PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 7--Task Force on Poverty

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that

WHEREAS Manitoba has the highest level of child poverty in Canada; and

WHEREAS such poverty is found disproportionately among single-parent families for whom the risk of poverty exceeds 80 percent; and

WHEREAS child poverty is well understood to be closely linked to higher incidences of illness, lifelong poverty, higher rates of accidents and accidental death, high drop-out rates and poor academic attainment; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has brought forth a budget which ignores the 40 percent cuts in federal transfer payments over the next three years, of which some $8 billion is related to Canada Assistance Plan and $6.3 billion is related to health care; and

WHEREAS the provincial government intends to balance its fiscal budget without addressing in any manner the tragic human deficit of child and other poverty in this province; and

WHEREAS many community groups and national organizations have put forward creative and appropriate measures to address child poverty in Canada.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier to consider the immediate creation of an all-party task force on poverty whose mandate will be to develop an action plan to end poverty among children and their families by seeking the fullest co-operation of all community groups and organizations as well as government departments.

Motion presented.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, in addressing this resolution, I hope that all members of the House of all parties will see the urgency of joining together with the community groups that have worked so hard in Winnipeg and Manitoba to try and address the issue of poverty so that we might finally be able to move into the millennium with a substantial improvement in the rate of child poverty in this province.

Madam Speaker, I am not so naive as to think that even with the best will and concerted action of all parties in the House that we will eliminate child poverty, but I am absolutely convinced that with appropriate action, with discipline and with commitment we can do much better for our children and, incidentally, by doing so we will do much better for our community, for our future.

We will lower the workload of the Minister of Justice. We will lower the workload of the Minister of Family Services. We will make it possible for families, once again, to nurture their children in peaceful communities in ways that allow them to reach their full potential. So I hope that I can count on the good will of all members to see children as a nonpartisan and community target for concerted action, stringent kinds of careful thinking about the policies that will lead to the betterment of their condition.

I would like to review for honourable members the situation of poverty in Canada. Between 1992 and '93, there was the largest single increase since 1980 in the overall poverty rate for families in this country. The increase was approximately 9 percent in that one year so that, in 1993, 14.8 percent of all of our families in this country lived below the poverty line.

A bit later in my remarks I will address the question of how low below the poverty line they exist because I think that some members opposite may be those who read the work of Christopher Sarlo and the Fraser Institute, who try to make a case that, like the former minister federally, we should simply redefine poverty so that we define it to a very low level, or even perhaps Barbara Greene's proposal would be to define it right out of existence. I will show the intellectual dishonesty of that approach a little later in my remarks.

So, first of all, in an overall sense, we have approximately 1.1 million Canadian families living below the poverty line in the year for which most recent data are available, 1993. However, I think, as most members know, there is one particular group of Canadian families that suffer disproportionate levels of poverty, and that is single-parent families and particularly single-parent, female-headed families.

In an overall sense, in 1993, 59.8 percent of all such families lived below the poverty line. Those kind of numbers rattle off the tongue fairly easily, but think if you would about facing a classroom where three out of five children were living below the poverty line. What sort of stimulation in the way of good reading material, good play material; what sort of life experiences in terms of visits to museums, visits to cultural events, visits simply to the country; what sort of recreational opportunities are available in a situation where three out of five children are living below the poverty line?

I think if we do not concern ourselves with the dignity of their lives, at least let us think of the economic reality. By continuing to allow them to exist in such a state of poverty, we penalize our economy, we penalize our cities in terms of their safety, we penalize ourselves in terms of the overall well-being of the communities in which we live.

First of all, remember that three out of every five children in single-parent families will live all of their years as a child below the poverty line. This in a country whose gross domestic product has never been higher, a country whose gross domestic product is over $730 billion this year, a country whose wealth has continued to increase almost without exception, though the recession that was caused by the former Conservative government in Ottawa is a bit of an exception to that pattern, but generally speaking our wealth has increased consistently since the Second World War and yet poverty for these families is higher than it was in 1980.

In 1980, 57.7 percent of single-parent families lived below the poverty line, now it is 59.8 percent. No progress at all and in fact a bit of sliding backwards towards an increased rate of poverty.

* (1610)

Within these overall statistics, Manitoba has some particular problems. I want first to break down the area of single-parent families into three categories. If we look at poverty rates for single-parent mothers--that is female-headed, single-parent families--and look at, first of all, those who have one child, we will find that 67 percent of all of those with a child under seven live below the poverty line. When the child is older, seven to 17, many of these women immediately join the workforce and the poverty rate drops from 67 percent to 42 percent, a 25-percent improvement simply by virtue of the child reaching the age at which they would attend school on a full-day basis.

Madam Speaker, there could not be any stronger indication of the need for available, affordable child care than that statistic. In the one year in which children suddenly become able to attend school, the poverty rate for single-parent families drops by 25 percent, that is the social assistance rate drops, the demand on the community's resources drops simply by virtue of the fact that child care is available in the form of elementary schooling.

I would urge members opposite to join with us in seeing the priority of affordable, accessible child care for all single-parent families, indeed for all families, but in particular for single-parent families with young children.

Madam Speaker, if we move on to a slightly different family type, families with two children, we will find that where a single parent--whether they were never married or previously married does not matter--has two children under the age of seven, the poverty rate is a staggering 88.9 percent. Almost nine out of 10 children in those families are living below the poverty line and will do so for all of their younger years.

Where there is a child under seven and a child over seven the rate improves, again, I would suggest, because it becomes more possible for the mother in this case to find some work. The rate improves by some 14 percent to only 75 percent on the poverty line, three out of four children living below the poverty line. Again, and I draw particular attention to members opposite who are concerned with the policy around child care, as soon as the youngest child reaches seven, the poverty rate drops sharply, almost in half, to 48.1 percent, still a shocking level, still an unacceptably high level, but immensely better than 90 percent, where it was for children under seven. So the priority of child care is obvious from these statistics.

We see the need for young, single parents to have access to family life education and birth control in the next set of numbers.

When three or more children are present in a family the poverty rate again skyrockets to over 76 percent if they are young children and over 58 percent if they are slightly older.

Madam Speaker, I think these numbers make it very clear that the provision of and access to quality child care is a vital antipoverty measure. In terms of the actual situation in Manitoba, we see that in Manitoba we have a somewhat higher rate of poverty among our single-parent families than in the national picture, not drastically different, but significantly different. I would also point out that the total poverty gap between the--the poverty gap is the number of dollars it would take to raise all those below the poverty line to the poverty line--the poverty gap has reached the figure of $14.5 billion in this county.

I want to close my remarks by referring to the scale of the poverty gap in Manitoba. Where we are looking at the poverty gap for children under 18 in single-parent families, we are looking at approximately $8,500 below the poverty line for these families. That is, it is sometimes said by those who attack single-parent people and low-income people in general, they are just below the poverty line, that we could just redefine the poverty line and most of that would just disappear. The fact is that single-parent mothers with children under 18 are $8,500 below the poverty line, not a mere $75 or $100. For couples, not single parents, but for intact families that are poor with children under 18, they are $7,600 on average below the poverty line.

The poverty lines some people criticize as being too high, $18,000 or $19,000 a year for these families. Well, these families are not living at $16,000 or $17,000, they are living at $10,000 and $11,000 and trying to raise two children on that kind of income.

Madam Speaker, I hope that the members opposite have been convinced by our arguments that a task force on poverty would be a very appropriate measure, particularly as we are so soon at the end of the year of the child, just a year or so ago, and are approaching the millennium only four years from now.

Would it not be a wonderful thing if Manitoba could go into the year 2000 having reduced its poverty rate from the unacceptably high level that it has now? In particular, would it not be a wonderful thing if those children most at risk could receive most of our supports so that they would have an opportunity to attain a good level of education, a reasonable quality of life, a reasonable employment opportunity and could become the contributing and productive citizens that I know they are able to be but for the life chances that they were dealt that brought them into a family that was headed by a single parent, or that brought them into a family that, through no fault of its own, found itself below the poverty line, found itself without employment, without adequate housing, perhaps without the skills and abilities to attain work in a situation where our economy is showing consistently that, although the official unemployment is in the 7 percent region, the true unemployment rate in our economy is around 13 percent or 14 percent, and many of those are the families of which we are speaking, single parent families, poor families. They need our support. I ask the House to support this resolution.

Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): I rise this afternoon to respond to those remarks of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) on this resolution.

