Friday, December 4, 1992

The House met at 10 a.m.








Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Maureen Klippenstein,Sandi Kauenhofen, Maureen Johnston and others, urging thegovernment of Manitoba to pass the necessarylegislation/regulations which will restrict stubble burning inthe province of Manitoba.




Mr. Speaker:  I have reviewed the petition of the honourablemember for The Maples (Mr. Cheema).  It complies with theprivileges and the practices of the House and complies with therules (by leave).  Is it the will of the House to have thepetition 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.


* (1005)






Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status ofWomen):  This Sunday, December 6, marks the third anniversary ofthe tragic day when 14 women students were gunned down at theEcole polytechnique in Montreal.  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that allmembers of this House will recall the shock and the horror we allfelt as the news of the tragedy became public.

            Once again, we extend our condolences and our sympathy to thefamilies and friends of the women who lost their lives in thatsenseless violent attack.  We mourn the loss of these young womenand of all those women in Canada who have been killed throughacts of senseless violence.

            Mr. Speaker, our government has taken strong steps towardsdealing with violence against women and will continue to do so.Some recent initiatives that have been taken are the unanimousadoption by this Legislature of a resolution declaring Manitoba adomestic‑violence‑free zone, the creation and recent expansion ofthe family violence court to facilitate the expeditious andsensitive disposition of abuse cases, amendments to The FamilyMaintenance Act providing Manitoba women stronger protectionagainst harassment and abuse from partners‑‑this gives themfaster and easier access to nonmolestation orders and facilitatesquicker access‑‑an additional 10.4 percent or $500,000 allocatedthis year to the crisis shelter and resource centre systems forthe provision of follow‑up services and child counsellingservices.

            Regretfully, Mr. Speaker, unhealthy and destructive attitudescannot be altered through government intervention alone.  We allhave a role to play in raising awareness and changing attitudes.I ask all members of the House and all of the people of Manitobato work together with our government to make the changes thatwill allow all women to live free of fear and violence.

            The anniversary of the Montreal massacre has been declared anational day of remembrance and action on violence againstwomen.  On Sunday, December 6, let us all take time to rememberthe Montreal women as well as the Manitoba women who have beenvictims of violence.  At 7 p.m. that evening, December 6, amemorial vigil will be held on the legislative grounds inremembrance of women who have been victims of abuse.  I encourageall members to attend.  Our government and our communities canand must continue to work together toward the common goal of asafer and healthier future for all Manitobans.  Thank you, Mr.Speaker.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):  Mr. Speaker, I rise as well onbehalf of the official opposition to speak out about the eventsof December 6, 1989, and the three years that have gone by theboard since that awful day.  I think we all, as the minister hassaid, remember what we were doing and our feelings of shock,grief, horror, anger and dismay in 1989 and since then.

            I think it is important for us to realize that while we willnever not grieve and not remember the women who died on that dayand the impact that it hopefully has had on all of our lives, thetime for grieving in its active form is past and the time foraction on behalf of all of us is well underway.  We all haveparticipated and understand the white ribbon campaign that hasbeen undertaken last year and this year, Men Against ViolenceAgainst Women.  I think we all agree that this is a very positivefirst step to be undertaken.

            I would like to echo the call of the minister and make it alittle more specific.  I think that the actions of women's groupsand women individually and women's initiatives have gone a longway toward educating the population and toward making some stepstoward ending this scourge of male violence against women.  Ithink it is now time for all of us men and women to urge the menin our society to take an even more active role as individuals,as members of groups, as members of churches, as members ofsocial organizations, as well as members of government, to beginto reflect on and take positive action against this problem,which is in its largest component male violence against women.


* (1010)


            I think it is time for us to work together, but it is alsotime for us to have men taking even more initiatives in theirdaily lives and in all of their public and private roles to endthis horrible scourge, as I have said, in actions against half ofour society.

            As the President‑elect of the United States has said, we donot have any people, we do not have any individuals to waste, andright now in our society, we are wasting.  One‑quarter of ourpopulation, one‑fourth of our population, women, have been abusedor will be abused at some point in their lives, and any oneinstance of that is a waste and should not be tolerated.

            So I am urging all members of the House, in all of theirlives, to carry on this action so that we can at some point inour future pause and remark about December 6 and the positivethings that have come out of that awful day.  Thank you.

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, on December 6 three years ago, 14 women were gunned downbecause they were women, and that was the only explanation,because they were women, and because a man in a societydetermined that somehow or other the rights of women had becometoo enlarged, had become too powerful, and that he could not copeor exist in a society where women could share in some sense ofequity with the men of that society.  It is really what violenceis so often about; it is about power, about how one individual,be he male or female, can in an act of violence say, I amsuperior to another human being.  That is the fundamentalattitude that we have to change in our society, that we must beable to relate to individuals not in a power sense but in a humansense and an individual sense.

            I join the minister in inviting everyone here as well asothers to attend the memorial service on Sunday night, and Iparticularly ask the men to attend, because it is your signalthat is so much more important than my signal or the minister'ssignal or the member for Wellington's (Ms. Barrett) signal thatyou want to effect this genuine change in the power structure,that you want to say that equality is really what it is allabout, because it is not just violence to women, it is violenceto members of visible minority communities; it is violencetowards aboriginal peoples, it is all part of the same morassthat we live in.  It is all about power, and we have to changethe direction of that and recognize that under our skin, underour gender, we are all human and we must therefore speakeloquently to each other as human beings and stand tall as humanbeings in protection of one another.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


* * *


Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, Iwould like to table the 1991‑92 Annual Report of the Departmentof Environment.


* (1015)




Bill 9‑The Winter Roads (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act


Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation):Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairsand responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Bill 9, TheWinter Roads (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (Loi sur les routesd'hiver‑‑modifications de diverses dispositions legislatives), beintroduced and that the same now be received and read a firsttime.


Motion agreed to.

Bill 10‑The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act


Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, Iwould like to move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources(Mr. Enns), that Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment andConsequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur lapropriete agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives ad'autres lois), be introduced and that the same be now receivedand read a first time.  (Recommended by His Honour the LieutenantGovernor.)

            Mr. Speaker, I would like to table His Honour's message.


Motion agreed to.


Bill 202‑The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act


Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded bythe member for Swan River (Mrs. Wowchuk), that Bill 202, TheResidential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur lalocation a usage d'habitation, be introduced and that the same benow received and read a first time.


Motion presented.


Mr. Martindale:  Mr. Speaker, the purport of this bill is toenable tenants to organize themselves into tenants' organizationswithout fear of intimidation or harassment by landlords.  Manytenants do not know their rights or responsibilities andtherefore are at a disadvantage compared to landlords who canafford to hire lawyers.

            The bill will make it easier for tenants to organize, whetherit is to band together to fight a rent increase, or to requestrepairs or heat, or any of the other numerous problems thattenants face for which the solidarity of a tenants' organizationis advantageous.


Motion agreed to.

Bill 8‑The Insurance Amendment Act


Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and CorporateAffairs):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister ofFamily Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 8, The InsuranceAmendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances, 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 gallery, where we have with us thismorning, from the Red River Community College, 22 EnglishLanguage students.  They are under the direction of Ms. ShelleyBates.  This English training school is located in theconstituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr.Hickes).

            On behalf of honourable members, I would like to welcome youhere this morning.




Federal Mini Budget

Manitoba Interests


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker,unfortunately, a Tory is a Tory is a Tory; economic failure iseconomic failure is economic failure.  Unfortunately, today wesee in Canada the unemployment rate going up.  It is now secondonly to 1983, the Liberal unemployment rate of 1983 nationally.The unemployment rate is going up in Manitoba againunfortunately, and yet we had a number of reports of meetingsthat took place between the provincial Conservatives and thefederal Conservatives yesterday in Manitoba.

            Mr. Speaker, in 1988 this government said, and the Premiersaid, it is an election promise, that he only had to pick up thephone and talk to the Prime Minister and federal‑provincialmatters would be resolved.  He lectured us in the House, and Ihave Hansard quote after Hansard quote about how they would havemore positive relationships with the federal government becauseTories could deal with Tories better than the former government.We do not see a new core area agreement; we do not see the kindof ERDA agreement that was negotiated prior to this governmentcoming into office, and we see many items of federal‑provincialrelations that were negotiated in '87‑‑for example, the diseaselab‑‑without any results at all.

            Can we hear today from the Deputy Premier what results ofthose discussions between the federal Conservatives and theprovincial Conservatives, what concrete results have we got fromtheir meetings that took place yesterday?  We do not want to hearthe rhetoric anymore; we want to hear the bottom line results.


* (1020)


Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier):  Mr. Speaker, let me at theoutset say that one of the most positive outcomes of the meetingthat took place, not by telephone yesterday but directly, thatour Premier took to the Prime Minister of Canada, was the totaldissatisfaction of he and his government with the manner in whichwe were treated in the economic statement the day before as itrelated to Manitoba‑‑not by telephone but directly‑‑as did manymembers of his caucus take directly to the members of Parliamentthe same message of how disappointed we were in the treatment asto how Manitoba was dealt with in the economic statement of theday before.

            I ask members opposite:  What have they done to contact theirmembers of Parliament who represent Manitoba, to express in apositive way the interests of Manitobans?  I believe, Mr.Speaker, that our Premier (Mr. Filmon) has taken the lead andshown the message that should be taken to the government inOttawa.  What has he done other than to try and make somepolitical gains for him and his own party in this province?

Unemployment Rate

Provincial Comparisons


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to thank the Deputy Premier for that challenge, because ourcaucus in Parliament this week called on the federal Conservativegovernment to resign and call a federal election.  Have you donethe same?  When you were breaking bread, when all your supporterswere breaking bread with their supporters, I wonder if you didthe same thing last night.  I doubt it; I doubt it very much,because you have the same do‑nothing economic policies.  Theyhave the same do‑nothing policies in this province as they havewith the federal Conservative government in Ottawa.  That is whythe Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) gave us the hallelujahchorus about praise the Tories in Ottawa.  Well, praise thosefederal Tories; they are following our do‑nothing course and thatis good for this country.

            I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, why has Manitoba,after having the last place of all economic performance in 1991,why are we now in the first 11 months‑‑[interjection] Well, ifyou want to talk about 1992, we will be asking questions on it.Why, in 1992, with the unemployment rate that was announced,unfortunately, today, why does Manitoba now have in the first 11months of 1992 the highest unemployment rate for the first 11months of any year since we have been keeping statistics at about9.6 percent?  Why has this government been in charge of anunemployment rate that is now the worst ever for the first 11months in 1992?  What adjustments is this government going tomake to get people back to work again, to get Manitoba workingagain, to get our economy moving again instead of going downhillas it is right now?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier):  Mr. Speaker, unfortunatelythe member does not tell the full story.  The unemployment ratehas not increased in Manitoba.  There are the same number ofpeople working this month over last month.  What hashappened‑‑and it is a positive sign‑‑there are more people whoare entering the work force looking for employment.  That is thefact, not the political rhetoric coming from the New DemocraticParty.

