Thursday, December 3, 1992


The House met at 1:30 p.m.








Mr. Speaker:  I have reviewed the petition of the honourablemember for St. James (Mr. Edwards).  It complies with theprivileges and practices of the House, and it 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 forBrandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), and it complies with the rulesof the House.  Is it the will of the House to have the petitionread?

            To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba

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

            The Brandon General Hospital is the major health careinstitution for southwestern Manitoba; and

            The citizens of Brandon and southwestern Manitoba are deeplyconcerned and disturbed about the downsizing of the hospital andview it as a threat to the quality of health care in the region;and

            The Manitoba government has chosen not to review the currentbudget to ensure that cutbacks to vital services do not occur; and

            The administration of the hospital has been forced to takedrastic measures, including the elimination of the PalliativeCare Unit and Gynecological Wards, along with the layoff of over30 staff, mainly licensed practical nurses, to cope with afunding shortfall of over $1.3 million; and

            WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislatureof the province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that thegovernment of Manitoba consider reviewing the funding of theBrandon General Hospital.


* (1335)




Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today annual reports for the Departmentof Justice and The Manitoba Law Foundation.




Bill 5–The Northern AffairsAmendment Act


Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, Imove, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),that Bill 5, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act (Loi modifiant laLoi sur les affaires du Nord), be introduced and that the same benow received and read a first time.


Motion agreed to.


Bill 200–The Child and Family  Services Amendment Act


Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded bythe member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that Bill 200, The Childand Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur lesservices a l'enfant et a la famille, be introduced and that thesame be now received and read a first time.


Motion presented.


Ms. Barrett:  Mr. Speaker, we are introducing this legislation toensure that the protection of children is undertaken throughoutan independent body.  These amendments will provide that theChildren's Advocate report directly to the Legislative Assemblyas the Ombudsman does at this point.

            The current legislation is unacceptable and may jeopardizethe safety of children in Manitoba.  Children's Advocates inother provinces have publicly stated that they think it isimportant that Children's Advocates report to the Legislaturerather than to the minister, and we are urging the government tolisten to and support our legislation because we feel that it isimportant that the children's rights in Manitoba be protected ina nonpartisan way.  We cannot afford any incident where thegovernment's own interests take precedence over the interests ofManitoba families and children.


Motion agreed to.


Bill 6–The Real Property Amendment Act


Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister ofFamily Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 6, The RealProperty Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biensreels), be introduced and that the same be now received and reada first time.


Motion agreed to.


Bill 7–The Builders' LiensAmendment Act


Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister ofFinance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 7, The Builders' Liens AmendmentAct (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le privilege du constructeur), beintroduced and that the same be now received and read a firsttime.


Motion agreed to.


Introduction of Guests


Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attentionof honourable members to the loge to my right where we have withus this afternoon Mr. George Henderson, the former MLA forPembina.

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

            Also with us this afternoon, seated in the public gallery, wehave, from the Manitoba School for the Deaf, eleven Grade 5students.  They are under the direction of Ms. Ricki Hall.  Thisschool is located in the constituency of the honourable FirstMinister (Mr. Filmon).

            Also this afternoon we have sixty Grade 5 students from theSt. Andrews School.  These students are under the direction ofSandra Mulholland.  This school is located in the constituency ofthe honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).

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


* (1340)




North American Free Trade Agreement

Government Position


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I have anumber of questions for the First Minister on federal‑provincialrelations.

            Today, the parliamentary committee dealing with trade ishearing presentations from Manitobans on the effect of free tradeon Manitoba jobs, on Manitoba opportunities and on Manitobans,period.

            In August of 1990, this Premier said he was opposed to freetrade with Mexico.  Shortly thereafter, when he received amajority vote, he said his bottom line was to support free tradeif it met six conditions.  That trade agreement was releasedpublicly in August of 1992, and the government minister said hewould make the position of the Manitoba government public inthree weeks.

            In the Speech from the Throne it again says, our bottom linewill be determined by the six conditions.

            In light of the fact that the committee is meeting today inManitoba for the last time, and in light of the fact that thePremier has not told us whether it has met their bottom line ornot, will the Premier please tell this House and Manitobans howthis agreement fits for Manitoba?  Is he in favour of it or is heopposed to it?  Will he tell the Prime Minister tonight what theposition of Manitoba is?  He is the last Premier and the onlyPremier in Canada who has not yet taken a position.  Will he takeit today in the House?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, we were the firstprovince that put together conditions that we felt wereappropriate.  I might tell you that those conditions were alsoones that were shared, for instance, by Governor Clinton in hiselection campaign.  Several of those conditions were directly theconditions that were contained within our letter to the PrimeMinister, I might say.

            That was because Manitoba gave, rather than a knee‑jerkreaction, as the Leader of the Opposition has given to it, a verythoughtful consideration to it and looked at trade as being anabsolute necessity for a province such as Manitoba and a countrysuch as Canada.  So we said that when more than 20 percent of ourstandard of living is dependent upon trade, we have to ensurethat trade is fair, that trade is done on a basis that isbeneficial to Manitoba and to Canada.  We, therefore, did a verythorough analysis and came up with the conditions, which I say aswell were very much the conditions that were put forward byGovernor Clinton in running for the presidency.

            More particularly, Mr. Speaker, we have taken the time totake the proposed agreement to consultation with all sectors ofour economy.  That is what the Minister of Industry, Trade andTourism (Mr. Stefanson) has been doing, going through a verythorough consultation process to determine how that agreementmight affect the Manitoba economy, all sectors.  In the course ofthat consultation he has come up with a very comprehensiveanalysis and a very comprehensive comparison of the terms andconditions vis‑a‑vis the six conditions that we put forward.

            That will be the basis of Manitoba's response.  It will notbe knee‑jerk.  It will not be one that is just simply aphilosophical response.  It will be one based on what is good forManitoba, what is good for Canada, what will strengthen oureconomy, what will help us to overcome the difficulties that weface in the restructuring that is going on throughout the world.That will be the basis upon which he will get a response, a verythorough and considerate response in the future.


* (1345)


Federal Mini Budget

Unemployment Insurance Reforms


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  This is the onlyPremier in Canada who has not taken a position, Mr. Speaker.  Itis absolutely pathetic to watch the government across the way notbe able to discuss and debate the benefits and jobs in everysector dealing with Manitoba's economy.  It is a disgrace, andthis Premier is a disgrace on this particular issue.

            Mr. Speaker, a second question on federal‑provincialrelations to the Premier.  The Premier is meeting with the PrimeMinister today.  We have a number of issues that are on thefederal‑provincial agenda for Manitoba.  Just yesterday, theheartless federal Conservatives made major cuts in the UICprogram in Canada, again, for the second time in the last fouryears, cuts that have been criticized by women's organizations,by other people who are most vulnerable in our society, and thesecuts in UI represent about a $15‑million reduction in Manitoba'spotential payments in unemployment insurance.

            In light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the social assistancein Manitoba has gone up over $90 million in two budgets in thisprovince based on the economy of Manitoba and Canada, what impactwill these cuts have on Manitobans?  Does the Premier support thechanges made by the federal government yesterday?  What will hebe telling the Prime Minister today?  Will he oppose thosechanges or will he support the federal Conservatives?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, we have grave concernsabout many aspects of the federal statement.  We have graveconcerns about the possibility that workers will be unfairlytreated by their employers as a result of the judgments that haveto be made with respect to the release of employees and whetheror not dismissal is unfair and whether or not that disqualifiesworkers for UIC compensation.

            We think that there is great potential for abuse, and we havevery grave concerns about how that will work because we believe,above all, the system is supposedly in place to assist workersduring a period of misfortune in which they are without a job andalso to assist them in retraining for the new opportunities.These changes have the potential to introduce some seriousaspects of unfairness that we believe ought to be looked at.

            We are also concerned, of course, with the disproportionateallocation of the new additional training funds, the redirectedUI training funds that appear to have been done in a fashion thatwill be very, very unfair to Manitoba.  The numbers that we havelead us to conclude that there is absolutely no fairness, andthere is no basis of distribution towards our historicalportioning that we have received in the past.  All of those willbe issues that I will raise, obviously, in my discussion latertoday.

Infrastructure Renewal

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, we wishthe Conservative Premier well with the Conservative PrimeMinister on these changes.  They are horrible for the mostvulnerable people in our society, and I am pleased we share thatassessment in terms of Manitobans.

            A final question to the Premier.  He mentioned training quiteaccurately in this proposal, but there are also some realdeficiencies in the statement from the federal government oninfrastructure programs.  In fact, only two provinces in Canadawere not mentioned in specific infrastructure proposals.

            We were led to believe in many statements the government hasmade in the past that we could look with optimism to some of theannouncements made by the Finance minister yesterday.  There areprojects for Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, the Yukon,British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, many projects forQuebec in terms of infrastructure renewal.  New Brunswick, NovaScotia and Prince Edward Island have been mentioned specificallyin the proposals from the federal government, and Manitoba wasnot mentioned.

            I would ask the Premier why was Manitoba not mentioned?  Whywere not the very crucial infrastructure proposals that we had onthe table not referenced yesterday, projects like the Core AreaIII program, which are both training and infrastructure programs,projects such as some of the highway programs that we weretalking about, other projects for our infrastructure inManitoba?  Why was Manitoba left out of the references from thefederal government and what will the Premier be telling the PrimeMinister about this slight in terms of specific proposals for thepeople of Manitoba and for jobs in this province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his question.  There is no doubt in my mindthat the statement that was put forth by the federal Minister ofFinance has a huge gap and a huge hole when it comes toaddressing Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

            If you look at the list under transportation infrastructure,the statement mentions $125 million to upgrade federally ownedChamplain‑Cartier bridges in Montreal, federal investments in thePort of Montreal, co‑operative funding with Quebec on highwayprojects, $40 million for the Alaska Highway which servesAlberta, British Columbia, Yukon, new runways for airports inVancouver and Toronto, $90 million for roads in Alberta, BritishColumbia national parks, $200 million for the Trans‑CanadaHighway from New Brunswick to Nova Scotia, $800 million to $900million for the Prince Edward Island fixed link.

            You can imagine our outrage, Mr. Speaker, when the very basisupon which the National Highways Program was developed was puttogether by a committee chaired by the Manitoba Deputy Ministerof Highways and Transportation.  That was the basis upon whichthe Prime Minister announced his support for a National HighwaysProgram and then, when that program is announced publicly, toleave Manitoba out entirely of the program is an outrage and adisgrace.  You can better believe that that is a topic that Iwill be talking to the Prime Minister about.


* (1350)


Crow Benefit

Government Position


Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Speaker, there is more than onedisgrace in this statement by Mazankowski.  Farmers in Manitobaand this opposition were literally outraged and shocked by thedecision that was made by the federal minister with regard to theCrow and by this minister's laissez‑faire apologetic response towhat the federal minister did.

            Now, I say, this is who we have standing up for the farmersin Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, this minister right here.  First hebuys into the federal government's position that the GATT is anexcuse to get rid of the Crow.  Then he refuses to stand up withSaskatchewan when they say they will not negotiate changes to theCrow without consultation with all the farmers, and now thisresponse.

            I want to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, why he will notstand up for the farmers of Manitoba against the federalgovernment, why he will not stand up and fight.  Can he tell ushow much this is going to cost every farmer in Manitoba?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, thereis no question we are gravely concerned about what theannouncement said, very disappointed that the WGTA was attackedin this direction.  We have been in negotiation and discussionabout how to deal with maintaining the benefits of the Crow inwestern Canada, and I want you to know that if the member readsthe document that he tabled in this House the other day on page3, second last bullet, he will see the words "in perpetuity" inthat document, put in by this Minister of Agriculture fromManitoba.  "That we maintain it in perpetuity."

            A year ago in 1991, the option of phase‑out, no compensationwhich the federal government had on the table, we had it removedfrom the table.  So we have fought long and hard to maintain thisbenefit in western Canada, Mr. Speaker.

            I am astounded and shocked, because it was never discussed atany time that I was there, that the federal government would takethis action with this payment for western Canadian farmers.  Iwas also concerned that the safety nets might be attacked in thisbudget approach.  I am very pleased to see that GRIP, NISA, cashadvances and crop insurance were not affected at all, so westernCanadian farmers are still protected by the safety nets, thankgoodness.  We will be meeting very soon to deal with the otherissue of the impact of removal of the Crow benefit, 10 percenteach in the next two budgets.

            I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the federalminister last night about that, and the meeting is set formid‑January.

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Speaker, now this Tory minister is reduced tosaying that he is thankful that the federal Tories did not breaktheir agreements with this government, with this province, thatthey did not break their federal‑provincial agreements.

            Mr. Speaker, will the minister now agree that his laid‑backposition on this issue is playing into the federal agenda, andhis failure to stand up with Saskatchewan against this proposalhas weakened the western position and played right into thefederal government's game plan of divide and conquer the westernprovinces?  Is that not what he has done?

Mr. Findlay:  Mr. Speaker, I refuse to accept that knee‑jerkreaction from that member who does not consult with the farmersin this province.  We have consulted on a continuous basis as Itold him the other day, most recently with representatives of 30farm organizations.  We discussed the issues at hand and how todeal with them.

            I want to remind him, it was this minister, this provincethat put the words "in perpetuity" back into an agreement, wherethere was an attempt to take it out.  It was not Saskatchewan, itwas not Alberta, it was not Ontario or any other province in thiscountry.  It was this province.  We consult on a continuous basisbecause we face some very serious challenges.  Over the years,all the costs in the system get passed back to the farm gate,greater and greater costs at the farm gates.


* (1355)


            Mr. Speaker, I want to remind that member, he was in thegovernment in 1983 when the WGTA was put in place that made thefarmers pay the first 6 percent on inflation forever and a day.So the benefit of the Crow benefit is decreased in half becauseactions his government took in 1983 did not stand up for thewestern Canadian farmers in the WGTA act.

Mr. Plohman:  Mr. Speaker, we now protest in this House $1,000per farmer, and this is what this minister is doing, $1,000 perfarmer and he is doing nothing.

            I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) now, because he ismeeting with the Prime Minister today, whether he will now admitthat this is a fundamental breach of trust, a sacred trust, forwestern Canada and will he stand up and fight and let the PrimeMinister know that he will not tolerate this attack on westernCanada.

Mr. Findlay:  Mr. Speaker, you talk about breach of trust, thatmember sat in the cabinet that took away half the Crow benefit,took it away forever and a day, and we are back at the tabletrying to fight to get it restored.  He took away half of it.  Ifhe says this costs $1,000 per farm gate, he took away $2,500 perfarm gate, and I would like to hear him answer how he did notstand up for western Canadian farmers in 1983 when the benefitwas basically destroyed.


Federal Mini Budget

 Minister's Position

Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat heartenedby the comments that the Premier has made in this House, and Ishare his very grave concerns about this decision that wasannounced yesterday.

            Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program nationally is lessthan a quarter of the money that is being taken away from theunemployed in this country, and I think that is a disgrace.  Iwas surprised to hear over and over again on the radio last nightthe support offered for this program by our Finance minister,when he talked about how it was very consistent with his ownplans and he thought it was an excellent tonic for this country.I would like to ask him, does he share the grave concerns thatthe Premier (Mr. Filmon) has?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):  Mr. Speaker, mostdefinitely, but let me say to the member who likes to take, ofcourse, comments out of context and build upon them, the themesthat I was talking about were very specifically on the tax side.I was talking about, for instance, that the federal governmentwas following along some of the budgetary decisions that we hadbrought forward in our budget a year ago, specifically, a miningtax holiday, which, of course, has put Manitoba back on the mapafter the decimation put on by mining policy and taxationpolicies by the members across the way.

            So when I see the federal government bring down a taxationmeasure which mirrors one that we put in a year ago, and, Mr.Speaker, I also notice a 10 percent tax credit dividend on thepurchase of new equipment, I say that mirrors our measure withrespect to a 10 percent offset against tax payable for thepurchase of new equipment.  Those measures are keeping with thegeneral themes of this government.  If the member wants toconfuse that with the whole unemployment insurance, I say he isdoing a disservice to the listeners.  He is doing a disservice tothe members of this House because that is basically an untruth.


Impact on Employment


Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):  Mr. Speaker, I think this Financeminister is doing a disservice to this province by toadying tothe federal Finance minister.

            The total job creation and the infrastructure program amountsto less than half the job layoffs announced by CN.  I would liketo ask the Finance minister, who likes to pull out projections,what is his projection of net job loss in this province as aresult of those two decisions?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):  Mr. Speaker, we arein no position at this point in time to provide that answer, andthe member knows it.  He knows very well that we just have hadaccess to the documents as presented.  He knows that we do nothave the potential to analyze and give him that specific number.He knows that without even having to ask the question, but let mesay in his attempt to create mischief, we recognize that thereare significant changes that are undergoing in the economy.

            The province of Manitoba is not immune to those structuralchanges and not one person in this House likes to see theimpact.  He talks about what might be the fallout from CNdecisions.  None of us likes to see that, but the reality isthose decisions are being made in corporate boardrooms outside ofthe cabinet of the Province of Manitoba.  Let me say to themember, he can try and make it appear like we are responsible forall of it, but the fact is the people in the province of Manitobaare not going to buy that argument.


* (1400)


Impact on Social Assistance


Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):  I do agree, Mr. Speaker, that theFinance minister does not know what is going on.  I would ask himthough to try to project one other thing, because his departmentdoes look at UI programs.  They do look at the impact of federaldecisions on this province.  They do have a large branch thatdoes analysis.  Given the changes in UI and given the belief thatthis will put more people on welfare, and given the lack of anyjob creation in this budget for this province, what is the netimpact on our social assistance budgets in this province?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):  Again, Mr. Speaker,I cannot answer that question in an absolute or a quantifiablesense.  I do acknowledge that there is going to be a negativeimpact, unmeasurable at this time, a negative impact on thewelfare rolls and, indeed, the amount that we are going to haveto spend within that area.  I fully acknowledge that.

            The reality, with respect to some of the cautious remarksthat I had made yesterday, was certainly more on theinfrastructure side.  It was obvious that we could see theabsence of the mention of Manitoba.  We also recognize that thePrime Minister is in Winnipeg today, and one would hope thatthere might be a further announcement coming.  That is mycautious‑‑by the way, Mr. Speaker, the statement was read almost24 hours ago, at which time I made my early comments.  An awfullot has been found out since that point in time.


