ORDERS OF THE DAY

 

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(Fifth Day of Debate)

 

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for an address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and the proposed amendment of the Leader of the official opposition and the proposed subamendment of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

 

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I am pleased to rise today and join in the debate, or join in the responses to the throne speech, although I must admit at the onslaught, and I use the word "onslaught" correctly, I am more pleased to join in the debate than I was to hear the throne speech.

 

This is the third throne speech that I have heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first one was in June 1995, December 1995, and now March 1997. So I have grown used to the self-congratulatory airs and graces, to the dense rhetoric and the glorious promises of a new heaven and a new earth right here in the province of Manitoba. But I must admit nothing quite prepared me for the arrogance and cynicism of this speech and the assumption that the people of Manitoba cannot or will not put two and two together and come up with four. This throne speech simply will not dupe the people of Manitoba no matter how hard the government tries.

 

I refer, of course, to the Premier's new pose and the implicit promises of a gentler, kinder Manitoba. It appears that this Premier and his ministers are now going to become friends of children and of aboriginal people. I would assume that the government has read the polls and this government understands that the people of Manitoba are appalled by child poverty, so what they are going to do is cast a few bucks, I suppose, in the direction of children and of aboriginal people. Once again, after starving our Manitoba children and denying aboriginal people for nine years, the government is going to change its tune. I hope for the sake of children and for the sake of aboriginal people that this Tory relationship differs from that vis-a-vis Manitoba women, for this government has long posed, long marketed itself as a friend of Manitoba women, but I think they have put more energy into the marketing than they have into the friendship with Manitoba women. I will return to the subject of women--

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but if we will just wait one minute, I think we might have some people who are leaving the Chamber and it might be a little quieter in just a minute. Could I ask the members who want to carry on their conversations to do so in the hall so that I can hear the honourable member's presentation. Thank you.

 

The honourable member for Osborne, to continue.

 

* (1430)

Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was speaking about the government's supposed change in attitude, their decision to provide services for the poor, their decision to give a little attention to aboriginal people, and I was hoping that this decision to suddenly be charitable was not like the charity they have extended to Manitoba women, since that charity is, as I said, more a marketing game than it is a reality.

 

It would seem to me that the people of Manitoba will have little faith in the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) throne speech, the architectonics or the structural design of which seems to me to be a rotting house which the owner, a kind of entrepreneur who has been around the block a few times, decides to doctor up in order to sell. We all know the tricks--add a coat of paint to cover unsightly flaws, slap up some cheap wallboard to cover decay, run up a few inexpensive window dressings, all of these things may help to sell. I think a slick entrepreneur might market a tarted-up residence of this kind but only to a woefully imperceptive and almost blind customer. Those who hold shares in the real estate company that marketed such a residence would of course cheer, but the average customer would not be taken in. It would be absolutely no sale.

 

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a way of saying that the Premier's tarted-up throne speech will not sell to the majority of Manitobans, and it will only add furthermore to the growing cynicism and distrust of politicians. We hear it everywhere, people weary of empty political rhetoric, people weary of promises made today and broken tomorrow, and this kind of throne speech seems to me absolute fodder for that kind of criticism.

 

I know the Premier was recently eulogized in the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce's publication Focus and that he was reputed to have been in great form when he was in Davos, Switzerland, this winter. Apparently the Premier made his fifth annual trip to Davos while the rest of us stayed at home and froze our you-know-whats. I know that, according to Focus, a certain British journalist, one Alan Ferguson, flew from England to Manitoba and was allegedly ecstatic over the wonders of our Premier's brilliance. In fact, this Mr. Ferguson came up this morning in the Winnipeg Free Press in an article by Frances Russell, and I want to refer to this article, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

 

The article is on Tory engineers at work on the University of Manitoba, and Alan Ferguson apparently wrote an article on Manitoba featuring our Premier. Our Premier had stellar billing in a publication called WorldLink which I assume means WorldLink is available internationally to people everywhere. Anyway, the author of WorldLink reported our Premier's views on our universities and I want to quote.

 

Alan Ferguson, the article's author, writes that the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and here is the quotation from Alan Ferguson: " . . . argues that the universities are not producing the right kind of graduates for the new economy. He has moved to centralize control," that is, the Premier has moved to centralize control, "over universities and community colleges to influence spending priorities. In this he has the support of many business leaders, some of whom speak with undisguised contempt at the failure of universities to change with the times to produce business-oriented graduates."

 

The article goes on to quote a person from Great-West Life Assurance Co., the president, Ray McFeetors, as saying, you should clean them; that is, the universities. "You should clean them out. You couldn't run a business like that."

 

And, of course, the author of this article points out that universities are not in business, but the point that I want to make is, here is the Premier of this province, presumably a defender of education, public education, but here is the Premier of this province who not only champions Philistinism within the province but does it internationally, appears in an international article telling people the world over that our universities are of an inferior quality or will be soon because they will be completely driven by business.

 

Anyway, this Mr. Alan Ferguson is apparently by all accounts a leftover legacy of Thatcherism, British Thatcherism, so he certainly is not an unbiased reporter. I suspect soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he will have his 'right wings' clipped, especially this summer when Labour Leader Tony Blair tunes in John Major's mostly ailing Tories. So much for Alan Ferguson.

 

On the same subject, that is on focus, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to say that I did enjoy the apotheosis of the Tory cabinet. I read all the profiles very carefully. I enjoyed, too, the letter written by my colleague for Crescentwood in which he spells out some home truths regarding the sale of MTS. I would like to quote from that letter, and I can table the letter if that is necessary.

 

Anyway, I want to quote from the letter. This is a letter by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), the NDP critic for Industry, Trade and Tourism, and I read from him: The government's impossible promise that Manitobans would own a strong majority of the shares in the new company, that is MTS, faded to zero only three days into the trading, when over 26 million installment receipts had been sold, mostly to institutional investors, bringing direct Manitoba ownership down to about 35 percent and falling fast. Sadly, a good public company which provided high quality services and modest profits to one point million Manitobans is now a private company which will try to serve its 30,000 mostly non-Manitoban shareholders by making maximum profits. If you doubt this, remember that the recently privatized CNR is now 65 percent owned by American investors. And as I said, that is signed by the NDP critic for Industry, Trade and Tourism, my colleague the member for Crescentwood.

 

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

 

I want to quote from his letter because I think it is important to get the words of the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) on the public record where the public will have access to them, and I think it is important to make the point that this extremely egregious sale of a Crown corporation and, of course, Mr. Acting Speaker, the unprecedented usurpation of democratic rights which accompanied the sale, I think is important to get on the record and make the point that these two actions lie a shadow across both this Chamber and the Province of Manitoba.

 

Last and most important, the member for Crescentwood's letter reminds us all that this government cannot be trusted. The sale of MTS was arguably the worst in a long series of broken promises. This government might have served the interests of its corporate bosses and put a few million dollars into the hands of stockbroker friends, but the majority of Manitobans, 67 percent, were against the sale, and they wanted, at the very minimum, some consultation. Of course this was denied them, and Manitobans are not pleased.

 

The sale of MTS and this broken promise, broken promise after broken promise after broken promise, may well be the Trojan horse, the decision from within that will eventually destroy this Tory government, and good riddance, of course.

 

I want to turn my attention now from MTS and turn to the throne speech itself. The government claims to be contemplating changes in its attitudes and policies. It promises to begin the fight, to begin the war against child poverty in Manitoba. As I said earlier, after nine lean years, so the throne speech goes, after these nine lean years the government is now going to turn attention to poor children.

 

I want to take a look at the government's record regarding child poverty and put some of it on the record, the Filmon government's record on child poverty. Let me begin, Mr. Acting Speaker, by pointing out that Manitoba has the third worst record of children under 18 living in poverty, as well, the worst record for poor children of single mothers. The rate for all children has risen to 23.2 percent, that is, children living in poverty, from 21.2 percent in 1988, reflecting an increase of 3,000 children living in poverty; 71 percent of children with single mothers are living in poverty.

 

* (1440)

 

Now, I will speak later and I am sure will speak a great deal over this forthcoming session about the institutionalization of female poverty. Have you ever known poor children with rich moms? No. The two do not go together. But the point we are making here is the huge numbers of poor children in the province of Manitoba and this government's failure to do anything about it. Perhaps now something will be done. I am not holding my breath. As my colleague from Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has pointed out, what has happened under this government is that things have become worse. We have gone from 21.2 percent in 1988 to 23.2 percent and 3,000 extra children living in poverty, as I have already said.

 

As well, Winnipeg Harvest reports that it is assisting an average of 17,000 families a month through its food bank. This is an increase from last year's monthly average of 15,000 families.

 

A couple of weeks ago, Mr. David Northcott from Winnipeg Harvest visited our caucus, as I am sure he visited the caucus of members opposite. He spoke about the staggering numbers of children at Harvest. He told us that 5 percent of the population of Winnipeg eats food bank food. I suppose that would mean that 5 percent of the children in Winnipeg eat food bank food. He also told us that the growth in the users of food banks in rural Manitoba over this last year has been the greatest growth in the last 10 years. These are staggering pieces of information and do not bode well for the future of our children in Manitoba nor for the integrity of the members opposite.