            There are more people who are feeling positive aboutthemselves, who are feeling positive about the job opportunitiesin Manitoba, who are entering the work force.  There are not lesspeople working, there are more people prepared to work and aretrying to enter the work force.  That is what is happening, Mr.Speaker, and I would like the member to recognize that.


* (1025)


Manufacturing Industry

Employment Decline


Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  Well, Mr. Seaker, hecannot tell us any specific projects that they have negotiated orhad an agreement with yesterday.  They cannot explain why theunemployment rate right now is the highest it has ever been inthe province of Manitoba for the first 11 months in any year;they cannot tell us whether they have any plans to get peopleworking again.

            I would like to ask another question of the Deputy Premier,and I am sure he will not answer this question either.

            Why have we gone from 63,000 manufacturing jobs in Manitobain 1988, when the former government left office, why have wedecreased by 23 percent in November of 1992, down to 49,000manufacturing jobs?

            Where are the productive jobs in our economy that thisgovernment promised?  Why are they failing just like theirfederal cousins are failing in terms of economic performance inthis province?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier):  The member wants to talkabout manufacturing and manufacturing opportunities in Manitoba.The projected capital manufacturing investment opportunities thisyear projected over last year is an increase by some 51 percent.Total capital investment, year over year projected, is up some3.3 percent; private capital investment up some 8.9 percent ofthe projected, Mr. Speaker.  The investment is going to come.The economic climate has been created and developed in Manitoba.

            Let us remember what the old‑think of the New DemocraticParty is, the old‑think, that you tax people higher, take theirmoney to do what, Mr. Speaker?  Jobs?  The Leader of the NewDemocratic Party himself was the biggest critic of the NewDemocratic policy as it related to the apple‑polishing jobs thatwere created under the previous administration.

            This government believes in creating real jobs throughprivate investment in manufacturing, through public investmentwhich continues to lead the country in public investment, and itwill continue under programs of my colleagues of the TreasuryBranch and the leadership of Premier Filmon and this government.


Churchill Rocket Range

Government Position


Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  In the last throne speech therevival of the Churchill Rocket Range was rightly noted as anachievement that could play a major part in assisting theeconomic recovery of this province, and we hear the DeputyPremier talk about jobs and jobs and more jobs, and here is apotential for at least 200 jobs.

            In this throne speech, the rocket range was not evenmentioned, and the people in the North were shocked to hearthat.  The port was only slightly mentioned in the throne speech.

            My question is to the Deputy Premier:  Why was the rocketrange omitted in the throne speech, and has the province decidedit is no longer a priority for their government?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier):  Mr. Speaker, let me assurethe member who asked the question‑‑I guess would have liked tohave run in Churchill but the former member chased him out ofthere, and it appears now we may see a shift within the ridingsof which some of the members opposite‑‑this could be hisnomination ploy as it deals with the rocket range.

            This government has fully committed to support any efforts todevelopment or the redevelopment of the rocket range inChurchill.  A commitment has been made in financing to supportthe economic development board of Churchill, to further look fora market opportunity for the usage of that rocket range.  Thisgovernment is fully committed to the further development ofopportunities in the Port of Churchill area.

Port of Churchill

Funding Commitment


Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  Mr. Speaker, if thegovernment is so committed to assisting the community‑‑there wasa meeting in Churchill a couple of months ago, when the ministerswere up there with the mayor and council and promised $75,000 tomatch the community's funding.  To this date, the community hasnot received one penny.  Why?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier):  Mr. Speaker, the commitmenthas been made and will be lived up to, to support the community.That was a meeting which my colleagues and I participated in.There are other developments which the Premier (Mr. Filmon)yesterday raised with the Prime Minister as they relate toChurchill to further enhance the port utilization.

Mr. Hickes:  Mr. Speaker, when will this government commit morethan press releases to supporting the Port of Churchill and therocket range?  Empty press releases are not enough.  Thecommunity is asking, when will that money come?

Mr. Downey:  Again, Mr. Speaker, there is a process that has tobe gone through, and when the process is completed, then in factthe funds will flow to live up to that commitment.


* (1030)


Infrastructure Renewal

Government Initiatives


Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, we were delighted that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) finallygot angry with the Prime Minister.  That has got to be some goodnews, that he finally can admit that the phone line ispermanently disconnected.  That did not, of course, stop some ofthe Tory members from attending a dinner last night which putdollars into the coffers of the federal Tories to fight the nextelection campaign.  So we wonder how much sophistry is in all ofthis official anger that is being expressed, but there is a muchmore critical issue here.

            The critical issue is that apparently the Premier got angrywith the Prime Minister for not putting new dollars ininfrastructure into the province of Manitoba.  So I have a verysimple question.  What new monies is the Finance minister of thisprovince committing to infrastructure so that he can do what hemust do to get the economy moving in this province?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):  Firstly, Mr.Speaker, I would not want to divulge budgetary decisions.  Themember knows fully well, because indeed she has voted against ourbudget for the last four years, we are the only province inCanada that has maintained its level in capital expenditureinfrastructure renewal through the last four years.  That hascaused tremendously difficult decisions to be made in a wholehost of areas.

            This government so strongly believes that one areagovernments cannot cut back is in capital expenditure areas.  Wehave been true to our word, and consequently $100 millioncontinues to be spent in the highways program.

            One of the difficulties that we have had with the NationalHighways Program, because we were held at such a high base, oneof the difficulties that we have had in the discussion of tryingto get through to the federal government, that we have been heldin a negative position vis‑a‑vis other provinces which haveslashed their capital spending.  So my answer to the minister isno province in Canada has maintained a level of capitalexpenditure equivalent to the province of Manitoba.


Employment Creation



Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, they cannot have it both ways.  They thought they couldin opposition, by the way; one of their members actually saidthey could.  The reality is they cannot.  They cannot complainabout the federal government not putting any money intoinfrastructure in the province of Manitoba and not be prepared tofind additional monies in this province for the same thing.Despite what the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) had to say, thereare 9,000 more people unemployed, from 493,000 in October of1992, 484,000 in November of 1982.  That is 9,000 people in onemonth.  What is this Deputy Premier and his Finance ministergoing to do about giving those 9,000 and all of the others somehope for the future?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):  Mr. Speaker, againthe Leader of the Liberal Party has it wrong.  Eleven thousandmore people are employed in Manitoba today as compared to Augustof '92.  That is an enviable record, given the fact that we aregradually coming out of this recession that we are obviously in,given that we are a smaller province, given the fact that withincertainly the Water Services Board, given within the area ofHealth capital, given within the area of Highways capital, givenwithin the area of capital within Government Services that wecontinue to hold our spending whereas other provinces,particularly to the West, and I dare say in Ontario, have slashedtheir capital lines, I say to you, we have done a remarkable jobunder the circumstances.

            We will continue to try and hold those levels of spending,Mr. Speaker, because we fully realize that that is probably thelast area that one government should attack.  I would hope then,when we do, if we are successful in holding those levels, thatthe Leader of the third party will support the budget, becausethat has been the essence of our efforts over the last four years.


Unemployment Rate

Provincial Comparisons


Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr.Speaker, we cannot support a budget this year, as we did notsupport it last year and the year before, because it is patentlyfailing the needs of the people of this province.  He likes tocompare August of '92 to November of '92.  Let us compareNovembers.  Let us compare November of 1987, when Manitoba had4.08 percent of Canada's labour force.  We now have 3.87 percentof Canada's labour force.  If we had just maintained a steadycourse, there would be 29,655 more jobs in the province ofManitoba.  How does the Minister of Finance explain that?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):  Mr. Speaker,unfortunately, the Leader of the third party, who has never donethis in the past, is beginning to follow some of the shallowlogic of her critic, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).  Themember uses 1987 as a base.  Three provinces in all of the 10across Canada have had an increase in population.  All the otherseven have had a fall since '87, but the member and the Leader ofthe third party does not include that in her decision.  Why?  Ido not know.  Is it because we had the highest tax regime in thecountry in 1988?  Is that the reason?  Is that the reason thatthe member opposite would not support all the budgets in thisprovince when we were trying to reduce the taxation?  Is that thereason?  I do not know.

            I do know one thing, Mr. Speaker, that the member oppositehas seen fit not to support one of the taxation reductions inthis province, and I say to her, if she wants to go back to 1987,this government is prepared to go back and compare figures to1987.  In the same fashion that six other provinces in Canadahave not been able to maintain their population, I would say toher, we are part of that same group.


Fishing Industry

Lake Winnipegosis


Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  My question is to the Ministerof Natural Resources.

            We have heard much about the desperate situation thatfishermen are facing with difficult economic situation.  Lastweek I wrote a letter to the Minister of Natural Resourcesregarding the desperate situation on Lake Winnipegosis.  Close to100 fishermen are in trouble because of low stocks and poor salesfor mullet.  They are going to pull their nets this week, many ofthem, and they will have no income and are not able to drawunemployment insurance.

            I want to ask the Minister of Natural Resources whether he isprepared to meet with these fishermen, whether he has, and whatis he going to do to address this desperate situation?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):  Mr. Speaker, Icertainly would want to indicate to the honourable member forSwan River that I am always prepared to meet with Manitobanswherever they may be.  It is my hope that perhaps before the endof this year, and as soon as this House rises, that I will havean opportunity to visit that part of the province up to The Pasas well, where there are some specific concerns that wereexpressed to us by some of the local government officials.

            I cannot put fish back into Lake Winnipegosis.  I know thatwe have done, as governments‑‑and the previous administration hadintroduced different programs including the total abolition ofany fishing for a number of years‑‑five years, I believe‑‑to seewhether or not that would not restore the stocks to satisfactorylevels.

            In fact, the past summer season showed some fairlyinteresting and encouraging harvests for these same fishermen,but, Mr. Speaker, I will agree to meet with the representativesof the fishermen of Lake Winnipegosis to see what programs orwhat help can be provided for them.

Ms. Wowchuk:  I look forward to that because they have beenwaiting to hear from him, but I am surprised that the ministerwould say he cannot do anything about putting stocks back in.There was commitment to put stocks back in.  This year no stockwas put back in.


CEDF Interest Rate Moratorium


Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  I want to ask the ministerresponsible for the CEDF if they will consider lowering theinterest rate or putting a moratorium on the interest rate forfishermen for one year to help them through this difficult time,because they are going to be killed by the amount of interestthey have to pay on their loans while they have no income.

Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for and charged with theadministration of The Communities Economic Development FundAct):  Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that my colleaguethe Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) has done his utmostin working with the fishermen of that particular area to try toenhance the fish stocks to relieve some of the difficulties.  Itis my knowledge there has been some positive results from thework that has been done by my colleague.

