Monday, December 7, 1992


The House met at 8 p.m.



(Seventh Day of Debate)


Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable member forSeine River (Mrs. Dacquay) and the proposed amendment of thehonourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), standing in thename of the honourable member for Thompson.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  Mr. Speaker, when I began myremarks before our adjournment for supper, I remarked on thewatershed that we are going through now politically.  You know, Iwish I had a lot more time to speak tonight, because when I lookback on the Conservative Party of 1988, pre‑election, and theConservative government today, what a difference four years makes.

            We have had members who were not here at the time.  Irecognize that they perhaps did not really realize what theConservative Party got elected on‑‑lecture opposition membersabout being positive, that we should be more positive, Mr.Speaker.  I would recommend as reading for those members,Hansards.  For example, this one from the 1988 session.  I wentthrough the speech from the Leader of the Opposition, the nowPremier (Mr. Filmon).  I could not find one positive word aboutthe then‑NDP government, but I did find some interesting remarksfrom that member and other members.  This is why I say we are ata watershed.

            Who remembers the Conservatives of 1988 on health?  We must"have community‑based facilities in place before we cut back onhospital beds"‑‑the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the then Leader of theOpposition, February 15, 1988.  A great statement, Mr. Speaker.It still rings true today.  He said we must have thosecommunity-based beds in place before hospital bed closures.  Nohospital bed closures for budgetary reasons, I remember thatquote as well.

            Is this the same Conservative government of 1992 that wastalking back then?  I could spend the entire 40 minutes on healthpolicy, on the fact that the Conservatives of 1988 werehypocrites then and they are hypocrites today.  I will prove mypoint, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks by a comment by agreat historic Tory who, I think, summed it up rather well.

            Let us talk about education.  Who can forget their platformin the 1988 election?  Who can forget 90 percent funding forschool districts, provincial funding of 90 percent?  Mr. Speaker,in 1992, do we have closer to 90 percent funding?  No, we do nothave closer; we have less and less funding, fewer schooldivisions.  Look at the list.  Even since the now Minister ofRural Development (Mr. Derkach) has left the portfolio asMinister of Education, he knows that it has gotten even worse.As bad as it was even a year ago, it is even worse.  We couldeach spend the next 40 minutes on that.


* (2005)


            On the deficit, I wish the Minister of Culture, Heritage andCitizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) was here, because one of myfavourite things, from April 11, 1988, is the now Minister ofCulture, Heritage and Citizenship saying, and this is a directquote:  The main thing a Tory government can offer is theirreduced deficit, Mr. Speaker‑‑a reduced deficit.

            Mr. Speaker, this is the same member who now sits as part ofa government that has a real deficit of $642 million saying thatthe main thing you can get out of a Tory government is a reduceddeficit.  Well, I could spend the entire speech on Tory fiscalpolicy, but there is something even better than that.

            I ask you to think back to 1988.  I ask you to think back tothe demonstrations that were taking place outside:  We are notgoing to take it, Mr. Speaker.  I would ask you to think back to,oh, the now minister responsible for Autopac, who was then criticfor Autopac, talking about what?  Autopac increases.  Well, isthat not interesting?

            Let us try a little bit of history for some members who havemaybe forgotten what had happened.  Not revisionist‑‑this isgoing to be in the words of the Tory members, most of whom aresitting in the front benches today.

            In 1985 and '86, the Conservatives at the time criticized theNDP for what with Autopac?  Not reducing rates, Mr. Speaker.  By1988, bodily injury claims were rising in the province, and whatwere the Conservatives now criticizing the NDP government for?For not increasing rates so there would not be a rate shock.  Ihave the quotes here from the same person who now sits asminister responsible for Autopac, who criticized the NDP for notrecognizing what was happening.  In terms of what?  Bodily injuryclaims.  He said, and this is on page 441 of Hansard, 2nd ofMarch, 1988:  "They couldn't see it coming."

            They could not see it coming‑‑talking specific, and this, bythe way, was in the same speech where he had announced to thepress at 1:30 he was going to be giving a speech at three o'clockwhere he was going to make unparliamentary remarks‑‑he called theminister a liar, Mr. Speaker‑‑and he was going to get kicked outof the House.  This is the same minister responsible forAutopac.  Well, is it not interesting that indeed he was thrownout.

            Now the shoe is on the other foot.  The same individual whowas the critic, who criticized the government at the time for notreacting to bodily injury claims, now trots out an Autopacincrease that is of an equal magnitude and says, guess what, Mr.Speaker, bodily injury claims are up; we have to do something.

            Oh, how times change in four years.  The minister responsiblefor Autopac says, this is 1992.  The premium increases tell himit is time to review the program and the benefits paid out underit; I think it is time to have a debate in the public about whatthe public wants in its insurance package.

            Well, Mr. Speaker, I seemed to be part of a debate in 1988.It was called the election, and boy, did the NDP government getthe message at the time.  People wanted changes.  Well, what didthe government do, the Conservative government that was elected?Did it lower Autopac rates?  Did it act on the recommendations ofthe Kopstein report for no-fault insurance that would cut ratesby as much as 20 percent?  What did they do?  They did absolutelynothing in regard to the most fundamental recommendation of theKopstein report.

            Today, the minister, faced with the prospect of a 95 percentincrease in rates over the next number of years, says, we areopen to suggestions.  My God, Mr. Speaker, if any party shouldhave the answers, it should be the Conservative Party, aftergoing around in 1988‑‑[interjection] Well, they clap, and here in1992, what do they say?  We have the answers?  No.  They aresaying, give us some hints, give us some ideas.  Well, start byimplementing the Kopstein report, no‑fault insurance, somethingwe have been pushing for, something our critic has been raisingfor the last four years, something they have sat on.

            Mr. Speaker, let us deal with this Conservative government,the reality of Autopac and the reality of what is happening.There was another thing they did.  The did not just criticize therate increases, they said there would be, and I will make it veryclear.  It was another quote from a Conservative member at thetime:  Our plan with Autopac would be to avoid politicalinterference with the rates and no hiding the losses.  The rateincreases should have to apply to the Public Utilities Board.

            What they did not say, Mr. Speaker, is that in 1992, beforethe Public Utilities Board could even deal with the entirerecommendations of Autopac, they would have a cabinet meeting anddecide that while Autopac had come up with a suggestion thatwould save a combined $2 million for motorists in Manitoba, bothin terms of the premium tax and in terms of having a flat rate, acapped rate, for payment to insurance agents, they did notexplain to anybody in 1988 that they were not even going to givethe Public Utilities Board the chance to rule on that.  They didnot have the nerve to tell Autopac.  Autopac had to pick up thePublic Utilities Board document and find out that theConservative government, in 1992, had said no to a plan fromAutopac to save the motorists of this province $2 million.


* (2010)


            I mean, did anybody on that side not see what just happenedin the American election?  Does anybody remember another commentfrom 1988, George Bush, read my lips, no new taxes?  Well, herein Manitoba, we had our own George Bush, and it was Gary Filmon.He said two things.  He said, read my lips, no more big Autopacincreases.  He said, read my lips, no more political interferencein Autopac, and in 1992, he has broken both those promises to thepeople of this province.  Indeed, it is a watershed.  It is thebeginning of the end of any credibility that this governmentcould have on issues like Autopac.  Mr. Speaker, 1992 and 1988.