Labour Force Development

Government Position


Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  Mr. Speaker, for almost two years,while thousands of Manitobans lost their jobs, this governmentdid absolutely nothing to create a plan for labour forcedevelopment and training.

            Over the past summer, some first steps were taken with labourand education groups to establish a fully representative LabourForce Development Board to address the very urgent and seriousissues of training which face Manitobans.

            I would like to ask the Minister of Education:  Will theminister explain to the House why she has suddenly andunilaterally rejected this co‑operative process?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr.Speaker, one of the issues that my department has been workingtowards, on behalf of our government, is the signing of aCanada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement.  With thesigning of that agreement, then we look to further our strategieswithin Manitoba for labour market development.  In the signing ofthat agreement, we have been making it very clear that we willsign it when that agreement benefits Manitobans.

Ms. Friesen:  Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why thereversal of her decision and an announcement of a so‑called,made‑in‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement involved noconsultation with her two most significant partners, labour andeducation?  Could she explain to us how this will contribute tothe co‑operative spirit necessary for Manitoba's economic future?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, the member has obviouslymisunderstood.  The important point is that Manitoba has beenstriving to reach an agreement with Canada in order to shape theCanada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement to suit theneeds of Manitobans, to not simply respond to a unilateralagreement and a unilateral mechanism which has been suggested inthe first place.  When Manitoba does sign that agreement, wecertainly look for consultations with Manitobans in thedevelopment of our labour market strategy.

Ms. Friesen:  Sign here on the dotted line, Mr. Speaker.

            Will the minister confirm that what she in fact will beproposing is not a made‑in‑Manitoba solution but a made‑in‑Quebecapproach, where business appoints its own delegates, thegovernment is represented by its own business appointees andgroups such as education, vital to any training program in anyprovince, are simply dismissed from the table, because that iswhat is happening here?

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.  I will not confirmthat, because that is simply not true.

            What the member has referenced, however, is that provinceshave designed agreements to suit their particular needs as aprovince.  Manitoba will be signing an agreement that meets theneeds of Manitobans.

Manitoba Public Insurance

CorporationAgents' Fees


Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):  Mr. Speaker, I have a questioneither for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) or the ministerresponsible for Autopac.

            Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Finance confirmedthat the cabinet did discuss the request of the insurance agents'lobby to force MPIC to withdraw its plan to limit the commissionspaid to insurance brokers, which would have saved insured driversand owners around a million dollars per year.

            My question, Mr. Speaker, is:  Why did the cabinet give abenefit of about $2,500 to each of the 400 Autopac agents inManitoba, forcing rates up by about $100 on average for everymotorist in this province?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  Mr. Speaker, Iexplained this yesterday.  I am sorry the member for Brandon Eastwas not listening, either that or chose to ignore the statementthat I made to him about the fact that this requires a regulatorychange.  We saw the regulatory change at a time when the Autopac2000 negotiations are going on between the corporation and therepresentatives across the province through the agents, anopportunity for them to conclude those negotiations because anentirely new package will be in place with the implementation ofAutopac 2000.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  The minister really did not answer thequestion, but I would ask the minister:  Did the cabinet or theminister responsible for Autopac receive a formal request fromthe Insurance Brokers Association of Manitoba?  Would theminister tell the House and tell the people of Manitoba:  How wasthis transmitted to the government?  Did you get a letter?  Didyou have a delegation?  Did a group come to see the cabinet?What was the means of communication with the cabinet?  If youhave a document, would you table it in this House?

Some Honourable Members:  Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member for BrandonEast has put his question.  I believe he is waiting for hisanswer.

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a requirementunder the act that discussion was as a result of what would havebeen required by way of a regulatory change.

            In terms of whether or not I was lobbied or whether I wasapproached, I received some‑‑actually, a fairly minor amount oflobbying and did not have any formal meetings with theassociation or any of that type of contact.  The concern that weraised is as I described.  When you are in the middle of anegotiation process that will develop an entirely newcompensation package, then that process should be seen through tocompletion.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Well, the people of Manitoba still do notknow how this lobbying took place, Mr. Speaker.

            My last question to the minister, and I ask this in view ofhis statements of not wanting to interfere with the process ofthe Public Utilities Board.  I want to know, Mr. Speaker, and thepeople of Manitoba want to know in view of those statements, whydid the cabinet simply not allow the Public Utilities Board todeal with the original application limiting agency fees insteadof forcing MPIC to change it by increasing its loss estimates?In other words, why did the government politically interfere withthe public utility process in this province?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board dealt withthe application in front of it.  Nothing on my part or anyactions by this government interfered with that process.  Thecorporation has been able to deal with the rate application thatit had in front of them without making changes and without goingback to the Public Utilities Board.

            Frankly, Mr. Speaker, what he is saying is that he wants toturn over any regulatory capacity to the Public Utilities Board.


* (1410)


RRAP Funding Reduction


Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Speaker, I have a questionfor the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst).

            There is a very good federal program called the ResidentialRehabilitation Assistance Program, of which I am sure theminister is aware.  It provides grants and loans to low‑incomefamilies in order that they can upgrade and improve the homeswhich they live in.  It also provides older, more establishedcommunities the hope to revitalize and improve the neighbourhoodand the surroundings.  Last year, the federal government cut theprogram by 21 percent.  Now it is being rumoured that the programis going to be cut by 29 percent.

            My question to the Minister of Housing is:  Has the ministercontacted the federal Minister of Housing to protest the reducedlevel of support for this program, and if not, will he nowcontact him and demand that there be no further cuts to thisimportant and very beneficial program to the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing):  Firstly, Mr. Speaker, theResidential Rehabilitation Assistance Program is delivered in thecity of Winnipeg by the City of Winnipeg in direct contract withCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and in rural Manitoba isdelivered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.  ManitobaHousing does not deliver that program.

Mr. Lamoureux:  One might want to digest that and come acrossthat the Minister of Housing does not necessarily know what theprogram is all about.  What I am trying to get at here is thatthe Province of Quebec and the federal government entered into anagreement that enhanced the program, that Manitoba, in particularrural Manitoba, has not had any real benefit from this program,an area which I would have thought the government would besomewhat sensitive to.

            My question to the Minister of Housing is:  Will the Ministerof Housing take the initiative and make his federal counterpartsit down and come to an agreement, much like the Province ofQuebec has done, and do something in the economy and help thehousing stock in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Ernst:  Mr. Speaker, in the last federal budget, there was a3 percent cap placed on CMHC expenditures, Canada Mortgage andHousing Corporation expenditures.  That 3 percent cap meant, over1992, a 22 percent decrease in funding available to the nonprofithousing corporation and all the programs associated under thatprogram, and will result in 1993 in another 36 percent decrease.

            All housing corporations across the country have beensignificantly impacted by these reductions in Canada Mortgage andHousing Corporation funding.  Mr. Speaker, we are desperatelytrying to at least continue to provide for low‑income Manitobansan opportunity for social housing, and we are devoting ourresources principally in that area.


RRAP Funding Reduction


Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Speaker, he is the Ministerof Housing, and he is doing nothing, absolutely.  That is sad.

            Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is, later on thisevening, he is going to be having supper with his federalcounterpart, the Prime Minister of Canada.  Will the Premier atleast bring up this particular program while he is having supperwith the Prime Minister and get some sort of an agreement,because we know the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) is doingabsolutely nothing?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  I thank the member for his advice.

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Public Utilities Board Application


Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):  Mr. Speaker, we are not surewhether we heard the minister correctly on this side of the Housein reference to the process of using the PUB to bring forward anonpolitical decision in this matter.  The record is clear, and Iwould refer the minister to page 3 of the Public Utilities Boarddocument, order No. 174‑92, a specific reference to the fact thatMPIC had to change its application, because they learned that therequest of the government to amend regulations under The MPIC Acthad not been approved.

            Surely, would this minister not agree that if they wanted toremain true to their promise to not politically interfere thatthis government would have allowed the PUB to deal with thematter?  The PUB would have made a decision‑‑let us say it saidyes‑‑then the cabinet would have to pass the necessaryOrders‑in‑Council.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  Mr. Speaker, thePUB and the MPIC process that they have gone through in front ofthe PUB‑‑they did not alter their application.  The PUB, as Irecall that, has asked them as to how they would respond, and ithas not cost the motoring public of this province in the changingof the rates, and that is what the PUB order was to approve, therates of the corporation.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Again, I would urge the minister to read thispage 3.

            My question is:  Why would the minister, if he had theseconcerns, not make that position well known in June, or beforeJune, before they made the first application to the board?Subsequently the MPIC got the message.

            I read, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking why is‑‑could theminister confirm this?  During the course of the hearing thecorporation increased the $5.8‑million loss estimate to $7.8million when it learned a proposal to amend the regulations underThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act to limit premiumtaxes and brokerage commissions had not been approved by thegovernment.  Would the minister confirm that?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the corporation will not beincreasing its deficit; it will be increasing its ability tomanage its affairs to account for any kind of saving such asthat, and there was no increase passed on to the motoring public.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask this ministerthen, the bottom line is, how can this government, and how canthis minister, sit there very complacently and justify a $2,500bonus, a Christmas gift for the insurance agents of thisprovince, while at the same time forcing excessive rate increasesonto the driving motorists of Manitoba?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the member is making bizarreallegations.  The brokers' compensation package is beingrenegotiated right now.  This is the third time I have had topoint this out to the member.  In that process, as we movethrough to the Autopac 2000 process, why would you all of asudden abort any kind of negotiation such as that in the middleof the process when you were in fact bringing forward a newcompensation package?  That is exactly what happened.


Telecommunications Industry



Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, deregulation of theairline industry has cost Manitoba over 200 jobs, and theMinister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) has admitted thatderegulation of this industry has been a disaster.

            Before the last election, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) himselfopposed deregulation of the telecommunication sector when hecorrectly pointed out that subscriber rates would increase iflong‑distance rates for large businesses were lowered, which isexactly what is going to be happening under deregulation.

            Yesterday, it was announced that 45 workers at NorthernTelecom were laid off.  Why has this Premier caved in and brokenhis promise to oppose deregulation?  Has he learned nothing aboutthe job losses in the telecommunication sector? [interjection]

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  I think the member should know thatit is impolite to clap for his own question.

            Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there was a Supreme Courtdecision that established that the responsibility fortelecommunications rests clearly with the federal government.We, I might say, negotiated with the federal government aMemorandum of Understanding that will see Manitoba representationon the panels that have jurisdiction over decisions that affecttelecommunications in Manitoba.

            I might tell you, from my discussions with my colleague inSaskatchewan, that that is an agreement that they would like tohave with the federal government.  They believe that it is amodel that they ought to have in order to protect their interestsin telecommunications, and they find great favour in having sucha Memorandum of Understanding, Mr. Speaker.

            So I think he should perhaps talk with his colleagues inSaskatchewan to see what they feel about that particular issue.


Sears Canada

Telemarketing Site


Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, my next question isalso for the Premier.

            Why did Sears Canada last week announce that they decided tolocate their telemarketing centre in Saskatchewan, which is stillderegulated?  Why did this minister lose these 900 potential jobs?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, oneof the key features in terms of comparative costs was the payrolltax in Manitoba which had been imposed by the New Democraticgovernment.


* (1420)





Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  In view of the obvious failures ofderegulation, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier reconsider hisposition on deregulation before more jobs are lost in thisprovince?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before,the Supreme Court has ruled that telecommunications comesunder‑‑[interjection] I will let the member for Kildonan (Mr.Chomiak) respond to the question since he has all the answers.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  Time for Oral Questions has expired.





(Fifth 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 Transcona, who has 13 minutes remaining.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tocontinue my remarks from where I left off yesterday, where I wasdiscussing the government's failure, total and absolute failure,when dealing with transportation‑related issues.  I was talkingin specific about the Port of Churchill and the rail line to thatport.

            We have, Mr. Speaker, been watching this issue very closelybecause of the potential impact that it will have on the northernpart of our province.  We had made recommendations to the federalminister earlier this year with respect to the rail line to theport and how we could upgrade that line on a permanent basis byway of a four‑way partnership.

            Our concern on this side of the House because of the completelack of action on the part of this government‑‑and I talkspecifically about programs where they had agreed to make equalinvestments with the community of Churchill, at least to do afeasibility study for the rocket range which would have giveneconomic stimulus to that community. [interjection]

            I see, Mr. Speaker, that the space cadet on the other sidethere, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), as he likes to refer toothers in this House, is chirping from his seat.  Of course, ifhe had taken action on this issue, we would not have to bediscussing it over and over in the House here.

            What we had proposed, Mr. Speaker, and what this Minister ofTransportation (Mr. Driedger) and his government are going tohave to face, I believe, in the very near future is the very reallikelihood that his government is going to have to make adecision on whether or not they are going to have to pick up thecosts to maintain and operate the rail line into the northernpart of our province.  I say that based on the information thatwe have seen come forward by way of Directions:  The Final Reportof The Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation.  Itmade several key recommendations in that report that will affectnegatively the province of Manitoba and in effect put pressure onthis government to look at what few options they have to keep therail service to the northern part of the province and in turncould put in jeopardy that rocket range reactivation.

            I refer specifically, Mr. Speaker, to the fact, and I willquote from the document itself, that any railway company beallowed to abandon any amount of track without limit.  I have notheard the Minister of Transportation, in the comments that he hasmade on his debate on the throne speech, make any reference tothis document whatsoever.  It is unfortunate.  I know theminister should have a copy of this document by now, and thiswill have a great deal of bearing upon us in this province.

            It goes on to further reference that, and I quote:  Anysubsidized remote access service, regardless of the mode, bedesignated to take passengers out to and bring them in from theclosest convenient point where a transfer can be made to acommercial unsubsidized carrier.  This, in turn, Mr. Speaker,will force Via Rail, who now services the northern part of ourprovince on a reduced schedule, to look at‑‑if theserecommendations are accepted by the federal government and arenot fought by this provincial government‑‑only having asubsidized service for the portion where there are no otherunsubsidized modes available to pick up passengers and to bringpassengers to that point.

            In other words, the closest roadway where there may be a busservice could be the part.  If there is a bus service that goesto the community of Gillam and the railway runs to that point thesubsidized section will most likely remain from Gillam toChurchill, being the only part that does not have a road systemin our province.

            What position, then, is the minister going to take if ViaRail says that they cannot economically afford to maintain thattype of service and apply for abandonment of that service to thenorthern part of our province?  Is this minister then going tofight the federal government once Via decides they want toabandon this service?

            We already know that CN is pulling its equipment out and islooking for long‑term storage for the boxcars that they had beenusing to the port.  What happens then if CN pulls out?  Is thisgovernment then going to be faced with the option of having toabandon the rail line outright and the service to the communitiesalong the way, or is this minister and his government going totake over operation of that rail line at great cost to thetaxpayers of this province?

            That is why, Mr. Speaker, we put forward our proposal earlierthis year to the federal Minister of Transport, something thatthis Minister of Transportation for Manitoba thought was a badidea.  Yet he is going to have to make the decision somewheredown the road of what options are facing him, probably at greatexpense to the taxpayer.

            Yesterday, I was talking about the rocket range and the$75,000 matching of funding that this government was supposed todo.  I know the minister across the way probably does notunderstand the concept of what this means to northern Manitoba.He probably spends very little time out of his office, never mindvisiting the northern part of our province.  If he took the timeto go and see what impact this is going to have on the community,I am sure he would understand a bit better what is facing thesepeople in the future.

            I suggest that he take the opportunity to travel up toChurchill and the communities along the way and talk to thepeople there. [interjection] Yes, you flew up.  There is no doubtyou probably flew up and flew out in the same day.  Have you evertaken the train to Churchill?  No.  Why not?  It is part of theservice.  Why have you always flown everywhere in the province?Why do you not try the train?  Why do you not try the bus?  Irecommend it.

            There is a road up to Gillam and you could take the trainfrom there; the bus to Gillam and then take the train up toChurchill.  Why do you not try the train service?  Take a trip upthere.  You might enjoy it.  Maybe we can encourage someincreased tourism for the northern part of the province as well.

            It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the provincialgovernment in their throne speech highlights indicate that thereis supposed to be a review of the National Highways Program, andI am still waiting for the Minister of Highways andTransportation (Mr. Driedger) to give us an indication of whatprograms we can expect for the province of Manitoba.  It is myunderstanding that we were looking forward to having in the rangeof $25 million to $30 million investment in the Highways Programfor our province.

            Is the minister meeting with one his federal counterparts?Is there going to be some investment in the highwaysinfrastructure of our province so that we can create those jobs?The minister has been silent on this.  He keeps saying that he isspearheading these efforts, but I have not seen any results yet.The Lockport bridge is another good example.  First we have anagreement, then we do not have an agreement.  Who is penalized bythis?  The residents of the community of Lockport and thesurrounding area.


* (1430)


            I hope that when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is meeting with thePrime Minister today he reinforces Manitoba's position on this,that we want them to take some serious action to keep that bridgeopen and to invest the monies into it to make sure that it issafe for the future.  Do not just put an advertisement in thepaper saying, ah, the bridge is closed; we are not going to worryabout it.

            It says in the throne speech highlights, Mr. Speaker, thatthis government will work for federal government support forChurchill, and that is why I referenced yesterday and again atthe beginning of my comments here today that it is more than justthe federal government's responsibility for the communities inthe province, that this government has to take an active role inparticipation in the support for Churchill and the community.

            We have to take an active role in transportation in generalin this province, something which we have not done in thisprovince for several years now, obviously, because I referencedin my earlier comments yesterday, in the last throne speech therewas no reference to transportation‑related issues.  In thisthrone speech there is no reference to transportation‑relatedissues other than highways and roads.  Well, highways and roadsare not the only part of transportation in the province.  We haveto take an active role seeking programs of investment for theprovince of Manitoba.  I hope that the minister's department isworking on some programs that will lend support fortransportation in our province, because we have much at risk.

            The minister has not made any reference whatsoever to why hisgovernment withdrew the so-called or the reported $25-million funding that was in place for Canadian Airlines.  Why was thatfunding withdrawn?  Why is this government not coming forwardwith another program?  Why are there no strategies to deal with transportation-related issues in this province, like the airlinecrisis that we are in right now?