Here are some of the things the government has done in recent years: forced the city to reduce food allowances for children due to the standardization of social assistance rates. I remember Bill 36. I remember sitting well into the night. The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) was there. Some members opposite were probably there as well. We heard citizen after citizen put their concerns on the record, and I do not think that even one amendment, one of the amendments of our critic, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), was accepted. It was as though the public were completely blanked out and not listened to.

 

Let me get on. As well, this government has reduced provincial social assistance rates, including rates for families with children--or example, single parents with children over the age of six. But what I understand now, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that mothers with children under six are also being harassed and bullied and forced into the labour market and expected to find care for their children and leave their children. As well, the government has failed to implement the Health of Manitoba's Children, and I am speaking here of the Dr. Postl report, which also included some very fine recommendations on child poverty. I do not understand the commissioning of a report and then a blind wilfulness to pay any attention to that report. Reduced the budget for child care by $4 million per year and reduced the number of subsidized--and I believe they are cases, not spaces. Yes, they would be cases.

 

According to the 1991 census, there were 82,135 children under the age of five in Manitoba, and, despite our high child poverty rate, the Filmon government has reduced the number of subsidized child daycare cases from 9,900 for 1995-96 to 8,600 for 1996-1997. Now, there is a terrible irony here because last week this very government had a distinguished visitor here who had participated--I believe he was part of the original Perry Preschool project--speaking about the benefits of early childhood education, of Head Start programs, and despite this, this is the very government, the same government that brought this gentleman to town, the same government is now reducing the number of subsidized cases that are available for daycares in Manitoba. I have certainly talked to parents who would be able to work if they were able to access daycare, and I know that I am not the only one.

 

Here is one that really, I think, is extremely serious. The government has failed to implement new strategies, as promised, to reduce the high rate of adolescent pregnancy. Statistics Canada figures show that the province leads the country with a rate of 64.2 pregnancies per thousand girls aged 15 to 19. This information is from October 1996. Now I happen to know that the pregnancy rate is higher in some areas--this is the average--and lower in others and that in certain areas in our province teenage pregnancy is almost an epidemic. I think it is also important to make the point that when a young adolescent woman--I suppose all adolescent women are young--so when an adolescent woman has a child, there are two lost children, or nearly always two lost children, because most adolescent girls simply are not able to bring up a child. Birth control may be a dirty word, Mr. Acting Speaker, but certainly pain, poverty and abuse are even dirtier.

 

Members of the caucus opposite may wish to speak with Dr. Jack Armstrong. He is a representative from the Manitoba Action Committee for Children and Youth and he spoke to our caucus a few weeks ago, along with David Northcott. Maybe you heard from him. He spoke about the 20 percent cutback in nursery school in the city, certainly a direct result of cuts to education in this province, and of course let me reiterate again the importance of Head Start for children. He spoke about the Perry School project. He also apparently has a very serious interest and concern about teenage pregnancy.

 

This government has also failed to allocate $10 million as promised to the Children and Youth Secretariat. I guess the best laid plans of mice and men sometimes come to naught because there is no funding. This Youth Secretariat does not appear to be--well, people tell me they phone and they get an answering machine.

 

The government has also failed to implement their recommendations of the 29 Children and Youth Secretariat reports which came in, in June 1996. The ones I have read make some excellent and remarkable suggestions and the government would do well to pay heed. As well, the government has eliminated the treatment portion of the Children's Dental Program. This was done in 1993. It formerly served 43,000 children in rural and remote areas. The total savings over three years, $11 million, the long-term cost of dental work somewhere around twice that, $22.5 million. It would seem to me that dental programs for children whose parents cannot afford this service is a very important investment in the future of health and in the future of Manitoba.

 

* (1450)

 

In 1993, the government expanded the base of the provincial sales tax to include children's clothing and baby supplies. This seems to me petty meanspirited and certainly a regressive tax because it is borne equally by everybody, by haves and by have-nots. It is really a pernicious policy that seems to me to be very much akin to the kind of policy that Preston Manning would advocate.

 

Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to say a few words about children with special needs and the parents of children with special needs. This is another group of children and another group of parents who have indeed been badly served by this government. The throne speech mentioned a task force report on special needs and education. Now I know that this report has taken several years to get off the ground. I do not know whether the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) has been busy meditating and reflecting. Maybe she has been too busy cutting education and bullying teachers. Anyway it appears that this long-awaited special needs review is underway, but frankly, many parents are nervous. Many parents are nervous about this review. I attended a meeting of a group called the Coalition for Children. I mentioned this in the House before. I attended a meeting of the Coalition for Children living in the community. Last year the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) attended it.

 

The ministers of the Crown, I might add, were conspicuous at this meeting only by their absence and by their lack of support. The parents at this meeting spoke of their struggles to keep their children in their homes. They talked about dwindling respite workers. They talked about untrained respite workers. I talked to a young woman from my constituency who has a child with cerebral palsy. She was telling me that she gets two hours respite every week, and when I asked her how she could possibly do anything in two hours, she said her way is to take four hours every two weeks. Four hours every two weeks is what this woman gets, the only respite she gets from very, very stressful and high-needs care for her child. This does not seem to me to be promoting the health of the child nor the health of this mother. But, to add fuel to the fire, she was telling me that on occasion the respite worker will turn up and the respite worker does not know what to do, so she will have to take time out of those few hours she gets to teach that respite worker. She does not get that time back. She loses it. Then maybe in another month a different worker will come, and she will then be required to train that worker. So this is one example of the kind of struggle these people face.

 

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

 

This coalition is very concerned about the special needs review. They fear, perhaps, a return to segregated classrooms. They are concerned about overburdened teachers. They are concerned about the labels that they are required to use to refer to their children, labels which they find humiliating and degrading. What they want, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a province and a vocabulary which treat all Manitobans, including their very special children, with dignity and with respect. The issues affecting special needs children require humane public policy responses, partnerships with community, with family, and with government. This coalition of parents is waiting, and they are ready to speak with government. I hope that those conversations and that work will be done soon.

 

I want to ask the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) and the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to recognize today that all children in Manitoba are special and to institute the support, the programs, and the resources for all Manitoba children. It seems to me that ignoring this group, as this government has done, is a kind of family bashing, and I know this government prides itself on its attitudes towards family. It claims to love families, to embody the virtues of the family, but I think the policies, the treatment of the poor children in Manitoba, the treatment of children with special needs, is little more than family bashing. I want to stick with that expression, family bashing. Let us move away from family bashing. Let us stop it. Instead, I ask the members opposite to do this: let us recognize the family as the cornerstone of our community. The family is the basic building block in our social structure and let us start respecting the family.

 

I remember, too, and ask you to remember, ask members opposite to remember, that the measure of morality is not how we treat the strongest amongst us, but the measure of morality is how we treat the weakest amongst us. I point out to you that the Chamber of Commerce is thriving. They do not need your help, but the children of Manitoba, the women of Manitoba, the poor women in Manitoba, do need your help.

 

Following the example of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), quoting Shakespeare seems to be almost de rigueur these days, and so I want to take my text from Richard III: "Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by this sun of York." Margaret Thatcher introduced a winter of discontent into Britain in 1979-1980. Our Premier (Mr. Filmon) has introduced a winter of discontent, and I ask this Premier today to listen to that quotation and to become, as the play would have him be, the sun and make this winter of discontent glorious summer. The Premier, we know, has the power. The Premier has the money. People over there are forever bragging about their surpluses and about their very clever financial management. So I ask you today to use some of this. All it requires to make a glorious summer in this province is a little bit of human decency and political will and an election.

 

I want to change hats and move on to the women of Manitoba and ask the rhetorical question, what has this government done for the women of Manitoba? I know that on March 5 I reviewed what the government had done for the women of Manitoba when the Minister for the Status of Women did a puff piece on her government's work for Manitoba women.

 

Now, the minister's intentions, the intentions of the Minister for the Status of Women are no doubt noble but, as the saying goes, the primrose path to Hell is paved with good intentions. I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this Minister for the Status of Women simply does not get it. She simply does not understand that the quality of life for numbers of women since 1988 has plummeted and that the Minister of Finance's balanced budget is balanced on the backs of Manitoba's women and Manitoba's children.

 

This, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is once again an example of what I was referring to as family bashing. Now, I could go on for quite some time about this government's record on women, but suffice it to say that provincial government policies and cuts, augmented I must say by the pernicious federal policies, by the changes to the CHST, both provincial government and federal government are impoverishing Manitoba women. They are denying them services, economic security, respectful employment, denying them a full complement of health care.

 

* (1500)

 

Then of course there is the issue that I alluded to earlier and I am sure other members may speak at at greater length. There are problems with child care, family violence court. I think the waiting time is something like six months, and there are continuing problems with maintenance and cuts to family disputes, last year a 2 percent cut. Everybody in that community is on pins and needles waiting for the budget on Friday to see if they will have a further cut.