One of the reflections that I would wish to put to this House on the remarks of the honourable member is that Her Majesty's loyal opposition seemed to be trying to equate low income to poverty, and I note from the tones of derision coming from the opposition benches that they have completely missed the point of my remark. The honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) seems to be having a fit of laughter at this point in time over these remarks.

What I want to address this Chamber about and the Honourable Speaker today is poverty of spirit. We can play with figures, and we have all heard the old truisms that fools figure and you can figure with fools, but I would not lay any of those remarks at the feet of our learned friends across the House here. What I would suggest, though, Madam Speaker, is that we cannot take figures from Toronto or Montreal or the larger urban centres in this country and apply those figures to Winnipeg and to the reality of Winnipeg and say that there are families living in poverty because--and because they fall below any given arbitrary level of income.

* (1620)

What I would suggest, Madam Speaker, is that what our government is doing is we are addressing the issues of poverty in areas of the population which have no hope, have no resources and have no ability or education to rise above an unacceptable life style. What we are doing in that respect is that we have initiated a program called Taking Charge! Taking Charge! is a shared or a balanced proposal coming from the federal government and from the Province of Manitoba. Taking Charge! has initiated a perspective and mandated a commission or a group of people who will go into the community, targeted at single-parent families, and it will assess needs. It will offer counselling. It will establish the ability of individuals to perform a function and fulfill a job, and then they will take the problem in hand and search for appropriate employment for that individual with the educable level that they have attained at that point in time and follow through so that this will be an on-the-street program that is doing practical advice. It is not just a point of throwing more money at a problem.

Madam Speaker, too long in this Assembly we have been advised by the learned opposition to just throw more money at the problems of poverty and build up a bigger bureaucracy so that we can pat ourselves on the back and say, oh, well, we have gone out and done good because we are spending more money. That is not good enough. We can look back to the closing years of the Pawley administration--

An Honourable Member: Bad years.

Mr. Radcliffe: Bad years, Madam Speaker, because all they did, those were high-spending years. They were under the misapprehension that all they had to do was be sports and be big spenders. You know what, because there was not the thinking and the perception and the sensitivity going into those programs, all they did was hire more of their friends to swell the ranks of the bureaucracy. I am not slamming the bureaucracy today. I think that we have in the Department of Education and in the Department of Health and in the Department of Family Services and in our Justice department, we have dedicated hardworking people who are truly concerned about the problems of poverty in our community.

In compliance with that concern, I would point out to this Chamber today and to our honourable friends on the left of the Speaker, that we have established a Child and Youth Secretariat, and the purpose of this Child and Youth Secretariat is to co-ordinate services for children and families in those four departments that I have just mentioned.

We have discerned that there may very well be overlap or in other cases on the alternative there may be people who fall through the boards and are not looked after and picked up by the social safety network. Therefore, this honourable government has deemed, in its wisdom, that it is appropriate in order to give full service to our underprivileged that we will co-ordinate all the mandate and the services of these four departments, namely, Justice, Health, Education and Family Services.

I want now to dwell for a moment on a very personal level, that when I was growing up in my own personal home our income--and this would be in the '50s and the '60s--probably did not exceed $10,000 a year, and yet we did not think ourselves poor. This was a family of four. I would suggest to this honourable Chamber that one could travel up and down the roads of rural Manitoba and find many proud residents of this fair province, and those people, Madam Speaker, have pride of spirit. These people are self-reliant and they have a focus and they have a direction and they are inspired. What the job of this government must be is to bring hope and inspiration and focus back to these people, to all our people who have lost this drive.

Now, another thing which I am pleased to advise this honourable Chamber today, Madam Speaker, is that although it is true, and the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has cited that there has been a diminution in the subsidy payments coming or the transfer payments coming from Ottawa and we have had no direction from the federal government as to how they wish us to apply this diminution, however, we have the wisdom of being the people on the spot and we--I can tell that as I am speaking today, there is a meeting of the ministers of Family Services, who will be considering this heinous cutback that we are suffering in this country from our friends in Ottawa--perhaps not friends, I use that loosely. Nonetheless, they have underlined the principle that we in this Chamber must address and we as government are saying to the people of Manitoba that spending money on a project in itself is not the answer. There has to be perception and there has to be a direction to this and to this end, Madam Speaker, because the resolution today is merely a simple band-aid to the problem that we are facing. We do not decry, we do not deny for a moment that there is a problem in our community amongst certain people, but the problem is not the lack of money, it is lack of jobs, it is lack of opportunity, and what we have done in order--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Radcliffe: I think we are getting a little difficulty from the kindergarten side of the House here, Madam Speaker.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, what I want to also submit to this House today with great respect is that we are approaching this problem with balance. We are balancing with some of the resources we are getting from the federal government. We are balancing it with our own research that we are taking from the people of the province, but also most importantly, Madam Speaker, we are providing the people of Manitoba with a balanced budget so that there will be a strong economy in this province.

We have just heard from our honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) today of an increase in jobs that is coming into the fair city of Portage la Prairie. This is an indication, because we are delivering sound economic opportunity and a sound economic environment that we are going to provide the answers to these all-pervading problems that some elements of the society are facing. [interjection] Well, it is happening right away. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has asked me when this is going to occur. Well, I can tell him that it is happening now. We have the results. We are now starting to reap some of the hard work that this government is doing by virtue of the fact that companies are choosing to open up in Manitoba and to employ Manitobans.

To this end, Madam Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment to the proposition, the resolution which has been advanced by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).

The amendment that I would propose comes in several levels. First of all, in the first WHEREAS clause, I would ask that the House accept a proposal to change the word "highest" in the first sentence to "unacceptable."

I would move this amendment as follows:

THAT the word "highest" be deleted and substitute the word "unacceptable"; and the words "in Canada" in the second line be deleted; and

I would move

THAT the clauses "WHEREAS the provincial government has brought forth . . . ; WHEREAS the provincial government intends to balance . . . ; WHEREAS many community groups and national organizations . . . ; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED . . . " all those clauses be deleted from this resolution, and we substitute the following amendment:

WHEREAS the federal government is reducing funding to priority health, education and social services;

WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has demonstrated its commitment to fighting poverty through increased funding to social allowances, child care and other support services; and

WHEREAS the government of Manitoba continues, in consultation with the community, to introduce innovative measures to fight poverty, such as the Taking Charge!, which is a pilot project for single parents;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly for Manitoba support continued efforts to ensure Manitoba receives its fair share of funding under any federal changes to transfer payments; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly work with the provincial government and in partnership with the community to support families in increasing their self-reliance and securing better futures for their children.

* (1630)

Madam Speaker, this amendment is seconded by the honourable Minister for Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer).

My remarks are addressed to the issues of balance. They are addressed to poverty of spirit. They are addressed to the issues of sensitivity and listening.

Point of Order

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Chair to rule on the admissibility of one of the most incoherent motions that I have ever been privileged to hear in this House. I have no idea what the amendment is. I would ask the Chair if the Chair has any idea of what the amendment is and ask her to rule on the amendment.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood indeed does have a point of order. The Speaker was experiencing great difficulty in also deciphering the amendment. However, I will wait until the table officer has received the amendment, so that we can take a cursory glance at it as to whether I will indeed rule on it today or deal with it.

Would the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) please submit his amendment to the table officers.

In the interest of fairness to all members, the clock is running. We have considerable problems with the amendment. I will take the amendment under advisement. The honourable member for River Heights' time has expired.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the original resolution as so eloquently--[interjection] It has not yet been amended as far as I understand, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The amendment has not been accepted by the Speaker at this point in time. It has been taken under advisement. All continuing debate will be on the original proposed resolution.

Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), especially the balance part. Being a northerner, we often talk about stew when we talk about a rabbit-elephant stew. We are going to have a 50-50 mixture: one rabbit, one elephant. That sort of seems like to me to be the kind of Tory stew that the member is advocating. The elephant is obviously the rich and the powerful and the rabbit is the poor. So it is not equal at all.

I think we cannot avoid the tragedy of the wasted potential when we talk about poverty-stricken children. Child poverty is a reality, and it is a vicious cycle as well, because poverty and hopelessness breeds more poverty and hopelessness. It just does not go away. It goes from generation to generation and we have to intervene; we cannot simply leave it to the tender mercies of the marketplace.

The figures are staggering, and the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has already alluded--in fact, quoted some of those figures: possibly 60,000 children in this province living below the poverty line; 80 percent of single-parent families being poor. Those rates are unacceptable in a civilized country where the hallmark of civilization should be how we treat those most in need of our help, those most poor, those most defenceless, and it seems to be the other way around.

