, whose comments made a lasting impressionbecause what he was saying can apply to every one of us, to everyManitoban as we set out to build a stronger Manitoba.  I sharemuch of what I remember of this lesson throughout my speech today.

            Although I do want to take the high road, I may stray fromtime to time just to make a point.  I do believe the member forNiakwa (Mr. Reimer) said it very well in his remarks last eveningso I will leave it at that level.

            I would like to begin by welcoming the members back to thisnew session, and I would also like to extend my best wishes tothe Pages who are joining us this year.  I hope this introductionto the legislative process is a good learning experience for you.

            I would also like to offer my congratulations to the two newmembers, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) andthe member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), and I congratulate bothof you on your successful campaigns.

            I would like to add my congratulations to my colleagues ontheir accomplishments in their respective constituencies sincethe last session, and to you it is reassuring to see Mr. Speakeronce again occupy the Chair.  May this session be a rewarding onefor you and to you, Mr. Acting Speaker.

            I would also like to offer my best wishes to ourLieutenant‑Governor who was missed during the throne speech.  Iwould wish him a quick recovery and good health for many moreyears to come.

            Too often we do not appreciate the importance of good healthuntil we suddenly do not have it anymore.  Health care is apre‑eminent issue for this government.  We understand theimportance of good health.  It is a fundamental value that unitesus as Manitobans.  The health care system of choice is one thatcreates a balance between prevention, community‑based andinstitutional services.

            Because our government believes a strong sense of communityis a valuable resource in the delivery of health care services inManitoba, our government is placing more emphasis oncommunity‑based care.  What is being achieved through this changeis a redirection of the responsibility where ultimately those whoare able to do so can accept more responsibility, thus a savingof tax dollars without sacrificing patient care.  This is an areaof interest to both myself and my constituents.

            The availability of health care in the community is ofextreme importance to the people of Sturgeon Creek.  As themember from a constituency in which approximately 37 percent ofthe population are 55 years of age and over, the necessity ofavailable health care is well known to me.  A vital part of thiscare is the existence of personal care homes.  These facilitiesenable our elderly to remain in their communities and among theirpeers and among their families.

            The Sturgeon Creek area is indicative of the changingdemographics of Manitoba.  It is imperative, as our populationages, to provide adequate support to our seniors.  Ourgovernment's decision to direct revenue toward the establishingof more personal care home beds illustrates our intention toprovide this support.  Manitoba senior citizens deserve to livewith dignity, surrounded by friends and loved ones.  Byincreasing the number of personal care home beds available andlessening the number of seniors confined to hospital beds, ourgovernment is effectively addressing this issue.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, we owe it to ourselves and to the futuregenerations of Manitobans to take care of our aged.  I was proudto represent the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) this fall atthe sod turning for the construction at the new municipalhospital, a long-awaited initiative which is just another exampleof this minister's commitment to health care in Manitoba.  I amdeeply committed to our government's action plan which will makepositive inroads to a national health care delivery system.


* (1510)


            Mr. Acting Speaker, fortunately over the summer recess, I wasable to spend a lot of time in my constituency talking to thepeople.  In speaking to my constituents at one of my coffeeparties last fall, I was able to determine the concerns of theseniors in this area.  I was proud to be able to, in thisinstance, assist these constituents in obtaining a new sidewalkand approach in front of their seniors residence at 22 StraussDrive.  My constituents had previously been forced to navigate anoften dangerous path along the roadside as well as an approachwhich was not easily wheelchair accessible.

            These hazards were undermining our efforts to maintain andpreserve the well‑being of this senior population.  I am pleasedto announce that the sidewalk was built this summer, and I wouldlike to thank the minister and his Department of Housing for hissupport in addressing the concerns of the residents of thisseniors home.  They have really appreciated what we have beenable to do for them.

            I would like also to pay tribute at this time, Mr. ActingSpeaker, to another valuable asset to the Sturgeon Creekconstituency, and that is the Canadian Forces base of Winnipeg.The air forces's connection with the city goes back to 1922 whena station of the old Air Board was opened here to serve as awinter base for detachments which operated in northern Manitobaduring the rest of the year.  RCAF Station Winnipeg officiallyopened in April 1925 and was one of the first air force bases inCanada.

            During World War II, RCAF Station Winnipeg became a major airforce base as part of the British Commonwealth air training planwhich trained more than 130,000 pilots, observers and wirelessoperators across various locations in Canada.  Winnipeg alsobecame a major wartime centre for supply and repair depots, andferry inspection units.

            After the war, RCAF Station Winnipeg saw an increase intraining activities.  Over 5,000 aircrew from foreign countriesgraduated there from No. 2 Air Observer School and CentralNavigation School.  CFB Winnipeg was officially formed inNovember 1966, following the unification of the Canadian ForcesBase.  Base consolidation resulted in the combining of the formerRCAF Station Winnipeg, and the Fort Osborne army barracks.

            From such humble beginnings in 1966 grew a base which is nowone of the country's largest, employing over 3,700 people.  Ofthese approximately 1,000 are local civilians.  The importance ofsuch a large employer in the constituency of Sturgeon Creekcannot be overstated.

            It was with pride that I accepted a recent invitation to tourthe base and to speak with some of their personnel.  As a resultof my extremely positive meeting with base commander personnel,particularly base commander Colonel Bert Proulx, LieutenantColonel Rick St. Germain, Lieutenant Colonel Birt Meindel, MajorJim McMullin, Major Denny Carpenter and Captain Dan Lachance, Ilearned of the value of this facility to all Manitobans.

            The role of CFB Winnipeg is to provide support to regular andreserve units.  In addition, they operate the five militarytraining schools that are based in Winnipeg:  The Central FlyingSchool, Canadian Forces Air Navigation School, Canadian ForcesSchools of Aerospace Studies and Meteorology, the languagetraining centre and three Canadian Forces flying training schoolsat Portage la Prairie.

            These schools provide training to many Manitobans.  In fact,the role of Canadian Forces Air Navigation School is to train allnavigators for the Canadian Forces on the brand new, Canadianbuilt CT 142 Dash 8, of which there are six here in Winnipeg.

            (Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

            CFB Winnipeg has been an integral part of the city for over45 years and has become a very important element in the economyof this city.  CFB Winnipeg injects more than $210 millionannually in the economy of the city and is currently the fourthlargest employer in Winnipeg, and that is excluding all threelevels of government of course.

            As well, the base is very much involved in the localcommunity.  They support various charitable events and areinvolved in many humanitarian relief projects.  We are all veryproud of the contribution that CFB Winnipeg is making to theconstituency of Sturgeon Creek, to the city of Winnipeg and tothe province of Manitoba.

            We congratulate them on leading the way in technologicaladvances for aviation schools throughout the world.  I would liketo offer my personal thanks to Colonel Proulx and the staff ofCFB Winnipeg for their graciousness in allowing me to tour theirfine facilities, to learn more about the base and the personnel,and a special thanks to an outstanding gentleman, who, as fatewould have it, shares my name, Major Gerry MacAlpine.  The onlydifference is that his name is spelt M-a-c.  Major MacAlpine isalso a part of the command along with base commander ColonelProulx.

            I am extremely pleased to count CFB Winnipeg as one of themany fine organizations in the Sturgeon Creek constituency.

            There are many other organizations that fall in thiscategory, but I would like to draw the Chamber's attention to yetanother facility located in the Sturgeon Creek area of which Iwill speak.  It is a longstanding facility that has affected thelives of many families in the area, the Sturgeon Creek UnitedChurch, which was recently the site of a tragic occurrence.  Itall happened within an hour of the end of the Sunday worshipservice.  The sanctuary was completely gutted by fire.

            Estimated damage has been placed at over $1 million.  Thoughthe building was destroyed by fire, this church lives on, and itcontinues to worship in the Sturgeon Creek area.  The couragedemonstrated by these members in the face of adversity should benoted and applauded.

            The history of the Sturgeon Creek United Church is asimpressive as the courage of its congregation.  I pay tribute toone of its members who assisted me with some of the church'shistory.  Phyllis Bentham, a long-time member, told the historythat in the late 1800s, the settlers living near the banks ofSturgeon Creek were without a home for their worship service.  As rough-hewn homes began to take the place of buffalo tents and thecommunity continued to grow, they began to search for a permanenthome for their services.

            It is believed, Mr. Speaker, that the small wooden churchthat first came to rest south of Portage in 1906 had been floateddown the Assiniboine River to reach its destination.  As thecommunity of Sturgeon Creek changed and the church was relocated,the need for a larger facility was felt by the congregation.

            After 26 years of fundraising, a church was finally builtwhich could accommodate the 250-member-strong congregation.  In1963, a new sanctuary was built which was large enough to hold450 members and offered a beautiful new home for worship.  Anaddition completed later united the two church buildings into onelarge facility, and the church of 1949 was used as a Christianeducation building.  Tragically, it was the sanctuary built in1963 that was destroyed in the recent fire.


* (1520)


            However, once again as throughout history, a buildingcommittee has been formed by the Sturgeon Creek United Churchmembership, this time to rebuild the church.  This task isparticularly important to the congregation, as the church willcelebrate its centennial next June.  A committee has already beenformed to co‑ordinate the celebration of 100 years of worship inthe Sturgeon Creek Church.  I wish the 100‑year celebrationcommittee well and success in arranging this event.

            Although efforts have already begun to rebuild this historicchurch, the congregation was left homeless after the fire.  Themembership was definitely in need of a temporary home for itsservices.  I was proud to have been able to participate inassisting in finding a temporary place to worship for themembership of some 600 families.  They were able to worship bythe Sunday following that of the fire.

            Though a new home for the congregation is at least a yearaway, they have been fortunate to find a willing partner toassist in continuing worship service.  The St. James-AssiniboiaSchool Division came forward with a very generous offer to thecongregation because of the emergency situation of the SturgeonCreek United Church membership following the fire.  They havebeen most co-operative in helping the congregation to continuetheir services.  The division has offered the use of SpringValley Junior High School to the membership.

            The school gymnasium has been turned into a beautifulsanctuary complete with donated items from churches all over thecity.  I would like at this time to commend both the congregationof the Sturgeon Creek United Church and the St. James-AssiniboiaSchool Division for the caring and courageous manner in whichthey have faced this tragedy.  The kindness and support ofchurches as far away as Lethbridge, Alberta, should also berecognized.  They are a credit to the people of Manitoba, and onbehalf of the membership of Sturgeon Creek United Church, I wouldlike to, along with the many thanks already given, offer mythanks to the administration and trustees of the St.James-Assiniboia School Division.

            While I mention the St. James-Assiniboia School Division, Iwould like to commend the division for being such caring citizenson this matter and also to the larger community, theirconstituents.  There is much that can be said of theaccomplishments of the St. James-Assiniboia School Division.This is a division that I have had the pleasure of working withclosely, and I can attest that the education of our young peopleis the primary concern of this school division.  Toward this end,the St. James-Assiniboia School Division trustees have formulatedplanning guidelines which echo the priorities of our government,such priorities as education reform that this division is alreadypractising.  They demonstrate leadership at its fullest which youwill agree with after hearing my remarks.

            The St. James-Assiniboia School Division has placed strongemphasis on total quality education and total qualityleadership.  Therefore, it is no accident or stroke of luck thatthis division prides itself in having more students with goldmedal awards and other top awards earned by its students than anyother division in Manitoba.  Whether they be academic, vocationalor athletic, these students rise to the top time after time.

            These include gold in such areas as a high quality of studentlearning experience; instructional excellence; co0operative learning; the teaching of thinking skills; student learningstyles and other components promoting a high quality of education.

            The division believes that planning which focuses on studentself-esteem, student self-discipline and responsibility, studentproblem solving and goal‑setting skills should be emphasized.Not only is the school division concerned with the quality ofeducation it provides, it is also actively increasing its role inthe community.  At last count, the division had developedpartnerships with 172 businesses and organizations across thecity in order to offer their students opportunity to work on-the-job while attending school.

            The St. James-Assiniboia School Division trustees recognizethe importance of career education to the community as well as tothe students.  Though the commitment of the division remainsstrong, it has had to face difficult times over the past decade.They have had to manage the effects of school population declineunprecedented elsewhere in Manitoba.  As a result, our divisionhas had to deal with the closures of 14 schools in approximatelythe last decade.

            The impact of this decline is currently being felt in thecommunity at large.  In large measure, this situation isattributable to the location of the urban development line, whichhas restricted housing development in the St. James‑Assiniboiaarea while permitting development in other areas.

            The residents of Sturgeon Creek who want newer housing orwhose lives have changed with families growing up and leavinghome have to leave the area to get suitable housing.  This hashad a drastic impact on retaining young families in the area,consequently, no other metropolitan area school division hasexperienced such drastic decline in student population.

            Though the division has sought to soften the impact ofdeclining enrollment, it is clear that there is an urgent needfor new urban development, particularly in this area.  There is ahigh degree of support among my constituents for such residentialdevelopment.  Therefore, I will continue to work together with myconstituents toward the continued growth and vitality of ourcommunity and our school.  This can be best accomplished byattracting new businesses and new families to our community.

            The Sturgeon Creek community has much to offer.  It is myduty and that of my government to maintain the quality ofeducation and the quality of life currently enjoyed by myconstituents.  Our government is deeply committed to the growthand prosperity of Manitoba's economy.  This growth will in turnprovide the urban development necessary to the well‑being of ourcommunities and our programs in education.

            I am certainly aware, Mr. Speaker, that without the supportof my constituents I would not enjoy the success that I have hadto date.  It is therefore very important to me to be informed ofthe issues that affect them and to address these concerns.

