Manitoba Hansard — 2 March 1992 (Sitting 20A, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-20a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session -Thirty-Fifth Legislature ofthe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLI No. 20A • 1 :30 p.m., MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1992 Printed by the Office of the at-s Printer, Province Of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON , Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,Ciif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY,N eil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS , Conrad STEFANSON , Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springf ield Wolseley St. Bonif ace Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Ain Aon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

818 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, March 2,1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. (Ms. Barrett) I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. (Mr. Reid) I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. (Mr. Chomiak) I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? To the Legislature of Manitoba:

819 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992

WHEREAS the loss of elm trees to the Dutch elm disease is a loss of property value and beauty to its neighbourhood; and

WHEREAS in 1990 the Province of Manitoba spent over $2 million to manage Dutch elm disease and $700,000 of that amount was allocated to the City.of Winnipeg; and

WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg has maintained its commitment to the management of Dutch elm disease while the Province of Manitoba reduced its support to the city to $350,000 in 1991, haH that of 1990; THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of Manitoba to consider restoring the fo rmer f ull funding of $700,000 to the City of Winnipeg to fig ht Dutch elm disease. (Mrs. Carstairs) I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? To the Legislature of Manitoba:

WHEREAS the loss of elm trees to the Dutch elm disease is a loss of property value and beauty to its neighbourhood; and

WHEREAS in 1990 the Province of Manitoba spent over $2 million to manage Dutch elm disease and $700,000 of that amount was allocated to the City of Winnipeg; and

WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg has maintained its commitment to the management of Dutch elm disease while the Province of Manitoba reduced its support to the city to $350,000 in 1991 , half that of 1990; THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of Manitoba to consider restoring the for mer full funding of $700,000 to the City of Winnipeg to fight Dutch elm disease. (Ms. Friesen) * (1 335) TABUNG OF REPORTS Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, HerHage and Citizenship): I have the pleasure of tabling the Annual Report for 1990-1 991 of the Manitoba Arts Council. Mr. Speaker: I am also pleased to table the 1990 Annual Report of the Ombudsman. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Constitutional Issues All-Party Committee Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we welcome you back to our Chamber here today and hope you are fe eling well. That is not intended to ing ratiate myself for longer

preambles which I know you will cut me off on immediately, as you should. I have a question to the First Minister. The parliamentary committee has reported over the weekend on an extensive list of proposals to deal with our Canadian federa tion, to deal with a great number of proposals dealing with Canada and our Constitution. A number of people have made comments on the proposals. A num ber of people are making comments as we speak. Mr.

Speaker, Manitoba has had a gr eat streng th dealin g with the Constitution over the last number of years, a strength where all parties work together to develop a consensus position on behalf of Manitobans and Manitobans' vision of a strong and united Canada. Mr. Speaker, rather than each of us going off in our own caucuses tonight with our documents, I would suggest that it would be better to continue and build upon the consensus in this province.

I would ask whethe r the Premier would be prepared to reconstitute the all-party committee dealing with our Constitution, so that the proposals that are before us and before the country today, and I recognize they are only preliminary proposals, could be reviewed and commented on by our all-party committee, so that again we can work with the strength of all parties on behalf of Canada and Manitobans, and work together in a co-ordinated and united way in this Chamber. Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I certainly want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his offer of support, assistance and participation. I certainly would acknowledge that I believe it is important, for me as Premier and fo r us as a government, to consult and to be able to in some way involve the opposition caucuses' views in this matter. As the Leader of the Opposition will know, I certainly have attempted as much as possible in expressing my views and concerns about the document that was tabled yesterday by the

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 820 Dobbie-Beaudoin committee to reflect the concerns that were in the Manitoba Constitutional Task Force. The concerns I believe that I have expre ssed are in keeping with those that the task force really laid out as areas of concern and the positions that they took, the all-party committee of this Legislature. I would suggest to him that since he, like I, probably has not had time to go into all of the legal wording, and I am sure the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) has not as well, that this is a comprehensive document.

One of things that is going to be important is that we recognize it as a point along a process and that the process will be extensive and will involve opportunities for a great deal more participation by us as a government repr es entin g the views and conce rns of Manitobans. I would certainly encourage the two opposition caucuses to be reviewing this and to be, in effect, developing their concerns and that some way we will find a consultative mechanism that will allow those views to be put into the mix as far as we are concerned.

When I go forward to the next meeting, when the Constitutional Affairs minister goes forward on behalf of Manitoba, we will want to know that we have the views and concerns of both opposition parties with us when we go. * (1 340) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, again, I would offer up our support to review the document in an all-party way, because many of the recommendations in the document we can comment on from our all-party report. There are other points of departure where we have never even discussed the proposals.

I think, again, rather than each of us representing our caucuses, I think having all parties around the same table dealing with the document on behalf of Manitobans would be a valuable and continued contribution in our province. Unity Committee Report Legal Opinion Request Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A further question to the First Minister. He has indicated over the weekend his concern on the devolution of powers.

I think that is again very consistent with Manitobans' opinions in the public hearings, wanting a stro!'lg national government, a strong federal government and not wanting to move many powers over to the provinces. I think, intuitively, we all made the same comments over the weekend on the concepts that we had heard were contained in the report. The Premier has indicated that his legal constitutional advisers are going through all parts of this report to determine all of the potential ramifications in a comprehensive way.

I would ask the Premier: Would he agree to provide that to the all-party committee if he agrees to constitute it, and secondly, would he agree to make those opinions public in this Chamber and for all Manitobans, so again, we can be working together on the ramifications of these reports and the legal opinions would be available to all Manitobans through this Chamber? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I am not certain that we are going to have everything in detailed legal fo rm, but certainly the principles and the areas of concern that are going to have to be addressed are ones that I will state publicly.

We have nothing to hide when we have concerns that have to be addressed in this constitutional process. We want those concerns to be known and understood, not only by everybody in this Chamber, but also by the public, so we will utilize as the basis of this the advice that we get. I see no reason why I would not share that advice with the opposition leader s or whic hever representatives we want to have to ensure that all parties' views are brought together on this issue. Mr. Doer: It is very difficult to know in this country what is the next step. Is it the federal government and cabinet making another proposal?

Are the First Ministers going to be involved in it before another proposal is made? The whole issue, as the Premier said, is one step along the way, but it is very difficult to know what other steps are following from the fe deral government. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Constitutional Affa irs have been very, very vague with Canadians on the process under which Canadians will work with their Constitution.

Certainly, in this House, process is very important because, as we know, we had a very open process in this Chamber, something that was condemned by the federal government in the past and something that, I think, served Manitobans well. Constitutional Issues Referendum Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask another question to the Premier. The federal document contemplates a consultative refere ndum on the constitutional proposal, either to

821 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992 confirm the existence of a national consensus or to facilitate the adoption of a required amending resolution. I am sur e the Premier, his staff and his constitutional advisors have been reviewing this issue. Is it the intent of the Premier to have the referendum if the federal government calls one before the all-party committee will deal with any constitutional proposal?

Is the timing going to be a potential referendum first and then a proposal that comes back to this Chamber after that, or can the Premier shed some light on the process as he sees it, especially considering the vague recommendation of the federal government to have a referendum nationally and how that would fit with our processes in this Chamber in terms of timing? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I must say to the leader of the Opposition that it is difficult to be definitive about this one. One does not know what the ultimate process will lead to.

I might say that I could not just blame the federal government for not having a process in mind or having the process defined because I know that they are getting conflicting advice from other Premiers. I know that some Premiers believe that we should just simply set aside all the rest of it, get to the table and let the Premiers do what they did before and try and strike compromises. I, for one, think that the process has to be a little more extensive than that.

I think that there is a place for officials, legal and constitutional officials, along with the ministers of Constitutional Affairs to start just identifying the areas of conflict that clearly are developing throughout the country, and try and narrow down and focus in on what are the difficult compromises and those sorts of things. Having said all that, the question on the referendum is one that again cannot be answered directly. The amending formula in the Constitution is going to require the passage of resolutions in legislatures.

This legislature will trigger its own process, the process that our rules call for that involves public hearings and a minimum length of debate that we know is set forward and a resolution in this Chamber that ultimately will have to be voted upon regardless of any kind of referendum, whether it be a provincial referendum separately or a national referendum. That process would still have to take place in our legislature, in every other legislature and the Parliament of Canada. It would only be the seven provinces and 50 percent of the population plus the federal government that would trigger in.

If there are elements that require unanimous consent, of course, again that would require a separate process of votes in legislatures and Parliament. None of the proposals, however vague they are, could override the need to have this Legislature debate and ultimately decide upon a resolution. *

(1345) Urban HospHal Council Budget Reducuon Proposal Ms. Judy Wasylyc la-lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, at this time last year, we raised a number of questions about $19 million being cut from urban hospitals by this government and about the significant number of bed closures that were being extended from summer right through winter to this coming summer. The Minister of Health at that time said that we were fearmongering, that we were making up these figures and that none of this was true, all the while overseeing and authorizing these budget cuts.

I want to ask the minister on what basis he has asked the Urban Hospital Council to consider the impact of a further $20-mill ion cut to their base budgets for this coming fiscal year, and on what basis he has asked our two major hospitals, the Health Sciences Centre and the St. Boniface Hospital, to cut 250 beds between them. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, so pleased to see you back, Sir.

My honourable friend again is attempting t�ow would I say this genteely?--o bfuscate the issue-Is that the proper term inology? -because my honourable friend in referring to the $19-million, as she puts it, cut to the health care budget belies the fact that, in the last fiscal year, the hospitals across the length and breadth of this province received an increase in funding, not a decrease as my honourable friend would have you, Sir, and those casual observers in the House believe. That is not accurate, and my honourable friend knows that is not accurate. What the $19 million involves, Mr.

