LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 3 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Ma dam Sp eaker. MADAM SPEA KER, Ho n. M. Philli ps: Presen ting Petitions . . . Read ing and Receiving Petitions . . . Pr esenting Reports by Stand ing and Special Comm ittees . . . MINI STERIAL STATEM ENT S AND TA BLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mi nister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , I wish to table the report of the Manitoba Energy Authority for the year ending March 31 , 1986.

This publication was distributed to both caucuses in September of 1986, but I'm tabling it, as required, here. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . INTROD UCTION OF BILLS HON. J. BUCKL ASCHUK introduced, by leave, Bill No. 2,

An Act to Amend The Official Time Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le temps reglementaire. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS introduced, by leave, Bill No. 3, The Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status ol Women Act;

Loi sur le Conseil consultatif manitobain de la situation de la femme. (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor) I ha ve, under Rule 85 of the House Rules, a short statement to make. MOTION presen ted. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. WA SYLYCI A-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The intent of this act is to entrench the existence of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women into the structures of gov ernment. It will establish the permanence of the council and will address the commitment of this government to the importance of the role played by the council.

Together with other initiatives, this act reaf firms our commitment to the principle of equality of treatment and opportunity for women and men. Madam Speaker , the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women was first established in 19 80 and was re-established by Order-in-Council on December 1, 19 82. The Council's mandate is to advise the Government of Manitob a, through the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, on matters referred by the province to the Advisory Council and on matters which council 58 deems appropriate to draw it to the attention of the Government of Manitoba.

The proposed legislation recognizes the importance of this advice and protects the arm's length relationship with government. We all look forward, Madam Speaker, to the day in this society when a quality of status and oppor tunity is afforded to both men and women in jobs, social benefits and decision-making. This legislation, Madam Speaker, will move us another step closer to this goal. Until that time, I am pleased to introduce this act so that the council's role and its history and the council's place in the decision-making of government is assured. Thank you. QUESTION put; MOTION carri ed. HON. R.

PENNER introduced, by leave, Bill No. 4, The Re-enacted Statutes of Manitoba, 19 87 Act;

Loi sur Les Lois readoptees du Ma nitoba de 19 87. (R ecommended by His Honour the Lieutenant­ Governor.) HON. R. PENNER introduced, by leave, Bill No. 5,

An Act to Repeal Certain Statutes Relating to Education and Other Ma tters; Loi abrogeant certaines lois concernant !'E ducation et d' autres questions. HON. H. HARAPIAK introduced, by leave, Bill No. 6, The Emergency Measures Act. (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor) ORA L QUESTIONS Hospitals - closure of beds MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition. MR. G. FIL MON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Premier . The Throne Speech refers to the increasing costs of maintaining vital services and also the inappropriate use of expensive acute care hospitals.

Last week we had news that the president of the Health Science Centre indicated that that institution was considering the closure of up to 11 5 acute care beds, entire wards, in that hospital in order to balance its budget. My question to the Premier is: Does he and his government believe that the closure of large numbers of acute care beds in our hospitals is the best way to save money in health care? MADAM SPEAKER: Will the honourable member please rephrase his question as to not seek an opinion? MR. G.

FIL MON: Madam Speaker, my question to the Premier is: Does he and his government support the closure of large numbers of acute care beds in our hospitals as the best way to save money in health care? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister.

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 HON. H . PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, that cert ain ly wasn 't the impression that I believe was left in the particul ar

article that the honourable memb er i s refer ring to. What the president did indicate was that a differ ent means would have to be found in order to trim costs , trim the deficit. He i ndicated that it would be premature at this particular time to announce definitively what those approaches or methods would be . The Minister of Health will deal with this in more detail.

He did emphasize, I think quite properly, the importance of shifting to more outpatient as opposed to inpatient care in order to ensure appropriate levels of service, and at the same time to improve the cost-efficient delivery of medical services . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, just so that the Premier and I both are operating with the same information , the information says that the Health Sciences Centre is considering closing at least 100 beds permanently to save up to 5 million annually. President Rod Thorfinson said entire wards would be closed.

Closing 115 beds would likely save 4 to 5 million annually, he said. My question is: Does this Premier and his government support the closure of large numbers of acute care beds in order to save money in our health care system? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , the Minister of Health will deal with that in much more detail.

But clearly, M_adam Speaker, questions that are put in a very simplistic way such as that which the Leader of the Opposition has posed his question, questions which relate to premature circumstances which fail to recognize there are other alternatives that are available that the hospital, the Health Sciences Centre, I think very properly and very responsibly is examining as alternatives, is indeed the route that we would anticipate all proper hospital authorities to proceed . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, last year Brandon General Hospital closed permanently 29 beds.

Now we are being told that the Health Sciences Centre is considering permanently closing 115 beds. We have people on long waiting lists for elective surgery; we have people who are in the corridors on stretchers in some of our hospitals in Winnipeg . Is this the answer that this government has toward our problem of health care costs, ever increasing , to close large blocks of beds in acute care hospitals and deny services to the people of this province? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I think I made it quite clear that we must spend wisely if we're going to retain the good service that we've had so far. Compare it to your friends in the south and you 'll see what I mean. I'm talking about a universal program. There is no doubt that methods are looked at, that work has been done to try to provide the same service, improve the serv ice in many instances , but not necessarily at the highest cost. 59 Ther e is not one pro vince in C anada that has not closed bed s. Certain hospit als that were not filled have been closed completely.

First of all, let me say I w as absent when that statem ent was made , but I s aw a correction from the pre sident who said that he was misquoted and explain ed that was what -(lnterjection)­ No, I'm not blaming anybody ; I'm telling you what the president said because you purposely took the first repo rt and you didn 't quote the second one . Now there is no doubt , the explanation that the gentleman made, there is no doubt that there is a movement to deinstitution alize as much as possible. Much of this work will be done, many of these services can be done outside the hospital, and that will be done .

You've talked about Brandon . We have reduced the waiting list. We have closed beds and reduced the waiting list . There is certain work that is done. They are not admitting in the hospital, the work is being done , and there are a number of serv ices of improvement in home care and so on, and that will be continued. There is no way that we are cutting down on the services, but we are looking ... My honourable friend knows and he agrees with me.

He agrees with me in many instances and he knows that this has been done and it is all over Canada , not only here ; and if you want to cooperate , as the cooperation you promised last year, fine . If not . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . A MEMBER: You better start telling the truth . HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'll tell the truth . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please . Order please . Hospitals - user fees MR. G.

FILMON: Given that just a month or so ago the Premier indicated that he had serious disagreements with his Minister of Health over his proposals on user fees and rationing, would the Premier tell the public whether or not he supports this closure of beds in all of our major hospitals in order to control our health care costs? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , regrettably , the Leader of the Opposition appears not to have checked properly his research . There was never any disagreement between myself and the Minister of Health .

Neither the Minister nor myself agree with the imposition of user fees, per diem fees , etc . Insofar as the Health Sciences Centre , if the Leader of the Opposition listened to the answer from the Minister of Health , then he would be better off right now than he was at the time of asking his question , because he received the advice . The president of the Health Sciences Centre is looking at various alternatives , Madam Speaker , insofar as the cost saving that must be undertaken , at the same time as ensuring the quality of health care is maint ained. Madam Speaker, that means greater emph as is in

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 respect to out-patient, community health, as against institutional care. The Minister of Health has indicated that today; he has ind icated it on many previous occasions, quite a contrast, Madam Speaker , to the Province of Alberta, where doctors warn that lives can be affected by a 3 percent cut under the Alberta Conservative Government this year because of cuts in the provincial Tory bud get in the Province of Alberta. Let the Leader of the Opposition deal with that. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

Could we please orderly ask questions and answer questions without shouting at each other across the floor. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , my further question for the Premier is: We 're talking about a cut of 10 percent of the acute care beds in our largest hospital in this province, 10 percent, and just as the Premier was speak ing, his Minister of Health shouted across that he definitely supported . . . MADAM SP EAKER: Order please. Does the Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Yes, I do, Madam Speaker .

MADAM SPEAKER: Would you please ask it? MR. G. FILMON: Just as the Premier was speak ing, his Min ister of He alth shouted that he definitely supported it. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: My question to the Premier is: Does he agree with his Minister of Health that these beds ought to be closed? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourabl e Mi nister of Health. HON. L. DESJ ARDINS: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is smiling because he knows that he's not telling the truth. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

Could the Honour able Mini ster please withdr aw that allegation? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, it might be that the honourable member doesn't realize he's not telling the truth, so I'll withdraw in this case. The point is I don't know how you get around that, but he's made a statement that is completely false. What I did say is that, yes, yes, yes, we are looking to deinstitutionalize as much as possible and that is everywhere. MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. The Honourable Opposition House Leader . 60 MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, on the point of order that you yourself raised from the Chair, you asked the Minister of Health to withdraw his comment. He did not withdr aw that comm ent and he should unequ ivocably withdraw that comment. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mi nister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I was so rudely interrupted when I was trying to give the information. I'll withdraw if you'll withdraw the statement that you made because the statement that you made is completely wrong. You are making a statement . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Excuse me, through you.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. A dispute over the facts is one thing. An accusation that a member is not telling the truth to the House is another . Could the Honour able Min ister please clearly withd raw his allegation that the honourable member was not telling the truth. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well I seek your assistance, because I am not going to leave on the record the statement that he made has been tactual. So if it is not the lie or not the truth, it certainly is not factu al. If it's a change in words, I withdraw the words of "not the truth," but I say it is not factual. Is that all right?

If my honour able friend was factual, then he would realize everywhere in Canada or everywhere, even in the United States, there is an effort to deinstitutionalize especially acute care beds. There is no way - and if you're sincere in trying to keep this, the service, for the people, I think you will cooperate instead of bringing in those kind of questions, try to mislead, try to excite the public, because that is what exactly my honourable friend is trying to do. We've talked about cutting. My budg et at the Commission, Madam Speaker, is $1. 2 billion.

If we just keep on the way we're going now, in about four years it will be $2 billion. Maybe we should ask my honourable friend about deficits. Maybe we should just keep on in the hospitals of having $5 million, $10 million. I agree that we've got to cut down deficit; I agree that we've got to find -(Interjection)- I didn't say that. I said we will try. Madam Speaker, can I speak to you then? You seem very reasonable. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I re mind honourable members that answers to questions are to be brief and not provoke debate.

Winnipeg tax reassessment - appeal of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Charleswood. MR. J. ERN ST: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 Last Frid ay, I raised the question of reassessment in the City of Winnipeg with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Since my question last Frid ay, has the Minister now, Madam Spea ker, had an opportunity to look at the appeal process for reassessment and particularly the very limited provisions for that appeal? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister for Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As I indicated last Frid ay, there has not been any approach from the property owners in Winnipeg to my office to amend the legislation allowing for an extended appeal period. Ho wever , earlier this morning, my colleague, the Minister of Urban Affairs, and I met with the delegations from the city and that matter is currently under review. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, then has the Minister had an opportunity to determine if the staggered mailing of assessment notices and the staggered appeal dates of those assessment notice s is causing any discrimination among taxpayers in the City of Winnipeg? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I am not aware that it is creating any form of discrimination. The matter is under review, and I would hope that we will have a position on that within the next couple of days. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker , a final question then to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Subsequent to the Minister's indication that he had met with the City of Winnipeg today, will he then be bringing in legislation immed iately to allow for an extended retroactive appeal period, allow citiz ens of Winnipeg to appeal their assessment after they have received their 1987 tax bill and after they know the impact of that reassessment on their homes? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Once the review has been completed, we will do whatever is possi ble to resolve any problems that may exist, and I would hope that we could count on the full cooperation of the Opposition to amend legislation, if need be, to resolve these problems. Winnipeg Tax Reassessment - condominiums MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker , a further question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Urban Affairs.