            As I travel throughout my constituency and am able to meetand talk with people, one comment is frequently raised.  Peoplecontinue to let me know that they do not want more taxes.  I amtold time and time again that our government is heading in theright direction in holding the line on taxes.  I commend ourgovernment on this position.  It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker,that the people of Manitoba are confident that our government isworking with their best interests in mind.  The complete andencompassing throne speech spoke to the people of Manitoba and itcovered the concerns that my constituents have raised with me.

            Our government is firmly committed to the growth ofManitoba's economy.  This is quite unlike the members across theway, who have no vision of the role of business in strengtheningour economy.  Their vision is a vision of short‑term jobs withlong‑term pain.  Their vision is to tax people and businesses sothat government can do for the people what they can do forthemselves.  When will they learn that if you expect governmentsto do everything, it is going to cost more money?  All thatequates to is more taxes, 10 times out of 10.

            I believe it is incumbent upon me to inform my constituentsand to remind my fellow members across the way, as they seem tohave forgotten, of the pain of which I speak.

            In 1981, when the NDP came into government, it cost $90million per year in interest to service the government debt.  In1988, when our government came into office, it cost $550 millionto pay the interest on this debt.  Why?  Because the NDP in lessthan eight years and with revenues at 16 percent, went out andcreated make‑work jobs that barely lasted for one full shift, andall that Manitobans were left with was the debt.

            Business development and economic issues are going to play akey role in Manitoba's future.  I am pleased with the motion inthe throne speech which addresses excessive regulations andpaperwork.  These burdens must be reduced in order for ourbusiness community to remain competitive.  Our province isfortunate to have diversified industries, and we must worktogether to maintain and expand these industries and protect jobsfor Manitobans.  By keeping taxes down and keeping spending undercontrol, we are helping to create a climate that is competitivefor investment and expansion of business.  By reducing the redtape surrounding the establishment of businesses in Manitoba, apositive step has been taken to ensure that Manitoba's future isa bright one.


* (1530)


            Mr. Speaker, the role of government in the economy is onethat is often explored deeply and with great consideration, butwe as individuals also have responsibility.  We as individualsare the only ones who, if we want to control our futures, mustact.  The way we must act is to take responsibility forourselves.  We cannot blame the ills of destinies on governmentalone, which we have been hearing far too much these days as welisten to the opposition and the media.  We as individuals havethe freedoms in this province and in this country that are notfound anywhere else in this world.

            Our God‑given talents are immeasurable.  The limitationsplaced on our talents hold us back.  Too often I hear thenegative side of life when I listen to our opposition members andthe headlines of the media.  Is that what you like, I ask you.Do you like living in a negative world?  You must, because thatis all that comes out of your mouths.  Too often, what comes outof your mouths are only words.

            It would appear that the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) wascorrect when he referred to the members across the way asdinosaurs because they are living in the past.  They do not seemto be able to look ahead as successful and forward thinkersshould but, then again, we are not looking at successful andforward thinkers.  As they would say in Wayne's World, "Not."

            Here is a quote that you should heed, and may I suggest tothe honourable members across the way, pay attention to ourfuture, your future, because that is where you are going to spendthe rest of your lives.  Mind you, I do believe that your futureis to stay in opposition and ours is to stay in government.  Isay this for you who believe in government doing everything forthe people‑‑the people who are saying no more taxes, the peoplewho are saying, let us have less government.

            More government just costs more money, and instead of havingpeople work for themselves, they end up working more for thegovernment by paying more taxes.  That discourages people.  Itdiscourages businesses.  The effects are that people are hearingthis negativism, think only about the present and only dream ofthe future.  When we dream about the future too often, and Irefer to the opposition members across the way, we think that ourgoals are unattainable, which is not only unfortunate, it isdevastating.

            Positive thoughts are so important in building a future, notonly to individuals but to businesses and nations, corporations.Each and every one of us want to make a difference in this world,Mr. Speaker.  I observed a tape with the words offered by ascholar recently that had a profound impression on me.  He toldof economies around the world.  In 1973 OPEC was taking controlof oil.  Watergate was just beginning, and inflation was out ofcontrol.  Many believed it was worthless to think of the future.

            Positive attitudes are important, especially now throughtough times.  Think, dream about the future.  This is our mostforceful motivator for change.  When I look across the floor andlisten to those members, I believe that they have lost completesight of the future.  When they criticize the throne speech, Iwould ask them this question that I heard someone ask.  I believethe media could take a lesson from this as well.  The questionwent this way:  Is a nation's positive image of its future aconsequence of its success, or is the nation's success aconsequence of its future?

            I want to share with you a series of stories that I had theprivilege of hearing and which had a profound impact on me.  Ihope it will do the same for my colleagues and for all Manitobans.

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

            A Dutch scholar by the name of Polock who studied nations andcorporations on the degree of positivity with which they wroteabout their future and how they lived up to their expectations.He found the answer at the Parthenon in Athens in studying thework of the architect.  The Parthenon was purely the work of thevision of the architect.

            So too did the Greeks envision their culture.  How did allthis happen?  The Greeks believed in dreams, and they transformedthose dreams into something much more positive‑‑vision.  Vision is the result of dreams in action.  Polock found that significantvision preceded success.  In example after example the samepattern emerged.  Success was achieved by the significant visionof leaders who communicated that vision to the people.

            First, a compelling vision of the future was offered by theleaders, and that image was shared with their community, and theyagreed to accept it.  In acting in concert, they made the visiona reality.  It was true in Greece 2,500 years ago, and it was thesame for Rome and Spain, Venice, England, France and in theU.S.A.  It is even true here in Canada, in Manitoba.  It was thesame for great leaders like our own Duff Roblin, for Don Campbelland leaders before them.  Even today, we can see the power ofvision sweeping across the world and here in Manitoba with ourPremier (Mr. Filmon) and this government.

            What is particularly interesting about Polock's research isthat these nations that were studied did not have the rightresources or any other strategic advantage against the odds asthey began their climb to greatness.  What they did have was aprofound vision of their future.  This was not the only keyingredient but was the first and most important.

            Nations and people with vision are powerful.  Nations andpeople without are at risk.  This can even apply to children ifwe take this into a lower denominator.  A researcher named Singerfound that children were profoundly affected by their visions.The most successful students are those with vision; those hearingonly about difficulty could care less about the future and liveonly for today.  What does that tell us about doom and gloom fromthe opposition and the media?  It was also found that high IQsand family backgrounds were not the key indicators in determiningsuccessful people or nations.  Do you know what the keydifferentiator was?  It was vision.  What the successful studentshad in common was that they all had a profound and positivevision of their future.

            Another scholar and researcher, Joel Arthur Barker, tookSinger's research to Harlem where he studied students in Grades 5and 6.  He talked about Eugene M. Lang, who in 1981 spoke to someschool students.  Mr. Lang gave the commencement speech to thestudents in this particular elementary school, the one from whichhe had graduated.  He had graduated from this school in 1933 andhad aspired to be a wealthy self‑made man.  Lang had a lot ofconcern in 1981 for the problems that these students faced.  Ashe addressed them, he quickly realized that he would have littlemeaning in his address if he could not offer these studentssomething tangible.  What did he offer them?  He offered them, aswell as their families, some hope.

            What he offered them was vision.  This offering changed thelives of each of these students forever.  He told them of dreamsof other well‑known successful people that they could identifywith.  He told them that everyone must have a dream.  He toldthem of the importance of having a dream, and that the key totheir future was education.

            He spoke of their future years, going through junior highschool, high school and college.  When he spoke about college, itoccurred to him that this goal was hardly attainable by themajority of these students.  So he offered each of the GradeSixers a full scholarship to college upon completion of theirhigh school graduation.  He worked with students, teachers andsupport staff to instill in the minds of these students a visionthat each of these students could attain a college education.


* (1540)


            Of the previous students at this school, almost none of themhad gone on to college after graduation from the elementaryschool before.  Of those 52 students that Eugene Lang addressed,48 graduated from high school, and of those 48, 40 went on tocollege.  This supports, in just another way, what researchershave told us, that people's and nations' success can be measuredby their visions.  What does that tell us about high schooldropouts?

            When we examine the future of our province, our people andour children, and we listen to what they are saying, we heardreams, dreams that shape their confidence, visions that shapetheir own futures, and collectively, the futures of ourprovince.  For nations, for children, you can see the samepattern in the power of vision.

            Another place in history where vision played an importantrole in survival and success was in Auschwitz, Germany, duringthe Second World War, when millions of people were being executedand tortured.  I trust the honourable member for Lakeside (Mr.Enns) knows of and has studied that of which I speak.  Thisaccounting in Auschwitz was done by a Victor Frankle, a Jewishpsychiatrist.  He told of his being rounded up with other Jewishresidents and put in concentration camps and prisons.  VictorFrankle said that when he was rounded up, he set three goals forhimself.  The first was to survive, the second was to use hismedical skills wherever he could, and lastly, to try to learnsomething.  Well, Frankle succeeded on all three counts.  He wentback to Vienna after the war and wrote a book of those whosurvived.  There was something significant in their future,something they still wanted to do‑‑vision.

            We can only survive the present by living toward a positivefuture.  That is our salvation, like the crossing of a turbulentriver where our future lies beyond the far shore.  Can we applythat to us as a government?  Yes, I believe we can.  I believethat not only can it be applied to our government, but that itcan also apply to this throne speech.  This throne speech hasvision.

            Firstly, to be considered a vision, it must be developed byleadership, which it has.  Visions are not discovered by themasses.  The visions of the leadership must be supported by theteam, and the team must agree to support them, which we will dowhen we vote next Monday.  In order to be successful, a visionmust be comprehensive and detailed for everyone to interpret andact upon.  With this throne speech, that will follow.

            A vision must be positive and inspiring, encouraging us toreach beyond our grasp.  Values are essential in establishing ourvision.  Values are established by our experiences of the past.Now the past is behind us, and the future is what counts the mostfor this government.  As I speak today, not only do I speak tothe members in this Chamber, I speak also to the people ofSturgeon Creek.  As I have always said to my constituents, yes,we are going through hard times, we are probably going throughthe toughest times governments have seen in many years.  However,we will pull through if we all work together.  As little as thecontribution we as individuals can make may seem, it is possibleto achieve.  Let us not wait for governments to do it.  Let usnot wait for corporations to do it.  Let us take what we asindividuals can accomplish on our own.

            This reminds me of a story I saw recently that I would liketo share with you.  It is a story told by a Lorne Isley, ascientist and poet, and it is worth sharing with this Chamber andmy constituents.

            He told of his experience this one time, observing a youngman on a beach throwing a starfish into the ocean.  He asked theyoung man, what are you doing?  The young man told him that thesun was hot and the tide was going out, and if I do not throwthis starfish back into the water, it will die.  The man replied,young man, do you not realize that there are miles and miles ofbeach out there with starfish all along it?  What do you hope toachieve?  What difference do you expect to make?  The young manlooked down, picked up a starfish and ran down to the water andthrew the starfish into the water beyond the breakers.  When heran back up the beach he said, well, it will make a difference tothat one.

            The response shocked the elderly man and for days the visionhaunted him.  We can learn from this story just as it made animpression on me.  As insignificant as it may seem, regardless ofwhat we ever do to improve life, we can make a difference.  Thatvision is among all of us.  We all have the ability to make adifference.  We only have to find our own starfish to make thatdifference and when we do we all become aware of our gifts.  Thefuture of this province and this country will be within the powerof all of us.  No recession, no hard times need control us.  Wewill make this province and this country a better place to live.Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  Mr. Acting Speaker, government isa trust and the officers of government are trustees.  Both arecreated for the benefit of the people.  Since the beginning ofdemocracy in the new world, this has been the traditional view ofgovernment.  It is unfortunate that over the last decade thattrust in governments and government officials has crumbled, and Iam not referring to this government in particular, but I amtalking about governments in general.  We have certainly seencynicism in regards to politics and politicians.

            This cynicism probably reached a crescendo on November 26, inour country of Canada when Canadians overwhelmingly voted againsta government idea, a government‑marketing job.  The people feltthat they were being sold a bill of goods by all three politicalparties, a slick packaging job that just did not work.

            I have certainly heard at the doors of people in Crescentwoodduring the by‑election this summer that cynicism and thatfrustration.  I heard it again in the civic elections following.Frustration probably masked a lot of that cynicism.

            I remember a story of our federal leader, Mr. Chretien,telling about a colleague of his who was a Member of Parliament.He told the story one day in caucus about his young son who wasin school in the classroom and at recess a number of his friendswere teasing him about his father's occupation.  They weretaunting him and saying, your dad's a politician.

            I think that speaks volumes in terms of what the people inCanada and here in Manitoba feel about politics and politicians.We have to start changing that attitude, I believe, aspoliticians and see a reversal of that particular attitude.

            When I was growing up in rural Manitoba in the late '50s andearly '60s there were a number of esteemed professions in ruralManitoba that I remember, and one of those certainly was that ofthe local politician, whether that individual was the reeve orthe mayor of a community or was a Member of the LegislativeAssembly.  It was certainly considered to be a very reveredposition.

            The other positions that tended to be revered in those daysas well was the local agriculture representative or the localhome economist.  I remember very well thinking and growing upmeeting those people and meeting politicians as well, and theywere considered to be very much esteemed positions.


* (1550)


            I think it is important to note, and I think we have to moveaway from the idea of politicians as a revered profession.  Wehave to have a happy medium between that reverence and the factthat politicians are on the bottom of the rung in terms of theprofession, and there has to be that happy medium between thatreverence and that disdain.

            I think that women have brought a change to the politicalscene as well, Mr. Acting Speaker.  I think we do bring adifferent perspective to the Legislature.  I think oftentimes webring one of conciliation and mediation and negotiation.