Speaker, is the difference between what the hospitals requested and what we finally ended up budgeting for them. That is the $19 million which left every hospital in the province of Manitoba with an increased budget this fiscal year over last, not less as my honourable

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 822 friend would have all Manitobans believe. The premise of her question is not correct. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Only this minister could ignore the difficult situation he has placed hospitals in. I would like to know from this minister, given the $20-million proposed cut to urban hospitals and the 250-bed reduction to St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, what impact study has he done to determine the impact that such budget reductions will have on services being delivered through our hospitals, considering the drastio- Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The question has been put. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, there used to be a member in this House in the official opposition that used to say, there he goes again. Well, I am not going to do that because the "he" is a "she", but there she goes again talking about cutbacks when I have explained to her that the hospital budgets were increased last year over the year previous.

My honourable friend can wait with some small amount of patience until the budget and the tabling of the Estimates to determine what will be the relative financial position in next year's hospital budget compared to last year's hospital budget, because I know my honourable friend would demand my resignation. I cannot share with her any more details around the budget for hospitals this year versus next. Mr.

Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend that the Urban Hospital Council is considering a number of issues, 40-plus of them, which involved some very fundamental issues on management of existing resources in the health care system, a process my honourable friend the New Democratic critic in Manitoba criticizes, but her honourable friends the New Democrats in Ontario are currently setting up as good government policy. *

(1350) St. Boniface Hospital School of Licensed Practical Nurses Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for Manitoba's Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister, considering last year's budget reduction resulted in such drastic proposals-he considered the closure of the St.

Boniface School of Practical Nursing-! would like to know if the minister has accepted the fact that this school has almost 1 00 percent success rate in terms of graduating, in terms of ensuring that graduates find employment, and will he now indicate he is prepared to keep the school open and ensure that LPNs are alive and well as a health care profession in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I heard in detail my honourable friend's

preamble to the question. I believe she alluded that the school of licensed practical nursing training in St. Boniface was closed. I do not believe she is able to say that, because I certainly have no such request from the board of St. Boniface and I do not believe, as this question is being posed, that decision has been made. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that issue has been discussed by St. Boniface and is one of the issues that they are currently coming to grips with. Let me tell you how government is attempting to deal with the very issue of the value of LPNs in the nursing system.

Because there is some concern over the training capacity at St.

Boniface, Red River Community College and elsewhere in the province of Manitoba around LPNs, we in government have decided that we should know what the current employment numbers are and what will be the future requirement for LPNs in the health care system; hence, the survey that went out in January to determine those needs so we can provide informed advice on any request when we receive It, if we receive it, about training school capacities not only for LPNs but for RPNs, for Bachelor of Nursing graduates and all nursing professionals in the health care system.

We intend to proceed with this with a better information base than any government previous has had at its disposal. Constitutional Issues Multilateral Discussions Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Premier last evening, I thought I heard him say-and he can clarify if in fact he did not say, but I thought he said that a representative of this government will attend the multilateral talks on the Constitution. Can the Premier tell the House today why we are prepared to go to such talks, since the Province of Quebec has indicated they will not attend?

823 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992 Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is important for us to begin looking at proposals that presumably are going to eventually be the basis upon which the federal government will put forth a constitutional amendment to the country. I believe we ought to be in there expressing our concerns about those proposals and attempting to change them.

If indeed, as I indicated last evening, a number of aspects of them are unacceptable to us, then it is time for us to get to the table with the other Rrst Ministers, or with Constitutional Affairs ministers, and try and influence change so that we do not get faced by the federal government with a package that becomes a seamless web and one that may be unacceptable in a variety of ways to this Legislature.

When the Prime Minister asked for us to have Constitutional Affairs ministers meet next week to begin these discussions on the results of the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee report, I said yes to it, as I believe many other Premiers across the country have, because I do not think we can afford, just simply because Quebec is not going to be there, to stay away when important decisions, judgments and ne gotiati ons are taking pla ce. I thin k Manitobans expect no less. *

(1355) Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with the Premier of the province of Manitoba. I think this is an extremely slippery slope towards the presenting of a so-called English Canada position. I think that is fraught with danger. Will the Premier now reconsider and take a leadership role for all of Canada and say that he is not prepared to sit at a conference table on the Constitution, which affects all Canadians, without a principal player, one of those provinces not being there? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting point of view.

I might say that I felt, when the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee report was tabled, that there obviously were three federal parties who were working very, very hard to satisfy Quebec in that report. As a result, they did a disservice to many other provinces and regions in the country, including Manitoba. I do not think there is any question that, as long as the federal government is at that table, and it would not matter whether It was all three parties from Parliament, they would be representing very strongly the interests of Quebec, in fact too strongly in my judgment.

That is why I think it is very important for the rest of the country to be there to find some change and to effect some change in the proposal that ultimately is presented to the country, because as it stands, this proposal has great weaknesses and I do not have any fears that Quebec's views are not represented. In fact, they are too strongly represented in Dobbie-Beaudoi n. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, we will agree to disagree on that one. Referendum Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): My final question has to be asked to the Premier with respect to referendum.

The Dobbie-Beaudoin recom me ndation on referendum is not a referendum recognition at all. I wantto quote: We recommend that a federal law be enacted, if deemed appropriate by the Government of Canada, to enable the federal government, at its discretion, to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal either to conform the existence of national consensus or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions. The copy in French makes no reference whatsoever to the word •referendum" and refers only to a consultative process.

Can the Premier now agree to at least giving the people of the province of Manitoba a referendum, as I have been recommending and my party has been recommending for some months and is now being recommended by the constituency of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I just want to refresh, for the understanding of the Leader of the Liberal Party, she should know very, very well that this province has been the leader in Canada in establishing a process for public consultation and public input that every other province followed following the Meech Lake process.

We were the ones who said, no, we have rules in our Legislature that will require a very extensive public hearing process and then a lengthy de bate in this Legi slature constitutionally mandated on all constitutional amendment proposals. That is now being emulated by people right across the country. Although I do not throw out mechanisms for further public consultation, the reality is that, by the amending formula in our Constitution, votes in every Legislature in Parliament will still have to take place

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 824 and the decisions still have to take place there. By our own process, a vote in this Legislature will have to take place after further public consultation. In all those areas, we have done everything and more in order to ensure public input to it. If the further taking of a poll, or whatever you want to call that consultation, will help, I have not ruled out any of that. I do believe that ultimately parliamentarians and legislators are elected to exercise judgment and make decisions. None of that should in any way take away from our necessity to do that.

That is one of our prime, if not the prime, responsibilities that brings us here. Bristol Aerospace Environmental Concerns Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. Dr. Lockhart Gray, head of the province's ground water section, has said in reference to the aquifer contamination near Stony Mountain, and I quote, this is probably the worst water contamination situation in Manitoba.

Another official from the minist er's own depart ment termed the contamination an environmental disaster, yet we have a situation where Bristol Aerospace is investigating itself and proposing its own questionable solutions. Given the evidence that the contamination is spreading with reports that contaminated wells have - ---been found in the Selkirk constituency, will the minister heed my request of last November and that along with residents of the area and call now for an independent public Inquiry into this problem? •

(1400) Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is indicating that there are residents in his constituency who have not been involved in the discu ssions or who feel that there is some information lacking.

Certainly, we have moved very quickly, as additional information became available, to make sure that we supplied potable water, that we are exploring alternative sources, and that we are working directly with Bristol to make sure that all possible and up-to-date processes are put in place to make sure that we contain the damage that has already been done and make sure that the health and the safety of the people in the district are taken care of. Chemical Burning Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): The minister just seems to be content to protect the images- Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member for Selkirk, kindly put your question, please. Mr. Dewar: Can this minister tell the House why Bristol Aeros pace is being allowed to burn hazardous chemicals at its propellant plant in an uncontrolled environment, given the possibility of dangerous emissions passing into the surrounding atmosphere? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): This is a most difficult situation, where the material that is being produced Is classified as explosive and cannot be easily transported, unfortunately.

The site where Bristol is requesting to resume burning on site has been improved by the implementation of a pad to make sure that there is no possible additional ground water contamination. We are looking at all other options that can be possibly implemented to deal with this material, Mr. Speaker. The unfortunate part about it is that, while the production of the material is being dramatically reduced, we do not at this time have viable alternatives, while at the same time, we are receiving advice that the potential problems with it being stored in large volumes may very well lead to a very dangerous situation.

We are assessing all possibilities, but we are also discussing with the advisory group, and they have concurred that we need to re-examine this option. Mr. Dewar: Is this minister able to ensure that the health of the residents of the area and the health of the employees will not be compromised during this burning process? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, this is a process that has been used for some 30 years at the site, and we are doing everything we can to make sure that, as I said, we explore all possible options for dealing with it.

At the same time, I want to assure the member and assure the residents of the community that we are going to put additional high volume samplers on site and in the area to make sure that we can determine if in fact there is anything that could be dangerous to the population. The burns will be of a test nature until we have satisfied ourselves that this is not causing an unsatisfactory situation.

825 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992 Repap Manitoba Inc. Cutting Area • Swan River Ms. Rosann Wowch uk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, in March of 1989, this government dealt a devastating blow to the community of Swan Rive r by signing the Repapdeal and expanding the cutting area so that they are putting an end to the wafe r board proposal, a proposal that would have resulted in 200 jobs, turning down $15 million in Western Diversification funds. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), have been to Swan River to admit that they have made a mistake.