 

The community of women, the women who run shelters, resource centres, second stage housing simply cannot absorb another cut. They are already just, just squeaking by. I noticed in the throne speech that the government bragged about its shelter system and I think described its system as the best in the country, and I just do not quite understand how the government can arbitrarily declare its system the best in the country. I do not know how other provinces would feel about this declaration. But it also said that there were going to be increases to the shelter system, and I am very interested to know what these increases are and will certainly keep a close eye on them and monitor them very carefully.

 

I have been talking about some of the problems, some of the cuts that Manitoba women have suffered since 1988, and I must say finally what most sticks in my craw, what bothers me the most is the concerted effort on the part of this government--I am going to tell you right now what really bothers me the most finally is the government's concerted effort to violate the dignity of the most, of a very, very vulnerable group in our society, single parents on welfare. Not only are mothers with children over six being frogmarched out of their homes and into mostly low-paying, no-benefit jobs, many of them live in fear of losing these positions and so being returned to the mercy of this government but, also, single parents with children under six, in clear violation of what we were told in the House, these single parents, as I said earlier, are being harassed and bullied and forced to seek employment, leaving their children at home. This is another example of the family bashing that I talked about earlier.

 

Now, I know this is happening, because I have had several cases in my own constituency where women are being harassed in smaller or larger ways, and it simply is a violation of what we were led to believe would exist.

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government undermines youth with cuts to child care and education. Of course, we heard a lot of discussion about education today. We heard the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) argue with members opposite, blindly deny that there has been 2 percent cut, 2 percent cut, freeze, 2 percent cut, freeze, blindly deny this, or willfully deny this, I should say. She has not spoken or has not addressed the issues of large classrooms, a paucity of textbooks in the classrooms, cutting resource teachers.

 

The problems go on and on. I remember last year during the Education bill committee hearings, teacher after teacher, school after school talking about the difficulties of trying to run a classroom in this day and age.

 

My point here is that the government is undermining youth with its cuts to child care. With its cuts to education this government is undermining seniors by their threats last year to home care--the home care debate certainly is not finished yet--and by running a really slipshod personal care home system. As the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has been pointing out day after day, this system needs some review and needs it right now. Now the government is undermining single parents on welfare by imposing inordinate restrictions on social assistance.

 

These are a few examples of family bashing. The government is really putting the squeeze on Manitoba's family, and our No. 1 priority, the No. 1 priority of an NDP government would be our determination to respect families, to respect family life, to turn the heat off the family, to encourage family life and to put people first. Our priority and our commitment is clear in our leader's alternatives, the alternatives that he announced on February 27, 1997, just prior to the opening of the House.

 

Now, I understand my time is running out, so I will just quickly make a couple of points. I wanted to say that I am very pleased to hear the ballet is travelling to Edinburgh. I have been a long-time season ticket holder, and I certainly respect our Royal Winnipeg Ballet. I wish now if only our government, this government would utilize the arts groups and the artists in our city to promote tourism and so help scotch the urban decay that threatens Winnipeg.

 

This government is no friend to the city of Winnipeg, and I certainly ask the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to pay some attention and to chat with his Premier. The words from his Premier this morning were disillusioning, to say the least. I hope too that the Minister of Education has now read the polls and now considers breakfast and nursery programs to be educational benefits and not just community enhancements.

 

Finally, recently I had a tea with seniors in Osborne, and I asked them what Manitoba needed most, and their answer was immediate, unequivocal and unanimous: an election right now, please.

 

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise today with pleasure to speak to this throne speech, which has been put before this Chamber, has been put before the people of Manitoba. I would not be so timorous or--

 

An Honourable Member: Picayune.

 

Mr. Radcliffe: --picayune, yes, as to suggest to my erstwhile honourable colleague across the way that maybe the constituents of Osborne were suggesting an election for the purposes of re-electing another Filmon government to run this province. The people of Manitoba have consistently supported the Filmon government over the last eight years, nine years, and there has to be a reason for that. I would suggest that one of the reasons that the people of Manitoba have opted to support the Filmon government as manifested from the values and the standards and goals that are presented in this throne speech is for one very significant reason, and my honourable colleague across the way touched on this issue and that is the issue of keeping your word.

 

She spoke of the dying days of the last session when we were debating in this very Chamber the MTS debate and the sale of shares. I would like to put on the record today, because I think that the people of Manitoba should know as to correct the misinformation or the misapprehension that might have been left by our honourable colleague across the way, that in fact I am told that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), the honourable Leader of the Opposition, wrote to the Premier and made a commitment as to when this House would rise. He committed in writing as to when his party would agree to allow us to rise.

 

I am told in addition that there was a memorandum of understanding committing to writing this issue, and then we all agreed unanimously in this House to when we would rise and all bills and all issues that were before this House would be concluded and voted upon, and then what did the individuals across the way have the audacity to do? They did not respect their word, and you know what the people of Manitoba do with people who do not respect their word and hold to a bargain? They are dispensed with.

 

* (1510)

 

When my honourable colleague across the way starts talking about elections, perhaps the members of the opposition should perhaps review their activities and be a little more respectful of their commitments, respectful of their opinions of themselves.

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the Filmon government has brought before the people of Manitoba and what has been presented in this throne speech today is some of the intrinsic foundation of how this province is progressing into the new millennium. We have introduced balanced budget legislation. We have gone out to the people of Manitoba and we have asked them whether this is what they wanted, and you know what, people are continually coming back to us and saying, well done, keep it up, we admire, we respect your balanced budget legislation. We respect your fiscal probity and, in fact, not the prevaricating mewling which we may hear floating around this Chamber from some unknown sources.

 

Rather, this government has introduced the toughest balanced budget legislation in the entire country. We are not faced in Manitoba with a situation where citizens are taking a Premier to court for misapplying or misinterpreting the facts of the province's finances, not how we see the issue faced with the individuals beyond the Rocky Mountains. We are not facing a management of a province which has been driven into bankruptcy by feckless, mindless spending which, if we listen to our honourable friends across the way, we would be induced with. Not so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This government has introduced balanced budget legislation with teeth in it.

 

The second plank of our platform which is represented in this speech is that we have maintained a tax system in this province that is fair and competitive. We are one of the few jurisdictions in the country of Canada that has actually through our tenure reduced taxation. We have removed taxes from the people of Manitoba. The people of Manitoba had said to us unilaterally that they are--the people of Manitoba have said to us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they do not want any more taxes. We listen to the people of Manitoba. We do not dance to some arrogant academic prerogative or mandate which we hear in this Chamber being voiced by some of the other members of this Assembly. We listen to the real people in Manitoba. These are farmers; these are parents; these are small merchants; these are labourers; these are people who are talking to us and telling us what they need, and do you know what? They are sick and fed up with mindless, endless taxation, and that was what we were going to be faced with if you listened to the mandate and the agenda of our honourable colleagues across the way. We have changed the direction of this province and introduced a concept of prosperity and accountability.

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government has consistently introduced an economic plan which is going to be building aggressively on our many strengths to bring Manitoba into the new century. My honourable colleague from the front bench here the honourable minister of child and family services says the best form of support that we can give any citizen in Manitoba is--do you know what that is? That is a job. My honourable colleagues across the way are stuck for an answer when I ask that question because that is not something with which they are familiar.

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, on one hand, we are proceeding into the future and to a glorious future for the people of Manitoba with economic prosperity. We have one of the lowest levels of unemployment in this country. We are coming in well below the national level of unemployment, and there has to be a message there. Do you know what has happened in Manitoba? The Filmon government has put Manitobans back to work. What they have done is they have created an environment where capital wants to come to Manitoba. [interjection] My honourable colleague from Portage la Prairie says that they are actually flocking in here from Ontario to create jobs for Manitobans.

 

Now, one of the things which I would take great delight in explaining, and I should perhaps do this monosyllabically for the edification of our honourable colleagues across the way, is that the Filmon government has maintained its social programs to support some of our less fortunate individuals in Manitoba and to manifest and to illustrate this point--[interjection]Ah, the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is making some allusions to the care and compassion of the Deputy Speaker, and I applaud him for that. But Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I get off track, I want to tell our honourable colleagues across the way, and this is just an illustrative statistic from the Child and Family Services, that in Manitoba for the age group of those children on assistance between the ages of 11 and 17, if one were to remove the rental or accommodation aspect of support, that which is something which varies from city to city, the actual numbers that are paid for rental housing, if you remove that component, Manitoba--guess what, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where do you think Manitoba rates in the country of Canada on the support of young children between the ages of 11 and 17?

 

I am pleased to stand here today and tell my honourable colleagues, although they may have problems grasping this fact, but I also want to tell the people of Manitoba that this Manitoba government, this Filmon government, is No. 1 in the support of those less fortunate individuals who fall into that category, and that is taking into account the untold wealth that we see on either coast from the people of Ontario or the people of British Columbia. Little Manitoba steps forward to the mark. We are saying that we think so much of our youth that we are prepared to support them at the best rate in this entire country.

 

* (1520)

 

Now we heard about child poverty. We heard about all the individual cases that our honourable colleague across the way was citing, and I do not for a minute deprecate the integrity of the advocate over there nor some of the specifics which she may have been addressing, but a government, and especially the individuals in this Chamber, must look at our rating and our status in the entire nation. When I can say we are No. 1 in this significant attribute, and we have said that these people are so important to us, that has got--

 

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Even the NDP provinces.