            My Leader, the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs),reminded me that in fact it is partly because women have comefrom a different perspective.  Our traditional roles have beendifferent, so that is why we oftentimes do bring that differentperspective.  Because, of course, we have always been themothers, not the fathers; we are oftentimes the teachers, not theprincipals; we are oftentimes the bookkeepers, not theaccountants; and we have been the farmers' wives and not thefarmers.  So we do come from a different perspective.

            I believe that we do bring a different perspective to thisLegislature; no matter what political stripe, we do bring thatperspective.  I think that it is important that we continue tosee more women who are elected to the Manitoba Legislature fromall parties.  I was certainly pleased to see the increase in thenumber of women who were elected in the 1990 election, and I hopeto see more of that in the 1994 election.

            I would like to take this time to also talk about a specialwoman, certainly in regard to Manitoba politics and, I wouldsuggest, politics in western Canada, and that is our Leader,Sharon Carstairs, who certainly made inroads into the politicalarena in her last nine years here in Manitoba.

            Here is an individual, here is a woman who certainly is avery principled individual, who had very much integrity andhonesty.  In fact, she was probably too principled and too honestin some respects.  She will admit herself, will sometimes admitthat that was oftentimes a weakness in the arena of politics,that her honesty sometimes got her into trouble with theelectorate and her principleness sometimes got her into trouble,but she does not have any regrets about her principles and wouldnot change, I believe, a thing that she has done.

            There is no question that we will miss Sharon in our caucus,the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs).  There is noquestion that the member for River Heights, our Leader, hascertainly brought many, many new ideas, a new way of doing thingsto politics here in Manitoba and in western Canada.  I think shecertainly revived Liberalism to some extent in western Canada andmade it certainly an acceptable political party here in the west,and I think that is very, very important.

            We will only know how much we miss her once she is gonebecause that is oftentimes when you recognize the greatcontributions that an individual has made to a political forum.

            I am sure all members in the House would agree, politicalstripes aside, that in fact she has made a wonderful contributionhere in Manitoba.

            Let me say that I am pleased to be here once again in theLegislative Assembly, this time representing the people ofCrescentwood and, of course, to promote the Liberal view of howwe feel our province should be governed.

            I certainly welcome my colleague the member for Portage laPrairie (Mr. Pallister) whom I met on a previous occasion at ahotel association curling bonspiel, and I welcome him here to theLegislature and look forward to many debates.

            Thank you as well to the members of the House, new membersand some not so new, who have welcomed me here on my return.  Thewishes were very sincere and very much appreciated.


(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)


            I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would liketo thank you for your usual grace and charm as Speaker of theLegislative Assembly.  Your welcome has been very warm, and Ilook forward to your leadership as Speaker throughout thesession.  My colleagues in the caucus have assured me that theskill with which you have managed the Speaker's role in the pastcontinues on and that your belief in fairness, justice and a deeprespect for all members of this House prevails as you carry outyour role as Speaker of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly.

            I would also like to take this opportunity to thank a numberof individuals who are civil servants and who, at their request,shall remain nameless.  When I was last here in the LegislativeAssembly as the member for Ellice, after the 1990 election I wentback to a position within the Department of Health.  I had theopportunity to work with a number of individuals in the ManitobaWinnipeg Region Department of Health and Family Services.

            I used to say to them that if I ever did come back to theLegislature, I thought it was important to recognize the valuethat civil servants do have in providing services to the peopleof Manitoba.  I say seriously that they do prefer to remainnameless.  They do not want to see their names recorded inHansard, but they will read this and they do know who they are.They certainly provided me with a lot of support and assistanceduring my two years in the Department of Health.

            I sometimes think that it would be a good opportunity for allhonourable members of the House to have worked in the CivilService at some point to actually gain an appreciation of thedifficulties that one can encompass in the Civil Service, thehard work that is necessary and the fact that they actually arethere to provide a service to the people of Manitoba.  Their onlygoal and their main goal is to provide a quality service, andthey are a very dedicated group of individuals.

            I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters ofCrescentwood for their confidence in me in the by‑election thissummer.  It was certainly an exciting by‑election, and there weresix worthy candidates.  I am grateful that the voters hadconfidence in me and my abilities to represent the Crescentwoodinterests.

            Crescentwood as the name of a constituency is actuallysomewhat of a misnomer.  There is a unique community ofCrescentwood according to the city of Winnipeg boundaries whichhas existed since the early years of this century, and thoseboundaries are Grosvenor, Cambridge, Wellington boundaries.  TheBoundaries Commission that was looking at redistribution of theparticular constituencies in their wisdom decided to divide thissmall unique community into two and place part of it in theconstituency of Crescentwood and part of it in the constituencyof River Heights.

            The constituency of Crescentwood is actually much larger andincludes a number of unique and distinct communities.  Itincludes the distinct community of the north Fort Garry on theeast and west side of Pembina Highway.  It also includes the EarlGrey community area which is part of what was once known as FortRouge and, as well, includes the Grant Park community around theGrant Park Shopping Centre.  All of these are unique communitieswithin the constituency of Crescentwood.

            It was certainly very interesting for me to campaign in theCrescentwood area and to represent the Crescentwood area becauseI feel that is where, since coming to Winnipeg, my roots havecertainly been.  I live in the Crescentwood area and also myfirst work experiences in Winnipeg were in the Fort Garry area,so I had the opportunity to meet a number of individuals wholived in Fort Garry and who provide an excellent communityservice.  They are a very vibrant community, Fort Garry, a verygrowing community as well as the Crescentwood area.  It iscertainly a very interesting constituency to represent.

            One notes in the Crescentwood area many older homes that havebeen refurbished over the last few years.  What I really noticedas I was travelling down the streets of Jessie, Warsaw and Mulveywas certainly the older homes where young families have moved inand again are spending a lot of time renovating those homes.  Ithink that is a credit to those individuals who live there.  Itis very nice to see that we are starting to see the core or themiddle part of our city that is actually being developed and thatfamilies are living in these areas.

            It is also interesting as we move further west on Jessie andWarsaw streets, one is not a long‑time resident of Jessie orWarsaw unless you have lived in your house for at least 40 years.A lot of the individuals who live on those streets have livedthere for 40 years, have lived in the community.  It is a verystable neighbourhood.  The first house that I bought in the cityof Winnipeg was on Warsaw Avenue and certainly the neighbours whowere there at that time, 10 years ago, are still there today.

            It is a very interesting community in that we have a numberof professionals who live in the community, business people,artists.  There are a lot of artists who live in the constituencyof Crescentwood.

            We also have the Corydon Avenue business area which iscertainly beginning to become the heart of Winnipeg in thesummer.  I would suggest that it is rivalling the Forks for thatparticular honour.  You only have to know that to attend theFestival of Wine and Roses, which I am sure some of you have overthe past summer, and know that it is a very thrivingneighbourhood.  Whether you start walking from the corner ofNibbler's Nosh and going right down to Daly Street where you havemany, many restaurants, one will see what I hope are thrivingbusinesses in that area.

            * (1600)

            I think the business association, the Crescentwood BIZAssociation should certainly take some credit for the work thatthey have done to really make Corydon Avenue a street that a lotof people want to shop on and a lot of people want to spend timeat.  It is very, very much vibrant and I hope that we will seemore of that in the city of Winnipeg.

            I trust that the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) isalso supportive on a provincial level of ensuring that we seeneighbourhoods being revitalized.  I hope that the Minister ofUrban Affairs will also be ensuring that he is trying torenegotiate a third core area initiative so that as well we dosee some dollars that can be put into infrastructure into ourolder neighbourhoods here in Winnipeg.

            One of the things as one looks through the constituency ofCrescentwood, however, although you can walk along WellingtonCrescent and walk by the condominiums there, which are certainlyover a quarter‑of‑a‑million dollars, you can also walk throughsome of the areas where you do find businesses that arestruggling.  You can find a food bank just on the corner, justoutside the constituency of Crescentwood which is certainly used,the Stradbrook‑Nassau area, which is certainly used by theresidents of Crescentwood.

            One thinks of Crescentwood as an affluent area, but that isnot necessarily so.  Crescentwood is representative of the manyproblems and concerns that we have facing people in the city ofWinnipeg, those issues of lack of jobs, unemployment,difficulties with getting health care in some respects, and justthe migration of people out of the Crescentwood area and actuallyout of the city of Winnipeg.  All of these problems I faced atthe door during the campaign, and all of these issues people arewanting answers for.


(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)


            Speaking of answers to people's questions, I would like toturn my attention now to the throne speech.  Although I hate tomake a comment from the paper, I must admit that one of thereporter's comments talked about the throne speech as being a"drone speech."  I thought that there really was some truth tothat, unfortunately.

            When we look at this throne speech again, it is another vaguedocument which is really just a lot of nice flowery words andrhetoric, but when you remove that rhetoric and when you removethe flowery words, there is really nothing there.  You remove allthe petals and there is absolutely nothing there.  There is nomeat.  There is really basically a commentary on similar thronespeeches from the past.

            I guess what I found that really came to mind as I wassitting and listening to Question Period today, in response toquestions about the rising poverty rate here in Manitoba, we hadthree separate ministers respond to a number of questions, thePremier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister responsible for Culture (Mrs.Mitchelson) and the Minister of Family Services (Mr.Gilleshammer).  They all talked about how they had increased thesocial assistance rate some 3.6 percent and seemed to take a lotof delight and pride in the fact that they had accomplished thesethings.  My concern was, here is a government who is saying, hereis what we have done in response to the questions that wereasked, but their solutions have not solved the problems.

            What good are solutions if they have not dealt with theproblems of child poverty?  Yes, you have increased the socialassistance rates 3.6 percent, but those solutions have not dealtwith the rising child poverty rates and the rising unemploymentin this province.  What does that say about a government thatseems to provide these fragmented solutions but yet it is noteven dealing with the problems?

            When the government gave the throne speech, I was actuallyquite looking forward to hearing some information on what the newplans would be for education reform here in this province, thisbeing an area that is of interest to myself as a critic, and itcertainly was an interest to people in the area of Crescentwoodas well, as we went door to door campaigning.  Even in the civicelection, people talked about the economy and people talked abouteducation.

            Again, I was very concerned when I heard the Premier speak ontelevision the other day.  He basically talked about the factthat there was going to be a $17‑million cutback to theDepartment of Education and basically said, well, there has notbeen a cut for five years so it seems logical that we might lookat cutting that particular department.  I thought that was a verypoor way to do things.

            I would hope that around the cabinet table decisions are notmade or criteria are not developed as to how you will look atprograms and services based on which department has the biggestbudget and which department maybe has not had a slash or a cut,so we will try this one.  I would hope that decisions are notmade in that way, because if the government is really true andreally believes in their statement about economic reform andeconomic growth being tied into education and that education isthe key to unlocking the future of opportunities, how can theylook at slashing dollars in the Education budget?  Perhaps theyshould look at ensuring that in fact there were adequate dollarsin the Education budget, because in five and 10 years from nowthat is where we are going to be able to show some results, ifthe government is prepared to put some dollars and look at thatparticular department.

            When we look at the education‑‑I was quite interested,  theMinister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) spoke the other day in theHouse, and she talked about the importance of parentalinvolvement.  She had said that, yes, parental involvement isimportant and almost intimated that in fact there would be aparent bill of rights.  I hope that is an accurate statement, andI hope we do see a parent bill of rights here in this House,because we would be glad, as members of the opposition, tosupport that type of parental involvement.

            Too many times do we have parents who feel that they are nota part of the education of their children.  I do not think thatthat is a negative against the teachers and against theprofessionals who work in the system.  They too are very, veryfrustrated by the education system that they see today.  They toofeel that they do not necessarily have control over what they doin the classroom.  Classroom sizes are very large.  They feelthat they are asked to do things that are not part of theteaching role, that they are now becoming paramedics in somerespects.  They are asked to do medical procedures which they donot feel are appropriate.

            There has been this plan, supposedly, by the government,which was actually supposedly started by the former government,to actually co‑ordinate the services amongst Health, Justice,Education and Family Services.  This plan has now been moved to adeputy minister level, where four deputy ministers are going todecide on a protocol as to:  How do they handle some of thechildren who are finding themselves really falling through thecracks in terms of any department willing to pick up and provideservices for them?

            Unfortunately, I would like to see with that deputyministers' group some input from people who worked at thegrassroots level, whether that be the front‑line childdevelopment worker, whether that be the elementary schoolteacher, or whether that be the person in the Department ofJustice, the probation officer, whoever that individual is.  Iwould like to see some of those people sit on that committee sothat the protocols that are going to be developed are actuallyvery much grassroots and are based in reality, because with alldue respect to deputy ministers, they do not necessarily knowwhat it is like on the front lines.  Sometimes it is very goodfor them to be able to get opinions from people who are workingon the front lines and who are working in the schools.  So wewould like to see that from this Minister of Education.

            What we are still finding, however, is that for families,even though there is supposed to be more of a co‑ordination,particularly amongst Family Services, Health and the educationsystem, families are still falling through the cracks.  There isstill this territorial warfare amongst the various programs ofthe individual departments, whether it is Programs Branch inFamily Services, whether it is Home Care in the Department ofHealth, whether it is Child and Family Services in the Departmentof Family Services or whether it is Mental Health Services in theDepartment of Health.  We are finding this territorialnessbecause these branches are saying, well, we do not have thedollars to service these individuals.

            So, if someone comes forward who perhaps needs some home careservices and child home care services, they say, well, no, we donot provide that because this child has a mental health problem.Let Mental Health provide the dollars.  This goes back and fortha lot, whereas it is the parents and the children who get caughtin the middle.  It is the workers as well who get frustrated,because they feel that they need to take direction from theirdirectorates, so even though they might like to get out there andactually provide the service, they feel that they cannot do that.