            There is no reference to the difficulties with the crisesthat are facing transportation in this province.  The minister'soffice sits mum, no plan of action, no ideas. [interjection] Nointerest, as the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister)says.  Very apparent.  You think transportation is not a seriousissue in the province.  You have your highway through Portage laPrairie.  You think there may be some federal money coming toupgrade that program for you, and you are okay in yourcommunity.  So, in other words, I am okay in Portage la Prairie,but I do not care about anywhere else in the province.  I do notcare that I have 2,000 railway employees in my community who arefacing layoff and the pending closure of this.  You are notworried about the thousands of airline employees in theprovince.  You are not worried about the trucking industries.

            When I first came into this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, theminister used to say proudly that we had nine of 14 Canadiantrucking firms headquartered in this province.  Now we have sevenof 11.  What is that saying for transportation?

            I reviewed my notes from the last session when I was upspeaking on transportation‑related issues.  They are the sameissues facing us now as were facing us then.  I have seen noprogress in this area.  Airlines were facing open skies.  That isa program that is still on and being discussed, maybe on the backburner now, but nevertheless still being discussed.  Foreigntakeovers and buyouts are still an issue.  Railway downsizing andrationalization, the railways are talking about harmonizing theirtaxes, fuel and property, with the United States‑‑the sameissue.  Layoffs are still facing us in every sector of thetransportation industry, and bankruptcies.  I see no action bythis government to rectify those problems.  They seem intent tosit idly by and let the market dictate what is going to happen tous.

            I think we have some good people in the Department ofHighways and Transportation.  I think they probably have somegood ideas that can be brought forward to help us move out of thedoldrums that we are in, out of the recession that we are in.  Ihope the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger)will accept those ideas and bring some of those initiativesforward, because I think Manitoba needs those ideas to be putinto practice, and I hope that‑‑while the Minister of Agriculture(Mr. Findlay) likes to sit there and say that my comments areirrelevant, I have seen, as we have witnessed here today duringQuestion Period, his irrelevance in dealing with the method ofpayment for the producers in this province here and what effectthat is going to have on the producers.  He is taking no actionto protect the producers or the railway jobs in this province.  Iguess there obviously is no interest in what is taking place.

            With that, Mr. Speaker, I see my time has expired.  I thankyou for the opportunity.  I hope that this government will listento the comments that have been made and will take some action toresolve the issues that are facing us here and not just sit idlyby while others make those decisions for us.  Thank you very much.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):  Mr. Speaker, itis a privilege to be able to participate once again in support ofa throne speech that really deserves the support of all membersof this Chamber.  If honourable members opposite really thoughtabout it, and if they really were prepared to come to terms withthe seriousness of the situation that the people of Manitoba, thepeople of Canada face in these times, they would break fromtradition, they would break from that reactionary knee-jerk opposition and support this throne speech and vote for it.However, having been around for a while, I recognize thattradition likely will not be broken, and they will do their thingas they see fit.

            Mr. Speaker, allow me to express my pleasure in seeingyourself ensconced in that responsible chair that you occupy aschief custodian, steward, magistrate of this Assembly in tryingto keep order.  I welcome my new colleague certainly from Portagela Prairie along with the return of the member for Crescentwood(Ms. Gray).  I offer my congratulations to the table officers,some of the new ones who have joined us.  I am always pleased tonote the new group of Pages who come to serve us, particularlywhen I have the privilege of having, I believe, one, perhaps eventwo of them from the grand constituency of Lakeside.  I taketheir presence in the Chamber very seriously because they, ofcourse, will be watching the members.  They might be reportingback home, not just to their parents, but to the neighbours aboutthe participation and the actions of their member.  I certainlywelcome them, and it is one of the great traditions of thisChamber that these young people are chosen to spend some timewith us.

            I take this moment to explain to the honourable Pages that wehave with us, as I often do to the school children and people whocome to visit us in the gallery, who sometimes walk away, youknow, perplexed, disappointed at the lack of decorum, at the kindof shouting that goes on sometimes, the fact that we are notalways listening to each other, but, Mr. Speaker, as you knowthis is what parliament is all about.  This is what a free andopen society is all about, and we talk and we talk and we talkand we try to talk out our problems.  We try to reach consensus.

            There are so many parts of the world where they do not takethat time to talk.  It is not a very efficient way of solvingproblems, but, surely, we all recognize how much more preferableit is to the ways in far too many parts of the world where othersolutions to problem solving take place.  We see that on ourtelevision sets.  We see that in so many different parts of theworld and the dire consequences from that.

            Mr. Speaker, it is my hope to talk principally about theaffairs of the natural resources in the province of Manitoba andthe fact that I am very pleased that I continue to have theprivilege of being the Minister of Natural Resources in thisprovince.  I say that very genuinely.  I count every day ablessing having responsibility in this particular sphere ofgovernment activity.

            I understand the kind of ongoing tremendous challenges andproblems that some of my colleagues have in other portfolios,Family Services, that have to deal with so many of thedifficulties of our complex, modern society.  Their table, theirfare is a daily recitation of trying to resolve these issues,some of the failures of our society, some of the deep‑seated andnot easy solvable problems that, for instance, the Minister ofFamily Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) or the Minister of Health (Mr.Orchard) or the challenge that the Minister of Education (Mrs.Vodrey) have.  I have, and I am very much aware of it, theopportunity of travelling through this country, seeing so much ofour beautiful natural resources, whether it is in our forests,whether it is in our lakes and rivers, and dealing with the kindof people that I deal with.


* (1440)


            I get a little sneaky every once in a while about how I tryto protect those natural resources by putting up a little decoycalled Fluffy.  Fluffy has been very active, Mr. Speaker, in thelast little while.  I will not go into all of the activities ofFluffy.  I am going to ask my colleague the member for St. Vital(Mrs. Render) who, in the last year, has proved and shown herskill at authoring of books and novels; I am seriously thinkingof asking her to begin writing a book, The Legend of Fluffy, andit is pursuing those evil poachers of our wildlife and showing nofear or favour, whether it is‑‑well, I better not say anything.Just leave it at that.

            But, Mr. Speaker, before I get on to Natural Resources, it isone of the advantages, of course, in getting to speak midwaythrough the debate or towards the latter part of the debate thatyou are not immune to some of the other participations in thedebate, and I have one or two general comments about the tenor ofthe debate so far.

            I am, I suppose, surprised, because it is evident that myfriends opposite of the official opposition simply are provingthat‑‑well, it has often been said of Conservatives, perhaps withsome accuracy, that in the past, and some will even say that thevery name implies that, we were the ones reluctant to change,reluctant to acknowledge the need for change.  We wished to holdon to tradition; we wanted to keep riding buggies even when theautomobile was upon us, and so forth.

            But, in fact, what we are seeing now is new for the '90s.  Itis our socialist friends, the New Democrats, who are supposed tobe the new thinkers, who are the reactionaries, who are theconservatives, who cannot see change for change coming at them.They want to believe that they can hunker down this country,erect trade barriers, and they can keep flying planes when thereare no passengers, keep running trains when there is no freightor passengers.  That is what they still believe they can do.

            Mr. Speaker, change is always uncomfortable.  Change isalways disturbing, and I would be the first one to acknowledgethat change brings about a great deal of anxiety, a great deal ofreal hurt.

            Who would have thought five years ago that thousands ofpeople would be looking at layoff notices in the aircraftindustry, at Air Canada or CP Air?  I mean, next to working forthe government, Air Canada was the next best thing or evenbetter.  You got to move around a little bit more.

            That is what is happening in the world.  That is not justhappening with our airlines.  That is not just happening withAmerican airlines.  That is happening with European airlines;that is happening around the globe.  It is that kind of change,that kind of competition that honourable members fail to grasp.Then, when you get a contribution like we did yesterday afternoonfrom the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), just the one examplethat she used, the concern that a Safeway store in Transcona wasarbitrarily choosing for its economic reasons to move somewhereelse.

            Well, Mr. Speaker, what was she implying?  She wants thegovernment to run the grocery stores?  She wants some centralbureaucracy, either Winnipeg or Ottawa, to decide where, when,how stores or any other of those kinds of goods and services,where they should be.  That is what she implied.

            Even 10 years ago, Mr. Speaker, I was in this House when wehad an honourable member who thought the kind of dogmaticsocialism‑communism practised in the Soviet Union was far toomild.  He was a Marxist.

An Honourable Member:  Who was he?

Mr. Enns:  The honourable member for Crescentwood, I believe, hewas, who still is, I believe, the chief of Economics at theUniversity of Manitoba,  Mr. Cy Gonick, teaching our youngpeople.  He professed in this House as being a Marxist, but hewanted central planning of a far greater scale.

            In those days when it was not that easy to penetrate the IronCurtain because of censorship, because of thought control,because of police control, they actually managed to get away withit for a period of time.  We did not see those tragic faces ofthe children in Romanian orphanages that we now see.  We did notsee the total failure of the economy that we now see‑‑and theyadmit and are being openly debated in their parliaments.  No.Our people were ferried across and shown very supervised modelfarms.  We were shown model agricultural production units.  Wewere not shown, and we did not come back with reports, about howserious the collapse, how serious the criminal responsibility for40, 50, 60, 70 years of that kind of central planning, that kindof central bureaucratic control.  I will even leave away, Mr.Speaker, we are not in the Cold War anymore.  I will not callthem pinkos.  I will not call them commies.  I will just callthem what it was.  It was centralized planning that led to thatdisaster.

            I would think that honourable members opposite, I would liketo think that my Liberal friends are not even thinking in thoseterms, but when I hear the member from Radisson (Ms. Cerilli)talking about the social injustice, talking about the fact thatyou cannot have true economic development unless a bureaucracydetermines where a grocery store will or will not be, then, Mr.Speaker, we really have not advanced very far.

            That is why in the main, as much as they will try‑‑and I donot fault the opposition‑‑obviously, we have made economic issuesthe central issue of this Legislature of our government at thisparticular time.  The federal government has made it.  So theyhave to attack us on the economic front, but surprisingly itlacks a kind of a foundation.  It lacks integrity, because to thepeople back home even it does not make sense anymore.  It mayhave made sense, and maybe it still makes tragically some sensein a union hall sometime, but it does not make sense to the broadspectrum of Manitobans anymore because they are really caught inthat Catch 22 situation.

            Raising taxes is no longer a solution.  In fact, the Ministerof Finance (Mr. Manness) will report, and has reported onoccasion, that raising taxes now has become counterproductive.  Ido not know how much more the provincial revenue will be ontobacco tax.  I suspect it will be $4 million or $5 milliondollars, partly because we have raised taxes to such a level thatwe have encouraged the illicit trade in tobacco, and partly wehave raised spirit taxes to such a level that we encouragecross-border shopping.

            I appreciate that we are taking some steps to recover andrecoup some of those lost taxes, but the simple fact of thematter is that it is not returning more money to the treasury.

            Mr. Speaker, we all are residents within our localmunicipalities, within our cities and towns, and we know what theelection was all about here in the city of Winnipeg, ourprincipal city‑‑taxation.  What was the one promise that likelyelected the new mayor, Her Worship Mayor Susan Thompson?  No taxincreases.  So that option is not there.

            When honourable members opposite speak to us about thesolution to our economic problems, they touch no chord with thegeneral public when they talk about potential or optional taxincreases.  In fact, you notice how they shy away from thatbecause they realize that is like a plague, yet they talk to usconstantly about more and more government intervention.  Well,Mr. Speaker, that is their problem.


* (1450)


            I am delighted that we have had the courage to date, and onceagain with a document that is currently under discussion, thisthrone speech, we certainly will be making some errors injudgment, some mistakes.  That is the fallibility of man.  Pardonme.  That is not a politically correct word and if the member forRadisson (Ms. Cerilli) were in the Chamber, she would be callingme to order.

            That is the‑‑I was going to say the human condition, but Icannot say that either, because that is a person condition thatsimply exists, but I am extremely proud to be associated with agovernment that has the conviction to believe in the set ofprinciples that they have set for themselves, and those are allincluded in this throne speech that we are debating here today.

            Mr. Speaker, having said that and having the Minister ofFinance (Mr. Manness) who has 101 things on his mind in hischair, I have said so publicly before and I will say so again, Iwould certainly be a happier camper, if you like, if economicconditions were such, provincial revenues were such, that wouldenable departments like mine to share in some increasedrevenues.  It is, I think, a given that every minister of thiscabinet would want to do the same.

            I have specific reasons to say that, because I see in theDepartment of Natural Resources and its mandate a great number ofthings that could and should be done.  I am delighted, Mr.Speaker, that the challenge of tighter budgetary times has madeus and forced us to seek out more partners, more innovative waysof doing things.  Let me refer to just a few of them.

            One of the most rewarding programs that the province isengaged in, in the field of Natural Resources, is in our ongoingcommitment to the improving of the natural habitat for waterfowlin the southwest portion of the province, particularly under thatprogram, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.  Mr.Speaker, it is a program that the department has been able tocarry on, this government has been able to carry on, where we aretargeting upwards to a half a million acres, marginal acres thatperhaps, particularly in today's economy and today's graineconomy, ought never to have been put to the plow.  These arevaluable acres around potholes.

            This is a program that will maintain the last of the habitatwe have in that area.  More directly, this program is puttingmillions of dollars directly in the hands of the farmers, thehard‑pressed, cash‑strapped farmers in that area, some $2 millionthis year alone in various forms of incentives to set aside 30acres, 180 acres, 50 acres, 70 acres, whatever it is, to enhancethe habitation for wildlife in that portion of the province.  Mr.Speaker, while it is focused and concentrated on waterfowlproduction, anytime you set aside some land for habitat purposes,all wildlife is encouraged.

            I was delighted just not so long ago to be in the communityof Melita where we have added another component to that program,not directly attached to the North American program, but awoodlot development program, because it is our hope that we canencourage on some of these acreages that we are acquiring undervarious forms of lease or outright ownership and also theexisting woodlots that are in that area, greater and greateropportunities for Manitoba citizens to get involved in woodlotfarming in agro Manitoba.

            I am delighted to announce, Mr. Speaker, that our fledglingwoodlot operations are beginning to pay off.  I understand rightabout now the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is being presented aManitoba‑grown Christmas tree in his office.  I can report to allthe members that whereas little as eight or 10 years ago,virtually all our Christmas trees were brought in from outsidesources.  There were always some hardy souls who took advantageof my department's offer to go out and cut their own for arelatively modest fee, but this year I am told by Mr. MacLeod,the secretary of the Woodlot Association of Manitoba, thatupwards of 75 percent of natural trees will be grown by our ownManitoba growers.  That is a significant portion.  Those are thekinds of changes in the environment that we have.

            Mr. Speaker, no doubt honourable members will have beenaware, at least some have been aware, that one of the majoractivities of the Department of Natural Resources has been tryingto ascertain what Manitobans think about what we should be doingor should not be doing on our landscape with respect to parks,with respect to what we call natural areas.

            We are a government that is committed to ensuring that futuregenerations will enjoy wilderness areas within our province.Whenever you speak about land designations of one kind oranother, you bring together conflict of uses, the legitimateaccess to some of the resources on some of these lands, whetherit is for mining purposes, whether it is for the forestryindustry, whether it is for wildlife purposes.  Those become verycomplex, and I do not take lightly the challenge that mydepartment and I as minister face in this context.

            It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, as indicated in this thronespeech, to introduce updated parks legislation that will bringManitoba provincial parks into the 1990s and into the year 2000and beyond.

            It is my intention to move aggressively forward to meet someof our commitments under the Endangered Spaces Program.  We havethat opportunity in this province and indeed certainly in goodportions of this country to ensure that we can have the best ofboth worlds.  We can support healthy industries, viableindustries, in the pursuit of minerals, in the pursuit of timberresources and all the jobs that this provides, and at the sametime, ensure that future generations will have the enjoyment thatin some cases can only be found in those areas set aside, thoseareas designated as endangered spaces, so that the habitat canperpetuate the ecosystems that we have come to learn to beimportant for all our survival.

            I was pleased to be able to sign just a week ago, on behalfof the Province of Manitoba, a biodiversity convention agreementthat our Prime Minister and certainly our Premier (Mr. Filmon)were very much a part of when Canada endorsed that convention atthe major environmental conference in Rio, Brazil, earlier thisyear.  I have no doubt that Manitoba will play its full role inthese developments.

            Mr. Speaker, I know that if nobody else, then perhaps themember for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) would bedisappointed if I did not raise the issue of water as being oneof the principal concerns of my ministry, as it should be.

            Mr. Speaker, we have in this province such tremendousopportunities, if only my friends opposite would just take theirblinkered environmentalist eyes off that for a little moment tounderstand.  At the same time they are talking about jobs.  Atthe same time they are talking about rural development.  At thesame time they are talking about value being added to some of ournatural resources.  Those, in my judgment, hold out by far thebiggest promise for future economic development for a provincelike Manitoba.

            Mr. Speaker, we have done so much investigative work.  Allowme just to read one short paragraph from one of the major studiesdone with respect to the South Hespeler area that borders thearea from Carberry south of the Assiniboine to the Red River andall the way to the U.S. border.  Speaking about this area, whichincludes over half a million hectares of land that is sodescribed, climate provides an agricultural production potentialthat is better than any other area on the Canadian prairies.  Iam told that there is only one very small portion of land insouthern Ontario that equals this land.  However, periodicdroughts have inhibited realization of the full potential for thegrowing of special crops, et cetera.


* (1500)


            Mr. Speaker, let me give you a little‑‑and I really want someof my friends opposite to understand.  One of the principalchallenges of the department is to become much more sophisticatedand get a far greater understanding of our water resources, bothsurface and ground water, and we are moving in that direction.In the study of my Estimates, you will see a noticeable shiftfrom what has‑‑which has been going on for some time.

            In the late '50s, in the '60s the issue before the day was tomanage flood conditions, to develop drainage systems.  Today, theissue is quite reversed in some instances.  We underrate whatwater means to us.

            I have one particular graph here, and these are old figures.I will not attest to their accuracy as they apply today, but togive you some idea of how‑‑and I know this is offensive to somepeople who want to look at any natural resource simply assomething that we cannot touch, something that has to be left inits pristine form.

            The usage of a million gallons of water per day in thecommunity of Selkirk produces $80 million in direct annualbenefits to the province of Manitoba at the Selkirk RollingMills.  They need a million gallons of water a day to keep thosejobs working, to produce $80 million for the province ofManitoba.  At Carnation we need another million gallons a day toproduce another $80 million direct benefit to the Manitobaeconomy.  We need many more millions of gallons of water.  Weneed 60 million gallons a day, and the water is there to produce$11 million worth for those who are in potato irrigation.  Aplant like Simplot at Brandon requires 1.9 million gallons a dayto produce $63 million direct annual benefits to the provincialeconomy.

