Wednesday, December 2, 1992


The House met at 1:30 p.m.








Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to presentthe petition of Barbara Sellman, Jodi Cranswick, Richard Vawhoueand others, requesting the government of Manitoba considerreviewing the funding of the Brandon General Hospital.

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to presentthe petition of George Tessier, Deborah Carr, Angela Borysowichand others, urging the government of Manitoba to pass theregulations to restrict the stubble burning in the province ofManitoba.




Mr. Speaker:  I have reviewed the petition of the honourablemember for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis).  It complies with theprivileges and the practices of the House and complies with therules.  Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

            To the Legislature of the province of Manitoba

            WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning descends uponthe province of Manitoba; and

            WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children with Asthma haslong criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and

            WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not healthyfor the general public and tends to aggravate the problems ofasthma sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and

            WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble burning arenecessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some people inlife‑threatening situations; and

            WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission Report onPublic Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems fromAgriculture Crop Residue and Peatland Burning," contained therecommendation that a review of the crop residue burningsituation be conducted in five years' time, including are‑examination of the necessity for legislated regulatory control.

            THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the LegislativeAssembly will urge the Government of Manitoba to pass thenecessary legislation/regulations which will restrict stubbleburning in the Province of Manitoba.

            As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


* * *


            I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member forPoint Douglas (Mr. Hickes).  It complies with the privileges andthe practices of the House and complies with the rules.  Is itthe will of the House to have the petition read?

            The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province ofManitoba humbly sheweth:

            THAT the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between thejustice system and aboriginal people; and

            The AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concludedthat the justice system has been a massive failure for aboriginalpeople; and

            The AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginalself‑government and the right of aboriginal communities toestablish an aboriginal justice system; and

            The Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission ofCanada, among many others, also recommend both aboriginalself‑government and a separate and parallel justice system; and

            On January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report,the provincial government announced it was not prepared toproceed with the majority of the recommendations; and

            Despite the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsedaboriginal self‑government, the provincial government now rejectsa separate and parallel justice system, an Aboriginal JusticeCommission and many other key recommendations which are solelywithin provincial jurisdiction.

            WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislatureof the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that thegovernment of Manitoba show a strong commitment to aboriginalself‑government by considering reversing its position on the AJIby supporting the recommendations within its jurisdiction andimplementing a separate and parallel justice system.


* * *

* (1335)


            I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for TheMaples (Mr. Cheema).  It complies with the rules of the House.Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

            WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning descends uponthe province of Manitoba; and

            WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children with Asthma haslong criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and

            WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not healthyfor the general public and tends to aggravate the problems ofasthma sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and

            WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble burning arenecessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some people inlife‑threatening situations; and

            WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission Report onPublic Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems fromAgriculture Crop Residue and Peatland Burning," contained therecommendation that a review of the crop residue burningsituation be conducted in five years' time, including are‑examination of the necessity for legislated regulatory control.

            THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the LegislativeAssembly will urge the government of Manitoba to pass thenecessary legislation/regulations which will restrict stubbleburning in the province of Manitoba.


* * *


            I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member forThompson (Mr. Ashton), and it complies with the rules of theHouse.  Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

            The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province ofManitoba humbly sheweth that:

            WHEREAS the state of Highway 391 is becoming increasinglyunsafe; and

            WHEREAS due to the poor condition of the road there have beennumerous accidents; and

            WHEREAS the condition of the road between Thompson and NelsonHouse is not only making travel dangerous but costly due tofrequent damage to vehicles; and

            WHEREAS this road is of vital importance to residents whomust use the road.

            WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislatureof the province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that thegovernment of Manitoba consider reviewing the state of Highway391 with a view towards improving the condition and safety of theroad.




Bill 2‑The Endangered Species Amendment Act


Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):  Mr. Speaker, Ihave the privilege to move, seconded by none other than theMinister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 2, The EndangeredSpecies Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes envoie de disparition), be now received and read a first time.


Motion agreed to.


Bill 3‑The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act


Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines):  Mr. Speaker, Imove, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), thatBill 3, The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act (Loiconcernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et apportant desmodifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be introduced andthat the same be now received and read a first time.

            His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, having been advised ofthe contents of this bill, recommends it to this House.

Mr. Speaker:  It has been moved by the honourable Minister ofEnergy and Mines (Mr. Downey), seconded by the honourableMinister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 3, The Oil and Gasand Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et legaz naturel et apportant des modifications correlatives ad'autres lois, be introduced and the same now be received andread a first time.

            His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, having been advised ofthe contents of this bill, recommends it the House.

            The honourable minister has also tabled a message.  Agreed?

Some Honourable Members:  Agreed.

Mr. Speaker:  Agreed and so ordered.


Bill 4‑The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping  (Temporary Amendments) Act


Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of GovernmentServices (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 4, The Retail BusinessesSunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act (Loi sur l'ouverturedes commerces de detail les jours feries‑modificationstemporaires), be introduced and that the same be now received andread a first time.


Motion agreed to.


* (1340)


Bill 203‑The Health Care Records Act


Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, I move,seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that Bill 203,The Health Care Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, beintroduced and that the same be now received and read a firsttime.


Motion presented.


Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:  Mr. Speaker, Bill 203, to enshrine the rightof access to one's own medical records in law is beingintroduced, or should I say reintroduced this session, because itis a matter of growing public concern, the subject of a recentSupreme Court decision and a key element in any serious healthcare reform plan.

            Mr. Speaker, this legislation is based on a number ofprinciples.  The first principle is that of human dignity, andthis bill acknowledges that the health care consumer has aninherent right to his or her own health care records and personalinformation.  This bill is based on the principle of fairness andputs Manitobans on a better and fairer footing for dealing withour health care system.  It recognizes that a relationship oftrust and openness between the consumer and health care providerwould flow from the right of access.  It acknowledges that abetter understanding of treatment and more active and informedparticipation in that treatment is facilitated by access to themedical record.

            Finally, Mr. Speaker, it encourages participation in andresponsibility for one's own health, which can only lead to abetter, more efficient, more effective health care system.  Assuch, this bill is an integral part of any health care plan anddeserves the serious and timely consideration of this House.


Motion agreed to.

Bill 205‑The Ombudsman Amendment Act


Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded bythe member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), that Bill 205, TheOmbudsman Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman, beintroduced and that the same be now received and read a firsttime.


Motion presented.


Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Speaker, most people would probably besurprised to learn that the provincial Ombudsman does not havejurisdiction to investigate school boards.  School boards areresponsible for hundreds of millions of dollars of expendituresand for 200,000 students of the province of Manitoba, but thereis no appeal and there is no jurisdiction in order to investigatemany complaints against those bodies.

            The extension to school boards will allow parents andstudents to have a recourse in cases where there is no appeal.  Ithink members of this House would also be surprised in the lastOmbudsman report to note that of over 700 complaints, only threerelated to the Department of Education and Training.  That doesnot jive, Mr. Speaker, with many concerns and comments that areheard out of the community concerning education.

            We have the throne speech which talks about education reformand other education reform items.  This is a tangible way toeffectively and very cost‑effectively, with very little cost, toeffect some tangible reform in the education system and allowparents and students to have a recourse in cases where decisionsand actions of school boards do not meet with the parents' andstudents' approval.  It is timely, and I am sure that all membersof this House will assist us in speedy passage of this bill,insofar as in the last month we had a situation where a studentin school is suing a school board.  We know of many others; Iknow of at least half a dozen others who are considering it, andthis would provide some recourse to these individuals and someright of appeal to those decisions.


Motion agreed to.


* (1345)


Introduction of Guests


Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attentionof honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we havewith us three gentlemen from the Ukraine, Mr. Vitaliy Tarasenko,Mr. Nikolai Podberyosny and Alexander Pitenko.

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

            Also with us this afternoon in the public gallery, from theKelvin High School, we have twenty-one Grade 12 students.  Theyare under the direction of Mrs. Bobbi Ethier.  This school islocated in the constituency of the honourable member forCrescentwood (Ms. Gray).

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




Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

No-Fault Insurance


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, myquestion is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

            Mr. Speaker, in 1988, after a major increase in the rates ofthe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, a reform committee wasestablished chaired by Judge Robert Kopstein.  Mr. Kopstein hadpublic hearings across the province and made a number ofrecommendations to the government, to the now Premier, about howto improve the Public Insurance Corporation and how indeed tosave the ratepayer, consumer, money in the future years.

            One of those recommendations, Mr. Speaker, was for a no-fault system, and the government was asked a number of times, on anumber of occasions in this Legislature, to deal with theno-fault recommendation before them.  Judge Kopstein predictedthat that could save some $40 million dollars to the consumers ofthis province, because a lot of the fees, up to 30 percent or 40percent of bodily injury fees, were going to lawyers and not toclaimants.

            Mr. Speaker, the Tilling Gas Report that was brought forwardto the Public Utilities Board predicted some $60‑million savingin the no‑fault provisions if it was implemented.

            My question to the government is:  They have been saying forfive years, they have been studying it and studying it andstudying it; why has the government not brought in real reform tothe Public Insurance Corporation so the consumers could see thebenefit of those recommendations that were made to this Premier?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  Mr. Speaker, theKopstein Report was indeed an important report regarding publicinsurance in this province, but I do not think the Leader of theOpposition (Mr. Doer) should be quite so anxious to attribute themassive savings that he is talking about.  The fact is we haveincorporated over 100 of Kopstein's report's recommendationswithin the corporation, but the more important one and the onethat bothers the public the most, as a matter of fact, is:  Whatis the real cost of insuring a vehicle to put it on the road inthis province, and what coverages and what benefits am I entitledto if I should have an accident or if I am injured?

            Those are the kinds of questions that we will need to keepout in front of us in the next few months as we examine what isthe real basic need to put an automobile on the road in thisprovince as part of compulsory insurance and the benefits thatare available to the injured under those circumstances, becausethat is exactly what no‑fault speaks to, is whether or notcertain abilities to recover beyond a certain level for injuriesis being considered.


Renewal Process


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I thinkmembers on this side can read back the comments of outrage fromthe members opposite all day long, but that will not do theconsumer any good at all in terms of the increases we are facingin the next couple of months.

            Mr. Speaker, a further recommendation made under the KopsteinReport and further contained to the government was to change thecycle of payments.  It identified the fact from the privatesector and the public sector that to have so many people renewingon the same date at the end of February was indeed a negativefact for the consumer and a very, very negative reality forretail business in Manitoba.

            The government had a recommendation to change, from JudgeKopstein, this renewal date.  On questions we have raised in theHouse to the government, it promised to do that.  In fact, theminister promised to do this exact same measure on January 29,1990, to go to cyclical renewals to help the economy ofManitoba.  His words are right in Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

            I would ask the Premier why they have not implemented theKopstein Report for cyclical renewals to help our economy, tohelp consumers and to help the Manitoba Public InsuranceCorporation.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  Mr. Speaker, theLeader of the Opposition is correct that we have said, thecorporation has said, that they will move to cyclical renewals.Part of that moving forward is the redesigning and enhancement ofthe computer capacity within the corporation, which is a largeand expensive undertaking, one that needs to be extended over aperiod of time so as to avoid a severe impact on the overhead ofthe corporation.  The corporation is moving forward on that modeland, with the implementation of Autopac 2000‑‑which is presentlybeing negotiated; it was referenced yesterday being negotiated acompensation package for agents‑‑we will be changing the way inwhich we do business in this province.  There will be cyclicalrenewals.  There will be an opportunity for the kind of servicethat Judge Kopstein envisioned at the time of his report.

            I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if there is one item thatthe corporation has been focusing on more than anything else, itis bringing the corporation into the '90s and on into the year2000 to provide the kind of service that the Autopac 2000 willbring.


* (1350)


Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Agents' Fees


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, the onlything that is going to change the business of the Manitoba PublicInsurance Corporation is a party and a government that believesin public insurance and believes in the recommendations of JudgeKopstein.  Instead of waiting five years like this Premier (Mr.Filmon) has done, drifting from issue to issue, doing nothing interms of the recommendations he had before him‑‑he likes toheckle in the House, but when it comes to doing anything, Mr.Speaker, he does nothing on anything before him.

            Mr. Speaker, a further promise made by the Premier in 1988 isthey would not interfere with the business plans of any Crowncorporation.  One of the recommendations Judge Kopstein made wasto deal with agents' fees in 1988, some five years ago.  In thebusiness plan forwarded to the government of the day, headed bythe Premier (Mr. Filmon), the business plan of the ManitobaPublic Insurance Corporation proposed to government was thatagents' fees would be capped so that they would not get anautomatic increase based on this massive increase required by theManitoba Public Insurance Corporation.  The government overrodethe business plan of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation;the government refused to follow the business plan of the publicauto insurance and indeed followed the lobbying they got from thebrokers of Manitoba.

            I would ask why the Premier overrode the business plan of theManitoba Public Insurance Corporation and why the lobbyists fromthe brokers were able to get the attention of the cabinet and notgo to the Public Utilities Board, where the rest of the publichad to go to the Public Utilities Board.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I reject categoricallythat the agents got into the cabinet of the Government ofManitoba.  That is false, and as usual, the Leader of theOpposition puts false information on the record.

            I secondly suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that thisis a government that has not interfered with the operationsof‑‑[interjection]

            We have plenty of evidence of the fact that the NDPgovernment, of which he was a part, set the rates, the 25 percent increase that went in, rolled back recommendations of theboard routinely, shredded the files when it was to theirconvenience to eliminate evidence of their meddling, directmeddling and interference with a corporation, and ran thecorporation out of the minister's office and the governmentcabinet room.  This administration will not do that.


Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Political Interference


Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  Mr. Speaker, we are not going totake it, no big Autopac increases; we are not going to take it,no political interference in Autopac‑‑what a bunch of hypocrites.  Where are the same Tories of four years ago?

            I have a very simple question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, onpolitical interference.  How does the First Minister justifybuckling in to a lobby led by insurance agents, spearheaded byhis own Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), on anissue that would have saved a million dollars for the motoristsof Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  The member for Thompson has made avery serious allegation.  He made a very serious allegation, andunless he has evidence to support that the minister was even aparticipant in any discussions with respect to Autopac agents, Idemand that he remove that or put the evidence on the table, Mr.Speaker.  That is a matter of privilege that ought to be dealtwith by this House if he does not have any evidence to putforward on that.

Mr. Ashton:  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier should talk to theminister.  He has been taking credit himself.  When will theminister take action to investigate the clear evidence ofpolitical interference on a matter that would have saved amillion dollars for the motorists of Manitoba, clear evidencethat he has buckled in to the insurance agents and their lobby,with his Minister of Government Services taking credit for themhaving buckled in to the insurance agents' lobby?

Mr. Filmon:  He is making a serious allegation.  I demand that heput up what evidence he has that the Minister of GovernmentServices even participated in any discussions or debate leadingup to this issue.  Put the evidence on the table, or withdraw andapologize.

            You are turning white, Steve.  Put up.

Mr. Ashton:  Will the Premier investigate this matter and startby talking to his own minister who has been telling people thathe has spearheaded a lobby which was successful?  Why does he notstart by talking to his own caucus members?

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I ask the member, in the interests ofintegrity of this House, to put the evidence on the table.


* (1355)


Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Temro Automotive Agreement


Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, if our Autopac system is to have integrity, and I thinkit is important that it does, then we must make it asdepoliticized a Crown corporation as possible, and I congratulatethe government for having moved the rate setting to the PUB.That is where they belong.  That is where they should have beenunder the previous administration.  But there was a seriousincident that was raised last night on television.  The publicneeds answers, and I hope that we can get those answers today.

            The report indicated that the public corporation, MPIC, and amanufacturer of a product with a history of trouble entered intoa secret agreement with one another.

            Can the minister responsible please tell the House today whenthat agreement was entered into and why it was entered into?  Wasthe Department of Consumer Affairs informed of this difficulty sothat it could keep the consumers of this province adequatelyinformed about the dangers?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  The Leader ofthe Second Opposition has correctly identified a concern that Ishare on this side of the House, regarding certainly theappearance and the implication of MPIC having entered into thisunderstanding with Temro.  The one thing that was not included,however, in the report last night was that MPIC did contact theCSA indicating to them that they had a number of concerns.  Atthat point, they felt they were unable to produce enough evidenceto take the matter to court.

            My position is that they should have taken these matters tocourt one at a time until they were able to prove beyond anydoubt‑‑and through that process they would have been able toproduce the public information, and then make statements publiclythat they could have supported.  It was an error in judgment, Mr.Speaker, and one which I expect the corporation will not repeat.

Mrs. Carstairs:  Mr. Speaker, to some degree, that begs thequestion as to when the minister himself found out about thisagreement.  After all, if one looks back, it would appear thatthe current Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) was onthis board from 1988 to 1990, and the now Minister of Industry,Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) was on this board from 1990,'91.

            When was the minister informed of this particular secretagreement?


* (1400)


Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the same question arose in my mind asto whether or not there had been any communication or anyimplication in my presence that this type of agreement had beenstruck.  It is only within the last 10 days or so that I becameaware of the issue as it was described by the I‑Team last night.I would doubt if this is the type of question that would havebeen brought to the board table as a matter of fact.  I certainlycan research the agendas to make sure that was the case, butfrankly, this was an executive decision, one which they tell methey felt was supportable at the time.  Obviously, I disagree.

Mrs. Carstairs:  If the minister has known about this for 10days, has he in the last 10 days informed the Minister ofConsumer Affairs so that she can issue an order protecting theconsumers of this province?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, all of the departments of governmentneed to be concerned about the perception as well as the realityof what occurred in this matter, but the simple fact is that theCSA certification and the CSA organization, they continue tostand behind their position.  I have been in consultation withthe minister, but there has to be a process that she could enterinto.  Entering into a decision without reason would have causedthat department every bit as much grief as it would have causedmy office if I had made an abrupt decision without correct legaladvice behind it.


Ozone Depleting Substances ActExemptions


Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):  Mr. Speaker, my question is forthe minister responsible for MPIC and for the Environment.

            Mr. Speaker, as the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs)has been pointing out, there are some concerns about MPIC'sability to show leadership on issues of consumer protection.  Myfurther question, however, is it has now become clear that MPIChas been attempting to shirk its responsibility to protect theenvironment as well.

            Can the minister explain why MPIC has recently advised theworking group on the implementation of The Ozone DepletingSubstances Act that it requires a special exemption from this actso that it will not have to safely dispose of the CFCs in airconditioning units of vehicles that it is attempting to resell tothe public?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  Mr. Speaker, Ipresume that either someone from the working group or the memberhimself has summarized or in some way drawn a conclusion fromcorrespondence or comments made by the corporation, because whathe has just stated is different from my understanding, which isthat the corporation is moving towards a project that will allowthem to withdraw the CFCs from the vehicles within theirresponsibility.

            The issue, of course, that no one wants to address is thatthe corporation has to attribute this cost to someone, and itwill either be to the person who recently had his car writtenoff, and is he now additionally going to be deducted to have theCFC removed, or is it going to be the person who purchases thatcar at auction who will pay additionally to make sure that it hasa green sticker or that it has had the CFCs removed from it?

            The corporation is moving towards a project so that they candefine what would be proper cost.  This will more than likely bea project that will be undertaken by contract or by tender, andthe corporation will be moving towards that, bearing in mind thatone of the problems they have at a number of their compounds isthat in order to remove the CFCs during the winter, they have tohave a heated building and the equipment has to be at 70 degreesbefore they can properly remove that.  That requires someinvestment or contractual work, and the CFC removal is moving inthat direction.

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, I wantto table correspondence dated November 17 from Ms. Anne Lindsayof the Manitoba Eco‑Network, a member of the working group.  Theletter is addressed to him and specifically points out to himthat she is distressed about Autopac's application to be exemptedfrom the act.

            Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Canadian Council of Ministersof Environment which is supposed to be co‑ordinating efforts torecover and recycle CFCs, how can this minister sit at one tableand discuss phasing out CFCs but when he is wearing another hatpresiding over a Crown corporation seek to get a specialexemption for this Crown corporation which every other owner ofvehicles attempting to resell them will have to comply with?  Whyis MPIC special?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is actually leading inCanada today in terms of legislation to deal with CFCs and theimplementation of that legislation.  So let the member not leavethe impression that somehow we are exempting either individualsor corporations with these regulations.

            The corporation is not breaking any laws or legislation inthis province.  They are selling a vehicle.  Those vehicles, someof them may go towards reclamation, some of them may go todestruction, and it is a juncture when we have some 2,000vehicles within the possession of the corporation at which pointthey could remove the CFCs.  In setting up that system, theybetter make sure that in fact they are going one step furtherthan is required by law.  For him to imply that they are somehowbeing exempt is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, MPIC is seeking exemption from a lawwhich will apply to everyone else in this province.

            What kind of leadership and what kind of example does thegovernment expect to offer when it imposes cost andresponsibilities on the public for phasing out CFCs but seeks toexempt Crown corporations from the very same law?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, something that the member, I am sure,is very conversant with, given his training, is some of theprinciples of responsibility.  Environmental responsibility veryoften says that he who has the benefit of the environment and theuse in the environment should pay for that cost.

            Mr. Speaker, that speaks to my answer previously, which wasthat the corporation has to balance the question and has to makea decision that will be compatible with its organization as towhether, if the person who has just had his car wrecked, who isgoing to be billed additionally for the removal of the CFCsbecause he in fact had the benefit of that air conditioning, oris it the wrecker who is going to take that car and perhaps moveon with it to claim parts off of it?  Will he in fact be payingfor the removal of the CFCs in advance of taking it off of MPIC'slot?

            MPIC in fact is not much different in this situation than anautomobile dealer would be under similar circumstances.  They donot have these vehicles for their own use.  They are in theirpossession as a result of a full claim write‑off.

            Mr. Speaker, he knows full well that perception is everythingin the business of politics, and he is trying to create theperception that somehow MPIC is exempt.  He is wrong.


* * *


Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):  Mr. Speaker, my question is to theMinister responsible for the Manitoba Public InsuranceCorporation as well.  The minister has just noted that he wasaware‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.


* * *




Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services):  Mr.Speaker, I would like to rise on a matter of privilege that tookme a little while to‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  A matter of privilege is a veryserious matter.

Mr. Ducharme:  Mr. Speaker, first of all, it will take me a fewminutes, and I will have a motion that I will give forward.

            It is very upsetting when you are accused in this House,especially in the example that I have led‑‑when I was inopposition I did not participate in any of the functions or anyof the committees dealing with MPIC and also, as a minister ofthe Crown, did not participate, at any time did I participatewhen I was at cabinet or participate any time at committeehearings.  I have made it a purpose to stay away when your familyis involved in a particular business.  I have also put all of mybusiness interests in trust.  I do not participate in thepractice of Autopac, and my family participates while I have itin trust.

            Mr. Speaker, I deny all allegations that the member forThompson (Mr. Ashton) has produced, and I move that the memberfor Thompson produce any of the evidence supporting hisallegations that I, as Minister of Government Services, acted ina fashion that could be construed as a conflict of interest inany possible way, and failing his ability to do so, that heimmediately apologize to me and my family and the government,immediately apologize to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), to mycolleagues in the Legislature, to everyone in this House,apologize immediately for his false allegations.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, Iindicated very clearly in the question my concern, the concern ofour caucus about the minister's involvement in this, and I basedvery much of that not only on what brokers have been told butwhat members of our caucus have been told, including by theminister himself.

            We are very concerned when we see evidence as clear as we doof political interference of a savings of $1 million that couldhave been had for the motorists of Manitoba that was stopped bythis government, by this cabinet, by political interference,something they promised in 1988 they would not do.  That is why Iasked the question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), how he couldjustify that kind of political interference.  I have no intentionof withdrawing the very clear fact there has been politicalinterference and my urging that the First Minister perhaps beginby speaking to his own minister and ask his own minister why hehas been taking credit for that, including with members of ourown caucus, when now he stands and makes this comment a matter ofprivilege.  I will not withdraw that, and I would suggest thePremier and the Minister of Government Services have theexplaining to do to members of this House and members of thepublic of Manitoba.


* (1410)


Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader):  Mr.Speaker, this is indeed a very serious matter.  It is the onus ofresponsibility for each and every one of us inside this Chamberto bring forward what we feel are legitimate concerns on behalfof Manitobans and to represent what is in their best interests.At times, and I believe that this is one of those times when theallegations have been so strong, there is some sort of a need tohave some sort of verification of the allegations.  The Premierin his answer did request for some solid‑‑something tangible,that would demonstrate in fact that the Minister of GovernmentServices was in fact in a conflict of interest.

            I have not heard anything to substantiate that, and given theserious nature of the allegations that have been brought forward,I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the Minister ofGovernment Services is in fact owed an apology or, at the veryleast, given the information to substantiate the allegations thathave been levelled against him.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, Ido not certainly have to tell you this, but certainly I think Ihave to tell again other members who maybe have not read rulebooks recently that when one reads the rule book, there is onesection that strikes out.  That is the area dealing with personalprivilege.  All of us, when we come here into this type of asetting, when we are so much on public view and we are so muchvulnerable to attacks which have no evidence or have nosubstance, that is why we can stop in the middle of the QuestionPeriod to rise at this point in time.  That is how serious anyallegation is under a point of privilege.

            Mr. Speaker, we in public life bring a lot of difficulties onourselves, and I think all of us want to begin to clear that upto the extent that we can, but when unsubstantiated allegationsare made, we do not only a disservice to the person who is beingattacked, but indeed to each and every member of this House.  Sowe all have a vital role, not only in this issue, but in any areawhere there is a claim being made against another member.

            Today we had a situation where the member for Thompson,without evidence, without anything, I am led to believe, otherthan a comment that he may have heard or may not have heard, gotup on the guise and raised the question and made a very strongallegation.  The allegation was that a member of the TreasuryBench, through his capacity as a member of Executive Council,influenced a government decision.  What he did not say was:  tohis ultimate benefit.  That is what he did not say in hisquestion, but each and every one of us in this House knowsexactly what he meant.  So, Mr. Speaker, that is why the memberhas to defend his character and indeed all the characters of theHouse that are from time to time charged with an unfoundedallegation, and therefore he has to rise.

            Mr. Speaker, I cannot share the minutes of the cabinetmeeting of that day when this issue was discussed.  I cannot dothat, but I can tell the members of this House that the member ofthe Executive Council was not there.  He was not in attendance,so he influenced not any decision that was made within cabinet onthis particular issue.

            So, Mr. Speaker, I rest my case.  This is a very, veryimportant issue, but more important than that is the allegationspuriously, falsely made against a member of this House.  I wouldsay that if the member wants to do anything honourable at all inhis long‑standing tenure in this House, he will withdraw thatallegation.  He will apologize to the member.  He will apologizeto the Premier, to the government and, more importantly, to allmembers of this House.

Mr. Speaker:  I am going to take this matter under advisement,and I am going to consult the authorities.  I will return to theHouse with the ruling on this matter.

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Temro Automotive Agreement


Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):  Mr. Speaker, my question is to theminister in charge of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

            A few minutes ago, he made the statement that he had learnedof the Temro situation regarding the defective car heaters only10 days ago.  What we are interested in finding out on this sideof the House is:  What action did he take upon learning 10 daysago that this situation had occurred in Manitoba?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  First of all,Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could repeat in this Chamber whatmy immediate reaction was, but let us leave it at that in termsof what I actually said.  I should remind the member oppositethat I have been known to spend some time working in thefarmyard, so he can draw his own conclusions.

            Mr. Speaker, the fact is that I immediately expressed myconcern about the position that the corporation found themselvesin.  I asked if there were other situations similar to this.  Iwas assured that there were not.  I inquired if there were infact situations that may have arisen as a result of this, wheresomeone was injured or imperilled.  I was told there was not.Nevertheless, as I said before, when the corporation took thisdecision, they did it based on the facts as they saw them.  Itwas an executive decision, and certainly they have said to me, inlooking at hindsight, that they would have chosen a differentdirection.

Mr. Maloway:  Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the same ministeris:  Given that the corporation is responsible for safety in thisprovince, could he endeavour to discover why the corporation didnot issue a warning in all this time, neither in their annualreports or referral to the Consumer minister or any other way?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the corporation, as they indicated tome, sent a number of these heaters to an independent lab forexamination.  They notified the Canadian Standards.  At the sametime, the results that came back from the labs wereinconclusive.  They had to make a decision whether they weregoing to go to court at that point, and they were moving towardscourt but did not feel in their own minds that they could make acase that they could substantiate.  In the course of pursuingTemro on these matters, an offer was made, and they considered itto be the course that they would take.

            Nevertheless, as I said before, I am sure that they wouldhave done differently looking back over a period of time.

Mr. Maloway:  Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary.

            Will he now request the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs.McIntosh) to issue a warning to the public and try to determinehow many of these defective heaters are still out there in thepublic, because I think there are a lot of people who are notaware of this problem at this point?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, because I am cognizant of the amountof time I have in answering a question, I did not refer to thefact that we have also been in contact with Temro obviously tosee what their position has continued to be.

            They have been actively removing all of these heaters fromthe market for the last two and a half years or so, I believe.In fact, they will be issuing a press release later today, whichwill provide some further clarity to what their position is.  Iwant to assure the member and the public that we were activelypursuing the corporation to make sure that there was no stoneleft unturned and making sure the public was properly cared for.



Antisniff LegislationProclamation


Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  Mr. Speaker, today we aresaddened to hear another tragic story of a young person who hasdied as the result of chronic solvent abuse.  In spite of thenear epidemic proportions of this problem in some areas of thecity and in the province, the government has refused to takestrong action on the problems of sniff.

            The Minister of Health said that legislation would beproclaimed in January of 1991.  Instead, all we have heard arethe excuses of why this government will not proclaim theantisniff legislation introduced by our caucus.

            I have a very simple question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).When will his government fulfill the commitment to proclaim theantisniff legislation to prevent another tragic death?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I, too,read the newspapers this morning and have empathy for the deathof the individual and understand that one of his difficulties wassniffing substance abuse.

            We have not proclaimed the legislation that was passed inthis House, Sir, because we have not the assurance that thelegislation, as written, would be enforceable.  That has been thereason for the delay since 1990.


Legal Opinion Request


Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  Mr. Speaker, will theMinister of Health table the legal opinions he has received whichindicate why the legislation, which received support from thepolice and community activists, cannot be proclaimed?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, it hasbeen an ongoing discussion with the ministry of Justice in termsof the parameters of that legislation, whether in fact it has thekind of authority and the kind of outcome that my honourablefriend alleged would be part of that legislation.

            Sir, we do not have that kind of opinion that, as written,the legislation would do what my honourable friend wanted it todo, and indeed I think it is fair to say what this House expectedthe legislation might be able to do when it passed it.

            Mr. Speaker, that is the subject of ongoing discussion withinmy ministry and the ministry of Justice with hopefully aresolution that will attempt to uphold what I think all of uswished to accomplish in this House when that legislation waspassed.


Liquor Control Act

Lysol Inclusion


Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  Mr. Speaker, will theminister and his cabinet colleagues take immediate action toinclude Lysol as an intoxicating substance under The LiquorControl Act so that it can be designated and treated as acontrolled substance?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, that iscertainly an issue of one of the substances, and in fact, as Iunderstand it, was one of the difficulties with the legislationbecause of inhalable versus consumable, in terms of Lysol, thespray versus the nonaerosol aspect, and that is where thelegislation had difficulties in terms of its enforcement, Sir.

            Mr. Speaker, that issue has not been resolvable on thelegislation, with the legislation that this House passed, andthat of course, Sir, is why we have been back and forth over atwo‑year period of time with the Justice department, attemptingto bring further clarity to enforcement of the intent of thatlegislation.



Eye Examinations


Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway):  Mr. Speaker, when Delilah betrayedSamson and she cut Samson's hair, Samson succumbed and he wentblind.  If the Health minister proceeds in cutting medicare inaccessing eye care, poor Manitobans in a financial bind mayultimately go blind.

            Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Health, will thehonourable Minister of Health reconsider, postpone or countermandthe impending change in the regulation to extend the waiting timeperiod for basic eye examination from one year to a two‑year timeperiod come January 1, 1993?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, we havebeen reviewing issues within the responsibility and purview ofthe ministry of Health and the service provision that our planprovides in an attempt to assure that we are meeting medicalneeds.  One of the recommendations that we accepted and are inthe process of expediting, and it was in the news some six,eight, 10, 12 weeks ago, was the extension of a two‑year insuredoptometric examination for Manitobans, because that is theprovision of service that is in eight other provinces, theexception being Manitoba and British Columbia.  It was our intentto bring in a two‑year examination paid for by the taxpayers.

Mr. Santos:  Mr. Speaker, if the honourable minster chooses toproceed with this change in regulation, what conditionsconstituting exceptions will he allow so as to preventdiagnosable eye problems from becoming serious and translatedinto more risky and more expensive eye surgery?

Mr. Orchard:  Well, Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is the subjectof discussion right now with professionals in eye examination sothat we can, for instance, assure that our regulation will notcompromise medical condition, because that is the responsibilityof this ministry in calling upon taxpayer dollars to provideservices which have medical necessity.

            Mr. Speaker, I would suspect we will probably have at leastas effective an assurance that we meet medical needs as, forinstance, Saskatchewan has, who recently made the same change.

Mr. Santos:  Mr. Speaker, would the honourable minister publiclydisclose his basic reason, his basic rationale, for allowing thischange, in allowing people to go blind just to have a few savingsin dollars?

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, from time to time, I have listenedwith a great deal of interest to speeches made by my honourablefriend, such as the creation of woman from Adam's rib, but myhonourable friend has exceeded the bounds of integrity and thekind of ability to deliver a clear and concise message on moralsand principles in this House when he accuses this government ofwanting people to go blind with a regulation change that isconsistent with seven other provinces in Canada.  My honourablefriend does himself a disservice as a professional and aneducator.


Public Schools Act

Review Tabling Request


Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for theMinister of Education and Training.  The Minister of Educationand Training had a year‑long study to examine the proposed newpublic schools act, and we have been looking for legislationand/or for that report in this House for some time.

            Can the minister outline when the report of her advisorycommittee will be tabled and when we can expect a new publicschools act in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr.Speaker, the hearings for the revision of The Public Schools Actdid not end until February of '92 because there was great publicinterest in responding to the issues relating to The PublicSchools Act.  The panel then reviewing the submissions that werereceived‑‑and I am happy to tell the member there were over 1,000petitions representing over 6,000 Manitobans‑‑had a great deal ofwork to do, and I have only very recently received a draft copyand then a final copy approximately a week ago.

Mr. Chomiak:  Mr. Speaker, will the minister therefore table thatreport in the House, since she has the final copy and she hasmade all kinds of recommendations in the throne speech concerningeducation?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, first of all, in relation to thethrone speech, I am very pleased with what this government hasput forward in relation to education in the throne speech, andeducational reform relates both to our K‑12 system and also ourpost‑secondary system.  Perhaps, the member has forgotten that.

            However, the report which I have very recently received, I amin the process of reviewing.  Mr. Speaker, I have also made itclear to Manitobans that they will have an opportunity to respondto the recommendations made by that panel before legislation isbrought forward to this House.


* (1430)


Mr. Chomiak:  My final supplementary to the minister who hasfailed to answer both of my first questions:  When will thereport be made public?  When will we see legislation?  Why is thegovernment hiding the report?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the member, I haveonly just received the report, because it is a report whichcontains the opinions representing over 6,000 Manitobans.  Ithink that is a very significant amount of work that has beendone in that report.

            Government is now looking at the best mechanism to releasethe recommendations to Manitobans, the report to Manitobans, andmake sure that Manitobans can then be sure that they areaccurately represented in that report before government goesahead and drafts legislation to amend The Public Schools Act.


Smoking-Cessation Products

            Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, we areincreasingly concerned about this Minister of Health (Mr.Orchard) and his government's attention to prevention and costsavings as a result of preventative measures in our health caresystem.  Today, we have heard about this government's inactionwith respect to preventing serious eye problems.  Yesterday, theMinister of Health indicated‑‑[interjection] Yes, I think theLiberal Health critic might want to consult with the‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.

Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:  Mr. Speaker, I will try to get to thequestion if the other Tory Health minister in this House wouldjust be quiet.

            As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ministerindicated that labelling on liquor bottles pertaining to fetalalcohol syndrome was unnecessary and only appeasing our ownconscience.

            I want to ask the Minister of Health, on a very serious issuepertaining to smoking in our society, why this government hasdeinsured pharmaceutical products that help people stop smoking,that being Nicorette gum, and why this government refuses toprovide any kind of Pharmacare coverage for the nicotine patch.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, all of usknow that smoking compromises one's health condition.  One alsoknows that cigarettes cost $5 a pack or better. [interjection]Pardon me, $7.  Obviously, I am a nonsmoker.  Often people smokeone pack per day, which means in a month you would spend $200.The patches to stop cost about $100 a month, and my honourablefriend wants taxpayers to pay for it?

Mr. Speaker:  The honourable member for St. Johns has time forone very short question.

Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask theMinister of Health how he can justify a decision that will costthis government and taxpayers thousands upon thousands ofdollars, by not taking preventative measures now and avoidingcostly medical interventions and surgery pertaining to cancercaused by smoking down the road.

Mr. Orchard:  Mr. Speaker, with all the respect I can muster formy honourable friend and her would‑be indignation over measurestaken by this government to preserve and protect medicare whichare not dissimilar to provinces right across the length andbreadth of Canada, including provinces governed by Liberals,governed by Conservatives, governed, Sir, by New Democrats, nowmy honourable friend, in the comfort of opposition, cries that weshould do many things that, of reality in the honesty ofgovernment, her confreres in governing provinces do not do.

            Mr. Speaker, all we need to preserve medicare in thisprovince and in this country is a little bit of informed debateand discussion around the issues, not the shrill of rhetoric thatwe hear from her all the time.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The time for Oral Questions hasexpired.


Speaker's Ruling


Mr. Speaker:  Prior to moving on to Orders of the Day, duringQuestion Period, the honourable member for St. James (Mr.Edwards) tabled a document which was unsigned.

            On November 14, 1988, I did take a matter under advisement.I reported back to the House.  At that time, I noted that SpeakerHanuschak in 1970 ruled, and he stated that all letters when readmust be signed and then they become part of the documents of theHouse.

            In 1981, Speaker Graham ruled that an unsigned andunidentified document is an incomplete document and cannot beconsidered the property of the House.

            As I did in 1988 on November 14, if the honourable member wasprepared to make a declaration on the document similar in[interjection] Order, please‑‑the document would then be in theform acceptable to the House.  If this was done, I would beprepared to accept the document of the honourable member for St.James.





(Fourth 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 amendment thereto, and the proposedmotion of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs.Carstairs) in further amendment thereto, standing in the name ofthe honourable member for Gimli, who has 26 minutes remaining.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when Iconcluded at six o'clock, I was talking about the benefits ofrural gasification.

            Providing a favourable economic climate in order to improveour Manitoba farm economy is certainly a priority for thisgovernment‑‑as an example, the multimillion dollar expansion bythe Brandon‑based Ayerst Organics Ltd., which processes a widelyused estrogen replacement product for women.  This project willnot only result in the expansion of the Ayerst plant and providejobs in Brandon, but also will increase the payments to farmersand to the PMU producers in Manitoba.