Since the Minister of Finance, in his letter to Mr. Kass states that the government has sole discretion to remove the southern fore st licence from the original agreement, can he tell this House if he is prepared to renegotiate the cutting area for Swan River so that Swan River will have a chance for some real jobs, or is this renegotiation going to result even with a stronger deal for Repap of a larger cutting area? Hon.

Clayton Mannen (Minister of Finance): I was in attendance with community leaders of Swan River on Friday, at which time I tried to give greater detail with respect to the restructuring process that we are about to embark upon. Mr. Speake r, hindsight, of course, is perfe ct. The member says that there could have been 200 jobs today fro m another alternative. Let me indicate that, at the time that the proposal came forward, two-thirds of the financial support for that endeavour was expected to come from government.

Let me say also that a significant numbe r of wafer board plants and plywood board plants are a strong competitor to OSB production. I am led to believe that a significant portion of them have gone out of business over the last two years. It is easy to say, of course, that if we had followed a different course, events may have allowed fo r greater production or greater employment. I am here standing saying that would not have been the case. Ms. Wowchuk: There are no jobs in Swan River Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member kindly put your question, please. Ms.

Wowchuk: Since the minister has been to Swan River, there has been a decision to hold a public meeting on March 14. I would like to ask the minister if he will be attending that meeting to hear the concerns of the people of Swan River? Will he be taking their recommendations seriously- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Mannen: My first awareness of the meeting on the 14th comes from the member opposite, although I feel that our visit on Friday was probably the rationale for the calling of that meeting.

I asked the community at that time to try and bring their thinking as to whether or not they wanted to be part of the Repap restructuring. I am led to believe also, Mr. Speaker, that as of today, as a result of Repap being involved, there are 60 to 70 jobs that are in the Swan River community today that would not be there. The member says no. I had two individuals at the meeting who told me that right in front of all of the town councillors. I am wondering then who is going to resolve the dispute. There are 60 to 70 people being employed today.

There has been some loss of activity as a result of Abitibi no longer buying out of that area. There are some other people in Saskatchewan no longer buying forest product out of that area. If it were not for Repap, there would be no jobs in the Swan River forest at all. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, ! would like to ask the minister again: What commitment is he prepared to make to the people of Swan River? What initiative is he prepared to take so that there will be some real investment, since it was his doing that resulted in the collapse of the wafer board plant and no real io!?!.... __ for Swan River? Mr.

Manness: Again, there is a little bit of revisionist history being spoken here, Mr. Speaker. The reason that the wafer board plant did not go forward is because the proponents of it wanted two-thirds of the funding to come from government. Manfor told us that $250 million were lost when governmen t got involved in the forest product industry. That is what happened. With respect to whether the community of Swan River wants to continue to be involved with Repap or not, that was the question that I asked the community.

No doubt, over the course of the next number of weeks, they will tell us whether or not they feel there is still some continuing benefit beyond the 60 jobs that exist today with respect to being actively involved and committing the southern wood forest to Repap. *

(1410) March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 826 Health Care System Cataract Surgery Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Almost two years ago, we asked the minister to address the issue of the lengthy waiting period for eye surgery. Today 2,600 Manitobans are waiting for eye surgery, and the waiting period is anywhere from six months to one year. Whil e these individuals are waiting, there are private eye clinics who are charging $1 ,000 per patient as a facility fee.

They are coming up because this government has fa iled to address a very serious problem. Can the minister explain why the waiting list is so long and why this government has not addressed this very important issue? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I presume my honourable friend is deriving his information from the February 25 letter from the president of the MMA which in an apolitical way, with carbon copies to both opposition critics, was pointing this issue out to me.

The waiting list as surveyed by the MMA may be accurate because I believe it was obtained by their internal survey of practitioners. However, my honourable friend, not that I am trying to diminish the waiting list, et cetera, but even Dr. Ross indicates that there may be a 25 percent overlap of patients on the waiting list, and they are unable to determine that. _ It presents a problem in terms of using waiting lists ·· -io establish what might be the impression that there is less service being done in a given area of service delivery. Mr.

Speaker, I just want to share with my honourable fr iend, because I know he is deeply interested, that since we came into government, the number of cataract surgical procedures has increased by 21 percent. That is a service of just under 4,500 procedures in the last full year that I have numbers for compared to just over 3,500 in '87-88. Hlp and Knee Replacement Surgery Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, we do have an aging population then. First it was hip surgery, knee surgery, now it is eye surgery.

Can the minister tell us today why he is appointing another committee to study the problem of hip and knee surgery when on January 14 he said that he will come to this House and tell the people of Manitoba what is the cause of the delay of surgery? Why another committee to study the problems of your department? It is really sad that this minister does not address the simple problem. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when my honourable fr iend describes those issues as simple problems, I presume he has a simple solution that he would refer to the House.

My honourable fri end says absolutely, and I would like to ask my honourable friend if his simple solution is simply asking government and the taxpayers of Manitoba to put more money into the delivery of health care services. If that is the simple solution that my honourable friend offers as the Liberal critic for this House from opposition, he might want to discuss that with four provincial governments who have Lib erals in gove rnmen t making those decisions, who are saying, addition of money is not the answer, that it is management of the system. Cataract Surgery Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr.

Speaker, one of the ways is to have the out-patient expand its surgery. Can the minister tell this House today if they would expand the day surgical procedures so that at least these 2,000 people who are on the waiting list can get surgery done? It is an economical issue. These people are suffering, and the taxpayers are suffering becaus� Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I know that my honourable friend sincerely wants to seek solutions to this problem and indeed so do we.

That 'is why I take his advice very seriously, because that is exactly what we have done over the last three years. That is why we were able, since 1987-88, when there were some 3,500 cataract surgical procedures done in the province of Manitoba, through an enhancement of out-patient procedures, we have been able to increase that to just under 4,500 in the last fiscal year, an increase of almost 1 ,000 based on budgetary increases and out-patient surgery. I thank my honourable friend for his suggestion, and we will continue to work on it as we have for the last three years.

827 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992 Rent Regulations Rollbacks Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to me and to thousands of tenants in Manitoba that three Conservative cabinet ministers responsible for housing legislation have failed to proclaim The Residential Tenancies Act, unlike the NDP government who proclaimed The Rent Regulation Act and amended The Landlord and Tenant Act within one year of assuming office. In the meantime, The Rent Regulation Act is still in effect.

Under The Rent Regulation Act, landlords have the right to rent increases based on legitimate expenses. What is the policy of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs when a landlord subm its expenses, has a legitimate rent increase approved and subsequently expenses go down? Do tenants benefit from this by having their rent rolled back? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if this occurs in that year, they may have that rollback occur. With all of these issues, it is all tenant initiated.

The tenant brings forward the concern by application, and the response Is made. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have with us this afternoon six visitors from the Bemidji State University. They are under the direction of Mr. Timothy Ball. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: On Wednesday, February 19 , 1992, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) raised a point of order which was taken under advi sement by the De puty Speak er. The honourable member for Thompson alleged that the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) had obtained the floor, had not indicated that he was rising on a point of order, but that the Chair had assumed that the minister had risen on a point of order and had made a ruling to that effect . I have reviewed Hansard, and it is very clear that the honourable minister did indicate he was rising on a point of order, therefore, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did not have a point of order.

Nonpolitical Statement Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave? It is agreed. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Speaker, the Assiniboine Memorial Curling Club has an outstanding record for excellence in this province. Eight times in the last 14 years they have produced the junior men's curling champions. Last night, in Virden, this year's winning team from the Assiniboine was Scott McFadyen, Kevin MacKenzie, Ross McFadyen, and Chad McMullan.

They, along with their coach, Don Harvey, deserve congratulations and commendations. I am very proud to be the MLA wherein this curling club exists, and I am also very proud to be re lated to one, and perhaps two by marriage, of the participants on that team. I am pleased to enter commendations to the Assiniboine Memorial Curling Club into the record and to wish the junior men's curling champi()l'}§_all- � the best as they proceed to the nationals. *** Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Orders of the Day, I would like to advise the House that at five o'clock when we get to Private Members' Business, Resolution 4, I have not dealt with this matter yet, and I will not come down with a decision at that time, therefore we will be dealing with Resolution 5 at five o'clock. *

(1420) ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second readings, Bill48, to be followed by adjourned debate on second readings starting at Bill 6.

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 828 SECOND READINGS Bill 48-- The Personal Property Security Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Secon d rea ding, Bill 48, The Personal Property Security Amendment Act; loi modifiant Ia

loi sur les suretes relatives aux biens personnels. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move , seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill48, The Personal Property Security Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the amendme nts proposed to The Personal Property Security Act are needed to eliminate the impact of a recent Court of Appeal decision on the operations of Manitoba's Personal Property Registry.

This registry provides a central place for recording of interests in property other than real property. It makes it possible for someone planning to buy an

article like a car to check and ensure that there are no outstanding liens or other restrictions against it. The Court of Appeal ruled that a requested search should cover not only a person's actual name but also variations of the r.ame. However, this raises two types of problems for the registry and potentially for Manitoba taxpayers. First, the registry's computer system is not set up to produce the kinds of search certificates required by the decision, and it is not technologically possible to develop the kind of system that would identify all possible variations of a given name.

Second, the registry is exposed to compensation claims from parties who receive a reg istrar's certifi cate showing only those registrations against the individual name spelled out exactly as in the request for service with no variations. At present the registry issues every year about 15 ,000 certificates concerning individual debtors. The Personal Property Security Act provides for payment of up to $25,000 compensation per certificate to anyone who suffe rs loss or damage because they relied on a certificate that was invalid through error or omission. The amendments add a new subsection to the act.