            Mr. Speaker, surely we ought to be smart enough to know thatwe use this water in a sustainable way, because this governmenthas firmly and with determination adopted the principle ofsustainable development so that water is not there just for thisgeneration's use but for future generations' use.

            Secondly, I have confidence in my colleague the Minister ofEnvironment (Mr. Cummings).  I have confidence in theever‑growing developments with respect to regulations and that wehave with respect to our environment, particularly with water,that we could use this water and return it in a way that it isnot polluting our ground water shortage, in a way that it can beused again and again and again.

            While we are using it, we can hopefully provide the best forour children in education, the best for those in need of healthcare, the best for those like my friend from Rossmere who areapproaching that golden age, senior citizen status, who so oftenappeal to this House about the need, the care that his generationrequires from governments, from big governments.

            So, Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we can do justwithin the confines of this province.  These are the things wewill have to do if we want to be able to compete with the globalchanges that are around us.  I am hoping that my government, I amhoping that honourable members opposite from time to time willhave the courage to be supportive of measures undertaken in thisarea.  We have in place certain works that can help us.

            The issue, of course, that I suspect later on in the new yearwill be dealt with in a very public way is the question of theallocation of some of those waters in some of this area.  It is amatter certainly that concerned the former member for Portage laPrairie, Mr. Ed Connery, a great deal.  I know it is a matterthat concerns the present member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.Pallister) in a very serious way.  It is a matter of concern toall of us, because it talks about the possible allocations ofsome waters of one of our principal sources of water, namely theAssiniboine.

            Mr. Speaker, I would encourage, in fact I will bedistributing to all members a copy of this report which, forinstance, among other things, simply reminds us that with theShellmouth reservoir, as presently operated, only 48 percent ofthe Assiniboine River's assured consumptive water supply capacityhas been licensed for consumptive use.  In other words, there isa great deal of capacity just in the system as we now have it, ifwe wish to consider some of the other options available to us, ifwe are serious about providing jobs in Manitoba, if we areserious about creating that kind of wealth that every day membersopposite ask for the social services in this province.

            You see, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we shut down someindustry from cutting trees in our woods or shut down a minebecause it is intruding on the natural environment, that isreally the easy decision.  Whether Abitibi‑Price stops cuttingtrees in an area that many people do not want them to cut trees,that is not a hard decision at all.  The hard decision is:Which three hospitals and which university are we going to closedown?  That is the tough decision.  I ask honourable membersopposite to bring some responsibility when we try to sort out inthe most sensitive way and in the most prudent way theappropriate use of our resources, but if we deny ourselves accessto those resources, that is simply not being responsible to thevery people who elected us.

            You cannot stand in your places, you cannot ask day after daywhat we are doing about jobs.  You cannot stand and ask day afterday what we are doing to ensure appropriate levels of healthcare, about family services care, or any other kind of socialservices care, without tending to the economic issues.  Mr.Speaker, in this province, a lot of that hinges on how you allowthe ministry of Natural Resources to access some of thoseresources.  I will give all of you an assurance because of mycommitment, because of my absolute faith that it is possible tohave within our fine province the finest of parklands.  We havethe capacity in our province to set aside substantial portionsthat will not be developed, will remain in its wilderness statefor future generations.

            It was my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in the last days of the lastsession to leave this all behind me and travel to the boundaryline as far north as you could travel in Manitoba to theNorthwest Territories and from Lake Nejanilini go on a 14‑daycanoe trip along the Wolverine and the Seal Rivers.  It is abeautiful wilderness experience, a realization of just how bigand beautiful this province is.

            As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate in thisprovince that we can, if we do it with considerable selectivityand only after we have done our careful examination and consultedwith people, whether it is in the Department of Energy and Mines,whether it is within the Forestry branch‑‑is this appropriate,can we set aside this particular piece of land forever under theEndangered Spaces Program?  I am satisfied we can.

            I suspect that one of the more lively aspects of mydepartmental work in the coming year will hinge on how we set outand how we proceed to do this, how we set out and how we proceedto draw up a new parklands act that clearly sets aside the factthat parks are there for people enjoyment.  Parks are there forwilderness enjoyment.  Perhaps we have to do a better job indefining which is which.


* (1510)


            Many people forget that virtually the entire provincial parksystem was superimposed on existing forestry reserves.  Theforestry reserves were there first, and 35 or 40 years ago, whenthe provincial park system was started, it was just a natural toput the park system, the provincial parks, the Big Whiteshellparks, the Nopiming parks, onto existing forestry systems,because very often forestry operations already had put someaccess roads into them.  So people could access into these parks,but it was always understood in Manitoba that those parks wouldbe for multiple use, that they would be available for carefullymanaged logging.

            Mr. Speaker, that definition is falling into someconsiderable controversy in the last little while, and it isoften aided and abetted irresponsibly by members opposite.  Isuggest to all members opposite, balance is what we need in thisinstance.  We can have it.  Balance is what we have.  We need thejobs.  We need them not just for the sake of providing somethingworthwhile for people to do in this province.  We desperatelyneed the wealth that is created out of our resources.  You see,honourable members want to keep forgetting that it is a questionof wealth creation.  Simply all of us working for governments donot create wealth.  We pay our taxes and we do our things, butall we can do is provide a service, but to whom are we providinga service if we are not creating wealth?

            In the livestock business‑‑you know, we sell a lot of ourgrain, too much of our grain to the world for two cents a pound,but if you put it through a hog, it is 70 cents a pound.  If youput it through one of my animals, a beef animal, it is a dollar apound.  Now that is value added. [interjection] That is pasthistory.  Regrettably, it is even better if you put it through aprocessing plant and you sell the bacon at $2 or $3 or $4 a poundfor the pork chops and the beef at $3 and $4 a pound.Regrettably, your forebears just of our previous generation, itwas the Schreyer administration that kicked them all out ofhere.  That has been done; those jobs are in Alberta or in theStates, by punitive, antilabour legislation, antibusinesslegislation.  Yes, it is just that simple, antibusinesslegislation, by ensuring that Manitoba was not a climate wherethe necessary investment would take place to rebuild the plants.We had the industry here.  We were processing all our own beef, agood portion of Saskatchewan's and a portion of Alberta's upuntil the early '70s.  Why did it disappear?  If I offendhonourable members opposite by suggesting they had something todo with it, I simply leave the question.  It disappeared becausethe New Democrats took over government for the next 15 years and,after the end of the 15 years, we have no more industry.

            There is no use crying over spilled milk.  We still can doother value‑added things.  A lot of them have to do with acombination of water, land and special crops.  A lot of it has todo with our natural resources that my department has a mandateover to supervise‑‑mineral extraction, timber extraction.  Donewith sensitivity, done with some imagination, we can at the sametime draw in that great resource of encouraging tourists andvisitors to come to our parks.  We have between five to sixmillion people come and visit our parks.  We only have a millionpeople in this province, so we have a lot of people coming fromother parts of the country, other parts of the world to visit ourparks in our short summer season.

            Our responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is to develop our naturalattractions that will increase those visitations.  As I canattest to, they have been improved and increased at a littleplace called Oak Hammock.  Members opposite may have forgottenthat place.  That is why I built that little hacienda with anattached veranda for ducks and geese and mankind‑‑well,personkind‑‑to enjoy.  They are coming, both, record numbers ofbirds and, in a short period of time, record numbers of people.Most encouraging, so many of them will be young people, schoolchildren, that will come for the first time coming out of an evergrowing urban society to have some direct contact with MotherNature.

            Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.  I look forward to makingfurther contributions.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  Mr. Speaker, it is with mixedemotions that I rise to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

            Since we were last assembled here, life for many Manitobanshas deteriorated.  We are approaching the Christmas season and,if you talk to teachers in inner city schools, you will know thatthe Christmas season is the one that they dread the most.  Theexpectations of children are raised very high by the glitz andthe advertising that are part of our 20th Century world.

            That disappointment, I think, can be seen in the children ofinner city schools and it is reflected in their behaviour formany months afterwards.  Such, I think, will be the experiencefor many more Manitobans this year as they face that decline intheir wages, that downward spiral in wages for skilled workersthat so many people are facing.  Manitobans across the provinceare finding themselves faced with a loss of jobs and withunemployment for their own family and in their own neighbourhood.

            But it would be impolite, Mr. Speaker, not to welcome youback, to welcome the new members, for Portage la Prairie (Mr.Pallister) and for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), to welcome the newtable officer and the Pages, some of whom, I gather, aretravelling quite long distances to work in the House this year.I wanted to assure the Pages particularly that, although we oftenseem very rushed, busy, perhaps we do not always express ourappreciation at the time.  I wanted to let you know that in spiteof all that, we do certainly understand the difficulties underwhich you work and appreciate the duties you perform for us.

            Mr. Speaker, I think you have also had an interesting year.It has been one, I think, that has given you a number ofinteresting opportunities to meet with Francophone legislatorsfrom across North America, and also, in your role on theCommonwealth Parliamentary Executive, you have had theopportunity to travel to London and to meet with other Speakersfrom across the world, in fact, who share your goals inmaintaining the fairness of our democratic forums.  I want towelcome you back, Mr. Speaker, to assure you of our continuingsupport in the task that you perform with such equanimity andsuch good humour, and I do so with genuine respect.

            What did the Premier (Mr. Filmon) hope to accomplish withthis astonishing retread of press releases that are masqueradingat his sixth throne speech?  This government, Mr. Speaker, hashad six opportunities to chart a course for Manitoba.  They havehad six chances to give some hope and guidance through thedramatic changes that are affecting our country and our province.

            The general reaction that I heard in the press and on thestreet is that this year's throne speech was no different thanthe others, and I think one of the most startling things that Ifound in the reaction that I heard on the street is that no oneis really fooled anymore.  There is, in fact, a growingrealization that what is said in those throne speeches is indeeda fair representation of the limited vision and ideologicalperspective of the current Manitoba Tory party.

            * (1520)

            But, of course, Mr. Speaker, there are some differences.  Ithink there is a little less bravado in this one, less of themindless boosterism of past speeches, and there is a recognitionthat Manitobans, like Canadians, are looking for more than thecandy floss, more than the platitudes of R.B. Bennett, more thanthe transparent reassurances that tomorrow will be sunny andwarm.  It may be, even now, that ministers have become tooembarrassed to continue to blame their difficulties on the NDPgovernment.

            If you have ever wondered, Mr. Speaker, as I have, what iscontained in those big briefing books that they bring to theLegislature every Question Period, I think what you will probablyfind on the first page is "Blame it on the NDP"; page 2, "Blameit on the NDP"; page 3, "Blame it on the NDP"; page 4‑‑hold it,[interjection] There is no room for it; page 5, "Conditions aretemporary, do not adjust your set."  On page 6 we heard today,"It is an international problem," the old Trudeau mantra.

            I think one day we may find that there will be a page 7 wherethey will acknowledge the foresight and the fiscal planning ofthe government of Howard Pawley, which gave them the FiscalStabilization Fund and the rainy day fund which has sustainedtheir last six budgets.

            What is most striking, of course, is what is missing fromthis throne speech.  Member after member on this side of theHouse has spoken of that.  There is no analysis of the past year,no sense for Manitobans of the context of this package of retreadpromises, platitudes and limited proposals.  One can understandwhy this past year has been a painful one for many Manitobans.We have seen little shift in the overall unemployment rate.  Itremains exceptionally high among young Manitobans.  It remainshigh in the city of Winnipeg, and it remains unconscionably highamong aboriginal Manitobans, both on the reserve and in thecity.  In Snow Lake, for example, we are seeing an entirecommunity disappear from the map.

            In the strategic industries that Manitoba has targeted underboth the NDP and this government we have seen our province loseprojects and industries to Saskatchewan and New Brunswick.  Eventhe advantage that we might have created in pharmaceuticals isunlikely to materialize.  The federal Tories to whom everyone onthe government benches sends their loonies and their support areset to tip the market economy by regulating in favour of theirlarge corporate allies in the patented drug business.  Make nomistake about this.

            I think perhaps one of the most delicious parts of the thronespeech was when the Lieutenant‑Governor's substitute, theAdministrator, started reading the sections about the offloadingof the federal promises and literally the chuckles went throughthe House.  It was not just on our side, and it was not just inthe press gallery.  Right through the House, people saw throughthe transparency of those crocodile tears that were being shed onbehalf of federal offloading.

            Make no mistake.  Every Tory member in this House sends hismoney, sends his support, continues to support Brian Mulroney,continues to defend him in this House even today, in spite of theoutrage that they profess to support.

            All around us this Christmas we see the impact of thederegulation initiated so long ago by Lloyd Axworthy and thefederal Liberals.  Canada's transport system is facing the mostsevere crisis in a generation.  The consequences for Manitobafamilies have been severe, as we have seen the loss of jobs atAir Canada and in Transcona over the past two years.  The currentcrisis and the consequence of it for the airlines pose a verylarge problem, not just for us, but for all Manitobans.

            The loss of the jobs at Air Canada and in the Geminireservation system will be felt very quickly throughout theprovince.  Particularly, they will have an impact on the life andeconomy of downtown Winnipeg and the North Portage Development.It will be severe, Mr. Speaker, and the anxiety of many of thosefamilies this Christmas season is literally palpable in the cityand surely should have formed part of the economic context ofthis throne speech.

            This Tory party is a party of self‑congratulation.  Theyboast about being right on course.  In the words of the Premier(Mr. Filmon), they have never been prouder to be a ProgressiveConservative.  Are they so out of touch that they cannot hear thefears and worries that are on the lips of all Manitobans, cityand country, rich and poor, those with jobs and those growingnumbers without?  There are some in my caucus who believe thatthis is the case, that this is a government which is arrogant,isolated and bewildered by the economic changes of the worldaround them.  Indeed, there is much evidence for suchobservations.

            If you ask yourself why are they so apparently blind andimpervious to the increasing hopelessness around them, I thinkyou must admit that there are other conclusions that must bereached.  Like other modern Tories before them, they have decidedthat the restructuring of the Manitoba economy in this way wasboth inevitable and desirable.  Like other Tories in England, theUnited States and Ottawa, they believed that high unemployment isa price worth paying for the anticipated benefits of a globaleconomy, and that was a deliberate, calculated risk that allthese Tory, free‑market governments took with the lives andfutures of millions of families.

            High levels of employment, they believed, would be acceptablebecause, and I genuinely believe they thought it would betemporary, but it would only be temporary if the government hadmade the necessary changes in the economy to create the workeradjustment policies.  It would have been temporary had they foundthe economic niches in advance that would provide some economicstability for Manitoba and, above all, it might have been moretemporary had they provided for the education and training thatare required for any community in the new economies being createdaround the world.

            They did none of this.  They supported the Free TradeAgreement and its extension to low‑wage Mexico.  They applaudedthe high interest rates of the Bank of Canada as necessary in thefight against inflation.  They understood clearly who benefitedfrom those high interest rates, but will they ever admit that itis those exact same interest rates which have given all ourcommunities the financial crisis that they face, those same highinterest rates which have crippled the efforts of governments atall levels to find the funds to deal with the social crises andthose same high Tory interest rates which have made it impossiblefor us to find the educational remedies that are now required ona large scale across this country?

            We find none of these reflections in the throne speech.  Whatthe throne speech gives us is airbrushed Manitoba.  There is nomention of the need to address the issues of unemployment, jobcreation or retraining because, fundamentally, Tories believedthat unemployment is a price worth paying.  They will, as thisthrone speech makes clear, stay the course, steady as she goes,with Captain Filmon and the crew, and steady as she goes to thosepeople I have talked to over the past summer who have seen their$22 an hour skilled trade job fall to $12 an hour, and then asthat job melted away to a minimum wage job, and finally at theage of 50 or so, they find themselves facing the welfare rollthat they know could be their fate for the rest of their workinglife.

            Let us not be deluded into thinking that free trade,deregulation, a high dollar and high interest rates had nothingto do with the crises we are facing.  Each played their part.Each is a fundamental key to Tory policy.  Each of them took usdown the road of closures, bankruptcies, loss of homes and farms,unemployment and despair, and that is the true face ofconservatism today.

            In Manitoba, the party of Duff Roblin, which once had aprogressive face, has been replaced by the ideologues of the freetrade market who are prepared to reinvent Manitoba.  They accepthigh unemployment.  They have a real agenda to use this crisis tocreate a Manitoba which has a smaller public sector and fewersocial services.


* (1530)


            The cry for less government is one of the mantras of thesenew Tories.  They foster the belief that public policy has a verylimited role to play, and we heard it very clearly from theMinister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) the other day, a very limitedrole to play in our society.

            They have two advantages in expounding this particularphilosophy.  They have powerful allies in some corporations,including the media, whose interests are served by no regulation,no national boundaries, no taxation and no limits to corporatepower.  Secondly, when the Tories are in power, they are able topursue policies which deliberately diminish the role ofgovernment and offer self‑fulfilling prophecies to the generalpublic as well as to those whose interests are served by theweak, ineffective governments such as we have seen in Manitobafor the last few years.

            In fact, I was struck in a small way by the speech of themember for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) the other day, when he talkedabout his frustration in a government office.  He had notreceived very good service.  He talked, he banged on the desk.The employees eventually came over, and he read out a sign, whichI will not repeat here. [interjection] Unparliamentary language,yes.  What did the former minister, the member for Rossmere,conclude from the poor service and the somewhat insulting signthat was behind these government employees?  He concluded thatthey were overstaffed.

            As a member of the Legislature who sits next to the Ministerof Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) every day, did he once, forexample, ensure that that sign was removed, as it should beremoved?  Did he inquire into the conditions of work in thatparticular location?  Did he make any effort to change the natureof government services that he was faced with?  No.  His answeris, they are overstaffed, government is ineffective, governmentis weak‑‑a very small example, Mr. Speaker, of theself‑fulfilling prophecy of Tories in action, whose real agendais to diminish the role of government and to diminish the role ofpublic policy.

            Why are the Tories floundering in education?  Why are thereno systematic training opportunities being offered?  Why arethere so few programs of labour adjustment here?  Why do we havethe pathetic spectacle of a Premier (Mr. Filmon) faced with aloss of hundreds of jobs from CN pleading to be treated fairly byhis Ottawa masters?  Why is he not insisting on retraininggrants, adjustment compensation and a federal contribution to therebuilding of Manitoba's infrastructure?  Is it incompetence, asone might suspect?  Partly true.  Is it lack of imagination?Partly.