            It would be my intention to take a look at the difficultiesthat are being created because of this situation, but I cannotmake a commitment that I can get involved in any way in theoperations of a Crown corporation which is separate fromgovernment.  I can take a look at it, Mr. Speaker, but cannotassure her that anything can be done about the interest ratesthat are charged.

Ms. Wowchuk:  Mr. Speaker, by the time they decide to look at it,it is going to be too late for these people.  They are going togo broke, and they are going to go on welfare.

Fishing Industry

Market Development


Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  I want to ask this Minister ofNatural Resources whether his government is doing any research tofind sales or alternative uses for mullet.  Did anybody in hisgovernment, while they were on the trip to China and the Orient,look for markets, and did they have any success in findingmarkets for mullet and other rough fish?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):  The honourablemember raises an issue that has long been a difficulty for theinland fisheries here in Manitoba.  I can report to her, though,that last year the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation marketedmore mullet than in any other previous years, in the millions andmillions of pounds.  Regrettably these are still not firm markets.

            My advice is that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did speak directlyand certainly to offshore markets such as in China and otherplaces that could potentially be a stable market, a firm marketfor the fish.  That is by far the biggest challenge that ourinland fisheries face, the thousands, indeed millions, of poundsof what are now referred to as rough fish that to date have yetto find a secure market.

            I know that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation hasworked diligently in this area, regrettably they have not‑‑theyhave had some successes, but they have been spotty successes.Those are not the kind of situations that fishermen can depend onand certainly pay off their debts with, but I do not take issuewith the member's comments.  They are a challenge for both theFreshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and for me as Minister ofNatural Resources.


* (1040)


The Green Plan

Funding Reduction


Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Mr. Speaker, the federalgovernment under the Conservatives is offloading itsresponsibility for environment restoration and protection.  It iscutting programs to fund initiatives.  It is ignoring its legalresponsibility to do environmental impact assessments, plus, thefederal Conservatives and the Liberals are prepared to give awayour sovereignty over our natural resources and environment byagreeing to the NAFTA agreement.  We are still waiting for thisgovernment's position on NAFTA which will ensure we have theability to conserve our resources.

            My question is for the Minister of Environment:  Does theMinister of Environment support the federal strategy announcedtwo days ago to spend $4.4 billion on military helicopters andcut $60 million from The Green Plan, and if not, what is thisminister prepared to do about this misplaced priority?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  There was an awfullot of innuendo and I am not so sure how much fact in thatquestion.  The environmental responsibilities that we undertakeprovincially to look after our environment, our naturalresources, we have no intention of straying away from ourresponsibility and making sure that we adequately do the job thatis required and expected of us by the people of this province.


Atomic Energy of Canada

Environmental Grant


Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  How much money is being lost toManitoba with the cuts to The Green Plan, and how is it going toaffect such things as water services on band reserves inManitoba, hazardous waste cleanup, river cleanup, the modelforest program, joint environmental impact assessments or, as weheard in the question by my colleague, fish restocking?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, interms of environmental assessment, particularly, which isprobably the most critical part of that multidimensionalquestion, I can assure you that we will continue to be doing thejob as is expected of us.  To my knowledge there is no change inthe way we will be dealing with environmental protection from aprovincial and national basis.

Ms. Cerilli:  Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House ifAtomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has had any budget cuts and what thegrant of $25,000 from this government to AECL is for, under theauspices of an environmental grant?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, I think I could answer that question,but I might be taking a bit of a guess.  I will research thequestion and bring the answer back to the House.


Unemployed Help Centres



Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  The heartlessness of the PrimeMinister is sometimes matched by his cousins here, the honourablemembers across the way.

            Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the Minister of Family Services(Mr. Gilleshammer) eliminated funding for the CommunityUnemployed Help Centres which helped people cut through red tapein acquiring their unemployment insurance.  This government hasalso reduced accessibility to Legal Aid.

            My question for the Minister of Family Services is:  With thedraconian changes to unemployment insurance benefits, what doesthis minister and the government plan to do to assist people whoare unemployed, assist them in ensuring that they get therightful claim, or is he going to allow them to go on socialassistance?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):  Mr.Speaker, as you are well aware, our department is responsible forthat safety net which provides basic support to individuals whohave no other means of support.  We have consistently raised thatamount of money on an annual basis to match the increase in thecost of living.  At the same time, within our Department ofFamily Services and within that division within our department,we spend some $12 million a year to put forth programs forunemployed people who are on social assistance.  We will continueto do that.

            Our success rate, through the Single Parent Job Access andthrough the Gateway program and through the HROCs, has beenfairly substantial in moving people from social assistance intoemployment.

Ms. Gray:  Mr. Speaker, the minister has just indicated that heis quite prepared to have people go on social assistance and thenthey may try to get them jobs after.

            My question for the minister is:  Will he act today toreinstate funding to Community Unemployed Help Centres throughoutManitoba, including in rural Manitoba, to ensure that thesepeople get their rightful claims and that they do not have to goon social assistance?  Be proactive.

Mr. Gilleshammer:  I can assure the member that we make many,many efforts to be sure that people do not go on socialassistance.  We have had a tremendous increase, not in theprovincial rolls of social assistance but in the municipal rolls,the employables.  We will continue to operate with those programsto provide training.  As well, other departments withingovernment are providing training through education, throughlabour and other programs to work with unemployed Manitobans toget them back to work.


Unemployment Insurance Reform

Impact on Women


Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  Mr. Speaker, with a final supplemetary to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women(Mrs. Mitchelson):  Can the minister tell us today, given thatwomen are very much affected by these unemployment insurancechanges, has she presented a brief to her cabinet colleagues andlobbied so that there will be some support services for womenhere in Manitoba so that in fact they cannot go on socialassistance?  Will she ensure that they can get some help so theycan receive unemployment insurance benefits?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status ofWomen):  Mr. Speaker, we indeed are very concerned about theplight of women who are unemployed in the province.  We makeevery effort, and we have made efforts and special announcementsjust in the very recent past to help women who are on socialassistance to gain better access to the work force with allowingthem to keep the Pharmacard that they have while they are onsocial assistance, as they enter the work force and as they moveinto training to help them get back into the work force.

            So, Mr. Speaker, we have initiatives that we have justannounced.  There will be more initiatives in the future, and wewill work very hard with the women of Manitoba to try to get themback into the work force and off social assistance.


* (1050)


Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Agents' Fees


Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):  I am very pleased to rise bypopular demand.  I have a question this morning for the ministerresponsible for Autopac.

            Yesterday the minister said several times in this House thathe would not want to limit or cap increases in Autopac agencyfees because the compensation package was now being renegotiatedwith the agents.

            My question is:  If that is the case, why did MPIC include aproposal to limit commission increases to 3 percent in itsoriginal submission to the Public Utilities Board and as referredto on page 21 of the Public Utilities Board order?  ObviouslyAutopac was prepared to limit the increases to 3 percent until itwas overruled by cabinet.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):  Mr. Speaker, itwas a regulatory proposal, a change in the regulations.  Theprocess that was in place is as I have said, and the decision wasthat we would wait and see that process through.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justifyoverruling Autopac's decision to limit agency fee increases to 3percent when last week social service agencies, hospitals, schoolboards and other organizations received letters from this samegovernment saying they should expect no increase next year, oreven a cut?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, contrary to the way the previousadministration did business, this is a very open and transparentprocess.  As a matter of fact, the PUB, in its response to theapplication of the corporation, indicated that as part of itsresponse and as part of its application next year, it willdemonstrate how it is that it will be mitigating any changes thatwould be as a result of this rate.

Mr. Leonard Evans:  In this coming year, when a lot of people areasked to take a little less, will this minister explain to thepeople of Manitoba, why is there a difference in the government'sattitude towards hospitals and social service agencies on the onehand and the insurance agents on the other?

            Why should agents get a 10 percent increase in commissionswhen health, education and social service agencies are gettingnothing?

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the rates did not change.  This is incontrast, and I am sure one of the reasons the member is soupset‑‑I thought he was going to hurt himself the other day whenhe got up to ask the question‑‑is that they very clearly gotthemselves in a situation where they were behind the scenesmanipulating what was going on in the corporation.  This is atransparent and public process, and very clearly everything is onthe table in terms of any changes that corporations think about.

Chris Davis

Wheelchair Purchase


Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, Chris Davis,who has MS, was admitted to Victoria Hospital on May 7.  At leastfive months ago doctors said he could be released pending thepurchase of a specialized wheelchair and suitable housingplacement.  His unnecessary hospital stay has cost taxpayersapproximately $100,000 instead of $35,000, which includeswheelchair and housing, except for the fact that the Departmentsof Health, Family Services and Housing have been pointing fingersat one another and not taking responsibility.

            Mr. Speaker, Chris has had on loan from the company involvedthis specialized wheelchair.  That wheelchair will be shipped at5 p.m. today out of the province, meaning that Chris' delay interms of release into the community will go on for many moremonths and cost thousands of more dollars.

            I would like to ask the Minister of Health who has takenresponsibility for health care reform, if he will show hiscommitment to that reform initiative and ensure that thewheelchair is purchased today and not shipped out of this country.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I, as youcan well appreciate, do not have all the details as described bymy honourable friend.  I am prepared to take them from myhonourable friend, make sure that they are as presented and takewhat action I may be able to today.


Housing Placement


Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, Chris andothers on his behalf have been working with all three departmentsinvolved and getting nowhere.  I would like to know if theminister could give a commitment to the House and to Chris todaythat the wheelchair will not be shipped out of the province.  Iwould like that commitment on Chris' behalf and that suitablehousing placement can be found immediately.

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker, I gave ananswer to the first part of my honourable friend's question.  Thesecond part of my honourable friend's question is a much longerprocess which this government, in co‑operation with FamilyServices and the ministry of Housing, has been proactivelyworking on‑‑resolution of those very special placement facilitiesfor Manitobans in that circumstance.

            For my honourable friend to leave the impression that thisgovernment has done nothing belies the fact, because in fact thisgovernment is the first one in the history of the province, forinstance, to have a self‑managed care project for disadvantagedManitobans, disabled Manitobans to live independently in thecommunity under their own support and their own guidance andtheir own management.  So my honourable friend ought not to saythis government does nothing.  We have done substantial amountsin advancing the cause of those issues, those programs, thosepolicies, and to say we have not sort of does a disservice tothose professionals out there actively working on delivery ofthose kinds of programs.


Mental Health Care System

Reform Implementation


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

            This government has been talking about the reform of mentalhealth since 1988.  So far progress has been very slow.  Theminister told this House in May of this year the action plan willbe produced, fundamental health reform, by June.  That deadlinehas passed.

            Mr. Speaker, in January of this year, a press release fromthe minister said the reform would be implemented later thisyear, another deadline about to expire.

            Can the minister tell this House when we will see the resultsof the mental health reform?


Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Mr. Speaker,commencing in 1993, a number of initiatives have emanated fromsuggestions, a study of the issue by regional mental healthcouncils and analyzed by the ministry, analyzed by our provincialadvisory council on mental health reform and given, if I can putit in this language, a stamp of approval for proceeding intoimplementation.

            Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable friend's concern thatit has taken a substantial amount of time, but we have beendeliberate in that, in that we have tried to involve our regionalmental health councils which have been made up, Sir, ofcaregivers, government personnel, consumers of mental healthservices as well as family members.  That process has been a veryexcellent one, but it has not been one that we have had theability to nudge to quick completion, Sir.

            Mr. Speaker, I simply say to my honourable friend that theprocess has integrity and will proceed in the next calendar year.


Acute Care Services


Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Mr. Speaker, when the deadlinesare set, the expectations are raised and the people expectanswers.  Our simple question again is:  When will we see acutecare services for children, also promised by the minister thisyear?

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):  Well, I am unable toanswer with specifics with a general question like that, but thereform package includes a number of initiatives.  For instance,in Westman region, one of the focuses put by the Westman MentalRegional Health Council was a suggestion of reallocation ofcurrent resource into the provision of enhanced adolescentservices.  Possibly that is what my honourable friend is alludingto, and that is part of the proposal emanating from the Brandonand Westman Regional Mental Health Council.

Mr. Speaker:  The time for Oral Questions has expired.


* (1100)




Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  May I have leave to make anonpolitical statement? [agreed]

            I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate theManitoba Eco‑Network on the wonderful work they are doinggenerally and specifically about their Green Guide to Winnipeg,which was developed and launched last night at a book launch.  Ihad the chance to attend and bought a couple of copies.

            I will just say briefly that this is a guide to teach peoplein Winnipeg a little bit about shopping to save the planet.  Itdeals with environmentally safe cleaning, transportation,holidays, eating and grooming.  It also has some informationabout a safe office workplace.  It challenges us to start lookingcritically at our lifestyle, how to not make it so extravagantand wasteful and how to start living so that we merely meet ourneeds and not our greeds.

            It also deals with a few larger community issues aroundWinnipeg that are of concern to us all.  As part of mynonpolitical statement and to show the nonpartisan nature of mysentiments, I am going to present to the honourable Minister ofEnvironment, Mr. Cummings, a copy of the book as also a signal ofthe Christmas spirit and a sense that all of us have to takeresponsibility for ensuring that we restore and protect ourenvironment.  Thank you very much.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, may Imake a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

            Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas and co‑operation, Iappreciate the remarks that the Environment critic from the NDPhas just made.  I appreciate the work, obviously, that has goneinto that publication, and I look forward to reading it.





(Sixth 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‑‑[interjection] I havealready recognized the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.Martindale).  Order, please.  I will clarify this at once.  Thehonourable member for Turtle Mountain, are you figuring you arecontinuing from yesterday?

Mr. Bob Rose (Turtle Mountain):  May I complete my remarks fromyesterday?

Mr. Speaker:  That matter has been dealt with and voted on.

Mr. Rose:  May I then have 40 minutes on the new matter?

Mr. Speaker:  That will be on a new one, all right, but I willrecognize you later.  I have already recognized the honourablemember for Burrows‑‑

            Order, please.  For the honourable Madam Minister'sinformation, it is not to complete his speech.  He has completedhis speech yesterday on the subamendment.  We are dealing with anew matter at this time.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I wouldlike to congratulate the new members in the House, the member forPortage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) and also the returned memberfor Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and welcome them as other membershave done.  We look forward to working and co‑operating withthem.  I would also like to recognize and welcome the Pages andto say, as others have done, how impressed I have been,especially when they called out our names for a recorded vote anddid a perfect job.  Their memories are really quite amazing.

            I regret that we have lost two members since we were lasthere‑‑the member for Portage la Prairie, also known as "honestEd."  We enjoyed his presence and his candid remarks, especiallyin the Members' Lounge.

            We will also miss the member for Rupertsland and hiscontribution to debate and his contribution to the leadership ofaboriginal issues in Manitoba and indeed across Canada.  In fact,one of the reasons why he was not here on occasion was because hewas giving guest appearances and speeches across the country andeven internationally.  I think he made an important contributionto raising the awareness of aboriginal people about theirconstitutional rights and constitutional issues and also helpedto raise the awareness and even the consciousness ofnonaboriginal people in Canada.

            I believe there has been a sea change in opinions andattitudes in our society in the last two years on aboriginalrights issues, and I think that the change has been a positiveone, whereby more and more Canadians are willing to recognizethat we need to entrench the inherent right to self‑government inthe Constitution.  It is regrettable that that was not done thisyear, but we know that we and aboriginal people will not give upon this goal and that negotiations will continue and eventuallythey will achieve their goal and will become self‑governing inways in which they define and ways which are negotiated betweenprovincial governments and aboriginal people and the federalgovernment and aboriginal First Nations.

            Today many members are wearing the white ribbon as part ofthe white ribbon campaign.  We heard two speeches on that topictoday.  It is an important occasion and I would like to point outthat a federal member of Parliament, Dawn Black, the M.P. for NewWestminster‑Burnaby, successfully piloted Bill C‑202 through theHouse of Commons and into law.  Bill C‑202 established December 6as a national day of remembrance and action on violence againstwomen.

            I think we all know now that December 6 was the day in 1989when 14 young women were so tragically killed in Montreal atEcole polytechnique.  So it is fitting that every year at thistime we commemorate that tragedy and that we dedicate ourselvesand our institutions to eliminating violence against women.

            I think the significance of the white ribbon campaign by anational organization of Men Against Violence Against Women isthat this is the first time that men have taken a significantrole in declaring themselves against violence against women.  Wehope that continues and picks up support over the years so thateventually violence against women is completely eliminated.

            The throne speech this year was a rather interestingdocument, more for what it did not say than what it does say.  Infact, some of the statements are rather sweeping rhetoric.  Thegovernment talks about the winds of change sweeping the globe.Well, what are those winds of change?  Well, those winds ofchange include the collapse of financial empires like Olympia andYork.  They include the financial problems of airlines andrailroads and the trucking industry, mainly due to their ownpolicies of deregulation.  Those are the winds of change, thechanges that they began to initiate almost a decade ago.  Infact, it was not just Conservative governments that initiatedthose changes; it was also the Liberal federal government thatbegan the process of deregulation of railroads and airlines andthe trucking industry in Canada. [interjection]

            The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) likes to think that ifthe Liberals were still in government in Ottawa, we would be safefrom deregulation and life would be a lot better.  Well, theysupported deregulation, and now we are feeling the consequences.Why have we seen the collapse of the empire of Olympia and York?They overexpanded.  They were given easy credit by the banks.  Itwas all based falsely, I believe, on increased property values.When those property values dropped, they were in seriousfinancial problems and even bankruptcy.


* (1110)


            The government talks in their throne speech about meetingchallenges, and indeed I think we are all aware of the challengesexcept that the government did not talk about them in veryspecific terms in their throne speech.  The challenge really isthe large numbers of unemployed and the fact that we are in arecession, but this government does not want to use the word"recession" or to talk about the thousands and thousands ofManitobans who are unemployed.  The real challenge is to get themback into the paid labour force again, and we see a real lack ofideas and initiatives on the part of this government inaccomplishing that.

            They did say that Manitobans want a strong economy, and Ithink that is another euphemism for the fact that what Manitobanswant is jobs.  They talk about supporting vital human servicesupon which we all rely.  Well, they talk about it, but they donot do it.  There is a gap between their rhetoric and theiraction.  In fact, I used the word "hypocrisy" in Question Periodthe other day, because when one says one thing and does another,those actions are hypocritical.  I think the best example of thisis Bill 70 of the last session, the amendment to The SocialAllowances Act whereby the Province of Manitoba is offloading ahuge expense for social assistance to the City of Winnipeg,either by the city cutting their welfare benefits or byincreasing property taxes.

            The minister said that this was not going to happen.  We madecertain allegations about what the effect of the bill would be,and the minister denied that that would be the effect.  He saidthat we were alarmists, but now we know, because the regulationshave been announced, that we were right, that when theregulations were announced, it was true.  The province wasstandardizing social assistance rates, which had a positiveeffect for a few municipalities who were forced to raise theirsocial assistance rates, but the largest effect was a negativeeffect because, when social assistance rates were standardizedfor the City of Winnipeg, the result was that those rates weremuch lower, especially for families, in fact, in some categories,depending on the family size, as much as $3,000 a year lower.

            The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) knowsthat, and he chose to ignore it.  In fact, he denied that thatwould be the effect of his bill in the last session, but now thatthe regulations are announced we know that the City of Winnipegis faced with a very difficult choice of either reducing socialassistance rates in some cases by up to $3,000 a family per yearif they had to follow the provincial rates or to raise propertytaxes in order to pay the extra cost.

            This is a very difficult decision for the City of Winnipeg,the result of an irresponsible decision on the part of thisprovincial government.  On the one hand they criticize thefederal government for offloading, we hear that almost every dayfrom this government, especially from the Minister of Finance(Mr. Manness), but this Minister of Family Services has done thesame thing to the City of Winnipeg.

            The government in its throne speech talked about their plansfor economic renewal.  The problem we have is that it is an oldplan reannounced.  There is almost nothing new.  We think thatthis is irresponsible given that last year in 1991 the provinceof Manitoba was second last in economic performance out of allprovinces in Canada.

            In the throne speech the government talks about the internalreform of government.  Well, they have done that in theDepartment of Housing and it has been a disaster.  Not only didthey dissolve 98 public housing authorities and their boards andfire 600 unpaid board members, but they reorganized the staff.In fact, I think the sole purpose of the reorganization was tolay off staff to save money.  The government will not admitthat.  The Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) claimed that theywould save $3 million but has never been specific about how theywould save that $3 million.  We commend them for trying to save$3 million but not at the expense of laying off staff.

            I can tell the minister that the staff in the Department ofHousing are very unhappy.  In fact, I have been told by numerouspeople in Manitoba Housing, including people at the senior level,that staff morale is the worst it has ever been in the Departmentof Housing.  I get phone calls and I get letters from people whoare extremely unhappy and I cannot blame them.  The hiringprocess was a disaster, in my opinion.  People were asked toapply for new positions, no one's position was safe or secureexcept, I suppose, senior management, and many of those peopledid not know until Friday afternoon whether or not they had aposition to go to on Monday, and if they did, whether it would bea new position.  There were great difficulties in rehiring peoplefor new positions and in laying off people.  There have beennumerous complaints about favouritism in hiring.

            My belief is that the government used this as an opportunityto cherry pick, to hire the people that they liked and get rid ofpeople that they did not like.  This, I believe, is a most unfairway to treat employees.  The result is that we have people whoare suing the government for wrongful dismissal.  We have peoplewho are still there but who have launched grievances, and I havebeen told that the government is trying to renegotiate the unioncontract.  One of the things that they are trying to take out ofthe union contract is provisions regarding sexual harassment.They are already in the union contract and now they are trying toget rid of them.  I think that is a disgrace.  On the one hand wehave a cabinet minister standing up and talking about endingviolence against women, on the other hand we have the Departmentof Housing taking protection against sexual harassment out of theunion contract.  I think that is contradictory.

