Manitoba Hansard — 3 May 2000 (Sitting 20, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-20

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session -Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. L No. 20 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 3, 2000 ISSN 0542-5492

Member AGUJGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, lion. ASPER, Linda BARRETT, Becky, lion. CALDWELL, Drew, lion. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, lion. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACII, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HELWER, Edward IIICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LA TliLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY,Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott STEFANSON, Eric STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Kirkfield Park Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

789 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 3, 2000 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Manitoba Century Summit Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I have a statement for the House, Mr. Speaker. This past March our Government hosted the Manitoba Century Summit here in Winnipeg. The summit was a 24-hour gathering of more than 10 0 economic leaders from across the province, leaders representing a variety of perspectives, both large and small business, labour, government, rural Manitoba, northern Manitoba and our urban centres.

The last time such a meeting was held was in 19 96. Since then there have been enormous changes in the Manitoba and global economy, and there is a great need for new strategies to confront these changes and support economic development in our province. The summit was an opportunity for key players in the economy to sit down together and help give shape to a common economic vision, a vision for a better province and brighter future, a vision that we could all support and buy into.

Strategic partnerships were discussed with respect to three topic workforce development areas: expanding workforce development, expanding investment and the new economy. I am happy to say that the summit was successful on several levels. One major reason for the summit's success was the quality of the people who provided leadership and direction. The summit co-chairs were Rob Hilliard, President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour and Irene Merie, President of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. Harvey Secter, Dean of Law at the University of Manitoba, was outstanding as a moderator of the proceedings.

There was also a lively panel made up of Gail Asper, Elaine Cowan, David Friesen, Chuck Loewen, and Paul Moist. In order to work towards the points of consensus, summit participants divided into groups and worked together to generate a set of strategic ideas for each of the three economic issues. This consensus-building exercise produced some interesting and exciting results.

On the issue of workplace development, participants highlighted the approaches such as making our training and educational programs more responsive to labour market needs; expanding the number of options available for training and retraining and improve the accessibility and affordability of these programs; develop a specific focus for aboriginal training; and increasing Manitoba's share of international and interprovincial migration. * (13: 35 ) On expanding investments, some participants had such ideas as enhancing the environment in which new and established businesses can grow and thrive; developing targeted incentives, competitive taxes, better regulations and a positive stable climate; exploring the use of Manitoba pension plans as a source of capital; and promoting Manitoba as an attractive investment location.

On the subject of the new economy, we heard ideas such as extending the technological communications infrastructure throughout the province, fostering niches or key clusters in the new economy while in tandem increasing the number and required types of high-knowledge workers in the labour force. Finally, that research and development is integral to making a name for ourselves in the new economy, and we need to invest and expand our R&D in order to do so. A complete report of the summit findings have been prepared. I will table one here today and one is available for all members here in the

790 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 Chamber. The ideas identified at the summit are exciting. They provide us with a framework for developing initiatives to improve on our economic position. Planning has already begun on the required strategic enhancements. The upcoming budget is a first step in this process. We intend to continue dialoguing with Manitobans on these strategies as well as keeping all Manitobans informed on our progress. Feedback from the summit participants has been very enthusiastic. These positive senti ments reflect how deep the spirit of co-operation runs in Manitoba.

We should never forget this because this is one of our greatest strengths. It will make us stronger as we compete in a global marketplace. It will help us to share the benefits and opportunities of future growth and to ensure that growth is sustainable. In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere thanks to all of those who participated in the Manitoba Century Summit. Your spirit of co operation and your ideas will serve us well as we confront the challenges of the global economy. Mr.

Gary Filmon (Leader of the Official Opposition): I thank the First Minister for that statement, although I am somewhat surprised that it comes here a month and a half after the conference was held and ten days into the session here. You would think that if it were important to the Government something might have been said about it on the day that we began. but I am afraid- [interjection] Well, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says we did not have one. We had many during the course of our time in government. He says that labour was not included. Labour refused to participate in it.

They had their own political agenda, and that shows just the kind of commitment that they make to the economy. It is only a commitment to their own political agenda, and that is one of the difficulties we have. note, from the rhetoric that is in the statement that the Premier made, no idea that has not been discussed publicly before in this province. There was not anything new that he said in this statement that had not already been discussed and had not already been covered in many cases. I note, for instance, exploring the use of Manitoba pension plans as a source of capital.

When we were in government, we went directly to the major union groups in this province and asked for that very thing to be done and they refused to put any pension money into venture capital funds, that despite the fact that we were responsible for setting up the Crocus fund in co operation with the union movement, the labour movement in this province. * (13 :40) So I think that the summit was more about politics, more about window dressing than it was about any real attempt to attract investment or to improve the economy in this province. We know that talk is not what is going to be required.

We know we are going to need to have a competitive economy, an economy that is competitive for instance in tax rates, something that the Premier just yesterday got up and said he would have absolutely no part of. no part of cutting taxes. So the fact of the matter is that all of the things that are going to be necessary to create investment, to make this province welcome businesses, investment and job creation in this province are things that he fundamentally, philosophically is opposed to.

That, I think, of course. is the tragedy of it all, that they are so narrow in their focus that they will not consider ideas that have a chance of working and making this province attractive to investment, attractive to business and attractive to job creation because of their ideological straitjacket that they are in. Mr. Speaker, we will be interested in seeing whether or not, in terms of feedback, we get anything more out of this Government than rhetoric. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Can I ask for leave to speak on the Minister's statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have leave? [Agreed} Mr.

Gerrard: I welcome the statement of the Premier (Mr. Doer), and the Premier's interest in developing the new economy in Manitoba, but I

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 79 1 would put on the table that the critical question is this: As we look forward to the budget of next week, can the new Government really deliver in the budget a vision and effective plan to make a difference in developing the new economy? Flooding-Agricultural Assistance Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Highways and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement as a result of what is reported to have taken place in the Commons Agriculture Commit tee yesterday in Ottawa.

Members fr om both sides of the House repeatedly requested Ottawa for assistance for flooded-out farms in the southwest and other parts of the province. The assistance we have requested is that farmers flooded out in 19 99 be treated in a simi lar fashion to those flooded out in 19 97 in the Red River Valley. As all members know, the farmers flooded out in 19 99 suff ered more than those in 19 97 in terms of agricultural production. In 19 99, over 1 million acres went unseeded,

whereas vir tually all land was seeded in 19 97. Yesterday, the Minis ter of National Defence appeare d bef ore the Agricu lture Comm ittee, and the Member of Parliament Mr. Borotsik said we do require another $30 million to $40 million. If there was a 50-50, would you? Mr. Eggleton replied: The answer is no. Mr. Speaker, we have had some indica tions fr om Ottawa over the past couple of weeks that the door was open to further negotiations. It would appear that as of yesterday that door was slammed shut on our farm ers who suffered disastrous flooding in 19 99.

If the federal government is closing the door on both 90-10 and 50-50 cost-sharing, they are effectively closing the door on negotiations for providing assistance for the 19 99 flood in southwestern Manitoba. * (13: 45) Given the serious consequences of this un willingness to negotiate, it is more urgent than ever that Manitoba present a unified voice in urging the federal government to accept their fair share of disaster assistance.

Both this Govern ment and the previous Government took the same approach to compensa ting the 19 99 conditions in southwest Manitoba, that these producers should be trea ted the same as farmers affected by the flood in the Red River Valley in 19 97. I ask today that all members of this House join me in urging the federal government to recognize the serious consequences of the 19 99 flood and begin discussions to provide disaster financial assistance to southwest Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, just as disappointing as Mr.

Eggleton's comm ents is the fact that he delivered them in Ottawa without meeting with the Province of Manitoba on this very serious issue. We worked very closely with the Liberal members of Parliament-and I might add, with members of Parliament fr om all parties fr om this province, but this spirit of co-oper ation has not been shown by Mr. Eggleton, who made this announcement without agreeing to meet with this Government despite our six requests for a meeting. And this is the Minis ter responsible for emergency measure s.

During the 19 97 Red River flood, the generosity shown by Manitobans and for Manitobans will never be forgotten. Again, a part of our province faces a crisis, and Mr. Eggleton's comme nts are unacceptab le. Given our position, the farmers in southwestern Manitoba should be treated the same as farmers who were flooded by the Red River in 19 97. We will attempt to confirm with Ottawa whether the comment attributed to Mr. Eggleton is indeed Ottawa's final position on the 19 99 flood. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table a copy of a letter that we have sent to the Hon ourable Ron Duhamel, whom we have met with on a number of occasions, once again urging the federal government to come to the table and discuss the need for assistance for southwest Manitoba, whether it be under DFAA or a JERI-type program which would involve 50-50 funding. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I apprecia te the minis terial statement fr om the Minis ter of Highways and Government Services and emergency preparedness on this issue.

Certai nly, as it has dealt with the issue of the flooding in southwest Manitoba, we, too,

792 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 were appalled in regard to the statements made in the House of Commons yesterday by the Minis ter of Def ence, the Minis ter of Emergency Preparedness Canada, Mr. Eggleton, that there would be no more financing available on any kind of a basis-I think were some of his terms to be used for the flood in southwest Manitoba.

He did, however, say there was room in the kinds of statements that he made-he recognized the need for changes in the emergency prepar edness mechanisms that dealt with this process in regard to subsequent resolutions that were dealt with, simi lar to when the JERI program was used here in southern Manitoba in 19 97. So I would still not give up in relation to the whole issue of receiving funding in fr om the federal government on this issue.

Also, I would believe strongly, as we spoke out strongly yesterday in this House, and continue today to deal with the issue on a 50-50 bas is, it is very, very clear that the federal government feels that they have met under DF AA to do what they could in regard to culverts, washouts, fence lines and repairs on a municip al level, and they have done that as DF AA requires them to do, but lost farm inputs under the definition clearly do not fall under the DF AA legislation, so, theref ore, will have to be dealt with in a subsequent resolution.

I would urge this House to whole heartedly come together to put forth that position, and I would in fact urge this Government to immedia tely table a resolution that would look at 50-50 funding on getting to the table and bringing the federal government back to the table on that issue. Certainly, you know, Mr. Borotsik fr om Brandon- Souris is quite right. There is another over $40 million needed in that region. Those farmers, as I said yesterday, indi cated that the $85 million to $90 million that they are still short is still required in that area, and that they still really are in great need of those funds.

The Minis ter also may not have heard, in his announcement here just of a few moments ago, that there were other comm ents made, as I said, in regard to getting the changes to the package together out of Hansard fr om Ottawa yesterday in regard to tying it all together and putting it in. But, having said that, Mr.