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


            Is it just the NDP that is saying that this Conservativegovernment has sat on the issue of Autopac for four years?  Well,no, there is someone else.  It is not Frances Russell.  It is notArlene Billinkoff.  It is Fred Cleverley.  Indeed, Fred Cleverleyhas been saying, if you have any concerns about Autopac, who doyou call?  Glen Cummings, the Minister responsible for Autopac.Indeed, what did Fred Cleverley say in two columns earlier thisyear?  What did he say?  He said, bring in no fault, and he said,cap the payments to insurance agents in this province.

            What did the Conservative government do?  They did nothing onthe one, not only did not cap the insurance agents' fees, theyhave now overruled in cabinet, the kind of political interferencethey said they would not impose on Autopac‑‑they have preventedAutopac from saving the motorists of this province $1 million.The word is hypocrite.  Whether it is on health, whether it is oneducation, whether it is on fiscal policy, the word is hypocrite.

            The quote I was talking about is one I have used in thisHouse before from Benjamin Disraeli who said:  "A conservativegovernment is an organized hypocrisy.", Madam Deputy Speaker.

            Well, this government has proved it is definitely hypocrisy.Whether it is organized or not, I am not sure at times, MadamDeputy Speaker.  I am not sure if they are particularlyorganized, but hypocrites they are.

            I say that, indeed, there is a watershed to this government,and I say to them that people have longer memories than theythink.  You know, I talked to a lot of people this weekend in myown constituency who could not believe that this government isnow going to be increasing Autopac rates by up to 13.5 percent.

            I could not believe it because, you know, I remember sittingas part of the NDP government at the time and the discussion thattook place, and I remember saying at the time, you cannot raisepremiums as dramatically as occurred in that one year in oneyear.  That is what people said.  That is what the people of thisprovince said in 1988.  Boy, did we get a message in the NDPcaucus, Madam Deputy Speaker.  Boy!  Some of us remember it well,having survived, and those who did not. [interjection]

            We know which side the member is speaking from.  I am notblaming the new member for Portage (Mr. Pallister).  I am justwondering if anybody bothered to tell him before he got electedin the by‑election what this government is going to be doing tothe motorists of this province at the time the rate increasestake place for Autopac after what they ran on in 1988, MadamDeputy Speaker.

            You know, the bottom line with this government is that theycan only go so far with those kinds of developments, andthroughout this session, I think we are going to see the rest ofthe veneer stripped away.

            You know, they ran on a platform in 1988 of no additionaltaxes, but they have been offloading so much, Madam DeputySpeaker, that not only are they not maintaining health andeducation services, but in terms of education services in manyareas throughout this province, there are major increases takingplace in terms of property taxes.  If that is not a tax, what isit?  Is the property tax payer not a taxpayer?  Is the increaseof property taxes because of the actions of this government?  Isthat not an increase in taxes, another platform of thisgovernment from 1988 that is rapidly eroding away?


* (2015)


            So as I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is going to be aninteresting session and it is going to be, in my view, anabsolute watershed for this government.  If they want to sitthere and think that Autopac is not going to be a major issue topeople out there, they should talk to them now.  They should talkto them, because you know as bad as it was for the NDP back in1988 in terms of Autopac, at least we had not run on the platformthat this party, the government now ran on in 1988.  There was nodoubt in anybody's mind.

            I have the quotes here, Madam Deputy Speaker, in detail fromGary Filmon saying, oh, we are not going to have big increases.We are not going to have political interference‑‑well, famouslast words indeed.  We are not going to take it, no new bigincreases.  We are not going to take it, no politicalinterference.  We are not going to take it anymore.

            Indeed, all I can say is, let us see the current reaction interms of the public.  We will see who they believe from now on interms of Autopac, whether they will give any credibility acrossthe way to a party that in the first place never agreed with theAutopac concept and now after four years has a minister who ranthe main campaign in 1988 against the NDP in terms of rateincreases and political interference and now has the nerve to sayin 1992, if you have any ideas, let us know.

            Well, I have a lot of ideas.  Our caucus has a lot of ideasin terms of Autopac.  We put them on the table:  no fault,capping agency fees.  We are not alone.  There are so many otherareas.  There are so many areas, and we will not be as trite asthe Conservatives were.

            Well, I look at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay),who used to sit in his seat‑‑the most that members opposite whenthey were in opposition would advise was, call an election.  Letus have a new government.  We could respond in kind, Madam DeputySpeaker.  We know that the election will come not soon enough forus or for the people of this province.  We will take our case.We will not respond in the same kind of tired, old rhetoric thatthey applied in 1988 talking about calling an election, thatbeing their only platform.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, how they have the nerve to stand heretoday, how they can face their constituents when they go back onthe weekend and look them in the eye when they are now going tobe bringing in increases in terms of Autopac that are some 11,12, 13 percent above the rate of inflation, in the range of 600percent of the rate of inflation, how they can turn and looktheir constituents in the eye when they had just said no to $2million in savings for the motorist, how they can look theirconstituents in the eye on political interference and do anythingother than recognize that they have no credibility left is beyondme.

            Indeed, a Conservative government is a hypocrisy, MadamDeputy Speaker.  It may be an organized hypocrisy, but it isbecoming increasingly disorganized.  It is very clear we havereached the watershed.  This is going to be a watershed sessionfor this Legislature.  Unless the Conservatives recognize whatthey are doing, which is, they are burning their credibility onissues that got them elected in 1988, the bottom line is, theverdict will come from the Manitoba voters.

            I just remind them, as indeed happened in the election in theUnited States, if there was one thing that spelled the end of theGeorge Bush administration, it was the "no new taxes."  Well,indeed, they have their equivalents.  Their time ofaccountability will come.

            Believe you me, having remembered and having seen in blackand white in Hansard reading just again today some of the thingsthey said when they were running for election and seeing how theyhave acted when they were in government, indeed, their time willcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we in the NDP will be remindingthe people of Manitoba where they stood in 1988 and how low theyhave sunk in 1992.

            The bottom line is we cannot wait for the opportunity to letthe people of Manitoba speak on this hypocritical, tired, oldgovernment.  Thank you.

Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):  Madam Deputy Speaker, I justwant to take this opportunity to speak on the throne speech.Before I do that, I just want to pay tribute to my Leader, whohas chosen to step down after nine years serving this party.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, Mrs. Carstairs has worked very hard.She is a very honest person and she is a very honest politician.I think we are all going to miss her, and I just want to saythank you to her.  It is very difficult to get people in thisHouse who are really true to their convictions and who do not getderailed by a narrow political vision.  Mrs. Carstairs has shownus all a very good example.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, this is my fifth throne speech reply.Since 1988, as a member of this Assembly, I think I have maturedand learned many things in this House.  I feel it is veryimportant that I must do what is right for the people of Manitobaas a whole, not only what is right for the people who voted forme.  That is my principle when I come to this House.  I make surethat my views reflect the opinion of my constituents andManitobans as a whole.


* (2020)


            Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many things we have seen forthe last two years, and I just want to touch base on one of thethings the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was saying‑‑call anelection.  We just had two by‑elections and what has happened inthe Crescentwood by‑election, I want to talk about that.  I thinkthat honesty in politics is the most important thing.

            We went door to door in the Crescentwood area, and what Ifound there at the doors‑‑because of my involvement in healthcare and being Health critic for five years and peoplerecognizing me, they were simply asking me if I was supporting acut in health care.  That was the question all the time.  Are wesupporting the health care cuts?  My answer was tell me who issupporting the health care.