 

Mr. Radcliffe: Even the NDP provinces, says my honourable colleague the Minister of Health. That displays a commitment. We do not hear about that from our erstwhile colleagues across the way. Do you know what? I was just writing down, while the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) was talking, and I was picking out some of the character words that we were hearing. And do you know what she was saying? I heard "onslaught." I was hearing "arrogance," "distrust," "slick entrepreneur," "tarted-up."

 

Another thing, I learned a lesson in biology today because my honourable colleague across the way was referring to her you-know-whats were getting frozen. I did not know that was an endowment which my honourable colleague enjoyed, but nonetheless I accept that. She is telling me that she was endowed with those. Nonetheless, what this Filmon government is doing and has been represented in this throne speech is we are entering into a creating and a participating in a sense of community. We are causing people in Manitoba to start to think differently about themselves, about our province and about our place in this wonderful country of ours. Too long people in Manitoba under the regime of the individuals across the way had a chip on their shoulder, had thought it was a cannot do, that we were second best. I congratulate my colleagues on this side of the House that they have been able to spread a sense of optimism throughout this province. They have been able to tell the people of Canada and the people of North America that this is a place to do business. This is a place where you have a quality of life, a place where one wants to be.

 

In fact, in support of that contention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can tell my honourable colleagues and the people of Manitoba that in this past year there have been 23,900 new jobs created in Manitoba. Now we are looking at the streets of Montreal where there are boarded-up stores. We hear the stories about the homeless people on the streets of Toronto. We hear about the NDP jurisdiction on the West Coast that insisted on a 90-day cooling-off period before people were entitled to welfare, and our federal government had to ride to their rescue and dump some fresh money into the province of British Columbia, which is presumably our wealthiest province or one of our wealthiest provinces, but we in Manitoba have created 23,900 new jobs and that there is repetition because the people of Manitoba hear too long and too often about the doom and the gloom that is emanating from the benches across the way.

 

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

 

Mr. Acting Speaker, we must make sure that an upbeat and positive message gets out to the citizens of Manitoba, to the people on Portage Avenue, that in fact you come to Manitoba because you have the chance to work. You have the chance to take pride in accounting for yourself, supplying your own needs, not being dependent on some sort of a handout or hand down or welfare. I have heard individuals tell me that the old welfare system was designed to create dependence. It was designed in order to build up a client base, and that was only to make a system fatter and fatter and fatter. With the greatest of respect to our honourable colleagues across the way, none of that money was going into creating an environment to make jobs for people.

 

Mr. Acting Speaker, our throne speech has indicated that we want to make a province where there is job creation for our children. Last weekend in the Winnipeg Free Press, there was a lead article which said that we had one of the highest rates of employment for our children in this country. Now I hav

Mr. Acting Speaker, our throne speech has indicated that we want to make a province where there is job creation for our children. Last weekend in the Winnipeg Free Press, there was a lead article which said that we had one of the highest rates of employment for our children in this country. Now I have heard about the deprecating remarks emanating from the different levels of benches across the way referring to McJobs. Well, you know what, when I was working my way through Arts at the University of Manitoba, I took a job pushing a broom for the CPR and I cleaned out toilets and I was a baggage master and I sold tickets. You know what, I was not ashamed of that job. I was proud of that job. I was working with colleagues in the CPR who did support families on those jobs. I was a relief--

Point of Order

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Order, please. The honourable member for Wellington, on a point of order?

 

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Yes, I was wondering if the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) would be open to a brief question.

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlpine): Are you rising on a point of order?

 

Ms. Barrett: I would like to rise on a point of order, and I would like to ask the member for River Heights if he supported a family on the jobs that he is talking about, as many of the single parents and individuals whom we are talking about have to do. Did he ever support a family on that job?

 

* * *

 

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Acting Speaker, in response to the implication or the inference of my honourable friend across the way and in response to her question, I would like to tell this House that, in fact, no, I did not support a job because I was working my way through school at that point, but I was summer relief for individuals who were working full time at the job that I was doing. These were individuals in the CPR who were proud of what they did. They went somewhere every morning, and they had a goal, and they had direction. They were amply rewarded, and they did support their families. They did not throw up their hands in aimless disgust and say, oh, no, somebody else has to bail me out. They made their own way.

 

As I worked my way through university, I went to law school, and I went out and I was a substitute teacher. I did not have enough money to answer all my needs when I was in university, so therefore I had part-time jobs. We are told in that article in the newspaper today that, in fact, there is a plethora of jobs out there for our young people so they can be independent, so they can hold their heads up high, so they are not taking handouts.

 

Mr. Acting Speaker, we are facing a situation now in Manitoba with a health care situation where our government, the Filmon government, tries to deliver acute care, remedial care, wellness, home care, to the people of Manitoba. We have gone across this province, and we have tried to bring and we have brought health care into the 20th Century, into the 21st Century as it approaches.

 

Mr. Acting Speaker, we have a crisis with health care as we are an aging population. Technology is changing in health care. We presented to the people of Manitoba a stringent budget. It was a caring budget on health care last year. We in this government devote more wealth of this province, of the peoples' money in Manitoba per capita, to health than any other province in Canada. There again, Manitoba is No. 1. The Filmon government's support in social programming is better than any other in the country of Canada. That bears repetition because our honourable colleagues--

 

An Honourable Member: Say it again.

 

* (1530)

 

Mr. Radcliffe: We are No. 1 in the Filmon government in Manitoba in comparison to other governments across the country of Canada in support per capita of health care.

 

Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, even though we were producing at that level, we went the extra mile. Did you know--and I would ask my honourable colleagues across the way, and I think they would be dumbfounded, if that were, in fact, possible, to hear this information--that we spent in addition another $60 million over and above what was budgeted, $60 million dollars more to answer the health care needs of the people of Manitoba? That shows that this government is compassionate, it is aware, it is caring, and it is there for the people of Manitoba, for the sick, for the disabled, for the marginalized and for the poor.

 

Our Pharmacare system that we introduced last year is working very well. It is supporting and paying for the drugs for all our underprivileged people. This health care support is in the face of a federal distribution of money from our federal friends. We face cuts in transfer, in health, in higher education across Canada of $7 billion--$7 billion dollars the federal government took out of the transfers to social welfare, to health and to education.

 

An Honourable Member: 40 percent.

 

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

 

Mr. Radcliffe: Forty percent says the honourable member for Portage la Prairie. Even in the face of these draconian cutbacks, the people of Manitoba have been supported by the Filmon government in excess of what we budgeted because of the needs that we perceived. We want to tell the people of Manitoba that this government will be there for you in your need.

 

We are being frugal. We are managing your money well, but when there is real need that is presented, we can say and hold our heads up high that we are not afraid of spending more when it is required.

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Manitoba government is pleased to tell the people of Manitoba that we have now worked with our federal colleagues to rebalance the Canadian federation. We have taken charge of the whole field of immigration in Manitoba in order to recruit and solicit new individuals, new immigrants to come to Manitoba. You know why we have to do that and why that is imperative that the Manitoba government do that, because there are jobs here and there were jobs that were going unfilled. Entrepreneurs and business people and factory owners were coming to our government and pleading with us and saying, find skilled workers for us, find people for our factories. You know what, our minister, our former Minister of Culture and Heritage who sits before me today went to our colleagues and was able to arm wrestle this area of our government over to the control of the province of Manitoba so that the people who were closest to the need were the individuals who were setting the pace for this issue.

The good economic news from Manitoba, which we are proud to set out in this throne speech, pervades every area of activity in the economy of Manitoba. Our manufacturing, the local newspaper indicates that manufacturing in Manitoba is booming. It is booming. Our capital investment growth is going to continue to grow. Our throne speech has pointed out that retail sales in Manitoba have grown at twice the national rate over the last two years and we look around us, and this is in a milieu where many provincial economies are faltering but little Manitoba is surging ahead.

 

An Honourable Member: Steamrollering.

 

Mr. Radcliffe: Steamrollering ahead.

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Manitoba is described in our tourist information as the heart of the country, the heart of the continent. We are prepared and we are taking to the other people of this North American continent the exporting of our goods and services to the economies of Mexico and to the United States. We were able to do this through the good services of the NAFTA agreement, which was signed by the previous federal government--

 

An Honourable Member: Brian Mulroney.

 

Mr. Radcliffe: Ah, yes, and the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and commerce refers to that farsighted individual, the Prime Minister that we had in the previous government. This was not our present Prime Minister, who, I might add, came into power implying or saying that he was going to rip up NAFTA, he was going to dissolve it, just as he said that he was going to remove the hated GST.

 

Now, I am the first one to admit that I do not like taxation either. Do you know what? I want to be taxed as little as possible. I want to be able to go out and earn my daily bread, and I want to be able to take home as much of that as I can. Do you know what? The government in Saskatchewan very, very recently within the last several years indicated statistics that for the citizens of Manitoba, you had the best opportunity to keep your daily bread in Manitoba over all the other provinces in this federation. So there again, Manitoba is No. 1. Number one, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

 

We are pleased to tell the people of Manitoba that our government is taking trade missions to Brazil. We are telling the people of Argentina about what is happening in Manitoba. We are taking our goods to Chile, to Ukraine, to Asia and to South Africa. Manitoba is becoming not just the engine of North America, but we are carrying our message to the world.