Speaker, the situation is worse in southwest Manitoba than it perhaps was in the '97 flood fr om a land preparedness position, not to mention anything about the lost inf rastructure that the devastation that the people in the Red River Valley saw in regard to the lost buildings and the loss of their capital assets. * (13 :50) But the loss of land maintenance was of great concern to all of them at that time. While the farm ers may be re-esta blishing their crop in southwest Manitoba for the year 2000, there is a great shortfall of dollars available to meet the input costs, all of the input costs.

Certainly the majority of the input costs that are out there today, going in the ground, are going to be done on credit, much more so than they have ever been done in the past. I think that is why we need to come together, if this House can, in an all-party mechanism.

That is why amendments to the original resolution were put together yesterday to deal with the fact that if there is a real concerted effort here and a real concern on behalf of the Government to meet the $30 million to $40 million that is required for these farm ers, perhaps they could come to the table with their dollars to bluff the government, if you will, of Ottawa, or to force the feder al government into the same kinds of acceptance of a package that this Government did, the PC Government did last summer when they put the money on the table and then sent the bill to Ottawa to have them pay their share. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member has exceeded the time that the Min ister used for his minis terial statement. I would ask the Honourable Member to please wrap it up. Mr. Maguire: Just to wrap up then, I would just challenge the Government in the House today to come up with a 50-50 funding formula so that they can put the money on the table and do it prior to the budget. The need is great, the need is today. We know that the federal government needs to be coerced kicking and screaming into this whole process, but the farmers in the country and the communities are the ones that

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 793 are sufferin g today. So we really need that assistance right now. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave? Mr. Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed] Mr. Gerrard: I welcome the Minis ter's state ment. I, too, am disappointed that Mr. Eggleton has not been able to find the ability to broaden the OF AA process or criteria to be able to include more. I would urge the Minis ter respo nsible for emergency measures (Mr.

Ashton) in Manitoba to take the opportunity of the invit ation to change the rules for the future so that in fact when such a disaster occurs, it can be addressed more appropria tely. Never theless, having said that, I interpret Mini ster Eggleton's remarks to ref er to the OF AA program and the fact that the options under the OF AA program in the defined criteria are closed in terms of expanding it, but not to indicate that there is not an opportunity for funding under the JERI program .

Indeed, in the discussions that I have had with the Honourable Ron Duhamel, he has indica ted that there remains a window open for funding under the JERI program with a clear request fr om the provincial Government, and we welcome the letter that you have tabled. Clearly, in view of the fact that there was an additional $10 0 million federal and provincial provided earlier this year-there was an opportunity to target it but it was not used-that the case has got to be made forc efully with members of this Legislature, with members of Parliament, with the Prime Minis ter.

I will certai nly be a partici pant in making that case, along with others here, to try and get, with as much speed as we possibly can, the JERI program which in fact would treat those in southwestern Manitoba equivalent to people in the Red River Valley in '97. I would urge the Governmen t to focus in on this option and to spearhead an eff ort to try and carry it through to success. *( 13 :55) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am pleased to table the following annual reports: The Discrimi natory Business Pract ices Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000; Annual Reports Concerning Complaints About Judicial Con duct 19 99, and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner Annual Review, 19 98 which has been previously distributed. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 22-The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Amendment Act Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minis ter of Finance (Mr.

Selinger), that leave be given to introduce Bill 22, The Court of Queen's Bench Surroga te Pract ice Amen dment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la pratique relative aux successions devant la Cour du Bane de la Reine), and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Mackintosh: This bill repeals the provision that requires court offices to accept wills for safekeeping. It also corrects a cross-ref ere ncing error, Motion agreed to. Bill 23-The Jury Amendment Act Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minis ter of Health and Sport (Mr. Chomiak), that leave be given to introduce Bill 23, The Jury Amen dment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les jun!s, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Mackintosh: This bill allows a jury summons to be sent by ordi nary mail instead of registered mail. Motion agreed to.

794 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 Bill 24- The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amendment Act Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Mini ster of Indu stry, Trade and Mines (Ms. Mihychuk), that leave be given to introduce Bill 24, The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les suretes relatives aux biens personnels et d'autres dispositions legislatives), and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Lemieux: This bill makes a number of minor housekeeping amendments. Nevert heless, more impor tant to the new Personal Property Security Act, which was passed in 19 93, the new act will be proclaimed later this year when the new Personal Property computer system is ready for implementation. The minor housekeeping amendments in the bill include things like "word" and "section" ref erence corre ctions. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourab le members to the gallery where we have with us today, fr om the Springs Christian Academy, 30 Grades 9, II and I2 students under the dir ection of Mr. Br ad Dowler. This school is located in the Honoura ble Minis ter of Finance's (Mr. Selinger) constituency . Also we have seated in the public gallery, fr om Fort Richmond Collegiate, I4 Grade Il History students under the dir ection of Mrs. Valerie Shupak. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourab le Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Flooding Agricultural Disaster Assistance Mr. Gary Filmon (Leader of the Official Opposition): My question is for the Fir st Minis ter. As was indi cated in the statement of the Minis ter of Highways (Mr. Ashton) just a few minutes ago, yesterday, under intensive questioning at the House of Commons agriculture commit tee by Rick Borotsik, the Bran don-Souris MP, the Minis ter respons ible for disaster assistance federally, Mr.

Eggleton, slammed the door on additional support for the farmers in southwestern Manitoba who were unable to seed over a million acres of cropland last year, an unprecedented disaster. In fact, both the statement and news reports ind icate, when he was asked whether the federal cabinet would be open to a 50-50 cost-sharing program with the Province to provide for further aid, Eggleton gave a flat out no . What does the First Minis ter now plan to do to address this absolutely outrageous and unacceptab le situation? * (1 4:00) Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.

We, again, were extr emely disappointed and angry to see the answer to Mr. Borotsik's questions in the House of Commons, although, for the purpose of clarity, it reflected the response we had been getting fr om that minis ter for the last couple of weeks . It is ironic because we had received an answer to the June '99 request fr om the former Minis ter, tabled to the House of Commons, requesting disaster assistance under the federal disaster assistance program , a question we had posed to the Government last year. We know that Manitoba put that request in in June of '99.

Finally, on February I6, 2000, we received confirmation that we are in fact eligible. I was meeting with the lead Minis ter, Mr. Axworthy, that day and was told verbally that this letter was coming to our Minis ter and was told as well that, and I heard on the media, this would mean that finally and appropriately southwest Manitoba would be treated in a simi lar way to the region in the Red River Valley in '97 or to the people of Quebec and Ontario in the ice storm of a few years ago.

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 795 We think, just because the flooding was less dram atic in southwest Manitoba, and we would agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Filmon) in his statement, that very many people were affe cted nega tively, a lot of far mers were affected nega tively. The input costs are real. Fertilizer costs, for example, that were washed away last year, should be made up by a program . We understand that we will be meeting tomorrow with the federal mini ster on a housin g proposal, and we will be raising it there. We have to resolve it here in Manitoba.

We have four different people in the federal Liberal caucus saying four different things, and we have to resolve it. If we cannot resolve it between the two minis ters, I believe we have to resolve it with the Prime Minis ter or attempt to resolve it again with the Prime Minis ter. Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, last June 29, after meeting with the Disaster Recovery Coalition in Brandon, I commit ted, on behalf of our Govern ment, to give to the farm ers of southwest Manitoba, who had been unable to plant their crops, a $50-an-acre payment for unseeded acreage in that area, which resulted in $70 million being paid out by our Government in August of last year to those farm ers.

At that time, the farmers in that area, the Keystone Agricultural Producers, the local community leadership and many Chambers and many others agreed that, at a very minimum, there should also be a payment attached to that for the input costs that the Premier (Mr. Doer) has just ref erred to. The fact was that there were fer tilizer and chemicals that had been put on the land that were washed away in the flood and, in addition to that, there were chemicals necessa ry to be sprayed on during the summer to ensure that they could plant a crop this year.

That cost has been estimated, I might say, by the Minis ter of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) at, I believe, $43 million that should be recovered fr om Ottawa. I might say that that is simi lar, as the First Minis ter has indi cated, to that which was done in the Red River Valley on a 50-50 cost-shared program under JERI. Now, my question to the First Minis ter is: Has his Government budgeted its share of this amount, $2 1. 5 million, for a JERI-type program such as was done in the Red River Valley in 19 97? Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, part of the money for input costs, just a small part of it, has already been processed, $3.9 million for forage restora tion and $3. 2 million in hay shortfall. In the Department of Agriculture, through AIDA, through income support, through disaster assistance, the program announced in June by the former Premier and program s announced subsequently by us, there has been well over a hundred million dollars in extra expenditure, almost double that in extra expendi ture in the Department of Agriculture in disaster assistance.

Except for the 60-40 support of funding on the income side for all producers for the $10 or so per acre, we have got not a cent fr om the federal government for the 19 99 flood situation. So I will offer, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is impor tant that we speak with the federal government the same way as the members opposite have spoken in the past and the way we spoke together as a community in 19 97. There are some programs that the former Premier would know that it is essential that we keep the 90-10 formula for Manitoba.

We do not want to see Manitoba treate d in a second-down position fr om Ontario, Quebec and the ice storm. There are program s that are eligible for a 90-10 program , and our 10 percent is there and ready to be supported by the 90 percent that we are entitled to fr om the federal government. There are other programs that are eligible for a 50-50 JERI program , and our support is also comm itted to those program s. We should sit down, though, and make sure that we are not throwing away Manitoba's right, our taxpayer's right for a 90- 10 program .

We should not throw that away, so we should be singing fr om the same hymn book as we did with members opposite when we were in Opposition, 90-10 for Manitoba farmers for many of the costs and 50- 50 on the JERI program like the Red River Valley. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that members opposite, when they were on this side of the House, wanted us to participate to the fullest extent in gaining support for the people

796 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 who were affected by the disaster in 1997 and again last year. Nobody is suggesting to the First Minister that the fonnulas be changed. In his

preamble he referred to money that has been paid out for hay and for forage and so on, and that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the input costs that were washed away in the flood last year, the chemicals that had been applied, the fertilizer that had been applied, that in similar circumstances in the Red River Valley, 50-50 payments were made on that behalf.

What I am asking the First Minister today is: Will he demonstrate his absolute and unequivocal commitment to the fanners of southwestern Manitoba by taking the $21.5 million that his Minister says is required for these program areas and pay them out to the fanners in southwestern Manitoba, as we did last year in our June 29 commitment. We said we are committed; we are going to pay out the money, and we are going to embarrass the federal government into paying its 50 percent. And they did, Mr. Speaker, and they did.