* (1610)


            I say that as something that has gone on in government, andit has not happened in the last four years.  It has gone on inthe last 10 and 12 years.  There is some recognition that thereis a problem, and I hope that there can be some movement so thatin fact we are able to provide the best common‑sense service tothat individual out there, because in the long run, it all comesout of the same pot of money, and that is the taxpayers' pockets.

            So, even though it may‑‑who really cares?  I mean, that childout there, that family out there does not care whether it iscoming out of a line in Health or Family Services.  They justwant the service for their child.  I think if the ministers wereable to actually allow some latitude to some of their middlemanagers, some of the directors, a lot of the managers areprepared to make those kinds of decisions and are prepared to beaccountable for them, providing they are not going to get flakfrom the program directorates.  So I think that is something thatcould be looked at, because, of course, we all have the same goaland that is to provide quality service for people.

            One of the other issues in the area of education, and it wasquite interesting, since I came into the Legislature, I startedto receive very many calls on, and that is in the area of specialneeds funding for children in the school system.  It is a verydifficult area.  There are not a lot of easy solutions tochildren with special needs.  We have vulnerable children whohave mental handicaps who are now integrated into mainstreamsociety in the schools.  That was done perhaps with the rightintention but perhaps not the right amount of planning andforethought as to how that was actually going to occur.  Some ofthese children were moved and integrated into the school systembefore the schools were actually able and prepared to deal withthese children, and that is unfortunate that that has happened.

            But there are other special needs areas where we havechildren with behaviourial problems who are very difficult todeal with by teachers, by resource teachers, by the schoolsystem, and even by, sometimes, their parents, and how do we dealwith those children?  It is not an easy answer because I think ifthere was a simple solution, the government would haveimplemented it, that they would have looked at that.  But what itdoes take though, what we need is to have teachers and schooltrustees and parents actually look at some of these problems andlook at some innovative, creative solutions as to what we mightdo.

            My Leader talked about maybe we need to look at some type ofa time‑out school, some place where these individuals withbehaviourial problems can spend some time with resource people orwhatever, because there has to be a point where you can continueto teach the other members in the classroom, the other childrenin the classroom while this one child is having a behaviouralepisode.  So we have to look at some ways we can deal with thatin the school system.

            One of the other issues, and it was very interesting‑‑I givecredit to the River East parents, their advisory council, whohave actually written a recent letter to the Minister ofEducation (Mrs. Vodrey) and have expressed their concern as wehave here in the Liberal caucus, and concern about thede‑streaming of some of the classes in high school.  Theirconcern is that we now will have generic subjects in areas ofgeography and history and they feel that that is a veryregressive step, it is a step backwards, and they are going to becirculating a petition in the River East School Division, intheir school, and will be presenting it to the Minister ofEducation to express their concern.

            I certainly will be getting in contact with this advisorygroup because I think it is important that not only do oppositionmembers express to the ministers what our concerns are, but whenparents in the community are starting to express these concerns,then hopefully the minister will take a look and perhapsreconsider what some of the decisions are.  Although I have nothad the opportunity to get to know the Minister of Education verywell, I certainly am very optimistic that here is a person who isflexible, willing to make changes and willing to listen to whatthe people have to say, and if in fact an idea is definitely notworking or is not in the best interests, well then, let us changea policy.  Let us be flexible, let us do the right thing for thepeople of Manitoba.

            I think oftentimes politicians and governments do what ispolitically expedient, but we do not necessarily do the rightthing, and it is important that we consider that.

            I find it is quite interesting when I listen to theopposition party talk about education and how we must worktogether.  I always remember when I was in the Civil Service howthe former NDP government espoused fairness in the system andco‑operation and how we needed to promote people based on merit.I find it quite interesting that here we have a situation‑‑andthis relates to education in a sense‑‑where we have a group ofpeople in the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, a group of schooltrustees, all carrying a political card of one particular stripewho have decided that it is in their best interests and thepeople's best interests to all be put on these boards andcommittees and they are then going to make the decisions.

            They have actually shut out some school trustees who carry nopolitical card that I am aware of, of any particular affiliation,who have done a good job in the past who were re-elected by theirconstituents, and they have decided that, no, they can make thebest decisions as a group and they can get through the work muchfaster when they have six people who are all thinking the sameway.

            I have concerns about that, because I know that the party onthe left espouses a lot about fairness, and I know they talk alot about merit and how it is very important that we co-operateand do the right thing.  The words are there, but the actionsoftentimes do not follow through and that concerns me.  For acollective group to think that because we are all of like mindsand we think the same, we are going to get the best solutions.  Iwould suggest to you that oftentimes is not the case and, infact, when you have people sitting in a group or an organizationwho may come from different philosophies or backgrounds,sometimes you get the best solution with people who come fromthose varying backgrounds, because you have to really be creativein your thinking in your decision-making process.  So I wouldsuggest that in fact you could be more creative that way.

            I could continue on and on about education.  I know that Iwill have opportunities during the response to the budget and aswell other debates on resolutions and bills that are presented inthis House.

            I would like to talk a little bit about the Urban Affairsportfolio very briefly, and I certainly very much look forward tobeing the critic of Urban Affairs.  It is a very interestingportfolio.  The part of the city that I live in and the part ofthe city that I represent is certainly very much interested inCore Area Initiative and in looking at a renewal of that, becauseit is important that we revitalize these neighbourhoods.

            One of the issues that has certainly affected theCrescentwood area and also affects the River Heights constituencywhich is somewhat of a city issue, but it does relate to PlanWinnipeg, and it relates to the whole transportation issue of thesouthwest quadrant of the city.  Certainly, we have seen somedevelopments out in the southwest part of the city and,unfortunately, those developments have proceeded without anythought on the part of the city in regard to how these people aregoing to get from point A to point B.  Consequently, we haveserious traffic difficulties that happen to be in the RiverHeights and Crescentwood area which are not based on traffic thatis generated from those constituencies.  It is actually peoplewho are moving from point A to B, from home to work and viceversa, who are travelling through River Heights andCrescentwood.  It is a city issue, but there certainly is a groupof people in the community which has been spending quite a bit oftime and which is working on that problem with the citycouncillors.


* (1620)


            I hope that these individuals, as well, because of theirconcerns with the development in the southwest quadrant‑‑I assumethey will be lobbying the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst)on this.  I certainly will be speaking to the Minister of UrbanAffairs about the development because although we are not againstdevelopment of the city, I think it is important to recognize wecannot continue to develop in the city of Winnipeg unless we putthe proper infrastructures in place.  Unfortunately, the city hasbeen very want to put those infrastructures in place over anumber of years, and we need to look at that.  So that is a localissue that relates to Urban Affairs.

            One of the other critic areas that I am responsible for isthe Civil Service Commission, and I know that we will beanxiously awaiting the report from the Minister responsible forthe Civil Service Commission (Mr. Praznik) of the Hay audit.  Irecognize that because of the untimely passing of the Chair ofthat committee, Ms. Gerrie Hammond, that in fact we probably havea delay in that particular report of the implementationcommittee, but I certainly urge the Minister responsible for theCivil Service, because that report is about at least a yearoverdue, that we get on track and look at exactly what theimplementation is going to be.  I know the Women in Governmentgroup are very anxious to find out what exactly the changes willbe in the Civil Service Commission.

            One of the interesting areas that I have an opportunity tospend some time meeting with my constituents on is in the area ofculture and arts.  I feel very fortunate to live in aconstituency which is frequented by a number of artists, not onlyin businesses on Corydon Avenue, but also artists who work out oftheir home, very talented artists, in the city of Winnipeg.

            Certainly a number of them have met with me to talk about therecent Sun articles in regard to arts and arts funding, and therecertainly seems to be a majority opinion that it is importantthat we maintain objectivity in the arts community by havingpeers adjudicate peers.  That was certainly a message that camevery strong and clear to me from artists, not just in myconstituency, but others as well.

            I think culture is a very, very important area and oftentimesgets overlooked, particularly in times of recession and in timeswhere there are large deficits.  Oftentimes, it is very easy tolook at an area such as culture and say, well, that is where weare going to have to slash and that is where we are going to haveto cut, because it is difficult to say that we can keep thefunding there when we are looking at feeding children.  Itbecomes a very difficult dilemma for governments of any stripe todeal with, but it is important to recognize that culture is anintegral part of our society.

            I thought that Margaret Mead who, of course, was a famousanthropologist of the 20th Century‑‑she spoke of culture when shesaid, and I quote:  As the traveller who has once been from homeis wiser than he who has never left his own doorstep, so aknowledge of one another's culture should sharpen our ability toscrutinize more steadily, to appreciate more lovingly our own.

            I think those words by Margaret were very true, that cultureis very, very important, so that we not only have an insight intoourselves, but that we have insight into our neighbours as well.

            When I read the throne speech, I guess one of the things thatI was looking for, particularly because of my background infamilies and Family Services, was what is this throne speechgoing to do for families in my constituency, for families inManitoba?  I was very concerned to see a lack of any type ofsolution as to what are we going to do about the fact that wehave the second highest poverty rate in Canada, second highest toQuebec.  We are even higher than Newfoundland, which has alwaystraditionally been considered a have‑not province and very pooroff, and yet we have the highest poverty rate.  What are we to doabout that?  What is the government doing about this for families?

            We have seen over the last couple of years a slow but steadyerosion of a child care system here in Manitoba.  We have seen inthe last couple of years what I would call chaos in the Child andFamily Services system here in Manitoba.  We have a governmentthat is now talking about reviewing the Child and Family Servicesstructure internally, and I would suggest that it is longoverdue.  It should have been looked at before five years, butnow we are five years down the road and only now are we beginningto review that particular system.

            We see a government that believes that services to ourvulnerable citizens, particularly our handicapped, are oftentimesones that can be frozen or cut.  We know that we currently have afreeze right now of dollars in the Department of Family Services,and that freeze is for mentally handicapped children inparticular who would normally need to receive services.  Workersout there and their families are terribly, terribly frustratedbecause there are no dollars available that can put some type ofplan into place to provide services for mentally handicappedchildren.  It is a great frustration, because there is nothingout there.

            I think if the government actually looked beyond the factthat they think they are saving short‑term dollars, they wouldfind that if they had a few dollars that were well placed andwhere they provided services for these children, in the long runthey would save dollars, because there would be more time for theworkers to go out and spend with other families, there would beless stress on the families so that those families would beutilizing less other services, whether they are counsellingservices, whether they are home care services, whether they aremental health services.

            In fact, they could probably be more efficient in the use oftheir dollars if they actually said, let us spend some money upfront for some of these mentally handicapped children, put a planin place so that they have reasonable services, because we willsave dollars in the long run, but not only that, we will increasethe quality of life of these individuals and families, becausewhen families break down and can no longer care for individualswho are handicapped, what happens is, it ends up costing thehealth care system far more dollars than what it would havebefore.

            So I would like to see the government and particularly theMinister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), who is willing tolook at that‑‑I see that the 40 minutes is running out.  That isunfortunate, because I wanted an opportunity to comment onHealth, but I know I will have other opportunities to do that.

            Let me just finish by saying that I hope in this session ofthe Legislature that we will see a more kinder, a gentler type ofsession in the sense that we begin to work together and that wereally start thinking about.  Everyone should have a sign ontheir desk that says, my goal is to service the people ofManitoba, regardless of the political stripe.  That is our goal,and let us all work together to achieve that.  Thank you.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs):  Madam DeputySpeaker, in deference to my good friend from Thompson, I willgive half of it in Greek and the other half in English.

            I want to, before I get into my remarks, welcome firstly mynew colleague from Portage la Prairie, Mr. Pallister.  I think heis going to be very, very welcome indeed, because he brings anumber of skills to our caucus and to our government, which Ithink we all can benefit from.  I am pleased to be working withhim over the next period of time.

            I would also say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the formermember for Portage la Prairie will be missed by our caucus.  Hehad an unusual tenacity for events and for issues, a tenacitythat I think most of us do not have.  Once he had a matter in hismind and was convinced that it was right for his constituency, hecertainly glommed onto that and held to it come whatever.  Hewill be missed in our caucus.  He did, I think, an excellent jobfor his constituents in Portage la Prairie and contributedcertainly to the caucus of the government during his time here,so he will definitely be missed.

            I still would like to welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, themember for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray).  She is not exactly themember we had anticipated welcoming from Crescentwood.  We hadplanned something just a little different.

An Honourable Member:  And it was not Tim Sale either.

Mr. Ernst:  No, that is for sure.  It was another person who ranin that election, but nonetheless, democracy was at work, and themember for Crescentwood received obviously the appropriate numberof votes in order to be present here in the House.  So I welcomeher and wish her well in her endeavours.

            The former member for Crescentwood, Mr. Carr, Madam DeputySpeaker, was a fine gentleman and one whom I had as a critic ontwo separate ministries during my time here in government, bothTourism and Urban Affairs.  I always found him to be very willingto listen, to be co‑operative, to work together for whatultimately would be for the best interests of the people ofManitoba.  I know that, well, from time to time, we haddifferences of opinion, which is only normal in this kind of asetting.  Nonetheless, he was very co‑operative and very easy towork with, and I appreciated his openness, his frankness and hiswillingness to try and work toward good, common goals.


* (1630)


            There was no partisan‑‑well, I should not say there was nopartisan, because that is not entirely true.  I would like to saythat, but unfortunately, I cannot.  Nonetheless, it is to beexpected certainly, but when it came down to issues for whichthere really was no partisan side, one or the other, even thoughmy honourable friends sometimes, in the New Democratic Party,tend to find partisan issues where there are none present, or atleast seek one out or try and manufacture one, I must say thatMr. Carr was very easy to work with.  I was pleased to have hadthe opportunity to work with him here in the House.