            Then we saw a note there, a letter from Tim Sale, aCrescentwood by‑election candidate.  I can stand anything butsomebody who is going to lie and manipulate the facts, I cannotdo that.  It said, and I will read it, the Liberals endorsed theTory cuts to our health care system.  Their candidate has notsaid a word about the potential economic disaster resulting fromMexican free trade.

            What they have done, and actually if you look at the results,more than 65 percent of Crescentwood voters rejected that kind ofpolicy and the kind of abuse against us.  That was a major topicof discussion.  The discussion basically here is a question ofhonesty and dignity that you do not tell lies or tell thingswhich are not right.  Say what is right and what you say here,believe that.

            It was very, very frightening, but we did not hear that inPortage.  In Portage, that was not the issue and the member forPortage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) is here, and I welcome him.  Ithink he will bring a lot of openness and courage and also realcommitment to his community.  It is very positive to see the kindof profile he has, because I went to Portage also.  We had acandidate and their candidate was telling the NDP that Pharmacarecuts are being made in this House, and they are supported by us.I think that was very, very bad manners, and those kinds ofthings do not lead us anywhere.

            I want to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, something.  I wasreading the 1992 Canadian Medical Association magazine and thereis a Gallup poll here.  The Gallup poll is dealing with thehonesty and ethical standards of various professions in thiscountry.  And where do the politicians come?  We are at thebottom.  And why are we at the bottom?  Because these kinds ofthings, what we do and say, reflect on all of us.  It is veryshameful‑‑very, very sad.  I wanted to talk about it, because Ithought it was very important that we all agreed in this Housethat health care was an important issue, because we passed aresolution.  Because the resolution that I would read simply saidthat we are going to work together to ensure that health care ispreserved under five basic principles, those five basicprinciples are only going to be preserved if somebody is going todo the right things.


* (2025)


            In this case, Madam Deputy Speaker, everyone, except a few,knows that the right things are being done.  It is a very, verydangerous road because this government is not going to have thefruits of health care reform, not what I am going to get out ofthis, or my party is going to get out of this.  Manitobans aregoing to have the beneficial effects not in one year, two years,three years, four years, probably five or 10 years time, and thensomebody else is going to have the benefits.  I think if they arereally interested in the public that they should say it is theright thing to do and let us see this reform take place.  That iswhere we will differ with the minister.

            I think we should‑‑because our role is to make sure thatsomebody thinks what they have said‑‑make sure they do that andthat is why we are going to continue.  It is not easy to be onthe same side, but for the right thing we must do it.

            I want to read a few quotes, because I think it is veryessential.  It is not essential what I say about the thronespeech.  There are many experts in this province.  There are goodjournalists, good reporters, good politicians, very, very smartpeople, better than all of us probably.  But simply by cominghere, it does not make us an expert and a genius overnight,because we have 24 percent of the votes, so we are the saviour ofthe whole world, but at least we should try to do the rightthings.

            I want to read, it was April of 1987, and the quote is:  Iasked the advice which would refocus the emphasis on health careservices from the traditional, institutional framework.  I wishto reaffirm that commitment to support the growth of thisprogram, so that we can bring the refocusing away from ourinstitutional model.  Who was that?  It was not this Minister ofHealth (Mr. Orchard).  It was not the Premier of Manitoba (Mr.Filmon).  It was not the Leader of the third party, but it wasthe then Minister of Health.

            The Minister of Health, on May 25, 1992, said on MikeMcCourt's Report that he was going to talk to the member forConcordia (Mr. Doer) and the member for St. Johns (Ms.Wasylycia‑Leis) and ask them to do what is right for the peopleof Manitoba and not be afraid of the success of health care.

            I think that is the issue here.  There are some partiesafraid that this is going to be successful.  It will not be anissue in the next campaign.  I think that is the trouble here.It is very, very dangerous because‑‑[interjection] Madam DeputySpeaker, we do not have to defend anybody.  People know what theyare doing.  There is no need to defend it.  They know exactlywhat is happening, because that has been proven by twoby‑elections.

            It is going to be proven in Rupertsland also.  We will knowthat in November of 1993 who is going to win that seat because weknow we are doing the right things.  We know that these peopleappreciate it, because it does not matter which way you go, thirdparty or second party or first party, if we can keep them awayfrom that side of the House that will be our biggest service toManitobans.

            I want to talk about the total hypocrisy of even havingcolour blindness for the logos.  In the Crescentwood by‑election,we had two red colours going all over the place and the questionwas, who was the real candidate?  That was the question, who thecandidate was, because we had one orange sign in Portage that wasthe true colour, but then we had the orange‑red in Crescentwood.We asked somebody‑‑that was the height of the nonsense I haveever heard, but they say no, no, it is still the NDP colour, butit is orange‑red.  It is very sad, because there are a lot ofmembers in this House who are doing their job, and one member issitting on the right of me, the member for Thompson (Mr.Ashton).  He works very hard, but the issue here is the ethicaland moral standard of people like all of us.  That is why we areat the lowest in the poll.  That is very sad.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, since May of 1992, we have been tovarious health care conferences.  We have kept the same message.The message is still the same, that we want to make sure thathealth care reform will succeed, and we want to make sure ofthat.  We have to make sure that we keep this minister on track,and that is our role.  We have seen from some other party, whichwe all know, that every place they go they have a separatemessage.  They go to a union and they will say, oh, well, theyare cutting all the beds, you are going to lose all the jobs.They go to doctors and they say, no, it is really bad, you know,they are against doctors, and then they go tophysiotherapists‑‑oh, no, no, they are against you.  It is kindof the social and critical warfare which is their philosophy, andit is very dangerous.  Again, that is why we are low in thecredibility poll as politicians in this country.  That is verysad.

            I want to express my views, because it is very tough for meas a health care professional when I go to institutions, and theyask me as their health care provider, how can I support the bedcuts?  But they fail to understand that the government was givena mandate by the people of Manitoba, and one of the issues wasthe health care issue.  The issue was how we were going torefocus the whole health care resource in the long run.  At leasttwo parties, which have at least 42 percent plus 28.1 percentvoters, 62 percent people are supporting the health care reform.That is more than them.


* (2030)


            Madam Deputy Speaker, that is one which is going to be shownat the next campaign, because everything is going wrong with ourNDP.

            That is not the case‑‑health care reform will succeed whetherthey support it or not, that is not the issue anymore.  Theyshould talk to the minister in British Columbia or inSaskatchewan, or if you really want to really go deep, go toOntario.  Once you go to Ontario, you will not be able to comeout of the depth of the bed cuts and the loss of jobs and thekind of distrust that the government has created in the healthcare sector.  It is really, really tragic.

            I think this is so important that even as a member, a singlemember of the Assembly, if we can even help to make a change‑‑Iam not afraid of anyone, because people, when they elected us,have told us this is an important issue; please do it carefully.

            If the NDP can think of one reporter who has said that healthcare reform is not right‑‑just pick one.  Not even one so far hassaid health care reform is not the right thing.  In fact,everyone across this nation has been saying, follow the exampleof Manitoba, the kind of health care reform that is taking place.

            I think it is so essential, and we want to make sure that thePremier (Mr. Filmon) will understand that the issue of healthcare reform, what his government has started, must carry on andnot get derailed by some of the negative things that are beingcreated by self‑centred, self‑motivated and very, verynarrow‑minded people, because if you get afraid and change theminister, say, for example, next year, that will derail yourhealth care reform more than anything else, because it takes along time for somebody to understand health care reform.