            Has this government already reduced sections of the CivilService to the level where they do not have the capacity torespond, in a policy sense, to such blows?  Yes, that is partlyit, but is it not that fundamentally the new Tories do notbelieve that public policy has any role to play in mitigating theimpact of the market in this way?  The tragedy of the long‑termimpact of federal and provincial Tory regimes is that thereduction of government and its ability to deal with economiccrises has led to a loss of public confidence.

            When a community does not believe that it can, through itsdemocratic institutions, shape its own future, then I believe youbegin to face the disintegration of society.  The market isglobal, but democracy is local, Mr. Speaker, and I believe thatone of the most important tasks after the next election will beto rebuild that sense of community in Manitoba and to restore topeople the sense that public policy has an important andeffective role to play in shaping our world.

            It was Margaret Thatcher, not Gary Filmon, who proclaimedthat there was no society any longer, just individuals, but it isGary Filmon who cut $10 million from our community colleges,eliminated 900 positions from the Civil Service, refuses to acton the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, has no plans for the innercity of Winnipeg, reduces the role of the community in Child andFamily Services, and has no intention of dealing with the issuesof unemployment our community is facing.  By the time the newTories have finished with this country there will indeed be onlyindividuals at the mercies of global capitalism.

            Mr. Speaker, the social services and the opportunities formobility through education will have been considerably diminishedas a result of the policies of the federal and provincialConservatives.  Yet have such policies ever formed a part of theelectoral platform of either of these Tory governments?

            What they do make much of, however, is their false claims tohave kept taxes down.  The call for no more taxes clearly suitsthe interests of those Conservative supporters who are now, as aresult of high interest rates and federal tax changes,appropriating a greater proportion of the national wealth.  It isclearly also the case that the middle‑income earners across thiscountry and across this province are bearing the cost ofproviding essential community and municipal services.

            There should be no tax increases for this group who, I knowfrom my own constituents, are finding it hard to repair thedamage of the high interest years and to cope with the GST.  Theyknow that they are looking at a long‑term future under thisgovernment where they must pay an increasing share of the cost ofmunicipal services and education or watch their communitydeteriorate and their children's future threatened.  No one Imeet is under any illusion that these federal and provincial Torygovernments have not increased the tax burden on the ordinarypeople.  They are well aware that the burden of support for ourinstitutions and community has shifted to the middle-income earner.

            The evidence is mounting that the Tory governments in Ottawaand Manitoba are changing the face of our society to one that isinherently more unequal, which offers fewer opportunities formobility.  These governments have closed the doors on many of ourfellow citizens.  In their unemployment policies, theirinternational economic policies, they have surrendered to marketforces the crucial responsibilities for our survival as acommunity and a nation.

            What we have seen in Canada is a marked shift in the burdenof taxation from those who can pay but do not, to those whoincreasingly cannot pay but must.  This is all in the context ofa gradual narrowing of the ownership of wealth in this country.

            We all know the horrifying numbers for the United Stateswhere under Reagan and Bush 60 percent of the increase innational income has gone to the richest 1 percent of the people.Like the members opposite, Reagan and Bush believed that a risingtide raises all boats and that the wealth would find its way indiminishing amounts to others, the disastrous trickle‑downtheory.  The shocking truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the poor in theUnited States have become much, much poorer.  The poorest fifthof the country with an average income of just over $8,000 peryear saw their incomes decline in those years, decline by 9percent.  The richest fifth, over $110,000 per annum saw theirincomes increase 29 percent, and the richest one percent ofAmericans, over $500,000 a year per annum, increased their wealthby a stunning 77 percent.  That is the consequences of thetrickle‑down theory.

            You may think this has no effect on Manitoba and Canada, butit does.  The same pattern is emerging here, though not to thesame extreme.  The more closely we become tied to the Americaneconomy, through free trade and the Mexican free trade agreement,the more we are tied into their wage structure and their limitedsocial safety net.

            For many years, Mr. Speaker, these free marketeer Tories haverewritten history in their own image, to portray the end ofsocial democracy, to portray the end of history, to portray atriumphant march of the market economy.  Perhaps Clinton'svictory has put something of a damper on that imperial style.Certainly those who voted for and worked for a Democratic victoryunderstood the necessity of a return to active government anddemocratic control.

            * (1540)

            It is no less the case in Manitoba and Canada.  This is agovernment which has stood aside while we have lostjobs‑‑Tupperware, Catelli, Ogilvie, Campbell, Liptons, Paulin,Air Canada, CN, Via Rail, CP, PWA and the government ofManitoba.  We have lost thousands of jobs, and every Manitobannow, it does not matter wherever you go, has known somebody whohas lost their job, is on UIC or is facing welfare or has gone toAlberta or British Columbia to look for work.

            These losses have been compounded by the systematic transferof federal jobs out of the province, in transport, inenvironment, in the military and others to the point where eventhe devout Tory Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) thinks that wehave paid our share.  But this government seems devoid of anyinfluence in Ottawa, and the losses continue, as we saw eventoday in the Mazankowski economic statement.

            Most disturbing, as the opposition has so frequently pointedout, is the loss of long‑term jobs in the manufacturing sectorand the absence of any hope for those Manitobans, both young andold, who have seen their world disappear, because as you talk tothem, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is happening.  The worldthat they have known in their working life or that they hadexpected as a result of their education has simply crumbled.People are looking for leadership, for economic plans and for anew future for Manitobans, and I do not think that any Manitobanwill either forget or forgive the destructiveness of these Toryyears.

            Given all of this, what vision does this sixth throne speechoffer to our fellow citizens?  Well, there is Sunday shopping.Got a problem?  Sunday shopping is the answer.  We will have theopportunity to debate that soon, but it hardly seems anappropriate answer to the many serious problems facingManitobans, and I think it is being dealt with like that by mostof the public and the press.

            I suppose the new vocabulary of innovation is one of the mostnoteworthy aspects of this speech.  I wish that the government'spast record could give us some expectation of success here, but Iam particularly shocked, Mr. Speaker, that there are no newideas, no innovation in the area of training or post‑secondaryeducation.

            The university review has a very limited mandate.  Thecommunity colleges have been in limbo for more than a year andare still in limbo waiting for direction from their new boardsand waiting, too, for the next round of cuts, which will fallheavily on their shoulders.  Yet thousands of Manitobans areunemployed.  Too many of them have inadequate basic education.Thousands of them need, demand retraining in the newtechnologies.  They want work.  They want the new technologies.They want education.  They want the training opportunities.

            The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has spoken at lengthabout the lack of concern in this throne speech for jobs and forthe unemployed but, equally, Mr. Speaker, it must be stressedthat there is no recognition here of the absolutely criticalnecessity of training and retraining.

            In spite of Tory ideology, we cannot rely on the privatesector for this.  It has become common knowledge, in fact, thatCanadian employers spend less than half of what is spent in theUnited States on training and one‑eighth of what is spent by theBritish and German private sector on training and retraining inthe labour force.  Yet the only initiative we have seen from thisgovernment is Workforce 2000.  It has been a long time in gettingup to speed.  It grants money to the private sector, and it doesnot necessarily require an increase in the proportion of moniesdevoted to training by Manitoba companies.  Where are thelong‑term benefits to the economy and to a training culture inthis process?

            Nor can we rely on the federal Tories, who do talk trainingand yet, in 1991 and 1992, cut $100 million from the Canadian JobStrategy and then froze all future contributions.  Even then,they continued to claim as their contribution the $1.8 billionbeing taken out of UI funds from the employee and the employer.In real terms, the federal government is providing less now thanit did in 1989.  There will be no help there.

            This government of Manitoba cut $10 million from thecommunity colleges.  It has given no priority to the developmentor to the enhancement of technologies in the community colleges.The research and retooling of community college staff is seen tohave little significance for this government.  Yet training andthe technologies should be at the centre of any strategy for therenewal of the province, but where is the recognition of this asa concern, let alone any plan or strategy to meet the needs ofthe Manitoba economy and the thousands of individuals who arejoining the ranks of the unemployed.

            There is no secret, Mr. Speaker, to the success of theeconomies of Germany, Japan and others.  They continue to providehighly skilled, motivated and educated workers.  They invest inprograms that encourage business and government, including localgovernments, to work together.  They have fostered a broadrecognition in their respective communities.  The co‑operation oflabour and business and education is essential.  Compare that tothe role of this government who have carried forward the oldpolicies and the old antagonisms of earlier Tory governments.

            They have encouraged the co‑operation with labour byattacking FOS, by eating away at the rights of workers to bargaincollectively, by diminishing the work of the Workers CompensationBoard and by taking an adversarial position with labour on almostevery possible occasion.  Their much vaunted Economic InnovationCouncil has two out of 20 labour representatives.  The lectureseries which masqueraded as a conference which the governmentheld a few weeks ago had about the same proportion ofrepresentation, 10 percent of labour, their 10 percent solution.A solution that they paraded with great pride as a greatachievement in the House the other day.  Yes, it is a beginning,Mr. Speaker, and it may represent progress for this Tory caucus,but it is insufficient to create the climate of change, reformand co‑operation that will be required to alter the conditions oflife for Manitobans.

            It is clear now to everyone in Manitoba that there will be nonew ideas from this government.  They buried their heads in thesand.  The reports of the Economic Council of Canada, the ScienceCouncil, even the Ontario Premier's council all offer realalternatives for planning for economic growth.  None of theminvolve revolution, but they do involve a commitment to activegovernment; a commitment to investment and training, andeducation; a commitment to real substantial and honestpartnership with labour to address our communal economic future.

            It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the intellectual well has rundry across this Chamber.  They are dispirited, and it is a sorrysight.  Now is the time for that final stand‑aside gesture.Stand aside and allow those who believe in government to serve,those who believe in co‑operation with labour and business andeducation to bring us together, those who believe in publiceducation to open the doors to training that has been closed toso many Manitobans.


* (1550)


            Yes, Mr. Speaker, the market is global.  We are indeed facedwith an international crisis, intensified in Canada by the FreeTrade Agreement, high interest rates, high unemployment policiesand deregulation, but for the moment, democracy is local.  Wehave the power to change the conditions of life for some of ourpeople, but we have a government that has not only closed itsears to Manitobans, but which has closed its mind, and therein,lies our real tragedy.

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

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr.Acting Speaker, it is my pleasure to now respond to the Speechfrom the Throne, one which I believe did offer Manitobans hopeand encouragement and energy from this side of the House.

            First of all, I would like to extend congratulations to theSpeaker in his returning capacity, because I know that hisposition is not always an easy one in this House; there are manyopinions and many behaviours which he is required to manage.  Ithink he manages them very well and with tact to all sides of theHouse.

            I would also, Mr. Acting Speaker, like to take a moment towelcome the Pages because I believe that these young peoplereally play a very important part in the work of ourLegislature.  I have had the personal experience of dependingupon them and recognizing that we as members really do benefitfrom their commitment.  I do recognize, too, that our Pages takeon an extra amount of work because they continue with theircourse load in their school programs as well as freeing up acertain number of days a week to come to be with us in the House.

            I really look forward to having a chance to get to know thembetter and to watching them as they become acquainted with theoperation of this House, and something which, I hope, willinspire them and help them as they continue on in their careerpaths.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I would also like to take a moment towelcome our new members to the House.  I would like to start bywelcoming our new member, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.Pallister).  It really is a great pleasure to take the time toget to know our new member.  Certainly, I see that he is workingvery hard on behalf of his constituents and has become a veryvital and energized member of our caucus, and I look forward toworking further with him.

            I would also like to take a moment to welcome the new memberfor Crescentwood (Ms. Gray).  I am looking forward to getting toknow that member as well, and look forward to working with her inthe House on matters that I know are of real mutual interest toboth of us.

            Then, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to take a moment toextend best wishes to the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.Carstairs) as she has announced her intention to step down asLeader and to provide a recognition for the work she has done andto wish her well as she is now making the decisions that she hasdescribed for her own future.  We do wish her well on this sideof the House and I personally wish her well.  I also mention themember for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) who has also tendered hisresignation in this House, and I wish him well as he makesfurther decisions about his future on behalf of himself and alsohis family.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, it is now my first opportunity to takepart in a full session as Minister of Education and Training, andI am looking forward to this opportunity.  I can tell you that tothis point my opportunities as minister have led to realexcitement and energy, particularly in the field of education.  Ihave had to learn a great deal.  There was no doubt about thevastness of the work in education across this province, but Ihave really sincerely enjoyed the learning process.

            I am happy that my personal background, with my graduate workin education, has provided me with some experience and aframework to begin working in my portfolio.  Then my active workin the school system before I was elected as a member of thisLegislature has also been a great help, because my work and mytraining as a school psychologist, which is a specialty amongthose people practising in the discipline of psychology, hasallowed me to be part of many schools across this province,several school divisions, and it has also allowed me to workwithin the system, within the school system with young peoplefrom kindergarten right through the end of Grade 12, and to havehad the experience in a very first‑hand way before I assumed myportfolio as Minister of Education, to really see first‑hand theissues and the concerns and the challenges that face education inManitoba, stakeholders in education in Manitoba, the challengesfor parents, the challenges for young people, the challenges forteachers and the challenges for educational leaders such assuperintendents.

            I have had a very good experience so far, and part of thatexperience has been the first‑hand opportunity to work withschool divisions for a start.  When I became minister, I had theopportunity to meet face to face with school divisions and tohear from them not just on paper but in meetings where we wereable to discuss their communities, their challenges, what theirissues are, and I have certainly enjoyed the opportunity to workwith those school divisions.

            I have also had the opportunity to work in the post‑secondaryarea as well and then to meet with representatives of that area.In my own work background, I did teach at the University ofManitoba and now have the pleasure of meeting my students as theyare now taking their place in the work force.  That opportunityto teach at the post‑secondary level really helped acquaint mewith the issues of the university.  But, as I have said before,at the time of my election, I was also a student at theuniversity, so that very recent experience on both sides of thepost‑secondary educational system has really helped me as I beginto talk with people in post-secondary education.

            I have enjoyed the opportunities that I have had to meet,throughout the time that I have been minister, withpost‑secondary representatives, representatives of all fouruniversities in Manitoba, representatives of the colleges andrepresentatives of people in Manitoba who are working in trainingprograms.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I think it has really been an importantpart of my time as minister to note that I have had theopportunity to meet with organized groups, with educationalstakeholders but, also, with individual Manitobans.  I have madea great effort in my time as minister to make sure thatindividual Manitobans believed that their individual concerns andissues were also very important to me and that time was made forthose individuals to meet with me either in their home divisionsor in my office.

            Since I have become minister, I have tried very hard to do alot of visiting.  It has been very important to me not to simplyhear from Manitobans while I am in my office in the Legislaturebut instead to hear from Manitobans in the places where theylive, so I have begun a system and a routine of visiting acrossthis province.  I spend two days a week in the field.  That twodays a week has allowed me to visit with school divisions, tovisit with our colleges, to visit with our universities.  I havegenuinely been impressed by Manitobans' interest in education.It is certainly a part of Manitobans' lives, it is certainlysomething that they are eager to talk about.  I think it is veryimportant to provide Manitobans with the opportunity to speakabout education.

            I also have to say too that as minister I have really just inmy life as a Manitoban, apart from being minister, had theopportunity to see some very positive things about our schoolsystem.  Just last evening, I was a celebrity reader at theFestival of Trees and when I went to read to young Manitobans Ialso had the opportunity‑‑

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):  Order, please.  I am wonderingwhether the honourable members, if they do chat, whether theycould do it a bit more quietly so I can hear the ministerspeaking instead of them.  Thank you very much.

Mrs. Vodrey:  In my visits as recently as last evening, I had theopportunity to hear two wonderful choirs from Manitoba.  I heardthe St. James divisional junior choir and I heard the GlenlawnCollegiate jazz singers.  When you want to experience somethingthat is extremely energizing and exciting about our schoolsystem, that was a wonderful opportunity.  There were manyManitobans who enjoyed that great success.  I was very pleased tohave been there to have heard them and had the chance to speakwith the teachers, the young people and their parents.  There aremany opportunities, Mr. Acting Speaker, for us to experiencestrengths of our education system in Manitoba.


* (1600)


            I have taken the time, as I said, however, to visit withinthe system.  I visited within the K‑12 system.  When I makevisits to school divisions, I make a point of visiting first ofall with parent groups if they would like to have someopportunity to sit and discuss their issues.

            I visit with school boards and take the time to meet schoolboards to talk about their concerns in their home area.  Then Igo into the schools and I make a point of actually going into theclassrooms.  I have an opportunity to speak to teachers in theclassroom.  Teachers have been very kind in taking a few momentsfrom their class time and allowing me to speak to students.  Whatthat has allowed is an opportunity for a real feel for educationin Manitoba, no longer just the recipient of some of themessages, but an opportunity to actually go out and experienceeducation in Manitoba.

            I plan to continue those visits, because I have then heardfrom people directly on the front line, from parents who arewanting me to see first‑hand what their concerns are regardingperhaps their own child's circumstances to see that first‑hand.It has been very, very helpful.  One of the things that hashappened as a result of it is that I have received lots ofletters from children, from school divisions and from teachersacross this province of a very personal nature.  Children nowhave decided that they can actually sit down and they can writethe minister a letter, and they can tell me the things that areon their minds.

            I want to make sure that I have put on the record how much Ihave enjoyed that correspondence with students and with teachersand with parents across this province because, again, it is avery personal experience in education.

            I have spoken to parents.  Again, I would like to come backto parents, because I think that their involvement within oureducation system is very vital.  We certainly referenced that inthe throne speech and wanted to make a point of stating how thisgovernment recognizes that the role of parents is vital to theeducation system, and also the role of teachers.

            I have had the pleasure in these visits that I have had inthe community to sit in staff rooms with staff of schools andspeak directly about their concerns so that they are not justhearing via a letter what the plans and the challenges ofeducation are but that we are able to speak about these face toface.

            When we do speak about them face to face it is very clearthat education and the changes that are coming to education areextremely exciting.  They are exciting in the field; they areexciting to families.  We have a very exciting job to do with allthe partners in education.