            It is unfortunate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that from time totime, people who have had a long period of time in public lifeseek other avenues, seek other ways of fulfillment in their ownendeavours.  I know that the member for Rupertsland, forinstance, is suffering some trauma at the present time, and Ifeel for him.  The loss of a family member, particularly a motheror father, is an inevitable circumstance in your life, butnotwithstanding the fact it is inevitable, it really does notsoften the blow that much.  I know from experience.  I know thatthe Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), having lost hermother just recently‑‑Mr. Harper now is undergoing that trauma.I feel for him, and I send my regards to him and hope that he canfind some comfort in whatever he does in the future.

            The Leader of the third opposition party has also chosen adifferent path in recent weeks.  She has indicated that she hasin her view provided whatever she could to the political party ofher choice and to the Legislature of Manitoba.  We respect herfor that and wish her well and hope that she finds happiness andfulfillment in whatever she chooses to do over the next monthsand years.  We also wish her family well, who are generallyaround her and are very supportive of her activities certainlythrough the time that she was here.

            I also want to offer my welcome and best wishes to the Pageswho are here present in the Chamber.  I am sure the Speaker, orwhomever it is who engages the Pages to come into the House,provides a much more dramatic picture than really what ultimatelyhappens, at least certainly in the first few days of their workhere.  I notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the Pages noddingin agreement that I am sure it was glamourized to some greatextent to be able to participate in the democratic process in theHouse.

            While initially I am sure they seem to suspect that maybe notall of the facts were laid on the table when they were engagedfor this job, if they pay attention and if they learn and if theyunderstand what is going on here they will learn a great dealover the period.  I suspect that if they listen to members onthis side of the House they will learn a great deal more thanthey will if they listen to that side of the House.

            I think it is important for them to understand that they dohave an opportunity here to listen, to hear various points ofview from the members opposite and from this side of the House ona variety of issues.  While from time to time their dutiesperhaps seem somewhat menial, certainly the opportunity is therefor them to learn.  I wish them well and I hope that theexperience that they have here over the next year is of benefitto them in their future lives.  I am certain that it will be.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, over the past couple of years, I guess,three years now, I have had an opportunity to invite to theopening of the session some students from my constituency.  Wetry and spread the invitations around to as many schools aspossible to allow those young people to be able to come andwitness a little bit at least of the pageantry associated withthe Manitoba Legislature.

            Very often, and we saw again today, we had a couple of schoolclasses present and unfortunately they tend to see the worst.When you come and sit in Question Period they tend to see theworst of what goes on in this place as opposed to the best.  Thefact of the matter is that there is a bit of history, a bit ofpageantry, a long tradition associated with the Legislature and Ithink it is an important opportunity for them to see those kindsof things.  I think I would encourage all members of theLegislature to do that in order to expose as many young people aspossible to the kind of things that go on here in the ManitobaLegislature.

            I also want to give my thanks and best wishes to myconstituents, Madam Deputy Speaker.  There is no one, I think, weshould be more grateful to nor should we ever forget than thepeople who put us in this place.  We are the ones who come hereto represent them, to provide good government in whateverpolitical form one wishes to subscribe.  Nonetheless, we comehere on their behalf.  It is important that we recognize that weare here on their behalf, that we are here because they voted forus or at least the majority of them voted for us.  We are alsohere to listen to what they have to say.  So, Madam DeputySpeaker, we must all be ever mindful.

            As I think one of my colleagues said yesterday, it is adistinct honour to be elected as a member of the Legislature.There are only 57 of us here, out of a million some odd people,who are privileged to serve in the Legislature of Manitoba, so weought to take that job very seriously, and we ought to ensurethat we do the best that we possibly can to provide the bestgovernment that is possible.  I certainly know from members onthis side that we are doing that very thing.


(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)


            The throne speech paraphrases that great eminent Americanphilosopher and poet, Willie Nelson:  When the winds of changeare blowing.  Certainly, we have experienced in Canada, in NorthAmerica and, in fact, in the world over the past couple of yearsa recession unlike none other.  There has never been this kind ofrecession, I do not think, in the history of modern economics atleast anyway.  It is not just a recession here in Manitoba orCanada.  The recession, Mr. Speaker, is in fact worldwide.Economies that have heretofore been growing at rates of 20, 30and 40 percent are seeing zero growth rates or in fact declines.

            We have seen political upheavals in the world over the pastwhile, Mr. Speaker, where countries like the Soviet bloc have nowbroken up into a loose confederation of states where they havetried to switch from a centralized economy to a market economy,realizing that the centralized economy to which they havesubscribed for the past 60 or 70 years as a matter of fact hasnot worked, has been a dismal failure and that centralized,socialist philosophy has been recognized by those people as nothaving worked.

            It has been a dismal failure.  They have tried for 70 yearsand have failed year after year after year.  So now we see thosepeople now switching to a market economy.  We see them attemptingin an extremely short period of time to try and switch to theeconomy that has succeeded year after year after year elsewherein the free world.  But there has been associated with that freemarket economy, even in those countries where it has beensuccessful for a very long period of time, economic restructuringgoing on, the likes of which no one has ever seen in the past.


* (1640)


            We have seen economic restructuring in the EuropeanCommunity.  We have seen it in China, Japan and the UnitedStates, Mr. Speaker.  The fact of the matter is, because of thekind of economy that we have experienced over the past period oftime, the consuming economy, one that seemed to exist solely onthe basis of growth, that tended to feed upon itself over aperiod of time, everything seemed to be rosy.  Things were goingwell.  People could implement programs in government.  Peoplecould acquire goods and services and things that wereunprecedented.  Wage rates, compensation packages for workers ofall different kinds rose dramatically over that period of time,as well, and we found out that all of a sudden we cannot do thatanymore.  We cannot afford that anymore.  Governments cannotafford it anymore, businesses cannot afford it anymore, and wehave to look at restructuring, a very significant way of changeof doing things.

            Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech someone accused us of using"innovation" on a number of occasions in the throne speech.  Thatis exactly what is required.  Everyone, everyone, not just themembers of the government, but the members of the opposition, themembers of every government in this country, municipal, schoolboard, federal government, provincial governments, all of uscollectively spend too much money.  We spend more than we takein, dramatically more.  The time has come, the day of reckoninghas come.  We now are here to say that we have to look at how wespend our money.  We have to look at new and better ways ofspending our money, if we are not going to cut services.  We canno longer afford to tax.  We can no longer afford to tax.

An Honourable Member:  So why are you raising the deficit?

Mr. Ernst:  Mr. Speaker, we will give the Leader of theOpposition (Mr. Doer) a lesson in economics any time he wishes.The fact of the matter is, day after day after day in this Houseit is he and his party who are demanding more and more and moreexpenditures.  They are demanding it daily in the House.  We havegone through four sessions now over the past four years, and wehave heard that constant barrage every day, coming from membersopposite, "spend, spend, spend, spend," and followed closelybehind or perhaps even led by members of the Liberal Party here,whose philosophy also is "back up the Brinks truck."  We haveheard that in the past as well.

            Mr. Speaker, the time has come for all of us to stop, to takea real hard look at how government does things, how business doesthings, and how all of us have to look at different, moreinnovative, more effective ways of spending the taxpayers' money.

            Mr. Speaker, the private sector has been doing this for someperiod of time.  This is not something that has dramaticallyhappened overnight.  This has been building over the last five,six, seven, eight years, where the private sector has had torestructure it own operations in order to be competitive, becauseif we are going to deal with companies in other countries who areattempting to compete in a world market with us, then we have tobe competitive.  We cannot all of a sudden just decide that weare going to put up barriers around Manitoba and suggest for aminute that we would ever be able to survive if we did that.

            Mr. Speaker, that will not work.  Manitoba is an exportingeconomy.  If we do not export we do not live, we do not have thekind of standard of living we have enjoyed for some period oftime.  So we have to be able to compete on the global market.  Wehave to be able to go out and say that‑‑and I have no doubt in mymind whatsoever that Manitobans can compete anywhere in the worldin terms of quality, in terms of their ability to produce goodsand services, and in fact Manitoba companies are exporting allover the world.  We have exports not only in manufactured goods,but we have exports in services that are second to none.  We haveengineering services, for instance, that are provided out ofManitoba 50, 100 times what would be generated by local business,and that is exported everywhere in the world.

            Technologies, Mr. Speaker, such as Teshmount Consultants, whoare doing direct current hydro transmission engineering work overthe world, world‑renowned, created virtually the kind oftechnologies that hydro systems benefit from today in conjunctionwith Manitoba Hydro over a long period of time.

            Our government has been on that path as well, Mr. Speaker,over the past four years.  We have recognized that we have thesekinds of problems.  We have recognized the kinds of issues thathave been coming forward because of that restructuring that hasbeen going on.  Unfortunately, it kind of landed at the same timeas the recession that hit the world's economy.  So we have had akind of double whammy all of a sudden in our economy here inManitoba, but we have recognized the fact that we have to havesome innovation, we have to have some new ideas, some new ways ofdoing things.  My colleague from Pembina the Minister of Health(Mr. Orchard) occasionally refers to it as new‑think as opposedto what has gone on in the past.

            The fact of the matter is, we do need to innovate.  If we donot innovate, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to survive; we arenot going to have a medicare system in this country that we haveenjoyed up to this point.  My honourable friends opposite's ideaof dealing with this issue is to throw more money at it, createmore beds, do not look at innovative ways and means of doingthings.

            At least the Liberal Party has recognized the fact that thoseinnovations are required and that the system will not surviveunless we do that innovation.  So I compliment my colleague theMinister of Health for the initiatives that he has undertaken.They have not been easy issues to deal with.  Until largelyunderstood by the public, they will not be readily acceptedacross the width and breadth of this province.  The fact of thematter is, they must be done, and he has had the courage atleast, Mr. Speaker, to undertake those kinds of changes thatother people heretofore have not.  They have simply dumped moneyonto the problem and taxed for it, as opposed to looking fordifferent, new, innovative ways of dealing with things.  Thosekinds of things are necessary, not just in the Department ofHealth, but in virtually every aspect of our economy and everyaspect of this government.

            We have to look at ways and means of dealing with the FamilyServices problems and service delivery modules in this governmentas well.  We have to look at education.  I know my colleague theMinister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) is looking at a number ofinitiatives, attempting to find better ways of providing aneducation to the young people of our province.  If we do not havethose new, innovative ways, if we do not start looking at some ofthe problem areas that are contained within our education system,we are going to fall dramatically behind.

            It is not just good enough to say, well, hire more teachers,build more schools, throw more money at it.  We have to deliver abetter quality product.  We have to deliver a better qualityproduct than we have been doing in the past.  We have to havesome sound learning principles, and we have to have some kind ofmeasure.  We have to understand what kind of an education systemwe have and how we are compared to others in the same kind ofsystem.  How are we compared to the U.S., our major competitor,our major trading partner?  How are we compared with Europe, withthe Orient, with Japan whose education system is highly commendedfrom time to time?  We have to look at those systems, and we haveto say what is the best from those systems, what we can implementhere so that our people, when they go into the business world,when they go out to compete on a world‑wide basis have the samekinds of skills, at least basic skills, that our competitors willhave.

            Economic development, we have heard a lot about that over thepast while and certainly an extremely important issue that mustbe dealt with over the next period of time.  We have, Mr.Speaker, through the Departments of Industry, Trade and Tourismand Rural Development, a number of initiatives underway which areimportant, I think, in terms of assisting new economicdevelopment in our province.

            The fact of the matter is, when you look globally at whatgovernments can do in terms of overall economic development, itis very small, what any government can do.  I do not care whatpolitical stripe you have, you are very, very limited in terms ofwhat governments can influence in the overall scheme of things.You have to provide a fertile ground for a business to survive.That is the underlying essence of all of the things thatgovernment can do.

            Governments can have programs, Mr. Speaker, to providefinancial assistance.  They can have make‑work programs; we haveseen those in past governments.  We can really do something very,very small in the overall scheme of things, because it isultimately the success, the competitiveness of the company thatwill ultimately gauge whether it will employ people or not,whether it will pay taxes or not and whether it will contributeto the coffers of government to provide the kind of safety netsthat we have enjoyed for a number of years and will continue toenjoy, I am sure, into the future.  Without that fertile ground,without a solid base for them to operate from, it is not going tohappen.


* (1650)


            We have seen what has happened in the past, so what we needto do, and our government has embarked upon this road some timeago when we first came into office, was to provide that basicfertile ground for companies to be able to survive and thrive anddo business and create those kinds of jobs and create the kind oftax revenues that ultimately are necessary for any government tosurvive.

            All that has gone on before is not bad.  There are all kindsof good things that we need to capitalize on, that we need tobuild upon, strengths that have been created in the past bypeople, by pioneers, by governments, by a whole host of playersin the economic field.

            Certainly we must build upon those strengths and, of course,one of the primary strengths of this province has been and willcontinue to be for many, many years to come is agriculture.  Weare accused from time to time to hear that with a"rural‑dominated" caucus that is the only issue that we areprepared to look at.  It is an important issue and one facet ofour economy here.  All of my colleagues recognize that andrecognize that because it is a major part of our economy and doesdrive a great many of the businesses associated in Manitoba aswell as the on‑farm income, Mr. Speaker, we know that much has tobe done.  We can build upon that strength.

            We have over the past three or four years stronglyrepresented the position of Manitoba at GATT.  During my time asMinister of Trade, I had an opportunity along with my colleaguethe Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to forcefully put ourposition forward at GATT both in Geneva and at Brussels duringwhat we thought was the final round at that time.  Unfortunately,the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is correct, there havebeen an awful lot of final rounds over the past two years.  I amhopeful, and I think we are all hopeful collectively in thisplace that there will be a solution found to the trade wars thathave devastated the farm economy in Manitoba and western Canadaover the past 10 or so years.