 

One of the issues which we are pleased to be able to show the continental neighbours of ours in North America is that we are going to be hosting the 1999 Pan American Games. We are going to be playing host to all our colleagues across North and South America. This will bring enhanced trade; this will bring enhanced investments. Tourist investment and development will burgeon ahead. Community development and cultural industry will expand as never before with this sort of a step.

 

* (1540)

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, our throne speech has also spoken to the fact that Winnipeg will become a global hub for multimodal transportation. Again, do you know what that does? That creates jobs, that creates industry, that creates wealth in Manitoba. This is not a government forcing money into a sterile, government-dominated, top-down, hierarchical environment. Not so, these are merchants and entrepreneurs. We heard them typified earlier as slick entrepreneurs. Well, I beg to differ. We know that the engine of Manitoba is driven by small business. The majority of people in Manitoba are employed in small business enterprises. These are not slick people. But this characterization which our honourable colleagues across the way persist in labelling the people of Manitoba will just ensure that they will be perpetuated in their ongoing critical role of finding fault, pejorative allegations--[interjection] Joe Spitspick, that is correct, says the honourable member for Portage la Prairie.

 

There are 34,000 small businesses functioning and functioning well in Manitoba. They employ 83,000 self-employed entrepreneurs. There are the majority of the people in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This accounts for over $3 billion of income, and 28 percent of Manitoba's payroll is based in small business. The socialists who have an ideological bent seem to think that these people do not exist, that they are not worth listening to. The Filmon government goes out and listens to these people, and when I said that we were listening to real individuals, these are some of the people who we are listening to in Manitoba, and we continue to listen to them and we continue to give them the type of government that they are asking for.

 

There is so much in this throne speech which I am proud to tell you about this, about my honourable colleagues, about what is in this speech, and the people of Manitoba. I just want to highlight because I know my time is wasting. I just want to highlight some of the salient, the major points in this speech, in this throne speech. Potato production is surging ahead. Hog production is surging ahead. We are developing and researching new crops, nontraditional livestock. We in Manitoba in this government are creating an environment where mineral exploration assistance is causing people to flock to Manitoba to tap our mineral wealth. Petroleum exploration assistance is coming from this government. In order to show the people of Canada that there is real action, Manitoba is open to do business.

 

On the other side of the coin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are sensitive to our parks, to our environment. We are building a network of protected spaces. We are also going to our less fortunate individuals in the--

 

An Honourable Member: NDP?

 

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes--in the aboriginal communities and saying that we want to bring educational services to unemployed aboriginal high school, college and university graduates to make sure that they want a job, because they are eager to work. They want to work for their future. Our government has proceeded with and signed and put in the can seven treaty land entitlement agreements, and we are working on new agreements with an additional 19 bands. In all the history of Manitoba from the 1930s when the transfer of land was made to the provinces, it has fallen and devolved on the shoulders of this government to finally effect these arrangements with our First Nations colleagues.

 

Our education is surging ahead. We have listened to the parents in Manitoba who have told us that they want objective outcomes, they want standardization, they want curricula change, they want accountability. Do you know what? Our honourable colleagues across the way, I think--and I say this sonorously--I think they may be afraid of accountability, and I hesitate to say that in this Chamber, but that may well be the basis on which they criticize our educational policies. Now, I would say this very hesitantly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

 

We are creating a partnership with the individuals who are the key players in the Manitoba community. There is the Mennonite Central Committee, our Taking Charge! initiative that we have presented, Youth NOW. These are all opportunities for Manitobans to live, to work and to raise a family not only this year, not only next year but into the next century.

 

We can look back and say with gratitude, with undying gratitude, that it was because of the forethought, it was because of the wisdom, it was because of the vigour, and it was because of the good government that we get from the Filmon government. That is what is in this throne speech, and I thank you for the opportunity to put a few of these remarks on the record today.

 

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to put a few words on the record with respect to this throne speech, and I hope some comments that are a little bit more accurate than some of the things that we have been hearing.

 

But I want to begin by welcoming back the pages to this House who serve us so well and the new staff people who are joining us at the table. I also want to wish the new ministers well who have taken on new responsibilities and hope that they have the opportunity to really be in charge in their department and that they will not be controlled by the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) office as we have seen in an article just recently. In fact, it is not elected members but staff of the Premier who dictate what will happen in this province. I want to also recognize the two ministers who were removed from cabinet and wish them well in their future plans.

 

But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I speak on the throne speech I want to speak a bit about what happened here in this House on November 27 and 28. The member who just spoke before me made comments about a memorandum of understanding that we as opposition did not live up to. The member should remember that it was his government that did not have their act together and did not have the amendments in place with the MTS bill, amendments dealing with pensions of the employees of Manitoba Telephone that this government tried to shaft when they were privatizing the Manitoba Telephone System. It was because members on this side of the House worked with the people who were involved that some of those issues were addressed, but it was the day after the House was supposed to end that the government was still bringing forward amendments.

 

So, in fact, it is the government who did not live up to their part of the agreement, but the government has options. That is why there were words such as "normally" in the rules. But the member also said that we did not live up to our word. I can tell you that this government is the one that has not lived up to their word. Who was it that said: No, we are not selling MTS, no, we will not be selling MTS? It was members of the government. It was the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who said during the campaign that they would not sell MTS.

 

* (1550)

 

On other issues, who was the government that said, no, we will not be moving away from single-desk selling of hogs? We heard that from members of the government, but they changed their word after the government. So we know that this government has a lot of responsibility, has to be held accountable for them not living up to their word.

 

But I have to tell you that when I ran for office I promised my constituents that I would be a strong voice for them, and our rights as opposition members were taken away from us on November 27 and 28 when we were not allowed to speak. That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be two black days in Manitoba history that will go down as days when we were a one-party state and opposition had no role, or, perhaps, as my colleague says, it was a one-man state where one person was calling the shots and the rest of us who wanted to put on the record concerns that were raised by our constituents did not have that opportunity. The government can say what they like about the opposition, but they are the ones that will go down in history as putting a black mark on the history of Manitoba.

 

They had the opportunity to use closure, but they chose instead to abuse the Speaker and have her do the dirty work for them just as we have seen this government do in other cases. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that that is a disgrace, disgraceful the way this government abused the rules of this House. I have to say that I would hope that the government would recognize this and would support the bill that was put forward by my colleague the member for Thompson today which will lead us to an elected Speaker, and one that I have not heard anybody from the other side of the House speak about, but certainly the House of Commons has an elected Speaker, many provinces have an elected Speaker. There is not any reason why we should not have one here, and there is not any reason why we cannot go back and look at some of the rules that were in place and see how they can work again to have this House run in a more democratic fashion, but certainly we cannot have what we had before where the Premier orders the Speaker as to what should be done and the rights of the opposition should be ignored.

 

An Honourable Member: That is not true.

 

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) says it is not true. The record speaks for itself, and we were denied our right to speak. The Leader of the Opposition stood up on a matter of privilege and he was not recognized. It was the government who broke the rules on that one and shamed Manitoba.

 

I want to take some time to raise a few comments about the throne speech. Before I do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to say that between the last session and before we came back to this House we spent a lot of time travelling in rural Manitoba and listening to people across the province. I can tell you that Manitobans do not support this government's position on the sale of MTS. The government ignored them, and this government reminds me of some other governments who have been in power for too long, and they tend to isolate themselves inside their offices and ignore rural Manitobans and ignore Manitobans across the province, and that is what they are doing here. They are not listening to what Manitobans really want, and I encourage them to take the time and really go out there and listen to the people.

 

I have to say that when we were out at our meetings, there were many issues that were raised, and I would like to talk about a few of them. One of them in particular is what is happening to education and the cutbacks that we have seen by this government and the offload onto municipalities. You know the government likes to have people think that they have not raised taxes, but when you look at their record and the increases we have seen in municipal taxes, on education taxes, that is only one area where we have seen offloading and indirect taxes because of this government. The other issue that was raised on education when I met with people in my constituency is people are concerned with special needs students and the purpose of government's calling for a special needs review. I have to tell you that the public feels that this is just another--it will be another cutting measure. They will go out and listen to people and then they will cut, or they will pretend they listen to people and then they will cut.

 

I want to tell you that I feel that the government has to be very careful with what they are doing with special needs children, and by the cutting that they have done to education funding, they have put pressure on teachers and on parents, and it appears that they are moving to the extent where people will become frustrated because all children are not having the opportunity to get a good education, and we will end up moving towards a more segregated education system. The government must keep in mind that all children are special children and all children should be given the opportunity to learn to the best of their ability. Some have the skills to learn at a much higher ability than others, but those should not suffer because of government cutbacks and nor should those who have special needs and nor should the average child suffer because of government cutbacks.