            I have also enjoyed visits to our community colleges, andthat has been a very helpful experience, to sit with the deansand the instructors of our community college programs and to talkwith them about some of the innovations and the excitingdevelopments that have taken place within our community collegesand, also, to step into some of the programs in our communitycolleges, to sit with those students to find out what motivatedthem to either continue on in a sequential way into the programthat they are in or what it was that motivated them to return tothe educational system and what they hoped to achieve as a resultof being a part of that educational system.  Again, it has been avery first‑hand experience in working with the colleges.

            I have also had the same opportunity to visit theuniversities.  I have visited with the boards of governors of allof the universities and had a chance to hear from the boards asmanagers and from the administrators, the presidents what are thechallenges, what they see ahead.

            I also take as much time as I can to meet with students atthe university level simply by being out at the universitiestaking the opportunity to meet with them or the regular meetingsthat I have with the presidents of the students associations.That has been a very, very big help in terms of keeping a veryclose contact with that side of the educational system, thestudents, the recipients of the education.

            What are their issues?  What are the strengths and theweaknesses that those participants are seeing within the system?I really want to make a point of talking about the importance ofregular contact with students, because they are the ones who havemade the decisions to attend a course, and it might be auniversity course, it might be a college course, it might be ashort‑term training course, but to make sure that we have had theopportunity to talk about what brings them there, what they arelooking forward to and what kind of assistance can be offered tothese students or how they see the strengths and what they aresaying to people when they are out in the community about thework that they are doing.

            So the visiting has been extremely helpful as we are nowlooking at this process of reform and education.  There is nodoubt that we have a great potential in Manitoba and that we haveto take advantage now of the opportunity that we have ahead of us.

            Education is going to be an extremely important place for usto focus our attention, and I am very pleased to have theopportunity to influence some of the decisions that we will bemaking.

            As a result of the visits that I have made and the contactsin the community, there have been some issues which Manitobanshave wanted to make sure that we as a government and that I asminister knew about, and I would like to start with our K‑12system to talk about what those issues are, as I have been toldabout them.

            The first issue, Mr. Acting Speaker, on the K‑12 side whichhas been raised to me is the issue of standards andaccountability.  There has been in Manitoba a great deal ofdiscussion about standards of curriculum, and parents, teachersand educational stakeholders want to make very sure that ourcurriculum is of a standard that will allow our young people tothen go on to whatever post‑secondary courses they would like toachieve, and that it will allow them to be competitive, not justwithin Manitoba and not even just within Canada, but competitivearound the world, because there is a strong recognition now thatwe are not dealing just with those within our immediategeographic area, but instead we are looking around the world.  Ifwe do not achieve the best and provide the best, someone elsewill do it for us or do it in our place, and Manitobans want tobe sure that we have a way of evaluating our standards to achievethe very best.

            Manitobans have also in that same area said that they arevery interested in accountability.  They want to make sure thatthe standards of the curriculum that we are implementing areactually being transmitted to the student population and thatthere is a sense of accountability, that students are achievingwhat we hope and believe that they are achieving, and they haveasked this government to take a look at the issue ofaccountability, and they have named that as a very specificinterest and challenge for us in government.

            The second area that Manitobans have raised, and I think itis also a very important one, is that they have said, while weare looking at issues of standards and accountability, we alsohave to make sure that our teachers then are provided with thetraining in their preservice years so that the training actuallymatches the reality of the classroom, and that in fact theteacher training will allow our teachers then to translate thestandards and accountability to the students whom they areworking directly with.

            In addition, Mr. Acting Speaker, they also have said thatthey want to make sure that teachers in the classroom who arepresently teaching are supported so that those teachers cancontinue to move with the ever‑increasing challenges of ourcurriculum.

            We recognize that education in Manitoba now has manyadditional components, and that we are also working withtechnology such as distance education, and that we need to makesure that our teachers are prepared in teaching practice to workwithin the system that we have at the moment and to move along inthe system as we develop it through the process of reform.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, the third area that Manitobans haveraised as an area of interest is the area of the learningenvironment, because what they have said during the time that wehave been speaking is that with an excellent curriculum, strongmeasures of accountability and support to teacher training and toteachers while they are working, we still have to make sure thatthere is a learning environment in which young people, or adultstudents, are able to achieve what they would like to achieve.They have wanted to make sure that we are able to begin to paysome attention to the kind of environment that students areworking in.


* (1610)


            We have taken all of those issues very seriously, those threemain categories very seriously, and our response is that we willbe looking through our process of reform to make sure that wehave a very strong plan to deal with those.  We would like tomake sure that we do it together.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, Manitobans are also asking us to do somebalancing.  Manitobans are saying to us that they would like tomake sure that we have a trained work force, that our studentscome through the educational process prepared and with skills toapply that to the workplace.  It might be not only technicalskills, but attitudinal skills of how an individual, a Manitobanwould settle in in the workplace, get along with peers, managethe relationships of the workplace.  So they have wanted to makesure that through our curriculum we are able to begin to developattitudes as well as technical skills for Manitobans to work.

            The balancing part is that Manitobans are also saying, we arenot just training people for the work force, but we are alsoproviding an education.  We are also making sure that ourstudents in Manitoba are coming through the system with aneducation that allows them to be very personally successful, thatthere is a self‑satisfaction, an intrinsic value to theireducation.

            So that is one of the challenges of education in these nextfew years, to make sure that we have met the balancing requiredin the education that we provide for our students.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, in the post‑secondary level, one of thechallenges that we have been asked to make sure that we work withis the development of a learning culture.  I have used thosewords very specifically.  I have used the learning culture asopposed to a training culture, which has been used many times bythe other side of the House, because I think it is the learning,the active part of learning which is what we are asking and whatManitobans are asking us to help develop.  It is an attitudinalsense as well as a practical sense that we are in fact turninginto a learning culture.

            In addition, in the post‑secondary area, Manitobans haveasked us to look at what kind of assistance and support we canprovide for people so that they can progress on to post‑secondaryeducation.

            One of the very big challenges that I have had as minister isto look at the Canada Student Loans Program and to look at someof the strengths and weaknesses of that program.  In particular,Manitobans have brought forward concerns around the weekly loanlimit.  I have discussed that in this House before.

            One of the challenges that I have had is to meet with thefederal minister responsible for the Canada Student Loans Act andmake sure that he has heard the opinion and the concerns ofManitobans regarding the Canada student loan and to ask him verydirectly to look at making those changes and to inform us ofthose changes as soon as possible.

            So I have had two face-to-face meetings with the federalminister and in addition, as Minister of Education, I take partin the Council of Ministers of Education across Canada.  Whenthat Council of Ministers of Education met here in Winnipeg inSeptember, we discussed very seriously this concern for studentassistance which is all across Canada.  As ministers, we thentook a group approach as well and made sure that we wrote aletter to the federal minister responsible so that the concernsof students across Canada were represented.

            When I do represent these interests I make sure that I havehad the opportunity, first of all, to meet with students inManitoba so that I can take their opinions they have expressedface to face and very directly to the federal minister.  Thenwhen I come back from those meetings, I have made sure that wehave also had a meeting so that I can keep those students who areaffected by this as up to date as possible about the plans of thefederal government and what has been told to the provinces.

            Those two issues, the learning culture and the matter ofstudent assistance, are issues which, I think, go across thewhole post‑secondary system, but when I look at very specificparts of the post-secondary system I would start with thecolleges.  Our colleges are moving towards college governanceApril 1, 1993, and that is coming very soon.

            The reasoning behind this move is to allow the colleges to bemore receptive and more responsive to the needs of their regionsfor training programs so that Assiniboine College, for instance,may be able to develop programs very responsively to the needs ofthe agricultural community.

            It has been a very important move to provide for each ofthose colleges, then, a board of governors, and through thosecolleges and through their board of governors, to allow thedecisions to be made at a very local level and representative ofthe communities who will benefit from the training offered bythose community colleges.

            We have named interim boards to the community collegesbecause we had wanted, before the permanent boards were named,for the colleges to have the opportunity to begin to respond tosome management by the public.  At the moment we have a veryclose relationship with the college, and by the naming of theinterim boards, it does allow for the new system ofaccountability to have a trial period and to have an opportunityto work it out so that when we move to full governance on April1, the colleges will be very ready for the change inaccountability and the move.

            In addition to the colleges and their movement to governance,we also are very concerned about the training in Manitoba.  Someof the issues that have been raised regarding training are, firstof all, that we in Manitoba make sure that we have a verycomprehensive and involved labour force strategy.  I can tell youthat the Department of Education has been working to develop acomprehensive labour force strategy, labour market strategy forthe province of Manitoba.

            We did have several years ago the Skills Training AdvisoryCommittee, which was one of the first steps, and some of therecommendations of that particular report were to say that weneeded to make sure in the planning of our strategy that we hadinvolved all segments of Manitobans, that we made sure that weinvolved business, industry, labour, community, education.  Thatis a report that we have taken very seriously.

            We have also, Mr. Acting Speaker, been negotiating a newfederal Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement, andwith that agreement we will come to an agreement with Canadaregarding the use of training funds and how those training fundswill be funneled into Manitoba and how they will be used.

            But I think it is very important on the training side and inrelation to that agreement to recognize that agreement is notstrictly a boiler plate agreement, an agreement that shouldoperate with no changes.  Instead, that agreement has been shapedby the provinces that have so far signed it, and we in Manitobaare working very hard with the federal government to make surethat we have a made‑in‑Manitoba agreement, an agreement whichsuits our province with our geographic and our population and ourdemographics, that that agreement is the best one possible forManitoba.

            I do look forward to our signing that agreement as soon aspossible and also making sure then that with that agreement weare able to involve Manitobans in the planning of our labour-market strategy.

            We also recognize in planning the labour-market strategy thatwe do want to make sure that the interests of business, industry,labour, education, institutions are also incorporated into it,and that we make sure that there is a mechanism for their voice.So we will be making sure to consult Manitobans, to have theopportunity to incorporate the opinions of Manitobans, as wedevelop how Manitoba will very specifically implement the LabourForce Development Agreement.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, the word "partnership" has been used.  Istill think it is one of the best words to describe what we aretrying to do in the area of education totally.  We would like tomake sure that all the interests are represented.  I think onearea of reform that has already begun in education in Manitoba isthat we have certainly opened our minds to those who have aninterest in education, but we have made sure that we have notjust restricted the interests of education and educational reformto educational stakeholders only.  We have also said thosepeople‑‑and parents, business, industry, labour, students.  Wewant to have the two‑way communication in education so that oursystem has the very best minds, the very best ideas workingtoward its development.


* (1620)


            In our training area as well, in addition to partnership, weare also looking at the role of sectoral planning.  We want tonot look at maybe just very individual and ad hoc kinds ofplanning, but we can work together with sectors of this provinceto make sure that the work done is complementary and supportive.Part of the experience has been that, with sectoral planning, weare able to attract other kinds of business and industry andlabour and training.  So the sectoral planning, I think, isanother important movement forward.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, in the area of training, the other veryimportant issue that has been raised during my discussions withManitobans is the issue of articulation:  that we want to have alook at how Manitobans can progress from one part of theeducational system into the next; that we recognize students whohave perhaps studied at a community college, have worked in theirfields for some time, may wish to attend a university program.We want to look at how they can articulate the skills and thetraining that they presently have and apply that into the nextkind of a program that they would like to embark upon.

            Then, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to speak for a momentabout universities.  We recognize that our universities inManitoba have a very great role, but the presidents of theuniversities in my discussions with them had said before theannouncement of the university review that they wanted to be veryclear about the role and the mandate of universities in Manitoba,because we are moving into the 21st Century.  So the way thatthis government has been looking at the issues relating touniversities has been through our University Review Commission.

            The University Review Commission has a very broad mandate,because it looks at a number of issues, a range of issues as theyrelate to university, issues such as accountability andgovernance structure.  It also has an end part of the mandatewhich says to the commission:  and other matters that are ofimportance to Manitobans are to be considered by the UniversityReview Commission.  So there has been a very great attempt tostructure and to give some direction in terms of areas to beexamined, but we have also wanted to be very clear to Manitobansthat, as they see other issues, those issues should also beincluded in what is brought forward.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, those are the issues and the challengesthat Manitobans have raised about education in the time that Ihave been minister, and I have had an opportunity to speak tothem.  We do have several initiatives currently underway to dealwith some of those issues.  I would like to speak about those fora few moments before I get into the initiatives of reform of thisgovernment.

            We had commissioned a panel on legislative reform of ThePublic Schools Act because we recognize in this province therehas not been a significant reform of our Public Schools Act sincethe early '80s.  In fact, there had not ever been a series ofpublic hearings to reform The Public Schools Act in Manitoba, andso this government, Mr. Acting Speaker, appointed a panel, and weasked that panel to go out and hear from Manitobans exactly whatthe reform should be.

            That panel took their work very seriously.  They went outacross Manitoba.  They received over 1,000 submissions fromManitobans, and I have been told that those submissions representthe interests and the concerns of over 6,000 Manitobans.  So Ithink that they were successful in reaching a number ofManitobans, and they received information on the areas which theywere asked to look at, areas such as roles and responsibilitiesof parents, roles and responsibilities of school divisions, rolesand responsibilities of students within the system, and roles andresponsibilities of government.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, one other point that Manitobans raisedwas that though they believed that they were very well heard bythis committee, they wanted to have the opportunity to look atthe recommendations and the information before this governmentdrafted legislation and brought it forward, because they wantedto make sure they were accurately represented and that we wouldnot go through an extremely long and cumbersome process ofamendments at the committee level.  So I have spoken toManitobans and made sure that they understood that this would bepossible for them.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I know my time is limited, so I wouldlike to simply list a few of the other initiatives which arecurrently underway.  We did put in place a new education financeformula in January of last year, and school divisions haveexpressed, first of all, the fact that they now believe they havesomething they can rely upon.  They also said that they wouldlike to make sure that this was not written in stone in the firstround and that there would be an opportunity for that financemodel to undergo some shaping as issues were raised by divisionsto be sure that it was as responsive as possible.  So I have hadan advisory committee on the Ed finance model.  That committeehas been working very hard and has been responsive to the schooldivisions of Manitoba.  I will be examining their report, and wewill look and see that those issues that have been raised aretaken very seriously.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, again, my time is running out.  I want tospeak briefly about distance education because we have also heardfrom Manitobans of the importance of distance education and itsvery important role in some of our smaller schools across theprovince, some of our more isolated schools across this province.

            We have put together a task force on distance education.  Ihave received Phase 1 of their report, and that is out to schooldivisions for review, and I am looking forward to Phase 2 oftheir report within the next few weeks.  This task force hasworked extremely diligently, and this government has taken theirwork very seriously.

            We have also established the Student Support branch, becausewe recognize that students are at risk across this province ofsometimes not being engaged in the educational system, and wewant to make sure that local solutions for the engagement ofat‑risk students are put in place.  So this government putforward $10 million, and local schools were encouraged to bringforward plans on behalf of students.  Now we are in the firstyear of funding some of those plans, and I am looking forward toseeing the results.  I have had a chance to visit across thisprovince some of the programs put in place by the Student Supportbranch.  It has been really an interesting and an excitingopportunity.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I also have to say that Workforce 2000,an initiative of this government, has been a very important and avery successful initiative.  We have had over 1,500 workerstrained.  We have had over 11,000 employees in larger Manitobacompanies take advantage of the training opportunities, and wehave had 1,800 employees trained in the area of aerospace.

            So we recognize that this partnership, the partnershipbetween our business and industry and labour in Manitoba and theManitoba Government to assist in their planning, has been verysuccessful.

            In closing I would just like to say that this government nowis looking at reform.  We have a solid basis of initiatives inplace and we have heard from Manitobans.  Manitobans are askingfor better assessment and evaluation.  They want to know where westand.  They are wanting to know clearly about roles andresponsibilities, and they are asking for an increased emphasison reading and mathematics and on training skills, and we haveheard them.

            The Manitoba education forum will be a very important step inachieving these goals, but if I can leave you with one thought itis to say that we want to make sure we achieve this inpartnership with Manitobans, that we want to make sure we haveincorporated the ideas that Manitobans bring.  It is vital for usto work together.

            The process of change that we have embarked upon is notalways going to be an easy one.  We recognize that it will notalways be easy, but we have to keep our communication between ourgroups open, and we have to keep working together.


* (1630)


            We have to look for long-term solutions, Mr. Acting Speaker.We are not looking for quick‑fix solutions such as I have heardfrom the other side of the House.  We are looking to capitalizeon our potential and to make our public education and trainingsystem the very best that it can be.

            Manitobans should be proud now, and we expect them tocontinue to be proud with the education system that we have herein Manitoba.  I will end by saying this is an exciting time foreducation.  It is the key to the future, and I thank theconstituents of Fort Garry for allowing me to represent them inthis House, and for the opportunity to work as a Minister ofEducation and Training for Manitoba.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Acting Speaker, once again itis a privilege for me to be inside this Chamber and respond toyet another throne speech.  Let me first start off by welcoming aformer colleague and presently a colleague once again, the memberfor Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), an individual who has contributed ina very large way to the Liberal Party in itself in many differentways, and also to welcome the new member for Portage la Prairie(Mr. Pallister).

            I anxiously await his participation in the debate.  I can saythat he is following an individual who is going to be awfullytough to beat.  Many had thought he was a maverick of sorts, andit will be very interesting to see how the residents of Portagela Prairie will be represented this time around.

            I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the newPages.  It is always encouraging to see high school studentswitnessing or participating in the democratic process.  I can atleast advise them that they will see some things that might turnthem off at times, but all in all it is all for a very worthy,worthy cause.

            I once again compliment the table workers, the individuals inthe public gallery, the individuals who actually have to typewhat we are saying.  Those are the individuals, of course, inHansard.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I wanted to pay tribute to my Leader, themember for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), who has been not onlya Leader of the Liberal Party to me but also a very good friend.She has provided me with many different opportunities both withinthe Liberal Party and outside of the Liberal Party.  She hasdemonstrated her confidence like no other political leader inthis Chamber has, in terms of as a House leader where she and myfellow colleagues in the caucus have entrusted me 100 percent.  Idid not need to go back to consult once I had been givenpermission to go ahead and negotiate a deal, and I think thatsays a lot about leadership and the qualities that the member forRiver Heights brought to it.  Once she gave the responsibility,whether it was to a critic or to myself as House leader, sheentrusted us with her full confidence.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, the member for River Heights (Mrs.Carstairs) has done many things for the Liberal Party, forManitobans and, I would argue, for Canadians.  We look back towhen she first came on as the Leader of the Liberal Party.  TheLiberal Party was nowhere.  Many had said that you could have anannual general meeting in a phone booth.  Well, the Liberal Partyhas gone a long way since then through her leadership from the'86 to '88 to the 1990 election.  We are now in a situation,thanks to the current Leader of the Liberal Party, to be able toensure that the Liberal Party will be a major force well into thefuture and to the turn of the century.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I did want to‑‑because I noticed inlistening to everyone thus far whom I have heard, no one has madereference to the Constitution, and I wanted to make very briefreference to it because this is something in which very fewpeople actually stood up for what Manitobans and in factCanadians wanted‑‑very few people.