            Mr. Speaker, we need to find a resolution to GATT obviously,but we also need to encourage our farm community to diversify asmuch as possible.  It is very easy and very comforting, Isuppose, not ever having been a farmer I cannot say for sure, butI can say this, it would appear at least to me that knowing justa little bit about the farm economy it is reasonably comfortableto be able to say, well, I can go and I can plant my wheat in thespring and harvest it in the fall and spray it in between andthen that is good enough in terms of bringing me a reasonableincome for my family.  Those days, I think, are slowly drawing toa close and farmers today are going to have to look atdiversification a lot more than they ever have in the past ifthey are going to survive in the kind of economy that we foreseein the future, but not just diversification on the farm front,but diversification on an industrial front to add value‑addedprocessing to the kind of products that we do produce here.

            There is no reason on God's green earth in my mind why‑‑wegrow the best durum wheat in the world here in Manitoba and thenship it to Italy to have it made into pasta.  It does not makesense at all.  I think we have to try and determine that can wenot produce that pasta here and ship the pasta to Italy.  Itwould be a much better arrangement, in my view, than what we aredoing at the present time.  So that is something that we want towork toward and to look for those kinds of value‑added processingbusinesses that can add additional jobs to our community, canbuild upon the products that are grown in this province.

            We are fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have French fry plants, forinstance, here in Manitoba by McCain and Carnation that areshipping worldwide.  We could have other kinds of plants similarto those I think if we put our minds to it and try and determineexactly what can be done and how it can be done, and I think weshould all work toward that end.

            We have also in the agriculture community, Mr. Speaker, beenable to I think, at least in the short term, help stabilize farmincomes in this province through our participation and the hardwork of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) in the GRIP andNISA programs.  They are not the be all and the end all,certainly, to any long‑term solution, but they are a stop-gapmeasure to try and stabilize farm incomes so that the people inrural Manitoba know at least where they can head into the futureand try and work toward that diversification and that value-addedprocessing and other kinds of things that will ultimately assistthem in their business ventures in the future.

            As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, in the past, health careindustries has been I think a real boon to this province.  Wehave seen some significant changes in the health careindustries.  They are not readily evident.  I mean, you do notsee the flashing neon signs necessarily, but what you see is thatin 1988 when we signed an agreement with the federal government‑‑and I had the privilege personally of signing thatagreement in August of 1988 with Minister Epp at that time‑‑abouta dozen or so businesses in the health care product developmentfield.

            Today, we have five and six times that number of companiesinvolved in the health care product field.  I do not take 100percent credit.  The government prior to our taking office in1988 had embarked upon this path as well and rightly so.  Thefact of the matter is that they had built a small foundation uponwhich we were able to expand and to grow, and I compliment themfor that as something that I think in Manitoba was a soundvision, still is a sound vision, and we should pursue it as muchas possible.

            We have had some successes over the past while particularlyin the pharmaceutical area where there have been a number of newinitiatives announced for Manitoba.  Some are underconstruction.  Some are still in the planning stages, butultimately I think we are going to see the major magnet happeningalmost any moment now.  I believe the piling contract has beenlet for the virology lab in the centre for animal disease controland that should be starting in the very, very near future, Mr.Speaker.

            We hope to be able to see that sod turning take place, as amatter of fact, as much work as possible done on that project asquickly as possible to ensure that it ultimately gets finallybuilt in Manitoba where we think it belongs and where we haveworked very hard.  All of us I think‑‑

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  You better build itbefore the next election.

Mr. Ernst:  Well, exactly.  Mr. Speaker, the Leader of theOpposition is correct.  We need to have it substantially builtbecause I do not think it is any secret that the bureaucrats inOttawa would dearly love not to have it built in Manitoba.  Theywould dearly love to have it built in Ottawa.  So we need to becognizant of that.  We need to work very hard to ensure that nostumbling blocks stand in the way of that project and that it becompleted as quickly as possible.


* (1700)


            We have first‑hand information in telecommunications work,Mr. Speaker.  That is another niche market that Manitoba, Ithink, can capitalize on.  We have had a number of goodinitiatives occur just in the past while.  We had the sale ofManitoba Data Services to ISM, who are capitalizing now on thatmarket.  It involved a number of Manitoba software companiesinvolved with them in producing new products and so on.

            Mr. Speaker, I think we have some good benefits on thehorizon there.  Hughes Acoustic Technology is another goodexample of the kind of thing that can be done in Manitoba very,very well and one which we need to work upon.

            Mr. Speaker, we have tourism.  For instance, The Forks justreceived an international award.  I was privileged to be ableto‑‑I did not have very much to do with what The Forks receivedthe award for.  I happened to be in the right place at the righttime in terms of being the minister.  Nonetheless, I was pleased,on behalf of the people of Manitoba, to accept an award by theInternational Downtown Association for the very good work thatwas done at The Forks, the fact that we are internationallyrecognized.

            At that meeting there was recognition of events and placesand projects in countries all around the world.  So this was notsimply a North American kind of situation but one of a trulyinternational nature, and I was pleased to be able to representthe Province of Manitoba, along with my two partners, MinisterEpp and Mayor Norrie, in Minneapolis at that meeting.  At thesame time we managed to bring the convention back to Winnipeg aswell, so that was a kind of a bonus, Mr. Speaker.

            We do have a number of attractions here and things we have towork on.  We have to revamp our Convention Centre, and ourgovernment has committed funding toward that so that ourConvention Centre can be competitive.  You know, when it wasbuilt in 1975, it was one of two convention centres in all ofCanada, and now every major city and many not‑so‑major citieshave convention centres and facilities that are trying to attractpeople, recognizing the kind of draw that centre has for majorconventions.  So we need to keep up to date.  We need to spendsome money to refurbish our Convention Centre in order to make uscompetitive again with other convention centres and facilities,not just in Canada, of course, Mr. Speaker, but elsewhere as well.

            As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have to have a stable taxenvironment, and particularly for companies that wish to come toinvest in Manitoba.  We actually heard the agenda of the NDPyesterday when the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) made hisaddress to the throne speech and he talked about, Mr. Speaker‑‑hedid not talk about competitiveness.  No, he did not talk aboutthat.  He did not talk about productivity.  No.  He did not talkabout innovation, God forbid.  He should not talk aboutinnovation because‑‑there was no discussion on that at all.

            What he did talk about was the union line.  He talked aboutthe union wages.  He talked about the union benefits, theirworkers, those workers who are out there supporting the unionleaders who are the ones who are really the beneficiaries of whatgoes on in the union movement.  That is their priority; they havemade that choice.  They have decided that they are going to godown the road with the union leaders, and that is their choice.They are fully free and able to do that and make that decision.

            Mr. Speaker, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) quoted,saying that there were a great many jobs lost in northernManitoba, which had been announced on the same day as the Houseopened, and there is not one person in this building who is happyabout that.  There is not one person certainly on this side ofthe House and, I am sure, on that side of the House who isthrilled that these people have found that the ore has run out inthe mines that they work in and that there is no more work forthem in that particular location because the ore has run out.

            But then we have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)saying, no, we are going to have the toughest plant closinglegislation.  Nobody is going to be able to close it.  That mineis going to operate whether there is ore there or not.  That, Mr.Speaker, is foolhardy.  That kind of attitude will drive not onlythe businesses that are here out, it will drive anybody who iseven considering coming to Manitoba so far away you will neverfind them.  Never will you find anybody associated with that.

            I know my time is running short, and I want to make a couplemore comments.  The member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) commentedearlier about a new trilevel agreement for Winnipeg.  I havebeen, for the last year and a half, attempting to lever from ourfederal colleagues some kind of meaningful agreement that willbenefit the citizens of the city of Winnipeg.  We have seen anumber of very good programs over the 10 years that the Core AreaInitiative agreements were in place in Manitoba, very goodprograms that have benefited a great number of people and onesthat we want to see continue.

            We have commitments, I have a personal commitment, ourgovernment has a commitment toward another agreement.  We havedelayed, perhaps longer than would have been wise, in retrospect,but nonetheless we have delayed in the expectation that we aregoing to be able to lever a further $25 million‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.


Point of Order


Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):  I wonder if youcould ask my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) andthe Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Doer) to conduct theirconversation outside the Chamber so that I could listen to thewords of my colleague.

Mr. Speaker:  On the point of order raised by the honourableMinister of Natural Resources, all members wishing to carry on aprivate conversation can do so outside this Chamber.


* * *


Mr. Ernst:  Mr. Speaker, thank you and I thank my colleague fromLakeside (Mr. Enns) for having brought that matter to yourattention, Sir.  The fact of the matter is that we have beentrying to lever from the federal government over the past year oryear and a half‑‑[interjection] Pick up the phone, my friend theLeader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) says.  Well, Mr. Speaker, wehave been attempting to lever real dollars, to lever realbenefits for the people of the inner city of Winnipeg, and wehave not, unfortunately, been successful.  We are still trying.We are still trying, because it is important to think, not tosimply abandon the hope of receiving those federal dollars, butat that point and that point is rapidly approaching, when we aregoing to have to make a decision as to whether we go on abilateral basis and get on with the job, even though we do nothave the federal participation, than wait forever.

            We are going to make that decision in the not too distantfuture.  I am hopeful that in the period of time between now andthen they will still be able to lever some funding from thefederal government that is meaningful and real and that will havereal benefits for the people of the city of Winnipeg.

            Mr. Speaker, that also is really not a partisan issue; it isan important issue for the people of the inner city of Winnipeg.All of us need to I think be mindful of the fact that we shouldall be trying, not just yelling at the Minister of Urban Affairs,but all be trying to determine as much as possible or work ashard as possible toward that end for the benefit of all of thosepeople.

            The member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) also mentioned thequestion of urban transportation issues and how they areaffecting her particular community.  I agree they are, but if youwant to know where the root of the problem lies, it lies in thehands of one Mr. Joe Borowski, the former NDP transport minister,who in 1970 put a kibosh on all major transportation routes inthe city of Winnipeg.  All of the development that took place inthe city of Winnipeg that was predicated on certaintransportation routes that were to be built, those were cancelledsimilarly by Mr. Borowski in 1970.  That view pervaded throughoutthe NDP years in government in this province, so, Mr. Speaker, wedid not have those opportunities.  Thank you very much.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, it is a privilegeto join into this debate to raise my concerns with the thronespeech and also the concerns of many rural Manitobans with theaction this government has taken in the throne speech.

            Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to begin by welcomingyou back as Speaker of the House.  I look forward to yourguidance.  I know many times you have become very frustrated withsome of the activities in here, but I am sure we appreciate yourfair treatment to all of us.

            I would also like to extend my congratulations to the newmembers in this House, both on their re‑election and the electionfor the first time to this Chamber.  I hope you enjoy your tenurehere.  I look forward to working with you and improving thequality of life for all Manitobans.

            I would also like to welcome the new Pages who are with us inthis session.  I hope that their experience here is worthwhileand will encourage them perhaps to carry on and participate inpolitics at some other level.  I hope that they also are notdiscouraged by some of the carryings on in this Chamber.

            Mr. Speaker, I would also like to at this time recognize oneother member, and that is the member for Rupertsland (Mr.Harper), who has made the decision to leave us at this time.  Hehas indicated that he is retiring, and we would like to wish himluck in his future endeavours.


* (1710)


            Mr. Harper has done much to raise the importance ofaboriginal issues and cause us all to pay greater respect andlook more closely at what has been happening to aboriginal peoplein this province and in this country.  He has been an example formany members.  It is through his efforts that we have been ableto encourage other members to run and join us here in theLegislature.

            He was not only respected by members of our caucus andmembers of the native community, but many Manitobans respectedhim for the stand he took and will continue to respect him.  Wewish him good luck in his future endeavours.

            I want to welcome back all members who are here in theLegislature.  I hope that we can all work together and hear eachother's views and learn from one another what it is and thatgovernment members will listen to the concerns that we bring tothe Legislature from those people that we represent.

            Mr. Speaker, with respect to the throne speech, I and mostManitobans expected much from this government.  We expectedleadership and new ideas, but unfortunately we got very little ofthat, other than regurgitated old ideas.  In fact, as many othermembers have outlined, many of the ideas were brought forward bythe previous government and those are the ideas that we areseeing now.

            We are seeing very little from this government.  It is a signof a tired government, a government that does not show realleadership, a government that is prepared to drift and ignore thedesperate situation facing Manitobans.

            When I look at the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, and I look atthe throne speech from the previous year, there are many thingsthat are just put in a second time, but there are also thingsthat were put in the last throne speech that have not been actedupon and have been left out this time.  Those are real concernswhen you make promises in a throne speech but do not carry themforward.

            Mr. Speaker, last week I attended the UMM Convention as didseveral members from this Chamber, and if the other members werelistening, they would have heard a great frustration from themajority of the participants.  Major concerns were raised thatthis government continues to say that they are not raisingtaxes.  Again we hear it from this government, saying in each ofthe speeches that they have carried through on their promise ofnot having raised taxes.  But that is not the message that hascome from the delegates or from rural Manitobans.  There is greatconcern about the offloading that this government has done andthe amount of taxes that has been shifted onto a much smaller taxbase.

            When we had the roads offloaded onto municipalities, taxeshad to be picked up at the local level.  When the school fundingformula was changed, school boards were forced to pick up theseextra costs by passing on special levies.  This is an increase intaxes.  This government cannot say that they are not increasingtaxes.  It is what they have been doing that has caused theincrease of taxes.

            Mr. Speaker, rural Manitobans said very loud and clear thatthey would make it known that it was not their responsibilitythat these taxes were increased.  It was because of theoffloading of this government, and if those members who werethere will remember hearing that very clearly, that because ofthe cutbacks by this government and because the school boards arecommitted to the education of rural Manitobans they have had topass on the taxes because they have to pick up the slack of thisgovernment.