            In this Throne Speech Debate the government announced thatthe Manitoba Trading Corporation would be activated andrefocused.  We did a little research on this and discovered thatit was actually founded by the Schreyer government, so they werereinventing something that already existed.  It is difficult toget excited about announcements of things that already exist.

            The government once again announced the Crocus Fund anddescribed it, wrongly I believe, as newly established.  In factit was being negotiated by the NDP government in 1988, and it hasbeen announced in every throne speech since.  I think if thegovernment is serious about this kind of activity, and theyshould be‑‑we support the Crocus Fund‑‑then they should look atthe Manitoba Federation of Labour annual brief to the Manitobagovernment dated December 1992.

            The MFL says, this entity‑‑that is the Crocus Fund‑‑typifieswhat can come of joint action and co‑operation when a commitmentis made to work towards a mutually beneficial goal.  Developing astrong labour legislation fabric will benefit working people intheir communities and there needs to be simultaneous developmentin other areas.

            MFL has some recommendations which, I think, are ofparticular interest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).They recommend a formal commitment by government and business toan industrial strategy that results in full employment, anindustrial strategy with sufficient resources to allow for thedevelopment of specific sectoral programs, a labour forcetraining program that would incorporate pre‑job, on‑the‑job andjob‑change education, training and retraining initiatives and theintegration of employment‑oriented initiatives such as pay equityand the redesign of existing legislation such as The EmploymentStandards Act, so that they are complementary of, and aresupported by the overall industrial relations strategy.

            So there is much more, in addition to the Crocus Fund, thatthis Minister of Labour could work on if he was interested and ifhe was willing to co‑operate with labour rather than just thisTory government's business cronies.  For example, we have beenrecommending that this government have an economic summit andthat they bring together all the partners:  government andbusiness and labour.


* (1120)


            Recently the government had a meeting to which a very smallnumber of labour people were invited.  It was not to talk aboutcommon concerns and initiatives, it was to go and listen tospeeches rather than to brainstorm and to create new ideas.

            If this government is really serious about economicinitiatives, they would co‑operate with labour instead of leavinglabour out and only co‑operating with their business friends.What we need is a new partnership that includes all three, notjust two of the three partners.

            In the throne speech this government talks about investmentin infrastructure and talks about capital expenditures butnowhere in this document do they talk about investment inpeople.  It is totally lacking.

            They are cutting courses in community colleges.  They areattacking people who are also a resource.  I think the governmenthas a focus which is way too narrow.  It includes business as anarea for investment but leaves out people as an area forinvestment.

            It is my belief, and our belief, that if this governmentwould invest in people, for example putting more money intoeducation rather than cutting the Education budget by $17 millionand putting more money into training and retraining programs,that investment would pay off in the future down the road.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert):  Where would we get themoney from, Rev?

Mr. Martindale:  The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)asks, where would we get the money?  Well, let me give anexample.  The City of Winnipeg civil servants met with officialsin the Department of Family Services and they said, we want tocost‑share employment training programs such as the Dutch ElmDisease control program.  They said, we want to take people offsocial assistance and put them in this job training program, andwe want to take people who are heads of households of largefamilies.  I believe they said, we want 64 positions.  Theprovince only agreed to hire 32.  The City of Winnipeg said itwould be cheaper to pay people on the Dutch Elm Disease controlprogram than to pay people social assistance to stay home.

            So when people talk to me and they say, what is thisgovernment doing about job creation, I say, well, the City ofWinnipeg asked them to take people off social assistance and putthem to work and this government said no.  They would not createas many positions as were asked for, and they are paying peopleto stay home and paying them more money to sit home and collectsocial assistance than to work on the Dutch Elm Disease controlprogram. [interjection] If the minister believes that my factsare wrong I would be happy to correct the record, because I gotthis information from a senior official in the social servicesdepartment of the City of Winnipeg, and I stand by it.  If theminister would like to send me information so that I can correctmy views, I would be happy to receive information from him.[interjection] Thank you, Mr. Minister.

            In the throne speech, this government talks about health careindustries.  If this government was really interested inconsumers and keeping people's costs down, they would have beenopposed to the federal government extending patent protection forthe drug companies that produce patent drugs and would havesupported consumers and supported the generic drug industry whichwant to keep costs down for consumers.

            This government talks about competition in long distancetelephone services.  What this really means is higher domesticphone rates and layoffs for civil servants, hundreds of employeesat MTS are going to be forced to take early retirement or will bewithout a job altogether.

            This government talks about tourism and says that they planto introduce Sunday shopping on a trial basis.  Well, we aregetting phone calls about that.  We are the only party that isgoing to oppose the Sunday shopping legislation.  There are, Ibelieve, two major reasons for opposing this.  One is that wesupport the view of those people who want a day of rest for a dayof worship.  We know that this is having an adverse effect onindividuals who are being forced to work on Sunday and whotherefore are having to make a very tough choice in tougheconomic times about whether they are going to go to worship onSunday morning or whether they are going to work because theiremployer forces them to work.

            I have already had one phone call from somebody at OxfordStreet United Church who said that one of their members wasforced to work and therefore cannot sing in the choir.  Anothermember was forced to work and therefore cannot teach Sundayschool. [interjection] The new member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.Pallister) questions me on "forced to work."  Well, let meexplain it to the new member.  I have talked to cashiers atSafeway and said, what is your company's policy?  If you wereasked to work on Sunday, what happens if you say no?  Well, theresult is that you do not get more hours.  In fact, you areprobably giving up hours.  You are going to get fewer hoursbecause the company will find somebody else to work or they willhire more part‑time employees or more university students, whichmeans that people who are working, especially single parents, tosupport their families, are going to have less hours, rather thanmore.

            I have read the government's bill and it talks about choiceand how employees can refuse to work hours on Sunday, but it isnot realistic and it is not enforceable.  The real fact is thatpeople do not have a choice because if they turn down the hoursthey will not be given additional hours.  So we are going tooppose the Sunday shopping legislation because it denies theopportunity for people to spend time together as families one daya week and it forces people to work or to receive less hours.

            We are also opposed to the fact that it is going to beretroactive legislation.  This legislation will probably be oneof the last bills to pass in this session, probably late in Juneor July or August, depending on how long we are here, and it willbe retroactive to November.  It is going to be at least sixmonths retroactive if not eight or nine months retroactive.Because we are opposed to this legislation, we are opposed to itsretroactivity.

            We will have much more to say about Sunday shoppinglegislation.  In fact, I had a phone call just this morning fromone of my constituents who said that there are three people inher family, all of whom are working and they do not want to beforced to work on Sunday.  They believe that when they are, it iscausing a strain in family relationships.  I think that issomething this government should be concerned about.

            In fact, this government likes to talk about family values,they like to think of themselves as the protector of familyvalues but through this legislation they are attacking the veryvalues that they claim to promote.  I look forward to hearing thedebate from the minister. [interjection] The memberfor‑‑somewhere, one of those yellow dog ridings in southernManitoba.  We look forward to hearing their arguments because wewill have opportunity to rebut them.  Their constituents aregoing to agree with us, not with them.  I think those ruralmembers are in a very tough position, because the merchants intheir towns are opposed to this as well as their constituents.The business community in many of those instances are opposed tothis legislation as well as churches and individuals who do notwant to work on Sunday.

            This government continues to brag about the fact that theyhave not raised taxes in, I believe, five budgets.  Well, if theyare simply talking about income taxes, on the surface it appearsthat is true, but when you examine it, it is quite clear that itis not true.  Every time the federal government raises incometaxes, our provincial income taxes go up automatically, so therehave been increases in provincial income taxes.  In addition,this government is offloading to the City of Winnipeg, they areoffloading to boards of education and the result is thatmunicipalities, school boards and cities are raising theirproperty taxes and user fees and all kinds of other taxes.

            It is not accurate and it is not true to say that theConservative government has not raised taxes.  In fact, theyhave.  They have just been sneaky about it and they have done itthrough the back door because they do not have the guts to do itthrough the front door.  When they are raising taxes byoffloading to property taxpayers or ratepayers, they are raisingtaxes in the most regressive way because it is not based on theability to pay.  It is only based on the property that one owns.

            Under Education and Training in the throne speech thegovernment talks about offering options to parents forflexibility in choosing the public school best suited to theneeds of their child.  We will be waiting to see if there islegislation to outline this.  We have some concerns about it, butwe will wait and see exactly what they say.


* (1130)


            We are concerned about the overall trend and trends of thisgovernment, because what we see is that they are providing moreand more support to elite private schools and inadequatelyfunding public education.  Recently I had occasion to read theprospectus for St. John's‑Ravenscourt and it is veryinteresting.  When you read this document it is quite interestingbecause in several places, and I wish I had it here to quote, ittalks about their students being university bound.  I think thatprobably 99 percent of their students are university bound.

            I would like to ask why do they not cater to all students.Well, there is a very obvious answer to that question and that isthat all students cannot afford to go to St. John's‑Ravenscourt.Only the children of rich parents can afford to go to St.John's‑Ravenscourt.

            These schools are not accepting students who are slowlearners.  I would wonder if they are accepting handicappedstudents.  I would wonder if they accept any students who do notfit into their mold of being university bound.  So not only arethey elite according to how much it costs to attend them, forexample, it is about $7,500 a year now to attend St.John's-Ravenscourt, but they are also elite because they onlyaccept certain kinds of students, those students who are boundfor university.

            If they accepted all kinds of students, then they might havea better case for having public funding.  Since they do not andsince they are not forced to but since they are not accountableto this government, then we have a very serious concern about theelitist nature of these private schools.

            Another issue that I am sure the Minister of Education andTraining (Mrs. Vodrey) is well aware of is the end of choice ofcourses at the Grade 10 level beginning with English.  In fact, Iam on an area advisory council of parents, the Sisler-RosserAdvisory Council, and we would like to get the Minister ofEducation to come out to one of the high schools in northWinnipeg and defend her policy, because all of the parentswithout any exceptions on that advisory council are opposed tothis policy.  We believe that it is going to be extended to othersubjects and to Grade 11.

            We would like to know why the Minister of Education is doingthis.  I have not heard the rationale, but I would like to knowwhat it is and whether or not it is defensible.

An Honourable Member:  What are they doing?

Mr. Martindale:  My colleague asks, what are they doing?  Well,my understanding is that in the past, there has always been achoice of three levels of courses in, for example, Grade 10English.  Now this government is going to take away those choicesand offer one level of English for all Grade 10 students, whetherthose students are heading for university or whether they aregoing to be in the job force in a year or two.