In approving the differential mill rates to be set by the City of Winnipeg, arising out of reassessment, will the Minister classify cond ominiums in the same way as single family homes and not discrim inate against condominium owners? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. 61 HON. G. DOER: Ye s, Madam Speaker . There are four outstanding issues that we discus sed with the city this morning at our meeting and that we have to take back to our colleagues.

One is the issue of the 21 -day notice that my colleague mentioned; the second issue is the condo co-op issue in terms of being potentially within the Residential 2 category; the third issue is the whole area of the recreat ional property and the land value of the property of golf cour ses that are extreme ly high based on the numbers we've just seen; and the fourth issue is the commitme nt from the City of Winnipeg to provide us with draft prop osals for phasing in legislation, which we pointed out to the city that we haven't yet received as of this morning.

We want to receive that from the city and look at all these outstanding areas in one package so that we're not just dealing with a letter that comes in a week at a time, and we will be meeting with our colleagues tomorrow and we have advised the city this morning. Hopef ully, they'll come back to us on the one outstanding item that they have, and we should be providing answers both to the city and the public in the next few days as my colleague has indicated. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker , I appreciate the Minister's answer on the various issues which members on this side are very much concerned with.

Will he clarify the position of the Federal Government? Will he be acceding to the request of the City of Winnipeg Council and their recommendations with respect to each one of these issues, or will the Provincial Governme nt be making their own independent arbitration and final determination of these issues in setting the classifications and the assessment to be applied to all of these various categories? HON. G. DOER: Madam Spea ker, we had a number of meetings for the last nine months with the city. We have had a number of areas where we've agreed and there's been the odd area we disagreed.

For example, just sending a letter in on condominiums to the pro vince, and not looking at the whole issue of potential flips from apartments or conversions of apartments to condominiums, not looking at the fact that the legislation itself ma y preclude having cond ominiums in a Residential 1 category because of the de finitions of usage under The Mu nicipa l Assessment Act means that we have to be very careful in our dia logue back and forth to the city because, as you are proba bly aware, there are a number of people that want to look at the legislation and potentially appeal it.

We will be working in concert with the city and raising some of the legal concerns we have legitimately with them and trying to resolve these issues in a joint solution. The bottom line is, Ma dam Speak er, that the legislat ion that we passed last year, Bill 57, will potentially save homeo wners up to $26 million with the way in which a differential mill rate can be applied in the city. I even noticed in Liberal Quebec, Mr.

Boura ssa is being summo ned by a number of councils, including Ma yor Dore from Mo ntreal, to look at the kind of Manitoba initiative to proceed with differential mill rates to save homeowners the kind of money we did last year.

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 MR. G. MERCIER: Given the remarks of the Minister, and given the fact, Madam Speaker , that survey after survey shows that City of Winnipeg homeowners and taxpayers are the highest taxed in the count ry, can the Minister of Urban Affairs indicate what relief will he be providing to home owners and pro perty owners in the City of Winnipeg this year in order to alleviate this burden that City of Winnipeg homeowners are facing in being the highest taxed in the country? HON. G.

DOER: Madam Speaker , with the O percent funding that's go ing on in Saskatche wan to the municipalities and cities, and with the decrease in the property tax credits in the Province of Saskatchewan, any comparison will show you that we're in a much better situation. Madam Speaker, the bill that was passed last year, Bill 57, does provide the ability for City Council to level a higher taxation with differential mill rates on the comme rcial sectors. We think that's a very prog ressive way to go in terms of the ho meowners of Winnipeg.

The present chair of the Finance Commi ttee of the City of Winnipeg, in reviewing the facts and figures of the City of Winnipeg, is starting to show that the amount of money the commer cial sector pays in Winnipeg compa red to other provinces is quite a bit less. We think that that's a very important issue for the city to look at in the future in terms of the bur den on homeowners, what we all agree is very substantial. So we know that Bill 57 will help the homeowners, if the City of Winnipeg passes a differential mill rate, will potentially save the home owners across the City of Winnipeg $26 million.

Jobs Fund - affirmative action for women MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAI RS: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is for the Minister responsible for the Jobs Fund. For a long time, this government that I emp hasize has talked about the necessity of women gaining a greater measure of fairness within the workplace, and yet when they've had the cha nce to put their money where their mouth is, as in the case of the Jobs Fund Program, they don't do it.

My question is: Why wasn't an Affirmative Action Program and an active recruitment campaign for women implemented within the context of the Jobs Fund in order to avoid the abysmal situation we now have when it comes to the hiring and paying of women under the Jobs Fund categories? MADAM SP EAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Indu stry, Trade and Te chnology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker . When the Jobs Fund was brought into being, there was a crisis in Manitoba in terms of unemployment. There was a crisis across this countr y. We responded very , very quic kly.

We responded with a fund which would provide for assistance to do major public works 62 in this province. We didn't do every thing perfectly and there are some things that we are -(Interjection)- Only the Member for Pembina is perfect, a perfect "what" I wouldn't want to say. But, Madam Speak er, as a result of what we have achieved, women in Manitoba have a lower rate of unemplo yment than men today. That wasn't true a few years ago.

In many of the projects where we had, it is true, men working such as for north of Portage, once those places are finished, there will be at least as many women working as a result in permanent, good jobs as men. Many of the institutions we built, one example was a nursing station, I believe there were nine men on that particular job. Nine men; zero women. Once it is comp leted, thoug h, ther e will be long-term employment for women and hopefully for men as well. So one has to look not only at the short term but also at the Jong term, and in the long term, I think that Jobs Fund is doing an extremely good job.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Ye s, a supplementary question. If the goal of this government, Madam Speaker , is fairness for women within the context of all of their programs, why did they not try to enforce proper admin istrative procedures providing for fairness and equity for women in this program? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, every year we brought in new methods of achieving greater fairness and equality and targeting more of those jobs for women, and every year we became more successful.

I cha llenge the Member for River Heights to show me any Liberal government in this country that has done as good a job when it comes to things like development agreements where we've had specific provisions in a number of our recent agreements for affirmative action, when it comes to pay equ ity, and many other achievements of this government for women, an issue which, by the way, the Conservatives shouldn't scoff at so much.

I should say that recently the OECD did a report on the four western provinces, and one of the points they make is that we are underutilizing the abilities of women in Western Canada in our econo my. I think we all have to do a better job of making sure everyone has a fair ch ance for economic advancement. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind honourable Ministers to keep answers brief. The Honourable Member for River Heights with a final supplem enta ry. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In that I cannot get a commi tment to further action on the part of the Jobs Fund from the Minister, can I ask a question to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women? Will the Minister please press her colleague so that we can have contract compliance provisions under the Jobs Fund strategy for the future? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker , I just want to make it very, very clear that the premise of the

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 Member for River Heights is inco rrect. That is that we are every year doing more. We're learning from ou r past efforts, and I'm sure next year we'll be doi ng a better job than we did last year. The Minister in charge of the Status of Women, I can assure you, has been pushing and prodding ever since she was elected. She's been a very, very effective and efficient pusher. Bridge - north of Selkirk MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa . MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Premier .

It relates to the bridge located just north of his constituency in Selkirk , which is referred to as the unnecessary bridge and the wrong location that goes nowhere. I wonder if the Premier might inform the House what the estimated total cost of this project is. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I see the Member for Minnedosa is getting ready with his one-two punch and the Member for Ste . Rose is going to follow with the next question , and maybe the Member for Pembina will follow up as well.

The fact is - old habits die hard - we've gone over this whole issue in this House, Madam Speaker. The cost of the bridge , as I've indicated in this House during the last Session, was in the neighbourhood of $19 million. MR. D. BLAKE: I have a question to the Premier , Madam Speaker. In view of the strong opposition to the proposed access route to this bridge, I wonder if the Premier could advise when he might be prepared to meet with his constituents concerning that matter. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , the honourable member's got the wrong constituency.

The bridge is not in my constituency, in case the Member for Minnedosa is under some sort of illusion . MR. D. BLAKE: Madam Speaker, I think the Premier misunderstood me. It was the proposed access route connecting to the new bridge that I was referring to that runs right through his constituency, Route 30. There are three proposed routes through his constituency and there's considerable opposition to it. Some of your constituents have been attempting to meet with you and I wonder if you might inform the House : Will you be prepared to meet with them and when? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I always look forward to meeting with my constituents, just as I'm sure the Member for Minnedosa does , if the question is in order . MR. D. BLAKE: Madam Speaker, with a final supplementary : In view of the strong opposition that 63 the Premier doesn 't seem to be aware of, some 390 people have notarized a petition - if I could have the services of a Page to deliver one to the Minister of Highways and one to the Premier - I'm sure he'll find it interesting reading. If they would deliver those to the Premier , it may bring him up-to-date on the opposition to the access route.

Selkirk Corridor Study - Route 230 expansion MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker , my question is to the Minister of Highways. Now that the cost of the bridge is probably raised to about $28 million, I wonder if the Minister will undertake to tell this House what the rationale is for the expansion of Route No. 230. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I don 't know where the Member for Ste . Rose dreams up his estimates. The fact is that I have given the total cost , including the connecting roads for the bridge.

I indicated that to the House last year, and it was on budget for the Estimates that were given to the House during Estimates , as indicated now. It is in the neighbourhood of $19 million. I also indicated at that time why the cost had escalated from the initial estimates, and that was because the $10.3 million of the original estimate was only for a bridge that was half as long and much lower . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J.

PLOHMAN: The fact is, Madam Speaker, that - after the members have completed their laughter - the bridge was not designed initially of the same length , because it did not have to have the same clearance that was later required as a result of The Navigable Waters Act Board 's requirements. The fact is that initially the bridge was about 400 metres, designed with a 38-foot clearance. The clearance now is some 60 metres and therefore the distance, the length of the bridge itself, had to be extended. That's the difference in the cost of the project overall .

I did make that very clear to the members of the House last year. This is not new information . MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker , the Minister has now stated that the bridge is twice as long and several metres higher. Will he advise the House then if the corridor plans for exp ansion of 230 also includ e a crossing further south on the river where it would have been cheaper to build the bridge in the first place? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker , let the record show that the petition that the members have brought forward here deals with a potential corridor between Selkirk and Winnipeg to supplement the current Highway No. 9 for some 20 years down the road. It

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 has nothing dir ectly to do with the bridge north of Selkirk. This is a charade, Madam Speaker . The members opposite are misrepresenting the issue to this Ho use, Madam Speaker. The fact is the matter of the access routes, the connecting routes, to the north of Selkirk bridge were decided some time ago. The design was decided some time ago and there is no gigantic opposition to that particular project, Madam Speaker .