            This government is not prepared to stand up for education inrural Manitoba.  The school boards are.  They are the ones thathave had to pass on the taxes rather than this governmentfulfilling their responsibility.

            Along with taxes, Mr. Speaker, councillors at the conventionraised another issue which was not addressed in the throne speechand which we raised last year.  I am hoping that this governmentwill address it sometime in this year, and that is the concern ofThe Municipal Assessment Act.

            We raised that during the discussions of The MunicipalAssessment Act last year, and the Minister of Rural Developmentsaid that we were wrong.  There was not going to be an increasein costs on the farmland.  Municipal representatives have againraised this issue on the portioning of the residential propertiesand amount of tax that has to be collected on farm lands and farmbuildings.

An Honourable Member:  No, no.  You misunderstood that.

Ms. Wowchuk:  The member across the way says that I misunderstoodit.  Well, I guess all of the rural people misunderstood him toobecause there is a great increase in school taxes.  Farm land ispicking up a far greater portion of educational tax, and he canshake his head as much as he wants, it is not true.  They aretrying to mislead and act as if rural people do not understand,but I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, rural people are not thatfoolish.  When they see their tax bill and the increase ineducational tax on farmland, they can see very clearly that theyhave been misled by this government.


Point of Order


Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):  The honourable member for Swan River(Ms. Wowchuk) is putting misleading and incorrect information onthe record.  The assessment legislation does not‑‑I say theresolution that was passed at UMM does not refer to farm land; itrefers to farm buildings.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member does not havea point of order.  It is clearly a dispute over the facts.


* * *


Ms. Wowchuk:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but just to correct themember for Emerson, I will read into the record the Whereas.  Itsays:  Whereas the changes to portioning implemented in the 1992tax year resulted in a shift of school taxes from residential tofarm land and buildings, the UMM requests that the Minister ofRural Development reduce the portioning of class 30 property fromthe present 27 percent to a level which will prevent a shift ofschool taxes from residential property to farm property.

            Mr. Speaker, this government is not listening to ruralManitobans, and they are shifting more costs onto the farmlandwhich was something they promised they would not do.

            When I look at the government's throne speech on education,they say the keys that unlock the world of opportunity and thefuture of economic growth and prosperity.  There are manyconcerns with education, and those children in rural Manitobamust have the same opportunity for education as the people inurban centres.  With the continuing reduction in population inthe rural areas, we have to look at ways to provide the samelevel of education in the rural areas as we have in the urbancentres.

            I hope that this government will look at that.  I hope theMinister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) will look at ways that we canbring quality education to small schools.  The technology isthere, and all it takes is a little bit of leadership and thewill to provide the same opportunity to all people.

            The other area that was missed out of the education portionof the throne speech was first‑year distance education.  Again,that was another issue that was raised at the UMM convention.Rural Manitobans, again, want the same opportunity to have auniversity education in their communities.  It has been a goodprogram.  The first‑year distance education has been working insome parts of the province.  There is a need for that program tobe expanded.

            I am disappointed that we have not seen more initiative toexpand that program.  In particular, Mr. Speaker, there is agroup of people from Swan River who are working very hard, and Ibelieve the Minister of Education has a petition from thesepeople.  They are in fact willing to pick up costs so that we canhave this opportunity.

            I hope that the minister will seriously consider expandingthe program into that area of the province as well which is inreality a very important service that I would like to see becauseit would give those children an opportunity to stay at home onemore year, but also tremendously reduces the costs.

            Considering the financial situation at the present time,particularly in rural Manitoba, I think that we have to look atways that we can give rural children the opportunity for aneducation, so I hope the minister will look at that.

            I have one concern with the throne speech and that is in thearea of standard exams.  I think that the goal of educationshould be to prepare our young people to find a place insociety.  Across the province, education is fought in manydifferent ways and it is not necessary that everybody work at astandard exam.  I do not see how you can judge everybody the sameway.

            I think that we should be very careful when we work in thisdirection in trying to standardize things.  I have talked to manyteachers on this issue, and they are not in support of it.  So Ithink that we should look at what we are doing in standardizing,because it seems impossible to test everybody at the same level.You get teachers then teaching toward an exam rather thanpreparing people to fit into a world.  I think that you should bethinking very carefully about what we are doing with that.




            Mr. Speaker, I also heard a lot of discussion at the UMMconvention about the video lottery terminals and the amount ofmoney that is being drained out of rural Manitoba.  Millions ofdollars are going out of rural Manitoba and nothing is comingback.  I guess we have to wonder why we‑‑[interjection] Yes, Idid listen to the answer and there was no answer.

            Rural Manitobans were told that all money raised in ruralManitoba would be reinvested in rural Manitoba in economicdevelopment.  The only initiative that we have seen to this pointis the Ayerst plant in Brandon, and it is a million‑dollarinvestment there.  That is the only one.

            How much money has come out of rural Manitoba?  How muchmoney has come out of the city of Brandon?  You will not tell ushow much money.  I can tell you that out of Swan River, just outof the Town of Swan River, there will be close to three‑quartersof a million dollars coming out.  Out of the Village ofWinnipegosis, they are sending in $2,000 a week.  How much moneyis going back into rural Manitoba?  They will not tell us.  Whereis the money going?  We asked.  We want to know what are thefigures?  Where is the money going?  Why is it not beingreinvested into rural Manitoba as it was promised?  Revenues, asI see, have far exceeded the expectations and rural Manitobansare not getting back what they were promised from this government.

            The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) talks aboutPartners with Youth and he talks about the Green Team.  Thoseprograms are not economic development.  I am glad that we had theprograms to help our young people.  They are not long‑term jobs;they are not economic development.  They are replacing jobs thatthis government cut from Natural Resources.  Granted, they helpedstudents for the short term.  They helped students for the summerperiod, but that was not the point of the fund.  This governmentis misleading rural Manitobans, because they are taking all ofthis money out and they are not reinvesting it.

            There are many ways that this growth could be stimulated inrural Manitoba, but this government chooses rather to drain themoney out and not put anything back.  This government boastsabout the success of the Grow Bonds program.  What did we havefor success?  We have had three projects.  We have not been ableto find out exactly how many jobs have been created from thosethree projects.  We do not know how many projects have beenturned down.  We have no idea what this government is doing.  Allwe know is that they are draining money out of rural Manitoba andputting nothing back.

            Government must show more leadership.  They must be preparedto invest in jobs and stimulate the economy if anything is tohappen, but this government is afraid to say the word "job."  Weonly saw it once in the throne speech.  They are not prepared toinvest in rural Manitoba.

            Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you a little story about afarmer.  There was a farmer who said he could not plant his cropbecause he could not afford to buy seed.  He could not afford tobuy seed because he was using all the money to pay for histractor.  He did not realize that if he planted seed he would beable to pay for the tractor and prosper as well.  That is thesame as this government.  They are prepared to invest in welfarerather than to create jobs, and they will get as much as thefarmer did for their investment‑‑nothing.

            People want to work, and if this government showed leadershipand created jobs you would have rural Manitobans working, youwould have people paying taxes, you would see the economy grow,but that is not the intention of this government.

            I want to touch on health care reform and some of the thingsthat are in this throne speech.  The member for Sturgeon Creek(Mr. McAlpine) talked about the number of personal care beds thatwe are seeing built in this province and the increases, and Icongratulate the government on going forward and building thosepersonal care home beds.  We need them for those people who arenot well, for our elderly, who built this country.  We shouldgive them the care that they need.  However, Mr. Speaker,personal care beds are very expensive beds.

            The minister has talked about reform and other ways that wecan look after our seniors and our disabled without having thatexpensive a cost.  Many seniors would prefer to stay in theirhome but, unfortunately, many seniors are not able to stay intheir home, because we have had a reduction in home care.

            The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has said many times thatthere has not been a reduction in home care, but I believe therehas been and so do many other people, particularly in theParkland.

            I just want to read a letter on home care, and I will notgive any names, Mr. Speaker:  This is how adequate home care is,and you be the judge of that.  It is too late for me, but it mayhelp others in the same situation.  I fell and broke my hip inMarch this year, and I was taken by ambulance to Winnipeg, wheremy hip was replaced.  I had infection in my hip, and I stayedthere for six weeks.  I was promised a nurse to change mydressings when I came home, a nurse who would come every day.  Iwaited for home care.  Nobody came, so I phoned the supervisor inSwan River and asked her how come nobody came to see me.  Shesaid, we are cancelling all home care, and I quote, foreverybody.  You have to hire if you need help and pay for it withyour own money.  I can only send you a nurse once a week if I canlocate her, as she is already working.  The nurse came to give memy bath.  When she saw my condition she called back to thesupervisor and said that I needed help right away.  Thesupervisor came a week later and said, well, you need help butyou have to hire somebody yourself.

            Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of home care we have now.  Weare not looking after seniors, and particularly in the Parklandarea we are seeing cutbacks because we have seen other examples.I know that there are other communities that are not seeingnearly the cutbacks that our area of the province is.  So this isnot a way to look after our seniors by only putting them intopersonal care homes.  We also have to look after them in theirhome where they can have quality of life and some pride inthemselves.

            Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on another section of healthcare, and that is on the mental health and the return of peoplewith mental disorders back to the community.  There is a group inSwan River that has worked very hard, and the minister is quiteaware of them, and they have a proposal in to put in a crisiscentre.  I am very happy for what has been able to happen in theParklands.  They have run into some stumbling blocks with theDepartment of Housing as far as finding the homes, and there hasbeen a deadline put on them for December 15.


* (1730)


            I feel that this deadline is a little bit unfair, becausethey have worked very hard and found several homes that couldhave been worked for the crisis home and for the group home, butby the time they got the approval from the Department of Housingthose homes were sold.  So I hope that this deadline that hasbeen put on them will be a flexible deadline just in case theycannot meet it.  They have done an awful lot of work.  It is agood move to have these people come back to the community, and Ihope that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the Ministerof Housing (Mr. Ernst) will show a little bit of flexibility whenthey are dealing with these people, particularly the group inSwan River who, as I said, has worked very hard to establish thekind of care that we need for these people when they come back tothe community.

            Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that I am concerned about,which was in the last throne speech but not in this one, is therocket range of the Port of Churchill.  We see very little.  Infact in the last throne speech there was indication that theywould be supporting the rocket range of the Port of Churchill.People in that area have worked very hard.  They have gotproposals together, but they have not had the support that theyneed from government.  They have raised a tremendous amount ofmoney.  They are committed to the rocket range and also the Portof Churchill, but they have not had the co‑operation that theyneed from this government.

            I hope that in the next little while we will see some supportfor this community because I believe the port is very viable.  Itis something that we should be looking to protect because it doesmake sense to have an inland port that would reduce the costs forfarmers in Manitoba.  The government should be looking at waysthat we could have two-way traffic coming through that port, waysthat we could be bringing more traffic onto the bayline andimproving it rather than trying to get rid of it or offering nosupport and seeing it abandoned.  There are many communities thatwill suffer if the bayline is not maintained, and there arepeople in the community of Churchill who will also suffer if wedo not see some development there.  The proposal they have for arocket range could create many jobs, which we do need not only innorthern Manitoba but throughout Manitoba.

            Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the government is looking toreview gasification of rural Manitoba.  It is something that Ihave spoken to the previous Minister of Rural Development about,and I have talked to the present Minister of Rural Development(Mr. Derkach).  People in my constituency very much want to seenatural gas come in.  They have written.  We have talked toCentra Gas about it.  So I hope that this will not be just areview, that we will actually see some action here, and that thisgovernment will bring in natural gas to rural Manitoba.  I haveto say that I hope this is not done on a political basis to onlysome constituencies, that we are looking at a broad plan thatwill address the needs of all rural communities.

            As I say, there is interest in the Swan River constituency.There is interest in the Interlake area and there are someexcellent proposals.  In fact, I have a letter written from theEconomic Development Corporation in the Parkland West, where theyhave outlined all the different things that they have looked atfor economic development and companies they have talked to.  Theyhave been turned down each time or had to leave the negotiationsalone, because there was no natural gas, and those companies feelthat they cannot operate without natural gas.

            So I look forward to hearing what this government isproposing and working along with them to bring this service torural Manitoba.

            Mr. Speaker, there are several other areas that I would liketo touch on.  I want to touch on Sunday shopping.  I am surprisedthat the government would move forward with such a proposalwithout having first discussed it in this Legislature.  I amsurprised that they would go forward with this kind of proposalwithout giving rural Manitobans, all Manitobans, an opportunityto make presentations.  When we have retroactive legislation,there is very little that they can do other than accept it.

            I think that this is going to have a very negative impact onrural communities, particularly those closer to the city.  Ithink that it will have an effect on all communities.  I do notthink that this is going to create new money.  There is only somuch money to be spent, and if you have spent your money, youspent your money.  You can spend only so much in six days or inseven days.

            Why not leave that day for family?  Why not think about thosefamily businesses that now have to stay open an extra day?  Whatabout the small corner stores, or is this going to put the cornerstores out of business?  Is that not important, as long as thebig stores have the opportunity to make money?  Those corporatefriends, they win.  Do the workers win?  No, the workers have todivide their hours and probably work on Sundays or spread out.

            There are not going to be new jobs here.  This is not goingto stimulate the economy.  I am disappointed that the governmentwould take this initiative, because I do not believe it is goingto stimulate tourism, nor is it going to be a great benefit tothe businesses, because, as I said, there are only so manydollars to be spent.  I find it disappointing that governmentwould look at this as a way to attract tourism or to get moremoney into the economy.  The money is not there.