            The health care system is very, very complex.  It changes sorapidly from day to day.  It is a responsibility that is sosensitive that anything you touch, you are going to have somenegative impact in the initial stage, but in the long run, thiswill be the most important thing for us to do.

            Then we can discuss in 1994 who was right because people willdecide that, and they have already shown in the by‑election thathealth care reform‑‑when the NDP said that was the issue‑‑I amreading from their brochure, that was the No. 1 issue‑‑that issuewas defeated, Madam Deputy Speaker.  It is so essential that wecontinue to do the right things.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very easy in this House tocomplain and not have a single positive suggestion orconstructive criticism.  It is very easy, and we did that in1988.  I do not think there is anybody in this House who hascriticized more the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) than myself.

            I think as elected officials, we have the responsibility tomaintain a standard of criticism and also maintain a mutualrespect so that we can achieve something.  It is much easier toachieve with co‑operation than with a fight.  I think that hasbeen happening.  We have been able to resolve many things.  I canbring every day's caseload with the names attached, but we havenot done that because that is unfair‑‑unless we are forced andaction is not being taken.

            So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am simply asking my colleagues onthe right side of this House, please, make sure that what you aresaying, can you deliver that tomorrow?  For example, in 1994, ifyou become the government, can you do that?  You will not be ableto do that.  It is very tough.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, there are stories and stories andscientific evidence all across this nation.  One can take asingle topic and go on health care reform all along, but theimportant thing, what I wanted to convey were the right things.

            I just want the minister to know that we had our six‑monthreport, and we have sent to the minister our report, andbasically what we have found is that many things in this healthcare package are being done at a slow speed.  We want them to doit at a faster speed, because it is so essential that thingsshould be done as soon as possible.  Otherwise if it is nextyear, then there will be again a fear of backlash or worse.  Ithink they have the right and they can do it right now, so wewill encourage the minister to that.

            One positive thing that came out of the throne speech was thePharmacare card.  The Pharmacare card is a good issue, and wehave all been working on that.  Now I think everybody is tryingto claim who really had the idea, but it does not matter as longas it is being implemented.  Somebody said, we had it in 1985;

somebody said '86, somebody said '88 or '90.  The important thingis the Pharmacare card is there, and we want that card to stayand make sure that Smart Card will come eventually.

            When initially the Smart Card idea was coming, I remember themember for Concordia (Mr. Doer) said it was terrible.  I rememberthat because that was a question.  But then when the Ontariogovernment said, we are going to do it, oh, it is a good idea,you know?  It is not that bad.  I think some people are slow inremembering, but that is fine.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, why I am spending so much time on thisis because I have seen what they did in the Crescentwoodby‑election and what they were doing in the civic campaign.  Iwant to talk about that.  We have seen social warfare, but in thecivic campaign we saw a kind of new warfare.  It was an ethnicwarfare they were trying to start, and we worked very hard in allthe ethnic communities to make sure that this party does notexploit any ethnic group anymore. [interjection] Well, the memberfor Wellington (Ms. Barrett) wants to talk about that.  If shewants to talk about that, that we can go into detail and we willmake tomorrow's headline, and it will not look very good in thepapers tomorrow morning. [interjection]

            Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not wasting my time, because Iknow I am not wasting my time.  The member for Wellington isworried about my wasting my time.


* (2040)


            Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] I just want to tell themember for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) that I will give him the copiesof all the speeches of all House critics.  Their agenda and theTory agenda are almost the same, basically, reform for healthcare.  So I will give him copies to read that.  It is soimportant because he seems to witness in person but he does notknow what they are doing.  He wants to do the right thing‑‑butevery day they are frightening people.  They are sayingeverything is falling apart.  The health care is going down thedrain, come down and save us.  We want to have this public shownow.  Twenty people called them and said, oh well, we have anopen debate on health care reform.  What is happening?  Themembership of the party goes from one place to another, and wehave seen the same presenters for five years.  That is what Ihave seen.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, the same presenters, the samequestioners, the same question in the same fashion, they havebeen asking.  I am really forced to say these things todaybecause I will not be able to have a good sleep if I do not getthis off my chest.  I mean, when I was going to the Crescentwoodby‑election, that was the issue‑‑bed cuts, bed cuts, everythingis falling apart, antiunion.  These people do not know what theyare doing.  It was terrible.  I wish that people would change.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many things that have gonewrong in the past, many things that have gone wrong, and if wecontinue to follow the same path, then we will do more thingswrong.  That is why we are cautioning that all of us must do whatis right for the people of Manitoba.  We are spending $1.9billion for 1.1 million people.  If we were spending smart, whydo we have a problem?  Something has gone wrong.  To change themistakes of the past 30 years, it will at least take 30 months.I think they have to have some direction.  That is why theycannot face at any public debate they want to talk to us, theywill not, simply because the simple question we ask them is, howare you going to do it?  Then they go in many, many differentdirections.

            It is very tough to face the lies, but it is very easy toface the truth, even if it hurts.  I think that is the issuehere.  Let us face the truth, let us really follow what you saytoday and what you are going to do tomorrow.  It is very tough,that we have seen.  We have seen it in 1988 and 1990.  It wasvery tough to do that, because we were immature in some ways.  Wedid not have experience.  I did not know about politics.  I didnot know too much about health care.  We thought that that wasprocedures here.  You will come and you have to do all thosethings.  That is not the real thing, because that is not gettingthem votes.  That did not get any votes to us.  People wanted atruthful government, and I think that is our role, to make surethis government stays on the course.

            I saw something very strange today.  The Minister of Sportmade an announcement.  It was a good thing for Manitoba.  Thesecond thing that the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) said, letus divide the communities here, see who is going to get what.Think it over:  If it is good for Winnipeg, good for Manitoba, itis good for all of us.  With that kind of a level of narrowthinking, which is very dangerous, are you going to put onefacility in Thompson, one in Carman, one in Portage?  We shoulddo what is best for the people of Manitoba.  It is so tough forthem to say something good.  It is amazing.  It is very strange.[interjection] The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is sayingit is not easy for them, that they do not understand, but I thinkthey do understand to some extent.

            It is so painful what we saw in the civic campaign.  The NDPsaid, we have this WIN group.  It was so‑called veryindependent.  Then we saw each and every MLA working hard in ourarea promoting ethnic rift, the kind of underhanded approach Ihave never seen in any part of the world.  The candidate wassaying, we have to fight and make sure that that kind of thingwill not exist in north Winnipeg.  It became so dirty that we hadto get involved and say, let us hold it.  We are in this game tohelp, not to exploit.

            What has happened is exploitation, total exploitation ofinnocent Canadians, new Canadians.  Do you know what they havedone?  What they have done, I have seen their multiculturalpolicy.  They did not appoint a single person on any board orcommission where they had some responsible position.  They didnot appoint anybody, but at the same time, when somebody else isdoing it, they are fearful.  That is why I said, they are notfearful that people are not going to get the benefit; they arefearful of the success of others.  That is their problem.  Thatis their trouble.

            Everybody is spending so much time and effort and workinghard to make sure that people have jobs, people will have theirlivelihood, they will work together, but you see some of thepoliticians going and exploiting them.  Madam Deputy Speaker, Ihave to speak on this issue.  It may not be part of the thronespeech, but it is part of my constituency's code.  It isbasically what has happened in the civic campaign, it was verydangerous but we were able to stop it.  It is not putting newversus old, yellow versus brown, colour versus noncolour.  Thatkind of politics has to stop, underhanded below‑the‑belt kind ofapproach‑‑very dangerous.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that some of them are not goingto be very happy, but people have to be told what they are upto.  If we can even do it, that is a risk I think will savedisasters to happen.  Some of the members in this House have donevery well, but we are talking about the whole structure, the kindof planning that goes into the communities to make sure they arebeing exploited, that kind of politics has to stop.