What the member is referring to is a Selkirk Corridor Study that the province has been involved with over the last number of years to look at how the route between Selkirk and Winnipeg can be improved over the next number of years to carry the kinds of traffic volumes that are projected. So what we have done is undertaken a number of public open houses to get input from people along the way. There are restrictions along Highway No. 9.

It cannot be a divided four-lane facility and, therefore, at some time in the future - the projections are some 20 years, after the year 2000 or 2010 - there will need to be an expansion of Route 230. That is what the member is talking about, not the north of Selkirk bridge, Madam Speaker . MR. G. CUMMING S: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premi er.

Seeing as how the corridor on No. 230, the expansion of 230, is not to be considered in conjunction with the bridge that goes nowhere presently and is for plans far and away in the future, then will the Premier undertake to meet with his constituents and assure them that this corridor expansion is not simply to supplement a politically foolish decision to build the bridge north of Selkirk in the first place? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speak er, let me assure the honourable member that I've served my constituents for the past some 18 years.

I believe the honourable member has served his constituents for the last year - attempted to serve might be a more accurate phrase. Madam Spe aker , I can assure the honourable member that I will continue to serve my constituents, and maybe it partially contributes, along with assistance from honourable members across the way, for the record vote that I've been able to enjoy during the last two elections in the Constituency of Selkirk. MR. G. CUMMING S: A supplemental question, Madam Speak er, to the Prem ier.

Does he then advise the House that the option of sending the traffic to the bridge that goes nowhere over to Highway No. 8 is not being considered? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Minister of Highw ays and Transportation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, we have given full justification for the location of that bridge on numerous occasions in this House. It has little or nothing to do with the Selkirk Corridor Study at this particular time. The traffic volumes, without any cha nges to the Selkirk cor ridor , witho ut any expansions, will be 64 significant.

They will be at least as high as any bridge crossing of the Red River south of Winnipeg. The costs of that bridge are fully justified to carry heavily , fully loaded traffic north of Selkirk from north, south, east and west. That is the purpose of the bridge, and the location was carefully explained in this House and justified in this House. The fact is that over the next 20- or 30-year period, there is going to be a need for additional capacity between Selkirk and Winnipeg. That long-term planning is what we are engaged with in the Selkirk Corridor Study to determine the best way to meet that need.

We are prepared to consult and meet with groups and individuals, the planning boards, the municipalities and all those affected, to determine the best potential route for any expansions in the future for good planning and so the municipalities know how to develop their areas of the municipality for housing and subdiv isions and other needs at that time. This is all going to be done in the next number of months in terms of providing the best planning for that corrid or, Madam Speaker . MR. G. CUMMING S: A suppleme ntal question to either the Premier or the second punch, Mr.

Plohman, which -(Interjection)- Minister of Highways, Madam Speaker , I apologize. MADAM SPEAKER: Right, thank you. MR. G. CUMMING S: His suggestion that he will consult, will he then advise the House that he will now release the l.D. Engineering firm consulting report on the 230 corridor? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker , the consulting report is the basis for the public information sessions that have been held and will continue to be held until the issues have been resolved and a decision has been made. The consultants have undertaken these hearings at the di rection of the department.

They are explaining the options and the issues involved. After that, they will make a recommendation to the department. At that time, their report will be final and, at that point in time, Madam Speaker , the reports can be considered for public release. The fact is that the details of those studies are being made public in those meetings, and so there is no secret about the plans and the recommendations that they are considering at the present time. The fact is we may or may not accept those recommendations based on the needs of the people and the information that we get at that time.

I have ind icated that the report details are available to the public already during those sessions and that, once the final report is given to the department, then we can have the actual docume nts considered for release. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANC E MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Charleswood.

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 MR. J. ERNST: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I move, seconded by the Member for River East, THAT the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the legislated restriction on the taxpayers of Winnipeg to appeal their property assessments. MOTION pr esented. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Our Rule 27.(2) states that the honourable member has five minutes to state his case for urgency of debate on this matter. MR. J. ERNST: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

As ind icated in the question period in my questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the City of Winnipeg is undergoing a reasse ssment. There is mass confusion, there is misunderstanding and there is a great fear, Madam Speaker , amongst the taxpayers of the City of Winnipeg as to what this reassessment means for the taxes on their home. They're faced with a whole new issue, Madam Speaker , because of the change in value and the fact that for the last 20-or-so years, reassessment has not taken place.

For many of them, Madam Speak er, it is the first time they've ever experienced a reassessment on their proper ty, but they're faced with 1975 levels of valu e which few unde rstand . They're faced with classifications of pro perty, which is new, as a result of a bill through this House last year. They're faced with differential mill rates again, which may or may not occur, Madam Speaker , and they don't unde rstand that. The city has held public in formation meetings throughout each community as assessment notices have been mailed out.

Hom eowners have gone to those meetings and the one question that comes forward at every single mee ting, the one question that comes forward that has been unable to be answered by the people attending those meetings, what will my taxes be. That's their concern. The y want to know, Madam Speaker , how it's going to affect their prope rty, how they are going to be financially affected by this reasse ssment. The problem is, Madam Spea ker, that the assessors who attend those meetings say, I'm sorry, I can't answer the qu est ion of taxes.

All we can talk ab out is assessment, something that they don't understand, something I'm wondering whether the assessors even understand. Madam Speaker, the appeal limitation is set by statute in The Munici pal Act, 20 days from the date of mailing by the municipa lity. Delays through the post office, Madam Speaker , over this past little while have caused over 300 appeals to be received late and therefore cannot be heard by the board of revision. On Thursday of this week, 65 percent of Winnipeg homeowners will have lost their opportunity to appeal their assessment - 65 percent.

Many of them are still not very enlightened in terms of what the impact is going to be on their prope rty. All of the appeal limits, all of them will have expired on March 19 , 19 87, in a couple of weeks time, well before any mill rates are struck or tax bills issued to those taxpayers. - -- 65 w For a great many homeowners, the realiza tion, the impact of assessment will come when they receive their tax bill in May, and at that time, it may trigger a desire to appeal.

Conf usion, misunde rstanding and an underlying fear of the unkno wn may cause some of those homeowners to take precipitous action, Madam Speaker , perhaps sell their property prematur ely, and the fear that they are going to be taxed out of their homes as a result of this reasse ssment. That, Madam Speaker , is the cause for urgen cy. We don't want to see that happen. The Board of Revision, Madam Speak er, will also sit, by statute, hearing appeals between now and the time that tax bills appear in the streets of Winnipeg. They may take certain actions.

They may cause certain precedents to occur, Madam Speaker , that may change the effect on homeowners at a later date should new information come to light. Madam Speaker , the government must introduce a bill extending retroactively a time for the taxpayers, the homeo wners of Winnipeg, to allow them to appeal their assessment after the tax bills have been issued in May, after they have had an opportunity to understand the impact that that assessment is going to have on their pro perty. Madam Speaker, the members on this side will assent to a speedy passage of such a bill. We will not hold up the process.

We want to ensure that the citizens of Winnipeg have as much protection as possible. Madam Speaker, if Sunday closing was an emergency issue, if Sunday closing could be brought before the Ho use, cert ainl y the fears of 15 0, 000 Winnip eg taxpayers could be brought before the House. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader has five minutes to state his position. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , it's strange that the Member for Cha rleswood now has such a sense of urgency about this matter.

Perhaps in his previous incarnation as a city councillo r, if he had dealt with the matter in the way in which it should have been dealt with, there wouldn't be that fear . There wouldn't be that uncertainty and there wouldn't be the problem which he suggests is so urgent today. It's a problem of his own making and it sounds somewhat hollow for him to stand in his place toda y and suggest that it's so urgent that we have to put aside the ordinary business of the House to discuss that matter after his failure to act when he had not only the opportunity, but the responsibility to act and he failed in that regard.

It's also somewhat strange that the members opposite suggest that this matter is so urgent now and that it is a matter of new-found importance to them, when it was our government and it was our Ministers, who I think encouraged by our MLA's who represent city seats, who first brought this matter to the attention of the City Council last wee k.

As I un ders tand it - (Interjection)- Well, the City Council never brought this matter to the attention of the government, it was this government, based on repres entations by these members on this side who brought this matter to the attention of City Council and asked for reso lution of the matter. As we have been informed earlier, this matter is under active discussion and it is under active discussion w -

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 because of the initiat ive of this side of the House and the initiative these Ministers and MLA 's who represent city seats on this side , so let there be no doubt about that. Whether or not the matter is urgent enough to set aside the ordinary business of the House, Madam Speaker , I would sugges t to you that the Throne Speech Debate is presently before us, that the Throne Speech in fact does mention and I quote: "That my government will continue to support the orderly introduction of new real property assessment in the City of Winnipeg.

" If members opposite think that this is such an important issue, perhaps we would have heard more about it from their leader yesterday, but certainly we can hear much about it if members want to stand in their place and make those representations und er the provisions allowed for them through the far -ranging provisions allowed for debate under the Throne Speech. So, in fact, there is no reason to set aside the ordinary business because the ordinary business of the House allows for them to present their new-found concerns , their new-found realization that there finally is a problem.

I would suggest, in closing, Madam Speaker , that we would be prepared and we would accept their support of changes , knowing full well that when they had the opportunity in previous incarnations to make those changes, they failed to do so . But not wishing to hold that against them , we would be perfectly prepared to hear them out, as we have been , in discussions with our own MLA's and discussions with the City Council on this matter to date and we would gladly welcome their support, when time comes , to make changes if they felt those changes are required in this House.

SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: There are two conditions to be satisfied for this matter to proceed. The first condition has been met in that I received the proper notice from the honourable member of his motion. The second condition is that debate on the matter is urgent and that there is no other reasonable opportunity to raise the matter. The debate on the Motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, which allows discussion of far-ranging matters, is on the Order Paper . There is, therefore, immediate and ample opportunity to debate this matter . I rule that the motion is out of order.

The Honourable Opposition House Leader . MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speake r. With all due respect, I must challenge your ruling. MADAM SPEAKER : The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaini ng the ruling of the Chai r, please say aye ; opposed? In my opinion, the ayes have it. MR. G. MERCIER: Yeas and Nays , Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

A STANDING VOTE was taken , the result being as follows : 66 YEAS Ashton , Baker, Bucklaschuk , Carstairs, Cowan, Desjardins, Doer, Dolin, Evans, Harapiak (The Pas), Harapiak (Swan River) , Harper, Hemphill, Kostyra , Lecuyer , Maloway , Parasiuk , Pawley, Penner, Plohman , Santos , Schroeder , Scott , Smith (Ellice). Smith (Osborne), Stor ie, Uruski, Walding , Wasylycia-Leis . NAYS Blake, Brown , Connery , Cumming s, Derkach, Downey, Driedger , Ducharme, Enns, Ernst , Filmon , Findlay, Hammond, Johnston, Manness , McCrae, Mercier , Mitchelson, Nordman , Oleson , Orchard , Pankratz , Rocan, Roch. MR. CLERK, W.