            Mr. Speaker, under Natural Resources, some of them are veryinteresting.  The government talks about humane trappingtechnology that will stimulate the fur industry, but to myunderstanding the fur industry will need a lot more than humanetrapping technology to help it.  We will await to hear what thistechnology is that the government is going to bring in.  I had sohoped that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), if hewas wanting to stimulate the economy, would be looking atreviewing the bear licence allocation which we raised with himduring Estimates but have not heard anything on.  Many trapperswho have a licence to trap a bear are wanting to convert thoselicences to guiding licences, and we raised that with theminister, but we have not heard a response on that.

            There are many guides who are concerned about theconcentration of bear licences in the hands of a few largeoperators.  Again, the small person is getting squeezed out or isnot having the ability to make a fair living.  We do not see thathere, but I hope that we will.

            I am pleased that the government is talking aboutco-management programs.  We have raised this many times, and wehave asked the minister for information on where they are withco-management.  We have talked to many people in bands about thisand cannot get very much information, and I hope that theminister is serious.

            There are many problems, and the minister is well aware ofthem.  In fact, he was at a meeting in Swan River where theseissues were raised, and those same issues are being raised againthis year.  Unless we can sit down and negotiate with all peoplewho have an interest in these areas, we are going to have bigproblems, and I encourage the minister to have open discussionson co-management so that all people who use these resources canhave input into the development of these co-management plans.But we have to move forward with them so that we can protect ourresources and have them there for future generations.

            Mr. Speaker, I am also surprised that the government ismoving toward expanding the markets for commercial fishermen.  Iam not sure how this is going to benefit fishermen, particularlyin some of the remote areas.  I cannot see how they are going tobenefit, and I also think that there is only a certain market,and if we open it up, is it going to result in competition, alowered price and a lower return?  That is the concern that hasbeen raised by many fishermen.

            In fact, I was at the fishermen's conference, as was theminister, and the people there were not unanimous in wanting themarket expanded.  In fact, what they were calling for was areview of the Marketing Board and its powers, although some ofthem were asking to have the ability to market their fishdirectly to the retailers.


* (1740)


            I would hope that the government would consider a review.Granted, the Fish Marketing Board has been in place for manyyears now.  We should be looking at it.  Since the majority offishermen are aboriginal, we should be looking at ways that theycan have a broader representation on that board.  At the presenttime, the board, I believe, is appointed by the federalgovernment.  Fishermen want a way to elect their own people ontothe board, and I think that is something that we should belooking at, but I am very concerned that we are thinking that wewill help fishermen by expanding the market.  I am particularlyconcerned in my constituency where there are no fish, and I amtalking about Lake Winnipegosis.  There are no fish.[interjection] That is right.  The minister again raises theissue of cormorants, but there are two problems.

            One of them is that the minister is not fulfilling hiscommitment to the people on that lake by addressing some of theirother concerns, and he has not addressed the issue of the numberof cormorants on that lake and a way to deal with that problem.

            It is strange that this business of expanding the FishMarketing Board is one of the minister's priorities,particularly, as I say, when the fish stocks are so low.  Iwonder, when the minister implements this, how are we going tocontrol?  Is there still going to be a quota system?  Who willregulate, or are the fishermen going to be able to fish as muchas they want and take as much fish as they want and then comeback to government and say, there is no fish in the lake?  I lookforward to hearing how we are going to deal with this and whetherthe quota system will stay in place or whether this is just thegovernment's way of now abandoning a marketing board, a systemthat has protected many fishermen.

            I talked to fishermen who are very concerned about this.They remember the time when there was no marketing board and theydid not know until June or July how much their cheque was goingto be.

            Mr. Speaker, I also am concerned about agriculture and thelack of leadership on this government's part as far as research.I am looking at alternates.  We have the problem of stubbleburning that has been a real issue in the last session, but thereis no direction, intention or any indication that the governmentis going to do any research as to possible alternate uses forthat straw.  Is there any plan on this in this government?

            In the area of the environment, is the government going to doany research on how we are going to‑‑we brought in regulationsthat say we cannot burn anymore and that is good legislation.But it seems to me that is one step ahead of the game.  You havenot got plans in place on recycling.  You have not got ideas onhow we are going to use up those tires that are piled up atnuisance grounds, and I see nothing in this throne speech thatgovernment is going to show leadership in new, innovative ideason how to handle these things.

            It is one thing to bring in legislation, but if you do nothave a way of dealing with it, if you have not got a way ofdealing with all the glass and plastic and tires that are pilingup, you have to show leadership.  You have to put money intoresearch.  You have to get new ideas, and I do not see thathere.  We need new ideas, and we are not getting them from thisgovernment.  They are not here.

            Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is nothing new in this thronespeech, and this government is ignoring the real pain of ruralManitobans.  We see an article in today's paper about the highrate of poverty.  We see a report that the jobs that will lead topoverty are in the service industry, in farming, in fishing,forestry, clerical sales and construction.  This is a very largegroup of people that could be facing devastating situations, butwe do not see anything from the government that is going to pullthem out of it.

            We do not see the government addressing the farm prices.Farmers are in desperate need of a cash flow.  There should havebeen money coming from GRIP.  They should have had their finalpayment.  The interim payment is not here, but we do not see apush from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to get thatmoney to farmers.

            Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is a disappointment, but this iswhat we see from this government‑‑a government that has broughtin, I believe, six throne speeches but has not shown realleadership or any creative imagination on how we can help ruralManitobans.

            There are many suggestions that have been put forward.  Ihope that they will look at some of them.  I hope, particularly,that in the area of environment and in the agricultural industrywe will see some money put into research that will help thecommunities.  The Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) says, whatmoney?

            I go back to the other story that I told.  Sometimes you haveto be prepared to invest money to create jobs that people canwork and this government is not prepared to invest.  Thisgovernment is really prepared to spend more.  We are spendingmoney on welfare.  You are spending more money right now.  Justredirect that money and give the people the opportunity to workbecause many of those people who are on welfare would gladlywork.  They want to work.

            Many of them want to work and there are many good ideas thathave come out of the rural communities and from urban centres.  Iknow that there is a group from my constituency who has been hereand talked to members of government about converting welfaredollars into work dollars.  I hope that the government will showleadership and negotiate with the federal government, so that wecan convert some of those dollars into real jobs.

            I look forward to working with this government and offeringsuggestions.  As I say, we will be critical when they are notlistening to rural Manitobans or all Manitobans.  I hope theywill show leadership and make Manitoba a better place to live.Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:  Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?

An Honourable Member:  No.

Mr. Speaker:  No.  Okay.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli):  It certainly is great to be back inthe session again with my colleagues.  I certainly want towelcome the new member for Portage la Prairie, Brian Pallister,and also the new member for Crescentwood, Avis Gray, back intothe session.

            As well, I want to wish the member for Rupertsland (Mr.Harper) well in his new endeavours.  I am sorry to see himleave.  I also want to send my regards and best wishes to theHonourable George Johnson, the Lieutenant‑Governor, who is still,I understand, in hospital.  I want to wish him a speedy recovery.

            I am proud to have this opportunity to stand up today beforethis Assembly and respond to the throne speech.

            Let me begin by saying I am certainly pleased with themeasures included in the Speech from the Throne during thesedifficult times.  It is imperative that the government has astrong plan of action in place which will help make this provincestronger.  I believe our government has achieved this goalthrough the measures that we have outlined in the throne speech.With our government working together with all Manitobans, we willcome out of these difficult times in excellent condition.

            So I am pleased that this government is implementing its newplan for economic renewal.  I agree we must focus on new ideasand new ways of thinking‑‑this means every aspect of our provincefrom the economy to child care, from health care to theenvironment and, of course, Natural Resources.

            A Manitoba that will be prepared for what the Speech from theThrone described as the winds of change that are sweeping theglobe‑‑well, with the leadership of our Premier Filmon, I believeManitoba is going to be ready for future challenges.

            Our government's plan for economic renewal will positivelyimpact all residents of my constituency, the Gimli constituency.They will be able to go forth with new business ideas, knowing wewill be able to be using a foundation of tax control andcompetitive climate for investment‑‑local business development,international marketing initiatives, investment infrastructure,diversification agriculture and, of course, resource‑basedactivities.


* (1750)


            It is also encouraging, Mr. Speaker, that there will be aspecial focus on sectors of the economy where new opportunitiesare emerging, like health care industries, information andtelecommunications, aerospace, environmental industries,agriculture and tourism.

            Tourism, of course, is very important to many people in myconstituency and very important to me.  The people in myconstituency rely on this industry, many of them do, for theirlivelihood, and it is reassuring to know that this government isexploring new ways of tapping into this important industry.  Withthe poor summer that most tourist operators had this past summerdue to weather conditions, everyone involved in the industry iscertainly looking forward to next summer and the pent‑up demandthat is there for next summer, and I hope that the Canadiandollar stays where it is.  This will certainly help to attractnew tourists to our province.

            So I welcome this government's continuing commitment tostrengthen the rural economy.  It does not take a universitygraduate in economics, of course, to figure out that a strongrural Manitoba is the key to a stronger Manitoba.  Since formingthe government, we have been able to assist thousands of ruralManitobans experiencing tough economic times.  With thiscontinued effort, we feel the situation is going to get evenbetter.

            (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

            Programs like the Rural Development Grow Bond program and theRural Economic Development Initiative have already had a positiveimpact in rural Manitoba and on my constituency.  The Grow Bondprogram, for example, has been very effective for one industry inthe village of Teulon in my constituency.  Last May, the TeulonRural Development Bond Corporation was given the authority tosell $800,000 in rural development bonds, with the money raisedfrom this bond sale going into the development of a localmanufacturing plant.

            I am pleased to report that within three weeks, the wholeissue had been sold out, and through local initiative combinedwith some provincial government expertise, the Teulon residentswere able to start the ball rolling toward the creation ofanother local industry.  This means more jobs, of course, which,in turn, means the Teulon economy will benefit.

            Grow Bonds allow Manitobans to invest in their owncommunities, and I am proud that the people of my constituencyand of Teulon have taken advantage of this opportunity.[interjection] Yes, that is right.  The company, the CareCorporation has ordered their equipment and hopes to be inproduction by January of '93.

            I understand that just recently, Portage had a new bond issuethere, so that is just an indication of what the ruraldevelopment bond program is doing for rural Manitoba and the jobsthat are being created and the investment.  I think it is justgreat for Manitoba.

            Under the REDI Program, the REDI Green Team, for example, hasjust been able to put several young people in my constituency towork.  They were given the opportunity to earn some much neededmoney while learning the values of hard work and repairingfacilities in Hecla Island and Winnipeg Beach.  Their work wascertainly appreciated by the Natural Resources people.

            A third program that assists urban and rural Manitobans anddeserves mention is the Manitoba Community Places Program.

            (Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

            Funding through the Manitoba Community Places Program haspaved the way for a number of community‑based groups in myconstituency to proceed with projects that are important to ourlocal residents.  For example, the past summer I had the pleasureof taking part in the official opening of the Air Centre inStonewall.

            The Air Centre prepares adults with disabilities foremployment in the community.  It plays an important role inStonewall and the surrounding area.  With the help of theCommunity Places Program funding totalling $50,000, special‑needsadults now have access to a modern facility where they learn keyskills that they can use in the work force.  This also helps myconstituency and the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and themember for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), so it is a great thing forthe whole Interlake area.

            Community Places also made it possible for ice skaters in thetown of Balmoral to have a longer season through a CommunityPlaces grant of $40,000 in assistance.  An artificial ice plantthere had been installed in the Balmoral Recreation Centre.  Thearena is always a popular recreation spot in any Manitobacommunity for both adults and children.  Manitobans rely on theirlocal arenas for sports as well as a meeting place and, by havingartificial ice, Balmoral residents can now enjoy their facilityfor much longer periods of time.

            The Community Places Program is, I think, an excellentprogram and doing an excellent job of guaranteeing all Manitobansaccess to well‑maintained facilities, and I am pleased thisprogram is available for any community organization.

            I am proud of the economic development that was achieved thispast year in the Gimli constituency in the town of Gimli.  TheGimli street and waterfront project was officially completed.This extensive project involved major redevelopment and upgradingof Gimli's waterfront as well as the town's streets and sidewalks.

            Gimli is important to Manitoba's tourism industry, and I feelthis project has certainly made the community and the town evenmore attractive.  I am proud that our government has been able tolend a financial hand to see this project to completion.  Thewaterfront committee and the Town Council and everyone involvedin the project should be commended for their hard work on thisproject.

            For any of you who have been to Gimli, if you drive down MainStreet, you will see the nice blue light posts and one thing andanother with the blue and gray sidewalks.  The colour schemesare‑‑[interjection] That is right.  It worked very well.  LastThursday's Speech from the Throne also included a commitment thatI welcome and that I know many rural Manitobans welcome as well.This government will review the feasibility of a new initiativeof rural gasification.  This is to help provide a morediversified energy supply.

            There are thousands of Manitobans across the province who donot have the option of natural gas service in their community,something many urban dwellers take for granted.  As well, withthe rural gasification many rural communities may soon becomemore attracted to industries that require this form of industryand energy in order to operate.  I am pleased that thisgovernment is going to examine this matter, so that there is theopportunity that natural gas may soon be available across thisprovince.  Not only will it help industry, but it is alsobeneficial to agriculture.

            Many forms of agriculture will benefit by providing naturalgas for grain drying which was important especially this pastfall with the heavy damp crops.  The propane companies kind oftook advantage of the farmers this past year, just when thedemand was at its peak they had increased the prices.[interjection] That is right.  This will also help the industriesin the Interlake area such as Northern Goose Processors, who arehigh energy users, Charison's Turkey Hatchery.  This will givethem an opportunity to develop and grow and be competitive intheir industries.  So this natural gas is very important to manyof our rural communities.  Also, natural gas will give farmers anopportunity to‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  I am interrupting the memberaccording to the rules.  When this matter is again before theHouse, the honourable member will have 26 minutes remaining.

            The hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns and standsadjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).