            We had a free vote in our caucus.  Mrs. Carstairs, myself,the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), and there were others whowere on the no side, but in particular‑‑[interjection] Well, forthe Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), I was on the no side, and Ioften wonder where he was on this or many members of his caucus,but they were not allowed to talk on the Constitution, or theywere nowhere to be seen.  But, Mr. Acting Speaker, you saw aLeader that fought on principle and won a very good fight.[interjection] Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) willhave his opportunity to put his words, and hopefully he willaddress the whole issue of the Constitution, but I just wanted toallude to the fact that this is something that Mrs. Carstairs puta lot of effort and energy into and, I would argue, had a verysubstantial impact on the outcome of the whole constitutionalreferendum.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I wanted to go into the throne speech atthis time.  You know, it was interesting, the member for RiverHeights (Mrs. Carstairs) said she was going to step down asLeader of the Liberal Party because she felt tired, and afterhearing the throne speech, it makes me wonder why she steppeddown when I have seen a throne speech that had absolutely nothingin it.

            There was no new initiative except for one that I detected,and that new initiative was a Liberal initiative, something thatwas being talked about back in 1986.  What they did with thatparticular initiative is they changed a word.  Instead of aPharmacare card, it is a health card.

            Well, that is really all I am going to talk about withrespect to the throne speech because that is really all that wasthere.  Rather, I am going to take this opportunity to speak on anumber of different issues.

            I want to start off by talking about the economy.  Time aftertime, Mr. Acting Speaker, we see the Minister of Finance (Mr.Manness), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and other ministers who willstand up, and they will try to defend the record of Manitoba bycoming up with all these wonderful statistics.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, there is an argument that can be madethat the government will use the stats that are in their favourand the opposition will use the stats that are in their favour,but I want to suggest to you that what my constituents arethinking about and what Manitobans and the Minister of Finance's(Mr. Manness) constituents are thinking about is the bottom line.

            Let us go back into October of '88, when in fact there were84,000 part‑time jobs, 415,000 full‑time jobs.  In October of'92, there were 98,000 part‑time jobs and 396,000 full‑timejobs.  Now the government would say that it is the net loss of5,000 jobs.  Given the recession, given the world economy andwhat is happening in Canada, they could even argue that that isnot all that bad.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, it is bad because you have to look atwhat has actually occurred by losing the number of full‑time jobsfrom 415,000 to 396,000.  One has to ask the question:  What typeof full‑time jobs are we talking about?  These are not theservice‑oriented, McDonald's‑type jobs.

            We are talking about jobs in the manufacturing industry.  InOctober of '88, there were 63,000 full‑time jobs in themanufacturing industry.  In October of '92, there were 49,000.That says a lot in terms of what has been going on in theprovince of Manitoba.  That this government's plans, philosophy,whatever you want to call it just is not working.

            We see it in terms of what has been happening with thepopulation.  You have a population shift where we have provincialmigration at a negative.  We have had a net loss of individualsever since the third month of 1988, all the way up to the sixthmonth of 1992.  All of the quarter reports have been on thenegative side.  We have more people leaving the province ofManitoba, because they do not have hope.  They do not have anyhope.  This government is not giving them any hope.  Otherprovinces are doing much better than the province of Manitoba.


* (1640)


            The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr.Manness) will often comment that our unemployment is much lowerthan all the other provinces.  Well, quite simply, if you have anet decrease of 592 in three months and then 1,600 in the nextthree months; 3,600 in the next three; 3,600 in the next, youhave, in the work force, those that are losing the jobs areleaving the province.  Those that do not have any hope areleaving the province.  So the unemployment statistics are notnecessarily reflecting in terms of how well the provincialeconomy is doing.

            The Liberal Party in its opposition has brought forward inthe last couple of years ideas in which we have thought wouldhelp the economy.  One of the examples I want to cite is the3‑percent sales tax drop for three months, to drop it from 7percent to 4 percent in order to increase retail sales, possiblyprevent some individuals from shopping across the border, to givean incentive for Manitobans to shop within Manitoba.  The impactwould be very positive, and I must admit this is not a Liberalidea.  This is an idea that Sterling Lyon used in the early 30s.The dean of this Chamber will know that‑‑[interjection] In theearly 80s, my apologies.

            So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not know why the government doesnot take advantage of more of the ideas that are coming acrossfrom the opposition benches, because there have been plenty ofthem in all of the different departments, because I sat throughthe Estimates and I have heard many of the different ideas thathave come forward.

            I want to touch on health care, because health care is anissue which everyone, no doubt, feels very, very strongly on.  Weare at a time when everyone recognizes that there is a need forhealth care reform, and let me preface any comments I make onhealth care by saying that we did introduce, so that it would bevery clear to all Manitobans, to all political parties in thisChamber, that the Liberal Party supports the medicare system.  Wein fact introduced Bill 51 in the last session.

            Under Bill 51, we want to put into legislation publicadministration the comprehensiveness, universality, portabilityand accessibility, the five fundamental principles of healthcare.  We want to put that into legislation.

            Now, the reason why I want to start off by saying that isthat whenever anyone talks about changing health care you leaveyourself open for criticism that might not necessarily belegitimate, that might be more opportunist.  We received thatcriticism from the NDP critic of Health.  When our critic ofHealth stands up to ask a question, she makes reference to ourcritic of Health being an acting, the other Minister of Health.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I would argue that there is a difference,that opposition has more of a role than just to oppose, that wehave a role to provide a responsible alternative to what iscurrently there.  When the government does something good we willtell them they have done something good.  When they do somethingwrong, we are going to tell them they have done something wrong.

            When I explain to my constituents about health care reform,and I must admit the critic of Health was at one of the meetingsthat I was at in which I had the opportunity to talk about healthcare reform and, also, so was the member for Wellington (Ms.Barrett).  I believe that even the critic agreed with what I wassaying.  I had former NDP MLAs come up to me and tell me that itwas a very well‑delivered speech, that it made a lot of sense.  Ihad professionals telling me that.

            I am going to give it in a nutshell in terms of what I said,that what is most important in reforming health care is theservices that we are going to be giving to the individualrecipients.

            The example that I used at that time is, if we have to closesome health care beds and we can open up personal care home bedsand enhance home care services for our seniors, that is not NDPpolicy.  That is what the NDP oppose, for the critic forEducation on the NDP side.  That is the way in which we should bemoving.

            You can go into any given hospital, at least in the city ofWinnipeg, in rural Manitoba, I would argue that you could even gointo some of the hospitals there, in particular in Brandon, andyou will find that there are seniors that are in those hospitalsthat do not have to be there, that they could be in a personalcare home.

            By shutting down one health care bed where you have a senior,you could open up a personal care home bed.  You can also providehome care services for two other seniors.  You can improve thequality of health care services to all, and it is not going toincrease the cost of the health care department by one dime.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, if you do it on a larger scale, you aregoing to be able to create beds for individuals that needoperations for hearts, for whatever the operation might be, wherewe have the line‑ups.  That is tackling the whole question ofhealth care responsibly.  That is how you enhance our health careservices.  We all have a responsibility not to go for theheadline.  It is very easy to say to your constituents that theTories are cutting or taking away health care beds, and you cangive the fear into the minds of the individuals, but there wasnot one individual that disagreed with me, that came up to me anddisagreed or opposed what I was saying on that particularevening, even the critic for the NDP or the Deputy Leader for theNDP (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis).

            When I think of health care, I think that there are a numberof other things.  We need to spend more on prevention.  Byspending more on prevention, we are going to save more at theother end.  I would like to see a real debate on the medicaresystem.  What is a health care service?

            We have been criticized, our Leader, the Liberal Leader (Mrs.Carstairs) has been criticized for saying that we should maybecharge a quarter for the slippers that are given out.  That issomething that we were criticized for and were told that we wantto implement a user fee.  The NDP says, yes, that is true, butthe NDP in Saskatchewan now charge to get your eyes examined.  Tome that is more of a user fee than charging a quarter for aslipper.  How do you justify something of that nature?  That iswhat the NDP will preach.  It is wrong, because it is not in thebest interests of Manitobans.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to move on to education.  I amvery disappointed in the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).  Wehad thought that, the Minister of Education having replaced theformer Minister of Education, we would have seen somethingsubstantial happening in the Department of Education.  What wasone of the very first things that she did?  The whole reviewpackage, the whole idea of reforming the school divisions and theboundaries and so forth were put on the back burner indefinitely.[interjection] Yes, that is what the Minister of Education isdoing.

            Mr. Acting Speaker, do you know that we have well over 350school trustees?  In some cases there is no candidate to run, soone has to be appointed.  In the city of Winnipeg, we have 11school divisions.  One school division has over 30,000 students,and other school divisions have less than 3,000 students.  Thereare so many inequities that one can point to.

            I am a property taxpayer, and I am going to make a suggestionfor a solution.  I live in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, whichhappens to be, for those who live in Winnipeg No. 1, the heaviestproperty tax of all the different school divisions.  In Winnipeg1, total levy‑‑and this comes out of the Finance department‑‑for1991 in Winnipeg 1 is $1,021.  That is on a house valued at$70,000.  Compare it to St. James, house of the same value,$752.  There are many different inequities that are there.


* (1650)


            The first thing this minister does when she comes in is thatshe is saying that she is going to put it on the back burner.Well, I would have suggested to you that the whole idea ofchanging the boundaries, of revisiting the number of schooldivisions and the number of school trustees that we have shouldhave been a higher priority than reducing the number of citycouncillors in the City of Winnipeg.

            How does a small rural school division compete with thelarger school divisions that have larger tax bases, largerresources in terms of providing expertise to the principals or towhoever it might be, to students?  Why, if we tackled this issueand had the review, then we could be spending less money onadministration and putting more money in our classrooms.[interjection] Well, the NDP critic says, how much?  Well, wewould have likely had a better idea in terms of how much had thereview gone ahead.  The NDP policy is status quo, leave it theway it is; if anything, increase the number of school divisions.That is the NDP attitude towards this, and that is not goodenough, Mr. Acting Speaker.

            I look at education, and now that we mention NDP, let us hearanother area of responsibility that the NDP have noresponsibility.  That was very poorly worded.  Let me try thatagain.  Let me tell you another way in which the New Democratsare hypocrites.  That makes sense. [interjection]

            For the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), this will be a goodone.  Private schools.  The NDP philosophy is to preach classwarfare.  They figure by preaching class warfare, they will beable to manipulate the vote.  That is the only reason, Mr. ActingSpeaker, that they do not support private schools.  Ed Schreyer,when Premier, supported it.  Howard Pawley supported it.Whenever the NDP stand up to criticize private school fundingthey talk about Balmoral, they talk about Ravenscourt, the twobiggest.  Well, are they the two biggest?

            (Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

            I think the critic for the NDP better look twice before hesays that they are the two biggest.  Let us talk about twoothers.  Why not St. Joseph The Worker School Inc., which happensto be in Transcona, which happens to have 133 students?  Many ofthe individuals who have students going there are on welfare.They are not rich.  They are not part of the elite.  They arecollecting welfare.

            What about St. Edward's School?  St. Edward's has 206students.  The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) representsthat school, Mr. Speaker.  They have individuals who work twojobs in order to have their students going there.  They are notrich.  They are not elite.  Why do the NDP preach only the twoprivate schools?  Why do they choose to discriminate against therest of them?

            What can be done?  Well, why not look at Saskatchewan orAlberta or Ontario, two of which are under NDP administration.You will find that they give much more money towards Catholicschools.  What the difference is, Mr. Speaker, is that is whenyou have the NDP in government.  That is the difference, and thatis in fact unfortunate.

            So when I look at education and I see those two points, as Isay, I am disappointed in the Minister of Education (Mrs.Vodrey).  We need that reform.  I am disappointed in the NewDemocrats because they preach, as I say, class warfare, and thatis what it is.

            Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to comment on social assistance.We in Manitoba waste a lot of talent by leaving individuals onsocial assistance.  We have individuals who have been on socialassistance through different generations, and we need to take amuch more proactive approach to dealing with individuals who areon social assistance.

            There are many things that can be done in order to do that.A couple of examples that I would like to cite is that right nowthere is a limit in terms of how much an individual receivingsocial assistance can make.  After they make that, if it is $1more, they lose $1 on their welfare cheque.

            It is providing incentives, possibly on 60‑, 40‑cent dollarsso that there is an additional incentive for someone to work theextra hours.  It means providing courses.  It means enablingindividuals to better their educational skills to better equipthem to enter into the work force through providing courses.[interjection] Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an area in which, as Isay, there can be a lot of improvement.  If the will of thegovernment was to proceed and to do something for those that arereceiving social assistance other than helping them get on tosocial assistance, as we have seen in the last four years, wewould be much, much better off.

            I also wanted to talk about housing.  Earlier today I broughtup the question with respect to the Residential RehabilitationAssistance Program to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst).[interjection] To the Minister of Housing?  No, I knew that we donot deal‑‑we do not have a direct impact on it.  The federalgovernment provides the loans that are forgiven and additionalloans.  The City of Winnipeg administers it, 50 percent of thecost.  The administrative cost is calculated in terms of how muchthe individual applicants are going to be receiving.  That iswhat covers the cost of the administration.

            But the point that I was trying to make, and I think everyoneinside the Chamber caught on to it except for the Minister ofHousing (Mr. Ernst), was that the provincial government does havea role to play.  The Quebec government recognized that, enteredinto an agreement.  We have a national government that has cut itfrom approximately $1.2 million.  Now it looks like they aregoing to be cutting it by an additional $400,000.  At least thisis what is being talked about.  What is the Minister of Housingdoing?  Why is he not on the phone, talking to his federalcounterpart, doing what the Province of Quebec did and enter intoan agreement?  Why does he not?‑‑because there are so manybenefits.  The Province of Quebec detected the benefits.

            You know, the city of Winnipeg has benefited tremendously bythis program.  All you have to do is just drive around some ofthe areas.  Go down to the administrative offices and they canhave pictures that will very clearly demonstrate it.  You cancome down to my office.  I have a few of them and I can show itto you.

            But, Mr. Speaker, this is something that rural Manitobashould also be benefiting more by in a very large way.  Portagela Prairie has many homes that would benefit from a program ofthis nature.  So does the city of Brandon, Thompson and others.All of those rural areas would benefit by an enhanced RRAPprogram, one that would see the provincial government participatejust like the Province of Quebec has chosen to do.  There is noreason why we cannot do it unless, of course, the government ofthe day does not believe in rehabilitation of our current housingstock.  If that is the case, the long‑term cost of letting housesdeteriorate are going to be so much greater, the neighbourhoodsthemselves do not benefit from it.  I encourage the Minister ofHousing (Mr. Ernst) to pursue this very aggressively because, asI say, other provinces have done it, in particular, the provinceof Quebec.  This is a program that we need in Manitoba, and it isvery worthy of pursuing.

            Housing co-ops, Mr. Speaker, I have had other opportunitiesto speak on housing co‑ops.  In fact, I have introduced theresolution on housing co‑ops.  I believe that housing co-ops area real, viable alternative to the current nonprofit housing unitsthat we presently have.


* (1700)


            I look at the riding that I represent‑‑whether it is GilbertPark; the riding that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)represents, Blake Gardens; the member for Burrows (Mr.Martindale) represents‑‑I believe it is Burrows‑‑Lord Selkirk.There are thousands of nonprofit housing units in Manitoba, wherethe government is the landlord and the individual living in theresidence is a tenant.

            There is a better way and we can convert.  Agreements can beachieved to allow these units, if not for no other reason but ona trial basis, to convert into housing co‑ops, because what youhave done by doing that is no longer are they a tenant to thegovernment, they are a part‑owner of the place in which theyreside.  I would argue that would do wonders in terms of bringingup morale, of ensuring individuals have an opportunity toparticipate in the management decisions.

            I personally believe that they could do a better job than agovernment agency can.  So this is the type of direction that webelieve that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) should be movingin.  I would be privileged if he wanted to have a trial area andwas wanting to use Gilbert Park.  We have a very active tenantsassociation; Amie Chartrand is the current president and has beenworking very hard.  I know he has contact with Saul Schubert, thedeputy minister.  There are many housing units that would lovethe opportunity to be able to try something of this nature.  Iencourage the Minister of Housing to act on it.

            There is some concern that I have in terms of the InfillHousing Program.  I will be raising those concerns once we gointo the Estimates.  I know, with the former Minister of Housing,he and I had gotten into a few debates on this particular issue.I do plan to continue to find out why it is the government haschosen to move in the direction that they have and then will basemy decisions after I hear a few more of the arguments.  Thatcould be a very good reason, especially if we can allocate someof those resources over to RRAP‑‑[interjection] R-R-A-P.

            Well, then I also wanted to talk a bit about Labour.  Anotherarea that I am the critic for.  The Labour Adjustment Unit hasreceived one year; it was a third of a cent for every worker inthe province of Manitoba.  Another year, it was 2 cents for everyworker in the province of Manitoba in terms of an increase.

            Mr. Speaker, when I look at the global economy and what ishappening with free trade, first with the States‑‑and the currentConservative government is determined to move ahead with freetrade with Mexico.  It does not matter what either the Liberalsor the New Democrats or the people have to say, they are movingahead with it.  Here, while we are seeing and witnessing thischange in the work force, there really is no real increase atall, period, to such a fundamental need as a labour adjustmentunit, something that is going to help those individuals who arebeing laid off, whether it is in the manufacturing, the produce,whatever the industry, textile.

            They do not have the resources, and I think that is somewhattragic.  You have to be able to invest in individuals, in thepeople.  If you do not invest in the people of the province, theeconomy is not going to improve.

            Final offer selection‑‑and I have talked about final offerselection so many times‑‑I think clearly demonstrates why theLiberal Party is best positioned to really deal with labourlegislation, to deal with what is in the best interests of theworker.