Remnant: Yeas 29; Nays 24. MADAM SPEAKER: The motion is carried . NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Health . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I'd like leav e of the House to make a non-political, non-partisan statement, please . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? (Agreed) HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I'm sure that you, as well as all the members of this House, will wish to rejoice with me over the huge success at the Canada Winter Games held in Cape Breton these last few weeks . It seems that every game has something special and this was no exception.

It was thought by many that the opening ceremony was probably the best , and I can tell you it was quite an emotional time for many of us. It was obvious also the value of these games , when we saw the legacy that will be left for sports facilities in Cape Breton. Also, the promotion of national unity, friendship and good sportsmanship, which was obvious, and probably more important, it is the human resource that it developed as the many, many volunteers who will become the leaders and stay leaders, who have become and will remain leade rs for many years in Cape Breton .

There was also the pride shown for the people in their town . We must remember that this is an area probably the most affected with unemployment in Canada. But the feeling of having done something, of doing something was really something to see, and to see how proud these people were . I would like to thank, first of all, here closer to Manitoba, Bill Crook , assisted by Rick Lambert of the Directorate and then the volunteers who spent many hours preparing for that and working with our people . There are no losers in something like this.

It might be if you that if you wanted to see the Manitoba boxers box, you had to be there early and you couldn't blink too often because they didn't last very long. But what they did is that they trained for all this time , and they participated , and they are very proud of it.

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 Madam Speaker, if you see a smiling lady in your gallery, you will notice that it is Mrs. Leonie Emond who runs our dining room. I suspect that the smi le is because she is so proud of her granddaughter, thirteen­ year old rhythmic gymnast, Lisa Merritt, who broke her record for the games and came back with five gold medals . We wish, of course, to offer congratulations and rejoice with the grandmother and the granddaughter for the achievement.

Now in rhythmic gymnastics, you could say that we did very well because another young another young girl, Susan Cushman, took four of the five silver medals , and she took the bronze in the other one. We did better in the medals than ever before, the number of medals ; we finished fourth. When I think of all the time that these people have trained, that you will bear with me if I mention those that at least won the gold medals . We had one in Men 's Vault in Gymnastics , Bob Bonnefoy; Weightlifting in the 110 kilograms, Bajon Pauvonic; Speed Skating, the women's 1500 metre , Krista Lamboo .

I mentioned Lisa Merritt and her five medals . The Wrestling of course, our world champion, Alf Wurr, who did very well and won the gold in the 90 kilograms . The curling was something else to see because we won both. The women, of course, were the rink of Karen Purdy, Jennifer Lamont, Janine Sigurdson and Jill Ursel, who narrowly lost out in the Canadian championship, lost in the last end, and won the championship at the games during the last end .

You couldn't say too much about our men's team , John Beswick, Skip, Jamie Moore , Robert Finlay and David Babiuk, who also on the same afternoon , a split second after the ladies, won the gold for the men. That was indeed a very good day, that Saturday, because the members of our women 's team won the gold medal at the volleyball game, the Women's Volleyball. So again, I am sure that all of us are very proud of the achievements of all our people, not just those that came back with medals but all of them, and we congratulate them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAV THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet , and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie . MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I guess yesterday some of the members said I almost goofed it up, but I guess there was some compassion on the other side and I'm speaking here today, thank you. Madam Speake r, at the beginning of the Session I do want to wish everyone well.

I hope that all of the members have a healthy Session and productive Session and I hope that the debate is meaningful. Madam Speaker, I hope that you also have a good Session and I'm sure we'll have lots to debate back and forth, not between you and I, but I hope that you 67 have an enjoyable season; maybe a little bett er one than last year but the second time around is usually easier. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratul ate the Pages who have been selected for this Session, and there is one Page. iA pa~tieular who is from the City of Portage la Prairie, Mary Zettler.

I don't see Mary Zettler here at the moment , but she is a very talented girl and we're very proud to have her from the City of Portage la Prairie. There is only one comment I would make , Madam Speaker, is that the colour of the uniforms, for the ladies that is, took a dramatic turn for the worst in my estimation . I kind of liked the -(Interjection)- oh, yeah, the bluer tinges are much more appropriate in the confines of this room . Madam Speaker, last year, being new to the Legislature , it took a lot of work to learn the ropes and the ways and I guess I've still got a few to learn.

But I did give it my best to learn the background and to learn how this House runs and to try to make a contribution to the Session and to try to represent the people of Portage in Manitoba to the best of my ability. But meeting people back in Portage I was asked two questions consistently: Do you like the job; do you like being an MLA? And secondly: Are there any surprises? Well, yes, Madam Speaker, I've enjoyed representing the constituency of Portage la Prairie in this Legislature; and, yes, I was surprised. I didn't think that I would be .

I thought I knew enough about politics but, Madam Speaker , I was surprised and very disappointed in the way the government conducted business and in the way things were put forward and the hiding and the secret things that go on. I thought it was a real disgrac e that a government should work in this way, so, yes, I was surprised. Madam Speaker, as far as the Throne Speech, it was just a regurgitation of the Throne Speech of last year. There was really very little new, and I think it was best noted by our leader that it was noted for what it didn 't say.

Madam Speaker, some of the things that the Speech from the Throne did not mention - and I think the basic one we have to start with in politics and we had better start very soon - is honesty . I think the leader of our party expressed it very well yesterday and made some very good points as to where honesty needs to start - and I think honesty in all parties, in all governments, at all levels. Also intregrity, Madam Speaker , was not mentioned in the Throne Speech . I think that is very important. We've seen tax scams going on, what was called legalized theft.

I think those are the kind of things that the integrity has to come before the people who are going to represent the people of Manitoba. Imagination. Well, I've seen imagination over the last year. Basically, it was called various forms of fedbashing. But that's their way. The y haven 't developed an imagination to develop policies which are going to get the true economy of this province going. They haven't had the imagination to know how to make cuts and they just don't have the imagination to grow, Madam Speaker. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C.

Santos, in the Chair.) Compassion is another one which I think, as legislators, we need to have. We saw the compassion

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 that the Premier of the government had last year, when he showed that he made donations of $1 85 to the charitable activities around his community; while the leader of this side was something like in the area of $2,300.00. So we see where com passion lies amongst the Socialists and the Conservatives.

Lastly, I think is the ability to manage, and that is, if we don't have the ability to manage, this province is going to be in terrible shape and we have seen the shape that this province is in; the horrendous deficits, the mismanagement of Crown corporations, and they try to develop new structures, Mr. Deputy Spe aker, but I don't think it's going to work. The Member for Kildonan says, "Trust us." Ye sterday, when he was speaking, he was telling me that we should be giving him ideas but the member will remember last year when I was trying to give some advice, he told me to shut up.

So I don't know, you can't have it both ways. The Minister of Agriculture said last Friday that the members on this side of the House had just found out about the farm crisis. Wel l, Mr. Deputy Speaker , we have known for years in this House that there is a farm crisis out there. I made mention of it three times in my Throne Speech last year and maybe the Minister of Agricultur e would like to review that and just see that, yes, we have add ressed the farm issue and we know that there are serious problems out there, but the conditions are gradually worsening. We told you it was bad last year.

I mentioned the gloom and doom that the farmers in Portage constituency were having. Now we go back to that same communit y, we see more farms for sale, farmers trying to rent out their land because they can't make it go and, yes, we do see bankruptcies. The Member for Virden last year, I thought, did an excelle nt job as the Ag Critic in bringing these concerns to the Minister.

This year right at the beginning, he wanted to have the Ag Comm ittee meet so that the farmers of the community could come forth and tell the Minister of the concerns and the problems they have and what they perceive to be some of the solutions to these farm problems. But the Minister says, oh, I've been travelling around the farm community; I've been through all the province and I'm listening to the farmers. Mr. Deputy Speaker , we don't get to hear what these farmers are saying to the Minister, neither does the public and the news media get to know what they are saying to him.

So I think it's at some point in time that this commi ttee should have been called. I was reading a comment from the Member for Lac du Bonnet that said last year, March 8, it was awfully late when we got into it, but this year there was lots of time. Mr. Deputy Speaker , a farmer saying that at this time of the year, we have lots of time. If he hasn't made his plans for this year last fall, he's not much of a farmer and he's saying that we have lots of time. That's the first disgrace that that Member for Lac du Bonnet brought up. But it won't matter, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , no matter what we say to the Minister of Agriculture and he said for us to tell him. Well, he's heard what we've had to say. It's good material, but he won't listen to the farmers. He hasn't. We had the bill for a hearing. What did he do? He listened to all of the presentations that were made, even Mr. Halabura who might have been considered and somebody said 68 it's his brother-in-la w. He refutes it. I don't know if he's had a fight with his brother-in-law, but everybody who came, including the credit unions, said it was a bad bill. It's proving to be a bad bill.

It's adding hardship to the farm community and it is restricting the credit to a good large number of people. Mr. Deputy Speaker , we have a Minister who is sup posed to be representing the farmers of this province and I was reading a letter to the editor which he put in. He said: "The editorial alleges that the act will adversely affect all farmers who are seeking operating capital. In my view, this arg ume nt is nonsensical.

Manitoba's legislation applies only to farm land and farm land is not used to secure operating loans." Well, if that's the common sense of this Minister who knows that in some cases farm land is not used as collateral to get an operating loan, then it's about time that this Minister goes out and listens to the farmers and find out how many are. A lot of times farm land is used in operating capital and I think it's a di sgrace that this Minister would even make that sort of a reference in a letter to the editor . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , in the Speech from the Throne and I quo te: "My go vernment has contin uall y empha sized the urge ncy of putting equity and fairness back into the tax system." Mr. Deputy Speaker , we look at the school tax on farm land. Is that equity? When we look at what urban people pay on school tax and we look at what farmers have to pay for school tax and that's a tax before profit is made, but they have to go, and in many cases go to the bank and use their farm land to borrow to pay the education tax, Mr. Deputy Speaker , but that Minister over there isn't going to listen. He never has; he never will.

Let it be known that Ontario rebates the school tax to the farmers. Alberta and Saskatchewan have no government GSE per se, only if there's a local tax. Manitoba farmers are at a di sadvantage because of the position of this government. FarmStart program, it is in there. Finally we have something that is of minor help to farmers.

But he also mentions in the Speech from the Throne the input cost, or maybe he mentioned it himself, I'm not sure where it was, but we need to have the Federal Government have a review into the input costs of farmers because this was one of the major sectors of costs for the farm comm unity. Last year the Member for Virden put in a resolution asking for the province to go into a review of the input costs.

Once having that we could have then gone to the Federal Government and said, yes, here are some of the problems, these are the situations that we find in We stern Canada, Manitoba specifically , now will you work with us to alle viate the cost of inputs to the farm comm unity? Did they go along with it? No. There were other ones that were put forth, Resolution 6, education tax on farm land, MACC young farmer rebates, increasing it from fifty to 10 0,000. No, the Minister wouldn't go along with that. Purple fuel rebate.