            That is why it is so important for people like me or somebodyelse to come here and speak on the issues.  I do not want to sitat the back and just clap when somebody stands up.  I want to dosomething that is right, but they are not interested for peoplewho would like to come and sit in this House, they want toexploit them.  That has to be stopped.

            It is so sad because they want to go out in the communitiesand say, well, you know, we are going to say we are thesocialists, we have a social conscience.  We are the socialconscience of this province, but that is not fact.  That is notfact.  If you had such a social conscience, how come you couldnot get even one ethnic candidate to run in a winnable riding?Not even one.

            It is good to put the names on the ballot paper and say, oh,we are going to have you, we are going to have you, but not getthem in a winnable riding, because when they come, they are goingto see what you are up to.  That is the tragedy.

            It is the kind of policy that is so deep‑rooted, and Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak against that policy anytime insidethis House, outside this House.  I spoke about that policy in thetemple very openly because that is where these kinds of thingswere being said.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, the most important thing from all of usand from our party, we want to make sure that the people ofManitoba are given a good government, an honest government and agovernment that believes in the ethical standards of thepolitician, and that is what we are expecting from our Premier(Mr. Filmon) and from our ministers.  So far we have not seen asingle scandal.  It has been five years.  That is anachievement‑‑five years.

            * (2050)

            Madam Deputy Speaker, because these kinds of things when yougo door to door, these kinds of things when we get theconstituents to phone me or write to me, these are the thingsthey are asking me.  They are not asking me more than that.  Theyare simply asking me, are you doing the right things for them?This question comes up every day:  Are you guys doing the rightthings for us?  Because once they see the Question Period andsomebody has a 30‑second clip‑‑oh, it is terrible, everything isfalling apart, the province is going down the drain.  Really thatdemoralizes people more.

            What we have to do in tough economic times is to make surethat we say some positive things to make sure people's confidenceis there so that they can work because, without their work, wewill not be here.  We will not be able to afford anything.  Soyou have to go back to the people, make sure you take the bestadvantage of their positive attitude, their abilities, theirfunctions and really work with them in a more open andco-operative fashion, but not have the social warfare or ethnicwarfare or a class warfare which will divide people.  That willnot work in this country and in this province.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, that is why we want the government tohave the openness for people to come and talk to the ministers.We have good success with some of the ministers.  If anythingneeds to be done in my constituency, we go to them and it isbeing done, and we are not sending a note there that, you know,we got it and so vote for us.  We are simply saying, this isright for you.  It does not matter which party you voted for inthe past.  As constituents you deserve the fair share ofresources, and that is why we are going to request even from theMinister of Health (Mr. Orchard) that in my constituency, whichhas the Seven Oaks Hospital‑‑and the member for Kildonan (Mr.Chomiak) is asking the government to relocate the ophthalmologyprogram, a teaching program which could be a very valuable assetto the Seven Oaks Hospital and will fit the health care reformpackage.  That will show that the government is interested interms of setting each and every hospital as a specialtyhospital.  That will fit that kind of role.

            I know that the hospital has made the submission to theminister's office, and I have advocated for the same thing as of1988.  It is not the first time I am doing it.  So, we will askthe minister to look at the ophthalmology program to make surethat program is established at Seven Oaks Hospital.  I havespoken to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and we are bothgoing to work together and request the minister to make sure weget the program there that will be good for the north end.  Itwill be good for the province, because we have the facility, wehave the resources and we have the people and we will fit intothe health action plan.  We can assure the minister, we will nottake the credit.  We will give them the credit, but it is a goodthing for the hospital. [interjection]

            Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) issaying, share the care.  I do not know, but I will share with themember for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), definitely, and I think wewill work together on this issue.  I will share with the ministeralso all the good things which are going to come out of thishealth action plan.

            Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to just end up by saying that wehave to do what is right for the people of Manitoba, and if thatmeans sometimes taking a risk, we will take the risk.

            (Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

            We will be honest, we will be direct, and we will make surethat the Minister of Health will follow the Health Action Plan sothat we can have a health care system which is going to be goodfor the province, which is going to be good for the people ofManitoba, and which is setting up a standard for the rest of thecountry.

            So, Mr. Speaker, let us not be afraid of success.  Let ustake the success and run with it.  Thank you.

Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital):  Mr. Speaker, it is always anhonour to reply to the throne speech as it is to say how nice itis to see you back in the Speaker's Chair.

            The first time I replied to a throne speech, I said all theright things about the Speaker.  I understand it is traditionalto compliment the Speaker, but this time I can speak from twoyears' experience.  I think all of us sort of recognized that weenjoyed the fact that you used a little bit of humour when it isnecessary, a small frown, a shake of the hand, or a wee bit ofexasperation maybe creeps into your voice when you try to keeporder in this House.

            I would like to take this moment to thank the new Pages whohave joined us this session and also to thank the new Clerk.

            I would also like to take this time just to say to theLieutenant‑Governor I wish him a speedy recovery and many, manyyears of good health ahead of him.

            This is my first opportunity really to officiallyacknowledge, I guess, I would say the loss of our former memberfrom Portage and just to say that I had always enjoyed talkingwith him.

An Honourable Member:  And the smell of his cigars.

Mrs. Render:  Yes, and the smell of his cigars which wafted downto the end of the hallway.

            I would also like to wish the former member for Rupertslandall the best in whatever he does with his future.

            Reference was made to another member who is no longer here,and I too would just like to say that I enjoyed working with him,and that is the former member for Crescentwood, Jim Carr.  I hadthe pleasure of working with him on the Manitoba ConstitutionalTask Force.  I found him to be very fair‑minded, a very objectiveperson, and very easy to work with‑‑and very liberal too.

            I would like to say at this moment that I am very sorry thatthe Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) has decidedthat it is time to step down.  I have not had any direct dealingswith her, but I think one of the things that I found veryinteresting about any of her comments here in the House is thatshe spoke from the heart, and I think of a comment that she madejust today, whenever she speaks off the cuff.

            Today she made reference to the Halifax explosion, and whenshe makes these kinds of comments, I notice that she usually sortof harkens back into her own life or maybe talks about herparents, and that makes her comments very personal and very‑‑

An Honourable Member:  If you keep this up, she is not going toquit.

Mrs. Render:  Definitely.  At any rate, I just want to say thatshe has been a good Leader for the Liberals.  She has brought theLiberal Party back to life, and I think she has made a valuablecontribution to this House and to the province.

            Of course, I would like to welcome the two new members here:the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) whose background I knowwill be a valuable asset to this House; and, of course, the newmember for Portage (Mr. Pallister), my seatmate, so to speak, whois very visible, and somebody I will never overlook, and yes, Ido have to say I look up to him.  Although he may find the chairlegs of his chair are going to be cut off so we can look eyeballto eyeball.

            Now, a subject that most of us have put behind us and nobodyhas even talked about so far in the throne speech is theConstitution.  I would just like to resurrect that subject forjust a moment because I think we should acknowledge the greatamount of time that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and thePremier (Mr. Filmon) devoted to trying to make a good deal forManitoba and trying to make a good deal for Canada.