            This is a real welcomed announcement and will have a verypositive impact on every local rural economy in the province, butbecause of the larger payments these producers will be able toinject more money back into their respective communities also,which means a stronger Manitoba.  So the farmers in myconstituency who supply these PMU producers and also the PMUproducers with feed and other supplies will also benefit.

            As well, the government has revised the Manitoba AgriculturalCredit Corporation financial assistance, so this will alsoencourage more farmers to enter this PMU business.  This is avery positive announcement for all rural areas of Manitoba.

            I also support this government's pledge to intensify effortsto strengthen Manitoba's presence in new and emerging markets forprimary and processed agricultural products.  Manitoba farmersare important to this province in every region.  They producesome of the best products in the world, and I fully support anymove that will expand Manitoba's agricultural industry to otherparts of Canada, North America and, of course, the world.


* (1440)


An Honourable Member:  You forgot to mention Mexico.

Mr. Helwer:  That is right.

            I welcome, as well, this government's intention to press ourcounterparts in Ottawa to act on its responsibilities tostrengthen and promote the sugar beet industry not only inManitoba but across western Canada.  Manitoba needs our farmersand they produce some of the best products in the world.

            I am really pleased that the Speech from the Throne statedthat this government will be bringing together the major playersin the agricultural industry in order to identify futuredirections in diversification, value‑added processing andexports.  We should work with farmers to produce special cropsfor export areas.

            Just in Sunday's paper, one of the headlines "Bumper harvest'amazing'" also outlines the fact that Manitoba's wheat yieldthis year was a phenomenal 41.4 bushels an acre, the highest onrecord.  Canola production in Manitoba also broke records thisyear, according to one of our surveys, and the provincial averagefor Canola was 28.5 bushels, which was an all‑time high.

            This will also make value-added industries such as Canolacrushing and add to the jobs that are created in theseindustries.  So I think it is just great that in agriculture inManitoba, farmers were able to harvest a good crop.Unfortunately, in some areas the quality was not as good as wewould have liked to see, but on the whole I think the cropgenerally was pretty fair.

            Guaranteeing safe and reliable roads and highways is anothervery important priority for this government.  In the Gimli[interjection] Yes, it is very important. [interjection] It isvery important there.  In the Gimli constituency as an example,for '92-93 the Highways department is going to spend about $3.5million in upgrading work.  For example, work continues onHighway No. 8 between Gimli and Winnipeg Beach, and this willeventually result in a better road and make travel safer.

            This is a very important project. [interjection] No, just twolanes, but this is an important project so that members from St.Boniface and other areas can go golfing and also make use of ourtourist areas such as our campgrounds and things like that in thepopular tourist areas in my constituency.  So I am pleased thatthis government is making it safer for Manitobans and visitors toour province.

            I am pleased that protecting Manitoba's environment andconserving our natural resources remain a high priority for ourgovernment.  The Gimli constituency is blessed with many naturalareas or, perhaps, nature museums.  Just a new one is the OakHammock Marsh, of course.  The number of visitors who have beento Oak Hammock this past year is just phenomenal.  Even the mostoptimistic estimates have been surpassed.  It is certainly anindication that Oak Hammock is a very popular place for visitorsto view the geese and the ducks.  That is just one of the naturalareas that we have in the province.  We also have Lake Winnipeg,of course, which I would say is perhaps one of the most popularrecreation areas in all of Canada.

            Along with our commercial fishermen in my constituency, I amanxious to see the introduction of an amendment to the provincialFisheries Act which will expand the market for commercial fish inManitoba and provide greater opportunities for small businessesin the province.  As the throne speech outlined, this amendmentwill allow Manitoba commercial fishermen to sell their catchdirectly to Manitoba restaurants, retailers and processors.  Thiswill mean that our restaurants will be able to feature fresh LakeWinnipeg pickerel, Lake Winnipeg goldeye and species that arecaught in Lake Winnipeg.  It means that our stores will also beable to sell fresh fish to the tourists.


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


            I am really pleased that this government will establish afund to support projects that will enhance the quality also ofour sports fishery, a recreational activity that is becoming moreimportant in many areas of the province.

            Just on fishing, in Tuesday's Winnipeg Free Press an articleon the [interjection] Well, I will read part of it‑‑again howwell fishermen in Manitoba are accepting the amendment to TheFisheries Act.

            It says:  fishermen applaud direct‑sale promise.  One of myconstituents, Kris Olson, a Gimli fisherman, is very pleased.  Hesaid it is very good news.  Also, the Grand Rapids First NationChief Harold Turner said that this is a very positive thing forManitoba and for Manitoba fisheries.

            In spite of what the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) saidyesterday in her speech about fishing, this amendment is a verypositive thing for us in our constituency and for Manitobafishermen, so I am really pleased that our Minister of NaturalResources (Mr. Enns) has taken it upon himself to bring in thisamendment to The Fisheries Act.  It is a very popular thing in myconstituency because fishing is a big industry.  Our fishermenthis past year have done very well with the increased finalpayments, and it is an excellent industry and we certainly wantto protect and enhance and see this industry grow and continue.

            I also welcome the introduction of a new Park Lands Act,which is designed to better meet the needs of today's parkusers.  So I support this government's continuing efforts toimplement the necessary measures to control and properly disposeof hazardous waste.  I also welcome new regulations that will beintroduced which will impose tougher standards for theinstallation of the new underground storage tanks which willrequire testing and testing of existing facilities and cleanup ofproblem areas.

            Just last week I attended a meeting of the Western Fertilizerand Chemical Dealers' Association in Brandon.  One of the topicsthere was, of course, the environment.  It is always a very bigtopic when fertilizer dealers get together, and I think dealerstoday are taking the environment much more seriously than theyever have, and spillage and misapplication and things of thatnature are very important to the dealers and they want to be surethat they are handling this industry and any environmentalconcerns very, very seriously.  We hope that with the new CPICrules on chemical storage and the Department of Agriculture ruleson handling of different pesticides and herbicides, theenvironment will be protected for many years to come.

            I am pleased that energy efficiency also will continue toplay an integral role in all government owned and fundedoperations.  The introduction of new policies to encourage theuse of renewable and alternate energy sources is also verywelcome.  I am also encouraged with plans by our government tointroduce a comprehensive new oil and gas act to encourage andpromote and facilitate the exploration [interjection] anddevelopment of Manitoba's petroleum resources.  This is so thepeople in the urban areas, such as the member for St. Boniface(Mr. Gaudry), can be assured of a supply of petroleum supplies,for your cottage also, for many, many years to come, so I thinkit is great.

            Another key service that is a priority with this governmentis with the telecommunication services.  Earlier this month, 600rural residents living near Teulon were switched from party‑linetelephone service to private lines.  These Manitoba Telephoneservice customers are now enjoying the many pleasures of having aprivate line, like increased privacy, improved access, callwaiting, computer and fax machine capabilities.  For many of usprivate lines have been taken for granted, but for those who arejust getting the phone service this is certainly a majordevelopment and a great thing.  So I am pleased that the ManitobaTelephone System has been able to switch the 600 Teulon‑arearesidents to individual telephone lines and I know that otherrural residents can expect to have this same service in the nearfuture.

            Last year towns such as Stonewall, Balmoral, Gimli customersreceived the service.

            Also, I am glad to see that the Community Calling areas havebeen expanded in my constituency and many areas of Manitoba.This is also a great benefit to the businesses located in thesmall communities.


* (1450)


            Modern communication links have also been introduced in theEvergreen School Division, No. 22, in my constituency.  Throughan agreement between the Manitoba Telephone System and the schooldivision, a setup called interactive television, or ITV, willsoon be used in the classrooms and in the Evergreen schools inGimli, Arborg and Riverton.  Through interactive television,which uses two‑way audio and video communications equipment, aninstructor in Gimli will also be able to teach students in Arborgand Riverton.  With ITV, Evergreen School officials will now beable to offer their students more educational options, which is akey in these competitive times.

            In fact, education and training are two very important areasthat are being addressed by this government.  Improving standardsand increasing province‑wide testing and evaluation will alsobetter prepare young Manitobans for the real world.  I welcomethe refocusing of the education system towards producing somesound reading, mathematics and learning skills.

            This government has also taken steps to help our young peoplefind employment.  Through initiatives like the Green Team,Partners with Youth, a number of young people in my constituencyhave been able to find work.  So I hope that these‑‑and I am surethey will‑‑programs will continue.  Also the CareerStart Programis another excellent program that our communities have been ableto take advantage of.

            Several young people from my constituency are also getting afirst‑hand taste of what it is like to be an RCMP officer.Through a provincially funded RCMP pilot program, 11 Interlakeresidents are currently in RCMP uniform as volunteer officers.These auxiliary constables are getting the unique opportunity ofexperiencing police work close up.

            I support the continuing efforts of this government toimprove the quality of health care in this province.  We areattempting to achieve something that is practically impossibleunder other administrations.  We are trying to keep costs down,while maintaining a high level of care.  I feel this government'splan to preserve our medicare system by shifting services awayfrom some of our higher-cost institutions to the more personalmethods‑‑[interjection] Oh, it is an excellent move.[interjection] That's right.  All Manitobans will benefit.

            This government has also played an important, key role inimproving the quality of life for Manitobans.  In July, weannounced the $1.2 million well and water pipeline project forthe Stony Mountain area, which will result in cleaner water forresidents there.

            This project involves the cleanup of previous ground watercontamination and the development of a deep well and piped watersupply to residents who were affected by the contamination.  Sothe cost of this project is being shared by the provincialgovernment, the federal government and the local ruralmunicipality.  There is no doubt, this is a very importantproject, and I am pleased to have taken an active role inresolving this serious problem.

            In closing, Mr. Acting Speaker, I know this government willprovide the leadership that Manitobans can rely on to make thisprovince stronger.  Through my government's plan for economicrenewal, all Manitobans will be able to work together for abrighter future.  Thank you.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Thank you to my honourablecolleagues.

            I would also like to start off with some thanks to otherpeople.  I just finished writing my Christmas message to myconstituency, which is going to go in my newsletter atChristmastime.  I was reminded of the number of people in myconstituency whom I should thank, including my constituencyexecutive, for their ongoing support and the number of othervolunteers and community agencies that I have the good fortune towork with on a variety of issues to ensure that the EastKildonan‑Transcona community is a better place to live.

            I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the numberof people in my critic areas for their ongoing support andco‑operation.  I truly believe that being an MLA is a tremendousopportunity, and I would like to express some gratitude for theopportunity to learn from working with so many people who are socommitted to social justice and equality in our community.  Itruly believe that I have learned more in my last two years as anMLA than I learned in all my years at university, five years atuniversity.  I truly believe that I am the kind of person wholearns best from doing, and I appreciate the opportunity as anMLA to have the freedom to‑‑[interjection] The Minister ofNorthern Affairs (Mr. Downey) said that I will get a tuition feeat the end of the year.  That is cute.

            I want to spend the majority of my time dealing with thethrone speech and the economy, and I appreciate the chance to dothat.  I also wanted to take a moment to thank and put on recordmy appreciation for having a new woman in the Legislature in AvisGray, the member for Crescentwood, as well as the new member forPortage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).  What I notice about both ofthese people is, they are closer to my generation and thegeneration shared by the two honourable members here listening tome now and perhaps even the Deputy Speaker.

            I hate to say it, but when I look across at the benchesopposite, I see a bunch of old white guys.  That is the majorityof the impression that I am faced with on a daily basis.  I knowthat there are members on the opposite side who are arepresentative of the female gender, but the percentage of womenon that side of the House continues‑‑[interjection] I am tryingto explain to the members opposite that I mean no personaloffence to this.  I think I have struck a chord with one of themembers opposite.

An Honourable Member:  Is she scolding you?

Ms. Cerilli:  I think she is scolding me, but I will continue toexplain that I do not believe that their caucus truly representsthe diversity in our society.  I do believe that I do not haveany problem standing here and saying that this side of the Housedoes more accurately represent the diversity, and I include myLiberal colleagues on this side of the House, because we do, Ithink, more accurately represent the diversity in our society.

An Honourable Member:  You are so arrogant.

Ms. Cerilli:  I am not being arrogant.  I think it is a fact.

            Well, now that I have the attention of members opposite‑‑

Some Honourable Members:  Oh, oh.


* (1500)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Order, please.  Thehonourable member for Radisson has the floor.

Ms. Cerilli:  Mr. Acting Speaker, I was going to say that onThursday, November 26, when we began this session, we heard aSpeech from the Throne, and it did not give me much hope that theConservative government has learned from the mistakes of thepast.  I do not think that they have learned from the mistakes ofprevious governments‑‑perhaps even previous NDP governments,because I am certainly not going to stand here and say there wereno mistakes made‑‑but it does not seem that they have learnedfrom the mistakes made of previous Conservative governmentseither nationally in other provinces in the country orinternationally.

            I also want to say that it does not seem like Mr. Filmonlearned from his trip to Brazil‑‑

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Order, please.  I wouldlike to remind the member that it is the honourable members inthe House.

Ms. Cerilli:  Thank you.  I am working from notes here to someextent, so I will refer to him as Premier.

            I do not think that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has learned thelessons that he could have from his trip to Brazil.  I had theopportunity, recently, to attend a meeting of the YMCAinternational development luncheon, and I was able to hear adescription of the trip that Premier Filmon attended when we wentdown to Brazil.  I was struck by the ingenuity and the realcommunity development that was going on as sponsored by thoseYMCA projects.  I would love it and I would hope that thoseprinciples of sustainable development that are being applied onthose community projects could be brought home and be applied tothe community and economic development so necessary in Manitoba.

            I really thought when Premier Filmon returned from Brazilthat he had been affected by his experience in a developingcountry.  I have not had the good fortune to visit a developingcountry.  I have learned what I know about international affairsfrom talking to people from other countries, from watchingmovies, reading books and those kinds of second‑hand learningmethods.  I would love one day to travel. [interjection]

            The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs.McIntosh) insists that I honour my elders.  Well, I honour peoplewho deserve to be honoured.  I do not respect authority that isnot deserving of respect.

            As I was trying to say, I was going to talk a little bitabout the projects in Brazil and that I hoped that the principlesthat those projects are based on would be applied here.  I willjust mention what the basis is for those projects that are doneusing government of Manitoba money.  This is money that isdonated to the Y and in turn goes down to do development in othercountries.

            The criteria for deciding if a project is going to go aheadto be legitimate as a community development and economicdevelopment project‑‑it has to meet the following criteria.  Theyquestion these things:  Who initiates the project?  Who benefitsfrom the project?  Who controls the project?  What is thelong‑term impact on the needs of women, the needs of the disabledand the needs of the environment?  I sit back and I think, wow.If we could only apply those same principles in our province, inour industrialized society in Manitoba, boy, could we really dosomething.  I really would hope that Premier Filmon would havelearned from the ingenuity shown in those communities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Order, please.  I wouldlike the honourable member to pay special note to her notes, thatmembers are to be referred to as the honourable member or theminister of a department.

Ms. Cerilli:  Sorry, I apologize.  I would hope that the Premierwould have learned from the idea that they are doing communityand economic development by not only investing into the corporateand private sector, that they are investing into community healthcare, social services and education.

            One of the projects that they did in Brazil was they turned abar into a community school and a community centre.  This schoolnow is a local community school and centre for young people sothey do not have to walk so far to go to school.  In theevening‑‑they have sewing machines in that school so that peoplecan do other work that is going to benefit the economy in thatcommunity after, when the kids are not in school.  Think of it,it is a bar, or it was a bar, and that to me makes it even moreexciting.

            The other project that they did in Brazil, and I do not knowthe names of the communities, unfortunately, but they turned oneroom of a building into a dental clinic.  They invested money ina dentist's chair, and what that allowed them to do is not onlyprovide dental care to children and others in that community, butit allowed them to teach nutrition.  It allowed them to haveaccess to the people coming in to have their teeth taken care ofto learn about the lifestyle changes and the diet that is notonly going to give them healthy teeth, but is going to give thema healthy body and enable them to live a healthy life.  To me,that is community and economic development at its finest.

            I think we could apply those same kinds of ideas andprinciples in Manitoba in a bigger way, and that is what agovernment is there to do.  In the throne speech, we saw more ofthe same Conservative, elite, corporate welfare masqueraded asprogress and diversification, more handout of taxpayer money toindustry and business, and I want to emphasize that it was moneyto non‑Manitoban, non‑Canadian industry and business.  So thecapital is leaving our province and actually drains our economy.

            Now I want to talk a little bit about an example of this inmy own constituency.  Right now, in the constituency of Radisson,we are struggling to keep open a local Safeway store.  ThisSafeway store has been there for about 32 years.  It is in thepart of Transcona that has probably some of the most long‑livedTranscona residents.  It is the west end of Transcona in an areathat has a very high number of senior citizens.

            The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says that hisgrandmother lives there.  Well, he would take a special interestin what is happening in that community, because we have seen themobilization of people concerned that they have some control overwhat happens in their community, and why should they not, after32 years of spending their hard‑earned money at a grocery storein their community, stand by when the corporation, based on theirbottom line, is going to be allowed to pack up and move outfarther to the 'burbs and provide them no option for groceryshopping in their own community.

            They are going to try and maintain the lease in that store sothat no other competition can move in.  Now I do not call thatfree enterprise.  I do not call that fair.  Corporate feudalismis what you could call that.  Not only that, in the research Ihave found out from investigating the background on this case,Canada Safeway is no longer even Canadian.  Canada Safeway,through the mergers that are going on on our planet due toglobalization, the buzzword of the century, and due toConservative policies that allow these huge corporate mergers, wenow have Canada Safeway entirely owned by an Americanmultinational.

            Canada Safeway has a debt probably bigger than thisgovernment's debt, but because it is a private debt and all theshares are not even in the stock market, we cannot even find outwhat the debt is of Canada Safeway.  So now the people in mycommunity of Radisson‑‑[interjection] We do have to pay it,because as you remind us every once in awhile, there is only onetaxpayer.  So we are losing millions and billions of dollars inour grocery money out of the economy, and it is going, I do noteven know where, to the U.S?

            * (1510)

            There is one shareholder for Canada Safeway now‑‑this is whatI have found out or what I have been told‑‑that resides in NewYork.  Now to me, we have a real problem in this country, andthis is a symptom of it when we cannot even have our grocerydollars spinning around and coming directly back into oureconomy.  I ask myself when I go and buy a loaf of bread atSafeway and I pay $1.09 for that loaf of bread, where is thatmoney going?  How much of it is going to the farmer?  We know notvery much.  How much of it is going to the manufacturer thatmills the wheat and produces the flour?  How much of it is goingto the corporation to do the marketing and the packaging, and howmuch is going to the workers?  Well, we know that at Safeway theyget paid pretty good, thanks that they have a decent union.

An Honourable Member:  And that is not affecting our grocery bill?

Ms. Cerilli:  I would say to the member for Rossmere (Mr.Neufeld) that the salaries of those union workers at Safeway arethe least of our worries when it‑‑

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Order, please.  I wouldlike to remind the honourable member one more time that it is thehonourable member for Rossmere.  All members are honourable inthe House.

Ms. Cerilli:  Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.

            This is what I am talking about.  I have had quite aneducation from being an MLA.  I thought that I had some politicalanalysis when I came into this position, but I like to think thatit has been strengthened by my experience of working on behalf ofthe people in my constituency and trying to raise issues and dosomething about the devastation of our environment as well as myother critic areas.