I want to know whether or not this First Minister is prepared to do that, whether he is prepared to do that to show unequivocally to the fanners and to the government in Ottawa that his Government is committed, that it is not just out there dangling a carrot and sending a fishing line into the water. * (14:10) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I recall being in the auditorium or in the arena in Melita when the previous Minister of Agriculture said the fanners need $50 an acre, $60 an acre, $70 an acre, $80 an acre.

I also remember that the unilateral payment of the provincial government has not embarrassed the federal government to come forward with any support at all. When we negotiated an income support program of $60 million from the federal government and $40 million from the provincial government, we did it by fighting, disagreeing, working in an all party way, a tribute to members opposite, and coming together in a resolution with the federal government where we could jointly announce a program.

When we see ourselves putting out money unilaterally, it has not resulted in one cent for disaster assistance for the areas of southwestern Manitoba. So we do not have a Brink's truck. We did negotiate successfully the 60-40 income support program, and we are going to continue to do that. Let us remember today in this Chamber, we are dealing with a federal government that said no, no, no, and we have to unite, unite, unite against the federal government on behalf of the fanners in south western Manitoba. Flooding Agricultural Disaster Assistance Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, as well, raise a few questions to the Government today in regard to this issue, perhaps to the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) or to the Premier. I heard him say earlier that he would be there and have part of his money available in those 50-50 programs, in the JERI. and if there is 21.5 there, Mr. Premier, I would thank you for it for those fanners in southwest Manitoba, but we would like to see it on the table.

Another thing, the Minister responsible for Emergency Preparedness said in Ottawa yesterday that there was an agreement, and interesting that the Premier would raise the $100 million, because the Minister responsible for Emergency Preparedness in Ottawa said that there was an agreement that part of those funds could be directed by the federal government to Manitoba, that the federal government did direct to Manitoba that the $1 00-million transportation adjustment fund could be targeted to south western Manitoba.

Will the Minister of Agriculture explain to flooded producers and this House, as I raised yesterday, where this money went and why nothing was targeted to this region? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting the Member opposite would be the surrogate representative for the federal govern ment when they can clearly identify four different positions on disaster assistance alone.

Perhaps the Member opposite would understand that the only consistency in this argument across both sides of the aisle, if you will, has been the position of the provincial Government in dealing with the federal government. The income support program that we were able to negotiate-

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 797 Point of Order Mr. Maguire: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to raise to the Premier's attention that he and his Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), when we were on the all-party delegation in Ottawa last fall seeking $300 million, indicated to me that there would be funds, if we had to stick together to get the $300 million, so that some of those funds could then be targeted into southwestern Manitoba. We have not targeted anything. We got a hundred, we got a third of that, and there has been nothing targeted. So I just raise that. Mr.

Speaker: Order. please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. * * * Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect for the farmer from St. Norbert-and I take that back. I apologize. This is a serious subject. The income support program-there was an income crisis last year and there was a disaster crisis last year. There were two issues, and we attempted to resolve or get progress on both files, as the members opposite tried to do. We were successful in a $1 00-million income program that was called a transportation transition policy.

It was not called by the federal government in any one of the Prime Minister's statements or any one of our statements as anything towards disaster assistance in south west Manitoba. In fact, we made it explicitly clear, and I made it clear standing at the unimike with the Prime Minister that this was only dealing with income programs and not dealing with the matter of disaster assistance. I said that in front of the Prime Minister, and I say that in front of the members opposite here today.. Mr. Maguire: Mr.

Speaker, will the Govern ment, then, clearly state for the record, and especially for the benefit of these flood victims, what monies their Government has alone actually paid out to these producers in order to help them plant this spring's crop? Hon. Steve Ashton (Highways and Govern ment Services): I think it is important to note that essentially, in terms of disaster assistance, the only coverage that has been in place which has any cost-sharing from the feds directly is the $16 million. We have not received a cent, but we received about $10.5 million under DFA for lost buildings.

The Province itself, as the First Minister (Mr. Doer) pointed to, has already put in $71 million, including $7 million which we identified, in fact the Premier identified earlier as clearly items that should be eligible, if not under DFAA, under a JERI-type program. I think the difficulty members opposite have, and I do not know what part of "no" they do not understand from the federal government, is the problem here is not the provincial Government. It is the federal government in Ottawa, which has said no to 90-1 0 and no to 50- 50. We need to get them to the table.

The only way to do it is to have all three parties in this House speaking out and putting pressure on the federal government. Mr. Maguire: Will the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, given the concern that the Govern ment has indicated from both the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the emergency preparedness minister today, if this is such an emergency issue for this Government, given that she personally has not been west of Brandon to visit this flooded area, will they continue to point out what they have done? We did not get an answer from the last question in regard to what they have done alone.

Would she come out to Arthur-Virden and meet the constituents and tell them why they have not targeted any money to that region? Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agri culture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record for the Member. I want to indicate to him that I visited southwestern Manitoba during the time when the flood was on. I have met with producers from that area. I have met with producers. As the Minister, I have met with those producers. I would be very happy to come out to that part of the province to meet with producers whenever they set up a meeting.

I would also like to tell the Member that it would be very

798 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 encouraging and send a very good signal to the people of southwestern Manitoba if they would agree to pass the resolution that we brought forward in this House and show their support for producers that we do want the federal government to recognize that this is a very serious problem and that they have to come to the table with their dollars. We have been at the table. The federal government is not doing it. Income Tax Reductions Mr.

Eric Stefanson (Kirkfield Park): During the introduction of tax reductions in the Saskatchewan budget, Finance Minister Cline said: "This province needs more people with higher incomes that will bring their wealth here, that will invest their wealth here and will hire people here." Now the Province of Ontario is providing across-the-board tax reductions , coupled with increased health and education spending. Mr. Speaker, now that the NDP deficit scare has been dispelled, is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) or the Premier (Mr.

Doer) prepared to assure Manitobans they will receive significant personal income tax cuts in next Wednesday's budget? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The deficit scare was indeed real. The overspending that occurred by the previous Government has now been documented in the third-quarter report as real overspending, a report that the former Minister of Finance appears to put a lot of creditability in. So that has been verified in the third-quarter report. With respect to tax cuts and tax relief, we were elected on a balanced platform.

The five priorities that we were elected on will be the ones that we honour in our upcoming budget, and the details of that will unfold very shortly. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I continue to be confused by this Minister because, if he does read his own third-quarter report, he will acknowledge there is over a $4-million surplus projected this year. If he had listened to Treasury Board officials during the transition after the election, he would have been provided with exactly the same information.

So I ask this Minister of Finance: Will he commit today to ensure that the looming tax differential that Manitoba faces wiii be addressed in both a progressive and a planned manner? * (14:20) Mr. Selinger: The third-quarter report did indeed confirm the overspending. It indeed did confirm that we got extra transfer payments, over half of which was on a one-time basis from Ottawa this year through equalization. We can appreciate the fact that that has generated a $4- million surplus. I was very happy to report that as soon as it became clear to us.

With respect to tax reductions, as I have said, we were elected on a balanced approach. The property tax credit was one that we said we would follow through on. We also said that we would follow through on those tax reductions announced in the budget we voted for last spring, and that was a $40-million personal income tax reduction that was implemented January 1 along with a $6-million small-business tax reduction, and indeed those have flowed forward. Mr.

Stefanson: I am glad that the Government is following through on the personal income tax reduction that we brought in in our budget and the corporate tax reduction for small business that we brought in in our budget, even though they introduced an amendment opposing that reduction. But I ask: What specific tax reductions, and I repeat, tax reductions, is the Minister prepared to implement to ensure that our young and our skilled and our mobile workforce remain right here in Manitoba? Does he even have a plan to address the pending brain drain? Mr.

Selinger: I find it passing strange that the Member opposite is quite happy to take credit for all tax reductions and completely deny any responsibility for any overexpenditures that have

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 799 occurred. I also find it passing strange that the Member for Kirkfield Park would indicate that the tax system that we have in front of us right now is one that is problematic, because it is their tax system; they designed it. They looked after it for the last 11 years. So I say to the Member opposite, when we unveil our budget on Tuesday, we will be true to the commitments we made in the election, and we will give the details of the balanced approach we will take to managing the Manitoba community. Income Tax Reductions Mr.

Ron Schuler (Springfield): The Premier (Mr. Doer) referred to those individuals asking for tax cuts as right-wing birds flying in ever decreasing circles around tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. His comrades on the left in the Communist Party of Canada, during the May Day parade, were also calling for tax cuts. Does the Premier simply dismiss his comrades as left-wing birds flying around in ever- decreasing circles around tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): One does not know where to start with that flurry of chirping coming from the Member opposite.

I am sure the participants in the May Day parade will be very happy to hear the Member opposite celebrating their suggestions to the people of Manitoba. The point we are trying to make is Manitoba believes in a balanced approach to soar into the future. We do not believe that a one-winged approach will allow our beautiful province to soar the way it can. We believe in education and training and hope for our young people. We believe in stewarding our environment and protecting our water. We believe in protecting our communities from floods and devastation.

On the other hand, we believe in an affordable government, and we will deliver that. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier commit to no tax for families earning less than $40,000, as demanded by his comrades in the Communist Party of Canada? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Springfield, with his last supple mentary question. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier, as asked in The Winnipeg Sun: "On the other hand there is another bird the Premier might want to pay some attention to. This is the dodo bird.

And it is extinct." Will this be the Government's new policy of tax relief? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, there are some people that believe that a province should be run on only a single-issue priority. We are not that group of men and women on this side. The Member opposite was talking about different articles and different perspectives. We cam paigned, and this is a very old-fashioned idea to members opposite, but you know what we did? We made five commitments in the election campaign, and you know what we are going to do? We are going to deliver on those commit ments after the campaign.

I know for members opposite who sold the phone company weeks after the election campaign, I know for members opposite that fired 1000 nurses two months after the election campaign, this may be a novel idea, but a promise made by members on this side will be a promise kept. Health Care System Bed Openings Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Thank you- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for River East has the floor. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

One of those very promises that the Premier made during the election campaign, one of those five promises, five commitments, was to indeed immediately open 100 new hospital beds in the province of Manitoba. On November 22, the Minister of Health again announced that promise, only he increased it to 138 permanent new beds.

800 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Given that those beds were to be opened by the end of April and April has come and gone, have they all opened? * (1 4:30) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for that question. It allows me to talk about some of the initiatives that we announced. Tied hand in hand, in the context of the opening of the beds, was our commitment to deal with hallway medicine in this province. I think that the reports generally, in terms of hallway medicine, have been positive.