            We believe that is the wrong direction to go.  I would liketo hear the rationale.  I would like to hear the minister defendher policy.  I know that many, many parents in north Winnipegwould like to hear her defend that policy as well.  It is a veryhot issue out in the community, and this government should payattention to it and should either change the policy or modify itor rethink it before going ahead.

            The government talks about quality health care for Manitoba,and they have embarked on health care reform.  Well, we agreewith the government that health care needs reform from time totime, but we have some serious questions about the direction thathealth care reform is taking.  In fact, I had a call from one ofmy constituents, who nurses in one of the hospitals in the HealthSciences complex, which is also in Burrows constituency, and thisindividual had some serious questions about what is happening.

            For example, in their department they are having staff laidoff.  In spite of that, they are dealing with seriousovercrowding.  In fact, there are patients from other units andother wards on their ward because of overcrowding, so thisindividual is saying, how can you possibly lay off staff, when weare already seriously overcrowded?  It does not make sense.  Somepatients from some hospitals are going to be sent to otherhospitals.  The doctors are saying, how can that happen?  We donot have admitting privileges there.  I suppose those patientsare going to be forced to change doctors.  I think we are goingto have a lot of very unhappy senior citizens if that choice istaken away from people.

            This government talks about health promotion, illnessprevention and disability postponement.  We agree that those aregood things to be talking about and they should be doingsomething about it.  If they wanted to put some action behindtheir words, what they would do would be to proclaim theantisniff bill which was unanimously passed, I believe, in 1989,and yet it has been waiting and waiting and waiting and nothingis happening.

            The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) refuses to proclaim it.It is sitting on his desk gathering dust and nothing is beingdone.  This week, very tragically, we had another death inWinnipeg from someone who was apparently sniffing.

            So the tragedy of young people who die from substance abusecontinues, and as a doctor from the Health Sciences pointed out,sniffing is a very difficult problem to treat medically.  I knowfrom having been involved in the antisniff coalition that thereare almost no treatment facilities for adolescents who abusesolvents and other sniff products.

            So we would like to see some action from this government.  Webelieve in health promotion.  We believe in illness preventionand disability postponement.  One way of doing that in fact, notjust promoting wellness but preventing deaths, would be toproclaim the antisniff legislation and stop the tragedy of peopledying from inhaling sniff products.

            The Throne Speech Debate talks about strengthening andsupporting Manitoba families.  However, the truth is that manyfamilies are in very serious difficulty, and amongst those arethe people who are using food banks.  The number of people usingfood banks is going up all the time.  For example, the communitycoalition on unemployment has some statistics.  They say that30,000 people used the 175 food bank outlets in Winnipeg in thepast year, a 300 percent increase over the previous year.

            The City of Winnipeg welfare rolls increased by 42 percentfrom June 1991 to June 1992, a 148 percent rise from 1983, andManitoba has the highest provincial child poverty rate in Canada,but they just do not talk about what the problem is, they alsotalk about solutions.

            They say, and I quote, what is the solution?  As necessary asthey have been made, food banks are not the solution.  They are asymptom of the underlying problem.  Unemployment is the one majorcause of hunger and poverty.  We must focus our efforts on jobcreation and commit ourselves to providing meaningfulemployment.  We urge the Filmon government to adopt a policy offull employment.

            This is what the community coalition on unemployment ispromoting.  While this government continues to offload expensesto the City of Winnipeg and forces them to make tough choiceslike increasing property taxes or decreasing social assistancerates, more and more food bank outlets are opening.

            In the Winnipeg Free Press of November 25, 1992, a headlinesays, parents run food bank in school.  This school is WilliamWhyte School, located in the constituency of the member for PointDouglas (Mr. Hickes) and adjacent to the boundaries for Burrows.

            In the Free Press of several months ago we have headlines:small town pride makes people balk at food bank use.  We have astory about a new food bank opening in Roblin, Manitoba, andthere has been a food bank open in Ile des Chenes.  There hasbeen a food bank open in a number of rural communities in recentmonths as people are forced to turn to alternatives to the socialassistance system.

            In fact, I must make a phone call to an individual, I believefrom Steinbach, who came into Winnipeg to get food at WinnipegHarvest and as a result is starting to set up a food bank in hercommunity.  She said that the staff in Family Services referredher to a food bank outlet.  I think that is a dangerous thing tobe doing.

            We believe, and I think Canadians believe, that socialassistance is a support program of last resort, that it is thereto support people when they are in a time of need.  In fact, theCanada Assistance Plan, federal legislation, says that Canadians'basic needs for food, shelter and clothing shall be met.

            We believe that should be happening through the socialassistance system and not through charity and band‑aid solutionssuch as food banks.  I have participated in one of those outletsfor many years and I believe that occasionally it is necessary toget people through a crisis, but we do not believe that foodbanks are a permanent solution to the problem of hunger.  Theunderlying problem is inadequate income and the solution to thatis not food banks but to provide adequate income so people canbuy what they need.


* (1140)


            Fortunately, there are some changes going on in thecommunity, for example, at Anishinabe food club they have decidedto make what I think is a fundamental change and a good change.We are glad to see it coming, and that is that, instead ofhanding out so much food from Winnipeg Harvest, they are going toform a food buyers' club and they are going to buy food in bulkfrom Neechi Foods Community Store, the aboriginal food store onDufferin Avenue.  They are going to help people to save money bybuying in bulk and reduce people's dependency on the free handoutof food banks.

            In fact, the inadequacy of the food banks is illustrated bythis woman, I believe from Steinbach, who was referred to thefood bank at Iles des Chenes and came away with four dozendonuts.  I believe it is a single parent with four children.  Itshows the total inadequacy of food banks as a solution to theproblem of hunger and the inadequacy of income.

            It is my hope that other churches and agencies in the innercity, and I have already talked to North End Community Ministrystaff, will follow the example of Anishinabe and will encouragepeople to form food buyers' clubs, some of which alreadyexist‑‑for example, the St. Matthews‑Maryland CommunityMinistry‑‑and will help people to buy food in bulk and to spendtheir money at the beginning of the month on buying food so thatat the end of the month they are not forced to go to food banks.It is an excellent alternative and it is one which all of usshould be assisting and promoting.

            The throne speech talks about the office of Children'sAdvocate.  This is legislation that we passed during the lastsession; however, we still have a problem with this legislationand with the office of the Children's Advocate because thisoffice is not independent.  The new person will report to theMinister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) rather than to theLegislature.  I believe that we will be introducing a privatemember's bill to amend the current legislation so that thisChildren's Advocate will be independent and will report directlyto the Legislature.

            The throne speech talks about co‑management programs withFirst Nations to assist in protecting wildlife populations inManitoba.  I believe this is a good idea and one that needs to bepursued with all First Nations in the province of Manitoba.

            Frequently people talk to me about aboriginal rights and theybring up areas that are contentious and problematic in thecurrent context, but when you explain to them some of thesolutions such as co‑management agreements, people are quitehappy to hear about that.  They have not been forced onmunicipalities or First Nations.  My understanding is that theyhave been negotiated, that they have been mutually acceptable toboth sides and that where they are in existence, they are workingwell.  I certainly hope that is the case.  We need more of thosebecause I believe that is the kind of solution that the publicare looking for and the kind of solution that is workable.

            The government talks about a strong and prosperous future.They believe that competition brings progress and growth.  Iregret that this government believes that only competition bringsprogress and growth.  We in this party have always believed thatthere is another way, and we believe a better way, and that isthe route of co‑operation.  The example that I used was our callfor an economic summit that involves all partners in thisprovince, not just government and business but also includeslabour, because all of us want progress and growth for thisprovince.  There are many ways to achieve it, not just one way.

            The problem with this government is that when they talk aboutgrowth and development, they have a limited vision.  All they seeis economic growth and development.  We think they should broadentheir focus and include growth and development of people as anatural resource.

            In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this thronespeech is quite inadequate.  It consists of inadequate promises.It is bankrupt of ideas.  It says nothing about the AboriginalJustice Inquiry report and does not take into account the realneeds and problems of Manitobans, especially those who areunemployed.  Therefore I will be supporting my Leader's amendmentto this throne speech.  I hope that the Liberal Party willsupport it as well, since we supported their amendment.  We lookforward to continuing debate on the throne speech.  Thank you.

Mr. Speaker:  The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye):  I would like to extend mycongratulations to you on the resumption of your duties of yourhigh office.  You will no doubt continue to preserve order anddecorum in this Assembly.  I would also like to congratulate mycolleague the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) onthe resumption of her duties as Deputy Speaker.  Her patience andwisdom have and will serve this Assembly well I am sure.

            I would also like to welcome my new colleague, Mr. BrianPallister, from Portage la Prairie.  His addition to thisLegislative Assembly and to our caucus is definitely a welcomeone.  I would also like to welcome Avis Gray, the MLA forCrescentwood, to the Legislature and wish her well.

            Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome the new Pages.Trevor Rudge's grandparents, Jock and Joan Tod, of course, arevery good friends of mine and live within my constituency in thearea of West Hawk Lake.  Very good people, very nice people.  Iknow, because I have talked to them, that they are really veryproud of Trevor.  Gaetane Manaigre is also a constituent of mineand a new Page in this Assembly‑‑coming from Lorette.  For allthe Pages, an experience of learning the workings of theLegislature firsthand will be a valuable contribution to theireducation.

            I would also like to mention that I feel fortunate to workwith the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) ashis legislative assistant.  It has been and I am sure it willcontinue to be a super experience.

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

            Madam Deputy Speaker, I represent the constituents of LaVerendrye.  The constituency of La Verendrye is extremely diversein its people and its economy.  It ranges from agriculturalproduction in the central region to tourism in the east.  Theagricultural sector of La Verendrye has undergone some extensivechanges over the last number of years.

            One of the most significant has been in hog production.After much research and development, we now produce hogs withmuch leaner meat contributing to healthier meat for Manitobans,Canadians and indeed for export.

            Our hogs are of such a high standard, they are frequentlysought by markets throughout the world.  This is a tribute toboth the constituents of La Verendrye and to Manitoba hogproducers.  As noted in the Speech from the Throne, Manitobafarmers bring the best products in the world to market, and this,Madam Deputy Speaker, is a first‑rate example.

            Part of the constituency I represent also includes, as I havementioned, West Hawk Lake and Falcon Lake and other surroundingtourist attractions.  Tourism in Manitoba is approximately a $900million industry.  This area of Manitoba contributessignificantly to that figure.  Local businesses throughout theWhiteshell in many instances are open year round to service andaccommodate both residents and tourists.  I think that all peoplewithin this area should be applauded and commended for thecontribution they make towards the tourism industry in Manitoba.