            I want to talk a little bit about that.  I want to talk aboutwhat was missing from the throne speech.  What was missing fromthe throne speech were some pretty key things in my mind.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Order, please.  Could Ihave the honourable members trying to carry on a conversation onmy left go into the loge and carry it on, so that I can hear thehonourable member for Radisson put forward her speech.

Ms. Cerilli:  Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker, I appreciate yourrapt attention.  I appreciate it.

            Not once in the government's throne speech, its plan ofaction for the upcoming session, did we hear the words equality,justice, culture, job creation, recession, multiculturalism,immigration, environmental restoration or poverty.  Not once didwe hear any of those words.  Talk about denial.  It seems likethis government wants us to forget about all of these things, andthey expect us to do the same on many other areas.

            I guess we cannot expect, after all, for a Conservativegovernment to have any notion of social, economic orenvironmental justice.  Conservative economic policies thatsupport multinational corporate mergers, that centralize capitaland wealth, that tax the poor and eliminate or stranglegovernment public services have caused this recession.  No onetalks very much about the causes of the recession, and I woulddisagree with members opposite when they try and put the blame ondebt.  I would disagree with that.

            When you look at what is going on outside the public sector,the shrinking economy brings with it other social problems.  Wehave seen the rise in racism; we have seen the rise in violentcrime and theft.  We have seen more family stress which in turncauses more health problems and more ignoring.  They use the debtas an excuse to ignore the very deep changes that are necessaryto deal with those social problems that I just mentioned.

            I would like to impress upon the members that are oppositeand listening that we are really in a crunch here.  I am notsuggesting that the solutions are easy.  People, though, arefeeling very desperate.  People are feeling horribly betrayed.People did put their trust in this government.  A number ofpeople voted for this government [interjection] A largest number,you are right.

            I would stress to this government that democracy does notmean that you get elected every four years and between then youcan ignore the people who elected you, and you can ignore themajority of people who are impoverished in this province.  Weshould start talking about making our democracy work, abouthaving some accountability.

            Let us talk once more about participatory democracy.  We haveseen what this government thinks of that when they havedismantled Child and Family Services which was community based,when they have dismantled housing services which were communitybased.  That is what they think about democracy:  Let us controleverything; let us obsess with control and let us use the ideathat father knows best.  I am saying that people in our countryno longer will stand for that, and I am very proud of that.

An Honourable Member:  That is very sexist.  I resent that.  I amsurprised at you.

Ms. Cerilli:  I will talk a little bit, as the members oppositeget more upset about my terms.  I wonder if they have ever heardof the term "patriarchy" and if they will accept that oursociety‑‑[interjection] Unfortunately, we do not have amatriarchy.  Unfortunately, we have a patriarchy.

            I am not saying that women are superior and I am not sayingthat men are superior.  I do believe that we both have knowledgeand things to contribute and skills and understandings.  I wouldimplore the members opposite to listen to the women in theirparty.  I would implore them to go then beyond their party, ifthe women in that party are not expressing the deep concerns ofwomen throughout our country, because women are not equal, and wecannot treat this society as if it were so.

An Honourable Member:  Give us some examples.

Ms. Cerilli:  Oh, give us some examples, says the honourablemember for Rossmere.

An Honourable Member:  I think he is trying to trap you.

Ms. Cerilli:  I do not think I could get trapped on this one.

            I will get to some examples later on, because I do want toget to talking about NAFTA.  Oh dear, I could talk about theeffects of NAFTA on women, but that is another speech.

            I think the main point that we have to make here when we aretalking about the betrayal of Conservative governments to thepeople in this country is the honourable Premier's (Mr. Filmon)hypocrisy, on the one hand of complaining about federaloffloading, and then on the other hand of doing exactly the samething to municipalities in Manitoba.  We have to remember thatthe Premier of Manitoba is from the same party, has the samepolicies and the same politics as the Prime Minister of thiscountry, who has gone down in history as being one of the mostunpopular politicians of all time, and now is taking it apart,says my honourable friend from Swan River.

            I want to talk a little bit about both the Tory and theLiberal approach to dealing with our crisis.  We are in a globalcrisis here.  No one is disputing that, because on the one handwe want to restore and protect the environment and on the otherhand we want social justice.  Environmentalism without socialjustice is nothing, as far as I am concerned.  Social justicemeans jobs.  It means jobs for everyone.  It means jobs for allof those people who want to work and are not able to because ofConservative economic policy.

            Now the Tory and Liberal approach is just to sort of hunkerdown and try to do more with less.  We hear a lot of doing morewith less.  They try to hide it out, wait it out like it is astorm that is going to blow over.

            Yet we heard the Premier himself say that this is an economicrestructuring, not a recession.  Conservatives across the countryseem content to let the corporations and the monetaryinstitutions restructure our society, and we are supposed to sitback and watch.  The governments of the people that they aresupposed to represent are going to sit back and watch.  Well, wehave fewer and fewer people on the planet control more and moreresources and control more and more of the wealth, and we have agreater number of people who are living in poverty or on theborderline of living in poverty.

            It is obvious now to me and to many of us just how firm ahold corporate interests have on our country.  It is ourbeautiful yet gasping country.  Globalization is the Conservativeword for corporate, multinational control of our global,monetary, and industrial trade and capital.


* (1520)


            I have a newsletter that was put out by our M.P., the memberfor Winnipeg‑Transcona, and it talks about globalization.  AManitoba result, an example of globalization, has to do with PineFalls and Abitibi‑Price.  After years of unsustainable forestryand pulp and paper industry and logging and growth‑‑we will callthis growth‑‑Abitibi‑Price can pack up and leave, open a new milldown in the United States, and they can leave the community ofPine Falls holding the bag, holding the responsibility for apolluting mill.  That is what it is now.  It is out of date.  Itis inefficient.

An Honourable Member:  Pine Falls is doing everything to keepthem there.

Ms. Cerilli:  I know that, and I would wish all the people ofPine Falls well in doing everything that they are able.  I wouldsupport them 100 percent in taking over that mill so that itcontinues to support the economy of their community.

            What I do not want to see continue is unsustainableforestry.  While we have this corporation going and opening up anew mill in the United States, we have the Free Trade Agreement,which is going to assure that the United States not only has ourmill, a new, up‑to‑date, high‑tech, nonpolluting mill, but italso has assurance that it is going to have Canadian trees.Because of the Free Trade Agreement, they are going to be assuredthat their new mill will have our trees‑‑our new mill, our newtrees, our jobs, down in the United States.  That makes me prettyangry.

An Honourable Member:  Explain how they are going to get thetrees down there?

Ms. Cerilli:  Read NAFTA and the Free Trade Agreement and youwill understand how they are going to get the trees down there.I would suggest to you, the train tracks are already set up to godown to the United States to take those logs and, if we haveNAFTA, we are not going to have any control over themanufacturing or the processing of those logs.  We can have fulllogs going down to the United States.

            I want to move now to a little bit more of a positive note.The NDP approach would be a lot different, the social democraticapproach, because we believe that government must stand up tocorporate interests for the jobs and for the people that theyrepresent.

            Our approach to development is more holistic.  We do not seethe economy as a funnel.  We do not see it as a funnel to trickledown wealth to those people who have the misfortune of being atthe bottom of the ladder in our society.  We see the economy as acircle or a wheel, and that wheel must revolve.  We believe thatgovernments, industry, workers, community services and consumersare all equal and important partners in the economy, and when thepartners work together the cycle turns.  When the wheel turns itgrows, involving more and more people in the economic activitythat sustains our culture and our society.

            What I am saying here is that with the rampant competition wehave become brainwashed into trying to accept does not work.  Thekind of competition that was used as the principle at the end ofthe throne speech isolates the partners in the economy.  Itcreates turf wars and it makes our economy unsustainable.Co-operation works.

            Health care, education, social services, recreation‑‑theseare all sectors of the economy.  They are not a drain on taxdollars, nor a drain on resources.  They are an investment intothe community and into the people and future of our culture andsociety.  Money invested into these areas creates jobs, developscommunities and makes them strong, makes them more co‑operative,makes them more self‑sufficient and creative, and it makes themhealthy.

            You cannot invest only money into private industry and ignoresocial services, health care and education and think you aregoing to get anywhere near close to having a healthy community ora healthy economy, says the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie),and I agree.  A greater percentage of money under the NDP wouldbe invested into people and into families and not into privatecorporations that are allowed to take the money and run.

            Real education and health reform cannot be put on the backburner until the economy is fixed or better.  Real education andsocial service reform is part of the solution.  If the $90million or so that was paid extra to welfare over the last twoyears was put into work and training programs for things likecare and cleanup of the environment, support for the elderly andthe sick, education and retraining of laid‑off workers, we wouldbe better off both in the short term and in the long term.  Thisis the NDP approach provincially and federally.

            As I have said before, we must make our democracy work.  Thismeans the democratization of our institutions so people have asay in their education, so people have a say in their health careand in their government services and in their communitydevelopment so that the public are not treated like sheep and areexpected to vote every four years and ignore it in between.Those things are the old way.  Those things are passe, and Ireally believe that we are developing a generation of people whoare not going to stand for it.

            Before I wish you a Merry Christmas, I am going to talk aboutNAFTA a little bit.  How much time do I have left, Mr. ActingSpeaker?  Eight minutes.  I only have eight minutes to talk aboutNAFTA.

            I guess one of the main things about these trade agreementsis, we can no longer continue to struggle for jobs, to be heldhostage by the private sector and use our standard of living andquality of life as the currency to try and keep people and jobsin the province.  We cannot do it anymore.  We simply cannotafford NAFTA.  We cannot afford to lose sovereignty over ournatural resources and our country.

            Some of the issues I would talk about if I had more timewould deal with the pharmaceutical industry in respect to NAFTA,natural resources, aboriginal rights.  I really believe that ifthe federal election comes and we get another Conservativegovernment elected in this country and we have NAFTA, we are notgoing to have a country left.  I often joke with my colleagues onthis side of the House that some days I think I would be betteroff and maybe the members opposite would be better off too if Ijust went and lived in the bush, because some days I really thinkthat this is the biggest fight that this country has ever seen.

            We can no longer talk about economic development and ignoreaboriginal rights.  To me, NAFTA is about aboriginalrights‑‑aboriginal rights to have their land claims settled,aboriginal rights to have the Northern Flood Agreement settled,because we cannot be negotiating away land and resources andparts of the economy which are not the dominant white society'sbusiness to be negotiating away.

            I think that we cannot talk about natural resources,particularly in Manitoba, without talking about aboriginal rightseither‑‑very big concerns related to water, hydro, forestry.Something this government does not seem to have clued into yet isthe potential for growth in the ecotourism area‑‑real ecotourism.


* (1530)


            Maybe if I left this job and I went to live in the bush, thisis the industry that I would get involved in, because I trulythink that what most people in our industrialized culture andsociety need is to spend some time out of the city in a canoe orin a park before they are logged. [interjection] In a wildernessarea, I would say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).

            I know the Minister of Natural Resources did a canoe trip upnorth.  I think is was on the Seal River, and I would hope thatonce again the Minister of Natural Resources was reminded howinsignificant we really all are, how insignificant in the bigscheme of things the human race is.  We are just part of nature.We are just part of the ecosystem.  We are just part of ecology,and we do not have the right to destroy it.

            Something that Senator Al Gore, just elected to thevice‑presidency in the U.S., talks about in the book that hewrote is intergenerational rights and responsibilities, and thatis what the environment is all about to me.

            We talk about sustainable development, how we do not have theright to use more than is our fair share so that there is goingto be nothing left for the next generation, and I would challengethe members opposite to start applying that to the economy.

            The other thing I want to mention in closing is that anotherthing that was not mentioned in this throne speech was thebuzzword "we are keeping taxes down."  That is what thisgovernment has held their hat on for the last five years.  So Iwas just going to give out a warning to people that I think thebudget that is going to go along with this throne speech is goingto make Sterling Lyon look like Santa Claus.  I think that someof the articles coming out with headlines like "Civil Servicebraces for big cuts" are a telltale sign.

            I could talk more about the problems with the media in ourculture and society, but I will leave that for another day.

            So with all due respect, I thank you for the time.  I feellike I have had an awful lot more attention than often othertimes; people have been rapt in attention.

            I will say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all themembers in the House.  Thank you very much.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):  Mr. Acting Speaker, it is certainlygives me great pleasure to be able to rise today to voice a fewcomments and maybe at times even concerns about what wascontained in the throne speech.  However, the concerns I haveprobably largely will be directed towards some of the rhetoricand the criticism that has been extended by the oppositiontowards the throne speech.  I simply have no amazement atwondering where they are coming from at times.

            However, before I get into that I want to, of course, welcomemy new colleague on this side the member for Portage la Prairie(Mr. Pallister), who I have known for quite a number of years andwho I have, throughout the years, grown to admire and respect forhis, at times, audacity and his intelligent way of dealing withissues.  I believe that will come forward as he contributesduring this session to the issues as we deal with them and thematters of piece of legislation that are brought forward anddebated on a regular basis.

            I also want to extend my sincere welcome to the return of themember for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) to this Legislature.  I hadalways thought that she added to the debates and the discussions,and we certainly welcome her back to the Legislature here at thistime.

            It was sad to see that when the Speech from the Throne wasmade our Lieutenant‑Governor could not be with us.  We all wantto, at this time, share our sympathies and wish Mr. Johnson wellin his recovery from his illness and hope that he will be able tobe with us fairly soon.

            I also want to indicate that it is always a pleasure to seeour Speaker of this House back in the Chair.  It is his strongleadership that this House needs and that he has demonstratedover the years that we admire and appreciate.  I want tosincerely say that it is his jocular attitude at times and hisapproach to authority that we respect most of all in this House.We welcome his sincere presence sitting there looking at us andcondoning our antics at times.  Certainly he is an asset as hewill guide us again through this session.

            One of the key elements I suppose that our Speech from theThrone indicated in setting out the agenda for economic renewalin this province was that we are indeed at a crossroad, acrossroad in economic development, and I think that was clearlydemonstrated.  It was clearly demonstrated during the Americanelection that that crossroad does not only, ladies and gentlemen,pertain to Manitoba.  Yes, indeed it pertains to all of theworld.  We are entering into a different era.  We are all goingto be subjected, whether we like it or not, to the effects ofcompetition from outside our borders, whether it be from ourfriends to the south of us, whether it be from the Asiancountries, whether it be from the Pacific Rim, or yes, indeed,within the next decade, we could very easily be faced with acompetitive ability of the U.S.S.R. to impact what we do in thiscountry.

            There are significant developments occurring as we stand hereand speak, whether it is through the negotiations of the GATT,whether it is through negotiations that are currently occurringin Croatia to stop the confrontation over there, whether it is inTokyo in the financial community, or whether it is in thisprovince, that we deal with on a daily basis about our concerns,about our ability to provide employment and indeed food for ourchildren on our table on a daily basis.


(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)


            We all share the concern, opposition members as well asgovernment‑side members, for those who are less fortunate than weare.  It is for that reason that our government has taken thestrong stand on ensuring that we will control the unethicalspending that went on during the past decade prior to ourselvestaking office, because would we today have the additional $500million a year to spend that we are now spending on interestrates.


* (1540)


            I would say to the opposition that they were at that timegovernment and had they chosen a tougher road at that time, hadthey made some tougher decisions, we would today not be givingthe banks and the financial institutions $500 million a year.  Wewould today have that $500 million a year to provide better jobsand better facilities to those who are less fortunate, whether itbe in health, whether it be in education or whether it be, infact, providing social services to those who cannot fend forthemselves.

            We have tried and we will keep on trying to keep our taxesdown.  Our record today in this province stands taller than anyrecord anywhere else in any other nation or province that I knowof.  Now we are the only province in this country that has forfive years straight not increased income taxes, not increasedservice taxes.  As a matter of fact, we have decreased them.

            Our strengths are maintaining our health care system.  Ourstrengths are ensuring that our children will be educated, andour strengths are providing real jobs in this province.  How dowe ensure that real jobs are provided by sitting on our hands andgrasping our knees and shaking every time somebody suggestssomething new and different, or are we going to be aggressive inencouraging others from outside of this province, outside of thiscountry, yes, outside of even this continent, to considerManitoba as the place to make their home and to invest?  How doyou do it?  By increasing taxes?  By decreasing welfare paymentsas Mr. Doer said that he would in his address to their annualmeeting just a few short months ago?  He said, we will spend $250million to create jobs, and we will do it by reducing thepayments to welfare recipients, to those that are dependent ongovernment support.  We will decrease their assistance, and wewill spend $250 million to generate infrastructure.

            Well, I want to remind members opposite that this governmentis not spending $250 million on infrastructure.  We are spending$300 million and better on infrastructure and infrastructurerenewal, so what Mr. Doer has in fact said to his delegates athis annual meeting is that he will decrease the spending by $50million, and he will decrease spending on welfare and do what?

            Well, there were also some criticisms of our Premier (Mr.Filmon) for making trips outside of this country to attractindustries and businesses.  Let me remind you, let me read from aWinnipeg Free Press article, I believe in 1987, November 16, whenthe question was asked where the then premier of the province hadbeen, and the answer can be found by looking at whom the premiertook with him to promote business in Manitoba.  I believe thiswas in reference to a trip that the then Premier Pawley made tosomewhere outside of this country.  He took with him the Financeminister, Eugene Kostyra.  He took with him the Industry, Tradeand Technology minister, Mr. Vic Schroeder.  He took with him theEnergy and Mines minister, Mr. Jerry Storie.  He took with himMr. Marc Eliesen.  Who was Mr. Marc Eliesen?  Was he the chairmanof the then so famous Manitoba Hydro Board?  I believe he was.Our premier, it says, when looking for business takespoliticians.  Other western provincial premiers arrangingprovincial ties to the Pacific Rim take businessmen.

            Well, I want to say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that whenyou are going out into the world to attract business to establishin this province or any other province, you better take yourbusiness community with you because business attracts business.

            Our strengths, I say to you again, are health care.  Ourstrengths are education for our future generations, and ourstrengths are the development of those industries that will useour most basic elements for production and cause job creation andemployment to happen.

            Agriculture in this province has traditionally been viewed byopposition members as just another business.  Agriculture is notjust another business.  The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli)just stood before us a few minutes ago and indicated that $1.09that she spent on bread was not something that she objected to,but she wondered where the money went.  Well, let me tell youthat we also wonder where the money went when the previous NDPgovernment spent the $500 million a year ruthlessly, withoutconsideration for rural development.  They did not even know theword‑‑know the meaning of the word "rural development."  They didnot know what agriculture meant.

            They built, Mr. Speaker, bridges to nowhere, and I say to youthat if I look at the comments that were made in the press at theannual meeting of the NDP convention by their Leader, they areagain on a path of building bridges to nowhere, because theirLeader referred to spending money on retooling provincialinfrastructure to create jobs.  Specifically what are theytalking about?  We raised our budget from roughly about a$70‑million capital budget in highways that the NDP left to lastyear's $100 million or better than $100 million, a $30 millionincrease in highway spending.  The people in southern Manitobaare certainly noticing the aggressive way we are proceeding withthe four‑laning of Highway 75.

An Honourable Member:  Oh, that is very aggressive.

Mr. Penner:  Well, the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.Storie) sits there and says, yes, very aggressive.  It isnoticeable.  Well, certainly it is noticeable.  Everybody in thisprovince driving to Altona or Letellier or St. Joseph or St. Jeanor Emerson or Sprague or Vita will note the improvement of theroad system in this province.  Yet what did they do?

            We are embarked upon a path of economic development to ensurethat not only rural Manitobans‑‑oh, and I should indicate to youthat the NDP indicated that they were going to look after thehealth care needs of this province, and in doing so they wouldconsult with Manitobans.  You know where?  You know where theyare going to consult with Manitobans?  They are going to consultwith Manitobans in Winnipeg and in Brandon.