            I know that both the Conservatives and the NDP would questionme on that particular statement, and all I would do to them issuggest that they read over the hours and hours and hours ofdebate in final offer selection and take me to the side and tryto convince me how the workers benefited by what took place onfinal offer selection.  Mr. Speaker, the worker did not benefit.The Tories brought it in because of the chamber; the NDP opposedit because of a very few select individuals in the unionmovement. [interjection] Well, coming from the Deputy Leader ofthe New Democratic Party (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), she has got to bevery careful because everything I say I can prove beyond a shadowof a doubt.

Some Honourable Members:  Oh, oh.

Mr. Lamoureux:  Well, if I have leave to speak till 5:30, I willbe more than happy to expand on it.

An Honourable Member:  Table it.

Mr. Lamoureux:  I do not even need to table it; all you have todo is read Hansard.

            Mr. Speaker, I want to move into another area that I amresponsible for, the critic for Multiculturalism.Multiculturalism is a wonderful thing, and I think everyone inthis Chamber would agree to it.  When I think ofmulticulturalism, I think in terms of a lot more than the songand the dance that we see during Folklorama, and I know thatthere are a number of individuals here that participate inFolklorama.  That is because it is a lot more than song and dance.

            We are talking about social and economic and politicalintegration into all aspects of society, whether it is theChamber of Commerce, whether it is within the union movement,whether it is in this Chamber or in City Hall, wherever it mightbe.  When I think of multiculturalism, that is the type ofmulticulturalism that I think about.

            I had an interesting example that was given, and maybe one ortwo of you might have heard this particular example, but it wasgiven to me from a constituent of mine who teaches at one of thelocal schools.  She made reference to a student teacher that hadcome into her class.

            The student teacher went down the class to find out what theyhad for breakfast.  The first student said that she had‑‑Ibelieve it was fried rice and pork.  The student teacher wassomewhat mystified about this and continued to go down.  The nextchild that answered that particular question from the same ethnicgroup as the first child said, well, I had fried eggs or eggs andtoast or something of that nature.  At the end of the class, theteacher brought the student teacher to the student who said thatshe had the eggs and toast and asked if in fact that was what shehad for breakfast.  The response was, well, no, I had the friedrice and pork.  The reason why she said that is because she feltthat was the right thing to say.

            Well, I have had fried rice and pork for breakfast.  That ispart of our heritage, and that is what, again, multiculturalismis all about, the heritage and cultures of all the differentethnic groups.

            People, whether they are individuals such as the studentteacher or if they are more of the extreme individuals, racist orwhatever it might be, Mr. Speaker‑it is an educational process.The only way we will really and truly become a multiculturalsociety is by having education.  Education is so very important.

            I see, Mr. Speaker, that my light is already flashing.

            I wanted to comment very briefly on tourism.  Tourism is avery important area that I believe that this government has notgiven enough time to.  One of the things that can be done, andthe member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) has commented on this,is the whole idea of taking tourism away from the Department ofIndustry and Trade and having it go to a department such asHighways, so that we can have more effort put on tourism in theprovince because it is one of the areas in which the provinceshould be able to expand upon.


* (1710)


            Mr. Speaker, I am really cutting this short.  I am going togo right down to the last line that I have on here and talk aboutthe issue of the two domestics.  I have a Resolution 35 in whichI would hope that the members from this Chamber would give theleave that would be necessary in order to allow it to come to adebate, because we have two Manitobans who are being asked toleave Canada, for all intents and purposes, that the Minister ofImmigration has not been able to justify.

            I would hope through the government and the New Democratsthat we will in fact see some sort of consensus that would allowthis resolution to be debated.

            Thank you very much.

Mr. Bob Rose (Turtle Mountain):  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasurefor me today to first of all welcome you back as Speaker.  I willadmit I have not had any experience with anyone else in theSpeaker's Chair, but you do remind me of a teacher I had many,many years ago who had the ability to join in the fun sometimesin the class and at the same time, with nothing much more than aglance, bring order to the classroom.  I do not suppose anyschool teacher has ever had a more unruly class than this groupis from time to time, and I admire and appreciate the way yourwisdom and fairness continues to promote good debate in thisChamber.

            I would also like to welcome our new Pages and tell thembeforehand I do appreciate the good work that they do for all ofus.  I would also like to welcome back the staff, the Clerk'sstaff, both the new and the old, and we still, as MLAs, very muchappreciate the assistance that they give us on a daily basis inhelping us perform our duties.

            I also welcome, Mr. Speaker, this, my fourth opportunity tospeak to the motion to adopt the throne speech, as moved andseconded so capably by the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay)and the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister), or more accurately Isuppose, to speak to the amendments, as proposed by the Leadersof the Opposition parties.  More experienced members in thisChamber are accustomed to returning to another session withchanges in the make‑up of the membership of the LegislativeAssembly.  This is my first experience, again, with such a change.

            I would like first of all to acknowledge the contributionmade to our province by the former member for Portage, EdConnery.  Each of us brings a different style and a differentviewpoint to our discussions.  Ed Connery's aggressive approachto problem solving and his penchant for meeting problems head onwas a valuable addition.  Rookie MLAs like myself learned fromhis guidance and his generosity.  I wish Ed and his lovely spouseBev all the best in retirement from exceptional hard work andservice to the province of Manitoba.

            I would also like to welcome, as others have done, the newmember for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) and the new memberfor Crescentwood (Ms. Gray).  People who sometimes despair of thedemocratic system should have taken heart in the process on thosetwo by‑elections, because they have resulted, I think, at leastfrom early indications, that both Portage and Crescentwood willbe capably represented by their new MLAs.

            I viewed also with interest, from my vantage point in thistop southeast corner of the Chamber, the musical chairs in theLiberal caucus, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) movinghalfway up the ladder or, in this case, down, perhaps poised forthe next move.  We have the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock)moving closer to his natural friends.  This was a surprise,because many of us expected him to stay close to the aisle tofacilitate an early exit.  We note the member for Inkster (Mr.Lamoureux) going nowhere, and the Leader, having decided toresign, impatiently awaiting the results of all this shufflingbehind her.

An Honourable Member:  The only one who has not moved is Gulzar.

Mr. Rose:  Gulzar has not moved.

            Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the tworecently announced changes.  Tuesday's official resignation ofthe member for Rupertsland, Elijah Harper I think marked an endand perhaps a beginning, but an ending certainly to therepresentation of the first aboriginal in this House.

            Now being the first in anything is never easy.  I am surethat there are many women who can attest to that as they taketheir places in all elements of our society.  So, in itself,being the first aboriginal earned Mr. Harper a place in history.That recognition will be more than just a statistic, for hebrought the hopes and fears and aspirations of his community tothis Chamber.  With the fickleness of Meech Lake, fate providingthe opportunity, he illustrated the truth of that Shakespeareanquotation:

            There is a tide in the affairs of men,Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.

            His simple no in this Chamber captured the imagination ofCanadians and, for that matter, people in other countries.  Thereis beauty, simplicity and a certain amount of poetic justice inusing the rules developed by other cultures to highlight lack ofrecognition of our original culture.

            Historians will long debate whether the demise of Meech Lakewas good or bad for Canada, but there will be no question ElijahHarper used his opportunity as our first aboriginal MLA torepresent his people well.

            The other recent announcement of the resignation of Mrs.Carstairs as Leader of the Liberal Party is also, I think, worthyof comment.  I will admit a decade ago, as a card‑carrying memberof the Progress Conservative Party, to watching with some glee asPierre Trudeau decimated the Liberal Party in western Canada.There was amusement as a supporter of another party in watchingthe provincial Liberals choose and discard Leader after Leader.Then there was downright puzzlement at their last choice, SharonCarstairs.  I did not know then, of course, of her determination,her capacity for hard work, her ability and her genuine concernand aspiration for good government in Manitoba.

            I do not think it is an exaggeration to say shesingle‑handedly restored the Liberal Party in Manitoba and, forthat matter, as the member for Crescentwood suggested the otherday, in western Canada.

            In the long run, well, in our partisanship, we, as in sports,cheer for our own team.  Our citizens are better governed ifthere is an articulate representation for the many differentpoints of view.  Mrs. Carstairs has restored that to Manitobapolitics, and I have to note on the way by that, if there isanyone who brings different points of view to this LegislativeAssembly, it is the Liberals.

            I spoke earlier of fate, and I think of the 1990 electionwhen my tide came along, more like a trickle really than a tide,but a change at least for many of us in this Chamber, for had notMrs. Carstairs success in 1988 denied a majority government,bringing about the 1990 election, quite a number of us would notbe here today, this 3rd of December 1992.

            I do not know where we would be, but I submit to you thatMrs. Carstairs had a very direct effect on many of our lives and,more indirectly, on the lives of all Manitobans.

            Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that both Elijah Harper andSharon Carstairs will be noted in history, and it has been apleasure and an honour for me to have been in the Legislatureduring part of their tenure.

            I am also convinced that history will be kind to anothermember, our Premier Gary Filmon, in a different and perhaps lessdramatic way, but recognition just the same of a Premier alreadyrespected as a statesman, or statesperson, if that suits better,respected as a statesperson across Canada; a Premier who, withhis cabinet and caucus, recognized the dramatic changes takingplace in our society, recognized the need to adjust to thesechanges, recognized the inevitable disaster that awaits a societythat continues to borrow from our children and their children inorder to finance today's standard of living, recognized thenecessity of being part of an emerging world economy and, mostimportant of all, recognized that our citizens have the abilityand determination to accept these new challenges of a changingworld if allowed to be unfettered with punishing taxes andcrushing debt.


* (1720)


            All these recognitions and more are reflected in the thronespeech as this government continues to develop a climate whereour citizens can function to their full potential.  Our provincewill be well positioned when this recession ends, and it will end.

            The reaction of the of the two opposition Leaders, asillustrated in the two amendments before us, was predictable, andI was heartened to note at least three different media outletsusing that very word to describe the reaction of the oppositionparties to the throne speech‑‑predictable‑‑predictable becauseManitobans are coming to understand that the opposition partiesrefuse to deal with the reality of changing times.

            Yes, we can continue to be in a recession and, no, it was notmentioned in the throne speech.  The opposition seems to be veryupset about this; why, I do not know.  Perhaps they get somesatisfaction out of gloom and doom.  When everyone knows we arein a recession, stating the obvious is hardly necessary, and itis this recognition of the obvious that causes continued deficitfinancing which the opposition is again quick to point out.

            We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are some casualties aswe move through recession and the changing times.  We only haveabout 90 percent of our people who are gainfully employed, andrecognition of necessary and increased social services as well asmaintaining our health and education standards requires this kindof deficit investment.

            The trick is to understand the balance so as to bewell‑positioned for the future, and nothing I think, Mr. Speaker,illustrates the lack of understanding of deficit financing on theopposition benches, nothing illustrates this more than theircontinued insistence that the Howard Pawley government left asurplus.  It is still costing us Manitobans $500 million a yearinterest on this NDP surplus.

            Now, I agree that if you govern in times when the economyaround you is booming and at the same time raise taxes 17 times,there should be a surplus, but our government cannot deal withshould‑have‑beens and might‑have‑beens.  The first thing ourMinister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has to do every year inpreparation for a budget, before anything else, is fill in theline of $500 million interest on the NDP surplus left to thisprovince.

            Mr. Speaker, I have also noted a new buzzword emerging fromacross the way, reregulation.  I am not sure what this means orwhat the definition is, but we will not dwell on those niceties.The point is, what does it mean?  Will their definition be asaccurate as their definition of a surplus?

            The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) commented on thereregulation of business in NDP provinces, that after being taxedand regulated into insolvency, they will be reregulated intocontinued operation.  Does this mean the employees will bereregulated to continue working even though there is no money topay salaries?  Is this the long‑awaited NDP solution toescalating health care costs, to reregulate hospitals, doctors,nurses, the entire health care complex to continue to functionwithout compensation?  What nonsense, Mr. Speaker.  Had this kindof new think been in place 50 years ago, we would be left withfirms like Consolidated Buggy Whip to fuel the engine of oureconomy.

            Time does not permit comment on all the oppositioncontributions to this debate.  Anyway, I think all Manitobansrecognize that much of the rhetoric in this Chamber is justthat.  But it is worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, I think, to watch forlittle things, the spontaneous indicators.

            I direct attention to a question from the member for SwanRiver (Ms. Wowchuk) to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.Derkach) a few days ago.  It was a good question, and Iparaphrase:  What jobs are being created in rural Manitoba by theREDI program?

            The minister responded with the example of the expansion ofthe Ayerst plant in Brandon made possible by substantialassistance through the REDI program, creating not only directjobs, but in the neighbourhood of 1,000 related jobs.  Well,thundered back the member for Swan River, when is this ministergoing to show some leadership and create some real jobs in ruralManitoba?

            Real jobs, Mr. Speaker?  Does the doubling of a plant'sproduction not create real jobs?  Does the doubling of productionunits on farms all across Manitoba create real jobs?  Does thedemand for more horse trailers, more barns, more corrals, morefences, more transportation create real jobs?  The list goes onand on.

            What does the NDP caucus define as a real job?  Painting afence, planting flowers in the ditch, measuring the streets inFairfax, Manitoba?  Is this the only real job, one that isshort‑term, has no lasting economic benefit and is paid fordirectly by the taxpayer long after the job has disappeared?[interjection] Little spontaneous comments, Mr. Speaker, amongthe rhetoric that tells us so much about the position of theofficial opposition.

            Now, I know the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has onlya few colleagues with much understanding of rural Manitoba, butwith her farming background she should take the time to explainto her colleagues that one does not plant a crop one day andexpect to harvest it the next.

            In two short years this government has prepared the fertiledevelopment fields in rural Manitoba.  The REDI program, GrowBonds, round tables, all are attracting positive response as thepeople in our rural communities come to understand that thisgovernment is serious about providing fertile ground in which theinitiative and hard work of our people can flourish.  Theyrealize that we finally have a government in Manitoba whose ruraldevelopment program goes substantially beyond a can of greenpaint.

            Well, Mr. Speaker, I exaggerate for the sake of effect.  Thelast administration in Manitoba was not entirely all bad, nor isthe current government administration perfect.

            When the opposition point to deficits and debt in otherprovinces and other countries, they are correct.  Constantdeficit financing is not confined to political philosophy but,surely, it needs to be confined to the past.  What is importantis that we recognize that we are rapidly reaching our limits.The changing times demand carefully controlled deficits in timesof recession and stabilized and reduced debt in times of growth.

            Many, many of our citizens realize this, but not all, andsurely it is time, just as all political parties practisedcontinued deficit financing in the past, now for all politicalparties to show leadership to recognize this terrible threat andfollow a responsible course, just as does this government andthis throne speech.

            Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a project that istaking shape in my constituency of Turtle Mountain.  In fact, itis across all of southern Manitoba, including the constituenciesof Arthur‑Virden, Pembina and Emerson as well.  It is not a bigproject.  It is not an expensive one and, I assure you at thispoint at least, not a project that the government has promotedfinancially or does the government take any credit for.  We MLAsinvolved have acted as cheer leaders with encouraging words and afew bucks from the constituency allowance, but this developingproject illustrates a couple of characteristics to which thehonourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) referred toyesterday, pride and hard work, characteristics that we have beenlosing and need to regain.


* (1730)


            A few years ago some interested people formed the BoundaryCommission North West Mounted Police Trail Association.  Thisgroup chronicled the historical events of the western movementfrom Emerson of the Boundary Commission to survey and establishthe border between Canada and the U.S.A. along the 49thparallel.  This same trail was used by the North West MountedPolice as they moved westward to bring law and order to thedeveloping Saskatchewan and Alberta provinces.  This energeticgroup annually re‑enacts the journey as close as possible to theoriginal trail with a wagon train and accompanying outriders.

            In 1991 the provincial government recognized this historicalroute by officially declaring Highway 3 from Morden to Souris andadjoining highways from Morden to Emerson as the BoundaryCommission North West Mounted Police Trail.

            One of the very first visitors from out of province and outof country to this trail, Mr. Speaker, was a group called ICOMOS,the International Council on Monuments and Sites, the principaladviser to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural Organization.  This group toured across the trailfor three or four days last spring, examining all the varioushistoric sites that are available to see along this historictrail.  Now, not content with this, and I am coming now to thecurrent project, the association‑‑

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  Pursuant to Rule 35(2), I aminterrupting the proceedings in order to put the question on themotion of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition party,that is, a subamendment to the motion for an address and reply tothe Speech from the Throne.  Do members wish to have the motionread?

Some Honourable Members:  Yes.

Mr. Speaker:  THAT the Amendment be amended by adding thereto thefollowing words:

            And this House further regrets that:

            1.   this government's state of intellectual exhaustion has prevented it from taking the actions required to improve Manitoba's economic performance, and provide a stronger basis for growth both in the short term and long term;

            2.   this government has failed to respond to the needs of the people of Manitoba during the recession in that it has not provided any job training and retraining strategy;

            3.   while criticizing the federal government for offloading education costs, this government has itself transferred education costs from the provincial tax base to the property tax payer, and failed to articulate specific reforms to the education system except substantial cuts to the funding of the education system;

            4.   this government has not made sufficient efforts to consult and involve the public in its reform proposals for the health care system;

            5.   this government has not implemented a comprehensive, co‑ordinated, independent Health Reform Monitor, to monitor and report publicly on the progress and impacts of reforms in the health care system.

            Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members:  No.

Mr. Speaker:  No?  All those in favour of the motion, please sayyea.

Some Honourable Members:  Yea.

Mr. Speaker:  All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members:  Nay.

Mr. Speaker:  In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader):  Yeas andNays, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:  Call in the members.

            The question before the House is the motion of the honourableLeader of the Second Opposition Party (Mrs. Carstairs) that is asubamendment to the motion from the Address in Reply to theSpeech from the Throne.  Do members wish to have the motionreread?


* (1740)


Some Honourable Members:  No.

Mr. Speaker:  No, okay.  All those in favour of the motion willplease rise.

A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:


            Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak,Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake),Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway,Martindale, Plohman, Reid, Santos, Storie, Wasylycia‑Leis.


            Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns,Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau,Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld,Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose,Sveinson, Vodrey.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):  Yeas 25, Nays 28.

Mr. Speaker:  I declare the motion lost.

            Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?

Some Honourable Member:  Six o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:  The hour being 6 p.m. this House is now adjournedand stands adjourned until 10 a.m tomorrow.