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to say that we have in this province many children who are, unfortunately, hungry children, not by their own choice, but because of the circumstances that we live in. We know that hungry children cannot learn properly. It is disappointing that this government has chosen to cut back on nutrition programs in schools, and I think that is one thing they have to recognize, that we as a society have a responsibility to ensure that children are not hungry. We heard the member from across the way just talk about how great things are in Manitoba, but he refuses to recognize that we have some of the poorest children in this province. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are fed and that they have the opportunity to get an education and some day play an important role in society. Perhaps some of those hungry children, if they are given the opportunity, might have the opportunity some day to sit in this Chamber as well and represent people of this province. We cannot ignore the fact that this is what is happening in this province, and I am afraid that, although this government wants to paint a wonderful picture of how goods things are here in Manitoba, we do have poor children; we have children who are not getting a proper education.

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to touch on another area that has been raised many times while we have been visiting in rural Manitoba, and that is the whole area of regionalization of our health care system. I have to say that the ongoing cuts to health care and the government's move to health privatization are one of the major concerns of Manitobans. The major initiative of this government is to establish regional health boards, and, as I say, there is a widespread concern that regionalization will lead to loss of control, of local control, over services as well as continued funding cuts. There was a meeting earlier this year in Dauphin, in March, where municipal people from across the province got together and raised their concern with the government's plan to regionalize and in fact asked the government to delay their plan and spend more time listening to the people. The Minister of Health came out to that meeting, but the government refuses to listen.

 

* (1600)

 

I would advise the government to look at what is happening in New Zealand, the model that this system is being built on. What is happening there? Dr. Evelyn Shapiro, who has renowned knowledge on health care, tells us that in New Zealand, where this model is in place, there are longer waiting lists in health care. Health care is more expensive to deliver than under the existing system, and people who are on the boards are very frustrated and walking away from them. So the government should look at the recommendations that have been put forward on regionalization, one of them being to put forward a pilot project. Why will this government not consider that recommendation, run a pilot project, see how it works and then go from there, rather than having regionalization implemented across the whole province and use it and then see that it could be disastrous?

 

I have to say that I believe that the government's plan here is really to use the regional health boards as an excuse for their cutbacks. We know that money for health care will be reduced by 4 percent, and now regional health boards are going to be expected to deliver the same services. They are going to have to cut services, and then the government will blame the regional health boards.

 

I believe this is just ideologically driven, and it is this government's way of moving towards the privatization of health care. That is this government's agenda. It is not a better health care system for people across the province, it is a way, just as they want to privatize home care, they are moving to privatize other aspects of health care. It is quite disappointing that a government would move in that direction. I have to say that this is an issue that is raised right across the province, and I have to wonder where the government is going when they say that plans are still being developed for regionalization, but the boards are expected to take over in April of this year and be in full control in April of 1999. This government has put forward a plan that is unsound and should be reconsidered.

 

The other issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I want to talk about is this government's sudden interest in aboriginal people. For years we have known that the Filmon government has made many cuts to aboriginal programs, and all of a sudden they want to put on this new face like they care, they care about aboriginal people. Well, if they care, I challenge this government. If they care about aboriginal people, then let us see this government quit blaming the federal government for cutbacks and move forward. Let us see this government make a commitment to water and sewer for aboriginal people. Let us see this government commit to housing and proper health care. Let us see this government do that and then have the fight with the federal government later about where the money is going to come from. But this government is known to have always used the federal government as an excuse for what is happening to aboriginal people. These people are Manitobans, and the Manitoba government has a responsibility as well to ensure that there is quality of life for aboriginal people. But what has the government done?

 

I would like to share with you a few examples. The Access program has been cut repeatedly. In 1994 the Access program was cut by $2 million, and in 1995 we saw a further cut of $1.4 million. Students, who were in the middle of the program, were told that they would no longer receive funding. They took the provincial government to court, and the judge ruled that the provincial government had broken its contract with the students. However, the provincial government appealed, and this appeal was held up on March 14. We see that programs, such as BUNTEP and the Northern Nursing Program, which provided aboriginal students with the opportunity to become nurses and teachers, has also been cut. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we heard the Premier (Mr. Filmon) say today, when he answered the question to my colleague from Point Douglas, that the reason that there was no multicultural ethnic people appointed to the board for the MTS was because there were not any people that had a business sense that could be included. Well, to get a business sense you have to get an education, you have to have role models.

 

You have to start someplace. The BUNTEP program, the Bachelor of Nursing program, was the opportunity for aboriginal people to get an education and work within the schools to give the aboriginal children a model. I look at the school of Camperville, which is in my constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I see many teachers there who were trained under BUNTEP and are doing an excellent job and are a role model, but this government is taking that opportunity away from aboriginal people and from aboriginal students.

 

Other programs, Mr. Deputy Speaker, New Careers, the most successful training program in this country with an 83 percent job-success rate, was eliminated. In 1993 the Conservatives ended funding for Manitoba's Indian & Metis friendship centres. In 1993 the government grant also eliminated the annual grant to MKO of $78,000, and the annual grant to AMC of $325,000.

 

So you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that people are cynical about this government when they say that they want to be--all of a sudden have an interest in aboriginal people. Their record speaks for itself, and this government has failed aboriginal people by taking away their opportunities to get an education and play an important role.

 

As I say, if this government is serious about helping aboriginal people, they will quit blaming the federal government, and they would put their money where their mouth is and ensure that there is a quality of life, that there is the opportunity, that there is heat in people's homes, that there is food on their table, there is water and sewer, that they can have healthy living standards and not use the excuse that it is the federal government's responsibility. So I think that the government's words are very hollow when they say that they want to work with aboriginal people, and their track record is exactly opposite to what it is they have actually done.

 

The government's record on poverty is no better. When you hear this government say that they care about children, and I heard the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) talking about how great it was to live in Manitoba and how Manitoba is the leader in so many things, there are other things that he did not talk about. He certainly did not talk about Manitoba's record on child poverty, and I would like to share a few details with you on that.

 

Manitoba has the third worst record for children under 18 living in poverty, as well as the worst record for poor children of single mothers. The rate of all children was raised to 23.2 percent from 21.2 percent in 1988, reflecting an increase of 3,000 children living in poverty. Well, the government should be ashamed of that record, and they should be working to improve that record. Mr. Deputy Speaker, 71.5 percent of children with single mothers are living in poverty.

 

An Honourable Member: Rosann, what was your income when you were growing up as a child in rural Manitoba?

 

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister talks about my income, what we lived on when we were a family in rural Manitoba, and I have to tell the minister that what was in rural Manitoba when I was growing up is much different than what there is now because in rural Manitoba when I was growing up people were not dependent on food banks as we see under this government. One of the highest things we have seen increased in rural Manitoba under this government is food banks. Because people cannot eat, people have no food, they have been forced to go to food banks, so I do not think that is a record that you should be proud of or boast about--

 

An Honourable Member: Cut some firewood.

 

Ms. Wowchuk: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) says they should cut some firewood. He should be ashamed of what he is saying. Many of these people who are poor are single mothers who have the responsibility of raising a child and cannot go out and cut firewood as the minister says.

 

An Honourable Member: No, I said you had to, and I had to, when we were growing up.

 

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister says we had to cut firewood. Well, maybe some people did, but that happens to be a few years back. Is the minister saying that we should go back to what we had in 1950, that that is the level of government support he wants to see for people in rural Manitoba and in all of Manitoba? Well, I think that the minister is way, way off track on what--we want a much better quality of life for people in rural Manitoba and in all of Manitoba than what this government is providing. Certainly, they should be ashamed of the fact that Winnipeg Harvest reports it is assisting an average of 17,000 families a month through food banks. This is an increase from last year's monthly average of 15,000 families.

 

* (1610)

 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the minister talked about rural Manitoba. I have to tell you rural Manitoba is probably one of the worst places to be on social assistance because when you live in a small town, everybody knows your problems, and people who are on social assistance, people who are having a difficult time are very proud. People in rural Manitoba are no different than urban people. So what happens? The pressure becomes so great in a small community that these people are forced to leave the only network of support that they have and move into the city where they will then become another statistic in the city, become another family that is in need of supports and, again, decrease the population of rural Manitoba, and that is certainly something that we are seeing.

 

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

 

So I think that this government has failed very badly. They talk about caring about the family, but, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a very uncaring, uncaring government. A government that will reduce the budget for child care by $4 million per year and reduce the number of subsidized spaces is not a caring government.

 

According to the 1991 census, there are 82,135 children under the age of five in Manitoba. Despite our high child poverty rate, the Filmon government has reduced the number of child care spaces from 9,900 down to 8,600. How do you expect these single mothers or single parents to go to work and take one of these jobs that the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) was talking about when they do not have any supports there? It is impossible to go to one of these part-time jobs or minimum wage jobs and pay for daycare at the same time, so they end up staying at home. So this government cannot say that they are supportive of the family. I am quite, quite disappointed in what this government has done.

 

But, Mr. Acting Speaker, there is another area that I would like to touch on, and that is with respect to agriculture. The government talks about--well, first of all, a couple of things. They talk about, in keeping with this continued commitment to sustainable development my government will initiate sustainable development strategies for the province's fishing and wildlife resources. You talk about sustainable development. Part of sustainable development is a sustainable community.