It will specify that an error in the spelling of any part of a debtor's name, set forth in a financing statement or document registered in the registry, invalidates and de stroys the effect of the registration unless a judge believes the error has not actually misled someone whose interests are affected by the registration. Finally, the amendments are retroactive. We have been advised that if they are not made in this form an increase in compensation claims from the registry should be expected. Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister might answer questions on this particular amendment.

Mr. McCrae: I suppose, Mr. Speaker. It depends on the question, but normally I take note of comments made by honourable members at second reading debate and prepare myself to answer questions at the committee stage. If it is something that I can easily answer, I would attempt to do so. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, it has been the practice, although never enshrined in our rules, to allow questions on second reading. The minister might not be aware of that.

For a time period, I believe, if memory serves me correct, leave was not required in recent years because it has not specifically been in the rules. We have been doing it by leave. I believe the proper way, until this matter is resolved by the Rules committee, would be to ask leave of the minister. I do believe it is fairly routine practice on second reading. Mr. Speaker: The minister has indicated that he would attempt to answer the question of the honourable member. *** Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speake r, my question is relatively straight forward .

With respect to the submission of the name on the financing statement, will that include errors by the staff at the personal property registry or does that only include errors, as I suspect, that relate to the individuals who actually fill out the forms to submit to the personal property registry? Mr. McCrae: I believe, Mr. Speaker, the case that we are talking about in this matter relates to a

829 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992 mistake made by a person filing a document. I expect to have staff available to me at the time we do discuss this, and I can perhaps get informally, between now and the time of committee perhaps, for the honourable member the precise answer to that question. Mr. Chomlak: I thank the minister for those comments. I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate on the matter be adjourned. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Kildonan, seconded by the honourable member for Selkirk, that debate be adjourned. Agreed?

Agreed and so ordered. Order, please. I would like to clarify, on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, he did not have a point of order. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speake r, I have no objection to the bill standing in the name of the prior speaker. I would like to comment on this bill at this time. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for this matter to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan? Leave. It is agreed . Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a deceptively short bill in the sense that it has I think quite significant results.

I appreciate the minister's comments which he has just put on the record about the difficulties the branch is having as a result of the Court of Appeal decision. Mr. Speake r, I have the same concerns that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) had, that is I wonder if this is an exoneration or if this deals with both mistakes made by the registrant himself or herself and the staff at the department themselves. That is an important point because, of course, this

section purports to invalidate any such registration done with even the slightest deviation which would mean that it was not the actual name of the debtor. It is not always easy to get the exact spellings, and it is an unfortunate regular occurrence that people fil e in the wrong names and that misleads any potential creditor who searches these goods and then, of course, according to this would invalidate the registration. It is a concern, however, ! think that the proviso, that actual misleading, is still the key and if actual misleading has occurred then the registration in fact remains valid. Mr.

Speaker, with those comments I do not intend to object to this bill going forward to committee stage. I simply indicate that I too share the conce rns of the memb er for Ki ldonan (Mr. Chomiak). I am concerned that this addition to The Personal Property Security Act has been done with full consultation with the bar. The minister did not mention such consultation, but I would hope that has occurred. I will look forward at the committee to hearing from his staff as to what consultation with the members of the legal profession has occurred, what the response has been and whether or not they are supportive of this.

I do not know that at this point. I look forward to that information at the committee stage. Mr. Speaker: For clarification purposes here, the matter had already been adjourned by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). Leave was needed to allow the honourable member for St. James, and I think I inadvertently said leave to remain standing -j ust for clarification. I appreciate that from the House. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 6-The Denturlsts Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), BillS, The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les denturologistes, standing in the name of the honour able memb er for St. Joh ns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis). Stand? Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for St. Johns wishes to speak on this. I would like to speak prior to that. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to have this matter remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns? An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave. That is agreed. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate the reason I have asked for leave of the House to speak currently is that when the member for St. Johns (Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis) does speak, she will be closing debate from our side and perhaps the government members might wish to advise the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). I do not know if the Minister of Health has any comments, but the Minister of Health might be advised that the bill will potentially be passing today depending, I believe, on whether the Liberals have any-

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 830 An Honourable Member: We have spoken. Mr. Ashton: The Liberals have spoken, so the bill will indeed be passing today. It is a very straightforward bill, Mr. Speaker, but in the true tradition of this House, as members of the opposition, we have reviewed it because sometimes there are straightforward bills-or at least those that appear on the surface to be straightforward-that prove to be quite complicated and controversial for reflection and particularly upon consultation with groups involved. *

(1430) This is fairly basic in terms of dealing with the composition of the disbarring committee in terms of denturists, and as the bill itself outlines, would change that and bring it more into line with other similar bodies, Mr. Speaker. We could talk at quite some length, I am sure, about how this fits in in terms of overall government policy with regard to the dentistry profession, denturists, dental assistants.

There certainly has been a long history of that in this province going back to the Schreyer government which brought in a child dental care policy in this province, the movement on behalf of the then NDP government in terms of establishing a role for paraprofessionals, dental assistants in pa rtic ular, the move of the then provincial government of Sterling Lyon in the late '70s to essent ially kill a lot of the progress in that area-many of the people who trained for that found that they were no longer in a position to be able to do that-the move by the previous NDP government under Howard Pawley to strengthen the child dental care program, and the unfortunate moves on behalf of the current provincial government in terms of restricting the role of that program which has provided excellent service in rural and northern communities, in particular, where there is not the same kind of access to dental resources that we have in other areas.

This was broughtto my attention most recently by a constituent, and I wanted to raise this because I think it shows the kinds of problems we run into in assuming that we have a system of adequate dental care. When this constituent of mine, Mr.

Manaigre, had the unfortunate situation develop of a major problem that began with a dental matter, dental surgery, and later progressed to problems that infected his jaw, he had to pay for the entire cost of going to Winnipeg, including air fare, hotel, $652, and was unable to get any of that back from the Northern Patient Transportation Program, which even with the $50 user fee brought in by this government, he had hoped to receive some type of assistance from the government. The bottom line, Mr.

Speaker, once again was, here was a procedure that I believe is medical-and I will be taking up the specifics of this case with the minister-but which had dental complications in the initial stages, the type of facility that is not available in northern Manitoba, the type of procedure not available in northern Manitoba. I think it is important to reflect on that because I think one of the unfortunate aspects of health care in this province is the fact that, despite the progress that has taken place, we still do not have adequate dental care available to all Manitobans.

Many poor Manitobans, particularly the working poor, find themselves particularly in difficulty, Mr. Speaker, often in a real dilemma because if they are on social assistance, dental fees can be covered. I have talked to many a working Manitoban, not making a particularly exorbitant salary, not covered by dental insurance, who often asked the question whether they would not be better off on income assistance, particularly when they have children.

As I said, there is an excellent program In place, the child dental care program, although it is unfortunate that the government, instead of attempting to build on that, is essentially eroding it with the restriction they brought in in terms of the application, in terms of ages, because it is one thing that is particularly noticeable in northern Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, particularly in remote communities. It has become an increasing problem in all communities. The degree of junk food consumption is horrendous.

I know of many communities of children as young as four and five years old, the vast majority of their teeth having gone rotten because of the consumption of highly sugared foods, and there is not that kind of care available. I am raising this matter in the context of this bill because we want to see, I know in terms of the New Democratic Party, continuation of the types of policies esta blished under the Schreyer government. The bottom line is we want to see more accessible dental care. We want to maintain the advances that have taken place. It is a combination of using professional care in terms of

831 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992 dentists, but also using the care of dental assistants and denturists. I think this is, in many ways, parallel to the kind of developments that we are going to be seeing in the health care area in the next number of years in terms of the role of not only professionals, but paraprofe ssionals, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is interesting in a way that the situation in terms of dental care in many ways provides some lessons for medical care in establishing a very clear role for paraprofessionals and also for preventative dental care as we have seen in the child dental care program. I think it is important that when we pass any bill such as this, we reflect on that and also bring the government to task for really essentially putting us back in terms of the situation in terms of dental care in this province, particularly in terms of child dental care. It may not be a matter of concern to members of this Chamber perso nally.

Me mbers of this Legislature have insurance for most dental costs. Many people who are fortunate enough to work for major employers may have that kind of insurance, although it obviously does not cover all the costs. There are many Manitobans who are in the position of having no insurance whatsoever. In many ways, I think It parallels the situation prior to medicare, Mr. Speaker, when ma ny Man itobans, many Canadians, did not have medical insurance, the situation in the United States in terms of health care currently, where 40 million people do not have medical coverage. It is the same people who suff er.

It is the working poor in particular. It is people on low and modest incomes. It is for them that we should be, I think seriously, when we look at health care reform and particularly preventative health care reform , not just look at traditional medical practice, but also in terms of dental care. When we are looking at the kinds of models that are available, I look not only at Manitoba, but I look particularly also, for instance, to Saskatchewan at some of the programs that are developed based on the community clinic model. Those I think are the roads, the directions in which we should seek to go.

It is very, very sad, Mr. Speaker, in this province, I believe, that we can have a medical system that up until recent years certainly was fairly universal, but a dental care system that I believe is very much an arbitrary distinction from what is traditionally considered health care, which has many, many major gaps.

This individual I refe renced earlier ran into that when he had to have surgery, but because it was dental in terms of origin of the original infection- ! could go into the details but I will take that up with the minister-that individual found that the costs were not covered at all by the government in terms of transportation. He was fortunate enough to have dental insurance for at least the procedure itseH. It shows the kinds of gaps that exist in society.