That concerns me, Madam Speaker, because child poverty is a very serious business, and I am worried, concerned about the ideological context in which this debate is taking place as if poverty was an isolated event, as if there are no antecedents, as if there is nothing connecting A to B. Well, it is not a random event; it has a history; it is embedded in a matrix.

I just cannot believe that we would allow the current ideological context to prevail, that is, that poor people simply have to take what is being dished out to them. I think that we have to intervene. We cannot leave it to market-driven laissez-faire forces no matter how well presented they might be by the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe). I think the poor deserve better than that. I think it is disgraceful that in this rich and powerful country and in this fairly well-to-do province we have the kind of poverty rates for children, and adults as well, that we do have. This is not acceptable. I think the approach that the government seems to be advocating is not only unfair, it is unjust, it is undemocratic, because those least able to speak for themselves are being penalized. Those are the ones we should be intervening on their behalf.

I guess I lament the lack of compassion as if we are saying that the ultimate rule is the dollar rule, that being in the black is important. I admit there are deficits and there are budgets, those dollar problems, but somehow or other it seems to me that when somebody much wiser than me said you feed the poor, he did not say we will feed the poor if it is fiscally responsible. I do not remember him saying you clothe the naked if it is fiscally responsible, let us check the budget first. I never heard that. You simply feed the poor. We are putting qualifications on it now saying well, we will do that if. In other words, we have a pretty good or a rather pure rationalization to keep the rich rich and to keep the poor poor. That is disturbing and that is frightening. I hope, Madam Speaker, that in this era of balanced budgets we think seriously about that. I do not want to overuse the "B" word, but I do not want balanced budgets on the backs of babies. I really do not want that, and I am sure that the honourable member opposite does not want that either.

I think also that we are ringing the criteria a little bit when we are saying that we should only be looking at factors that are easy to measure. It is pretty easy to measure dollars, because apparently members opposite have lots of them to count. I do not have that many. It is not so easy to measure the effect on poor children. It is not so easy to measure the loss to this country. It is not so easy to measure the fact that you are doomed for life.

Madam Speaker, if I can just make a small aside, I have seen teachers say to four-year-olds and five-year-olds, when they spoke to me later about this four-year-old or five-year-old, that kid is already doomed, that kid will never make it, that kid will be a criminal, that child might become a prostitute, whatever. Already when they are four years old we are saying that, an age of innocence. It is frightening; it is scary.

When you talk about intervention, you are darned right I believe in intervention. I have never accepted the theory that the least intervention in this country is the best. Maybe the members opposite believe that, but we have to be very careful. I do not believe we are on this Earth or even in this Chamber for that matter to speak on behalf of those powerful voices that often control the media that are already rich. We are speaking on behalf--I hope that I am speaking on behalf of the northerners, many who live in conditions of impoverishment that you cannot even imagine.

* (1640)

I will give you simply one example, and I wish the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) would have joined the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and myself in the trip to Pukatawagan. In one house, 10 adults and 20 children, and it was not a very good house. We are talking about 231 houses on that reserve, and I think we have 2,000 people living there.

Now you can blame the feds all you like. These are Manitobans. These are women. These are children.

An Honourable Member: No running water.

Mr. Jennissen: There is no running water. It is incredible conditions that these people live in. We simply cannot wash our hands like Pontius Pilate and say, this does not involve me. I have nothing to do with that. I make the economy run. I balance the budget. Look, you bleeding hearts out there, liberal and otherwise, you guys are not in the real world. The real world belongs to the accountants.

The real world belongs to all and especially to the children. The children will inherit the Earth. Speak on behalf of the children, and do not speak on behalf of capital. I am ashamed sometimes to hear some of the members opposite.

Furthermore, I would like to go on to point out how this government with its fetish, with its, I guess, its focus, with its total obsession with balanced budgets and money has let the poor children down.

Take a look at education. Private school funding is up. What happens to the public school system, the system that deals with all the children, not just the elite, not just the cream of the crop? Zamboni machines for--what is it--St. John's-Ravenscourt? They got the money to buy that. What happens to maybe a breakfast program for poor children? Do the poor not deserve a chance in the sun? I think they do. Do the northerners not deserve a chance in the sun, because over there we are poor and we have very little sun?

The cuts this government makes in Access programs and education programs and BUNTEP programs, New Careers programs, programs that we know that in seven years pay for themselves and will continue paying for themselves ever after--you want to help the poor? Take them out of the pit of poverty. Give them a chance. Give them hope. Give them education.

But you are cutting the education. You are cutting it. Cuts to community colleges. Cuts to the curriculum services. Cuts away from the educational system. Meanwhile, while the cuts are happening to where people can use the money, the grants go. Where do the grants go?--they go to IBM, Centra Gas, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's, private golf courses, et cetera. These people really need money; I am sure McDonald's needs our money to create jobs. How about putting that money into the public system where the poor can participate and can have jobs?

Let us take a look at a few things in health care. Dental programs that could have saved us millions of dollars--cut. Now the poor have to pay for their children's dental program. I am referring to the program that covered dental care for children till they are 12 years old. Why was that cut?

User fees in the North--it is bad enough that they bounce us on a bus all the way south so that we can see a specialist who will tell us come back next week, as if those 800 or 1,000 kilometres did not exist. That is bad enough. But on top of it, they nail us with a $50 user fee and then pretend they are not doing it. That helps poverty if you want to increase poverty.

I could go into the suicide rates. I could go into the incredible suicide rate especially among native youth, four times higher than the provincial, or I think even than the federal average. If you are making the assumption there is no connection, you are wrong. The connections between suicide rates and poverty are well demonstrated.

Mental health in Flin Flon alone in the last year or year and a half--I am not sure of the exact time--some tragic happenings, murders and alleged suicide, which may or may not have been a suicide. We are not sure. It is still under investigation. Again, if those people could have had adequate help, if there had been the mental health facilities available, if they could have been steered to those facilities, perhaps those tragedies would not have occurred. Now this may not directly deal with poverty, but very often it is the poor that have their minds stressed and things do happen with tragic and violent results.

Madam Speaker, I could go on and on. Injustice. The number of native people who are in jail results perhaps of broken homes, of poverty, of neglect, especially in the North.

We could talk about the VLTs that are supposed to solve our problem--

An Honourable Member: Solving our crime.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, solving our crime, the honourable member says--but instead they suck money from our communities, they siphon money from our communities. I will give you one specific example. I phoned a northern community, and I was talking to the principal. He said, in former years, we could raise up to $6,000 or $7,000 for educational tours, for sports trips, to take our children south perhaps to see museums, whatever. Those $6,000, $7,000 are no longer available because, when we now run bingos, we lose money. We lost $2,000 last year. So, in other words, a net drain from that system of 8,000 bucks possibly.

Where is that money going? That money is going south. It is not going back to those communities, and it is certainly not helping the children who now cannot go on those sports trips, who now cannot visit those museums, another example of how VLTs suck money away from the community, do not help the poor, do not help poor children. It is a net drain. Money is siphoned off.

Madam Speaker, I would like to end, but I would just like to make one quote that is from the Board of Governors of Keewatin Community College who cut the women's sponsorship program. This is the women's response, and I will just quote one line from it or a couple of lines. The women said--this is the women's sponsorship program in Keewatin Community College--quote: It is sad when the government is willing to support a hockey team and not the future of our province. The total amount of sponsorship is $17,713 which is supporting 25 people in total, 16 of which are children, poor children. This is a drop in the bucket as compared to the amount of funds that are going to be needed in the future to keep single mothers on social assistance.

I beg you, Madam Speaker, that we take into account the poor of this country, the underprivileged and, instead of padding the wallets of the rich, take our job in this Assembly seriously. Thank you.

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and to speak on this resolution that has been brought forward by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), but it really does amaze me when we sit on this side of the House and listen to the hypocrites on the other side who profess to stand up for the poor and for the poverty-strickened children in Manitoba. Needless to say, I think that, for the most part, when we came through the election of 1995, the people did speak and chose not to believe what those people on the other side have been saying and attempting to do.