            I will read to you, Manitobans do not trust the Conservativehealth reform.  This is, of course, from a news release that theNDP released.  It says, NDP priorities for the next session.They do not trust Conservative health reform.  Many peoplebelieve it is just an excuse for cutbacks and services, and Doersays, for these reasons New Democrats are holding public forumsthroughout Winnipeg and throughout Brandon to talk about healthcare reform with Manitobans.


* (1550)


            Of course, that has always been the opposition's forte, todiscuss with Manitobans in Winnipeg and in Brandon whateverissues that come before them.  They have yet to realize‑‑oh, wellmaybe with the exception of Flin Flon and Swan River‑‑that thereare other parts of Manitoba besides Brandon and Winnipeg.Therefore, our consultations, through regular cabinet meetingsoutside of this city, through discussions with Manitobans, are onan ongoing basis consulting about the needs of Manitobans.

            We know that Manitobans all over this province, whether it isManitoba, whether it is Winnipeg, whether it is Brandon oranywhere else in this province, need infrastructure.  We needgood roads; we need good sewer services; we need good watersupplies.  For that reason, ladies and gentlemen, our provinceentered into what is called the infrastructure agreement, the SDIprogram which is spending $90 million to ensure that communitiessuch as Steinbach, Altona‑‑yes, we even indicated that we wouldinclude Dauphin, but they, of course, said no‑‑but many othercommunities will be served with water and sewage facilities thatthe NDP had simply neglected over their term of office for almostthe last two decades.

            Twinning of Highway 75, schools, airports‑‑and I talked aboutthe commitment that we made to a new airport in Snow Lake.  Ijust very briefly talked to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)and asked him how we were progressing with that commitment thatwe had made to that town.  We believe that every community shouldhave access to the rest of the province, whether it is byproviding airports, whether it is by providing roads, highways orwhatever.  We believe that every person in this province shouldhave access to good, clean water.  We believe that every personin this province should have access to good clean sewage disposalsystems.

            The amount of money that we have designated is better than$300 million a year, and yet the NDP were going to, in their newbudget, designate $250 million, a decrease of $50 million, andthat was going to be their job creation initiative.  So much forinnovative thinking.

            It certainly is, in my view, Mr. Speaker, shades of the oldPawley administration.  They call that, new‑think?  Well, let mesay to you that we believe that in order to strengthen the ruraleconomy in this province you needed new programs, programs thatthe NDP had not even thought about before.  We initiated therural bond program, the Grow Bond program, which will allow ruralManitobans to invest in themselves.  It will give ruralManitobans an opportunity to invest in their own businesses.  Weas a government will guarantee that those investments will infact be secured.

            How many times have I heard questions from across the Housesaying, what have you done?  Well, let us look at what we havedone.  Let us look at the expansion of Arris in Winnipeg, let uslook at the expansion in Brandon, let us look at the health careindustry expansion in this province over the last couple ofyears.  Let us look at the creation of thousands of new jobs inthose industries over the last couple of years.  Ask what theprevious government did during a similar period of time.

An Honourable Member:  Nothing.

Mr. Penner:  That is right, they did nothing.  They didabsolutely nothing. [interjection] We are going to very quicklyuse the infrastructure agreement that we have with the federalgovernment to create an economic climate, an environmentalclimate so that when industry is looking at the establishment of,whether it be in Gimli or maybe even Grunthal or many othercommunities such as Waskada, when industries come in and look forhomes, they can be assured that there will be water, that therewill be sewer, that there will be good roads for transportationof the goods that they are going to produce in those communities.

            Manitoba merchandise exports last year were nearly $3.1billion.  That was an increase of 4.5 percent over 1990.  Thisyear we are expecting that the 1991‑92 export increases will be13 percent increase over the year before.  Agricultural productsexports have increased by 33 percent over last year.  Yet the NDPsays, what have you done?  Well, we have created an economictrade climate between two great nations that will allow the flowof products on a much more organized and without-restriction basis.  That is what we have done.

            (Mr. Harold Neufeld, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

            Now in the Emerson constituency alone‑‑[interjection] Thehonourable member for Flin Flon sits there and jabbers aboutthings of the past.  It is simply an indication of what theiraggressive thinking is doing, reverting continually to the Pawleyera, and every policy decision that they make and everyconsideration that you read and every indication leads me tobelieve that they are totally bereft of new ideas.

            D. W. Friesen in Altona, one of the largest printingcompanies in this country today, has increased its market sharein the United States by $2.6 million last year.  In an economicclimate when the opposition members yell doom and gloom, thiscompany has aggressively moved forward and is creating new jobsand new opportunities for Manitobans, $2.6 million of additionalexports over last year.  What do they specialize in?  Hard andsoft book covers, books of all kinds, printing of all kinds,binding of all kinds.

            Ladies and gentlemen, they just opened a brand new office inNew York.  They are moving very aggressively into the NorthAmerican market.  Why is that?  Because these people do notbelieve in sitting back and letting the gloom and doomsayers takecontrol of them.  They know where opportunities exist, and theyknow how to take advantage of those opportunities.  That, Sir,Mr. Acting Speaker, is the difference between free enterprisersand the socialists.  The socialists will sit there andcontinually condemn those who are aggressively seeking new nichesin the marketplace.  That is why our Premier has said very openlyin this House that he will go anywhere in the world to seek outnew markets, to seek out new initiatives to provide jobs forManitobans.  That, Sir, is the difference between us and them.


* (1600)


            Let us look at the trade agreements that have beencontinually condemned by the opposition members.  I say to youthat our grain farmers in this country have been the object of atrade dispute between two great nations, the Europeans and theAmericans.  They have used tax dollars to support exports out ofeach of their various areas in the world to compete against youand I.  What has it done?  It has driven grain prices through thefloor in this country.  It has made it virtually impossible forthose grain producers to survive in this country.

            Yet, what do the socialists say?  Do not strike tradeagreements with anybody because we should keep on building morewalls around ourselves to protect ourselves, to keep our peoplewithin and not let our products flow freely to other nations.  Isay to those who promote that kind of thinking, that ain't gonnaget us nowhere.

            I am looking forward, Mr. Acting Speaker, to a settlement ofthe GATT agreement.  I am looking forward to the end of the graintrade subsidy war.  I am looking forward to the United States andthe European community agreeing to some way of settling theirdifferences over a long period of time.  I am looking forward tothe enhancement of our agricultural community to compete againsttheir foreign counterparts on a one‑to‑one basis again, because Iam a true believer that when that happens our farm community willagain take off and provide the economic stimulus that we requireand look forward to in this province.

            When that agricultural community takes off, so will oureconomy as a whole in this country follow that agriculturalcommunity, for it is the agricultural community that, in my view,has been the driving force in western Canada to create economicactivity.  If we are going to use that primary resource to buildon, to build secondary industries on, to provide jobs for us andour children, then we will be able to generate revenues that willallow us to retain our health care system and provide bettereducational facilities in the future.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, there are a number of other issues that Ithink have an extremely important aspect and an impact to oureconomic viability over the future.  One of them is tourism.  Iam convinced that we can do much more in tourism than we have.It will need such projects as we did in Emerson last fall.  Weopened a new tourism centre, because in order to provide goodtourism you need visibility.  The only way you are going to getvisibility is by directing traffic and encouraging traffic intothis province.

            We are going to have to provide people from outside of thiscountry and even people inside of this country with the kind ofinformation they need to know where things are at in thisprovince, and I do not think we have done a very good job ofthat.  That is something, whether it is the Mennonite HeritageVillage in Steinbach, whether it is the lakes, and the Turtle andDuck Mountains and the Riding Mountains in western Manitoba,whether it is our great fresh‑water sports fishing industry innorthern Manitoba or whether it is just simply viewing and takingpictures of nature in the eastern part of our province, we aregoing to have to tell our story.  We are going to have to tell itbetter than we have done up till now.

            The only way we are going to be able to tell it better is bytaking the initiative ourselves and using our media properly inother countries to ensure that other people know what we have inthis province that is worthwhile seeing, whether it is the Museumof Man and Nature which is situated not too far from thisbuilding, whether it is the many ethnic cultural activities,whether it is The Forks which is fast becoming one of the touristattractions in this province, or whether it is the BoundaryCommission Trail that has just been marked by Highways insouthern Manitoba.  But those are some of the areas that we needto build on, and we need to build on those communities and usethose communities, and encourage communities to take actionthemselves and to believe in themselves, and to cause things tohappen.

            The previous administration's ability to condemn initiativesof the private individual simply must be turned around, and Ithink we have come a long way in doing that during the last fouryears of our tenure in government.  I am a strong believer thatin order to approach the 21st Century that our young people aregoing to have to provide themselves with an education that issecond to none in this world, and therefore we have identifiedclearly in our Speech from the Throne that we have within our ownborders probably the greatest resource anywhere else in theworld, and that is in the youth of our province.  I believe thatManitoba's greatest resource is its youth.  It is essential thatwe foster a positive learning environment for our youth as theyform the group of people who will take our province and ourcountry into the 21st Century.

            In the throne speech the Government of Manitoba outlined itsplans very clearly to take a back‑to‑basics approach toeducation.  They will achieve this by a greater emphasis onpolicies and programs directed towards producing sound reading,mathematics and learning skills, and I believe truly that we havelost in a large part over the last decade or two that approach toeducation.  It is with sadness that I see many of our youngpeople when they do resumes or when they do job interviews thatthey have a difficult time reading and a very difficult timewriting and a very difficult time using their mathematic skills.We are at fault.  Our generation is at fault for having negatedour responsibility in that area.  Therefore, I give our Ministerof Education (Mrs. Vodrey) a great deal of credit, ourgovernment, our cabinet a great deal of credit for re‑emphasizingour will to go back to basics in education.

            I believe that the Roblin commission currently travellingthroughout the province will have a great impact, and the peopleof Manitoba will tell Mr. Roblin and his commission what needs tobe done in our secondary educational institutions.  For theresimilarly exists a need to redirect those emphases to reflectcorrectly the needs of the 21st Century.  If we do this right, ifwe do this correctly, we will at least have provided our younggenerations with the ability to provide for themselves, and that,of course, is what governments are all about and should be allabout.  We should look after the needs of our constituents andour populations, providing them with the tools to fend forthemselves and to provide incomes for themselves is ourresponsibility.


* (1610)


            We also must not forget our responsibility to theenvironment.  In the past we have neglected that.  Whether it isthe former NDP administration, whether it is federal governmentor whether it is our government, we have neglected to correct, toemphasize well enough, though whether it be through legislationor whether it be through programming or simply through education,the importance to ensure clean water supplies for futuregenerations, to ensure our ability of our land to keep onproducing the way it has produced or to ensure that our air willin fact be breathable and our climate maintained.  For thatreason, we must ensure that this legislative body drives ourability to ensure that our environment will be contained in sucha way that our future generations can survive.

            So what have we said in this Speech from the Throne?  We havesaid that we must build, and we must build foundations wellenough that our institutions will survive, that the programs thatwe create must be of such a nature that they will strengthen theability of our future generations' survival.

            We are all children of this earth and we all depend on thisearth for future survival.  Let us all jointly, in this House,work together.  I call on all of them, both opposition andmembers of government, to work together, to ensure that ourfuture generations will see this government as having been thekind of government that is required to provide the economicclimate that will allow them to survive.

            Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):  I thank the members of the Chamber fortheir enthusiastic greeting of my remarks.  I think before I getinto the throne speech, though, I would like to just say a fewlittle things by way of welcome as is the tradition of this House.

            I would like to start by noting that Miss Judy White is nowsitting at the table.  I think she is a very good addition to thetable.  I know Miss White, and I think that she will enhance andadd to the already very capable work that is done by the table onbehalf of all members.


(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)


            I also want to welcome the new Pages that are here.  Thankyou very much, new Page, and the new interns.  I have met almostall of them, but there are a couple yet that I have yet to beintroduced to but, certainly, the quality of work that is comingout of our caucus I am sure is being matched in the other twocaucuses.  I want to welcome the two new members, the member forPortage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) and the member forCrescentwood (Ms. Gray).

            It is also a time for saying goodbye to the former member forPortage, who was a strong representative of his area, and it willbe interesting to see whether the new member for Portage (Mr.Pallister) is willing to be as strong in representing theinterests of his riding as the former member was.

            I also want to say goodbye to the member for Rupertsland (Mr.Harper).  I think he has played an important role in this Houseover the last few years, and he will be missed in this Chamber.

            Of course, Mr. Speaker, I want to say goodbye to my Leader.I was elected in the '88 election, when Sharon made her rise toofficial opposition.  I owe that election to her, and I havefound her to be an honest, capable and eminently fair leader anda very fine leader of our caucus, and I regret her leaving.

            Mr. Speaker, I should also make mention of one thing that haschanged in my life.  I have a little daughter, who is now two andone‑half months old.  Yes, I feel like applauding that.  Iactually feel pretty good about that, I must tell you.

            I am reminded of something that happened when I got married,in this Chamber.  What I am reminded of is something thathappened to me repeatedly in this Chamber, as members from bothsides took me aside to wish me well, and repeatedly they said tome, this is the most important decision you will make in yourlife, and this is one of the best.  You will always remember thiswith great, good feeling, great positiveness, and it is true, Ido.

            Sarah has added to my life in immeasurable ways, and she hascaused me to change my lifestyle.  I make a point of being homeevery day.  I do not stay overnight in the office.  I actuallywant to get home and spend some time and see how she has changedeach day.

            Unfortunately, but in my only 40 minutes, I do not have thetime to allow myself to go off and answer some of the questionsfrom members, but I would be quite willing to answer thosequestions after I have finished.  I do have quite a bit that Iwant to say about what is happening in this province right now,and I think it is an important opportunity.

            I look forward to the throne speech to talk a little bitabout the planning and the way the government has laid out itsvision of this province and what is happening here.

            I think if Sarah does anything for me, she forces me to thinka little more completely about the responsibilities that weassume as we look at making plans for the future of this province.

            I also wonder, I know members here who have older childrenmust put up with the impact on their children of the way thatpoliticians are held in such low esteem in the community.  I alsowonder how I am going to feel should she come home from schoolsome day the way other members' children have come home fromschool complaining about being called names because their parentis a politician.  I worry about that.  I worry about that a lot.


* (1620)


            When we talk about the debate that goes on in this House, andin my last speech I talked somewhat about the way in whichpoliticians tend to bring down the whole profession by the way inwhich they play games with the language and the way in which theyrun pretty fast and loose with facts and information.  I want toreflect on that a little bit as I get into what I want to talkabout with the planning for this economy.

            The Prime Minister in the last debate spent a lot of timedoing the very thing that he did in the Meech Lake debate,telling us that if we did not do things his way that the worldwould fall apart.  We did not do things his way and the world didnot fall apart.  I think what he has done each time he hasuttered those threats and each time he has attempted to force usto his will with false information, all he has done is hurt allof us.  He has hurt every member in this House and everypolitician in this country because people no longer believe us.They do not take what we say as being factual.  They do not takewhat we say as providing leadership.  They simply see it as morenoise in the system and they screen us out.  I think we all losefrom that.

            I was reminded of that a bit on Monday as I listened to themember for Concordia (Mr. Doer) give his response to the Speechfrom the Throne, and he said something that troubled me becauseit is similar to that kind of rhetoric.  He said in his speechwhen he was trying to talk about the NDP years versus theConservative years, he said the deficit has gone from a$58‑million surplus to the deficit that we have today, and wewill argue in a few minutes about that deficit. [interjection]Well, I have it at 658.

            I have the NDP budget for that same year, and it predicts adeficit in the order of $364 million, not a $58‑million surplus.I think it is important that we not play fast and loose withthose kinds of facts.  The fact is, we have been in economictrouble in this province for a long time.  We have been behind inour ability to meet our obligations for a long time, and I thinkthat‑‑[interjection] Well, I am going to talk in some detailabout the windfall in just a minute.

            The other thing I want to do to try and lay the groundworkfor the discussion that I want to have on the throne speech isjust to reflect a little bit on some feelings that I had when Iheard a couple of announcements last week.  The announcementsthat I heard were the firing of a gentleman named Ed Buller inthe Finance department and the firing of a woman named MarleneNeustaedter.

            I do not know either of these two individuals very well.  Ican put a face to a name.  I know Ms. Neustaedter from the ArtsCouncil days when I was at the Prairie Theatre Exchange, and Ihave met Mr. Buller in the halls here, so I do not want to talkspecifically about them, other than the fact that they are to mea symbol.  They are a symbol of a government that chooses tosolve its problems by making victims of people, rather thantrying to produce positive change.  It is a symbol of agovernment that sees the solution to its problems by simplybeheading somebody or removing somebody, instead of looking atthe organizational or systemic reform that will produce long‑termpositive change.

            I was quite set back when I just thought of, in today'seconomy, what it is like to be let go after you have worked20‑some‑odd years at a job and given your life to it the way MissNeustaedter has at the council.

            I just thought what a cruel and inhuman and violent thing fora government to do, and I am saddened by it.  I am saddened tosee my government take those kinds of actions.  I am saddened tosee my government act in a way that treats labour as some sort ofcheap commodity that you throw away, rather than something thatyou work to preserve and strengthen and enhance.

            In a sense, that may be what we want to talk about as I lookat this throne speech, and I have tried to begin each thronespeech and each budget by looking at the things within that Ilike.  There are a couple of things in here that I agree with,and there are a couple of things in here that I think are worthsupporting.

            The government makes the statement here about the changesinternationally, and I think that is something that we must keepin mind as we look at the kind of structural changes that have totake place in this province.  It proposes to do two things that Ithink are achievable and I think are important for the long‑termhealth of this province.

            It proposes to undertake some serious regulatory reform, andI think that this is a worthwhile goal for the government, and Ithink, although I am not certain, but on page 4, it talks aboutregional capital market development.  Now, if that is a hint at amovement toward the development of a prairie regional stockexchange, such as has been proposed by Lloyd Axworthy and othersas they have worked with the Alberta Stock Exchange and with theMinister of Industry and Trade here and in Saskatchewan, then Ithink we are on a track to doing something that will provide someneeded investment in this province.  If that is simply more ofthe rhetoric that we have seen out of this government, it will bean opportunity lost and one that will be missed for many years.

            That brings me to the substance, or perhaps the lack ofsubstance, in this particular speech.  I went back over all theother throne speeches and budgets.

            Since this government has come to office, it has announced aManitoba stock option program in 1988 and 1989.  It announced theInternational Centre for Sustainable Development, which wassupposed to be a world‑class, very large, very powerfulorganization headquartered in this province.  It announced theVision Capital Fund in '89, '90 and '92.  It announced theManitoba Centres of Excellence Fund in 1989; Business Start loanguarantee fund in 1989; HydroBonds 1990; The EnvironmentalInnovations Fund 1990; Grow Bond 1991; Manitoba MineralExploration initiative 1991; Crocus Fund 1991.  It announced anindustrial opportunities program, research and develop initiativeand created the Economic Development Board of Cabinet.

            So last year I said, well that is fine.  Some of these thingshave been around for awhile.  If they have been around forawhile, let us find out what they are doing.  I asked somequestions and I could not elicit any answers from thedepartments, so I put an Order for Return in.  I said, tell mewhat has gone on, just tell me.

            Take the Vision Capital Fund.  Tell me what it has done overthe last few years that is has been operating.  Just put yourgood story on the table, and the Minister of Finance (Mr.Manness) stood up and he accepted the Order for Return.  Wecertainly will; we will show you; we have a good story to tellyou.