We saw the CIHI announcement last week that announced that Manitoba had done something right compared to all of the jurisdictions in the country. An independent national body made an assessment. We are very proud of that. Have we solved all the problems? No. After seven months in office, we will hold our record up of seven months in office against the Member's II years any time, any place, anywhere. Mrs. Mitchelson: Obviously, I will take that as a no, and that is a promise made and a promise that has not been kept. Mr.

Speaker, given that we know that 12 permanent beds that were in place, when we were in Government, at St. Boniface hospital have been closed, how many other permanent beds have been closed? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that members opposite would never ever speak about beds during the 11 years. In the seven years that I was opposition critic, they avoided it like the plague, and for good reason, because over I400 acute-care beds were closed during their tenure.

We recently put through another Treasury Board submission that funded fully 34 beds that, in the members' last year in office, they had indicated would be opened but they were not fully funded, and we had to fund them in our budget because they were not fully funded. So I will not take any advice from the Member opposite with respect to beds. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, a simple question for the Minister of Health is: We heard the Premier (Mr. Doer) say, in a previous answer, a promise made is a promise kept. Has he kept his promise to open 13 8 new hospital beds, yes or no? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to indicate to members opposite, firstly, that generally I think the members opposite ought to wait to see the bed numbers come out in the yearly fashion, as they do, before they make that point. Secondly, we did indicate that we had difficulty opening all of the beds that we required because of a lack of nurses as a result of the Tory nursing shortage, because of the layoff of the thousand nurses, which is one of the reasons why we have launched an aggressive five-point strategy to try to deal with the nursing shortage in this province.

I wish members opposite would support that policy, but the fact is that nursing and other support staff-it is not just nursing. It is a shortage in nurses aides. It is a shortage in radiation therapists. It is a shortage in X-ray technicians. It was built up under 11 years of neglect under the Tory Government, and we are taking steps to remedy that situation. Education System Financing Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I was very pleased by the Premier's enthusiasm for building the new economy in Manitoba earlier on.

Given the importance of universities, centres of knowledge, to the development of the knowledge-based economy, and given the fact that, sadly, in the last 10 years, under the former Tory Government, the funding for universities fell from I992-93 when it was $225 million a year to last year when the budget showed $222 million, given the tragic decisions made by the previous Government, will the Premier commit to improving the situation in the new budget?

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 801 Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): My point of order can wait till the Member is finished his question. Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the Honourable Member, with his point of order. Mr. Laurendeau: I was just thinking back to when the Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Selinger) was up to his feet and he said that the budget was coming down next Tuesday. Could he clarify? Has he changed the date for the budget? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The budget will be May 10. * * * Mr.

Gerrard: My supplementary is to the Minis ter of Finance. Given the importance of being able to budget over a number of years, will the Minis ter of Fina nce commit to providing a multiyear fr amework for the funding of universities? Mr. Selinger: We will bring down a budget May 10 , and it will reveal itself then. Post-Secondary Education Tuition Fee Policy Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I ask the second supplementary to the Mini ster of Finance.

Given the Government's commitment to a 10% fee reduction, tuition fee reduction, will you provide that on an ongoing basis over more than one year rather than just a single-year commitment? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, this is a comm itment that I made in the election campaign, and we made it for a very specific reason. When I was going to high schools just the last couple of years, it was very, very concerning to me- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Doer: Well, some of us believe listening to youth and answering questions fr om youth is not a bad idea.

In fact we had a round table last week in Brandon with some of the student union presi dents from across Manitoba, and they felt, for the first time in years, it was the first time ever that their voices were listened to by a new government. I think that is something we want to carry on. One of the concerns we had, and the Member opposite will know that there is no national vision in Canada on post-secon dary education.

Since the '95 budget-[inter jection ] Well, some of us believe that a national government should use the power and resources of a na tional budget to allow for our young people to have post-secondary education coast to coast to coast, and we believe that that should be implemented in a co-operative way with the provincial governments. Regrettab ly, the money for post-secondary education was cut out in '95, because it is kind of this let the provinces go where they will approach of the federal government.

But we are very concerned about our young people that say to us in high schools now that they are very worried that, if they study hard and get good marks, they cannot afford to go to university and, theref ore, the hope to go to university is based on the income level of their families rather than their academic opportunities and their dreams. We are comm itted to making post-secondary, universities, community col leges and program s for young people more affordable, and stay tuned for our budget. Physician Resources Pediatric Neurologist Mrs.

Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): On December 8, 19 99, I wrote a letter to the Mini ster of Health on behalf of Mrs. East and her 9-year-old daughter who was losing the services of the only pediatric neurologist in the province of Manitoba because that pediatric neurologist was moving out of pro vince. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minis ter of Health today, this is four mon ths later, whether he has had the ability to attract a permanent pediatric neurologist to our province, given that there is a need for at least two.

802 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I can indica te that the Member for Tran scona (Mr. Reid) had been raising that issue for some time when we were in Opposition. I will provide the Member with a response. I will take that question as notice. Mrs. Mitchelson: Can the Min ister of Health explain to me the discrepancy in the letter that he wrote back in response to my letter, which was some four months later, why he is indica ting that his staff made several attempts to contact Mrs. East without success when discussions with Mrs.

East indicate that no one ever tried to contact her? She has three young children. She has an answering machine, and she never received any calls fr om the Department of Health. * (14 :40) Mr. Chomiak: I wiii take that question as notice and provide the inf ormation to the Member opposite. Pediatric Nephrologist Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): received a letter fr om a worried mother whose 3- year-old daughter had to wait six months to get an appointment to see a pediatric nephrologist. Manitoba is supposed to have four pediatric nephrologists but has only two.

Can the Min ister reassure this mom that funding for these two empty positions will be commit ted to in the upcoming budget? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if the Member opposite would forward that specific inf ormat ion to me, and I will do follow-up. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. During Oral Questions on April 26, 2000, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr.

Laurendeau) regard ing words spoken by the Honourable Min ister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) while replying to a question. The Official Opposition House Leader indicated that he heard the words "deliberate ly mis leading" used and requested that the words be withdrawn. The Honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) also spoke to the point of order, and ind icated that the Honou rable Minis ter of Education was paraphr asing or citing comme nts fr om the Selkirk Journal. I took the matter under advisement in order to peruse Hansard.

I thank the Honourable House Leaders for their contributions to the point of order. I have reviewed Hansard, and on page 608, the Honourable Mini ster of Education is quoted as saying "The Selkirk Journal has indica ted that the province may deserve an apology for what they characterized as delibera tely mi sleading statement s." Previous Manitoba Speakers have ruled that language is parliamentary if it is not dir ected towards specific members. Mr. Speaker Rocan ruled on June 4, 1991, that as the words in question were not addressed to specific mem bers, they were theref ore not unparliame ntary .

Simi lar rulings were made by Madam Speaker Dacquay on April 3, 19 96, April 12 , 19 96, October 28, 19 96, April 30, 19 99, and May 4, 19 99. In reviewing the entire paragraph containing the remarks complained of, the Minis ter of Education (Mr. Caldwell) does not make explicit ref erence to a particular member. As the words in question were not di rected explicitly towards a particular member, it is difficult for the Speaker to rule that there is a point of order.

However, I wish to address one of the points made during the raising of the point of order, namely, that the Minis ter was not using unparliamentary language because he was quoting fr om another source. I must advise the House that previous Manitoba Speakers have ruled that it is out of order to use unparlia mentary language even when the words in question are origina ting fr om another source. On April 7, 19 99, Madam Speaker Dacquay ruled that it was out of order to call another member a liar while attributing the words spoken

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 803 to a constituent. Simi larly, Speaker Rocan ruled on October 5, 19 89, that quoting the words of another person which were unparliame ntary is out of order.

In a statement on June 30, 19 78, Speaker Graham quoted fr om the parliamentary authority, Erskine May, which reads "A Member is not allowed to use unpa rliamentary words by the device of putting them in someone else's mouth." This quotation is also contained in the current edition of Erskine May. would theref ore request that the Honourable Minis ter select his words caref ully, especially when quoting fr om another source. Thank you. Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remarks on this particular issue. Certainly, I did find the

article in the Selkirk Journal very illuminating on this particular matter, but I take your advice seriously. Thank you. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Victoria Hospital Volunteer Guild Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure yesterday to attend the Victoria Hospital Volunteer Guild's dessert and bridge fun draiser for the oncology unit at the Victoria General Hospital. The guild is currently aiding the Victoria Hospital's oncology department fundrai se. They are fundrai sing money for the development and construction of a new facility for the hospital's oncology unit.

To date, the volunteer guild has raised over $200,000 for this very important project. The Victoria Hospital volunteer guild has a long history of fund raising and volunteer support in Winnipeg. The guild origi nated in 19 54 at the old Victoria Hospital. When the hospital moved to its present location in 19 71, the volunteer guild moved with it. The guild has worked tirelessly to help raise funds for the hospital through the gift shop and fun drai sing events like yesterday's dessert and bridge sale and to help provide support services for the patients of Victoria Hospital and their fam ilies. I commend Mr.

Joe Prime, Presi dent of the Volunteer Guild, and all of the volunteers who make up the guild on their fundraising efforts and their service to the Victoria Hospital. I wish all of them the best in their future endeavours. Through their good work, they have made and will continue to make a significa nt difference in the care and service patients receive at Victoria General Hospital. Sisler's Most Wanted Jazz Dance Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, many of us were fortunate enough to catch an excellent feature on CBC's, The Magazine, Monday night.

Showcased was a talented group of jazz dancers fr om Sisler High School in my constituency. The dance group, Sisler 's Most Wanted, has garnered much attention over the past year for its innovative approach to dealing with students at risk of dropping out of school. The jazz class started four years ago with 10 young men who shared one thing, a lack of interest in school. There are now 16 0 students enrolled in dance class and 22 in jazz dance, which is a tribute to the head of the perf orming arts department, Mr. Spencer Duncanson.

In an interview on The Magazine, instructor Sophia Costantini explained how the class succeeded in giving these students a sense of self-worth, which tra nslated into improved school perf ormance and par ticipation. The class motivates students to reach their potential and strive for excellence, something that easily transf ers to the classroom. Today, the progra m's popularity has led to the creation of pilot program s in both Elmwood High School and Daniel Mcin tyre Collegiate. Sisler's Most Wanted will perf orm at the Walker Theatre at the end of the month, and I wish them all the best in this endeavour.

It is heartening to hear of these types of program s that are making a real difference in students' lives. * (1 4:50) Michif Language Courses Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, rise today to draw attention to an impor tant project that is underway at Lake Metigoshe in the southwestern comer of the province. Thanks

804 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 to David Chartrand, who had made a proposal to Heritage Canada, now there are a number of students who are learning the Michif language which is a hybrid of French and Cree spoken by Manitoba's Metis founders. This is the first time that these languages have been taught in Manitoba. Norm Fleury has been teaching two dozen students, ages 7 to 69, a language that has been spoken in Manitoba for countless years . Only now though is Michif being studied and recorded.