I take some exception to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) in his remarks in reference to the people in northern Manitoba living in households of strict poverty with no running water and no electricity and as many as 15 and 20 people living in a household. Well, you know, when we look back over history in this country and in this province, Madam Speaker, I think that if we were to look at the make-up of the families in terms of who built this great province and this great country, we came through a depression where people did not know anything different, but governments did not substitute for what people should be doing for themselves. This is the whole problem with society today. I just wanted to share with the members across the way in terms of my experience in terms of dealing with life, and I think that this is something that I learned a very long time ago, because my parents came through the depression. I am the youngest of 16 children and I know--[interjection]

The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) chirps from her seat as she is the person who is solving all the issues as far as the poor are concerned. If the poor really knew what these hypocrites are doing to this province and to this country in terms of building--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I am wondering if it would be appropriate to ask, or I would like you to ask the member for Sturgeon Creek to withdraw the word "hypocrites" in his reference to members opposite. Just because we hold different views does not mean we are hypocritical,and I would ask you to so direct the member.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington, indeed, does have a point of order. I explicitly heard the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek use unparliamentary language directed at the member. I would ask that the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek withdraw the word unequivocally.

Mr. McAlpine: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that unequivocally.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for that.

* * *

* (1650)

Mr. McAlpine: I think it has to be said that when we deal in terms of talking to the people and the real issues of Manitobans, when we talk about poverty I think there has to be sincerity in what we are doing. I think that is one of the things that this government has always led to believe.

The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) talks about Jesus providing the advice of feeding the poor and dressing the naked, but Jesus also talked about making fishermen out of men so they could provide the food for themselves. I think that is lost on the socialistic side of this House. It is a shame that this is such a disservice to the people of Manitoba. I think the sooner we can understand that in society today, the better off we are going to be.

We must understand that when we try to substitute, and this is what they advocate all the time and what they talk about in terms of serving the people, but the more we do, it is no different than when we serve our own bodies, our own systems, the more we substitute for what our bodies are capable of doing, that weakens the system. The same thing happens in society. The more we do for society, the weaker the society gets, because that is a fact of life. That is the balance of nature. Unfortunately, the people who profess to be the leaders and the supporters of nature who are across the way, they talk that way but they do not practice what they preach. They say, do as I say but not as I do. To me that is the message that the members across the way make reference to. Unfortunately, the people in Manitoba, the poor are listening to that kind of rhetoric.

We talk about what the socialists are providing. What did the socialists provide when they were in government for the people in northern Manitoba?

An Honourable Member: Hope.

Mr. McAlpine: Provided hope, but hope, you cannot feed the stomach of the people of the North on hope. That is unfortunate that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) has come into this Legislature on the hopes that he is going to be able to do that, but that is not happening today as far as the member in serving his community, in serving the people that he is elected to support and to feed. It is not government's responsibility to do all the things for all people, to create an environment that will enable these people to feed themselves, and we are doing that. We are doing that.

We are doing it in Portage la Prairie. We are doing it in Flin Flon, Manitoba, in terms of creating jobs, giving them the opportunity to feed themselves. Unfortunately, the members across the way do not understand that. I think the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) may have an appreciation for the idea of substitution, that substitution does not work in the households of Manitobans or the households anywhere. The more you feed, the more poverty you are going to create, and that is what has happened in this socialistic administration over the last 15, 20 years.

The Manitoba governments of the '70s and the '80s under Ed Schreyer and Howard Pawley, that was the mentality, and unfortunately we ended up with a debt and paying the interest--[interjection] choking the poor and not serving the people, and that is exactly what the problem is today. Unfortunately, our socialist friends do not see the way.

We are trying to make fishermen out of men instead of having to--[interjection] Well, the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) says, what about the women of this province. The women of this province are quite capable of caring and looking after themselves, I dare say. I think that the women have shown the way. The women have shown the way in this province. I think that we only have to look in this Legislature to see that that exists and will continue and that the women in this province can speak for themselves. The member for Wellington certainly does not represent the women of this province, and I hope that she never will because she does not talk about representing the people in Manitoba, the women of Manitoba. She professes to represent them, but truly, is that what she is actually saying, or is that actually what she is doing?

Ms. Barrett: I am doing a hell of a lot better job than you are.

Mr. McAlpine: The honourable member for Wellington suggests that she is doing--bleep--a lot better than I am in Sturgeon Creek. Well, I guess we have to ask the women in Sturgeon Creek as to whether or not the representation from this government is being represented and my representation in Sturgeon Creek represents them. I represent all people in my constituency, not excluding anybody, but the member for Wellington suggests that she is the saviour for all women here in the province of Manitoba. That is what she would like us to believe, but that we know is not true.

I think that it is important to try to communicate the message to all Manitobans, which is what we have been trying to do in creating an economy, a healthy economy to enable people to serve themselves and to serve the communities that they live in, because the more we do for people--and I am repeating myself in saying that the more we do for people--the weaker they will become. I think that is a fairly safe statement to make, and I think the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) could appreciate that.

I think it is incumbent upon us to show people how they can do things for themselves. I think that is a matter of responsibility for us as legislators, that is a responsibility for us to create that environment that businesses are able to thrive and to represent and provide jobs for the people in terms of serving their children and providing for their children. I think that when we do that, when we create a healthy economy and we create a healthy environment, I think that is a key in terms of getting people off poverty or getting away from poverty.

I think when we look at people in society today, we measure and the socialists measure poverty in the way of dollars and cents. Well, I do not think that dollars and cents really have a lot to do with it. That does not make a person rich; it does not make a person rich. [interjection] Well, if that is your measure of richness, the member for Crescentwood, then I think that you have a lot to learn about life. I mean that sincerely, because I think what we are trying to convey to you is that you cannot be all things to all people. Sooner or later the well is going to run dry, and it did. It did through the 1980s; it did run dry.

We know that in 1988 when we took over from government, we were probably, well, we were the highest-taxed province in this country. That was a disservice to the children of this province; that was a disservice to the constituents of Sturgeon Creek. [interjection] The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) said put there by whom? Put there by Howard Pawley, and some of the members still sit in this House today. That was a disservice--[interjection] The member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) says, what about today?

After seven years we are seeing a resurgence in the economy; we are seeing the number of jobs in this province increase, 22,000 jobs in one year--22,000 more jobs. I think that is something to be proud of.

But what do the members across the way talk about? They do not talk about the opportunities that are being made, that were made available to these families of these children. I think that--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek will have one minute remaining.

As previously agreed, the hour being 5 p.m., we will now proceed to the second private members' resolution, Resolution 8.

* (1700)

Res. 8--All-Party Committee on the Economy

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that

WHEREAS Manitobans consider the growth of the economy to be a priority issue and look to government as an important player in fostering a healthy and prosperous economy; and

WHEREAS Manitobans are concerned about the position of Manitoba's economy relative to other Canadian provinces, even during this expansionary phase of the economic cycle; and

WHEREAS according to Statistics Canada, the Manitoba economy has over the last seven years performed at a less than satisfactory level, leaving this province with the lowest annual average growth in the nation over the previous seven years; and

WHEREAS young Manitobans are genuinely concerned about their present and future employment prospects within this province, and are displaying this uncertainty by leaving Manitoba in massive numbers, draining the province of a promising and vital resource; and

WHEREAS Manitobans appreciate the type of co-operation that this Assembly showed in creating a made-in-Manitoba response to the constitutional questions of the late 1980s and would like to see this sort of approach taken with regard to the difficult economic problems we face today.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the government to consider acting immediately to establish an all-party committee to examine the current and probable future state of the Manitoba economy and propose solutions to improve economic prospects and conditions in our province.

Motion presented.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for allowing us to speak on this resolution today pursuant to our schedule of private members' resolutions.

This may be of some interest to the member that just spoke because this is a similar resolution to the resolution that we proposed, and solution that we proposed, to deal with the all-Manitoba approach to the loss or potential loss of military jobs and the air headquarters in Manitoba dealing with the federal budget. We had proposed this with Shilo. We had proposed this with the Canadian Forces Base at Portage. We have proposed this with other jobs dealing with the federal sector, and we had a couple of meetings before the election. We have not had any meetings after the election unfortunately.

Now I know the government can take issue with some of the statistics. I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has some comments about the statistics, and quite frankly some of the statistics may be four months out of date. I want to put that on the record right now because we have had a couple of good statistical months since this resolution was placed before the Order Paper, but I want the government to respond to this resolution in the spirit as being presented here.

I think that most Manitobans know that when we are in an election campaign, we are competing politically for government, for opposition, for our seats, for the political beliefs we have and we will disagree obviously about how we would run government and the philosophies we would have to make our various platforms work and get Manitobans working. Fair enough.

You know, the Liberals had certain proposals on the economy. I actually thought they went too far in cutting back some of the supports for things like the horse racing industry and some other industries that did not, at the end of the day, I think help out in terms of their scrutiny, but they had other proposals I think to get Manitobans working on the Apprenticeship Program, Access program, et cetera.