            Now, before I get into my comments on the throne speech, Iwould just like to bring members up to date with what has beenhappening in St. Vital.  The Windsor School is a school in theheart of old St. Vital, a school which has seen a resurgence inits numbers.  Last June, under the direction of Terri Roese, aprofessional artist and also one of the parents from this school,designed a mural and along with the students painted this muralon the walls of the entrance of the school.  This mural waspainted to commemorate Canada's 125th birthday.

            I just had a letter from the principal of the school today,and he tells me that Windsor School was presented with a specialaward by the Governor‑General in the area of visual arts for themural which is in this hallway.  I think these students and TerriRoese are to be commended.


* (2100)


            Windsor School also has two students who are very, verytalented students.  Their names are Suzanne Gadd and DarlaKraigsley.  They are both Grade 9 students from last year, andthey have had their submissions to the Governor‑General'sregional celebrations accepted for inclusion in the specialanthology, Who I Am Is Who We Are: Growing Up Canadian.  Bothstudents received a certificate of merit from theGovernor‑General, and as well, Suzanne's writing was identifiedby the judges as deserving special recognition, and so wasinvited to receive a special award presented by theGovernor‑General on October 23, when he was here in Manitoba.

            I think a great deal of credit has to go to a couple ofteachers at Windsor School, and they are Al Friesen, who is incharge of the gifted students, and Betty Halstead, who is thejunior high Language Arts teacher.  Both these teachers workedvery, very hard with the students.

            Now sharing the same grounds with the school is the Windsorcommunity centre.  Like the school, the community centre has adynamic group of parents and children.  These parents havesuccessfully seen the completion of a new clubhouse to replacewhat was affectionately known as "the castle."

            I was really very pleased to have been able to work with someof my colleagues here to help secure them a Community Placesgrant to ensure the funding for the building of this newclubhouse went through.  Just yesterday, I was out at the Windsorcommunity centre and the new clubhouse is just beautiful.  Now Ijust want to congratulate the parents who spent so much timeseeing this project through to completion and wish them the bestin their fundraising efforts.  I know that they will besuccessful because of the spirit which so characterizes this area.

            Now funding through the Community Places Program has alsopaved the way for a couple of other Community Places projects inSt. Vital.  One of them is the St. Vital Y, which, of course, allof us know offers a huge selection of programs and services tothe community.  They needed some major renovations done and againthrough a Community Places grant they were able to do this.Another group, which I do not know whether any of you on theother side of the House are aware of, is a group called the SaveOur Seine group and the core group of the Save Our Seine group ismade up of residents who live along the Seine River.

            I have been working with this group since I was elected inSeptember 1990, and along with the Minister of Natural Resources(Mr. Enns) and Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), some of mycolleagues again have been able to secure funding to help thisgroup in their task of, quite literally, saving the Seine River.Of course, their prime wish is really to restore the waterquality and the quantity to the Seine River.

            I just have to say, I have really enjoyed working with thisgroup of volunteers because they just do not stand aroundwringing their hands and waiting for somebody else to do thework.  They are out there doing much of the hard, dirty workthemselves.  In fact, their last cleanup took place, oh, aboutfour weeks ago on a very, very cold day.

            Okay, now on to the throne speech.  All of us know that therationale, the reason behind the throne speech, is for thegovernment to provide a blueprint, a framework so to speak as tohow it is going to approach the upcoming Legislative session andbeyond.  Now, to have effective and realistic policies, it isvital that governments know when to strike a balance by lookingat what is happening within its own boundaries and what ishappening outside of its boundaries.

            I think it is significant that the very first sentence of themain paragraph shows that this government is not ignoring, assome in this Chamber think that they can do, what is happening onthe world scene.  This government recognizes the dramatic changesthat have occurred in the world.  Now, just to refresh yourmemory, I will just read that first sentence.  The winds ofchange are sweeping the globe, and the throne speech goes on tosay that history teaches us that the most durable and enduringsocieties are those best able to cope with change, adapt theirway of life and take advantage of new opportunities.  How veryimportant these words are, and we have put them front and centreso that people know that this government understands that ourpolicies must take into consideration the global picture.

            I think it is very significant also that the next threeheadings of the throne speech immediately point out where thisplaces Manitoba and how we are going to approach this.  I willjust refresh members' minds on this one.  Those three headingsare Manitoba at a Crossroads, New Ways for a New Age andMarketing Manitoba to the World.

            I just want to focus on that last one for a moment.  OurPremier (Mr. Filmon), our Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), theMinister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), inparticular have been doing just that.  They have been marketingManitoba to the world.  They know that in a global marketplace,businesses that do not adapt their marketing strategies to thesocial, technological, economic and political forces that affectconsumer behaviour simply will not survive the '90s.  They knowthat hype and gimmicks will not sell products, that marketingwill involve educating the customer and providing solid value,and that businesses will have to offer high‑tech services totheir customers.

            Having said that, I just want to remind all members here‑‑although I think those on this side of the House verydefinitely know this government has been working since we havebeen elected to wipe out the regressive, antibusiness measuresput into place by the previous administration‑‑we have been verysuccessful.  No other government in this country can say that forfive successive budgets they have not raised major business orpersonal taxes.  We can, and that is a record that is unbeatable.

            Now, actions I think speak louder than words, and our actionssay that Manitoba is the place to live and Manitoba is the placeto do business.  The statistics prove this point.  I will justtell you a couple of those stats.  Recent Conference Board ofCanada projections place Manitoba tied for second place in thecountry with respect to 1992 growth in gross domestic product andforecast of investment intentions also place Manitoba well abovethe national average.  Also, Manitoba as most of us know is anexport province, and I think we should all be encouraged by thefact that our world exports have risen by 13 percent in 1992.

            Thus, this government does have a definite strategic plan ofaction:

            (1) We look outward to assess what is happening in the widerscene and its relevance to Manitoba.  We see that we cannotafford to ignore the global events, that it is absolutely vitalin this day and age of advanced communications that we simplycannot strategize just within our own provincial boundaries.  Wemust market Manitoba to the world, and that will be one of theprime focuses of this government.

            (2) We critically assess where our strengths lie, and then wemake a concerted effort to build on these strengths.  Thatassessment is another heading in the throne speech called"Building on Our Strengths."

            This province has a very diversified grouping of strengthsthat this government will focus on and expand the opportunities.

            Some of those areas are the health care industries.  How manymembers here know that the number of health product manufacturersin this sector has increased by 250 percent to more than 60companies employing more than 1,000 Manitobans?  I think this isa very enviable record.  To build on this importantinfrastructure, this government has signed an agreement with thefederal government to support health industry development foranother five years.

            Another area of great strength here in Manitoba is theinformation and telecommunications sector.  Since we have takenoffice, we have taken many steps to strengthen this area.  Ithink of the partnership with Linnet Graphics,, competition inthe provision of long distance telephone services by companiessuch as Hughes Acoustic Technology.

            Special emphasis will be placed on the development oftechnologies and services to support the economic development ofgrowth in both rural and northern Manitoba.

            Tourism is another area of strength in this province, andthis is an area of special importance and interest to me since Ihave spent over a dozen years with the Western Canada AviationMuseum.  One of our goals at the museum was to market the museumnot just here in Winnipeg, not just here in Manitoba, but acrossthe country and indeed across North America and across theworld.  So I am very pleased with the increased emphasis thatthis government is placing on tourism, because I believe thatManitoba has a huge potential in this area.