Approximately 200 Manitobans over the age of 50 speak Michif, along with hundreds more in Saskatchewan, Montana and North Dakota. In 19 98, a Danish linguistic prof essor poin ted out that this language was in danger of extinction, so I am pleased to see that the people are taking an interest in its preserva tion. The Manitoba Metis Feder ation is considering offering a course on Michif in Winnipeg and several other regions are also examining this. It is encouraging to see so many people interested in preserving this unique language that it has such an important role to play in Manitoba's history.

L'autre Michif qui etait dans cette Assemblee, c'etait mon grand ami Neil Gaudry . Je l'ai bien connu. II a travaille fort pour son monde. II a donne tout son temps pour son monde et son pays. [Translation] The other Michif who was in this Assembly was my great fr iend Neil Gaudry . I knew him well. He worked hard for his people. He gave all his time for his people and for his country. [English] Manitobans are extremely proud of their culture and heritage and the renewed interest in Michif language is certai nly a testament to that.

I would like to, at this time, thank my Uncle Rudoph Dupas for helping me to better under stand my heri tage as a Michif. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. CN Rail Traffic-Transcona Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue that is affecting Tra nscona that is resulting in a dangerous situation involving the railway. Transcona, as we all know, was founded on the railway. Because of the railway it sprang up adjacent to the Tra nscona Yards and the mainline running fr om the east to Winnipeg. Now the rail line that has helped create and design Transcona is resulting in a threat.

The community is mostly north of the CN mainline, with only three entranc es along the entire nine to ten kilometres fr om Lagimodiere Boulevard to the Perimeter Highway. Only Bournais A venue and Plessis Road in Radisson and Redonda in the constituency of Transcona to the east, which is only a few hundred metres fr om the Perimeter Highway, allow access fr om the south.

The problem I want to draw attention to is that the trains that have now privatized CN run more than a hundred cars long, more than I 0 000 feet, and can block the traffic fr om these three entra nces fr om Highway 15 or Dugald Road for often well more than five minutes. For as much as 45 min utes, the road access in and out of Transcona can be blocked. Regulation allows for only five minu tes for trains to block the thoroughfare . This is an inconvenience for residents but is also a danger because of the convergence with the removal of the ambulance fr om the Day Street station in central Tra nscona.

The ambulance is now at Nairn and Watt and must travel via Dugald Road, cross the tracks of the CN mainline via one of these three streets to get to Tra nscona. You may know that the access fr om Nairn and Regent is prohibitive because of the large volume of traf fic. The only other route is down Gras sie Boulevard, down Plessis and across the CP mainline. This situation, Mr. Speaker, is going to result in fatalities eventually.

As recently as April 20, when I was driving home to my home west of Plessis, a train crossing arm came down, the lights were flashing, and I could hear the sirens wailing behind me fr om Highway 15 . The ambulance stopped behind me. I got out

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 805 of my truck, and when the ambulance drivers turned off the lights insi de- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member's time has expired. Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for leave to- Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to allow the Member to continue? [Agreed} Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues. The para medics told me they were lucky this time. Their call had been downgraded fr om emergency to non-urgent tra nsport, but they said that this happens all the time, but they were lucky.

I had the time to get out, talk to the para medics and to take some photographs of the ambulance waiting for the train. This is an issue that is going to require co-opera tion fr om all levels of government. I am pleased to see that the Minis ter of Transporta tion has comm itted to come out and view the situation. I look forward to seeing the matter resolved. Thank you. Post-Secondary Education Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I choose to talk on this member's statement about the role of post-secondary education and the impor tance to the future of Manitoba.

Clearly, in a knowledge-based economy, as centres of knowledge and centres of economic growth, there can be little that is more important to this province than post-secondary education and community colleges and universities. It was a tragedy over the last I 0 years that fun ding for universities has been cut instead of increased, that it is cut at a time when in fact the revenues for the province have gone up very signific antly fr om some $4.7 billion in 19 92 to $6.3 billion in the last fiscal year, '99-2000.

Over this period, when there was a 35 % increase in revenues, the fall-off in support for post second ary education and the development of a knowledge-based economy was one of the astounding and trag ic mi stakes of the former government. It is to be hoped that the budget which comes down next year will start to address some of the serious needs in post-secondary education. I will mention in particular one area which is fr ont and centre. That is the area of libraries. In this world, where we have Internet access and so on, we still need books.

We need access to knowledge, and so it is fundamental as we plan for the future that there is a focus on libraries and making sure that they are well supported to provide access to inf ormation in the variety of means that is now possible. ORDERS OF THE DA Y Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on the Government motion introduced by the Minis ter of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk), standing in the name of the Member for Arthur- Virden. GOVERNMENT MOTION Federal Reparation for 1999 Farmland Flooding Mr.

Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion brought forward by the Honourable Minis ter of Agri culture and Food and the amendment, standing in the name of the Honou rable Member for Arthur- Vir den, with three minutes remaining. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure to continue this and use the short time that I have left to emphatically point out why we need to move ahead with not only the resolution that has been put forward by the Government but also the amendments that our side has placed in pinpoin ting a plan and a course of action that would lead to providing support for that distressed area of Manitoba, the southwest region, because of the excessive flooding last year.

Yesterday, I was closing by saying that why would we be onside with a governmen t who we believe has not negotiated a 50-50 deal in good faith at this particular time with the federal government? is where I was going to continue. Then we found today that even the hundred million dollars that the federal government in the hundred- million-dollar tra nsp ortation adjustment

806 LEGI SLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 package that has been placed in the hands of Manitoba farmers, as we have ind icated, as I have ind icated to this House, it was needed for low-income purposes. It was pointed out by the Premier (Mr. Doer) that that plan was for low income purposes, but he did not take a portion of those funds and distribute them or target them into the southwest corner of the province, as the federal government was under the belief could have been done as part of that program .

Perhaps that is today why we are not able to get any more federal money fr om the federal government in regard to this program . They believe that it perhaps is being dealt with. Our side will definitely be onside if the Premier of this province and his Government would bring the $2 1. 5 million that was pointed out in Question Period today as half of the Government's limited $43-million basis for lost inputs in the southwest region of Manitoba would be put on the table. We will go hand in hand with them to Ottawa to try and get Ottawa's $2 1. 5-million share of that program. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, in spite of Mr. Eggleton's comm ents to the opposite in the House in Ottawa yesterday that there is no more support, you have to clearly look at the fact that he said there was no support under OF AA, because they truly believe, as have the Government and ourselves agreed, that OF AA did not include lost farm inputs. We need to make sure that there is a subsequent agreement reached to bring those funds into that subsequent agreement and put it in place like there was under the JERI program in Manitoba in 19 97 and subseq uent other funds in other disasters that have taken place.

Maybe now the Government understands why we are just as tired of their rhetoric and platitudes as the western Manitoba farmers are and why we have asked the Government to accept our amendments as a plan of action and commitment to these farmers in this district and the communities.

That is why, apart fr om, as the Mini ster's resolution states, we should be all working to get fertilizer and land restora tion as eligible costs under DF AA and for the fact that we need to move forward to get funds that have been provided in other disasters that we need to have recognition that the 50-50 cost-shared program with the federal government and the provincial governm ent to put- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honou rable Member's time has expired. Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West): Mr.

Speaker, I, as well, am very pleased to have the oppor tunity to stand and speak in this House on an extremely impor tant issue, as many members bef ore me have stated, certainly in southwestern Manitoba and throughout other parts of Manitoba. I speak to the proposed amendment to the resolution that was put forward by the Minis ter of Agric ulture and speak in opposition to the amendments. I would like to thank the Honoura ble Min ister of Agricu lture and Food (Ms.

Wowchuk) for presenting this extr emely impor tant resolution, as originally put forth to the Legislature and for continuing to put this issue as a top priority within her department for producers here in Manitoba. *( 1 5:00) Producers continue to recognize, certainly fr om my contacts and people out in the southwestern part of the province, the value, the efforts and the commit ment by the Agricu lture min ister.

As the previous Member had mentioned in this House, working with other members of the Minis ter's family and the honoura ble way that they had presented themselves, I too have heard very often that the Minis ter presents the same way throughout the community. The interesting point, fr om the member opposite fr om Arthur- Virden, that the federal MP fr om the Brandon- Souris area had brought up today in Ottawa, was his question: Would the federal government support any more initiatives for farming in southwestern Manitoba? The answer was pretty clear; it was no.

But what is surprising to me is the amendments as put forth by Opposition that the 50-50 split should be considered. It is unf ortunate, in my opmton, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite have not recognized over and over and over again that

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 807 both the Minis ter of Highways and Government Services (Mr. Ashton) as well as the Minis ter of Agricu lture (Ms. Wowchuk) have, in fact, looked at the 50-50 plan previously. The government continues to say no at a federal level, and it seems that members opposite cannot understand that it has already been brought forth. Their resolution, in fact, a lot of it has already been conducted.

The original resolution as presented by the Minis ter is for a unified fr ont for a continued push for agriculture, and to negotiate for a fair, equitable settlement as we have seen in other disasters throughout Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec for a 90-10 split that has been paid out in other disasters to other parts of this country. Now, I am not sure what the members opposite do not understand about a 90-10 split, or a 50-50 split, but I mi ght want to explain that 90-10 represents $9 to $1; and a 50-50 split is a $1 to $1.

For them to consider wanting to go after that direction, without goin g after the direction that the rest of the country has got, in a fair and equitable settlement for people who have found themselves in dire straits in a disaster I am not sure I understand or follow their logic, which might explain, Mr. Speaker, why we were so terribly overspent by September of this year, fr om the previous Government with that type of philosophy. However, the Premier (Mr. Doer) has led a delegation to Ottawa. And I was happy to see all parties involved in that.

It sent a straight mes sage to Ottawa at the time that we were very much in favour of action here in the province of Manitoba fo r our farm ers. I know the Member opposite fr om Arthur Virden was part of that delegation, as were many business people, many producers and elected civic officials fr om throughout the southwestern part of this province. The Premier led that delegation to Ottawa, and the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler) opposite might have been upset that there was not a communist member that he would have liked to have seen go with that delegation.

However, the Premier would probably consider that in the future. The obvious compiled and constructive inf orma tion that they put together fr om that group of individ uals was factual, it was well inf ormed, and it was well presented. In fact, the delegation had identified the loss to farmers; they had identified the tra gic loss of ferti lizers and chemical application that they had applied to their fields and had called on Ottawa to consider that the same way they had considered maple trees in Quebec.