The Tories, I do not even know why they would disagree with this resolution. I was absolutely shocked when I saw a Manitoba Works program announced in the election campaign. If they will go back to the alternative speech to the throne that we presented in November of 1994, the title of our employment programs is "Manitoba Works." I guess we did not have the fancy advertising that the members opposite had to sell that program, but I was pleased to see that imitation, I guess is the--I will not call it plagiarism. I guess imitation is one of the serious forms of flattery and, of course, we were pleased to see you using that title "Manitoba Works."

So why can we not agree to have a committee on the economy? Why do we just do it over the Air Command closing, Shilo, the other proposals when they come up? Why do we not have a committee after the election? Okay, you have a majority; I do not like it. We are in opposition; they do not like it. They are here, they do not like it. But why can we not, after the election campaign, work a lot more together? Why can we not, when there is a company looking at locating in Manitoba, why cannot all three parties work together to try to attract them? Someday you are not going to be in government, someday somebody else is going to be. They want to know there is a political stability and a cultural stability in this province that we speak as Manitobans first.

I have often thought that, you know, members opposite, I happen to believe that most of them care about this province and the future that our children will have in this province. I happen to believe the Liberals believe the same thing. I happen to believe we come out of a different methodology of how we would get there, but we all feel happy when good news comes about. We all feel good if our kids are able to stay in our province. We all feel good if we are able to work together, and I do not think we diminish our political representation by working together more.

I had the pleasure of working with the Premier and the former member for River Heights, now Senator Carstairs, on Meech Lake. I did not agree with everything the Premier was saying, and it would have been easy for me to take shots at him or at her in that very, very crucial week, and it would have been easy for him to take shots at us, but we worked together as Manitobans.

Manitoba was more important than, you know, the clip of the day. I agreed with the Premier; I did not agree with everything in Charlottetown. I had real problems with my own party. Quite frankly, I did not like that Senate proposal. I was public on it when it came out. I thought we should absolutely, absolutely get rid of the Senate, abolish the Senate.

(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

I felt even more sure of my position after the federal election when I just saw the same--I mean, the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) must be happy. I think he has got more senators in his riding than any other riding in Canada. You almost not only have to live in River Heights, you have got to live on Wellington Crescent to be appointed to the Senate. It crosses political lines. If you are a Tory or a Liberal--I mean, I thought it was rather ironic. Yes, you live in the wrong area of the province, you live in rural Manitoba.

I did not like the Senate proposal, but I thought the equalization proposals and some of the other things in the Charlottetown Accord--you know, I will put my political differences aside. Now, many people in our party did not agree with it, voted against it, many people in your party voted against it. Again, I think only River Heights voted for it, which is rather ironic, given that the member for River Heights was allegedly opposed to it, and it was the only constituency that voted in favour of it.

But what I am saying are the people of Manitoba, yes, we will have Question Period, yes, we will disagree, and yes, all that will happen. In an election campaign we should be very competitive for what we believe in. That is no problem, but what about the three years in between? Why do we always work against each other? Why do we not work more together on the bayline? Why do we not work more together on the transition on the Crow rate? Why do we not work more together on getting jobs and economic opportunities? Why do we not work together?

I have had private conversations with ministers who are worried about employee groups, unions, in a set of negotiations of whether a place can close down. Privately, I go to them or sometimes I have a concern about a company, I go to the government and they go to somebody else, or I will go to the head of a company, back and forth quietly, but why do we not do this every day? What have we got to be afraid of of having an all-party committee working on our economy? If we are going to sell Manitoba as a place to live and raise a family, the quality of life we have to offer, I think we have a lot to offer, why are we not doing it together?

* (1710)

Why are we not working on tourism together? We all enjoy the beautiful places in our province. Why do we not work together on these things? Even outfitters work together. They may compete with each other to get the business, but they go to trade shows in Minneapolis and other places and they work together. What a novel idea.

I have pitched bales together outside of Neepawa long before the technology changed. I think it is the only way you can develop a decent wrist shot, and obviously I did not pitch enough bales because I did not have a good enough wrist shot. [interjection] Well, I played left wing with the member, the Minister of Finance, who was centre; the leader of the Liberal Party was our right winger. We did beat the media. We did work together to beat the media. That in itself shows that we can co-operate and do things well if we work together. I think the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) was also on defence that game, and we had a goalie that was going to catch the puck with his teeth who happens to be in the Chair right now.

I really think that we should speak--and Mike Harcourt, Premier of B.C., had a good idea for Canada. This resolution I put in long before the proposal to go to China with the Prime Minister was in place, but Mike Harcourt said, why are all these premiers going to China and Asia separately? Why do we not go together as one group as Team Canada? We put this resolution in three years ago to be Team Manitoba, I guess, if you will, in a co-operative way.

I like working with the government on something like the Air Command. I would rather do that than criticize them every day. You know, I do not mind criticizing. I have lots of things to criticize, but, on the big issues of our economy, I want to work together. We want to work together. We started off as a party that was called the Co-operative Commonwealth movement. You know, we can even work with you on behalf of Manitobans and have our disagreements in a 35-day campaign or on big issues of philosophy that we will obviously disagree on.

So I say to the members opposite, we have big economic challenges ahead of us. In agriculture, we have tremendous challenges. In mining, we have tremendous challenges and opportunities, in the sustainability of many of our resources in forestry, many challenges. You know, why are we not working together on these challenges? We have many challenges in tourism and manufacturing.

Yes, we have the low dollar right now, and we have a lot of people working in manufacturing. That is good. I am glad to see the unemployment numbers down and more manufacturing jobs there right now. I think that is good. You do not hear us putting out press releases when things are going well. We like to see that. But what should we be doing about the change in the insurance industry? We are losing jobs out of our head offices, you know, 300 jobs in the next couple weeks to be gone, relocated out of this community from a head office to a merger.

What are we doing about getting other jobs here in Manitoba and keeping jobs in the transportation industry? We keep losing jobs without having an all-party approach. When the president of CN comes into town, all three parties should be meeting together with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey) talking about what this means for all our communities. When companies come into this town, whether it is Crown corporations or private sector, to maintain jobs or new companies are going to be attracted here, we should be working together.

When we were working with some of the investors, Asian investors, that used to come and visit us, one of the things they liked about Manitoba was that it was a more co-operative province than other--at that point, it was when the Socreds were in, and B.C. was considered a very, very confrontational province. There was always disagreement. There were always strikes and lockouts and disputes and unpredictability. Co-operative provinces, a co-operative labour-management relationship is good. I suggest to members opposite that a co-operative all-party approach to the economy, where we are all pulling on the oars the same way on getting jobs here and keeping jobs here, we are all giving our own ideas and putting them forward, is a good idea.

So you can look at some of the statistics we have there, and they are outdated, look at the resolution. Let us work together. Let us pass a resolution to work together the same way--our best work has been done, I would suggest, as Manitobans, on Meech Lake. I think people believe their job and the jobs for the future opportunities for their kids are more important than some of the language in a Constitution. I believe that we can. I think maybe we were the same way in the government--I was not in cabinet very long--but we do not utilize our back bench very well. We do not utilize our opposition very well, or all our members very well.

At the end of the day, and I say this to the government and all of us, we all have one thing in common. We do care a lot about our province, and we do not have the means in an adversarial legislative system to put that, I think, into much more practical working ability for us to improve the humankind in our province. Yes, we will have disagreements about the way budgets are set up in terms of the distribution of income and some decisions government makes. Yes, we will have disagreements about the priorities of government in health and education, but, no, we do not have a disagreement of what a great place this province is to live in and a great place to raise a family and a great opportunity for people in the whole world. We are in a global economy. We should be working together in a global economy while we disagree the odd time, you know, in Question Period on this floor.

So, yes, the stats are a little outdated. I want to put that on the floor honestly. Let us do it. Let us just work together. Let us get an all-party committee on the economy, and let us work the same way as outfitters do in northern Manitoba. They compete to get people to their lodge but they work together to get people to Manitoba. Let us just do it. Thank you.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this resolution that is before us, and it is an interesting approach that the Leader of the Opposition brings to the issue, the whole of his comments about spirit of co-operation and working together. I would like to think that that might work and there probably was a time when I actually thought that that could work, but now, having been here for approximately five years and seeing some of the actions of the opposition party and some of their positions on issues, I am no longer convinced that that could work, and I need look no further than today.

Today was a classic example. An outstanding announcement by our Minister of Rural Development, McCain's expansion in Portage la Prairie, 150 more jobs, major impact on the agricultural community here in Manitoba, what does the member for Crescentwood stand up? All doom and gloom, all negative, all reasons why it should not be proceeding, why we should not have expansion in our agricultural potato industry, why we should not have this kind of expansion.