You had a beautiful idea during the election, how you were going to simplify the farm rebates for farmers on the purple gas. Have we got a rebate system now any better? But we had some ideas, Mr. Deputy Speaker , but the Minister refused to listen. He always will. What about the feed lot program? Farmers have been calling continuously for a feedlot program, and yes,

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 there are many feedlots closed up. What about the one in Carman? I don't know the situation in Miami, but umpteen feedlots, large and small, have closed. Mr. Deputy Speaker , we know the prices in agriculture, we know the sectors that they are in and we know what should be done about it. The problem is we can't get the Minister of Agriculture to listen. Mr. Deputy Speaker , the feedlot situation and not having a thriving feedlot program in Manitoba, I think led to the closing of Canada Packers.

They could read it on the wall that there wasn't going to be a big supply of feeder cattle in Manitoba so with an obsolete building and all of the other problems, they decided to close it. But go back a few years when Swift's closed. Who did that party blame when this party was in government? They said it was the provincial party that was to blame for the closing of Swift's. Now Canada Packers closes and who do they blame? The Federal Government. Now what hypocris y, what half-truths. It is un believable that you would even think of a situation like that. What about Spring Hill?

They say the Spring Hill plant at Neepawa was part of the problem. The feds put $800,000 into Spring Hill. Wel l, the provincial party put in somewhere in the area of a million-and-a-half or more. So they have double the amount invested. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not going to critici ze them for that one. I think that was a good one. Along with the Federal Go vernment and the Provincia l Government we've got a viable plant at Neepawa and so we're not going to lose our slaughter potential. What about crop insurance? It is in the Throne Speech again, the Premier making reference to crop insurance.

Wel l, let's und erstand that the premiums are paid 50- 50, the farmer and the Federal Government. All the Provincial Government does is admin istrate it. Four­ and-a-half million last year out of something like $45 million in premiums. Those bad feds putting in half the premiums into this province and you are only putting in four-and-a-half million. Another sham that you try to perpetrate on the people of Manitoba. You've got something in there on the surface rights. Mr. Deputy Speaker , how long has the Member for Arthur been talking about su rface rights and the problems related to the farmers?

Just yesterday or today another

article on the problems related to surface rights. No, the Minister will not act. It is in the Throne Speech, but we have seen so much in the Throne Speech before that we can't depend on this Minister ever doing anything about it. What about sugar beets? Last year he waited until the eleventh hour, then finally they went along with an agreement. This year the farmers were delayed from seed ing because they didn't have a program in place last year. The Minister says when? He doesn't even kno w that the farmers were waiting for the annou ncement so that they could go into seed ing.

Now we are waiting for another program for sugar beets again, aren't we? The Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada are prepared to sign an agreement. The Government of Manitoba refuses to sign an agreement. What would it cost the Province of Manitoba this year, three hundr ed and fifty, three hundred and sixty thousand dollars, give or take? Sure they are concerned about somewhere down the road it building up, but sugar prices are improving, but no, this Minister is going to drag his feet.

Put those farmers 69 who should be planning now in spite of the fact the Member from Lac du Bonnet doesn't think there is an emergen cy, the urgency is now. The Minister should act. And what are the results of all this financial crisis? Family breakdown, Mr. Deputy Speaker , is one of the bi g problems in the farm community - and we have just, in the last week, experienced a tragedy here in this House - suicide rates have escalated to an alarming rate. The Minister, Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, is a fat cat farmer living on a turkey ranch under a marketing board protection where he is going to get his income, he is not worried about the vagaries of the world market price. He is sitting there; he is not sufferi ng, so he does not care. I think it is time - because when it all comes through, you'd better have a crow marketing board because you are going to eat a lot of crow before you are through. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I have to go back - and I'm glad that the Member for Lac du Bonnet is here because I wouldn't have liked to have said derogatory things in his absence, but Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, this Member for Lac du Bonnet, and I think it was 1983, you can correct me if I am wrong, was made, a member of the farm communit y, the Manitoba Farmer of the Year through the Red River Ex. A man who was selected by his peers , a man who was supp osed to be representative of the farm community and of the village communi ties that he represents in his activities and not just a constituency but he is supposed to be representing the people of Manitoba, because you are chosen for the province of Manitoba. What did he do?

He voted against the emergency debate because the farmers are in trouble and he refused to support that issue. -(Interjection)- Mr. Deputy Speak er, he really told us exactly what we have been saying about how serious the farm crisis really is. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to read a couple of excerpts from Hansard which I think are appropri ate at this time to understand either the misdirection or the misguidedness of the Member for Lac du Bonnet or maybe he is cow-tied to supporting party lines.

He says, I think it is up to the House in total to convince our city cousins that there is a crisis in agriculture and that something has to be done. What is he saying? He is saying the Minister of Agriculture and himself are unable to influence the urban members of his party to recognize that there is a farm crisis and spend a little bit of money in the farm situation. And then he goes on, Mr. Deputy Speak er, and he says, "Can you imagine a constituency the size of Lac du Bonnet without a single implement dealer in the constitue ncy?" You do not have to imagine it, Mr. Deputy Speaker , it is a reality.

That member is admitting to the problems in the farm community and then turns his back on the very farmers he is suppo sed to be repres enting. I can see the Member for the Interlake with his turkey quota and the built-in profit structure not worrying about the farmers, but I don't know why the Member for Lac du Bonnet isn't concerned because I don't think that he's got one of those fat cat quotas. But after all that, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I want you to remember what he said. He said, "I say to this government and to the Premier , thank you from a grateful rural Manitoban." Now isn't that absolutely ducky!

He is now thanking the Premier for the situation that the farm communi ty is in.

Tuesday, 3 Ma rch, 1987 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order being raised. MR. C. BAKER: A point of order , Mr. Deputy Speaker . The gentlemen is quoting me out of context; I wish he would have the courtesy to read the whole resolution. Read all of it; read the whole paragraph. MR. E. CONNERY: The whole paragraph? It's only two lines. "I say to this government and to the Premier , thank you from a grateful rural Manitoban." And I say rural Manitoba is not grateful. The farm communities, the villages, the towns are not grateful to this Premier and to this government. MR. C. BAKER: Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I hope the gentleman has the courtesy to read the total paragraph he said is just two lines. If he read the preceding two paragraphs, he'd know what I'm grateful about. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It might be a poin t of clarification, but a dispute as to what is being said is not a point of order . MR. E. CONNERY: It really has tarnished the honour of being a Farmer of The Ye ar; and for all those other Farmers of The Ye ar that have taken place over the last several years, I think it's a shoddy disg race that this would take place. Mr.

Deputy Spe aker, in last year's Throne Speech, highways were somewhat mentioned in my Throne Speech Debate, and I talked about the poor conditions of the highways in Portage la Prairie and in a lot of other constituencies, and the dangers that there were inher ent to school buses, etc., going down some of the roads. Because the provincial trunk highways are in such poor shape, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a lot of other farmers have taken municipal roads, thus transferring a lot of the cost of highways to the municipalities because the only good road is a municipal road.

The provincial road is not, in many cases, suitable to drive on. Last year, Mr. Deputy Speak er, they cut $12 million out of the Capital budget. What are they going to do for highways this year? What's the encore? Raise it $15 million or $20 million? Mr. Deputy Speaker , the roads are in terrible shape but we are told, and it's acknowled ged, that the Capital budget is a politicized sector of the Hig hways Department. If you go through the Dauphin Constituency and if you go through the Interlake, you will see the politicizing of road building.

But the one thing we are assured of, that there is no politicizing in the maintenance sector. There doesn't need to be. Everyb ody's treated equal ly. There is no mai ntenance done on the roads very much, and the condition of the roads, the hazard of the roads shows it very quickl y. We went up to Hecia Island and you see the beautiful road being put into Hecia Island at - it has to be at some millions of dollars of cost.

I wonder about the priorities of this government when the Minister of Natural Resources was in Portage Municipality and viewed Hig hway 240, had a cha nce to view the Overhill Drain, and I thank the Minister for that. He took the time. It was an honourable thing and he did his Ministerial responsibility by doing it. But once again, 70 what is going to be done for that road and for that Overhill Drain? Those people, for 25 years, have been asking for governments to do something. Even ours back then should have done something and didn't, but it's got to the point now where that road is desperate.

Last year, the Minister knows that there were childr en who couldn't go to school; ther e were people who couldn't go to work. And we're spending money on a road into Hecia, which is a white elephant that the government is losing money on every year. Mr. Deputy Speak er, something has to be done. Where is the honesty, the integrity and the fairness that the Premier of this province says has to be? Mr. Deputy Speak er, the concern for rural Manitoba, not just the farm commun ity, has to be there, but we don't have a concern for rural Manitoba with this government.

I sympathize with some of the members opposite, and I'm sure some of them have tried to have things for the rural area, but a party and a government that's dom inated by urban people, I'm sure they don't listen. The Premier of Manitoba condemns central Canada for its treatment of Western Canada and Eastern Canada, condemns central Canada for the treatment of the rest of Canada. Then he turns around and does the very same thing in Manitoba. I would like to read just one little short line here from the Throne Speech, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , which says this, and I think it's on Page 20 - Madam Speaker, nice to see you back. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) The big thing right here on Page 20, it says, " committed to a stronger Winnipeg." I'm not oppo sed to that, Madam Speaker . Winnipeg is an important part of this province, but I think the rural are justified in having the very same as Winnipeg is getting, and what are they doing for rural Manitoba? This Premier has said to hell with rural Manitoba, but he has spent $32 million - do you want me to withdraw that? MADAM SPEAKER: Please. MR. E.

CONNERY: Sure, I withdraw "to hell" - the $32 million in the Core Area Initiative, $10 0 million in the renewed Core Area Initiative. There's North Portage Development, Ma dam Speaker . These are all for Winnipeg, great programs, but what is there for rural Manitoba? Nothing. He also mentions the establishment of a riverbank authority in Winnipeg, and what about the other cities and towns? Is there any mention of an authority for Portage or for Brandon? I don't see any, but the Premier talks about equal ity, equity and fairness . I'll never forget the Overhill Drain and others.

There's another part on Page 9, Madam Speaker , that I'd like to refer to, and this is the Premier of this province. He says: "My government will also be bringing forward revisions to The Emergency Measures Act, which will allo w for effective provincial and municipal preparedness and response activities related to emergencies such as floods ... "and so forth." Madam Speaker , why don't you do something about it before the emergency is there, not after? Why put all of the people through all of the hoops when you

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 could have done something prior to the emerge ncy in most cases and elimin ated the emerge ncy? The Whitemud River is a great watershed. It's a great case for that, where nothing was done until finally the government was taken to court and they were forced to, through it Omand's Creek is another program mentioned in Page 22 of the speech. Omand's Creek should be a great idea, but priorities. What comes first, a beautiful park for the City of Winnipeg, or a road and a drain for rural Manitoba? -(Interjection)- excellent idea.

But you know, Madam Speaker, when this government decides they want to save money, they are very quick to close down RCMP detachments in rural Manitoba, three towns that were told they were going to lose their detachments. This is ju stic e for Manitobans? Madam Speaker , justice now has become one of the problems of our province and maybe of our count ry. People continuously tell me they're dissatisfied with the justice system of Manitoba. We get letters; we get calls.