It was quite obvious in some of the statements recently that they have not considered Manitoba farmers, crops, fields, livelihoods and the social impact of this di saster here in Manitoba to the same degree that they have consi dered the loss of maple trees in the severe ice storm of 19 97. Mr.

Speaker, they called on Ottawa for an effective long-term safety net program to identify the critical importance and to develop programs as expediently as possible so they may be reactionary with the assistance and with the backing of the Province of Manitoba here to react to a disaster on a short-term basis here in Manitoba in '99. Obviously the fr ustration fr om the farm ers, because of the inaction of the federal government on this issue, is becoming more and more evident. The Honou rable Minis ter of Highways and Government Services, the Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton), is also resp onsible for The Emer gency Measures Act, and since being elected September 21 of 19 99, he has continually pressed the federal government and his federal counterparts for an agreement and for program s modelled after the Jobs and Economic Restoration In itiative, the JERI program , and the Business Restart program , as well, that was consid ered during the Red River flood in 19 97. There is extensive documentation and extensive correspondence that went back and forth between the Minis ter on that issue.

Art Eggleton, as well, the federal Minis ter responsible for Emergency Preparedness Canada, has continued to decline inclusion of such input costs as weed control, loss of applied ferti lizers or forage restora tion and pasture hay restora tion under the DFF A Act. I think it is extr emely unf ortunate, and I think this House should pay considerable attention to the commen ts that he made yesterday as a member

808 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 of Parliamen t in Ottawa stating that there is absolutely no dollars left for any program . It is unf ortunate . The Premier (Mr. Doer) has expressed today his frustra tion with the min isters not getting their act together. They jump around in their numbers; they jump around in their dollars. They point fingers fr om departm ent to department to department with none of them taking any action.

I agree and state on the record that I agree with the Premier here today that the Prime Minis ter certai nly should become involved when he has a number of mini sters who cannot make a decision as to which departm ent should be respo nsible within the federal government for these issues. The Minis ter of Agriculture and Agri-Food at the federal level offered absolutely no support in addition to the AIDA program . Vanclief has acknowledged these items were beyond the resp onsibility of the Agriculture department and made a statement that it should be addressed through another department.

It should then be addressed within the context of the agre ement within the Canada and Manitoba plan. No wonder the Premier and myself and my colleagues and I would suspect member s opposite and cert ainly the producers of Manitoba are becoming ever-increa singly more fr ustrated with the level of decision making at the federal level regard ing this disaster. The Minis ter of Highways (Mr. Ashton), as have mentioned, contacted Mr. Duhamel in November of '99, December of '99. December 20, again our Agriculture minis ter (Ms. Wowchuk) as well as the Minister of Highways met to discuss with Mr.

Harvard the JERI program on the forage restora tion and the OFF A plan. Unf ortunate ly, correspondence back and forth from those min isters has been tardy, to say the least, and in February our Member also met regard ing the OFF A plan under

section 25 with Mr. Eggleton. On Febr uary 15, again, our Min ister of Highways and Mr. Eggleton had a meeting in Ottawa. Again, our Agriculture minis ter continually pounds on this. March 22, the Minis ter of Agric ulture again in Ottawa pressed both Ag minister, Lyle Vanclief, and Secretary of State for Rural Development, Andy Mitchell, to accept the respo nsibili ty of the federal government in this disaster.

What they do not understand about the Mini ster' s continually asking to be treated like the rest of Canada here in Manitoba is beyond anyone, I am sure, that could answer that question here in the House. * (15: 10) Farm incomes are decreasing continually, we will all agree, in Manitoba. The commodity prices here in Manitoba are continuing to be depressed . Farm fam ilies are under extreme pressure and continue to compete against America n and European subsidies that put them behind the eight ball to start with.

There was the loss of the fr eight rate, the Crow rate subsidy, and the federal government mentioning to farmers, over the quick loss of the Crow rate, how they should continue to diversif y, and the farmers, although diversifica tion has happened in many far ms, the diversifica tion caused capital output costs. A couple of bad years in agriculture are no different than a couple of bad years in business. It can quickly tum around, and carry ing that heavy debt load and the federal government's lack of funding for the farmers have been an onerous problem for the farmers to try to compete in their markets .

It has put them secondary to their Am erican counterparts on what they are receiving for their product, and carr ying the heavier debt load on trying to diversify and get into other areas has been extremely detrimen tal to them. Mr. Speaker, the substantial costs incurring in the large operations of expansion into the livestock industry for farm ers have presented many, many other problems, as well, throughout Manitoba. There is the cost to get back in when the forage prices and the grain prices are at such a record low.

There are output costs of getting into diversifi cation into the livestock industry and the lack of markets , as well, on that. In some cases, the overproduction and competitiveness in the market also present a problem. Mr. Conrad Santos, Depu ty Speaker, in the Chair Fewer people in rural communities, certainly in southwestern Manitoba, are working on simply the farm. The social impacts of this, Mr.

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 809 Deputy Speaker, are very, very apparent to many members fr om smaller communities throughout Manitoba. I certainly see it in southwestern Manitoba, where you have got two people on a farm, spouses, one works off the farm, one works on the farm, and still the ends are not being met for the farm. Soon you have two people working off the farm. You have the fam ilies caught in-between.

You have 24 hours in a day, but many of these fam ilies never seem to have enough hours by working two jobs plus the more than full-time hours they work in their farming operations, and the social cost to the fam ilies is extensive. Regarding the cost for many of these people and many of the communities, when smaller communities are vying for job opportunities and industry and jobs where people have to move off the farm to make their farms viable and try to make a living and sustain their far ms, they find that the jobs within the community are being depleted.

The people that are una ble, some of the young people within these communities that are unab le, to pick employment or pick up jobs are unab le to stay in their communities, because the people on the farms are being forced to work both on their farm and in the workforce in the smaller communities in Manitoba. In Br andon, we see it as well. The social impact of the decrease in size in those communities, because many of the younger people are losing opportun ities, because they are competing with people that are being forced off the farm, is extr emely detrimental and short-sighted.

The federal government needs to addre ss the reality of the situation and the social impact this is having throughout the communities, not only on the loss of the farms, but on the loss of the young people who in these communities are going to larger centres continually to look for employment because the employment is being taken by people that for years have worked on the farm and been able to sustain a livelihood just simply on their farming operations. Not only that, they have been able to supply for many years extra farm opportunities for farm labour hands that is just about non-exi stent now in Manitoba.

The federal governm ent needs to come to the table co-operatively with our Governme nt and provide a disaster assistance same to the Red River Valley. It is interesting to note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the consi deration given to the Saguenay River flood in 19 96, the consi deration given to Red River Valley in 19 97 and the consi deration given to the ice storm in Quebec is not being the same here on the flooded farmland and the devastation that was seen in 19 99 and recognized as a national disaster.

The members opposite would like us to go with that $1 to $1 split when the rest of the country has, in fact, got a $9 to $1 split, and I find that unfortunate and extremely short sighted. The resolution that was put forward with the 50-50, $1 to $1 split, which had been presently brought into consi deration by both our Ag Mini ster (Ms. Wowchuk) and the Minis ter of Highways (Mr. Ashton) is unf ortunate and shortsighted an d, again, possibly a reason why this province was so terribly overspent by September of this year when we assumed government.

The interesting point, as well, is that Manitoba producers, and I have heard this over and over again as a catch phrase and statement by many people, they are not asking for a handout. They are simply asking the govern ments and the federal governm ent to treat them in the same manner as all other Canadians have been treated in a disaster. I would hope the members opposite would support the original resolution and show a united fr ont, as opposed to dragging their feet on this and looking for other solutions and throwing their hands in the air like the sky is falling.

We need to send a clear mes sage to Ottawa regard ing this issue. It was with consi derable attention that the all-party delegation went to Ottawa and fought for the farmers on this issue. I do not believe that we need to show the united and I say that because the other members like to hear "united "-front quite often. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is interesting that we should show a united fr ont on this issue and continue to press the federal government.

810 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 I can understand the fr ustration of the fann ers. I spoke with many producers during the fann rally that was held here April 12 in fr ont of the Legislature. The fru strations, I believe, are real on a humanistic standpoint. Each one of the people who were here, mostly fanners and producers fr om southwestern Manitoba, was extre mely fr ustrated and would like to see a resolution as this Government would like to see a resolution.

The continuing efforts fr om our Highways Minis ter and our Minis ter of Agriculture are well recognized and certainly well appreciated. But the fr ustrat ion, I believe and I heard quite clearly, was in the federal government not coming to the table, like they have for the rest of Canadians, and to be treated in a second-class manner here in our country that we call our nation is totally unacceptable. * (1 5:20) I guess my disappoin tment was fr om the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner).

The arti cle in the Brandon Sun recently expressed it best in saying it was unf ortunate that the Member for Emerson used this rally at the Manitoba Legislature to blast the provincial government for not putting more cash forward . They used tenns to describe his actions, such as "cheap politics," "unf ortunate

part isan rhetori c," and they finished off in the ar ticle by saying "his position smacks of hypocrisy and the last thing this province needs at the moment" is that type of action. I will note that many people I spoke with fr om Br andon West have voiced their agre ement to this statement, to this ar ticle by the Brandon Sun. It is interesting, the Member opposite is identifying that he, as well, read that ar ticle and it appears that he is fr ustrated with his Member for Emerson as well. I do not blame him.

The people in Brandon are extremely fr ustrated with this type of, as the Brandon Sun quoted, unf ortunate "par tisan rhetori c." [inter jection] It is interesting to note that the members across all seem to be identifying that they were fr ustrated by those actions fr om the Member for Emerson as well. So it goes without saying, I think, we need to continue with that united fr ont. I noted his statements regard ing our Premier (Mr. Doer), as well, at that April 12 rally in fr ont of the Legislature implying that our Premier has nottaken quick action regard ing this crisis. I will tell you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I certainly take great offence to this implication and challenge this statement as quite simply being false. It is interesting to me how statements made by members opposite regar ding this Governmen t would have paid out the $50 per acre. As the Member for Emerson stated, he would have run to the table and paid out that $50 over and above the original $50 that this Province has, in fact, paid out-that this Governm ent in opposition fully agreed and supported.

It is quite strange that this was never done, however, by the Member fr om Emerson, when, in fact, he was in government up until September of 19 99 and that he, in fact, had the entire year, so to speak, as far as agricultural producers are concerned through out the entire year, right to harvest time to do that. It is interesting to note how he is poin ting a finger now after his government did nothing in that regard up until the fall of 19 99. However, I guess, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it does not surprise me that this quick-draw, short sighted thinking may explain again the horrible misma nagement of the hundreds of millions of dollars of overexpenditures by the previous government again by September of 19 99. Our minis ters of Agricu lture and Highways have continually pressed the federal government to assume the responsibility of this disaster in a fair, equitable manner, and to provide the trad itiona l 90-10 , $9 to $1 split that they have produced for the rest of Canada. The funding of disasters tra ditionally has gone that way.