I could cite another example that comes to mind very quickly talking about spirit of co-operation, and I am sure others could speak more knowledgeably about it, but issues like the PMU industry, again major economic impact here in Manitoba, tremendous opportunities throughout rural Manitoba. What kind of a position does the member for Radisson and the opposition take on that issue?

I could talk about one of the single most important things that I believe has to be done is the economic structure that exists in our province. We have worked hard for eight consecutive budgets to get that economic structure in a position that it can enhance and attract and allow industry and business to expand here in Manitoba, and I believe that is happening, and I certainly will put on the record the current statistics in terms of economic development here in Manitoba.

What has happened with the opposition? They voted against literally all of those budgets, all but one. But you look at their budgets and what happened for the six budgets brought down from 1982 to 1988, and I know the Leader of the Opposition was a part of that government for part of the time, not for the entire mandate, but he was certainly there for part of the time, and he has heard these before and I know he always enjoys hearing them again, what they did with taxes in Manitoba. What happened to taxes from 1982 to 1988? From 1982 to 1988, retail sales tax goes from 5 percent to 7 percent; introduced and increased a payroll tax at 2.25 percent; introduced a personal net income and surtax; increased the corporation income tax from 15 percent to 17 percent, and on and on I go, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in terms of what happened to taxes during that period of time, and what was basically becoming known across Canada as a hostile business environment here in Manitoba, a hostile business environment.

And what did we do in eight budgets? We not only controlled taxes, we have actually reduced taxes, reduced personal income taxes, we have increased the threshold on the payroll tax, we have doubled the exemption for the corporation capital tax. Also, many provinces have moved by us, so we are in positions today where our retail sales tax rate is tied for lowest with any province that levies a retail sales tax. Alberta does not levy one, British Columbia and Manitoba are the next lowest rate at 7 percent.

We have taken Manitoba from the second highest tax province in all of Canada during the '80s under the NDP to one of the lowest in all of Canada. What happened to provincial debt under the NDP from '82 to '88? Increased by 400 percent--400 percent. It quadrupled during the NDP, taking it from $1 billion to approximately $5 billion. [interjection] I do not want to get too technical, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but their deficits ran at 3 percent on average for that six-year period, of our gross domestic product. Our deficits when we ran then for seven budgets ran at 1.3 percent, ran at 50 percent of what they ran during that period of time and ran at the lowest and the best percentage in all of Canada.

So that is why, when the Leader of the Opposition talks about spirit of co-operation and working together, I wish I could take him seriously and I wish that it would work, but the facts do not speak that way, in fact the actions point in an entirely different direction in terms of their actions on specific development and their actions on budget.

* (1720)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition referred to some of the economic stats and I know he did not have time to put all of them on the record, but I want to take a few minutes to talk about some of the economic statistics here in Manitoba today. Just today we received the retail sales figures for the year to date for the end of July, just as of today from Stats Canada. As is shown, Manitoba retail sales for the month of July 1995 were up 7 percent compared with 1994.

This was the largest increase of any province and much stronger than Canada's growth of .8 of a percent. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) always says, well, do not look at one month, look at a longer period of time. For the seven months to the end of July 1995, Manitoba's sales were up 5.3 percent above last year's total, the second strongest performance amongst provinces and well ahead of the national growth of 3 percent. Manitoba has now had six consecutive months of steady growth in sales, and that is something that no other province has managed to do so far this year.

Let us talk about employment. The employment stats came out not long ago, and, again, the Leader of the Opposition did not have time to put them on the record. In August 1995, Manitoba's employment rose to 527,000 people, an increase of 22,000 jobs or 4.4 percent from the same time last year, second best of the provinces and well above the national increase. Manitoba is the only province to have eight consecutive months of uninterrupted job growth this year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the highest level of employment since our all-time high of 530 jobs in April of 1990. For the first eight months of 1995, again, Manitoba's employment grew by 14,000 jobs or 2.8 percent over that same period from last year-- again, better than the national average.

What is very important is most of Manitoba's gains have been private sector full-time jobs. In 1995, Manitoba and British Columbia are the only provinces where job growth has outpaced growth in the labour force. Since April of 1988--I know the Leader of the Opposition always likes to point to April of 1988 for some reason--Manitoba has gained 21,000 jobs, exceeding labour growth over this time, which was 19,000. There are approximately 40,000 more private sector jobs today than in April of 1988. Just think about that. That is the confidence that individuals and businesses have in our province, and it shows up on the job record.

Talk about unemployment rates, in August of 1995, Manitoba's unemployment rate stood at 7.4 percent, the lowest in all of Canada and well below the national rate of 9.6 percent. For the first eight months of 1995, the number of unemployed in Manitoba has declined by 12,000 people or 22.7 percent over the same period last year, again, the best improvement of any province in all of Canada.

Winnipeg's unemployment rate, for the period June to August 1995, was 8 percent, second best of Canada's 11 major centres. Its average unemployment rate for the first eight months of 1995 was 8.4 percent or 8.5 percent, fourth best. [interjection] That is a problem I am going to have, is to get it all in, I have to admit.

I want to move on to the growth of capital investment--in 1995, capital investment in Manitoba is expected to reach a record level of $4.2 billion. In 1995, private capital investment is expected to grow by 3.4 percent. Manitoba's private sector investment growth has been above the national average in three of the last four years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us talk about the manufacturing sector for one minute. In August 1995, Manitoba's manufacturing employment was estimated at 71,000, the highest monthly level since August of 1981. For the first eight months of 1995, manufacturing employment has averaged 62,000 people, up 5,000, or 9 percent, over the same period, the second best of all provinces again in Canada. In 1994, Manitoba's manufacturing shipments grew by 11 percent over last year, the best increase in 13 years.

I want to move on to disposable income for 1994. We know the importance of disposable income, leaving more dollars in the pockets of Manitobans. For 1994, the Conference Board of Canada expects Manitoba's personal disposable income per capital to increase by 1.6 percent, which is above the national average and second best amongst all provinces.

For 1995, the Conference Board expects personal disposable income per capita to increase $687 per capita after taxes, a growth of 4.2 percent above the national rate and the best amongst all of the provinces.

Let us talk exports for a minute, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In 1994, Manitoba's world exports boomed to a record level of $4.7 billion, up 29 percent. This was well above the national average and the best performance of any province. Our strong export growth is continuing for the first half of 1995. Manitoba exports are up 22 percent this year over the same period last year. In 1994, exports to the United States, our largest trading partner, rose to a record level of $3.3 billion, up 32 percent, much better than the national average and the best export performance in all of Canada.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) talks about tourism. For the first half of 1995, accommodation occupancy rates are up 4 percent in Winnipeg and 12 percent in rural Manitoba. In 1994, the number of overseas visitors clearing Customs in Manitoba was up 28 percent, the best increase in all of Canada.

For 1994, Manitoba's housing starts grew 32 percent, the best increase in Canada, due to strong growth in rural areas in particular.

Agriculture, my colleague will talk more about agriculture in Manitoba. In 1994, the Manitoba farm sector had another good year as farm cash receipts held steady at record levels after increasing 19 percent over the previous two years. For the first half of 1995, Manitoba farm cash receipts are up 8.2 percent, second best of all the provinces.

That is just some of the economic information, and you need look no further than companies like Builders Furniture Ltd. expanding with 45 incremental jobs; D W Friesen in Altona, 50 new jobs in exporting to the United States; Loewen Windows, 236 new jobs; Laser West Fabrication, 55 more jobs; A F G Industries, 20 jobs; AT&T Transtech, increasing by some 200 jobs on top of the 443 they already have; Palliser Furniture, 284 more jobs; Tundra Manitoba, 121 more jobs; National Health Care, 50 more jobs here in Manitoba, along with McCain's and their 150; along with Nestle-Simplot.

The facts speak for themselves. The attitudes and the actions of Manitobans speak for themselves, and they show in the statistics that I have just put on the record. So as much as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) can talk about the spirit of co-operation, we have seen very little evidence of it in many other areas over the course of the last several days, months and years, and why should we take him seriously here today?