Madam Speaker , when you reacl the newspapers - and it's tragic - when you see the wife battering, the child molesters, you know we could do something for these people. We could divert some of the money from the Lotteries Fund into specific items, not the General Treasu ry, but into specific areas of really priority need. I think, in this area, there is a need. When we look at the murders and the women who have been murd ered in batterings, we see a murderer who confesses to murdering two women and, through plea bargaining, can be paroled in seven years, Madam Speaker .

As a woman, I would think you would be infuriated that this incompetent go vernment would not start to take some steps to correct the justice system in Manitoba. We take a look at the police and the frustration that they have in dealing with criminals. We see the problems through the human rights that the police are having to face. We see where a person is stopped for speeding and they find illegal drugs or something else in the vehicle and , because of his human rights, they can't charge him. You know, I can go back to Justice Sterling Lyon and how he fought entrenc hment.

He fought it for a good reason, because he did not want the courts making the decision on human rights. He wanted legislators to make those decisions on human rights, and that's where it should be, Madam Speaker . Also, what are the court costs related to all of the cases going to court because the judge has got to make a decision, and usually it ends up in the Supreme Court of Ottawa. Madam Speaker , the Attorney-General compl ained when Justice Sterling Lyon was appointed. What did he complain about the last time I heard, that he wasn't consulted by Ottawa. Isn't that a shame?

Did he consult the people of Pipe stone, Reston, Winnipeg Beach when he was going to close the RCMP stations there? Did he go there and say, now, here we've got a problem? Will you work with us? No. He declared they were going to be closed. This great guy, who is all for justice and fairness, when is he going to proclaim the freedom of information bill? Just when is he going to do that? There's a challenge to you over there. When you have honesty and fair ness and integrity, you will open up the books of the government.

You'l l proclaim the freedom of information bill so that everybody can see. 71 He was part of a government, this Attorney-General who pretends to be so pious and upright, the Third Quarter Financial Statement prior to the election, hid, kept back so the people wouldn't know what was going on. He changed the year-end for Manfor so we wouldn 't know what the loss was, dela yed the Ml'S Annual Report so we wouldn't have the flagging of MTX, and then the people of Manitoba would have known before the election what they're doing.

Madam Speaker , a man with the track record of the Attorney-General should not criticize other people, especially those with the ethics, morals and integrity of Justice Sterling Lyon. I have only one comment about the Member for Elmwood, the only thing that I thought had some merit in his seco nding the Throne Speech was that he mentioned crime prevention. Madam Speaker , we tried to prevent crime in the last general election. We tried to defeat this government but, because of the things they did, the people were not informed as to what was going on.

They weren't given a choice because of the misinformation that they presented to the public. Their devious withholdings of information allowed them to be re-elected. Madam Spea ker, this NOP Government, under this Premier, is the big gest crime ever perpetrated on the people of Manitoba. Ma dam Speaker, the Deeter Report was a condemnation of this imcompetent Premier and equally incompetent Cabinet. I hate to admit, Madam Spea ker, that it was a well-written report, and was also quite compli mentary of Sterling Lyon and the efficiency of his government.

But he had several things that I would just like to mention very quickly that he suggested for government, things that we think ma ybe we can support. "A shortened and simplified Estimates process, focused on major issues and shifted gradually to a five-year basis from the current one-year basis, as recommended by the Aud itor," recommends an impr ovement in product ivity. This is work ethic. Maybe some of the members need to be working a little harder and should also spray a few more mosqu itoes - it would help too in the summertime.

"The senior Ca binet Comm ittee is ideally the Treasury Board, which it isn't now." This is not happening, and he recommends that Treasury Board become the ideal committee. "Governments should be without secrets and dark corners of hidden agendas and informa tion." MR. D. ORCHARD: Who said that? MR. E. CONNERY: Deeter. Freedom of information, once again, secrets - this is the man that they commis sioned and paid is now saying these things. "It is important to keep government's size limited to a core of essentials with a solid resistance to the constant pressures for grow th." There you are.

We 've been saying, cut back on some of the things. "The ability to make long-term plans is hampered because of the lack of clarity in the framework of overall priorities." Business knowledge and ability is reflected in that statement, Madam Speaker , and this is what we've been saying for some time, the tragedy of that government who cannot manage but have a devious way of hiding the facts from the people of Manitoba. Deeter also recommends, Madam Spea ker, the lack of planning, the lack of accoun tability. We ll we've seen -

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 that in the Crown corporations, there is no accounting. Now we see in the Workers Com pensation - what was the terminology the fellow used? "Creative accou nting" now is the new term. He refused to go along with creative accounting. "Poor program evaluation and review" - they don't review the programs. They don't know what's going on, and he repeats again, "program cuts." But one of the amazing parts of that Deeter Report - I see the odd one looking, I don't think they read it - recommends "privatizing program del ivery" in the Deeter Report.

He says: ". . . reduce Jobs Fund spe nding." Reduce Jobs Fund spending, take note. Your own man says reduce the spend ing, and he says: "Ph ase out Hydro Rate Stabilization Fund ." Amen. The most significant though and important sentence in the whole report is this, and I hope members opposite would at least listen to this one short line that Deeter put in: "We can build slowly and solidly as have our pred ecessors or we can leave a fragile legacy to our children." Madam Speaker , that's precisely why I ran for go vernment.

I'm concerned about the childr en of this province, and the legacy that they're going to have isn't going to be a very good one. Could the Speaker tell me how much time I have left? MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has nine minutes remaining. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you, Madam Speak er. The economic indicators, Madam Speaker , put forth by the Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, the Howe Institute has given some credibility to this government as saying, hey, it's got to grow. Things are looking not bad. The unemp loyment isn't too bad. This province is going somewhere at this point.

But they all qualified, Madam Speaker , and this is the problem. The economy is fueled by Limestone, the Core Area Initiative and North Portage Development and, on top of that, a housing boom that is taking place now because of low interest rates. The first three, Madam Speaker , are on bo rrowed mon ey.

We are in an econ omic bubbl e and, Ma dam Speaker, when Lime stone and the Core Area and North Portage Development are finished, the bubble is going to break and we'll have proven to the world that we borrowed our way into short-term economic prosperi ty, and the long-range is going to be long-term bust for the people of this province and for the childr en and grandchildren of the members of this Legislature. The private sector has not done well, Ma dam Speaker. The facts are, it has not done well.

Some of the private sector that has been a spinoff because of Limestone and the other bo rrowed projects that the government have, yes, but the true indic ators, the manufa cturing, the processing and so forth, that exports outside of this province, whether to other provin ces in Canada or to other countries, is the barometer of where we're going to get true wealth. MR. H. HARAPIAK: What do the bankers say? MR. E. CONNERY: What do the bankers say? What do they say? They say that, when the bubble breaks, 72 she's going to go.

It's not going to be of any consolation to any members on this side when the bubble breaks and this province coll apses to say, well we told you so, as we have told the Minister of Agriculture. We see what's happened there. If the bubble there is broke, the people are broke, the community is broke. We can say that we told you so. That's no consolation, because the people are suffering. Those people out there are human beings. They're neighbours and they're friends of ours, and we're not happy with that. Madam Speaker, what has ha ppened with this government?

I think we should look at what's happening with the deficit. In 1978 through 19 81, we had $468 million in deficits under Sterling Lyon. As soon as he left, they went to $434 million in the first year and, last year, we're somewhere over $600 million for a one­ year deficit, one-and-a-half times Sterling Lyon's total deficit for the four years that he was in power. Our total debt, Madam Speaker, has gone from some where just over $4 billion to now where we're well over $8 billion and approaching $9 billion.

This government, in the five years that they'v e been there, ha ve put somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion on the backs of Manitoba ns that cannot be paid in the near future, will be paid by the young people of tomorrow. Madam Speaker , I have a couple of other charts that I would like to relate to, and it's called "The Debt," and we're looking at the per capita debt of what's going on.

Madam Speaker , the liability - and the Minister of Finance continuously gets up and says we're borrowing at a low interest rate Madam Spea ker, at this point, if we'd got the money for no interest, our liabi lity, because of the exchange factor, is over 12 percent. So, Madam Speaker , Manitoba has one of the highest foreign per capita debts in the country or is the highest. Madam Speaker, we are second highe st per capita debt in total, second only to Newfou ndland, but then we are the highest foreign per capita debt, which leaves this province very vulnerable when there are the exchange rates going on.

Madam Speaker , Throne Speech '86, Budget Address '86, we were going to see Manitoba small business bonds. It didn't come to fruition. Throne Speech '87, once again we're going to have a Small Business Bond Program, slightly different wording, but I wonder if it's going to be the same monies that are going to be. What about the millions of dollars that we authorized finally last year, even though you had to withdraw it out of The Loan Act ( 1 )?

Madam Speaker , it's very obvious that this par ty, this province, this government at this point is devoting too much energy to mega projects at the expense of small business. It was pointed out that 97 percent of the bu sinesses now in Manitoba are small, and I think it says one thing: the large busi nesses have gone, the medium- sized bus inesses have gotten smaller. So, Madam Spea ker, we have become a small business province; small busin esses are not the big exporters.

They're very vital to the life of a province, but they're not the ones that are going to generate new wealth coming into the Province of Manitoba. The Canadian Federation of Business has a lot to say about the quality of this government and the factors that are detrime ntal to job creation. The payroll tax, which we deathly fear is going to be raised by another 1 percent is the first one. The Workers Com pensation

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 now - I would like the Minister to hear - is the second most detrimental thing that they see to job creation and business development in this province. It's a change; it has now gone up and the previous Minister should be proud of the position that he's put the Workers Com pensation in. We 're shown that there was almost $39 million surplus when they took over, and now, according to the report, there could be a $60 million deficit by the end of the year - tragic, tragic, tragic, tragic! But that's the sign of incom petency that the people will live with for a long time.

Madam Speaker , in tourism, we are the only province in tourism to show a decline in foreign people coming to Manitoba. That's a tragedy , but what did the Minister say when the question was put to her? "Ah," she said, "It's an insignificant and unimpor tant part of our tourist business." That's the growth sector, the new money, the new infusion of life into the Province of Manitoba, and she's saying it's minor, it's insignificant. Madam Speaker , I think one of the important things is that we need to spend more money on tourism. Members opposite are going to say, well, you can't have it both ways.

Do you want to cut the deficit and spend more money? But tourism, unlike most other programs, is an investment, because 10 percent of every tourist dollar spent in the province returns to the provincial coffers and this province, because of its poor funding of the tourist industry, has come to where it is now. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member's time has expired. The Honourable Member for Thomp son. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I'm pleased to be able to participate in debate on the Throne Speech once again as we enter the 19 87 Session of the Legislature.

Madam Speaker, over the last few months I've had the opportunity to visit many people in my constituency dir ectly in their ho mes, at commun ity events in Thom pson. I've had the opportunity to talk to many people about the concerns local ly, some of the things that my constituents would like to see done in the Legislature. I'd like to indicate at the beginning of my remarks that I certainly will be intending to speak on many of those local concerns in the upcoming Session of the Legislature.