 

Just briefly, a few minutes ago while I was speaking, I heard someone mention Louisiana-Pacific, and, certainly, there have been a lot of jobs created by Louisiana-Pacific. We will see how sustainable that project is. There are still many people who believe that the rate of cutting that has been allocated is not sustainable, and that is something that we will know in a few years time, I am sure.

 

But one of the issues that was raised when Louisiana-Pacific was announced was the small sawmill operators, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) knows that small sawmill operators are an important part of the community, and the way they operate is very sustainable and has been sustainable over the years. This government gave their commitment that they would not have to worry, that there would be wood for their sawmills.

 

Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, the results have not been what the government has promised. Sawmill operators are not operating. They are being forced out of work because they cannot get logs to run the small sawmills. There is a demand for their product here in Winnipeg. The lumberyards have a need for this pallet lumber, but the small sawmill operators who supplied this are not able to supply it. Small sawmill operators, who on the average employed three, four, sometimes five people, are out of business, and my understanding is that there are about eight of them that are not in operation now. That was sustainable. Those were sustainable jobs. This government has not fulfilled their commitment.

 

The government talks about sustainability of the fishing industry, and that is one that I look forward to seeing how the government will address, because what is happening in the fishing industry and the way the government is managing some of the lakes is not sustainable, and we have been calling for a long time, in particular I have been asking for a plan for Lake Winnipegosis, and although the government has put forward the plan, it has not worked.

 

The fishermen are not happy with the proposal. They are not happy with the level of stocking of that lake, and I would urge the Minister of Natural Resources to sit down with the people on Lake Winnipegosis, with the advisory committee, and put in place a plan that will see those people who make a living from fishing have the ability to continue in that. Shutting down the lake is not one of the answers, I believe, because then you are going to put people out of business, and what will happen to them?

 

Of course, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would be amiss if I did not talk briefly about agriculture, and it is an area, of course, that is very near and dear to my heart and one that I would like to see much more work done in a sustainable fashion. The one area that the government talks about, research to all aspects of the industry, and I look forward to the budget to see what kind of money this government is going to put in agriculture research because we have fallen way behind. The Saskatchewan government recognizes the importance of research and they have put in a tremendous amount of money. That has not happened here in Manitoba, and we are losing an awful lot. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) would take seriously the recommendation that the surplus GRIP money that we have here in Manitoba and the federal GRIP money would be put into agriculture research. That would be a big help to our research here.

 

Mr. Acting Speaker, I am concerned about this government's lack of commitment in a couple of areas, and that is, we heard just before the federal announcement that the adaptation money from the Crow was going to go to other projects, that this government was against that. I have to support the government because I think that money should have gone to roads rather than being a pool of money for the Liberals to play politics with. But I think that the government fell behind on that one and should have done a lot more work to lobby Ottawa to ensure that money came here. Now, I do not know how Saskatchewan was able to get--and I have not talked to the people in Saskatchewan--their money to go into a pool of money to upgrade roads, and we were not here, because Manitoba is the one that has the most losses with the Crow and yet, that money, we were not able to get it for roads.

 

I guess I am very worried about what is going to happen with the privatization of CN, and we have seen the loss of many rail lines in my area. I have written to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and I have written to members of the government asking to show some leadership in rural Manitoba just as they said they played a part in the sale of the railway in northern Manitoba, but they have neglected the people of rural Manitoba from the Parkland Region where we are having many rail lines abandoned. The government, I believe, has to do a lot more. The government has to be fighting for farmers a lot more with this transportation cost, but I guess that is a little bit difficult for them because, when I think about it, this government did not disagree with the abandonment of the Crow.

 

The other area, Mr. Acting Speaker, that I want to touch on is the nontraditional livestock. It says in the throne speech, nontraditional livestock are all experiencing phenomenal growth, and I guess I question that comment because I have talked to many people who are involved in some of the nontraditional livestock areas who are really suffering. They made major investments into buying ostriches and emu and wild boar, and now the markets for those products have not developed the way they had thought they would. In fact, one person told me that the ostriches that they invested in have really lost value. So that is a concern. I think that we have to realize that we have to look at diversifying, but we have to remember that there are traditional crops that will always be important here, and we will not change everybody away from the traditional crops.

 

* (1620)

 

Of course, the government is very excited about their new venture in elk ranching, and I want to say that I think the way the government is starting this industry is very disappointing when it looks like there is favouritism for friends. Everybody is not being treated equally. I believe the government has made a big mistake, and I would urge the government to reconsider what they are doing with this industry and go back to the drawing board and look at all the facts. Let the public know where each and every animal--show a paper trail of these animals, that there are not in fact illegal animals taken and some people have not been paid favouritism.

 

There is a lot to be addressed and I believe that the government should have--I would like to see a full inquiry. I would like to see everything addressed that puts a shadow on this industry before it gets off the ground, because if it does not there will always be doubt, and it is absolutely unfair that some should have favoritism, better treatment than others, and I use the example of one person taking an elk calf because it was orphaned and having that elk calf taken away from them and being threatened with a very heavy fine, I believe $10,000. Yet other people who have elk that were without permits have the option of amnesty and being able to keep these elk and pay only $1,000 for them. So these kinds of things are unfair.

 

Mr. Acting Speaker, there are many other things that we could talk about with this throne speech, but those are a few that I believe that this government has not addressed properly, and I do not believe what this government is putting forward is in the best interest of Manitobans. I do not believe that this budget will improve the economy of Manitobans, and I would advise the government to go out and listen to people with respect to health care, education, and go out and look at what is happening in northern Manitoba and look at the quality of life and come forward with something that will better meet the needs of Manitobans.

 

That is what we have done with our alternative throne speech, Mr. Acting Speaker. We met with Manitobans, we listened to them, and we have put forward proposals that we believe would enrich the quality of life in Manitoba, give better supports for families and enhance life across the province. But the throne speech put forward by this government is a bunch of fluff, government trying to improve their image after the harsh cuts that we have seen over the past several years from them.

 

Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): It is my pleasure to speak on the throne speech today, and I would like to begin by reaffirming or affirming my confidence in the Speaker, the Honourable Louise Dacquay. I would also like to welcome back the pages, all of the staff and of course all of the colleagues here in the Legislature.

 

My usual practice in speaking to the throne speech has been to speak on the many areas outlined in the throne speech. Today I would like to do something a little different and focus instead on the constituency of St. Vital. What has prompted this approach is one of the sections outlined in the throne speech. So I just want to refer back to the throne speech, Page 1, which states that we have established a framework for growth which has proved its value. The elements of that framework are clear: first, a balanced budget, to protect essential services; second, a tax system that is fair and competitive; third, an economic plan; fourth, social policy initiatives that are aimed at encouraging self-sufficiency; and, finally, a spirit of community and a quality of life based on mutual respect, good will, and our heritage of co-operation.

 

Now, I suspect that all of us here in the Legislature can talk about our communities and can talk about the spirit of community that all of us have. Well, I would just like to tell you some of the spirit of community that is exhibited in St. Vital, because we in old St. Vital are very pleased with the co-operation, the mutual respect, and the good will that the many groups that are operating in St. Vital exhibit. Now, some of those groups I think are common to all of us. Church groups, obviously, community clubs, parent councils, seniors, air cadets, the guides, the scouts--south family Y is in my riding of St. Vital, and some of the newer groups that have appeared in the last number of years. The St. Vital Historical Society, the Save Our Seine, group which is known as SOS, the revitalization community, revitalization committee are just some of the newer groups.

 

In fact, the spirit of community is so important in St. Vital that two years ago I wanted to recognize some of the outstanding volunteers who have helped pull together our community and make it into such a strong community. So two years ago, almost to the month, it was March that I held a St. Vital Heart of the Community Award and I would just like to read into the record, Mr. Acting Speaker, the recipients of the St. Vital Heart of the Community Award. They were Shirley Blaikie, Janet Davidson, Frank Enns, Ivy Fife, Norma Glenham, Audrey Graham, Roy Halstead, Noella Laurence, Billy Lucas, Joan MacDonald, Mary McIvor, Charlie Milton, Vera Remillard and Peg Venables. There were so many nominations for this award that the judges, and I should tell you about the judges, the four people that I asked to be judge and select these people were St. Vital recipients of the Canada 125 Medal, and they were Ralph Bagley, Mary Dixon, Helen Granger Young and Brian Thorarinson.

 

Well, the four judges were so impressed with the wealth of information that came after the names of each of these volunteers that even though they only chose that small number of people to receive this reward, they felt that it was important to recognize the other people who were nominated for the award so I would like to read those names into the record: Carol Anderson, Jim Ashcroft, Victor Batzel, Brian Chalmers, Sharon Chalmers, Randine Chomyshen, Jean Dunmire, Dean Finlay, Wes Finnon, Pat Francis, Michele Georgi, Hank Haresign, Kathleen Henderson, Gerry Ilchyna and Jerry Ilchyna--that is a husband and wife team, Tom Johnson, Pauline Lafond, Anne Love, Harold Maisey, Terry Miller, Beverly Munn, Anndrea O'Connor, Wally Olensky, Leroy T. Simmons, David Taylor, Bob Town and John Tyler. These were people who received a certificate recognizing their nomination.