            To this day, I have not seen a single piece of information.The government has never responded to that Order for Returndespite the order of the House, and they have not produced asingle piece of evidence that this fund has produced a single jobin this province, and that is consistent with the actions thatthis government has taken over time‑‑lots of talk, lots ofrhetoric, lots of words; no action, no production, no results.

            Now, every time that we have gotten into a discussion in thisHouse about what is happening in this province over the last fiveyears, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) or the Premier (Mr.Filmon) or occasionally the Minister of Industry, Trade andTourism (Mr. Stefanson), although he tends to be a little moreconsistent in his approach to information, but the Minister ofFinance and the Premier will stand up and say, well, yes, we willjust ignore that fact that you are putting on the record here,because I have a projection here that says, we are just going toget, we will be okay, just around the corner, which is going toget a little better.  Occasionally, late at night, and perhaps ina moment of absolute clarity, the minister might say, well, yes,that was not so good, this was not so good or dare we say it, wehave been in a recession.

            It took us a long time before they would even admit to therebeing a problem.  Today, after almost five years‑‑in threemonths, it will be five years‑‑that this government has been incharge of the financial affairs of this province, five yearssince this government has come to office.  Yes, there has been arecession.  Yes, the global economy is undergoing a massiverestructuring, that is a fact but this province has fared verypoorly, this province has done extremely poorly relative to therest of the country.

            It is very simple.  I mean, I have asked the Minister ofFinance (Mr. Manness)‑‑[interjection] He says from his seat, youknow that is not so.  The fact is we lay fact after fact on thetable, and he has yet to respond to them in any kind ofanalytical way.  He has yet to give a single response thatdisproves a single one of the allegations that have been made.

            What he does is he goes back into his shirt pocket and hesays, I have a projection; I have a fact that tells me that nextyear it is going to be better.  It has yet to come true.  He hasyet to be accurate.

            Mr. Speaker, let us look at what has happened.  In 1988, wehad a particular share of wealth in this country.  The wealth inthe whole country has shrunk somewhat during the recession, butin Manitoba we have fallen faster than any other province.Despite five years of Conservative government, despite fivebudgets, despite five years of the implementation of this Financeminister's dream, we have fallen, not grown.  We have gottenweaker, not stronger.

            The Finance minister has talked about Manitoba businessinvestment.  In '87, '88, it was 5.1 percent of GDP in thisprovince, Manitoba business investment and fixed capital.  In1989, it dropped to 1.3 percent; 1990, it dropped a further 1.53percent or only rose by 1.53 percent; 1991, it dropped 9.53percent.

            Another example or another statement this government has madeis that full‑time jobs will be the kind of jobs that they create,that they will not create the short‑term, make‑work, Mcjobs ofthe former Jobs Fund, and they make great fun of the formergovernment for creating those kind of jobs.  So you say, okay,let us test that, let us have a look at that.

            When you look at the labour force statistics that come outand you look at the percentage of full‑time jobs within ourlabour force, the labour force has gotten smaller overall.  Lookat the number of full‑time jobs within the labour force with apercentage, and you find that we have lost‑‑[interjection] theLeader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) says 20,000 full‑time jobs.My figures as of October say, 13,600.  The difference issignificant but the trend is exactly the same.

            Take the smaller number.  Let us say it is only 13,000 fewerfull‑time jobs in this province.  Over five years, instead ofproducing the growth in full‑time, high‑quality jobs, they haveproduced a net shrinkage of over 13,000.  It is another one oftheir policies that is not working.  They said, if we just changethe tax structure, if we just reduce the relationship betweengovernment and business, if we free the private sector, that theywould begin to invest in this province, that we would see allsorts of vigor and energy on their part.


* (1630)


            Now, it is true that there has been a recession, so thatoverall private sector capital investment is down.  That is afact, but Manitoba's share of that has shrunk further than it hasin almost every other province.  Instead of a private sector thatis revitalized and growing in this province and investing in thisprovince, what we have had and what we have seen every year sincethis government came to power is that its share of private sectorcapital investment in this country has decreased, decreased inreal terms, decreased in relative terms.  So what is wrong withthe policies?  No growth, shrinkage, no improvement in full‑timejobs, fewer full‑time jobs, no revitalized private sectorinvestment.  I mean, I realize that it may be heresy, given theremarks of members opposite, to suggest this, but could it bethat their policies are wrong?

            Could it be that they have just failed to understand whatpeople are talking about when they are talking about therestructuring?  They use the language.  You know, the Premierinvited us‑‑I presume every member was invited‑‑to go to thisforum on innovation, and I went.  I have to tell you that I wasdisappointed.  I was very disappointed by the tenor of themeeting because it seemed to me‑‑I listened to somebody from NewZealand tell me that if you changed the tax structure, thingswould get wonderful.

            I listened to somebody else tell me that Manitoba was a funplace to live because we had four seasons in the year.  Ilistened to people tell me the same kind of boosterism we haveseen coming out of Winnipeg 2000 and other groups for the lastfour or five years, but I did not hear significant policyinitiatives.

            You know, we talk, we use the language of knowledge‑basedindustries, we use the language of technology change.  But thereal question is, what does all that mean when it comes to payinga dollar.  What does all that mean when it comes to putting aprogram into operation?  What does that mean when it comes tomaking a policy decision in a cabinet to strengthen the Manitobaeconomy?  What does that economic restructuring look like when itcomes to decisions which affect this province's place, becausethe decisions that this government has made are obviously wrong.They are failing.

            You know, I was interested.  I left the Chamber briefly todayto go and listen to the Finance minister, Mazankowski, who hasthe same problem, only he has been around a lot longer.  He hasbeen around since '84, and after eight, coming on nine years incharge of the financial affairs of this country, he startstalking about an increase of the deficit from $28 billion to $34billion as being a decrease.  He starts taking a page out of thisgovernment's book in attacking the most vulnerable people in theprovince.  He actually decreased the support for people onunemployment insurance.  That is absolutely unbelievable.  Hefroze his own salary.  He gave himself a zero increase, and hewent to the guy who is making $600 a month and reduced his salaryby 3 percent.

            It is absolutely unconscionable, and he talked again the samelanguage they have been talking since 1984, the same languagethat this government has been talking since 1988.  There is aneconomic restructuring going on.  There is a global marketplace.What he did not do is recognize that their approach to the globalmarketplace is the wrong one, and I want to talk a little bitabout why it is the wrong one.

            There is a problem that we face in this country.  It is aproblem we face in Canada, in part because Canada is a wealthycountry.  Canada has got lots of natural resources, and it hasbeen able to enjoy the exploitation of those natural resourcesliving beside the largest market in the world.  So we have becomewealthy by extracting those resources, and in some cases doingsome minor remanufacturing and selling them into a verycomfortable market that is prepared to pay high prices for them.One of the problems is that we have not at the same time builtourselves a competitive manufacturing and technologicallysophisticated market.

            There is an interesting comment from Roger Porter, who wrotea lengthy book on competitiveness in the world.  I think it isrecognized as a major piece of work around the world, and it isoften quoted from.  But he makes the comment here that eventuallydependence on natural resources will leave a nation vulnerable todepletion, new foreign sources or technological changes thatreduce or eliminate resource needs.  Countries with high levelsof resource wealth may bypass the evolution of innovation‑basedeconomies and move from a resource economy to wealth‑driveneconomy that spends its time in mergers, acquisitions andinvestments in financial assets, activities that eventually leadto economic decline, because an economy driven by past wealth isnot able to maintain its wealth.

            I think it is an interesting observation.  I think it is aninteresting statement about Canada, and it is one that isreinforced in an article that came out of this council, theTechnological Innovations Council, that talks about Canada.  Thestatement here is that Canada's ability to generate profits inthe innovation sector has decreased, and it suggests that Canadais becoming an obsolete trading nation.  What it is suggesting isthat the kinds of things that Canada is good at are not the kindsof things that are particularly helpful in building economicstrength in today's world.

            If Canada is to take advantage of its place in the world, ifit is going to take advantage of the kind of wealth-generation capability that it has, because we still live close to that bigmarket, we still have great stability and a relativelysophisticated labour force, then there have to be somefundamental policy changes that revitalize the manufacturingsector, the high-tech manufacturing sector in this country.  Thatis a simple fact of life.

            When we look at what is happening around the world withincreased access to markets and increased access to labourforces, stable labour forces in other countries, the thought, asthis government seems to propose that we can simply negotiate ourinfrastructure costs here down to a point where we will becompetitive once again in textiles or in low‑tech manufacturingindustries with Mexico or China or Thailand, is simply wrong.  Wewill not.  We would give up far too much in our lifestyle.  Whatwe have to do is begin to move in the area that produces greatestchange.  Over the last two decades the high‑tech area has grownfrom 10 percent of total world trade to nearly 30 percent oftotal world trade.  Now what does that mean for us?  There hasalways been high‑tech.

            High‑tech used to be called sewing machines and steam enginesand those sorts of things, and they occupied a certain niche inthe economy during industrialization.  What is interesting is inthe last few decades they have grown rapidly, and where thatgrowth has taken place‑‑it is 30 percent of world trade‑‑butwhere that growth, the people who are dealing in that trade, whoare creating those products are the G7 countries.

            There is an interesting anomaly, and it is one that I thinkreinforces the concerns that many Canadians feel about the FreeTrade Agreement.  When you look at industrial production in thiscountry and in the other six G7 countries, the fact is that in1980, '81, '82, '83, '84, '85, '86, '87, when you looked at therelationship between the seven countries in industrialproduction, we all did fairly well.  Canada some years would beslightly ahead of the other countries, some years would beslightly behind the other countries.


* (1640)


            The same was true in 1988.  We ended 1988 actually slightlyahead of the composite of the other six G7 countries.  Between1988 and today, we have fallen to last place.  We are the onlycountry of the G7 countries to suffer the size of the declinethat we have.  The fact is that this country is deindustrialized.

            I know that that is seen by the members on the other side asbeing rhetoric, and I heard the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner)earlier wax eloquent about what a wonderful thing the Free TradeAgreement was for Canada.  The fact is that it is not.

            It is hard for me, because I fundamentally believe in freetrade.  I think open global markets‑‑the movement of capital is afact of life that we are not going to change, the movement ofpeople and the movement of freer, open markets.  The movement ofgoods and people, I think, is a good thing in the long run.

            I do not think this deal gives us that.  I do not think thisdeal gives us the kind of structural access to the southernmarket that we might like.  I think it penalizes us veryheavily.  I can move back and forth quite freely between the twocountries, but someone who has a lesser education finds it verydifficult to move.  His job may move south, her job may movesouth, but they are not necessarily able to follow it.

            I think, though, that there is a more invidious concern aboutwhat is happening with free trade, and I think there is somelight at the end of this tunnel.  If I read what is happening inthe U.S. right, Robert Reich, who is one of the major advisers ontrade and on economic development to President‑elect Clinton, haswritten about the negative impacts of the Free Trade Agreement onCanada.  In fact, Robert Reich was on Canada A.M. about a yearago making the statement that he did not understand why Canadianswere not standing on their chairs screaming about the negativeimpacts of the Free Trade Agreement on their country.

An Honourable Member:  He did not know what he was talking about.

Mr. Alcock:  No, in fact, Reich does.  That is the problem.  Themember for Emerson (Mr. Penner) says that Reich does not knowwhat he is talking about, but Reich has taken the time to lookvery carefully.  Reich is a free‑trader.  Reich believes in opentrade.  He thinks that it is going to lead to a betterdistribution of goods, a more economically just world in the longrun.  He believes in this, but he also believes that the dealthat was struck between Mulroney and President Reagan is bad forCanada.  He can demonstrate that.

            The thing that is so frustrating for me is, I do not know howmuch evidence needs to be piled up in front of these membersbefore they begin to understand.  I do not know how many of theirconstituents have to lose their jobs.  I do not know how manypeople have to move out before they finally realize that we doindeed have a problem.

            Is it a solvable problem?  Frankly, the one piece of strengthin the argument about the marketplace adjustment that needs totake place is that we have to, if we want to take advantage ofwhat we have down there, the market that we have down there,undertake some fundamental changes in this country.  They have todo with better training of the labour force.  They have to dowith much, much greater investment in research and development.They have to do with helping companies become more competitivewith changing productivity levels.  They have to do withproviding incentives to get people ready, but they are the kindof incentives that should have taken place in the early '80s, thekind of incentives that we should have been building into thiseconomy prior to opening that floodgate, because opening thatfloodgate has produced nothing but destruction for this countryand it is going to be very hard to recover.

            We have dug ourselves deeper and I would ask the member forEmerson or other members on that side of the House to answer onesimple question:  If their vision works, if their vision is sosuccessful, why, in the case of the federal government aftereight years, the first six of which were of very high growth,after all that time of their vision, have they been unable todeal with the deficit?  If that is their Holy Grail, why havethey not solved that problem?

            They say the same things in every throne speech.  In factthere are great sections of the speeches from the last six thatyou could simply photocopy and bring forward.  With a goodthesaurus, you could just bring forward exactly the same content.


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


            I wonder if they do.  I suspect that some of the members do.I suspect when they get outside of the heat of this Chamber theymust wonder, why is it, after being in power, after doing all ofthese things, that it has produced none of the results that theyhoped for. [interjection] I am talking both.  I was asked whetherI was talking federally or provincially.  I am talking both.

            The federal Tories have had eight years of this.  Theprovincial government has had five years of this and yet whathave they produced?  Now, when the member for Emerson (Mr.Penner) talks about an increase in some resource extraction‑‑youknow, the reality is that is the very problem that has put usinto the situation that we are in.  Yes, we can maintain somelevel of wealth for some period of time to come by simply sellingoff our resources, but in fact we are becoming less able tomaintain the wealth in this country with that approach.  We havelost the ability to become competitive. [interjection] The memberfor Emerson keeps‑‑I think what happened today, we are all giventheir rhetoric sheet and the member for Emerson is afraid to letgo of it, but the fact is from a report tabled by their owntechnology council, it talks about things like this.

            Canada has never been able to capture as large a percentageof high‑technology trade as it has in the low‑ andmedium‑technology sectors.  In fact, its share of high technologytrade has decreased from about 4 percent to less than 2 percent.

            This would suggest that Canada is becoming an obsoletetrading nation.  I did not write this.  This is from yourTechnology and Innovations Council, not from me but it doesunderscore the problem.

            The question is then, what do you do?  So now, how are yougoing to get around that?  How are going to begin to build somestrength back into this?  I think one of the things that we needto start thinking about in this country, when we talk aboutinfrastructure and I have heard again and actually I am sorry tobe referencing the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), but he wasthe latest one who read the one speech that members on the otherside of the House seemed to be willing to read, but he talkedabout the glories of infrastructure.  We are going to build roadsand that is indeed a policy that has been in place.  It firstcame forward in the Depression.  It was the way to put peopleback to work.  It was the way to build jobs but the world haschanged since then.  If we do not have anybody to drive on thoseroads, if we do not have anybody to use those sewers, theinvestment will give us some short‑term jobs, it will bring insome people who will work to build them, but it will leave usnothing that will make us stronger five years from now, 10 yearsfrom now, 20 years from now.

            That is something that we need to think about very, veryhard, and we need to start thinking about the, for want of abetter term, skills infrastructure.  We need to start thinkingabout investing in the part of our economy that produces agreater skill level among people because that is the one thingthat is going to allow us to be more competitiveinternationally.  That is the one thing that is going to fuel therestructuring.

            I actually heard the suggestion from the other side of theHouse that they feel that they are doing that, and I expect forthose who do believe the rhetoric that they put out that theybelieve that they are doing it, but there has yet to be asubstantive demonstration of that.  They are making it moredifficult for people to get trained, not less difficult.  Theyare making it more difficult to go to university, not lessdifficult.  They are shifting the burden, the cost of university,off of the backs of the taxpayer who benefits from the increasedintellectual and skill capability in the community, onto the debtload of individual students.  I think that is simply unacceptable.

            I think that if there is one factor that there seems to besome commitment to‑‑I even noticed today Finance MinisterMazankowski as he was talking about what he was going to do, andI would point out a couple of things to Conservative membershere.  In his economic and fiscal statement, I would note that inthis great infrastructure program that they are so proud of,other than the possibility of some paving in Riding MountainNational Park, there is not a single thing here for Manitoba.

            They are going to renew federal bridges in Montreal; they arenot going to do anything about the Lockport Bridge.  I notice inhere their support for free trade has now evolved a little bit soeffective January 1, 1993, they are reducing textile tariffsimmediately.  I would suggest to members of this Chamber that isgoing to have a very direct impact in this city, a very directimpact in this city.  I want to hear you stand up and defendthat.  I want to hear members talk about how that adds to theirvision of what is occurring in this country.


* (1650)


            There are some things in this announcement that I think areokay.  There is a substantive recognition of the need to investin research and development.  There is a substantive recognitionof the need to invest in training, but it is eight years toolate‑‑ah, I should not say that.  That is not fair.  It is nevertoo late, but it is eight years slow in coming.  Had we startedthis some time ago, we might be in better shape today.  We mighthave been better poised to take advantage of the Free TradeAgreement rather than to be beaten by it the way we have been.

            When the free trade debate was on here in 1988, we heardmembers do what they do everyday.  They talked about the littleprojection they had in their vest pocket that was going to saythat things would get better, but the fact is they have not.They have gotten worse in this province.  They have gotten worseacross a whole range of services.

            I am saddened by the direction in this document that hascaused them to cut $100 million from regional developmentinitiatives.  I am saddened by the direction in this documentthat has caused them to reduce support for the most vulnerablepeople in this community.

            If you want to spur economic turn, if you want to get peoplespending, the people who spend every nickel of every dollar theyget are the people that have the least.  It is the people who areon unemployment insurance.  It is the people who are on welfare.It is the people who have no other alternatives, and to takemoney out of their pockets at a time when things are sodesperately tough in this country and yet not do the same toyourself I just think is unconscionable.

            But I think it is very consistent with the policies that areexpressed by the federal government and by this government.  Ithink it is very consistent with the actions of the Minister ofFamily Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) when he decided to act againstthe people on income security in this province.  I think it isvery consistent with Conservative policy that they victimizethose people who are least able to defend themselves.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I see my time has come to an end.  I willpick this up and try to go a little further when the budget isbefore us.  If I have one plea to make to the government, it isthat they begin to think about the intellectual, the skillsinfrastructure as being every bit and I believe more importantthan the physical infrastructure in this province, and that theybegin to treat it with the same kind of reverence and make thesame kind of investments in it that they boast so proudly aboutwhen they look at investing in roads and sewers that may not havepeople around to use them.

            Thank you.

Mr. Harold Neufeld (Rossmere):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I would justlike to add a few words to the debate going on in this Chamber.

            I would like to start first by congratulating the Speaker forhis return to the Chair, and I wish he were here, but he might belistening to the speech in his chamber.  I would like tocongratulate him for being returned.  I enjoyed hisfairmindedness, his congenial attitude, his co‑operativeness, thelikes of which I have not seen in the Chair.

            I would also like to welcome back the member for Crescentwood(Ms. Gray).  She was here for two and a half years before, and Iwelcome her back.  I would like to welcome also the member forPortage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).  I think he has already shownthat he can fill the big shoes of the former member for Portagela Prairie.

            I would also like to wish the Leader of the Liberal Partywell in her next endeavor.  I know she will make a contributionthere as she has in this Chamber.  As well, I would like to wishthe member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) well in whatever his nextendeavor shall be.