I'll be continuing to push for improved community facilities in Thompson - particularly for our seniors, Madam Speaker - continuing to seek greater economic di versification through such matters as increased tourism development in Northern Manitoba. I'm going to be seeking continued expansion of edu cational opp ortunities in the No rth, and the mai ntenance impr ovement of our northern health system, because these, Madam Speaker , are items that have been raised as concerns dir ectly to me in my constituency. I will certainly give notice now that I intend to speak on them in the upcoming months.

During that period too, Madam Speak er, I've had the opportunity to speak to many people about their views on the overall political situation facing us. If there's one thing that has struck me the most, as I come back 73 in here and sit through another series of Tory speeches on Throne Speeches, it is that they just haven't learned what has hap pened to their party in this province. They just haven't learned what has happened.

Last year, we came in very shortly after an election in which they were once again defeated, in which they lost both in terms of num bers of seats in the popu lar vote, Madam Speaker , and we heard them try and try and try to attempt to say that somehow there'd been an awful mistake, that they hadn't really lost the election or if they had it was a terrible accident. I heard today from the Member for Portage the same sorts of things about the last election. In fact, I recall him saying just a few minutes ago that people weren't given a choice. They didn't know what decision they were making in 1986.

Madam Speaker , here we are fully a year later, and the message the people of Manitoba are giving to the Conservatives is that if they were not that popular in 19 86, they're even less popular today. Madam Speaker , it's both the federal and provincial Tories that they're talking about. Just look what's happened in the last year. It's been a rather incredible year actual ly, I think, politic ally. We've see a federal Tory Government drop to the lowest level of popularity in history. We've seen an incredible series of scandals and corruption; we've seen a government that has no credibil ity.

We've seen it drop in every region of this country and particularly here in Manitoba. Let's talk about some of the reasons why that government is in such sad shape federal ly, and why that same party, which is in opposition here in Manitoba, is also facing problems at the present time, Madam Spea ker. Let's start with one obvious reason - the CF- 18 fiasco. Madam Speak er, in my mem ory, I can't think of one single incident that's demo nstrated political cynicism and unfairness to this province any more than the CF- 18 decision.

We had a com pany here in Manitoba which had the best bid, which was recommended by the Civil Service in Ottawa, more than 70 civil servants having reviewed it, the best bid, the cheapest price, and we were told that we were not going to get that contract, that it was going to go to Canadair of Montreal because it was, quote, "in the national intere st." We ll, Madam Speaker , national interest? I think not. Political interest? Very obvious ly. It was cynical politics of the worst kind, and we saw in this province unity that I've seldom seen on any other issue. We had a delegatio n that went to Ottawa.

It included representatives from the Provincial Government, from labour , from business, from people of all political persuasions, from the city government itself, here in the City of Winnipeg. We saw them take a united position against the unfair treatment that we received from the federal Tories, but what happened here in Manitoba, Madam Speaker? What did the Tories do? What was their reaction provincially? They sort of said they disagr eed with it, but they went further.

Their leader tried to suggest that the Premier's handling of the matter had cost its credibility with Ottawa and thereby cost it the contract. That's exactly what their leader said. Instead of saying it was wrong , period, he then attempted to blame the Provincial Government, at least partly, for the CF- 18 decision. They went further. . - - .

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 We had the spectacle of the Member for Charleswood putting a federal Tory fund raising body, of which he wasn't a member it turned out, the 500 Club, but then we had probably the most cynical and ridiculous proposition I've heard from mem bers opposite on anything in the five years that I' ve been in this Legislature, and that was the suggestion, Madam Speaker , that the solution to their political problems over the CF -18 contract was to change the name of their provincial political party. Change to what name, I don't kn ow.

We, in fact, were thinking of starting a competition in Manitoba to think of some names that people might want to give the provincial Tories. I don't want to indicate some of the suggestions I had, Madam Speaker. They're somewhat unparliamentar y. But to really suggest that that would somehow solve the political problems, to change the name, I think is absurd. Change the name, Madam Speaker . Well, as far as I am concerned, a Tory is a Tory is a Tory. It's always the Tory Party, Madam Speaker , and the people of Mani toba know that.

We've seen over the last year just how well they know that; we've seen their response to the weak and half-he arted defence of this province by members opposite. We've seen their response to cynical moves such as attempting to change their name, and we've seen that it's meant - today it dropped to record lows in public esteem in Manitoba. But you know, they have another answer for all this, they have another answer, it comes from their leader and it's to blame the feds. The Member for Kildonan, I think, pointed out that so well the other day, to blame the feds.

They are saying, Madam Speaker , that they dropped politically because of the drop of the Federal Government, that it's nothing to do with what they've said or done, that it's only to do with their federal counterparts. Madam Speaker , if that is what they truly believe, I think once again they've proven beyond a doubt that they don't understand what has happened. Because, Madam Speaker , what the people of this province see in the provincial Tories is more than just a reflection of Brian Mulroney and his caucus in Ottawa.

What they see is that - and many people have expressed this to me - they feel that if the provincial Tories were in power in Manitoba we'd be seeing much the same sort of policies, the failed policies that we're seeing from the Federal Govern ment. They are concerned about the provincial Tories exactly because they are Tories, Madam Speak er. They can change the name all they want but people know what to expect out of the members opposite. I want to give you one crystal clear example of what I'm talking about.

Last year in debate on the Budget, I referred to something which I don't often refer to in the Legislature - a poll. A poll, Madam Speaker , which showed that the people of this province saw the provincial Tories - this is the provincial Tories - as repres enting two gr oups in soc iety ,

whereas the provincial NOP was seen as representing every other group in society, best repres enting their interests. Now, what were those two groups that the people of this province saw the provincial Tories represent? Madam Speaker , it was big busine ss and the rich; big business and the rich. What's happening in Ottawa? What's happ ening in terms of taxation poli cy? Wha t's 74 happening in terms of economic policy, where we have a federal Conservative Government? What is happening in Ottawa? I want to quote from a newspaper article, from the Free Press, February 28, this year, 19 87.

The head line, Madam Speak er, states that only the rich have escaped the Tory tax bite. Incr eased highest for the poorest. It goes on to say, Madam Speak er, that corporations and the rich are the only ones to have escaped the Tory tax juggernaut, which has flattened the wallets of most other taxpa yers, gove rnment figur es and non­ gov ernment studie s reveal. It indi cates, Ma da m Speaker, further that the latest federal budg et projections suggest that the wave will continue for at least the next two-and-a-half years. That's assuming that anything is done in the upcoming tax reform.

These are studies, Madam Speaker , incidentally which were condu cted by the National Council on We lfare, and also interestingly enough, by the Fraser Institute, which is a right-wing economic think tank based in Vancouver, which itself, a right-wing economic think tank, showed that only those with the highest incomes have managed to significantly reduce their share of what has been an increasing burden under the Tories. Ma dam Speaker , ther e you have it, a Tory Government in power and who benefits? The rich and the corporations.

What we are seeing in Manitoba is that people are looking at the Federal Government and saying that's exactly what we would get here. They still remember the years of 1977 to 19 81; that's in the back of their minds. They see day after day after da y, who the federal Conservatives really speak for, and they look, Madam Speaker, at who the provincial Tories speak for as well and for the vast majority of Manitobans it certainly isn't them.

I think, Ma dam Spea ker, if ever ther e was an indication of the type of attitude of the Tories it was in, what I feel, were very unfair, totally unfair comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in his address to the Throne Speech when he made comments on the personal finances of the Minister of Northern Affairs. The fact that the Minister of Northern Affairs had sought a $1 ,000 loan. Madam Speaker , I have no intention of getting up and making comments on the personal financ es of some of the members opposite.

I don't think that's appropriate in this House, but I think what is interesting is the extent to which the bia ses of member s opposite come across. Perhaps if all members of this House were rich, they wouldn't be seeking loans. They wou ldn't have to balance their budget and seek to deal with their personal finances, Madam Speaker , but all members aren't. Many members of this House come from very modest backgrounds in terms of income and wealth.

I think it's very tacky - to use a word which is being used presently by the members opposite - for the Leader of the Opposition, of all people, to bring up that sort of tactic in the House. It reminds me of a quote which I came across just rece ntly I think which sums up the Conservative attitude. It shows how it hasn't changed in over 70 years. Here's a quote from Stephen Leacock from 19 09. It stated with the Co nservatives, the failing prin cip les, the Conservatives fall back on personalities. That was 1909, this is 19 87 - things haven't changed.

When they run out of principled arguments, they get into personalities. Madam Speaker , we've said that the federal Tory party, we know what they stand for. We know that they're

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 much the same here in Manitoba. You can see the parallels if you compare the election of 19 84 and the election of 19 86 - the federal and then later the provincial election. You can see the parallels if one recalls, for example, the great statements made by Brian Mulroney and the federal Cons ervatives about sacred trusts. Does anyone remember those statements and what has happened since? Sacred trusts with the social programs of this count ry. How they were going to be concerned about the poor and di sadvantaged. In reality, Madam Spea ker, it has not happened.

The poor and middle income earners of this country have been hit time and time again, but the rich and only the rich have been spared. We 've seen the usual dichotomy between the Tories in elections and after elections. We saw how in the federal election the Tories attempted to emph asize their so-called progressive aspect, and how afterwards they ended up being just another Cons ervative government. We 've seen, Madam Speaker , in this very Throne Speech Debate, that the exact same process has happened here in Manitoba with the provincial Tories.

During the election they were talking with great concern about health and education and social programs and how they were going to incr ease spending. Ye sterd ay, Madam Speaker , we saw the true colors of the Tories when their Leader of the Opposition came out and attacked, what? Essentially the usual sort of Tory tactic, talked about NOP spending. It was all budgets and deficits, as the Member for Lakeside knows so well. I will provide him with a copy of my notes afterwards so he can study it at greater detail. But we know, Madam Speaker , that is what the Tories always do.

They are prog ressive - at least in terms of words - in elections, but when they're in the Legislature, either in government or in opposition, they resort to the same tired right­ wing policies that have always ch aracterized them as a party. Well, Madam Spea ker, the sad

part is that if they are going to take that tack, they're going to have to do a lot better than they've done. I want to give you an example from the Leader of the Opposition's remarks in the address to the Throne Speech. HE' sugges ted that social spending had dropped from 58 percent of the Budget to 54 percent of the Budget, Madam Speaker , since 19 81. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition might know something about accou nting or how to look at the public accounts figures; I thought that he might but I was wrong. He made a very major mistake, Madam Speak er, in calculating the expenditures. MR. J.

McCRAE: The percentage of total expenditur es. MR. S. ASHTON: The percentage of total expenditur es, yes, for the Member for Brandon West. He forgot, Madam Speaker , the one thing that this government did was to move income security payments out of the Community Services Department and into Employment Services and Economic Security; and if one adds back in the income security payments, one finds that social spending has not decreased but it has incr eased as a percent of the provincial budget. Madam Speak er, he plainly blew it.

He also didn't raise the fact that spending on health and education and social programs, programs which 75 the vast majority of the people of this province want maintained and enha nced, but that spending has incr eased significantly as the people of this province clearly want. Ma dam Speaker, the same lack of understanding is so evident in the Leader of the Opposition's statements on economic polic y. In fact, it's obvious to me that that party has no economic policy from the comments that they made. There was reference, Madam Spea ker, to the fact that the deficit has increased these last few years.