It has been done, as I mentioned bef ore, in the three previous disasters: '96, '97 and '98, and, however, not in 19 99. Our minis ters continue to press on this issue, and they continue to hold the entire province of Manitoba in their consi deration on this issue. For that I am extr emely gratef ul of the hard work and the leadership and dedication and responsibility regard ing these minis ters have shown and the due di ligence that, in fact, they have shown to the producers and the agricultural producers to the fam ilies and to the communities in Manitoba. I will tell you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that message is coming back over and over again in southwest Manitoba and not with the

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 81 1 unf ortunate display of non-unified commitment by this Governmen t and Opposition that was displayed on April 12 . For each million dollars of the disaster assistance I might add that Manitoba would be respons ible, and I will put it to the members opposite in an other way they may be able to understa nd. I may allow them to get their calculator out and just look at 10 percent of $1 million. As I give them a minute to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will also represent by saying the difference between a 50-50 split on a million dollars. I will allow them to get their calculators, as well, to figure that out. The unf ortunate

part is that, for every $1 million, the Province would pay out $1 00,000 on our share for the disaster assistance that the rest of Canada saw in their disasters. The unf ortunate

part is the push that the amendment to this resolution would like to do with Manitoba funds is the $5 00,000 equal with $500,000 when the rest of Canada, in fact, did not have to do that. Now, I am not sure how many members opposite have master's degrees in econ omics. However, I can tell you that for Manitobans it does not seem like something that anyone should agree to with our national government for any reason.

The Ag critic opposite would blindly like to jump into this and leap into this without a pian-as I have seen him do on previous issues and blindly tum to the Fi scal Stabilization Fund, the fund that was increased when the members opposite sold our Crown corpora tion, our Manitoba Telephone System. When they sold our Manitoba Telephone System, the underpriced, undervalued giving away of that corporation certainly only allowed such limited funds into the Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

Unf ortuna tely, their care less spending over the last couple of years and decreasing that Fiscal Stabilization Fund and depleting it in such a horrible way leaves not many options. In fact, it is irrespon sible to operate a government for the better of the people and for all people in Manitoba concerned in such a lacklustre and shotgun approach to the Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

It, quite frank ly, surprised me the suggestion that we dig into the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, not even knowing what those numbers mi ght be, and, in fact, whether there is enough money left in that Fiscal Stabilization Fund from the small amount of undervalued dollars that they sold MTS for to dig into it in a way that he would like. However, I can tell you the Minis ter of Agricu lture (Ms. Wowchuk) is certainly at the table and certainly open to 50-50 funding. It is interesting with this amendment to the resolution that they would suggest that it is something new.

I guess that is what shocks me, that they have not recognized that the Minister of Agriculture and Minis ter of Highways (Mr. Ashton) have already considered, certai nly on the REDI program , numbers of this instance. It is nothing new. It is an amendment that was not well thought out. It is an amendment, again, that basically drags the Opposition's feet on this issue, and it is unf ortunate for producers here in Manitoba. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is interesting, the federal government has thrown numbers around to the point of very, very much confusing Manitobans and Canadians fr om the different departments that I had mentioned before, where they throw out a number of possibility of $60 million, they throw out the possibility of $40 million, they throw out the possibility of matching funding to $37 million and all the dollars around, yet they cannot quite understand which department might come to the table and do that.

There is no reason that we should not accept that our producers and our farmers are fr ustrated with that type of rhetori c. In fact, the numbers that have come fr om the province are quite clear. The Department of Agriculture and Food expended $70 million, $50-an-acre payment, that this Governm ent in opposition certainly agreed to and wanted to see for the producers here in Manitoba.

The additional southwest $37.5 million for the basic 19 99 AIDA program and the approximately $20 mi llion, as well, as enhancements for the AIDA program , and finally fr om the Province $40 million that was recently ann ounced in the Canada-Manitoba Adjustment Program, with the federal govern ment supposedly to support with $10 0 million to

812 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 the grain and oilseed producers bring the total to almost $17 0 million, and that is coming to the table. It is coming to the table in a strong way. It is coming to the table with serious financial comm itment to the producers and farmers here in Manitoba. It showed the dedication of the Agriculture minis ter of dealing with this issue. It has showed the dedication of the Minis ter of Highways and Government Services (Mr. Ashton) coming to the table.

The dollars are substant ial, $17 0 million. * (15: 30) The federal government, on the other hand, has been less forthwith with their commitment. In fact, it was extr emely disappointing to hear the comm ents in the House that the federal government appears not to be coming to the table with any more dollars whatsoever. I am glad that was put to the House in Ottawa. We seem to be getting the message, but we have that messa ge over and over and over again with them saying no, no, no to our proposals and our efforts to assist the producers here in Manitoba. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Minis ter had put forth the resolution which is extremely good. It definitely reflects the commit ment by this government. I had hoped and I do hope members opposite, when the time comes, support this resolution fully and in force send a strong message.

Might I say, for the benefit of members opposite, a united fr ont to send this message to the federal government in a strong way that will show that Manitobans are being listened to, that Manitobans have a strong government that is representing their needs and listening to those people and putting our views forward to the federal government, that we in Manitoba and the producers in Manitoba and the farmers in Manitoba and their families here in Manitoba need the same consider ation that the rest of Canada has got during a disaster. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the members opposite I am sure could not agree with such a fort hwith straightforward resolution in a way that they know identifies Manitoba's needs, that identifies that we have listened to Manitobans, as well as listened to members opposite in this House identif ying their want to send a unified message to Ottawa that our farmers in Manitoba and the impacts of this disaster in Manitoba are substantial, and we need to be compensa ted in a way that is fair.

The continued work that the producers do and the continued work that the farmers in the southwest do, I note many of them on the fields in the last few weeks preparing for a crop, even in the adversity that they have faced and the substantial input costs that they have to replace, they are finding in many cases a way to do it.

I know that many of the local communities, the business communities, the citizens within communities both in small and large urban centres throughout the province of Manitoba, are coming to bat in any way they can because of the need for financing and the need for bridge financing that these farmers are presently under. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the focused planned direction that this government had originally stated in the resolution by our Agricu lture minister sends that message dir ectly to Ottawa.

We do not need to hear any more statements in the House in Ottawa that just simply say no, without at least coming to the bar gaining table _ and speaking to our representa tives, and our governm ent officials, and our minis ters, and our business community, and our producers, and telling them what is going on 14 00 miles away fr om our national government centre. Mr. Deputy Speaker, just in closing, I would like to mention and reiter ate that the basic issue here is not the inaction of this provincial government.

The inaction has been fr om, in some cases, members opposite not coming to the table in a united fr ont on this issue; some members opposite splitting this issue that is so impor tant to our producers and to our farmers in southwestern Manitoba; some members opposite treating this issue, in my opinion, in light regard . This is not an issue of light regard to the producers in Manitoba. This is an issue that is extremely impor tant to our producers in south western Manitoba. I can certainly speak for Brandon West. Members that treat this issue lightly, fr om members opposite, would be extr emely unf ortuna te.

To continue that would be certainly a tra vesty.

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 813 The clear tools are in place, and we will continue as a comm itment to Manitobans, I can certainly say, with the same vigour and effort that our minis ters have displayed over and over again on this issue. We will continue to work with the producers and the communities and business. The original resolution, as put forth by the Minis ter, is a clear tool to continue that. It presents a focussed, planned dir ection for government action. Not, I might add, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, by some members opposite, to throw numbers out and make statements that they would have guaranteed certai n dollars without really knowing what those costs are. That, I have been told by many members of the community, is a shotgun approach. In fact, it could probably be termed as short-sighted and narro w-minded, and probably not well thought out. I know that would be a tra vesty. Just in closing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know my time is short.

This is an issue that I would cert ainly like to speak on continual ly, but I know there are many members in this side that would like to continue speaking on this impor tant issue to the producers. We will certai nly be dedicated to continuing a planned, fair route, keeping Manitobans in mind, and not a shotgun approach on throwing numbers out to producers in a wishy-washy way. I thank you for the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I thank the attention of the House, and members opposite, for paying the due diligence and attention, by sitting on the end of their seat, on this important issue-that I know they will probably put more effort and emphasis in bein g an extr emely impor tant issue to our members in the southwest. So thank you very much. Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): I, too, have some words that I would like to put on the record in regard to the resolution put forward by the Mini ster of Agricu lture (Ms. Wowchuk) and also by the amendment that was proposed.

I find it a little ironic that we sit here-! have read the speeches that have been put forward on this, and both sides of the House are talking about its being a non-political issue. Yet the rhetoric that I read is purely political and is not dealing with any substance or anything relevant to the real issue of what is happening in the province and particularly in the southwest part of the province in regard to agr iculture. I do not think that there is any member in this House on any side or of any political stripe who would not agree that the issue is a very serious one.

I think we have determined that, and I think we have probably even convinced the federal governm ent of the seriousness of the issue. I think what the bottom line boils down to is what are they prepared to do, what are we prepared to do, and how do we move forward? * (15: 40) I think such resolutions that have been brought forward by the Mini ster of Agricu lture are a little bit divisive in the sense that we put forward a resolution seeking unanimous support, and yet there has been no discussion between the two sides.

There has been nothing determined or accepted on either side, and yet it has tried to be presented I think initially to tear the House apart as opposed to draw it together and solidify it in its position and its argument against the federal government in Ottawa. I think that any resolution that is brought forward that will unite us on this issue will be a good resolution and that we should all look for that as opposed to presenting the resolutions that we have seen in the sense that I think tend to divide us more than unite us. The real issue that I want to just touch on and I will be brief .

I think there are many people who want to speak, and I think it is impor tant that they do, but members on this side who have an interest in agr iculture-and I would suggest that would be all of them, but some of us have more of a special interest. We are either involved directly in the business of farming or in the business of providin g services to the farm and to the farm economy. I do not think that anyone can stand up and say that we do not care or that I do not care person ally.

I recognize the value to our community and to myself personally and to our businesses, that it is an issue that has to get resolved. But I think what is being missed here is the fact that we have had this great discussion. People have put forward their points of view and

814 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 their understa ndin gs of the issues and who paid what and who did what and who is respons ible for what. I agree. I think that the federal government is shirking some of its respons ibilities when it comes time to offer resolution and to help solve the problem, but I guess I am of the school that when I found out that I could not make things work by convincing, harassing or enticing the other group to see my point of view, that there was a time and that it became a time of action.