That is why while this bill is fairly straightforward, it does deal with denturists and the role of denturists, I think it is important to put it in the broader context, the principle, I think, that this act and other acts represent and a principle that has to be built on, and that is improving the access and the quality of dental care in this province. With those few words, I know our Health critic has a few more words to offe r on this particular bill, and then we will be passing it through to committee, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: Leave has already been granted for this matter to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns. Now I would like to ask leave of the House to reverse their decision on that to allow the honourable member for St. Johns to speak at this time. An Honourable Member: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: That is agreed. Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the will of the House for giving me leave on this matter. We are, as my colleague the member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) indicated, certainly prepared to have this matter moved to committee for deliberation at that stage, knowing that there will be full opportunity to hear from the denturists' association itseH, to hear from interested memb ers of the pub lic and any other representatives of organizations concerned about matters in this bill. •

(1440) Based on the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) comments on BillS and the actual wording of the bill before us, it would appear to be a matter of routine business and of a housekeeping nature. We will be assessing the bill at committe e from that perspective. It would appear to us that this bill does bring the denturists' association in line with other

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 832 bodies who have the ability to license and discipline their own members. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly in all of our interests to pursue this matter further at committee stage. I would, however, just like to make a few comments about the broad area of dentistry since that is the topic at hand and put three concerns on record and make inquiries about government actions to respond to those three concerns. The first, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the state of the children's dental program.

We all expressed concern on this side of the House last spring when news was received that this government had moved to cut back the children's dental program by reducing the age for eligibility. That cutback, that reduction in service to children throughout rural and northern and remote Manitoba, caused us all a great deal of concern. It is our view that the children's dental health program is an important preventative aspect of our health care system and that, in fact, this program does save money for taxpayers in the long run.

The program was initiated to ensure that children who did not have regular access to good dental hygiene and dentistry programs would have such access. The program was intended to ensure that problems pertaining to children's teeth were identified at an early stage to prevent much more costly investments at some point in the future hence representing a saving for individual families and for taxpayers as a whole. (Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) So, Mr.

Acting Speaker, we became very concerned when this government moved to reduce, to cut back this program, to reduce the numbers of children who would be eligible for service under the children's dental program. It is, in our view, a step backwards. It is a move to be penny-wise and pound-foolish because certainly any savings now to the government-and they are small savings-will mean astronomical costs in the future for all of us.

So we feel it is in the best interests of the government of the day, however difficult the economic realities are for it, to act responsibly in the interests of future generations and not to be simply addressing matters from a very pragmatic, practical, daily point of view. It is, furthermore, Mr. Acting Speaker, a concern of us that this cutback of this past budget reflects a sign, is a signal, of things to come, of very worrisome things to come.

There is certainly speculation and concerns coming out of the Department of Health which give us reason to believe that this, in fact, was the first stage in a deliberate plan to phase out the children's dental health program. There are concerns about filling staff vacancies in this branch of the department. There are concerns about this government's intentions to follow the footsteps of the Province of Quebec when it recently phased out entirely its children's dental health program. Mr.

Acting Speaker, as I have already said, we recognize these are difficult times, that changes to our health care system are in order, but it is our view that changes and cutbacks which get at the very heart of health prevention and health promotion do not make sense and should not be considered a part of health care reform, and in fact, really do indicate that this government is really using the words, the title, the rhetoric around health care reform to disguise and camouflage its real intention, and that is straight health care cutbacks, without worry, without concern, about the full Impact that such decisions will have on people today and on generations to come.

So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I put that concern on record and attach to it a plea that this government not cut back any further the children's dental health program, and in fact ensure that the program as it is, remained intact and that it rededicate itself to restoring the program to its previous criteria and, when possible, to move beyond that and consider expanding the children's dental health program to all parts of the province of Manitoba. The second concern I have is with respect to the long-standing request before this government from the dental association.

The Manitoba Dental Association has been seeking for well over a year now changes to The Dental Association Act which would allow the Manitoba Dental Association to order upgrading or remedial retraining for its members. I refer members of this Chamber to an

article in the Winnipeg Free Press of Tuesday, May 21 , 1991, when Dr. Michael Lasko of the Manitoba Dental Association indicated that it had been asking for some time for the province to provide to the association the power, and I quote from this article: to abandon secret disciplinary trials and order incompetent dentists back to school. The concern was raised at that time that the government was not moving expeditiously to make necessary changes to The Dental Association Act,

833 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 19 92 and I believe that those concerns are sti ll outstanding. Given that the minister has indicated that the Mani toba Den tal Association is co-operating with the government, and with the denturists association in supporting Bill 6, I would hope that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and this government gives us some indication soon about its intentions with respect to the long-standing request from the Manitoba Dental Association. Finally, Mr.

Acting Speaker, we have a concern to raise at this time during this debate on dentistry with respect to the dental auxiliaries of this province. Members of this House will all be fa miliar with requ es ts , letters, calls and pleas fr om representatives of the di fferent dental auxiliary associations in Manitoba for legislation that recognizes dental auxiliaries as a profession unto its own-an association, a discipline that, hence, requires and needs the ability to license, set educational standards, and discipline its own members. The move to recognize dental auxiliaries is not uncommon in this country.

It has happened in other jurisdictions. It has been commensurate, it has taken place in line with heal th care refor m throughout this country because it recognizes a more cost-effe ctive, more efficient approach to the provision of dental hygiene and work provided by dental assistants. Mr. Acting Speaker, along with this legislation that we have before us today, we are anxious to receive a progress report from the government, from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchar d), about this long-standing request from the dental auxiliaries.

There is some concern on their part that this government is not moving as quickly as possible and has yet to give a sign, a signal when concrete action will be taken to address the outstanding concerns of their members and their associate members. While we support at this stage the general provisions of BillS, The Denturists Amendment Act, we are concerned that this act is before us in isolation of any other attempts and moves and initiatives to redress some wrongdoings and some gaps in policy in other parts of the fiel d of dentistry. ..

(1450) We would have hoped to have had at this point in our legis lative session, at this point of the government's term in office , a package of legislation pertaining to denturists and dentists and dental auxiliaries, because, in fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, there is much that needs to be done in all of those areas.

We hope that very shortly we will see a sign of such action being taken in these areas of outstanding concern, and above all, we hope that this government is prepared to rethink its reduction in service under the children' s dental hea lth program, is prepared to put any thoughts, any plans for a furth er cutback in that program, or in fact, the cancellation of that program, on the shelf, on hold, out of sight, and, in fact, move toward redressing inequalities in this area and expanding a much needed service that provides cost savings and better health for all in the long run. On that note, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I am prepared to indicate that we, at least on this side of the House, are prepared to see this bill proceed to committee for further de liberations. Thank you. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Svelnson): Is the House ready for the question? The question bef ore the House is the second reading of BillS (The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les denturologistes). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Svelnson): Agreed and so ordered. Bill 9- The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Svelnson): On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mr. Filmon, Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act (Loi sur le Conseil de !'innovation economique et de Ia technologie). The honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) still has 35 minutes. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to continue my remarks about this Bill 9, and the impact it is going to have on the province of Manitoba. I started my remarks last sitting with some comments about northern Manitoba and the Port of Churchill, and I would like to pick up from there . I hope the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger), who is with us here today, will listen seriously to those concerns and carry forward with the recommendations that we made to the fe deral

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 834 Minister of Transport some week and a half ago, when we met with the two ministers in Ottawa. At that time, Mr. Acting Speaker, in meeting with the federal Minister of T ransport, we put forward the proposal of a partnership arrangement that would see the stalemate broken that is currently in place in the province of Manitoba today, where it would allow us to move forward with revitalization of the bayline to the Port of Churchill through the various communities along the way. That includes communi ties such as The Pas, Wabowde n, Pikwitonei, Thompson and others.

We think that this revitalization of this rail line is very, very importanttothe province of Manitoba, and that is why we wanted to break that particular stalemate. We knew at the time that if we did not go forward with our meetings with the federal Minister of Transport with some concrete proposal or some new ideas to break that stalemate, the minister would just see us as another lobby group. That is why we carried for war d with these recommendations.

For Manitoba's Minister of Transport's information, the federal Minister of Transport looked very favourably upon those comments and those suggestions and thought there was some merit in them. That is why I had the opportunity to ask questions of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province, to ask whether the Premier and his government would be willing to take

part in the sharing or the partnership arrangement that we had proposed. The Premier unfortunately did not see fit at the time to commit his government to that partnership, and I am asking the Manitoba Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) if his department would see fit to undertake a role in that partnership.

The partnership that we proposed to the federal Minister of Transport was one that could take the form of a four-partner arrangement, and that four- partner arrangement would include the province of Manitoba, possibly the province of Saskatchewan, the federal government and the railway, CN Rail, that is responsible for the rail line currently.

CN has been very reluctant to undertake any upgrading of that rail line to Churchill and through the communities along the way because they feel that there is not, in their words, sufficient revenue to support that revitalization of that rail line, even though the railways rece'ive hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits from the grain subsidies that they receive to transport grain over these lines that are deemed grain dependent. With that, I think that the railways have a role to play in that, and that is why I included them in the partnership arrangement.

Now what I am asking of this Minister of Transport is to take a very small sum from his overall capital expenditures that we see his department expending in this province on a budgetary year, and committing those funds toward the revitalization of that rail line.

There was a report that was released by the province of Saskatchewan in August of 1991 , and the figure that was used in that report was some $35 million that would be required to upgrade that rail line to full main line status; in other words, to improve the roadbed that would allow that rail line to carry the presently used standard hopper cars in the grain system today.