            I will be supporting this throne speech, Mr. Acting Speaker,and that is not because I agree with everything that is inthere.  It is because I think it is the best thing availabletoday.  I do not think that there is a premier or a governmentthat can run this province better and more efficiently than theone we have, which is not to say, however, Mr. Acting Speaker,that it is the best way.  I do believe that there are ways toimprove it, and I think I will dwell more on how it might beimproved than how I might support it.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I came into this job four years, sevenmonths and seven days ago.  I remember the time well.  I spentsome four years of that time in cabinet and on Treasury Board,and one cannot help but learn something in those four years, andsome of those recollections and some of the things I have learntI would like to speak of today.

            Before I do, just let me give you a little bit about thebackground of my constituency.  My constituency is a total urbanconstituency.  It has had some very distinguished representativesin the past, amongst them our former Speaker, Peter Fox, formerPremier, Edward Schreyer, former Finance minister, Vic Schroeder,but having said that, the people in my constituency came to theirsenses in 1988 and elected a Conservative member to the Houseand, I might say, it is the first time that this constituency haselected a Conservative member.

            I have lived, Mr. Acting Speaker, in my constituency for 37years, and 1988 was the first time I voted for a winner.  To showyou how my luck runs, the Boundaries Commission saw fit to movethe boundaries somewhat north, and I am now in the constituencyof the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).  So again, I can lookback in my life and say that once, once only, have I voted for awinner.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, a little bit about my background, and itmay show this Chamber how I come about my convictions, how I comeabout my views, which are at times thought to be somewhatright‑wing.  I think not.  I have been accused in the past ofbeing somewhat pinkish in tinge.  It is not the member forOsborne (Mr. Alcock) who did say that.

            My parents came to this country in 1926 from the Ukraine.  Myparents experienced the revolution in Russia.  They experiencedthe Depression in Canada, and then we went through the war yearsin Canada, and it was only after the war years, in the 1950s and'60s, that incomes became of a size that one could save for thefuture.

            My grandparents, who came to Canada at the same time as myparents, worked until their retirement in Altona, Manitoba.  Mygrandfather's estate consisted of $332, and there were 10children, which gave each one $33.20.  My parents worked alltheir lives.  My father worked until he was 70 years old, and hishighest income year was the year in which he retired, 1966, andhe made $5,800, but all of his five children received a highereducation.  All of his five children have done reasonably well,and all of his five children are extremely proud of theirparents.  My mother will be 92 next birthday.  She lives in herhouse and says, if I need home care, I will pay for it myself.

            I think it is called pride.  Pride is what built thiscountry.  Pride is what we must have if we want to continue tobuild this country.  Pride is something we have lost.  The workethic is something we have lost.  If we want to build, do nottalk about creating jobs by government.  Do not talk about moreeducation.  Talk about pride.  Talk about work ethic.  That iswhat is going to build this country.  That is what built thiscountry, and it is the only thing that will help us.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)talks about going to coffee houses.  Now, I frequent the coffeehouses in my constituency, and I frequent the same one that hehas often come to.  The Salisbury House on Henderson Highway iswhere politics is discussed and where members of all partiescongregate each and every morning and give advice to theirmembers who happen to be there.  I am there more frequently thanthe Leader of the Opposition, and I get an awful lot of advice.I dare say that I learned more about the politics of thisprovince at the Salisbury House in one morning than I do out oflistening to debates in this House for a whole week.

            * (1700)

            I have a problem with the credibility or the lack ofcredibility for politicians.  I think we all know that we havelost an awful lot of credibility, and I think there is a goodreason for that.  Politicians think they can direct thepopulace.  They think they can tell the people how they mustvote.  They think they can tell the people what is good forthem.  Well, I think, we cannot see a more glaring example ofpolitical arrogance than in the national referendum of October26, I believe it was.

            I was called by a newspaper reporter early in the referendumdiscussions and asked what I thought of it.  I said, well, it islike chicken soup, it cannot hurt you.  I would probably vote forit, so we can get on with more important things that we need inthis country.  Having said that, the politicians came out ofCharlottetown and told us what a good deal they had forCanadians.  Then they proceed to spend hundreds of millions ofdollars to try to convince us to vote in a certain way.  Thatchanged my mind.  I said, if it is such a good deal, why do Ihave to be told how to vote?  Give me the facts.  I am reasonablyintelligent.  I can make a decision, but they did not and theygot their due.

            I want to show you an article that I clipped and it istopical because today is the day that Mazankowski brought downhis minibudget and Mazankowski says, when it comes to increasingtaxes, blame the deficit.  Now, good Lord, and here is what itsays, the deficit made us do it.  Justifying eight years of Torytax increases.  Now, I do not support tax increases for the sakeof paying off deficits.  If we are going to have tax increases,we have tax increases to‑‑I do not believe in deficits to startwith, but if we have tax increases, we should use them to promotethe country.


(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)


            The deficit‑‑[interjection] I will come to that.  I am goingto talk about the deficit.  I am going to talk about what I thinkof the deficit.  I am going to talk about what I think might bedone about the deficit.  I would like to read something that WillRogers said many years ago, and this may be of interest to themember for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).  I can remember back when aLiberal was one who was generous with his own money, and that isas true today as it was then.  He also said, it is a good thingwe do not get all the government we pay for.

            Mr. Speaker, we have heard [interjection] well, if we want totalk about socialism I can talk at ends on socialism, because myparents had to live through it.  Some of them died through it,some of my relatives.  So, if you want to talk about socialism,we can talk all we want.

            What are the answers?  What are the answers to our economy?We have heard an awful lot here.  We have heard "spend."Everything is spend.  It is spend, spend, spend.

            Let us deal with the member for Osborne's (Mr. Alcock) ideathat training and education is the only answer.  Certainly, weneed training and education.  Certainly, if there is a need forthe type of expertise we have to train our people, but trainingfor the sake of training is not an answer.

            I talked to a native elder in Gillam the first year we werein office, and he told me what we do not need in this country ismore educated unemployed.  Unless we have a purpose, unless wehave a reason to train people, what are we doing?  We aretraining more unemployed.  We are getting more educatedunemployed and that is not what we want.  We want employment[interjection] We want fewer unemployed, you are right.  Themember for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) says we need fewer unemployed.Of course we do, but we cannot do that in Manitoba alone.  Wehave lots of unemployed in the rest of Canada.  We have a lot ofunemployed in the United States.  We have a lot of unemployed inEurope.  I just came back from Europe and they have a problem.As soon as they mobilize the rest of the eastern countries wewill have a greater problem.

            We have to learn to compete with all the countries in thisworld.  The Free Trade Agreement may be flawed, I do not denythat.  I will tell you the worst thing about the Free TradeAgreement was that the federal government and Mulroney cameacross the country saying we won every point.  Nobody in theworld wins every point when they are dealing with a country thesize of the United States.  If he had told us where we would haveto retrain, where we would have to change, we would have beenmuch better off and we would have accepted it.  That is not tosay that every part of the Free Trade Agreement is wrong.

            We are, whether we like it or not, living in a globaleconomy.  That is not a buzzword, that is a fact.  We will haveto compete with the United States.  We will have to compete withEurope.  We will have to compete with Asia, with all the tradinggroups we will have to compete.  Unless we can become moreproductive than they are, we will lose.  We will lose, lose, lose.

            We have to become productive.  That is the only way.  How doyou get back to that?  We develop a work ethic and we developpride.  A good example of our lack of pride is the number ofpeople on that side who refuse to sing God Save the Queen.  Thatis to me a lack of pride in country.  That is to me[interjection] No, I am not a monarchist.  I am not a monarchistbut that is the culture we have.  That is our heritage, we haveto go with that.

            Unless you have some heritage, you are not going to goanywhere.  I get upset when I go to a hockey game and I see theplayers moving around during the playing of our national anthem.I quit my season tickets for the Jets.  One of the reasons wasthey kept moving around while the national anthem was sung.  Irefused to go in until it was over.  That is pride.  TheAmericans have it.  When you see a World Series game you see theAmerican players with their hands over their hearts while thenational anthem is being played and they stand at attention.  Welaugh about it.  The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) laughs.[interjection] We are not selling out to the U.S.  If you thinkyou can deal and trade only within Canada, you will have aproblem.

            Let us not forget that other countries want to expand theirtrade, as well.  Let us not forget that when you live next to thebiggest trading partner in the world, they are going to want toexpand their trade.  They are not going to continue indefinitelywith, for one thing, our Autopact agreement.  They are not goingto continue indefinitely accepting a trade deficit with Canada.[interjection] No, it will not be in their interest to do that.It simply is not.  We have to consider trade to be global.  Wecannot build a fence around our own‑‑[interjection]


* (1710)


            I do believe, as I have said earlier, that the Free TradeAgreement has some flaws.  I do think that the federal governmentdid not prepare us sufficiently well to enter into that FreeTrade Agreement.  I do think that some of us did not accept thatthere would be some flaws, and some of us should have done moreto prepare ourselves.  When I say us, I mean industry.  Industryis there to look forward into the future, and they have toprepare their own plan into the future.

            Getting back to training, if we are going to train, we haveto know what we are training for.  I agree with the member forOsborne (Mr. Alcock), we have to be ready when that time comes,but to speak of that as the only answer to our unemploymentsituation is dreaming in technicolor.

            The other thing is the Jobs Fund.  We have tried that.  Ithas been found wanting.  I do think that if you are going tocreate temporary jobs in order, and this has been said manytimes, if you are going to create temporary jobs in order tostimulate the economy in order to get more people working, dothings that would have to be done anyway sometime in the future,but then be prepared, when that future comes and the better timescome, to back off.  You have to then back off.

            The Bible tells us that we must prepare for the bad yearsduring the good years.  We have not done that.  So it is verydifficult today to say we will spend the money that we do nothave in order to create temporary jobs.  It is very difficult fora Finance minister to make that decision.

            Where are our resources, and what can we do with them?  Ithink we have to zero in on that.  I think we have our bestresources for long‑term jobs.  We have ample hydroelectric powerwhich we cannot sell to others so they can create industries butto create industries ourselves.  We have to recognize that we area long ways from deep water.  We are a long ways from markets, sowe have to recognize that.  We have to go in for development thatwill not be hindered by long distances of transport.

            We have lots of good water that a lot of good people woulddie for.  We have copper.  We have zinc.  We have nickel.  Wehave silica sand.  We have vegetables.  We have all grains.  Wehave cattle.  We have tourism.  All these resources.  These areall resources, and a lot of them are renewable resources.  We arenot using them.

            We have to develop secondary industries.  We have to developat value‑added.  We have lost our value‑added.  We have lost ourvalue‑added in the grain industry, in the flour industry.  Wehave lost our value‑added in the cattle industry.  Where did welose it?  Not to foreign countries.  We lost them to our ownprovinces.

            The Prime Minister talked at length about decreasing theamount of interprovincial trade barriers.  What is the greatesttrade barrier we have?  It is the money spent by other provincesfar richer than us in order to track our own industries.  Albertahas captured our value‑added cattle industry through monies fromtheir Heritage Fund.  Quebec has the aluminum smelters because ofthe monies they have.  We cannot compete with the monies thatother provinces have.

            I spoke with a minister of the Alberta Legislature at onetime.  I said to him that it was somewhat wrong to use moniesfrom their Heritage Fund in order to attract our business, thatan accident of geography should not give them a leg up over therest of us.  He said, my goodness, that is free enterprise.  Hesaid, I hope the rest of your cabinet does not think that way.  Ihad to remind him that on a political spectrum I was probably thefurthest right of any of our cabinet ministers.  He could notbelieve that, because he already felt that I was a little pinkish.

            We have to develop value-added industries with the naturalresources we already have.  One thing bothered me a great dealand I spoke at length about this with the management of ManitobaHydro.  We mine copper in Flin Flon.  We ship the copper toeastern Canada to be refined and drawn into wire, and we buy backthe wire. [interjection] The member for Dauphin said that isawful.  Where was he for the 16 years that his party was in power?

            They have the copper in Flin Flon.  They have, withinreasonable distances, ample labour forces, several reserves.They have the ability to attract the investment and they have acaptive market.  Now why can we not develop a copper wireindustry in The Pas or in Cranberry Portage where we have amplelabour?  We need the entrepreneurs.  We need them.  They are theones who can develop an industry without government help.

            I, personally, am very much opposed to government grants toanybody.  You have already heard my views on government grants tocultural bodies.  I am equally opposed to government grants toindustry.  There is no industry in the world or in Canada that isworth its salt if they are going to depend on a government grantfor expansion.  They do not need the money. [interjection]

            We are moving around too much.  The member for Flin Flonwants to know about R & D.  There is probably a place forgovernment in R & D, but that is another subject and that issomething we‑‑[interjection] Let me remind the member for FlinFlon (Mr. Storie) that expansion is not dependent on R & D, nottotally.  Most companies know when they need the R & D forexpansion.

            The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) mentioned D. W. Friesen,Altona.  I lived in Altona when it was started.  I lived inAltona when they were a small‑‑[interjection] They do not mindfree trade.  There was a small stationery store.  They startedthe printing plant in the height of the Depression withoutgovernment aid in rural Manitoba.  What was the principalingredient?  It was one man.

            The opposition members think that the only way to do thingsis with government economic aid‑‑give them something.  The onlyjobs you get are government jobs if you expect government tocreate them.  I would love to be 30 years old today and go inbusiness in competition with those gentlemen.  How did D. W.Friesen or Dave Friesen start his business?  D. W. Friesen wentinto business because he had a vision, and he spent hours workingat it.

            I can give you other examples, and I will.  Al DeFehr inWinnipeg, I remember when he started in North Kildonan in hisgarage in the back of his house.  He built clothes dryers atnight, and he delivered them to Eaton's during the day.  Today,that has grown to Palliser Furniture, the largest family ownedfurniture manufacturing plant in North America.  Where did itstart?  How did it start?  Not with government help.Unfortunately, they have seen fit over the years to accessgovernment funds.

            I will give you another example.  John Klassen startedMonarch Industries, and the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) knowshim well.  He started it during the height of the Depression, notwith government help.  John Klassen started Monarch Industries,not with government help, also during the height of theDepression.  Nels Huebert started what is now Welclad.  It wasthen Fibreboard in the height of the Depression.  He started as acoal dealer where he personally delivered the coal with a sleighand he pulled the sleigh.

            * (1720)

            Those were people with a vision.  Those were people who wereprepared to work.  Those were people who knew that work was theonly way out of their condition, and that is the kind of peoplewe need back in Canada today.  We need those kinds of people, thepeople who are prepared to work, not the people who think thatgovernment should be the answer for every single problem theyhave.  Government is not an answer.  Government is there to help,but only help those who want to help themselves.

            A father cannot help his children if they are not prepared tohelp themselves.  He has to help them help themselves.  I am afather.  We have children and grandchildren.  That is one of thereasons I became involved, because I thought I could make adifference.

            We think we have problems today, and I have already mentionedthe eastern countries.  When those eastern countries aremobilized, when their labour force is mobilized we better beready to compete against them because they will drive us out ofthe marketplace totally.  So we better be ready.  It will take ageneration or two.

            I found, Mr. Speaker, my cousins who were lost in Russia for55 years.  I found them two years ago almost today.  They, two ofthem, have now immigrated to Germany and I visited with them lastmonth, and they tell me about the work conditions in Russia.  Iknow about their natural resources, but they do not have the oneingredient that is needed.  They do not have the work ethic.They do not know how to work, but they will learn, and when theylearn we are in trouble, unless we are prepared to put out aswell as they are.

            When I graduated as a chartered accountant, Mr. Speaker, Iwent to the United States to look for work.  I thought I mightwant to move there.  They wanted people from Canada, becausepeople from Canada were prepared to work, they said.  That iswhat they told me.  That is no longer the case.  Americans have abetter work ethic than do Canadians, and we better recognize thatwhen we start talking about the Free Trade Agreement being theproblem.  The problem is we are not prepared to compete.  We arenot prepared to take lower wages if it is necessary.  We are notprepared to work a little harder.  We are not prepared to producemore.

            We are only prepared to complain.  We complain thatgovernment does not do enough, and we have to stop.  We have tothink about tomorrow and we have to think about our children andwe have to think about our grandchildren, and what they going tobe doing.

            Mr. Speaker, our economic policy has not causedunemployment.  Unemployment is a global problem today.  Yes, wecould create jobs artificially by building more roads, bybuilding parks, but where are we going to get the money?  Whereare we going to borrow the money?

            The billions of dollars that are being borrowed by the UnitedStates, and they will get first call on the money.  The billionsof dollars that have to be borrowed by the Canadian government,and they will get a call before Manitoba on the money, and thebillions that have to be borrowed by Ontario.  Manitoba willstand in line, but monies are not as easily borrowed as they oncewere.  Germany is going to need an awful lot of money in the nextcouple of years.  Japan has to bring some money back rather thansend some to North America.  They have to bring some back fortheir own economy.  The Arab worlds have to bring some back.Germany was a big supplier at one time; they have to bring it allback.

            So we have a problem, and we cannot simply write off theproblem by saying government is looking after it.  Governmentshould have a strategy.  What strategy can we possibly have whenwe are broke and we have to borrow money.

An Honourable Member:  How about borrow from the Bank of Canada?

Mr. Neufeld:  If you want to borrow from the Bank of Canada, youwill invite inflation because that is printing money, and I amnot sure that any of us want to print money.

            Let me talk a little bit about government employment.  Do wehave the kind of work force in the government that we can beproud of?  Are we overstaffed?  Most industries when they come toa crisis realize they are overstaffed and they lay people off.General Motors is going to lay off 30,000 people.

            Let me suggest to you that we are overstaffed by a third.With two‑thirds of the staff, we could provide the same programsthat we are now providing without anybody noticing anydifference.  People would have to work.  You do not have to havesomebody there to talk to another person when they have nothingto do.  That is what is happening.

            When the federal civil servants went on strike, did younotice any reduction in your service for 16 days?  I noticed adifference.  The streets were not as congested, and I could getto work in 12 minutes.  That was the difference, so I will invitePeter Olfert to take his people out on strike and we will see howmuch they are needed.  I will invite him. [interjection] Theyshould be pretty happy.

            There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when the Civil Service jobswere secure.  There was a time when they had a good pensionplan.  There was a time when they made a little less money thanthe average wage in the city and in Manitoba.  Now they haveretained the best pension plan in the country.  They haveretained better benefits.  They have retained job security andthey are making more money than any other like job in Manitoba.

            Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any of us who have notbeen frustrated with government employees when you are trying toget something done.  I will tell you a little story.  Thishappened to me.  I sold a car some years ago‑‑this was before wewere in office‑‑and I wanted to get back my PST on the car.  Theysent me from one office to the next office and I would wait,somebody would be talking, they would not come to look after me.They would send me to another office and I would go there.  Theywould have me fill out some more papers, and I am sure that everyone of you has had this frustration.  I would go to anotheroffice, and finally I would come to the last office.  Here iswhere I am supposed to get the final filter.  I see threeemployees standing there talking.  I am standing there waiting.They talk.  I bang on the desk very lightly.  They do not come.Then one of the employees comes over, and I look behind her andthere is a sign behind her.  It says, if you do not like theservice you are getting here, maybe you should walk down the hallwhere perchance somebody might give a shit.  Mr. Speaker, I amsorry, but I am only giving you what I read.  I made up my mindright there that we were overstaffed.

            Mr. Speaker, much has been said about native self‑government,and I will not say any more about it.  My uncle taught at IslandLake more than 50 years ago, taught school.  He came back andtold me then what we are doing wrong is that we are trying totake those young children, teach them our ways and then send themback into the woods without their being trained in their ownways.  They cannot live with us and they cannot live with them.That is a problem, and I remember that.  I was a young lad and hetold me that.  I look back now and he was absolutely right.  Thethings that we have done with our native population areinexcusable.  There are many things that we could do but we haveto work together with them.  There is no point kidding ourselvesthat Red Sucker Lake or Shamattawa is going to be a self-sustaining community.