I can remember in the summer of last year, June, when we made the decision to move forward without the federal support, and the discussion around the table was : Are we caving into the feds? Are they going to just take advantage of us? Are they going to never give us money again in another program ?

But, when we finally sat down and discussed what the real issue was, which is the seriousness of the situation and what we as a government, as elected officials of the people of the province of Manitoba are elected to do, it is to represent the people and take care of the people within our province in their biggest time of need. I think that whole arg ument is being missed in this debate.

I am not sure if it is being missed deliberate ly or if it is being missed because everybody is trying to score the political poin ts that they think they have to, to show out to the public and present press releases so that everybody can see that we are standing in there and we are fighting for the issues. I just do not think that that is working, and I think that what we have to do is look at alternative ways of resolving this issue and taking care of the people of the province of Manitoba.

I think that the resolution as it is brought forward, there is nothing wrong with the resolution, but what the amendment does is offer a suggestion of direction that we can go should this not work. If we cannot as a province continually convince the federal government that they have a respo nsibil ity, then I think it falls back on us, as MLAs in this province, as legislators, to accept our respons ibility. I think we have all seen, we have all agre ed, and now what we must do is decide to act.

I think that it is unfortunate that the debates melt down to he said, she said, they did, we did, and we forget the issue. I do want to make one comme nt. I think it is relevant to the discussion that was made yesterday by the Minis ter of Highways (Mr. Ashton) in his closing comments. He says, if we turn around now and say to the federal governm ent that we give up and fr om now on we have full respo nsibility for disasters, the real disaster will be to the people of Manitoba, because we will not be able to help people in need in the future. I agree with that statement.

But the bottom line is that people in southwestern Manitoba in the production of agricu ltural goods that we export, that you as a government are going to and probably have already recognized is growing and is continuing to grow, need help today fr om a government that will take the respons ibility. The fights that have to go on after the fact will go on after the fact. We will support the government of the day in their fight with the federal government for their share, but the fact of the matter is that the producers today are suffering.

I think we have to, as legislators, make a decision that we are going to work together to try and resolve that. No matter what the argument is, if we try and constantly shuffle the blame to someone else for not carry ing their load, I think we are failing the people that need it today and I think that we have to act as responsible people and take those steps. I often think that, when I have toured the farmland around southwestern Manitoba and where I live in Killarney, as you move west it continually progresses to get worse.

Having visited fr iends out there recently, we took a drive around, and I am still astonished at the amount of land that will not go into production this year. Just the cost of maintaining that land in a state that will hopefully produce the next year is very expensive and very costly. I think that those are the issues that we need to address as best we can. Everybody ref ers to the Red River flood and the help of the farmer in the seeding, in the fer tilizer.

I think if that was a 50-50 program , then I would say to this government, put your money on the table, send it out to those people, and we will stand with you when we have to,

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 815 and I am not talking the full amount, I am saying your 50% cost, and then let us go together as a group and say to the federal government and draw the national attention that we have to, that this government has stood up and made a decision, as we did. I think you will find that the accolades will come high and hard fr om southwest Manitoba, because when I travel around there, the one comment I hear more and more and more is the fact that we stepped up to the plate.

I think that you as a government would do well-not for me to give you good advice, because T do not necessarily see that as my job, but I see it as something that helps people. That is what I am elected for and that is what I think you are elected for. I got elected to represent the people in my area who are desperately in need of assistance from a government. No matter which government we want to say is responsible, we are the people that are elected by the people of Manitoba. I think we have to stand up and take the lead role in this.

One of the gentlemen that I met touring the area and talking about the situation and the concern, something that he says to me, he says: Merv, you guys spend all your time talking. You have got to start acting and you have got to start encouraging this Government to act. Again, I can only think of the positive comments I felt as a member of government going around the province after we made our anno uncement, the fact that we were willing to recognize the problem and take the respon sibility. I think that this government has to do the same.

The gentleman passed on to me-and I think it is something we have all heard, but I think it bears repeating. He said the words that we speak: will not pay the bills and will not put food on the table. It will not enable us to send our children to further their education at the great cost that it now is. He said, if need be, only the province has to stand and act alone if it has to. He said, he would support me supporting the government of the day in doing something like that. Because, he says, it is the right thing to do. It is not a political game. It is about people's lives. It is about their homes.

It is about their families. We heard the Minis ter of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) as a critic for the Department of Agricu lture talking about crisis lines, talking about the hurt and the despair that goes on in these types of situations. I can tell you it is there. It is not something that we fan the flames and the media attach onto it for one day, and we get another headline and then we can go back and say to our fr iends, well, we discussed it again and it was an important issue of the day.

It is an impor tant issue, I think, that has been going on for a yP.ar. * (15: 50) encourage this Government to act respon sibly. If they need the support or the help of this side of the House, I am sure that we can find a way that we can offer something to the residents of that part of the province that have suffered without any of us having to feel embarrassed that we have compromised our political positions in order to help people that so desperately need it. With that, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, all I will say is that when we debate motions and we debate bills in this House and resolution-and the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith) stated it so well. You know, the people in southwest Manitoba no longer want to hear the fancy words "that we urge the federal government" or that we do this or do that. They want to see action fr om a government that in their claims in Question Period, and across the House, on a day to-day basis talk about the people of Manitoba have spoken.

Well, if they have, I would ask them and encourage them to represent those people in the needs and in the time of need that we have right now. I think that we have to get by the words and we really have to start acting. We have to take respons ibilities for the areas that we contro l and the abilities in the areas that we can help people. I respectf ully ask that the resolutions-as I said, I do not like the first one because it is not specific, and it does not give me an opportunity to make a decision. All it is asking is for support of somethin g that, in the terms out in the west, is loosey-goosey.

It is not specific, and it does not deal with the issue that is out there.

816 LEGI SLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 3, 2000 I will suppor t the amendment on the basis that it gives us something concrete to deal with. It is an issue that, if we pass it, this can happen in a matter of days. The people that are in need and have the situations that they are dealing with in rural Manitoba, southwest particularly, can get on with their lives, get on with what they do best, producing food for the world and have a future to look forward to living in Manitoba. Thank you. Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Good afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I rise today as a member of a rural constituency, the Interlake, which is also a constituency that has agriculture as its principal economic base. I rise to speak to the resolution today in support of attempting to garner further financial support fr om the Government for the farmers in southwestern Manitoba. I would like to also accentuate the fact that it is not just farmers in southwestern Manitoba that experienced hardship as a result of the inclement weather last year. I might quote fr om the resolution itself when we say

BE IT RESOLVED that "the flooding which occurred throughout the province, specifically in the southwest." I would like to make the point that far mers in the Interlake experienced con siderable hardship as well. The excessive rainf all, the flooding, the loss of input, the hardship and the pain and the sorrow were not limited strictly to southwestern Manitoba, that farmers in general across the province experienced hardship as well. On behalf of my constituents I would like to get that on record. For a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to dwell on the nature of disaster. It takes many forms.

As a rule, disasters are quite sudden and quite visible. I think back to the time when the Challenger space shuttle exploded, for example. This was an immedia te, highly visible, cataclysmic environment with fatal con sequences. I think it is unf ortunate that we live in a world today that is so focussed on the media. Television, for instance, where it is almost to the point where a disaster has to be photogenic or have a good sound bite bef ore it gets the audience and the attention of the people who can have an input into it.

Something like a tornado, for instance, or a hurricane, you can see the presses just waiting with bated breath as the hurricane approaches land, and that seems to focus our attent ion on things. Drama tic fires, for instance. The forest fires that we experience in my riding and across the province tend to focus the media's attent ion. Massive floods, for example, as we did experience in the Red River Valley and in other areas of the world. I can think of the flood in Bangladesh, for instance, where over 100 000 people perished. The mudslides in Hondu ras for instance.

I think the capital Tegucigalpa is a name that is known around the world now as a consequence of that. Disasters also have a man-made component. Look to the NATO wars that were fought in the Gulf several years ago and also the one that occur red in Kosovo in the Yugoslav state. These are disasters that are made for television. I recall all the televised explosions, cameras tracking bombs down to the target, and the pompous Ameri can generals with their pointers making all these points. This was a disaster made for television. I guess the point that I am trying to make here is that disasters can have another form.

It can be something that is relatively bland like a slow rainf all over a number of days, something progr essive that loses the attention of the media, something that is insidious that occurs over a period of weeks and months, that over a period of time the media lose interest in it. It seems that unless you have media focus on it that it does not warrant political attention, as, it seems, is the case with the federal government in regard to this disaster that has occurred in southwestern as well the rest of Manitoba. I think back to biblical days.

I think it is interesting to note that the original disaster that the people of the world faced was created by excessive rainf all. We had rain for 40 days and 40 nig hts, and the whole world was flooded as a result of it. While it may not have reached that level in Manitoba in 1999, still it was a disaster. It is a disaster any time that seeding is curtai led and farmers do not get onto the land. You are looking at the potential for disruption of the food production chain in the world, and, anyway , the point that I am trying to make is that we cannot

May 3, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 817 focus on whether or not it is photogenic or telegenic. We have to bear with it and realize that this disaster occurred, and the federal government's attention has to remain focussed on it. That is what this Legislature and this Government is attempting to do. In ref erence to the federal government, I would just like to make the obvious point that it seems that their attention is much better focussed when a disaster occurs in the eastern as opposed to western Canada.

Indeed there is a double standard at work here, where if it is an area that has a high concentra tion of Liberal seats, for example, that this suddenly gets the attention of the federal government in a hurry. * (16: 00) I noticed that when we had the flooding situation in the Saguenay region, or the ice storms in Ontari o, that the federal government was very quick to act and recognize the fact that this was indeed a disaster.

The capital of all Canadians was focussed on that disaster, rightf ully so, but the bitter reality of the situation is that, quite fr ank ly, the Province of Manitoba does not measure up as far as the federal government is concerned. After all, there is only a dozen or so seats at risk here and not too many of them go to the Libe ral Party, and theref ore they do not consider Manitoba a high priority as is quite evidently the case here. I think we experienced this when the Red River flood occurred.

You know, at least at that time the Prime Minister deemed it neces sary to come down to Manitoba and view the situation. He was here for a few brief hours. He did get his photo opportunity. He came, he tossed one sandbag, Mr. Deputy Speaker, then got back on his airplane, flew back to Ottawa and called the federal election. Regardless of the fact that we were faced with chaos in Manitoba, he proceeded to do so. The people of Manitoba specifically requested of him that he postpone this election. Their requests were q

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-20
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 20.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	76c3563b3f307c608659b846abdab014800b2440

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