            Aerospace is another sector where we have a great manystrengths, and again it is another area, one in which I am veryinterested in.  Manitoba has had an excellent reputation and avery long history of excellence in the aviation industry stemmingback to 1926, when the well‑known grain businessman James A.Richardson founded Western Canada Airways in 1926.  His companywas founded to open up the North for mineral development.  Thecompany was so successful that it expanded into another companycalled Canadian Airways Limited, which eventually became thefoundation for Canadian Pacific Airlines, which, through theyears and through many amalgamations, is now known as CanadianAirlines International.


* (2110)


            During the years that this company was busy carving out aname for itself on the airways side of things, others here inManitoba were developing ancillary industries to go along withit.  We have such industries, MacDonald Bros., which is nowBristol Aerospace, Standard Aero, just to name a couple whichhave become world‑renowned.

            I think it is a credit to this province that BristolAerospace is located here.  This company has over 60 years ofexperience in the repair and overhaul services for both fixed androtary wing aircraft and precision manufacture of aero componentsfor various air frames and gas turbine engines.  Bristol'sprogram for the modernization and life extension of the F‑5 hasearned that company international recognition, along with itsworld famous Black Brant rocket.  I think it is very significantthat Bristol just received what I think was‑‑I do not have myfigures here‑‑a $23-million contract to supply components for theBoeing 777.

            Now a relative newcomer to the aviation industry here inManitoba is GE Aerospace.  I would just like to point out thatthe engineering team there very recently developed within arecord‑setting time of about 18 months an operational prototypeof the digital acoustic receiver system.  This is forsurveillance applications, and the GE Aerospace facility here inWinnipeg has the world product mandate for DARS.  I think this isa very important step in the development of Manitoba's aerospacesector.  We can be proud that GE Aerospace chose Manitoba as itssite.

            Even the Winnipeg International Airport‑‑members oppositethroughout their responses to the throne speech have said we usedthe word "innovate" too much.  What is innovate?  Ah, there isnothing there.  Everybody is innovating.  What I started to saywas, even the Winnipeg International Airport, which we tend tothink of as a place, you know, you just take off and land, theytoo are looking for new ways to remain viable in this changingworld.

            Just recently, under its general manager, Lynn Bishop, theyhave developed a brand new strategy to better utilize its spacewithin the airport complex.  This concept is called MarketAvenue.  It was just unveiled last week.  New approaches,new‑think, as we often call the innovative and creativeapproaches which, as I just said, regretfully, the oppositionseems to take exception to, very definitely epitomizes the waythis government looks at things.

            It also epitomizes the approach that the Minister of Health(Mr. Orchard) and this government have chosen to ensure thatManitobans have quality health care in the future.  It is nolonger viable simply to pour more money into the system.  One, wesimply do not have the resources to continue doing that; andsecondly, there is just simply no automatic guarantee thatputting more money into something is going to make it any better.

            This government and the Minister of Health have had thecourage to say that we have to change the approach to the way wejust deliver our health care.  To that end, the Minister ofHealth has spent countless hours consulting with professionals ina wide variety of health care fields to come up with the qualityhealth plan for Manitobans.

            Some of the main tenets of this plan, and I am sure membershere on this side are very familiar and hopefully members on theother side are very familiar with it, are that we have to strikea better balance between prevention and community‑based andinstitutional services.  We must also shift services away fromhigher‑cost institutions to more personal methods of health caredelivery.  We must also move more toward health promotion,illness prevention and disability.  We must allow patients andtheir families more opportunities to make decisions regardingwhat is going to happen with them as far as their health care andwhere they want their placement to be.

            Now another area that I am very interested in because I havetwo children‑‑I really should not call them children, one is 18and in first year of university, and the other is 23, but I alsohave two little nieces who are just entering the school system.So I am very interested in the education and training area, and Iknow that we have to make changes.  I also know from alsolistening to many of my constituents that they too know thatchanges have to be made in this area.

            I am very pleased that the Minister of Education (Mrs.Vodrey) has spent a great deal of time going out into thecommunity, talking with teachers, talking with those in theschool, talking with parents.  I am pleased that she will beexamining options to improve standards and increasingprovince‑wide testing and evaluation in such very important areasas language arts, mathematics and science, sort of the basis, thecrux of our educational system.

            I am happy to see that College Governance is preceding onschedule.  It was absolutely vital that changes in this area bemade, because what was happening was that in some instances thecollege was offering courses that had been on the books for along time, but there were no jobs out there.  So here thesestudents were, putting in time and effort and money to takecourses, and they would get out into the real world and find thatthere was not a job out there.  So College Governance will helpmake the college more relevant to what the marketplace needs.

            I think one of the most interesting and successful innovativeprograms that this government has introduced is Workforce 2000,and that is now going into its second year.  The Minister ofEducation (Mrs. Vodrey) has spoken of this program, so I will notgo into a lot of detail right now.  I will just mention oneaspect.  Again, an aspect that interests me, and that is the onethat shows that this government does not just sort of dosomething for the sake of doing.

            As I said earlier, this government identifies our areas ofstrength, and one that I mentioned earlier was the aerospacesector.  So here we have got this area that is building up inthis province, but do we have the people who are going to be ableto fill the jobs?  We do not.  So what has the Minister ofEducation in conjunction with some of her colleagues done?  Shehas instituted a program to make sure that we are going to betraining our students so that when the aerospace industry needspeople, whether it is avionic experts, airframe experts, whateverit is, we are going to have the students coming out of theschools who are going to be able to walk into those jobs and fillthose jobs and make this province a dynamic province.

            Mr. Speaker, I have not covered all the areas mentioned inthe throne speech, but I think there is absolutely no doubt thatthis government is committed to building a competitive economy,protecting vital services, and working with all the sectors toensure that we have a strong and prosperous province.  But, as Isaid earlier, there will have to be some hard decisions comingdown the line.  It is absolutely essential that people realizethat government cannot and indeed should not be everything toeveryone; rather, our role is to provide a good basis, aframework in some instances, and work in partnerships in othercases.

            None of us can go it alone, and government is no exception.As a member said earlier, all of us spend too much money.  Wespend more than we take in, and the day of reckoning has come.However, this government is prepared to look at new and betterways of spending our money, and we know where the opportunitiesexist, and we know how to take advantage of those opportunities.That is why, Mr. Speaker, our Premier (Mr. Filmon) has said thathe will go anywhere in the world to seek out new markets, to seekout new initiatives to provide jobs for Manitobans.  That is whywe will also build upon our strengths and we will look criticallyat how our dollars are being spent.  Thank you very much.


* (2120)


Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):  (Cree was spoken)

            I want to start off by saying that I am pleased to be able tosay a few words again in response to the throne speech.  Likeeverybody else, I want to start off by‑‑it is a traditionhere‑‑saying to you, Mr. Speaker, congratulations for being inthat seat again.  I know when I first‑‑[interjection] In that bigChair, right.  I know when I first came here just a little overtwo years ago I was, of course, a little bit intimidated by thesurroundings, although I had been used to public speaking beforein my other role prior to coming here.  Nevertheless, I was alittle apprehensive when I first got up to speak in the Househere a little over two years ago.

            I know with the way you handle new members, you made my job alittle bit easier at the time and I am always grateful for that.So I wish you well, and your family, during the upcoming festiveseason.  Health, peace of mind and contentment for you and yourfamily, Mr. Speaker.