If you had taken that $35 million, which I must add is a figure that was proposed as well, taking into consideration cost of living increases over the time since the Manitoba IBI study was done, and they had similar recommendations on the funding that it would require, it comes nowhere close to the estimates that CN Rail has been saying over the years and the $100 million that they figure would be required to upgrade that line, so the Manitoba IBI study and the SAL Engineering study for the province of Saskatchewan have recommended that funding of $35 million would be required to upgrade that rail line.

If you broke that $35 million down over three years or four years and broke it down over the four partners who would be involved or could be involved in this suggestion and this upgrading of the rail line, you would see a very modest investment by the province of Manitoba to the sum of some $3 million per year over that three or four year period. To my way ofthinking, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is a very modest investment for us to have in our own province and for our own port in this province. We want to see opportunities in the North expanded.

The government has talked from time to time, and I know the Minister of Transport here had talked about the reactivation of the rocket range at Churchill. All members of this House know full well that without that railiine to Churchill, that rocket range is not going to happen. We are not going to see any opportunities develop there. That is why it is so important for us to make an investment in our own province. That is why we have come forward with this rec omme ndation to make this modest investment in our province.

835 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB L Y OF MANITOBA March 2, 19 92 I ask the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Driedger) if he will look at his budget for this year and see if he can secure the funding from his capital portion to invest In that rail line, and at the same time to initiate the process of communicating with the federal Minister of Transport to strike that partnership, to sit down at the table and talk about how we are going to accomplish this task, not just merely to let the status quo remain, because if we sit like that, the Port of Churchill will die and will never make any steps forward, and the north of our province will suffer as a result.

I ask the minister to undertake that, initiate those meetings, so that we can improve the opportunities for northern Manitobans.

Bill 9 itself, there is quote I would like to pull from the news release which the government released on November 8 of last year, where it says, and I quote: "Now it is time for government to put its energies and priorities towards economic growth and development.� I think that is a very important statement for the government to release, and I could not agree with that more, but if we do not seize on the opportunities, as I spoke about a moment ago, to invest in the north of our province, we are never going to see those economic growth and development opportunities in northern Manitoba.

That is why it is so important to take those steps today, to in vest in those opportunities as they come forward. In the same news release, November B last year, it also talked about important transportation links. The transportation links do not just occur on the highways and the rail lines and the airlines in the southern portions of our province; they occur all over the province.

It is incumbent upon this government to recognize that fact and to make the investments where it is important to retain the delivery of services to the portions of our province which find themselves isolated, more importantly, as well as to the other areas, not just to build the highways so that we can link our communities together by a better structure of road systems. The northern part of our province is presently faced with an unemployment rate, I believe it is near 25 percent, and that is a very serious position I am sure the working people in northern Manitoba find themselves in. *

(1500) I believe that if we undertake to invest this modest $3 million per year, we will secure job opportunities for these peoples in our northern part of our province. We will secure the opportunity for the rocket range in the community of Churchill. We will improve the export of our grain products through the Port of Churchill because I believe that would be hinged on this deal as well, and this would create the economic wealth which we so much want for our province. In talking with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism's (Mr.

Stefanson) department, they have made us aware of how this rocket range is going to impact or could impact upon us in this province economically and for the job opportunities. It is my understanding, in talking with the various people in I, T and T and the mayors of The Pas and Churchill, that this rocket range could employ some 200 to 350 people, direct jobs opportunities for Churchill.

As a result of those direct job opportunities, there are also the spin-off opportunities, anywhere between three and five to one, which means that those 350 jobs potentially could create between 1 ,000 and 1, 500 new job opportunities. That would see a doubling of the employment opportunities in Churchill. The current population I believe is some where between 800 and 900 for that community, down significantly from the 7,000 figure which had been there some years past.

I believe that is why it is important for us to take the steps to invest in that rail line, so that we can create those 1 ,500 new jobs, those jobs that are so hard to come by in the northern part of our province, to reduce that 25 percent unemployment level in northern Manitoba, to give people a sense of pride, give them their sense of pride back. That is why I ask this Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) to take those steps, to secure those opportunities for Manitobans.

As well , that rocket range will create job opportunities for us, I am sure, in communities like Winnipeg where we have plant operations here which produce the prod ucts that would be necessary for the range. There are a lot of spin-off services that go along with that rocket range. The government talks about the research and development in our province, how important it is and the role which it plays in our province. Had they been so seriously concerned by that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe they would not have cut back on the grant assistance to the Manitoba Research Council.

This new Economic Innovation and Technology Council I believe is window dressing, nothing more

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 836 than that. You cannot strike this council and give it a modest budget as they have with no long-term commitment-! believe it is $10 million for one year-and expect it to perform the miracles that the government wants it to perform. I do not see that there will be any lasting benefits come as a result of this Bill9, or what it was intended to create for our province. Unless you make a long-term commitment and attach the necessary funding to support that, we will not have that long-term comm itmen t to research and development in our province.

To get back to the grant assistance to the Manitoba Research Council, in 1990-91 , the government had granted some $2,71 4,000 to the Manitoba Research Council. That council provides and maintains a technology transfer infrastructure and related services for Manitoba industries using the Canadian Food Products Development Centre and the industrial technology facilities. What the government has done since that time, in the current budget which we are operating under, the 19 91 -92 budget, is reduced that grant assistance by some $700,000 to the Manitoba Research Counci l.

Now if they were very serious about research and development in this province, they would not have cut back that grant assistance to this organization because we need to have those opportunities made available through research and development to create the job opportunities for us here in the province of Manitoba. Manitoba, of course, finds itself in the unenviable position of having 57,000 unemployed. That is a very serious position which we find ourselves in. We have not seen any actions on the part of this government to recognize the seriousness of this situation.

They seem to sit there and wring their hands and not be too concerned because it has not impacted personally upon their lives. I invite them, if they want to see the impact on what this means to the various communities, come out to my community of Transcona, and I will take you to one of the food banks. I will let you talk to the people there. I will let them relate to you how it impacts upon their families when they had their jobs eliminated. They were laid off, their unemployment insurance has run out, and they are forced to go on welfare. They do not want to be on welfare. They want to have job opportunities.

I have people calling my office nearly every day asking me if there are job opportunities available, if I can assist them in some way. [interjection] I tell them that if this government was serious about creating economic opportunities they would have done it a long time ago, but they do not recognize the 57,000 who are unemployed. They have no long-term commitment, no strategy to deal with this situation as we find ourselves in. They prefer instead to offload the responsibility onto the world economic situation and the high interest policy created by the federal government.

I do not think that is the right position to take. We have to seize the initiative in our own province, to make those opportunities for our people in this province, not just the Grow Bond opportunities that we see in the communities in southern Manitoba, but all over the province of Manitoba. Do not just draw that imaginary borderline above Roblin-Russell there and say that the rest of the province does not count. We need to take the steps to create the employment opportunities that these people so despe rately need. I do not see the government taking this action.

We have hundreds and hundreds of families in my community that desperately want to have jobs. They do not want to be on welfare. We had in this province profitable government agencies, and I talk particularly about the Manitoba Data Services. The Manitoba Data Services, of course, had created some high quality jobs for us in this province. Then the government, in their wisdom, took this agency and they sold it. That business, on top of the job opportunities that were created, created wealth for us in this province. We created revenue for us that we could have taken and invested.

The revenue that it had created for the government was some $3 million per year. That ties back to the fig1,1re that I was talking about in my comments to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) here. If we had had that $3 million from the Manitoba Data Services company, we would have been able to take that $3 million and invest it on a yearly basis over the next three or four years to upgrade the rail infrastructure on the bayline to the northern parts of our province, yet we sold off that opportunity and we no longer receive the revenue for it.

That was an opportunity that we could have had that would have allowed the northern part of our province and northern Manitobans to prosper, but we no longer have those revenues available to us.

837 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 2, 19 92 The National Research Council building on Ellice Street is a nice building to look at, but other than that I do not think it performs the function that it was intended to perform. It was intended to create research and development opportunities to allow resear ch and development to be ongoing, an attempt to create new job opportunities, new technology for our province.

It is unfortunate that the provincial government, in conjunction with the federal government, has not undertaken to see that industry has filled this office space to start with the research and development that is so necessary to create those opportunities in this province. Of course, it is attempting to change the mandate of the building, to do more primary research in the health care field. *( 1510) We all feel that health care is very important for us here in the province, and there is obviously going to be ongoing long-term research and development opportunities that are going to be needed.

I do not believe that will ever disappear. We need to do more than to just hang our hat onto one peg. H we put all our eggs into that one basket, and that one basket suddenly has a downturn, those opportunities in that basket have a downturn, the whole province will have a downturn. If we diversify and spread those opportunities out amongst other areas In our province, then we would have created more opportunities in the province of Manitoba. I do not think the government has done enough activity in this area and I would like to see more opportunities created.

I hope that by this Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act, that the government will seriously bring forward the research and development that we so desperately need, and so seriously lack in this province. By the same time, we have to have opportunities in our colleges, our universities and our high schools to give our young people the opportunity to become involved in this research and development.

If this government is not willing to make that investment in our young people, then we are not going to see those opportunities develop, and our young people are going to be destined for a life of poverty because the job opportunities are not going to be there for them.

That is why I hope the government is serious when they bring forward this Bill 9 and that they are going to make more than the $10 million investment into this fund, and that they will make it a long-term ongoing structure that will look into the research and development needs for the province of Manitoba, and create those desperately needed economic opportunities for Manitobans so that we can reduce the 57,000 unem ployed who we have in our province, and to improve the quality of life for all people, so that we no longer have to have the food banks in our communities as we find them today where we have hundreds of families that make use of these food banks, to create thes e new opportunities for these people.