With that, I want to move, seconded by the member for Ste. Rose du Lac (Mr. Cummings),

THAT Resolution 8 be amended by deleting all of the words following the first WHEREAS and replacing them with the following:

WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has over the last eight budgets created a foundation for strong economic growth and job creation; and

WHEREAS the Manitoba government has frozen all major taxes for eight consecutive budgets and removed impediments to growth of private industry; and

WHEREAS the private sector has responded by creating thousands of new jobs for Manitobans; and

WHEREAS in August 1995, employment rose to 527,000, its highest level since April 1990; and

WHEREAS Manitoba recorded its eighth consecutive month of uninterrupted job growth in August of 1995, a record unmatched by any jurisdiction in Canada; and

WHEREAS in August 1995, Manitoba's unemployment rate stood at 7.4 percent, lowest in Canada and well below the national rate of 9.6 percent; and

WHEREAS Manitoba companies have diversified and developed into existing and new world markets resulting in record exports.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the government of Manitoba in their efforts to build a stronger climate for the development of new opportunities and the creation of more jobs for Manitobans.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

* (1730)

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to put some comments on the record in terms of whether this amendment is in order. While indeed it is in order for resolutions to be amended fairly significantly when they relate to that matter, I would suggest, in this case, that the effect of this amendment is essentially to deal with a completely different matter.

This resolution was a resolution on having an all-party committee. I would suggest that the appropriate thing for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) with this particular amendment would have been to introduce it as a resolution rather than bringing in an amendment on this particular bill which is very specific and deals with an all-party committee. I would therefore ask that you take under advisement as to whether this amendment is in order at the current time.

Point of Order

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a private member, I have the responsibility and the right to bring various proposals forward to this Chamber and express a certain view of how I think this government, how all of us, can contribute to our own constituencies in a more positive way.

I respect the right of the government to amend the resolution, sometimes to even have self-serving amendments. Sometimes the preambles in a resolution may be considered to be narrow, but I do not consider it appropriate and within our rules for a government to substitute, not amend but to substantially replace, i.e., a resolution calling for co-operation from all parties with a resolution that does the hallelujah chorus for their economic performance. That is not an amendment to a resolution. It is materially different than what was even in the original resolution. So the rights of private members to bring private members' resolution are subverted by an amendment that materially changes the whole resolution.

Now, the minister did not choose to amend the all-party committee to say a government dominated all-party committee or a multiparty committee to have agricultural representatives, labour representatives, business representatives on it. That would have been an amendment. But to just completely disregard the rights of individual members. You know, if you want to vote against it, have the intestinal fortitude to vote against it, fine. This resolution, I do not see a spot of evidence that shows me that it is consistent with or you were amending the resolution. I think you are absolutely changing it. I would cite Beauchesne 568, but I would also ask the Deputy Speaker, I was talking about the rights of private members to get involved more in the economy, and I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has gone way too far with his amendment. I believe strongly it should be ruled out of order by the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Environment, on the same point of order?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just listened to the Leader of the Opposition talk about whether or not the amendment was relative. We need to only look at a couple of areas in his motion that speak directly, expressing concerns and his opinion on behalf of Manitobans about the economy and residents in this province. It directly speaks to the amendments that have been put forward which respond in the manner which this government has in fact taken action, and, if he wishes to challenge that, I think the only reason he has to challenge that is it creates a great deal of discomfort when he has to sit and listen to the long list of activities that have been taken to deal with the exact issue that is raised by his motion. If he does not want to debate that type of motion, he should not be putting it on the floor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members for their input on this. I am going to take this amendment under advisement and report back to the House.

* * *

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Continuing debate on the amendment, the honourable member for Inkster, on the resolution.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the note of what we just finished witnessing, I am more inclined to concur actually with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) in the sense of how we have seen resolutions in the past. I understand you have taken it under advisement.

Dealing with the resolution in itself, and this is likely fairly unique for me, again, I think the Leader of the Opposition has in fact brought forward a genuine resolution which I think does deserve a great deal of merit. I know and I would like to be able to cite a couple of specific examples, but suffice it to say that opposition members and back bench members of government, each and every one of us, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out, would like to be able to represent the community as a whole and to be able to have some real input.

Unfortunately, too, in most part, the way in which our rules are set, the parliamentary tradition included, it does not really allow for us to be able to participate in ways which might be in the best interest of Manitobans. He made reference to Meech Lake. I could talk in terms about what would have been a very controversial issue, and LAMC was able to iron it through. It was able to iron it through because it was built on a consensus of the parties that were inside this Chamber, and that of course being the whole issue, for example, of pensions and what MLAs should be paid, and so forth. I did not have that issue brought up once at the door during the last provincial election. I think the reason why it was successful was because, in essence, we had all parties working together to try to resolve.

Now you have two very extreme issues, the Constitution and you have pay and perks for the MLAs. I think that in fact there are, no doubt, virtually endless issues which I could point out and say, gee, would it not be wonderful to have an all-party task force or to try to apoliticize a particular issue. In all likelihood, 95 percent of the things I would like--health care would be on the top of it--probably would not happen, and it is not going to happen because of the way in which our parliamentary system works.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do believe that if in fact the will was there, it would be nice to see some rule changes that would allow for ideas in which maybe a backbencher or someone from the opposition, whether it is from an independent Liberal or from the official opposition that what we saw was a mechanism that allowed a good idea to be talked about so that an MLA, whoever he or she might be, can feel good about getting something accomplished.

I want to point out a couple of specific examples. Today I asked a question about the garment industry and the immigration bilateral agreement. The bilateral immigration agreement is very important to all of Manitoba. I believe personally that I could contribute a great deal to any sort of discussions that are out there because of the knowledge that I might have that other individuals inside this Chamber, including members in the cabinet, might not necessarily have.

Now, if the minister was wanting to be able to achieve a bilateral agreement and the minister is having some difficulties, maybe there is something, if I were wanting to make myself available, some mechanism that allows legislators, if you will, to say, look, maybe it is not LAMC, but maybe there is this other committee, whatever, we will just call it "Standing Committee A," if you like, in which any MLA or backbencher can take a particular issue and make the suggestion. Then, if the will of the Chamber is to allow that issue to go to that particular standing committee, well, maybe that standing committee could even be in camera. I do not like using the words "in camera," but I have seen how effective LAMC has been in the past. If that needs to occur in order to get some of the things done in the best interests of Manitoba, I think that would be a positive, but it has to be inclusive.

* (1740)

Every member of the Chamber has to have the opportunity to be able to make the suggestion at this particular issue. Why do I say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Because I believe that each and every one of us wants to be able to contribute to the way in which our society is going to develop. I believe that I could be a wonderful ally, for example, with this government on what is a very important issue, not only to me personally but to many of the constituents that I represent. I would like to be taken advantage of with respect to this issue. Because we do not have that mechanism, if you will, I then have to take the traditional role of being in opposition and prodding the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) to sit down with the minister, the national minister, and work on this agreement and so forth.

Today I was somewhat surprised to see the letter that the Premier had tabled, but I must say, you know, that letter was sent shortly after I had brought the whole issue up back in the last session. I do not think it was a coincidence that after I was raising the issue back in May and June that the minister then issued a request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do believe quite firmly that if in fact there was a mechanism that was there in which any MLA could appeal to, and it could be quite easily turned down, but if there is an MLA that wants to be able to try to do what they feel or they feel that they have something that they can contribute in a positive way, maybe they have experience which they feel would contribute to making something very successful, we should allow that to occur.

To a certain degree, it is already there. It is the informal relationships that MLAs, whether they are in the back bench or in opposition, create with specific ministers. For example, the Minister of Housing, I was able to work with the Minister of Housing, not only the current, but ministers of Housing in the past in order to get some things happening in Gilbert Park, an area which I represent. The government is able to get credit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am able to get something done in my constituency. I think every one of us wants to be able, as I say, to contribute.

Last weekend I met with some individuals, again, from the Filipino community that have expertise in dealing with an issue which I think is very important to Manitoba, and that is pig waste. There seems to be great potential opportunity. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) talks about the opportunities of hogs in the future in the province of Manitoba. Well, here is a very creative idea on how the pig waste can actually be turned into fertilizer and the odour that is created from it would virtually disappear. If there is in fact, again, something that can be done, this particular issue is not maybe what I would recommend to this particular independent committee, but on this issue I would raise it with different members of government, which I have done, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The resolution talks about all-party committees, and we have seen that in terms of the child poverty issue and very interesting remarks regarding child poverty. I like to believe that both on this resolution and the former resolution I too could be very political and show where the Conservatives have many, many flaws. I know they have many, many flaws. I could also show where the New Democrats have many, many flaws. No doubt they might even be able to find some that we in the Liberal Party might have in terms of flaws.