Are the Tories saying that the deficit should not increase in times of economic trouble? Are they saying, Madam Speaker , that governments should not expand job creation activities during times of economic struggle? Is that the case? If that is the case, let them say so. Let them say so now. There's room for legitimate philosophical disagreement in this House, but let them say so. Madam Speaker , the Leader of the Opposition talked about the Jobs Fund. He talked about short-term job creation through the Jobs Fund. He neglected to mention, of course, that that is balanced by long-term job creat ion.

He qu est ioned the $80 million of expenditures on short-term job creation projects. Does he want to look at exactly what kind of programs he's ref erencing when he suggests that some or perhaps all of that amount be eliminated? Does he really want to eliminate, for example, jobs for students during the summer, because that's a portion of that $80 million? Does he want to eliminate some of the jobs and training programs that have been introduced to provide jobs to people who have no other source of employment? Madam Speak er, does he want to cut those programs out entirely?

Wel l, I wish he would be more specific. I will say, Madam Speaker , that there will be times in which job creation will be incr eased and when it will be decrease d, depending on the economic circums tances. That is an economic policy that has been adopted by many governments and, particularly , has been a key feature of the New Democratic Party, the key policy feature. So let's find out where the Tories really stand when they criticize short-term job creation programs and exactly what they would cut.

You know I found it particularly ironic when the Leader of the Opposition referred to the comments by MACSW on the need for more emplo yment opportunities for women. Madam Speaker , I agree with their analysis. There is definitely a need to ensure the Jobs Fund projects do provide job opportunities to people who have been denied those in the past, including women, and including other groups in society such as Native people, in particul ar, and visible minorities and the disabled. But you know, there was no suggestion that the Jobs Fund be elimi nated which is somehow what the Leader of the Opposition implied.

The women of this province are saying it's good, but improve it; make sure it is targeted towards the needs of women and others who are disadvantaged in socie ty, and let not the Leader of the Opposition twist that around. One can see, as one goes through the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, just how much lack of understanding that he has about the economic situation in this province. He talked about the 97 percent of Manitoba firms that are small businesses and the fact that there are fewer large enterprises relatively as if --

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 that was somehow a feature that was common to this economy . In fact, what has been happening is that there's more and more emphasis on small busine ss. In fact, Manitoba has one of the highest gross rates in Canada, if one looks at it, not just because of public investment but also because of the strength of the small business sector. Small busi ness is pro viding an incr easi ng number of jobs not just in the traditional service sector, which has expanded, but also in manu factu ring.

I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition, who talks about small business, doesn't understand what is happening with small business both across this country and here in Manitoba. The fact is that small business has led the way in Manitoba and that is one of the reasons why we're doing so well, and that all the suggestions that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition that it just ain't so are not brought out by the facts. He demons trated once again his complete ignorance of the economic situation when he referred to the mining industry.

Madam Speaker, he suggested that the mining indu stry of Manitob a had someho w become uncom petitive over the last several years. He made refe rence, Madam Speaker, to the health and education levy. Wel l, Madam Speaker , if he would care to talk to the management of lnco, he would find that in Ontario, when you look at what they pay in terms of Med icare prem iums and Workers Compensation premiums and all the other payroll-related premiums, that they pay a substantial amount more on those items than they do here in Mani toba.

He would also find, Madam Speaker , that the mining indus try in Manitoba has done very well, thank you, in terms of improving efficiency - it is competitive - and that to bring in the other aspects that he's done in trying to suggest they are is just not the case. Once again, another example of the lack of comprehension that the Leader of the Opposition has about economic matters. We ll, then, Madam Speaker, we got to northern issues generally. You know I find it amazing. I've been in this House now five years.

I think this is the first time I've ever heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Throne Speech make any real reference to the North. But it's unfortunate that he didn't check with his colleagues first, because what I seem to see happening there is that while the Leader of the Opposition talks about economic diversity in the North, in reality, we deal with questions that relate specifically to that. I'll give you one example: Destination Manitoba funding for the ski hill in Thompson that his own Member for Minnedosa argued against that quite strenuously in comm ittee. So did the Member for Sturgeon Creek.

So when northerners attempt to diversif y, when they attempt to get tourism development, they find opposition from the Tory benches. We've seen it on employment and training measures for Limestone.

Madam Speaker , one just has to look at what the Tories said in the Thompson constituency in the last election and in various constituencies throughout the North to see that they bitterly critic ized many of the special employment measures that were put into place and the training measures that were put into place to ensure job opportunities for northerners and Native people in Northern Manitoba. 76 It's not just that they've been critical, Madam Speaker, that annoys me.

It's the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, when he does talk about the North, makes no reference to the fact that -(Interjection)- I'm talking about this year - the first time he's made any substantive com ments about the No rth - to the Me mber for Gladstone. He makes no reference to the very major impr ovements that have taken place in terms of northern participation in Limestone. In fact, Madam Speaker, well over 400 northerners were working during the peak construction times last year on Limestone, far more than any other time in history.

The Leader of the Opposition made no reference to the fact that educational opportunities in Northern Manitoba are at the highest level they've ever been in large part because the initiatives of this government, the training initiatives are at the highest level they've ever been in the North at the in itiative of this government. He made no reference to the fact that im provements in health have been br ought into Northern Manitoba, and this very Throne Speech itself talks about expanding health facilities in seven remote communiti es that presently do not have adequate health facilities.

So let the Leader of the Opposition, if he is going to talk about the North, deal with the facts, Madam Speak er, the reali ty, and that is that there have been a significant number of improvements in Northern Mani toba because of the actions of this government. Well, Madam Speaker , I went through the speech looking for some substantive policy suggestions and once again I came to the realization that there just aren't any. I've mentioned the inaccurate criticisms of this government but there is no alternate polic y. There is no alternate economic policy. There is no alternate health or education polic y.

There is no alternate policy for Northern Manitoba. I think I know why. I think it is clear that the Tories are afraid to outline their agenda. If they're going to talk about spending being too high under the NDP, they realize that the first question that comes to mind when people look at comments such as that is: Well, what would you cut? They still, after five years, have not come up with a satisfactory answer to that question, a very basic question. They have n't answered what they would do. They haven't answered what they would do on taxation polic y, on employment policy, on economic polic y.

They haven't said anything on health, a major matter of concern. The only thing they referenced in their response to the Throne Spe ech was elective surgery. Elective surgery? We're talking about a multimillion dollar system with many facets to it, a system that does need ref orm. Do we hear any suggestions about ways to reform it? No, Madam Speaker , no we don't. You know, Madam Speaker , we're seeing a new feature in this Legislature, and I find it rather unfortunate because I would have expected better.

That is it's not just the Conser vatives in this House who are failing to be specific about exactly what their plans would be. It's the lone Liberal, the Liberal Party generally in Manitoba which seems to be wanting to hedge its bets, to refuse to say where it stands on many important social and economic issues. You know, I was struck by a quote in the paper today, and I think it sums up the attitude they seem to be taking here in Manitoba as well as federal ly. It's in

Tuesday, 3 March, 1987 reference to the Cruise missile testing issue. It actually could be in reference to many of their stands on policy , both federally and provincially. It arose because one of the Liberals, their critic, was suggesting the Liberal Party was against the Cruise missile .

Well the Leade r, John Turner, says otherwise, and I will quote, Madam Speaker, what he said : " We'll have something to say when we have something to say." That's essentially, I think, what is happening with the Liberal Party in Manitoba and, just because the provincial Tories have been so bankrupt in ideas, I hope that they will not, as the other Opposition Party, attempt to follow their example and also refuse to give clear direction of where they would stand, what they would do if they were in office.

I talked about what the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Conservatives and Liberals in Manitoba have said or not said . You know, we have set our clear directions in this speech , the Throne Speech, and we have said it clearly as a government right from the start. We do place a priority on economic development and job creation . We make no apologies for that. We believe that the Jobs Fund is the best example of that. We believe it is an excellent example . It's an example that should have been followed by other provinces during the economic recession, and should be followed by the Federal Government.

It's exactly that kind of job creation and training initiative that we need. Because of that , Madam Speaker, because of the Provincial Government initiatives , not in spite of them as would suggest the Leader of the Opposition, we are clearly having one of the best records of economic growth and economic development in the country . I quote from the Globe and Mail, Monday , January 26, 1987, and it said: "Economists are unanimous that Manitoba will enjoy one of the highest growth rates in Canada this year." That's not an accident, Madam Speaker .

It's no accident that we were 9th and 10th out of 10 when the Tories were in government, and that we are now first and second on pretty well every economic indicator nationally. It's because of the policies of this government. Well, Madam Speaker, we've seen in Health and Education that we do, as a government, provide priority for it.

Just compare what's happening in Manitoba with 4.5 percent increases to the public school system to what is happening, for example, in Tory Alberta, where there is a 3 percent decrease and where some grants to social agencies are being cut by as much as 10 percent - 10 percent, Madam Speaker! That's the kind of alternative that we're seeing here in Manitoba as against other provinces. You know, we do talk about fighting for fair treatment of Manitoba consumers, whether it be in regard to natural gas pricing or other issues, and we see how much that contrasts with the members opposite.

But when it comes to the lending practices at the banks with farmers, defend the banks. When it comes to the pricing system operated by the oil companies, they defend the oil companies . Now when it comes to the natural gas ripoff, because that is exactly what it is, how they once agai n fail to take a stand fully in support of Manitoba consumers. Yes, in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, this government, this party, also stands for social justice and human rights. We stand for it unequivocally. Madam Speaker, 77 it has certainly been a major part of the background and philosophy and policy of this party.

I note with interest that the Leader of the Opposition made no reference to that in his comm ents, no reference to our commitment to improve social justice here in Manitoba. You know , Madam Sp ea ker, the Leader of the Opposition criticized us for using such terms as "fairness " and "caring" and " sharing," and I make no apology for that. We are faced with difficult times , Madam Speaker, but we have chosen an economic development. We have chosen to emphasize job creation, and we have led the way in many social programs . We've led the way. For example, we pioneered in the area of day care .

We pioneered in many areas related to women's rights. We brought in an Affirmative Action Program for visible minorities, for the disabled, for Native people and for women . We've led the country in many areas , Madam Speaker, but of course they choose to ignore that . They choose to criticize it. And that essentially has always been their role as a party . It's interesting , I think , as we look back on similarly tough times, we look back to the 1930's , we look back at some of the speeches that were made by their predecessors . You look back at what they said , and you see the same situation .

We saw economic crisis . We saw crisis in agriculture , and we saw posturing by the Conservatives then with no policy substance. We saw them defend the system as it exists. We saw growing problems economically which they refused to admit existed, such as the growing concentration of ownership which was a problem in the '30's and is a problem in the 1980's. But you know, they still don 't understand. They still don 't understand here, 50 or 60 years later , that the New Democratic Party does seek fairness , it does seek equality, it does seek sharing.

And we make no apologies for that, because we see in society - yes, even here in Manitoba - that there are continuing problems. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brando