 

Now four years ago, our government gave approval, along with the City of Winnipeg, to inject a considerable amount of money into part of the area of St. Vital, the area known as the Glenwood-Varennes area. This was part of a program that is called the Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program and, needless to say, I was very pleased to see this amount of money come into the area. I have been a St. Vitaler for a little over 30 years and I have noticed, certainly in the last 10 to 15 years, well, I guess you could call it a slide, old St. Vital was definitely slipping.

 

St. Vital is an area of the city that has experienced growth, but the growth has been mostly in the south end of St. Vital. So as development moved south, the building of Bishop Grandin and, of course, Bishop Grandin bridge and then the St. Vital Shopping Centre, a lot of the business community began moving out of old St. Vital and into the newer areas. Consequently, all of the new homes were being built in the newer area. So storefronts along St. Mary's and along St. Anne's were becoming empty, and we all know that if you have a business community that leaves the area, that does not spell good news for the residential community. So as I say, Mr. Acting Speaker, I was really pleased that our government recognized that this was an area that could use an injection of money, a revitalization.

 

* (1630)

 

I wanted to work with the residents of St. Vital and make sure that they understood the importance of coming together as a community, because this particular program is run by a residents committee that is elected by the residents themselves. So I held an information meeting four years ago to tell the residents about this very innovative program. St. Vitalers, being St. Vitalers, they rallied around and they elected a residents committee. This committee has been meeting definitely monthly, sometimes twice a month for the last four years and have spent a lot of time and energy and thought in how they are going about revitalizing old St. Vital. I would like to recognize these people who are on the revitalization committee because, as I say, certainly in the last six months sometimes they were meeting every two weeks. These meetings often take two and three hours, so it is not an insignificant amount of time that they are giving up for their community. The chairman is Doris Ames. Other community members are Joan McDonald, Bob Bruce, Don Wookey, Jim Fuller, Julia Ewanchuk, Carole Anderson, Beverly Munn, Bill Bell, Sig Lazar, Jeff Fawley, Shawn Love, Randy Ptashnik, Julie Thorpe, and Dave Gylywochuk who recently had to resign from the committee because he was moving out of the city.

 

Before I tell you about some of the revitalized plans, I would just like to tell you about some of the groups that made presentations to the revitalization committee. Now any of you who have had the revitalization program in your area, and I know the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) is definitely familiar with this program, knows that the community groups like to, well, I guess you could really say lobby the residents committee and try to put forth their ideas to make sure that money comes to them. As I say, old St. Vital has rallied, has worked hard to be coming forward with some very concrete plans. Some of the groups that have made very good presentations, and this is not all of the groups--the list is not the total list--are the Glenwood Community centre--the Glenwood Community Club, for any of you who know St. Vital, is a very old community club and is in dire need of renovations. So Glenwood Community centre has certainly made representation. The seniors have made representation, the Save our Seine group, the Varennes school, the Fourth Scouts. Mr. Acting Speaker, the Fourth Scouts are very fortunate to be in the original building. It is one of the original scout homes in the province. To my understanding, it is one of three left in the province, so they are very hopeful that they will get some funding to make sure that this building does not crumble up, quite literally.

 

One of the groups that also presented was the old St. Vital BIZ group. Now I mentioned just a few minutes ago how in the past 10 to 15 years the business community had been leaving old St. Vital and sort of reorganizing itself in the newer area of St. Vital. Well, as I say, the spirit of community is strong in old St. Vital, and people realized that it was a good area to live in. We have got good churches and good community groups. So people began coming back into old St. Vital, and some of the businesses began coming back in, and they realized that it was very vital for them to organize themselves into a cohesive group. I have been working with the businesses and with our city councillor to ensure that this happens. In December 1995 the old St. Vital BIZ group was officially recognized by the city.

 

Now, the old St. Vital BIZ improvement zone, known as the BIZ group, encompasses an area along St. Mary's Road from Carriere south to Fermor and along St. Anne's from the junction at St. Mary's Road, again, south to Fermor. I think it is fair to say that this business district can be characterized as neighbourhood- and community-focused in that it primarily services the surrounding community, and many of the business owners live within the neighbourhood. In fact, some of the business owners live either behind their business or over top, and these businesses are primarily small businesses, usually owner-operated and housed in one- or two-storey buildings, some of which are converted residences.

 

Now, this business group is concerned, obviously, with revitalizing the business community but also with revitalizing the street on which they are, and the main streets in St. Vital are St. Mary's and St. Anne's. But that group did not look just at itself, it looked at the larger picture of St. Vital and felt that it would be very worthwhile for them to make a presentation to the revitalization community because, as I say, they were looking at the larger plan. They were not just looking at themselves; they were looking at the total community.

 

So the old St. Vital BIZ group developed a revitalization concept plan, and that was based upon goals common to both the businesses and the residents of old St. Vital. They had three main goals: they were to improve the physical characteristics of the BIZ zone, to provide for a variety of recreational and commercial opportunities, and to enhance pedestrian activity within the business zone.

 

I think I would like to take this opportunity to just go into a little bit of detail on some of the plans that the old St. Vital business group presented to the revitalization committee, because, as I say, the business community, their plans encompass the whole community. So what is good for the business community is going to be good for the residences, for the churches, the community clubs, the scouts and the guides, the seniors groups, and all the other groups in the riding of St. Vital.

 

Now, we are very fortunate in St. Vital. We have two rivers. We have the Red River and the Seine River. So one of the things that the business community recognized was that the river provided a strong sense of--well, I guess you could call it a sense of place--and it is very historic, and they wanted to make sure that the view from St. Mary's was unimpeded. As you looked across the river, you could actually see the Winnipeg skyline. So they wanted to make sure that the development along St. Mary's enhanced the river, enhanced some of the walkways, which used to be there a long time ago, but which, unfortunately, have disappeared in the last 20, 30, 40 years.

 

The business community very quickly recognized that they did not have the expertise to put together this kind of a landscape plan on its own. So well over a year ago they hired a landscape architect, Hilderman, Witty, Crosby, Hanna, and Associates, to work with the group to develop a very cohesive and strong plan. I am just going to talk to you a little bit about some of the ideas that the architect brought out.

 

Now obviously there are things like the greening of St. Mary's and St. Anne's, some of the things that all of us recognize that have to be done in some of the older areas. Things like adding shrubbery, trees, and, of course, the obvious things, making sure you have got good pavement so that it is easy for anyone, including seniors who might be in wheelchairs, to be able to walk along. So you have got some of the more mundane kinds of treatments.--[interjection]

 

Beautiful flowers, as the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) is saying. I am just going to flip through my book here and see if I can zero in on some of the ideas put forward. One of the things that St. Vital had going for it was the fact that it was an agricultural community, an agricultural community really right within the confines of the city. Even though it was its own city up until about 25, 30 years ago, it was an agricultural community, and certainly there is a lot of evidence of the old market gardens that are left.

 

So the BIZ community and the landscape architect wanted to make sure that they brought out some of the history, some of the traditions of St. Vital. Now, two of the things that they recommended--one was to mark once more the entrance into St. Vital, and what they have proposed is to have an entrance arch to welcome people as they come over the bridge from downtown, pass through Norwood, and come onto St. Mary's and into St. Vital. So one of the proposals is to put up an entrance arch.

 

* (1640)

 

Now there is a historic precedent to this because when St. Vital was established many, many years ago, when the first streetcar--or I should not say streetcar. I guess you called them trolley cars back in those days--arrived in St. Vital, the St. Vitalers put up an archway that spanned St. Mary's at Carriere Avenue that said Welcome to St. Vital. So that was one of the first ideas that the landscape artists suggested.

One of the other focal points in St. Vital is the junction of St. Mary's and St. Anne's. Now at the junction right now is CKND, and CKND is part of the old St. Vital BIZ group and is very active in working with the BIZ group and with the revitalization committee. Now, when St. Vital was established--in fact, I will go back even before that, away back in 1867, at the junction of St. Mary's and St. Anne's, this was a market site so again the landscape architects want to capitalize on the fact that it was an old market site and they want to revitalize that concept. Now, as I say, CKND owns this property so obviously we cannot tell CKND to leave, but CKND is working with us to develop part of the area as a meeting place, and the plans are that just across the road on the St. Mary's side all of this area in time will be developed into a meeting place.

 

Now as I say some of the goals are to develop the riverbank for neighbourhood activity, obviously with linkages to pedestrian paths to the north and bicycle routes to the north and south. We definitely want to have better access to the river, and, of course, we want to be able to see the river better. We have this beautiful river, but unfortunately we just are not able to get close enough to it. Something else that we want to be able to take advantage of, and they have certainly done this in the St. Boniface area, is to put up interpretative signs because St. Vital has a marvelous history, and the history of St. Vital is going to be told along the river walk and along where the market square is going to be established. That is going to be done by means of interpretative signs, signs that would display historic photographs and tell of the history of the various locations.

 

We have some very interesting historical areas in St. Vital. I do not think there is anybody in this Legislature that is old enough to remember some of the things that we have, some of the buildings that regretfully have long since disappeared. Certainly, there are some of the buildings that are still left, such as the old fire hall is still there and it is still in use. The seniors ham radio club meet there, the Citizens for Crime Awareness meet th