The message that seems to be fairly consistent that is coming from the opposition is that they would like to see more co-operation, and I applaud the efforts of the official opposition in terms of trying to achieve that sense of more co-operation inside the Chamber. I am not entirely convinced that it is going to be an easy task to say, look, we want something on the economy. I just cannot see something like that happening, because there are going to be so many fundamental disagreements.

You know, I would find it extremely difficult to support a government budget for the simple reason that if I support the Conservative budget, well, does that mean then I do not have anything to offer that would be different to Manitobans, that if in fact I were given the opportunity to be a minister in a government that that would be the budget that I would introduce? No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find that the priorities of this government are wrong, and I believe that we have different priorities. Some of the things I agree with. Other things I do not agree with.

So when we talk about all-party committees and you deal with a subject matter that is so broad, it is not necessarily going to be successful primarily because of the way in which our parliamentary system works. We talked in terms about the saving of Portage, the base, in the all-party committee, the all-party committee on Air Command that was being talked about and so forth.

There are always going to be political optics that have to be looked at. Whether we want to admit them or not, in some cases, it is in a political party's best interest to make a particular issue apolitical. Quite frankly, I would argue that it is to my political advantage if health care was to become apolitical. Not only is it to my political advantage, but it is also something that I fundamentally believe we would be better off if it was more an apolitical issue.

All of those optics have to be taken into consideration when we talk about all parties coming together in order to achieve what is good and what is right for Manitobans. I believe I would be a very strong advocate for looking for that standing committee A, if you like, or something. Again who knows what the ideal system would be, but maybe what it entails is having some sort of discussion of members where we could see something or a process that is put into place in which an individual MLA, he or she, might be able to bring it to the table, a particular issue, and try to be able to contribute in a much more positive way, because I do believe each and every one of us want to do ultimately what is in the best interest of the province.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I am pleased to join briefly in this debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, while I recognize that you are fast becoming a rules expert in this Chamber, I am going to ask your specific indulgence to just speak a little bit about private members' hour, in the first instance, partly because of the situation that we are in. I have no quarrel with it. By agreement with our House leaders on all sides of the House we are looking at spending two hours of virtually every day of our sitting in private members' debate.

* (1750)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that can either become a very kind of sterile exercise but it need not be. In my opinion it could be a very worthwhile time spent in this Chamber. I simply want to draw all members of the House attention to that fact. It is private members' hour. On an occasion where the Whips are on, certainly particularly if you are a government private member, and I remind all of us that we are all private members. Not the Minister of Finance, not the Minister of Agriculture, not the Minister of Environment speaking, when we engage in this debate we are private members.

It has been my observation that to some extent a quality of that has been lost. I want to just refer to a few particular occasions, highlights in private members' hours, particularly for the benefit of new members. Indeed, when I look about me, that includes just about everybody in this Chamber. For instance, when the first Premier that I served, the Honourable Duff Roblin, introduced the sales tax to Manitoba, a backbencher of his government--now we use the politically correct term "upperbencher"--introduced a resolution at private members' hour and said that was a lousy idea and took full advantage of his privileges as a private member to express that idea in this Chamber.

Perhaps more dramatically and very appropriate to an issue that is still high on the list of controversial issues discussed in this Chamber, when a Premier of this province who was committed to aid and support to private and independent schools, the Honourable Ed Schreyer, wanted to have that issue discussed in this Chamber, he could not convince his cabinet nor his caucus to bring it in as a government issue. He brought it in as a private members' resolution.

This is more current history, and some of you will remember. One of the most senior ministers of his cabinet resigned from his position so that he could fight on the opposite side of the issue with his Premier on that issue. That all occurred in private members' hour, and it was a divided House. I was in that House. The Premier got the support of the majority, I might say, of the opposition members, 13. Nine voted with Mr. Green on that issue.

My point in just repeating this history with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is simply to remind us all that as we go into the next five or six weeks, I really think it is an opportunity for all of us, some of us that do not often succeed or do not always succeed in bringing about our own personal ideas to our caucuses and having them accepted use this as an opportunity: first of all, simply to become more adept at public speaking; secondly, now with the advent of the support that we have, letting our constituents know what we are saying in this Chamber; and, thirdly, and perhaps the most important thing, is that we can perhaps, by our eloquence or by the force of our argument, intellectual or academic background of facts, from time to time be able to convince those of us in this Chamber, and there are only 57 of our million Manitobans who are privileged to sit in this Chamber to represent them that have that opportunity.

So I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that rather than let the private members' hour become just, well, something that we have to go through and we have to, kind of by rote, support the party line, let us, for our own edification and, I believe, honestly and sincerely for the betterment of the people that we serve, make this into a meaningful two-hour debate where we can debate these issues.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you rule me out of order, to the resolution at hand--and I want to demonstrate what I just said because I would like to support this resolution. When the Leader of the Opposition says, why cannot we have agreement on the economy? You know, really, why cannot we, because surely we are talking about the same thing? When we talk about the economy, what are we really talking about? We are talking about the buzzword things, jobs and all that, but we are talking about our standard of living that we have, over the years, evolved. We are talking about medicare. We are talking about care. We are talking about looking after those less able to look after themselves than others. We are talking about just the basic services of roads and highways and telephones and all these other things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I said I would, despite the spirited speech that I support wholly of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), I would nonetheless be prepared to support this resolution of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), but there is always a tag line, eh, because, you see, the baggage that I carry shows that I have been around for a while.

I would sincerely have to ask--and, of course, this is the problem not of just our socialist friends opposite but around the world. It really is a problem for them because they have to, by and large, come to the conclusion, acknowledge the utter and total defeat of things that they have held near and dear throughout their lifetime and to now acknowledge that what they profess to did not work.

I will not take the few moments I have to engage in the global issues here, the fact that that great 70-year experience of my homeland, Russia, has come to a crashing end and along with it, regrettably, so many other satellite states that they enveloped.

I want to refer to some very specific things that happened right in this Chamber, beginning with that premier that I have already acknowledged, Mr. Ed Schreyer, who many of you still hold up as the white knight of New Democratic success in Manitoba. What was his formula? That nobody in Manitoba should get more than two and a half times the lowest paid person in Manitoba. That means the brain surgeon, the teacher, the doctors, someone like that, if the minimum wage was $5 an hour, then the brain surgeon at Health Sciences Centre should be getting $12.50 or something like that an hour. Right? We remember that, two and a half times one. You were not there. I was here when he made the statement.

That, by the way, is because Ed Schreyer actually was not a socialist. See, that was already watered down liberalism. Marx, of course, said it differently. Marx said if your capacity is to be a janitor or to dig ditches, that is what you get paid for, that is your capacity, and if your capacity is to be a brain surgeon, you should be paid no more. It should be absolute. There was no two and a half times. It should be equal. Well, that is part of the baggage that the New Democratic Party of Manitoba has to forgo.

I sat in this Chamber when a Minister of Finance at private members' hour suggested, why is it that we have multicoloured toothbrushes. Would it not be cheaper if all toothbrushes were the same make, the same model and the same colour? I will name him, the late Saul Cherniack, sitting in the Minister of Environment's chair.

An Honourable Member: He is still alive.

Mr. Enns: He is still alive? I am sorry. I was thinking of Saul Miller, a colleague that I also sat with. I retract that part.

The gist of his speech, of course, was--this is the kind of fun we had in private members' hour--why are we making Fords and Chevs and Chryslers? Why are we making John Deere tractors and Case and Cockshots and Whites? There should only be one state car. There should only be one state toothbrush. There should only be one state toilet paper and the efficiencies of that should be apparent to everybody.

Theoretically, of course, that is right and it should get printed. You know, half the world believed it for 70 years in Russia, but the problem is they do not have cars, they do not have tractors, they do not have toilet paper, they do not have toothbrushes. That is the net result.

Now and more recently, and I apologize because we did it with affection when we referred to the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) as Karla Marx; we really did. We did not mean any harm by that, but we have stopped doing that you have noticed.

It was only a few years ago when she said french fries should all be the same size. There should not be big ones, small ones. They should all be the same size.

The point of all of this is we are being asked in this resolution to sit down in a joint committee to plan the future economic well-being of Manitoba. I am prepared to do that if the next speaker on the opposition will acknowledge the nonsense of what they have spouting and like Paul on the road to Damascus, confess and convert.

More seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was in this Chamber when a Minister of Justice, Roland Penner, said that all he had ever learned in public policy was at the lap of his communist mom and dad, Jacob Penner, the longest-serving communist member of the City Council and he had no reason for one moment to change his political beliefs. Cy Gonick, who still teaches our youngsters economics at the university--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable minister will have three minutes remaining.

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