With that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to conclude my rem arks . Thank you for the opportunity. Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on this bill that we are discussing now, and to talk a bit about the economy of our province.

I believe that we all want to improve the economy of the province and we will all admit that we have serious problems here in this province at the present time with the high unemployment rate that we have, with the large number of people we have on social assistance, with the problems that we are having in the farming community.

We have to look seriously at what we can do and I would be more than supportive of a government that would show some leadership in these areas, particularly in the area of creating jobs, and something that would help our province, but In particular our rural communities, because that is where I am from, and I am sure that there are other members in this House who realize the devastating things that are going on in the rural communities at the present time when we have no job creation.

I would like to relate this a little bit to my own constituency, this Issue that hits very much at home with the people in the area, and it is something we mentioned earlier in the day. That is the lack of employment in the Swan River area and the lack of ini tiative and leadership on the part of this government to have any commitment to the Swan River community. I refer to what I spoke about earlier in Question Period, and that is the Repap deal, and when the government signed the Repap deal, the devastating effect it had on the Swan River community.

When the NDP was in power, they were working very closely with the Swan River community and a company by the name of Penn-Co group that had

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 838 an excellent proposal put in place that would have created many jobs and a market for a lot of material, material that could have been sold, not material that had a large amount of chlorine bleach in it. There was a market. If we look at the draft proposal, we are told that markets had been identified in north, central and western United States where few Canadian plants were expected to be active. There was a real market. All it would have taken was a little bit of initiative on the government's part.

They could have followed through with the Western Diversification funding that was in plaee for the agreement. We could have had real jobs in the area instead of having the deal we have now that is hurting not only the Swan River area, but the whole northern area when we have such uncertainty with a company that is not quite sure where they are going. I hope the government can address this matter and also address the needs of the Swan River people, so that we can have some economic growth. Mr.

Acting Speaker, the other area that- there are many people who are suffering, and the government has not chosen to address them-a nd that is also the fishing community. The members of the fishing community have petitioned this government many times to ask them for assistance to im prove markets, also to give them assistance with various problems that they are having on the lake, but instead, the government just sets those things aside and has no idea of what level of poverty these people are living ln. They must show leadership to get some jobs into those areas.

As I said, we have very high unemployment rates, very high numbers of people on welfare. There are people in my constituency who have come up with very good ideas, particularly in the area of tourism. They have proposals that would take numbers of people off weHare and invest the money in the community and create jobs. I think that this is an excellent idea and one that the government should give very close consideration to. I know that they have written to the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) on the matter, and I hope he will follow through with his commitment to look at it and hopefully develop some economic growth in that part of the province to help those people, because as you know, Mr. Acting Speaker, the majority of people would rather be working than having to wait for a handout from the government in the form of welfare. There are times when people have no choice, but there are times also when government can step in and deal with those issues. They must show the leadership and must be prepared to invest in people.

I do not believe, at the present time, that we have a government that is prepared to do that. They seem not to be too concerned when we have 54,000 people unemployed in Manitoba, when we have the number of people on welfare double since this government came into power. Part of the economic growth of this province is also in the farming community, and I hope that the government will continue through with some of the promises they made that would help the rural communities grow and have some diversification on economic growth that would be a spin-off from the farming industry.

We very much need, in many parts of the province, to have gas distribution. I know the previous Minister of Rural Development had indicated at the municipal convention that he was prepared to look at that and look at ways that we could get services brought to different parts of the province. •

(1520) The Swan River area has been talking about this alongtime. They havewrittent othe minister. They have lobbied the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on this matter, and I hope that the government will show leadership and take that initiative forward so that there can be growth in that part of the province as there is in others, but it is not only the Swan River area that needs natural gas. There is the Interlake area where there is an excellent proposal. Again, the government must show leadership and look to bring these services to different communities, and I hope that that is what we will see by this new council.

I know we have the Economic Development Board that the cabinet has put in place, and I have talked to some people who are on that board. I hope, as a person who is on the board said to me, that this just is not going to be another bunch of paper shuffling and another report that is going to sit on a shelf.

They are very much prepared to work with government, to come forward with ideas that will result in development in the North, but I would hope that when people come forward with ideas that this government will take those ideas seriously and not just put forward a committee that is a figurehead, one that is going to shuffle paper and write another report that is going to just sit on the shelf.

839 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992 We must have economical growth in all parts of Manitoba, in the North. We must have economic growth in the rural community, and the government must be prepared to invest. We must be prepared to provide services for the people. That does not mean selling off every Crown corporation that is there because it is not needed anymore in the government's mind. There are many corporations and things that this government has let go of, thinking that we do not need them. I would hope that they would show more leadership and support to keep these corporations in their place.

We also have to have research for us to have development in the province. When I see that the gov ernmen t has cut back the budget by approximately $700 million in the last budget, it disturbs me that we, on one hand, could talk about economic growth and technological change and then cut back on the research that is required for a province to keep up with the changes that are going on in this world.

The other area is the Manitoba Data Services. h provided the province with much revenue, $3 million in fact, that could have been put into research and other areas of development, but instead the government has chosen to sell off the data services branch and now has lost the revenue from that. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I hope that, in passing this bill, that the government will pay more than lip service and go forward and have real initiatives that will help the economy of our province and create jobs for Manitobans and show leadership in the field, so that we are able to show leadership in the field of technology.

With those words I will close. Point of Order Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Liberal opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) referred on Friday to comments that were attributed to the honourable member for Portage and myself. I want to just correct the refe rence that the member made in this matter. I did not indicate that the Dutch elm disease was a total economic failure . I did say that in the Red River Valley, south of the city of Winnipeg, we had lost the Dutch elm disease battle, and I maintain that that is the case. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Svelnson) I thank the member for his comments and I will take that under advisement. *** Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellingt on): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am rising this afte rnoon to speak on Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act, which we are debating in the House today, and I am sure for several days in the futu re. As colleagues of mine have indicated before , we on this side of the House have absolutely no disagreement or argument with the need for economic innovation. We certainly need a stronger Manitoba economy. We certainly need to. put our Manitoba house in order.

We certainly need to be innovative, to look at new technologies, to look at the ways that we as Manitobans work and live together and the impact that the economy of our communities, our cities, the provinces within the country, the country as a whole, North America and the world as whole operate in conjunction one with another. I think that today, perhaps more than any other time in the history of North America, we must look at ideas and at thinking and at ideologies and at concerns and at values that we have taken for granted over a long period of time.

We have, certainly in North America and certainly in the northern haH of the North American continent, for a very long time, as long as there have been people who have come from other areas across the sea, always had as one of the things that we have brought with us as new Canadians, as we all were when we first came to this land, some of us newer than others. Speaking as a new Canadian, we all brought fr om, certainly from the European continent, an idea that progress was in and of itself good, that movement was in and of itseH good, that change and forward motion would be the end result if we only worked hard.

H we only planned and were carefu l, we as ind ividuals, we as fa milies, we as communities, we as nations would move forward and would see progress made. I think that, in the last few years, and longer than that for some of us-but I think everyone now understands the fact that we have to rethink all of those values and those assumptions in the light of our economic and social, financial, historical and cuhural current situations in our entire society.

March 2, 1992 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 840 We do need to be innovative. We do need to look at technology. We do need to look at ways that we in Manitoba can better work together to provide a quality of life for our families, ourselves, our children and future generations. As other members of my caucus have stated, we agree with the need for innovation and a need to look at technology, the role of technology in our society, what do we need to do in order to make Manitoba a more productive, higher quality province within which all of its people can live. We need also to look in the long term.

Again, we have historically been able to look more or less from budget to budget, from government to government, at the most, at the outside and, in some cases, go fairly smoothly from budget to budget and government to government. In other cases, we would lurch a bit, but we always had the idea and the sense that, if we did something, if we made some changes, if we put this in place or did that, we would be able to come out at the other end in a more positive economic situation and with a stronger base for our members of society, our members of the province, of the city, of the continent. •

(1530) Governments for a long time have always said that they wanted to put a long-term economic plan into place, and statements like that have been made by governments for a very long period of time, of all political stripes. It has been very difficult for all governments to implement those long-term plans for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that we are a political group as legislators, as member of a government. We are a political group. We are responsive, one would hope very responsive, to the needs, wishes and desires of our constituents.

However, we also mu st be aware that periodically, as a government, we are obliged to go to the people for either a renewed mandate or, in cases which all members in this House on both sides are very familiar, a sharp slap on the wrist, if you will, by the voter saying, no, we are not in favour of the way you are approaching the situation, the way you are approaching government now; we want to give another government the opportunity to govern.

While we always talk as government, opposition and members of the Legislature about the need for a long-term development, it is very difficult for us to actually implement that. As I said before, in the past, it has not been as urgent as it is today. We could go from one election to another stating and restating the same kinds of ideas that we had in the past and more or less get away with it. Today we are not allowed to do that.

Today our society, municipal city- wide, provincial, nation- wide, continent-wide and globally will not allow for us to be that complacent, will not allow for short-term strategies in and of thems elves , short-term strategies, strategies that deal with the immediate issues. The medium-range issues as well as the long-term issues and problems all need to be addressed. We cannot address the short- and medium-term issues without a long-range strategy. Again, Mr.

Acting Speaker, we on this side of the House applaud the concept of a long-term economic plan, applaud the concept of innovation, applaud the concept of working together to come up with a response that hopefully includes short- , medium and long-term elements to the crisis that we are facing in our world today. We are in a crisis. The de bate is going backwards and forwards and to and fro as to whether we are in a worse recession than we were in the early 1980s or whether we are not in a worse recession.