            Next, I want to also welcome all members back to theLegislature.  It is nice to see members in the House again.  Ialso want to offer my congratulations to the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) who was elected in a by‑election.  Inaddition, I want to mention also the member for Crescentwood (Ms.Gray) who was elected again to the Legislature in the lastby‑election.  I want to congratulate those two individuals and Iwish them well and I look forward to working with them in theHouse as time goes on.

            I also want to congratulate all the new Pages who have beenappointed to the Legislature.  I wish them well.  I also want tosay that I admire the young people who have been appointed to bePages for the session here, Mr. Speaker, because I know at thesame time they have to go to school and it takes a lot ofdedication and hard work to be able to do both.  Socongratulations to all of them.

            Also, at this time, Mr. Speaker, before I go on to the mainpart of my presentation, I want to mention my constituency.  Itconsists of The Pas, Moose Lake, Cormorant, Easterville, GrandRapids, Cross Lake, Norway House and, of course, The Pas Bandwhere I come from.

            I want to say a few words also about a good friend of minewho comes from The Pas, the former mayor of the Town of The Pas,Bruce Unfried.  Bruce Unfried, after having served 16 years tothe Town of The Pas as both a councillor and a mayor, decidedafter 16 years of service to the citizens of the town of The Pasthat he was not going to be seeking public office in the lastcivic election.  Bruce decided to retire from public office andhe is going to be concentrating on his job as an official in theChild and Family Services department.


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


            Mr. Acting Speaker, Bruce and I have quite a history.  I hadthe opportunity to work with Bruce when I was chief of my band.I had known Bruce before that, of course, before he became acouncillor and a mayor.  I was able to work well with Brucemainly because I knew that he was genuine, that he is a decentindividual.  He and I became more than just colleagues.  Webecame, I am proud to say, very good friends, so I want to wishBruce and his family well in whatever it is that they are goingto be doing in the future.

            I also want to say at this point, Mr. Acting Speaker, that Iwas listening to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talkingabout the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) andpraising the good work that the Leader of the Liberal Party haddone in Manitoba.

            I sometimes think, as I listen to the chatter that goes backand forth here, not only in the Assembly but also outside theAssembly, in my home community included, that when people havepassed on, that is when we always like to come out and say allkinds of good things about the people who have passed on.  Isometimes think that is too late.

            You know, it is too late for us to say good things aboutpeople after they have passed on.  So I think it is good for us,it is much more meaningful for us to say good things aboutpeople, to praise people for the work that they have done, whilethey were still living.  So that is why I felt pretty good aboutwhat was going on earlier this evening.

            I also want to say something about the Leader of the LiberalParty (Mrs. Carstairs).  We all know that she has announced herintentions to retire in the not too distant future.  The Leaderof the Liberal Party, in my mind, has contributed immensely, notonly to her party but without a doubt I think she has contributedtremendously to this Legislature and to the people of Manitoba.


(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)


            I admire the Leader of the Liberal Party in the way that sheestablishes her position and maintains her position.  I think theLeader of the Liberal Party is a very principled person and forthat I admire her.  I wish her and her family all the very bestwith whatever endeavours she will pursuing after she retires.

            May the Creator be kind to her wherever she goes.  May theCreator give her peace of mind, contentment, good health,happiness and a good family life.  Quite often, the Leader of theLiberal Party spoke about family, early family and so on.  Thatis what I value in people.  I regarded Jim Carr, the formermember for Crescentwood, in the same way.  I think these peopleknow that I mean what I say.

            Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words about ElijahHarper, the former member for Rupertsland.  I, for one, trulyappreciate Elijah's contribution to aboriginal people and theirfight for justice.

            When I was faced with the task of deciding whether I shouldseek nomination in the provincial election last, Elijah Harperbecame one of those people who had quite a profound effect on meduring the three weeks that I spent in Winnipeg in June of 1990,the events leading up to June 23, 1990.

            It was during that time that I eventually made a decisionthat I would enter provincial politics.  It took me about a yearto decide, Mr. Speaker, but after spending three weeks here inWinnipeg with one of the chiefs and the people of thisLegislature in June 1990, and while I was at the Peguis pow‑wowin July of 1990, that is when I decided that I was going to entermy name for consideration in the nomination of the election.

            I found Elijah Harper a source of inspiration, Mr. Speaker,so he helped me decide in the end that I was going to run forprovincial politics.

            I want to go on to the throne speech, Mr. Speaker.  I wasalways of the impression that the throne speech was really ablueprint for whatever the government is going to be doing in theLegislature for that session.  It was explained to me that thatwas what the throne speech was all about, to provide a blueprint.


* (2130)


            Mr. Speaker, this paper, this throne speech that waspresented to this Legislature a week ago is extremely vague.  Itcontains language that is very general, contains lots of veryvague statements about activities that the provincial governmentis going to be pursuing in this session.  It mentions morestudies, more reviews, and it even contains language that I forone find hard to know what they mean.  For example:  "Specificapprovals processes will be reviewed with a view to streamliningand better co‑ordinating the efforts of provincial regulatorybodies."  Language of that kind is prevalent throughout thedocument and that is why I am disappointed in the document.Overall, it is a very disappointing document.

            The more I look at the throne speech, the more I wonder whythe Premier even attempted to distance himself from the PrimeMinister last week.  This document is a do‑nothing document.When I was chief of my band, I used to get criticized sometimesfor making mistakes‑‑

            Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  Pursuant to Rule 35(3), I aminterrupting the proceedings in order to put the question on themotion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition, that is theamendment to the motion for an address in reply to the Speechfrom the Throne.  Do members wish to have the amendment read?

Some Honourable Members:  Yes.

Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable Leader ofthe Opposition, and the amendment thereto, as follows:

            THAT the motion be amended by adding to it the followingwords:

            But this House regrets that:

            1.  this government has lost touch with the concerns of thepeople of Manitoba and failed to acknowledge the recessionand the pain and suffering it is inflicting today onthousands of Manitoba families;

            2.  this government's step aside economic approach has resultedin Manitoba performing in last place in 1991 with a declinein growth of 3.3 percent and a predicted growth below thenational average in 1993, resulting in the loss of moreManitoba jobs and massive increases of social assistancecases;

            3.  this government has not been forthright with the people ofManitoba in outlining its plans for health reform leading touncertainty amongst patients and health care providers andcutbacks in health services and lost jobs;

            4.  this government criticizes the federal government foroff‑loading health, post‑secondary education and agriculturepayments while at the same time off‑loading itsresponsibilities to municipalities and school divisionsforcing them to increase taxes and reduce services and cutjobs;

            5.  this government has failed to make public the results of itsstudies and consultations on the North American Free TradeAgreement or its own final position on the proposed tradeagreement and its impact on Manitoba jobs; and therefore,

            this government has thereby lost the trust and confidence of thisHouse and the people of Manitoba.

            Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?  Allthose in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members:  Yea.

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

Some Honourable Members:  Nay.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):  Yeas and Nays,please.

Mr. Speaker:  A recorded vote having been requested, the DeputySergeant‑at‑Arms will call in the members.

            The question before the House is a motion of the honourableLeader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).  That is the amendment tothe motion for the address in reply to the Speech from theThrone.  Do members wish to have the motion reread?

Some Honourable Members:  No.

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


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


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

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):  Yeas 26, Nays 29.

Mr. Speaker:  I declare the motion lost.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):  Ten o'clock, Mr.Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:  Is it the will of the House to call it ten o'clock?[agreed]

            The hour being 10 p.m., this House is now adjourned andstands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).