* (1730)


            What kind of industry can we put in there that is going tosustain those communities?  We have lots of communities in thesouth that have had to move.  Towns have died because there wasnot enough work to sustain the people, and they had to move.  Thesame thing applies to the northern communities, Mr. Speaker.Some of them may have to move.  Gambling is not the answer either.

An Honourable Member:  We are all hanging on the edge of ourchairs for the answers here.

Mr. Neufeld:  The answer might well be that we bring inindustries that are labour intensive.  I have mentioned thisbefore.  I have mentioned this with copper wire turning, alabour‑intensive industry which we could, if we wished, or wemight be able to supply the wire for Manitoba Hydro and theManitoba Telephone System.  We have a captive market.  We now buyit elsewhere.  Why can we not make it here?  Those are things.

            I will tell you something else.  I saw a newscast in Montrealwhen I was there recently, and they interviewed a native elder,and he was opposed to gambling on reserves.  The CBC reporter,and this gives you an indication of the intelligence of the CBCreporter, said, why?  He said, you do not gamble with welfaremoney.  The CBC reporter looked at him stunned.  He said, I guessit could happen.  The elder simply said, it does.

            Think about it‑‑[interjection] even at the Crystal Casino.Do not look at me.  I am not a gambler, but I think that if weuse welfare monies to gamble, we are simply increasing a problemthat we have already had.

            I have some problems with our health care system.  I havesome problems with our educational system, but that will have towait for another speech.

            Let me just say that those of you who are opposed to aid toprivate schools, let us not forget that if all those studentsmoved into the public school system it would cost you that muchmore.  It would, because there is a per student grant.

            I will leave you with this thought, that we have spent and dospend millions of dollars on transporting kids to school andspend millions more to build them a gym so they can get someexercise.  Somebody might explain the rationale of that to me.

            I have one more clip‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Does the honourable member have leave to extend?[Agreed]

Mr. Neufeld:  I have one more clip from a newspaper and I amtaking issue with newspaper reporting.  It says:  Unmarried withtaxes.  Unmarried couples will pay millions more.

            Now these are couples who live in a common‑law relationship,and these are couples who, over the years, have wanted, demandedand received benefits through the health care system as married,benefits through the pension system as married, and now objectbecause they are expected to pay taxes as married.  These are thekinds of headlines that you get out of the newspaper reportingtoday.  It does not give you the answer, it does not give you theright answer.  I would like if some of our reporters mightsometime report a little more accurately.

            Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to risetoday to add my comments to those of others in this Chamberregarding the throne speech, but first, I would like to extend awelcome to the new Pages and to the new table officer in theChamber here today and to welcome you back, too.  We enjoy yourguidance through our sessions over the past couple of years, andonce again, we look forward to your guidance through this currentsession that we are in.

            I would also like to welcome, too, Mr. Speaker, the new MLAsin our Chamber, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister)and the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray).  I am sure that itwill be an eye opener for them sitting in this Chamber for theirfirst time, as it was for many of us who are here today.  I knowit was a process that took some getting used to, as I am sure wehave all experienced, but that will grow on them, as it did forthe rest of us.

            One of the things that I noticed in the throne speech, Mr.Speaker, and it has been pointed out by many others in theChamber here today, was the lack of new ideas or new conceptsthat we could have put in place to get our province movingforward.  Many others have mentioned that, and of course, that tome, leaves me with the thought that what we have here before usis a government that is old, tired and worn out, and they have noideas and no new concepts that they can bring forward to help thepeople of Manitoba move forward into new job creation programs,to get the unemployed back into the work force and to create asense of hope or promise for the future.

            Also in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, we did not see anypromise to freeze taxes for this coming budget speech which Ibelieve we will be seeing at the end of the winter, the beginningof the spring.  The members opposite quite often like to talkabout the position we are in financially in this province here,and they fail to recognize or fail to respond to the statementsthat have been made many times by members in this Chamber aboutthe financial position they were left in when they took office,when they took government, that they were left with a positive,black ink in the bank account.  They had $58 million in the bankto work with, and they took that money, and they created theirrainy day fund which they have continued to manipulate and use asa shell game throughout the five budgets and probably once againcoming up into the sixth budget coming up in the spring.

            It will be interesting to see, Mr. Speaker, whether they areable to hold the line on taxes as they like to say they aredoing, even though we know they are offloading onto themunicipalities in the province and to the school boards in theprovince, or whether or not they are going to have to drasticallycut back on services to the people in the province of Manitoba,or are they going to once again offload the responsibility forsome of the costs? [interjection] That is right.  The member forDauphin (Mr. Plohman) mentions the $700‑million turnaround, andthat is accurate considering that the current deficit that thegovernment is now projecting is $643 million.  We had left them$58 million in the bank to work with, so it is a $700‑millionturnaround.

            It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, from the condition that we are infinancially in this province that this government is obviouslyvery poor business managers.

            Yet the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) wants to talk aboutspace cadets and space projects, and we will get to that in aminute when we talk about his failure in the Churchill RocketRange project.  I am sure he will be interested to hear aboutthat.

            It is obvious that the Minister of Health does not think veryhighly of the Churchill project.  He thinks that it is a futileeffort.  I take it by his comments that he has made here todaythat his government is not making any serious efforts towardsgetting that project off the ground.  He indeed may be lobbyingagainst that project.


* (1740)


            One of the things that I have seen in my own community, Mr.Speaker, is layoff after layoff after layoff.  We have hadlayoffs in the rail industry within my community.  We had layoffsin the bus manufacturing industry within my community.  We havehad layoffs within the airline industry, and we had layoffs andbusiness failures in general, as I am sure there is around theprovince.


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


            My community has been seriously impacted by the layoffs, andonce again this past week we saw another further announcement offuture impacts of layoffs upon the employees of the railoperation, and I will move into discussion on that in a fewminutes.

            The only industry that I see growing in my community at thiscurrent time is the food bank, and I say that in all seriousnessbecause I go and take part and help out in the food bank wheneverI can to lend assistance to the people of the community to allowthem to have a sense of pride and to also hear their concerns.

            I listened to the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) talkabout people should get out and get a job.  Well, maybe themember for Rossmere should take the opportunity to go to one ofthe food banks and talk to the people who are there.  They do notwant to be there.  They do not want to have to use the food banks.

            It is interesting to note that the member for Steinbach (Mr.Driedger) is also going to have to face this problem in his owncommunity.  I see in the media this week that there is apossibility of a food bank starting up in Steinbach.  Now I wouldhave thought that Steinbach would have been an affluent area ofour province and there would not have been a need there for that,but obviously it is impacting upon them as well.

            One of the things that I had difficulty with just recently, Ihad a young woman come to my office.  She is a licensed practicalnurse.  She is a single parent of a teenage son who has justrecently been able to move away from the support of familymembers and move out on her own.  She is able to pay her ownbills now, and she is able to pay the mortgage payment on herhouse that she is living in, but she is now finding herself in aposition where she has to face the real prospect of losingemployment through the reduction of the LPN program at thehospital at which she works.

            Now this individual wants very much to be independent.  Shewants to remain in the work force, but what she is finding isthat if she loses her job she will be forced to accept one ofseveral choices.  She can opt to move back with her family.  Shecan look at retraining or she can go onto the UnemploymentInsurance system.

            She does not want to go on the Unemployment Insurance system,Madam Deputy Speaker.  She wants very much to be independent, butshe is going to be forced to make that decision if she loses herjob.  She cannot afford to go back to retraining because she hasto continue to pay the bills.  Yet we see the policies of thisgovernment and of this Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).

An Honourable Member:  Have you not heard the Liberals talk abouthim?

Mr. Reid:  I have heard the Liberals talk about him, and theLiberals have obviously bought into the process that you set outfor them.  We do not set ourselves up for that future fall.  Welike to think about what the future ramifications are going tobe.  If the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)‑‑maybe he shouldtake the time to go out and talk to some of the LPNs and listento the impact that his policies of his department and hisgovernment are going to have on people like this. [interjection]I am telling the Minister of Health that he should take the timeto get out and talk to these people and to see what impact hispolicies are having on these people.  They want to remain in thework force.  They do not want to have to rely on handouts.  Theydo not want to have to go to food banks.  They do not want to goon unemployment insurance.

            The government and this minister are forcing her, because sheexpects very soon to be laid off from her job, to face the verydifficult prospect of having to look at unemployment insurance,which means she may have to give up and most likely will have togive up her home.  It will create further hardships for herselfand her young son.

            What does this mean for the future of her son?  Will she beable to provide him with future educational opportunties like themember for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) likes to talk about.  Get outand get a job; get out and get an education.  Work for yourself.If those opportunities are eroded and removed, taken away fromthese people, that option taken away from them, their futures areput in jeopardy.

            So I asked the Minister of Health and the government ingeneral to consider the impact of their policies on people suchas this.  I listened to the Minister of Health in his discussionsat the Estimates process last session, and we have a communityhospital, Concordia Hospital, and Concordia Hospital has throughits foundation and through support from the various supportgroups and agencies within the surrounding community raised fundsto purchase a CAT scan machine, so that this hospital can performthe necessary diagnostic testing on patients within that hospital.

            I asked questions of the Minister of Health during theEstimates last session and asked him why he was not giving thehospital the opportunity to start up the use of this particularpiece of technology.  The minister said to me at that time, well,they do not have a protocol in place to determine how and who isgoing to get the testing done and who is going to do thetesting.  So I went back to the administration of the hospital,and I asked them, do you have a protocol in place?  They said,yes, they have had a protocol and they have supplied it to thedepartment, and yet the minister said that they did not have aprotocol.

            When I asked the administration of the hospital if they hadpermission in the first place from the Department of Health tomove forward with purchasing this piece of equipment for thecommunity hospital, they said, yes.  They went to the minister'sdepartment, and they received that approval to go out andpurchase that equipment through the foundation monies.  Now wefind that the Minister of Health is refusing to allow a communityhospital that affects my community, not giving them the authorityto put that equipment into operation.  That is unfortunate,because now the patients that are in this hospital are going tohave to continue to be transported from the Concordia Hospital tothe other hospitals to have that particular type of testing done.

            Now I see that further correspondence indicates, after theMinister of Health said that he was going to penalize thishospital if they put that CAT scan machine into operation, he wasgoing to penalize their budgets by a comparable amount, and nowwe see that the hospitals have capitulated to the minister'sdemand, to the minister's position, and that they are going tofollow the minister's wishes and they are not going to put thatmachine into place.

            After the foundation raised three‑quarters of a milliondollars and the service groups in the community raised at least50 percent of the operating funds for this particular piece ofmachinery, the minister was going to penalize them and has forcedthe hospital now into a position where they will not be able toput this machine into use, forcing the patients to be transportedto another facility.

            I would be interested to hear from the Minister of Health,when he makes his comments, why his department has made thatdecision, because I cannot think of any logical reason why theDepartment of Health or the minister would have pushed thehospital into this position by threatening to penalize themfinancially if they decided to use this machine.

            I listened to the Minister of Highways and Transportation(Mr. Driedger) make some comments yesterday during his debate onthe throne speech, and it was interesting to note; he coveredseveral areas.  He has been the minister forseveral‑‑[interjection]

Madam Deputy Speaker:  Order, please.

Mr. Reid:  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had a little bit ofdifficulty trying to get my point across here amongst theconversation that was taking place around me.

            The Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger)has made many comments yesterday and, of course, during theEstimates debate that was taking place through the past severalsessions, and it was interesting to note that the minister saidyesterday that we cannot make the decision for CN as to whom theyshould lay off or not lay off.

            The minister went on to say that CN does not have toanswer‑‑neither do any of the other transportation industrieshave to answer‑‑to us in terms of how they rationalize whom theylay off.  Well, if that is the case, then the minister is tellingus by those statements and the statements that he made in histhrone speech comments yesterday that his department does notplay any role in the transportation process within our province.

            Now, I like to believe that there are many good people in theminister's department, and that they are trying to do the job tothe best of their ability, but I have to wonder after theminister made statements like this if there is nothing that theycan do to affect the transportation industry in our province.


* (1750)


            Why then do we have these people employed in these jobs?  Whyis the minister not taking the options that they would obviouslybe presenting to the minister and bringing them forward, and isthe minister not consulting with the transportation sectors on aregular basis?  If he is not having any impact or any effect,then maybe what we need to do is just talk to the individualpayroll departments of these various transportation sectors andget the employment levels once a week, instead of having adepartment sit there and not have their good ideas broughtforward.

            It is interesting to note, Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1984,there was a discussion that was taking place in the House ofCommons, and I would like to read for the benefit of the membershere, and we are talking about deregulation and its impact andwho was the author of that, or as I would like to say, who wasthe godfather of deregulation in this country.  I think thatthese comments I am about to read for the record will make itvery clear to members opposite who were the godfathers‑‑plural,Madam Deputy Speaker.  It says, this is the Honourable Mr.Mazankowski speaking.  Just to set the record straight, I wouldlike to talk about the nine months that we were in office.  TheConservative government took at that time the terms of scalingdown the regulatory burden and opening up the opportunity forincreased competition and innovation through cheaper air fares.

            For example, we took steps to relax the restrictions on thelicensing of routes with respect to entry and exit.  We tookaction to provide greater flexibility to allow more competition,the key word, the "c" word.  We took steps to increase theutilization and the efficiency of the total system.  We took avery important step when we relaxed very dramatically thedomestic air charters because the regulations have been veryrestrictive.  The country's major air charter company Wardair wasreally impotent in terms of penetrating the domestic air charterservice.  We took steps to relax those regulations verydramatically.  Then it goes on in the debate, where thehonourable member, I believe it is for Winnipeg South Centre, Mr.Axworthy, when he talks about what he did when he was theminister.

            He said at the time that the members of the public, who wereraising the concerns about what impact deregulation was going tohave on us in this country and Mr. Axworthy says, there weretimes I had to take issue with those who predicted mass chaos inthe industry if we attempted reform, airline crashes, labourdisputes, airline bankruptcies, loss of small communityservices.  All these were blamed on change, in other words,blamed on deregulation.

            What do we see today?  We see airline crashes.  We seeairlines in dispute, employees against employees.  We seeairlines into bankruptcy.  We see small communities put at risk.The very things that were being raised as concerns in the countryand in this province were being raised to the government, and yetwe see members of the Liberal Party and of the Conservative Partysaying what a good thing deregulation is.  It is going to have apositive impact for us in this province, and yet there werepredictions that were on record as far back as 1984 saying whatthe pitfalls were going to be.

            What we are seeing now, as a result of deregulation, and Irefer to a document that was brought forward by the member forWinnipeg Transcona, and it was a document dated June 16, 1992,just before the end of the last session.  I will quote from thedocument, whose author is Ron Lawless, and it states, CN is beingimpacted by free trade and deregulation.  The emergence of acommon perception of these problems and what had to be done aboutthem is essential if we are to succeed.  So it is very obvious bythose words that deregulation and free trade are having a veryserious impact upon CN.  It goes on to say that the deficit wasgoing to climb for that particular company and that even themodest growth in volumes of traffic that revenues were going tobe flat.

            Now these are statements. [interjection] The Deputy Premier(Mr. Downey) says that nobody is buying this.  Then I guess whathe is telling us then is that Mr. Lawless, who was the head ofthis Crown corporation at that time, does not know what he istalking about.  Now this individual was appointed by his federalcousins in Ottawa, so I guess his federal cousins in Ottawa donot know what they are doing by making such an appointment.

            He goes on to say further, Madam Deputy Speaker, that thereis going to be a reduction of 2,000 employees a year over a five-year period, and we found out that this was furtherexplained by the railway when they announced that this was goingto be proceeded with at a much more quicker pace when we heardthat they are looking at reducing the work force by 3,500employees per year over the next three years.

            Well, one of the things that I see happening in the countryright now is that railways are put into aposition‑‑[interjection] If you listen very carefully, I willexplain to you what is happening, and I know it is impacting uponyour government because your Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)has been having to deal with this, and I am sure your cabinetcolleagues and you have had discussions about this for a numberof months now.

            The railways have been put into a position where they arehaving to compete globally, as you like to talk about, and inNorth America in general with other Class 1 railways on the NorthAmerican continent.  What they are seeing and what we are seeingnow is that the railways are having to harmonize their taxationstructure and their operating costs with the American railways tothe point where the railways are now coming to us, and I am surethey are coming to you as well, and they are telling us that theywant to see an elimination of property taxes, and they want tosee an elimination of the fuel tax.

            I am sure that each and everyone of us in this room heretoday and everyone of us in the province of Manitoba would liketo see the elimination of both, but in reality that cannot happenbecause otherwise there would be a very serious or drastic cut inthe services and opportunities for us in our province.  Oureducation and our health programs would probably be the first tosuffer.  So the railways have been forced into this position ofharmonization with the American railways, and now by the policiesof the federal Tories and the federal Liberals, supported by thisgovernment here today.

            Now this problem is coming home to roost with this Ministerof Finance (Mr. Manness).  He is now, and the cabinet, going tohave to decide whether or not they are going to reduce the taxesfor the railways to allow them to harmonize their programs.  Heis going to have to decide, as well as the other communities andthe municipalities in the province, as to whether or not they aregoing to allow the railways to harmonize their property taxstructure and what type of taxes they pay for their propertiesand their holdings.

            So it is going to have a very serious impact, and it is goingto be interesting to see how this Minister of Finance and thisgovernment are going to handle that problem.  Are they going togive the railways what they want to allow them to compete withthe American railways, or are they going to let them justflounder on their own after they went and created this problem inthe first place?

            I was very disappointed to see the lack of a programinitiative or any mention of any transportation initiatives inthe throne speech.  We saw no mention of transportation in thelast budget, and now the only thing that this government can talkabout in this throne speech is roads and highways.


(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)


            Transportation is not comprised just of roads and highways inthis province.  There is a much greater infrastructure that is inplace that they seem to be ignoring, and I do not know why theyare ignoring it.  It seems like they are abandoning it, and thereare many thousands of employees who are employed in theseindustries, as we all know, and they are being left, left out ontheir own with no government intervention.

            The minister does not even make a statement expressing hisstrong concerns or his strong reservations about the directionthat the federal government is taking or the Crown corporationsor the businesses are taking when they lay off these employees.There is no statement, just silence, the stand‑aside philosophy.

            I have not heard the Minister of Transportation (Mr.Driedger) speak in his debate on the throne speech about what ishappening with the Rocket Range at Churchill.  He has not madeany mention that the community of Churchill has been waiting nowfor over a year for this provincial government to come forwardwith the feasibility study funding.  The community of Churchillhas already raised the $75,000 for their share which thisgovernment said that they were going to share 50‑50.  So you havenot even brought your money forward to move forward with thatfeasibility study.  Are you waiting for that project to die, forAlaska to take the project, or Vandenberg Air Force Base to takethe project?  Is that what you are waiting for?

            The North is dying while you sit there twiddling yourthumbs.  You have to give them the opportunity.  You made acommitment to them that you would match the funding that theyraised.  They have raised the funding and now you sit there.  SoI hope that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) islistening, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology(Mr. Stefanson) is listening, because the community is waitingfor a decision to be made by your government.  The longer youwait, the greater the risk is that we are going to lose thatopportunity for Manitoba and for the community of Churchill.

            We all know that there are 200‑plus jobs at stake, probably1,000 spin‑off support jobs at stake, as well.


* (1800)


Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  I am interrupting the memberaccording to the rules.  When this matter is again before theHouse, the honourable member will have 13 minutes remaining.

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