            If I just might mention, in the wintertime now we seefunctions or things happening out in that area, and I justmention the Can‑Am International Trail which indeed brings manytourists from the United States, Ontario and other parts of thecountry into our province.  It starts this year in West Hawk Lakeand will end in Roseau, but the day before it starts off in WestHawk Lake they will be having a tour of the Whiteshell, anorganized tour for anybody who wishes to see our trailsthroughout the Whiteshell, see the beautiful countryside.  Alsothe day after the ride ends in Roseau, there will also be a ridethere to show off the trails within Roseau.  It is definitely agood thing and you see people join hands across the border intrying to help each other in this way.


* (1150)


            Madam Deputy Speaker, our province is known for hostingworld‑class events, and this summer I had the pleasure ofattending and opening the Canadian round of world motorcycletrials in Rennie.  As I have said, it was a world‑class eventattended by tourists and participants from around the world.  Theevent exposed Manitoba to a world audience and proved, throughinitiative and through the greatest resource in the province, ourpeople, that Manitoba is a place for viable ventures.  It is anexample of our capacity to host attractions of internationalcalibre.

            I talked to many of the contestants after they had competedand I talked to judges also, and they told me that the route thatwe had set out in the Whiteshell was indeed the toughest coursein the world.  After the ride the participants, you could see,definitely knew it was.  Unfortunately we had a lot of rain thatday, and although it might not have bothered the participants alot, it cut down on the numbers of people who were there to watchit.  We still had a very substantial number of people there, butit would have been, I am sure, a lot better.

            People, Madam Deputy Speaker, have always been our greatestresource.  Construction of the Dawson Route is an example ofthis.  The Dawson Route, part of which runs through theconstituency of La Verendrye, was an all‑Canadian route fromThunder Bay to the Red River district of southern Manitoba.  Thewestern end of the Dawson Route runs 115 miles from the northwestcorner of the Lake of the Woods to Ste. Anne, Manitoba, and then,of course, it came on through Lorette and, in fact, right up toWinnipeg.

            The route was Canada's first attempt‑‑and let me remind youthat there have been several‑‑to open up communications with theEast and the West.  In fact, a cairn stands today outside of theSte. Anne Municipal Building in Ste. Anne, a commemoration of theroute's construction.  Stories abound of the disturbancesencountered during the route's construction, stories of humansuffering, of human diligence and human accomplishment.Constituents of La Verendrye and indeed countless otherManitobans continue the legacy started by their forefathers.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with great attention to thethrone speech last Thursday as did all of my colleagues on thisside of the House.  From the comments made by the other side, Iam not sure what they in fact were paying attention to.

            As a representative from rural Manitoba, I have particularconcerns for the strengthening of the rural economy.  Theinitiatives developed by this government, the Rural DevelopmentGrow Bonds and the Rural Economic Development Initiatives are twoexamples of the direction our government has taken with respectto economic renewal and sustainable growth.

            The Town of Teulon in the constituency of Gimli representedby my colleague Mr. Helwer has taken full advantage of theopportunity available to them through the Grow Bonds.  Also, letit be noted that the Grow Bonds program recently contributed to acompany locating in Portage la Prairie, the honourable member forPortage la Prairie's (Mr. Pallister) constituency, creating 22jobs in the spin‑off thereof.

            I would just like to mention a few projects that were ongoingin my constituency this past year.  Fresh water is a veryvaluable thing these days throughout the world and especially onthe North American continent.  We have been working with a groupin the municipality of Whitemouth in putting in a water line fromSeven Sisters to Whitemouth, with co‑operation and funding fromboth provincial and federal governments and then indeed themunicipal government.

            I have also another water line that we are working on to getgoing and that is driven by the municipality of Ritchot.Actually this water line will do two very important things,something that we have been working on for a number of years andeven the previous government was faced with this problem, andthat was the flooding around the New Bothwell springs.  Thiswater line will indeed correct that and give fresh water,beautiful water to a community and communities that in the futureneed it.  The spin-off, of course, from that is jobs.  It isreally a nice thing to see when you can, in fact, not justcorrect one problem but complete another thing.

            Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, the provincial government,through its combined commitment with Ayerst Organics Ltd. and thefederal government, has contributed to the creation of over 1,000jobs in construction, farm operations and directly relatedindustries.

            What have the NDP got to offer Manitobans?  Honestly, we havenot heard anything, and this is indeed the start of the fourthsession. [interjection] It would be hard to explain to thatmember, but I will do my best in the next few minutes.

            Obviously more of the same NDP mismanagement that mycolleague from Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) pointed out a few days ago inthis Assembly.  Their theory, spend, spend, spend.  Madam DeputySpeaker, somewhere there has to be a stop.  We collect so muchmoney, and it will cover certain particular things.

            The Jobs Fund, a fund that Mr. Doer wants to reinstate, areturn to the fiasco of the Jobs Fund would in fact jeopardizethe province's credit rating.  As we are well aware, one of theways in which a government's economic development strategy ismeasured is by provincial credit rating.  In 1984, Standard andPoor's credit agency reduced Manitoba's credit rating to AA minusbecause of the 1984 NDP budget's projected deficit.

            In 1985, the province's overall performance was reviewed byMoody's Investors Service and Manitoba's credit rating was againdowngraded, this time to a minus 1, which by the way, probablycost Manitoba an additional $7 million on that year's borrowingrequirements.

            In July of 1986, the province was placed on a credit watch byStandard and Poor's again because of the anticipated deficit,Madam Deputy Speaker.  Can Manitoba afford to deal with thefiasco of the NDP fiscal irresponsibility?  I do not think so.

            In listening to a number of the opposition members speakingto the throne speech, they keep on mentioning that we have beenin government for four to five years.  We have been there, yes,but is it not funny how we forget what fiscal changes can be donewhen you are sitting with a minority government?  Fiscaldirection that has been developed now would never have beenpassed or had a chance to mature under a minority government.Never.  So when you say five years, say it in a truthful fashionif you possibly could.


* (1200)


            Another means of helping strengthen the rural economy inmaintaining its viability is through some of ourdecentralization.  The government of Manitoba is committed todecentralizing some government services to rural Manitoba inorder that it can serve Manitobans more effectively.

            The town of Ste. Anne, Manitoba in my constituency recentlyopened new government offices that will house 20 governmentemployees and actually four decentralized jobs.  Actually wemoved some government employees from the Health and FamilyServices out of a dungeon that I would assume that the NDP putthem in, where in fact the services could not be utilized by thepeople that use them.

            The additional wages and spinoff from the jobs will be verybeneficial to the town and the surrounding area.  This is anotherexample of the government's commitment to the decentralizationprogram.  More than 500 government positions have beendecentralized to date.  The decentralization initiative bringsservices closer to Manitobans who use them.  I believe, MadamDeputy Speaker, that rural communities must be maintained andrural community living enhanced.  My government is committed tothis belief.  My government believes in rural Manitobans, butindeed we believe in all Manitobans.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, there was reference in the thronespeech to the government's implementation of measures to controland dispose of hazardous waste.  It was also stated that thehazardous waste management centre in the R.M. of Montcalm is nowproceeding.  This is another way that the government of Manitobais showing its commitment to the environment.  This is ourposition, but what of the NDP's?  The NDP's record in terms ofhazardous waste is nothing but dismal; in fact, I have heard itdescribed as an absolute disaster.  In 1983, more than a yearafter a promised cleanup, Weston area boulevards still containdangerous levels of lead.  The dispute:  Who should pay thebill?  Who should pay for the cleanup, the provincial or themunicipal governments?

            I could also mention the Repap, but then we have heard itmentioned so many times in this House and, like many otherthings, the NDP have never answered to it.

            The NDP, Madam Deputy Speaker, claim that the environment istheir main priority, in fact, a priority over economicdevelopment, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) statedduring the May 1989 Throne Speech Debate.  It seems to me thatthe environment is not a priority to them, and the example I havejust stated shows the NDP's policies are wrought withinconsistencies.

            However, there is one thing that we can be assured of andthat is the consistent record of the NDP with respect to thedeficit.  It rose consistently under the NDP, leaving thegovernment of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba in a verytenuous position.  Like I said, their theory is just spend,spend, spend.  But, my friends, it is coming to an end and Ithink it is time we all came to that reality.  It is like a noosearound our children's throat and as long as the NDP spend, spend,spend philosophy continues, the noose will continue to tighten.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, the NDP increased taxes at least 15times.  I heard 17 the other day.  Just saying 17 times, it isquick, eh?  Let us just take a fast look.  In 1982, theyincreased personal income tax, increased the insurance premiumstax, increased the bank corporate tax rate and introduced apayroll tax.

            In 1983, they increased personal taxes again, increasedcorporate income taxes and increased provincial sales taxes.

            In 1984, they increased corporate income tax.  In 1985,increased personal income taxes yet again.

            In 1986, they increased personal income taxes, increased bankcorporate capital tax and increased corporate capital tax oninvestment.

            In 1987, they increased personal income taxes, increased thepayroll tax, increased the corporate income taxes, increased theprovincial sales taxes, introduced a land transfer tax, andintroduced a corporate capital tax surcharge.  Among the taxescreated, and I have mentioned an increase, was the payroll tax.

            Now, it does not make sense to create a tax that punishes thecreation of jobs.  I know that Mr. Doer has heard this beforebut, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is of the utmost importance that wenot forget from whence we came.  I guess we have heard it saidbefore, and we talk about it on Remembrance Day, lest we forget,and I say it today, lest we forget.

            The Progressive Conservative Party under the guidance andleadership of the Honourable Gary Filmon has by far outperformedthe record of the NDP.

            The deficit for 1988‑89 was $141.3 million, $142.4 million in1989‑90, under our government.  The deficit increased in '90‑91,and in '91‑92 and will increase for '92‑93.  However the deficitis still lower in real terms than it was 10 years ago.  Ourgovernment remains committed to Manitobans.  There have been noincreases in personal income taxes during this government's timein office.  The efficiency and good management of our limitedfinancial resources by the Premier and our government will laythe groundwork for building a stronger tomorrow.  The NDP on theother hand actually decry the importance of efficiency and goodmanagement.  In March of 1988, the president of the Manitoba NDPstated:  We are the party that will do things for people ratherthan insisting on some concept of efficiency or good managementwhich is vague at best.

            (Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

            Mr. Speaker, our government's use of efficiency and goodmanagement has been anything but vague and has enabled thegovernment to proceed in a direction that is beneficial to allManitobans.


            * (1210)


            Mr. Speaker, our government is composed of individuals fromall walks of life.  The backgrounds of the members on this sideof the House are varied, and it brings me to something that hasbeen said a number of times since we came back into this Chamberjust a few days ago.  After three sessions of watching anopposition party, I guess it is infighting within their party andyou can see a very disorganized party.  I figured that afterthree sessions we would come back to this Assembly and we wouldsee perhaps a little bit of regrouping.  Perhaps we would seesome very sharp questions to our ministers and to our government.

            However, what we have seen are unsubstantiated accusationsand comments.  I would just like to draw your attention to acomment made by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).  Veryinteresting.  I would like the members from the oppositionbenches and all members and Manitobans to listen very closely.This is the honourable Marianne Cerilli for Radisson who isspeaking here, and I quote:  I hate to say it, but when I lookacross at the benches opposite, I see a bunch of old white guys.

            Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting how the members in theopposition benches sit there and they laugh with glee, withabsolute glee?  It is definitely a racist, sexist and there isage discrimination there, but they laugh with glee.  It alsoshows a complete lack of‑‑[interjection]‑‑elderly people by theopposition benches. [interjection] That is possible.

            She also goes on to say that this is the impression that I amfaced with on a daily basis.  I know that there are members onthe opposite side who are representative of the female gender,but the percentage of women on that side of the House‑‑continuesand then she kind of faded off somewhere.  I am not sure what shewas doing.

            What she was insinuating though was that in fact there was alarger percentage of the female gender on that side of theAssembly as compared to ours, which is totally false once again.Totally false.

            She goes on to say:  I do not believe that their caucus trulyrepresents the diversity of our society because we do, I thinkshe says, more accurately represent the diversity in our society.

            Now, I have to point out to you the background of some of ourmembers, and she can compare it to the ranks of her members inher side of the House.  But let me say this, I do not knock thebackground of any member in this Assembly.  It is obvious thatshe does.

            Let us just take a look.  We have an economist; we have anauctioneer; we have farmers; we have lawyers; we have teachers;principals, school board trustees, business people, formercouncillors and mayors, homemakers, real estate salesmen,insurance agents, court reporter, nurses, psychologist, stewardand vice‑president of a union, chartered accountant.  We have adoctor too; we have chartered accountants, car salesmen.

            We have engineers; we have ranchers, meat inspectors, auniversity professor, labour people, market gardeners, mechanics,sugar beet farmers, private investigators, artist, writer andauthor, pilots, historians, university degrees of variousdisciplines, and Mr. Speaker, we have five, very finerepresentatives on our side of the House who represent indeed thefemales of our society, and I am very, very proud of them.

            Accusations such as these are becoming commonplace from theNDP ranks.  They do not know that the people of Manitoba areindeed watching.

An Honourable Member:  Do your job and make sure they do notforget.

Mr. Sveinson:  I will not let them forget.  After showing youjust how diverse the backgrounds of all our members are, it showsthat we indeed do represent Manitobans from all walks of life.In other words, our government is very representative of thepeople of Manitoba.

            Enough comments about the silliness from across the way.  Iwould just like to say a few words on‑‑

An Honourable Member:  You really misrepresented us.

Mr. Sveinson:  Yes, yes indeed.  There are a number of thingsthat I believe we in society have to do.  We must remember whenwe are talking about government, and I mean people of Manitoba,all people of Manitoba, government is government.  We have seenlines drawn in the past, many years back between federalgovernment, provincial government; provincial government andmunicipal; school board, hospitals and so on.  It is like eachone trying to protect their turf, if you will, trying to say infact we want our fair share.  Now, I guess what it does is, itforces us into a protectionist way, if you will.  This is not tosay that this is just a PC government, or NDP government orLiberal government.  That is in fact how it has gone over thepast many years.

            Things that we can do:  It has been mentioned by our memberfor Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), pride, pride in our work, pride inour people, pride in our country, pride in our province, in ourtowns, our cities, our areas.  It is very important because weare losing.  We are losing jobs and we must ask why.  Well, it isvery simple.  It is very simple why‑‑

An Honourable Member:  Free trade.

Mr. Sveinson:  The member over here says free trade.  It justshows the understanding the member has.  The fact is that we losejobs because we are not competitive on the open market and we dohave to remain competitive.  It has to be.  It is not justhappening here.  It is not just happening in Canada, in Manitoba;it is happening around the world.  We have to remain competitive;in the type of global economy that we have today it is even moreimperative.

            Attempts to instill or bring back pride to Canadians andpeople within our areas is very important.  Also, ourcommunities, instead of crying, crying for government to lookafter all problems, all problems from home and, in fact in thecommunities, has to be a thing that, we have to take ownershipfor problems, some problems in fact relating to alcohol, drug andsubstance abuse is one.

            I travelled all over Manitoba and talked to many Manitobanswith a committee.  It was just a short time back, and in fact thepeople of our communities, of our schools, of our areas, aretaking ownership and are doing a super job and I commend them,and that is something else that we have to do.  People within ourcommunities, volunteers, firefighters, ambulance people, police,people like that have to be commended for the volunteer work thatthey are doing.  They are doing a super job, in fact we cannot dowithout it.  Just believe this, if we had to pay for thevolunteer work that goes on especially in the rural areas wewould have deficits that would probably far surpass what istoday, so we have to commend them and ask them to continue.  Theenergy, the will to create, to get ahead, is always in the airwhen a new business is started or bought.

            Mr. Speaker, a healthy country, a healthy province is acountry or province with a working society.  By that, I mean weall have to contribute.  Social assistance recipients who arehealthy should be in fact expected to contribute in some way forthe money they receive.  Handicapped people even should beexpected to do whatever wherever they possibly can contribute.Many do already.  If a job is not possible, perhaps work in acommunity centre, in some way helping out, would be the answer.Everybody contributing where they can.


* (1220)


            I would like all of you to come with me one day to DawsonTrail Opportunities in Ste. Anne.  At Dawson Trail they work withpeople with mental disabilities and are involved in our communityliving program.  I would like you to see these people come in.They come in because they have a place and a purpose.  They havework to do.  They have work crews.  They have a cafe there thatthey actually serve meals in.  They work in there, right in Ste.Anne.  It is called Dawson Trail Opportunities‑‑super, superpeople, very loving people.  When you come in there, you wouldjust as likely get a hug instead of a cup of coffee first.[interjection]

            Yes, I do too.  They have a store in the back, again, whichthey work in.  It is a lot of secondhand clothes but very goodsecondhand clothes.  Much of it is made use of whether it is soldor sometimes given to needy people within a community.  So theydo both, but they do super work.  Also, it is nothing to see themon the street, cleaning the sidewalks, or they are hired by townsand municipalities to go out around garbage dumps to clean up.They are working people with a purpose.

            I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is easier said than done, but wehave to contribute, all of us have to contribute.  If we lookaround the world, wars, destruction, hunger should be enoughincentive to make us work today in our society harder than wehave ever worked before.

            I would just like to say that when we look at the deficitthat we have in Manitoba, I compare it to a mortgage.  I compareit to a mortgage in this way.  When you go to buy a home, youcould spend anywhere in the amount of $80,000 to $100,000 in amatter of minutes.  Well, the NDP, in a very short time, createda heck of a mortgage, a mortgage that we indeed will have to pay.

            We will have to expect possibly a little bit less in areassometimes in the future, but just think, after we are finishedpaying the mortgage, in years to come, we can then turn aroundonce again perhaps and elect an NDP government just to remind usof the pain that we have gone through.  I also would compare itto a child first learning that if you touch a hot stove, it isgoing to burn you and then a long time later going back just totry it once more just to confirm whether it did burn you or not.Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  I welcome the opportunity torise and speak.  I would like to congratulate you on coming backas our Speaker.  I always welcome your fairness to the House andfairness to the members.

            I would like to at this time congratulate the newly electedmember for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and the newly elected memberfor Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).  You will find that thisis a very challenging role that we have in life, and I wish themall the best.

            I would also like to welcome the new Pages who are here withus in this session and to welcome the new Clerk of Committees whowe have sitting at the table.

            Before I get into my speech, I had it all prepared and laidout how I was going to speak, but after hearing the formerspeaker, I cannot believe a political party that has five membersfrom the affirmative action group bragging about theiraccomplishments.  There are five out of 30.  We over here have 20members, and as of the 1990 election, the election of September11, we achieved exactly 50 percent.  We have five women; weelected four aboriginal members, and we elected one visibleminority.

            When we talk about the affirmative action guidelines, followthe affirmative action guidelines, when you want to increase yournumbers, what you do and what our party proved that works, is yourun affirmative action candidates in winable ridings notsacrificial lambs.  That way you keep the numbers, because youneed a fair representation of all people living in Manitoba.  Wehave elected French‑speaking members, but we have elected very,very few visible minorities, very, very few aboriginal MLAs,M.P.s, so we need to make an extra effort to make sure that thatgoal is achieved.  You do not achieve that goal by running amember of an aboriginal group almost in an impossible riding.

            I heard whoever chaired your elections state that there aresome ridings that we could run a yellow dog in and we would win.Well, if you really want aboriginal members or visibleminorities, maybe run some of those groups in those kinds ofridings.  When you stand there and brag about five women in acaucus of 30, I think you better go back and do a little bit ofthinking.  When you are trying to achieve goals, the only way youwill achieve those goals is by making sure that the group ofpeople who are underrepresented in not only Manitoba but all ofCanada, you make an effort to achieve that goal.

            I hope that in the next federal election, we will see moreaboriginal people running for all parties and the parties make aneffort to recruit aboriginal people to run.  That is the only waythat we will achieve those goals.  I would just like to put thaton record.

            I would like to speak a little bit about the constituents ofPoint Douglas.  They are hardworking and very dedicatedindividuals.  Point Douglas is a representation of all groups inCanada.  I have met with all different ethnic groups andaboriginal groups and Filipino groups and Portuguese groups.They all have the same goals as everyone else, that is to get atraining program to get a decent job and to fulfill their careergoals and to look after their family and their friends.

            Now, when we see the opening of 175 food banks in Manitoba, Ithink we are going backwards.  It is 175 food banks.  Now, wehave 30,000 people using food banks.  I do not think that is astep in the right direction; I think that is going backwards,because we need some training programs, some job strategies.When you talk about a 300 percent increase in one year, there issomething wrong, drastically wrong.

            I was saddened when I was reading the paper the other day,just about a week ago, when they were talking about opening up afood bank in Steinbach, Manitoba.  That is a farming community,and they have a thriving economy.  They have businesses there andyet they are talking of opening a food bank.  Now, if that hasspread that far, I think we are in a sad, sad state of affairshere.  I think we have to reflect on the direction that thegovernment has taken.  Maybe take a look back at how can westimulate the economy, how can we put people to work.

            Because a food bank is not the answer.  It is to try and getpeople employed.  That is the only answer.  The more people wehave working, the more dollars that the government will havethrough taxes, the more money the businesses will have tohopefully hire more employees, but we need to have an economicstrategy that will create jobs.

            When I heard the throne speech, I did not really hear any ofthat and we talk about people going backwards.  If you look atjust the City of Winnipeg welfare rolls, they increased by 42percent from June 1991 to June of 1992.  That is a 148 percentincrease from 1983.  That is 148 percent more.  That isdouble‑that is almost triple of people that have to go towelfare today.  Why is that?  There have to be ways of creatingjobs for people.

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  When this matter is again beforethe House, the honourable member for Point Douglas will have 33minutes remaining.

            The hour being 12:30, this House now adjourns and standsadjourned until 1:30 p.m., Monday.