I think it is almost a debate that begs the question, while the recession did not get as deep, the trough did not get as deep this time or has not gotten as deep as it did in the 1981-82 recession, the recovery, if you could call it that, has been very slow, very sluggish, and we are facing the possibility, if not the probability, of a double dip, of the economy going back down again. The lines are quite graphic, if you will, showing the '81 -82 recession having a very sharp drop and then an incredibly fast improvement.

The economy by the mid-80s had gone past, had recovered up to above where it had been in the late 1970s when we went into the recession. This time, the economy has been in a recession for up to, if not longer than, 18 months. While the depth has not been reached of the earlier recession, the line is less sharp in its recovery. As a matter of fact, it has not recovered at all, and there are many economists who believe that we could very easily be headed for another dip in the economic indicators. We have many indicators that show that we are in the midst of a crisis. We have talked in this House a great deal.

It does not appear to have been heard, but we will continue to talk in this House a great deal about the scourge of unemployment. I choose that word

841 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 1992 very carefu lly. I do believe it is a scourge in the most biblical extensive use of that word. There are a million and a half Canadians who are unemployed. The figure is much larger when you take into account the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have given up even looking for a job because they know there is no job to be had.

The figures become even more reprehensible when you look at the fact that there are people who are working part time who want and need and should be entitled to full-time employment, who are not working part time out of choice, are working part time because there is no full-time employment.

H you added all those statistics together you would get well over 1 0 percent of the entire population of Canada and an enormously high percentage of the adult population, the population from 15 to 64 who should be able to be in the work forc e, unable for one reason or another to participate to the full extent of their abilities and the full extent of what they would like to be able to do. In Manitoba, we have 57,000 Manitobans unemployed. Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is only the tip. That does not include those Manitobans who have given up looking. It does not include the Manitobans who are underemployed.

It does not include the Manitobans who have not only given up looking, but have not begun to look because they know there are no jobs available. We have put on the record, on this side of the House, the enormous unemployment statistics for the northern part of this province, highest in the country. We have put on the record the enormous unemployment statistics for people in the inner city of Winnipeg, for the youth of Manitoba. The unemp loyment statistics, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I would suggest in the rural areas of Manitoba, the devastation that has visited itself upon the rural areas of this province probably is still not completely felt. I would hope that members on the government benches, many of whom come from rural constituencies, are talking to their constituents and finding out exactly what kind of blow the current economic situation has dealt residents of rural Manitoba. Another indication is the housing starts in the country. The housing starts in Manitoba are dismal. The housing starts in the nation as a whole are dismal.

I would say that the federal government in its latest budget on the surface made a stab at doing something about the construction industry, which provides an enormous number of jobs throughout the country, by fr eeing up to $20,000 of RRSPs to be able to be used for purchasing a home. There are a couple of problems with that program and problems that are a good indication, I would suggest, of the lack of innovation, the lack of a long-term economic strategy that the current federal proposal states.

We are not opposed to individuals and fa milie s being able to use RRSPs on purchasing a home, but because the RRSPs can be used to purchase either a new or a used home, the impact on the construction industry will be diluted. • (1 540) There will be many people who, I am sure, will choose to purchase with their RRSPs homes that have already been constructed. The spin-off of those purchases of used homes as opposed to new homes is much less in the economy. You lose the appliances purchased. You lose the curtains and draperies, all of those kinds of things.

You lose all of those kinds of economic spin-offs that this federal government proposal does not allow for . Also, Mr. Acting Speaker, when you put this proposal, which allows for up to $20,000 of RRSP money, side by side with the same federal budget which cut the co-op housing proposal, you see a true picture emerging of the lack of long-term strategy on the part of the federal government, the lack of any concern or caring about Canadians who do not have access to large sums of money. The Co-op Housing Program would, in Manitoba, have meant 200 additional housing units.

Two hundred additional housing units in a province where last year the new housing starts were something like 1 ,700, almost a 50 percent reduction over the last few years, would have meant a large percentage increase in the amount of home construction that could have been undertaken. It could have had an enormous positive impact on the construction industry and the spin-off industries that go along with new home construction. On the other side of that, the Co-op Housing Program would have provided 200 Manitoba families with decent, reasonably priced housing, something that is sorely lacking in this province.

But the Conservative government, while they gave with people who have money on the one hand, took away from people who do not have money on the other hand. They cut a program that would have provided social housing-this federal government. It would appear from the bits and pieces that we have seen

March 2, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 842 from the provincial government, the word "social" is turning into being a dirty word as far as Conse rvative governments are concerned. The last thing they are concerned with is social programming. Another thing that has been undermining the economic situation in this province, and which I am not sure Bill 9 adequately addresses, is the whole area of consumer confidence. Unemployment has a major role to play in consumer confidence.

If you have 57,000 unemployed Manitobans with tens of thousands more underemployed or not even looking for work, you have a very high percentage of the adult population in the province not having any financial resources with which to spend. Of course, consumer confidence is going to go down. Of course, consumer spending is going to go down. Any number of economic innovation councils and othe r pronounce ment s on the part of the government that are not followed by action are going to be looked at and are being looked at more and more by the people of Manitoba with a great deal of well-earned suspicion.

Is this just another shuffle? It would appear on the surface that it might very well be just another shuttle in this government's long line of using working groups, committees, advisory committees, support groups. You name it, there is a group that this government has put into place to advise, to work with, to make recommendations to the government, and they do not listen. The people of Manitoba are justifiably skeptical about the role that this Economic Innovation and Technology Council will actually have. They are not skeptical about the people on the council.

Please let it not be stated that I have anything but the highest regard for the names of the people who are on that council. I do think it is a bit light in the number of consumers, in the number of people who are most affected by economic strategies and plans, and it certainly is light on the labour side. The people who are on this council, whose names have been put forward at least on paper to sit on this council, are very well-respected members largely of the business community.

They certainly are not lacking in expertise and, perhaps, very good ideas as to what to do about our deepening and ever-expanding economic crisis, but back to the consumer confidence. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Svelnson): Order, please. All honourable members wishing to carry on conversations, please do so at a very low level or move into the loge or outside the Chamber, please. Ms. Barrett: Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to put on record that the conversations are a lot less loud than they have been at several times when I have spoken in the past. (interjection] I certainly hope I am provoking debate.

I think that is the point of this whole process. I was speaking about consumer confidence. In the last eight years, since the federal Conserv ative government was elected and the last almost four years since the provincial Conse rvative government has been elected, the people of this province have had very little positive as an outcome of any actions taken by either level of those governments. I am not talking about the higher income levels; I am talking about the people-(interjection] I seem to have engendered some debate here which is well and good, but I would appreciate some quiet.

The people of Manitoba and Canada, who have been hardest hit by the policies of the federal and provincial Conse rvative governments, are the people who I represent in Wellington. They are middle-income families, they are senior citizens, they are new Canadians, they are young families, they are families with teenagers, they are families whose children have left home and are trying to make their own lives with their own families, they are people who live modestly, they are people who have worked and who want to work all of their lives, they are people for whom work is a productive, necessary part of life.

These people, to use a very trite phrase but one that I think has a certain degree of currency here, are the backbone of our nation, the people who have come here over the last 300 to 400 years, who have worked hard, who have said all along that they are more than willing to pay their fair share. They understand the role that each of them must play in a co-operative society, that there are always going to be requirements that the society as a whole needs to put into place.

As we as Canadians have over the years evolved, those requirements that individuals and tam ilies are willing to pay their fair share to ensure are things such as medicare, a public education system, a basic system to provide for individuals and families who for one reason or another largely, vastly the majority of which are legitimate reasons, cannot pay for their own basic necessities. *

(1550) 843 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 2, 19 92 To that we have also recently added the sense that Manitobans are willing to pay and see the importance of a clean environment so that we can pass on to the future generations a world that is worth living in, a world that we actually physically can live in. There is some grave doubt as to the ability of people in the next generation or two to be able to have a world such as that. These are things that Canadians in general and for sure residents and people in my constituency of Wellington say are vital and of major importance to them.

All of these areas are under attack by the Cons e rvatives in this province and by the Conse rvatives in Canada.

All the economic innovation and technology councils in the world are not going to have a positive impact on that as long as the provincial government and its Tory cousins in Ottawa continue on their road of goods and services tax, of the Free Trade Agreement, of strongly supporting the North American free trade agreement, of deregu lation, of privatization, of saying, no, we all do not have a responsibility one for another, no, government does not have an active role to play in ensuring that the things that Canadi ans feel are important are available to all Canadians.

This government and its Tory counterparts across the country and in Ottawa are saying, hands off-the best government is the least government. We are not concerned basically with the people who are most impacted by our legislation, our values and our Ideology.

We are not concerned with those who have worked for years and who see their savings eaten away, whose children are unable to find jobs, whose families and grandparents are under threat of not having adequate housing, of not having an adequate pension income, of not being able to take advantage of what is rightfully theirs and for which they have put years of work and years of taxes into the system . This is why the government can come out with all the economic, innovative technology councils it wants to. It can have working groups on a range of things. The Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) has an enormous number of working groups. We have seen very little, if any, impact that those working groups have had on the health care system, other than in a negative context. The Department of Family Services has had several working groups, one in particular, a working group on daycare that for 18 months believed what the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) was telling them that the government was going to listen to what they had to say, was going to take into account what they had to say because they are the people who are working in child care.

They are the people who know what the needs are. They are the people who are actually doing the jobs. They are the same kind of people that this government is saying they are going to consult and use in the Economic Innovation

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-20a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 20a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4d9f1b5f1a405a0e6f6693d58cfa29f5c2923c01

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).