LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 9 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to table the Annual Report for the Municipal Board for the period ending December 31 , 1986. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to table the Annual Report for the Department of Highways and Transportation for the year 1985-86. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion .. towards the evolution of an international order promoting global peace, harmony and progress. Over the years, the Commonwealth has built up a network of institutions for mutual cooperation and consultation at all levels and in all spheres. At the parliamentary level, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seeks to promote Commonwealth understanding and respect for parliamentary institutions.

It provides a forum to the legislators from the Commonwealth countries to discuss and sort out the problems afflicting contemporary society. Today, this Commonwealth Day gives us an opportunity of pledging ourselves to rid our world of poverty, ignorance and injustice and to do our best for the promotion of world peace and prosperity. We will continue to strengthen our fraternal organization based on mutual understanding and respect in order to meet the challenges of today's society more effectively. The Commonwealth is worthy of our deepest commitment and our strongest support." The letter is signed by Dr.

The Hon. Bal Ram Jakhar, M.P., Speaker of the Lok Sabha, India, and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. ORAL QUESTIONS AIDS - reporting by doctors Introduction of Bills . . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 25 visitors from all over Manitoba who are taking the Practical Politics course under the direction of Mr. Nesbitt .

On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. COMMONWEALTH DAY MESSAGE MADAM SPEAKER: Also before Oral Questions, I'd like to inform all members that I've received a letter from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The Chair of the Association's Executive Committee has ask ed me to read the letter to the House on the occasion of Commonwealth Day, which is today . The message is as follows: The Commonwealth family is a unique organization in terms of international cooperation and international living.

Besides the United Nations and non-aligned movements, the Commonwealth is the largest and most representative forum of nations. With its membership today spanning six continents and seven oceans, embracing more th an a third of the world's population, it serves as a bridge between races, cultures , countries and continents. This voluntary organization of nations not only serves their interests, but also contributes 186 MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health .

Given the ever-increasing concern being expressed about the spread of AIDS in our province and indeed in our country, and given the fact that most American jurisdictions and all but two Canadian provinces make the reporting of AIDS a legal requirement, why does Manitoba not require doctors legally to report AIDS? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, it is not as clear-cut as that. There are some concerns. But the reporting - first of all, I don't think you can legislate, force the doctors to report it. I think some have not reported it.

There has been some concern apparently with the tests. We get the information anyway, and I have requested Dr. Fast to give us the latest on that. I know that she had been discussing that with the Attorney-General, and I expect an answer fairly soon. MR. G. FILMON: Given that sexually transmitted diseases and many other diseases are legally required to be reported by doctors, why is it that AIDS is not legally required to be reported in Manitoba? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The question, in the first instance, is the same answer. I gave you the answer

Monday, 9 March, 1987 and , whe n I get a report from Dr. Fast , I will report to the House again. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, why is it t he prerogative and the decision of the bureaucrats or Dr. Fast or anybody else other than the government to decide whether or not the concern over AIDS is so serious that it should be addressed by making it a legally reportable disease? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I don't know if my honourable friend would run a government.

As far as I'm concerned, you don't become an expert in everythi ng because you're a member of Cabinet, and I rely very much on the experts and the doctors in this instance. It's not a question of grandstanding . If there's no value to it, we won't do it. We don't care if we're the only province. In the meantime, I've never said that it will not be done. This has been discussed with the Attorney-General, and I've asked Dr. Fast for an answer. AIDS - guidelines for working with AIDS patients MR. G.

FILMON: Given that experts in eight other provinces have arrived at that determination and have made AIDS a legally reportable disease, my further question to the Minister of Health is: is there a policy that has been established by the Department of Health with respect to how hospitals must deal with AIDS, either in terms of whether or not employees have the right to refuse to work, or indeed in all aspects of how an identified case of AIDS shall be dealt with? Is there a policy for all hospitals in this province, established by his department? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Madam Speaker, there is a policy .

The hospitals are there to help in curing disease or taking care of the sick, and certainly the policy wW not be to refuse anybody . That is certainly clear . On the idea that all the experts are saying that it should be working, that is not the case. I read an

article not too long ago by somebody who said exactly the opposite . This is not the way to go, and it hasn't saved one single person . So this is why we're investigating , and the recommendations of Dr. Fast and others in Manitoba will weigh heavily . It might well be that it'll be reportable . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question was not with respect to whether or not hospitals would treat somebody for AIDS . The question was whether or not employees legally have the right to refuse to work in contact with the AIDS virus or with an AIDS victim . Is there a policy on that? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No.

If any of the guidelines for safety and health are adhered to, no, there is no legal way that any staff in the hospital can refuse care . AIDS - guidelines for schools MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education . 187 Is there a policy in the government with respect to how schools should deal with an identified case of AIDS, either in the person of a student or a staff member? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education . HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Madam Speaker , the Department of Education circulated guidelines for the processes to be used by school division personnel.

They distributed the guidelines approximately a year-and-a-half ago and all school divisions, I think, are apprised of the process to be followed . I think the understanding is fairly general on what steps should be taken. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question further to the Minister of Education is: do either staffpersons or students have the right to refuse to attend school in the presence of an AIDS carrier? HON. J. STORIE: I'm not sure of the intention or the direction the member is taking in his questioning .

If in fact an individual student has been identified as carrying the AIDS virus , then the concern is immediately for his health, the health of the child, and what is best in terms of the environment for that individual child. Likewise, if a teacher should in fact be found to be carrying the AIDS virus, then the same health concerns dealing with the indiv idual are paramount. I believe that the Minister of Health has indicated and , from all evidence that I've seen, that transmission of the disease is to be had in very specific ways.

The health concern has to be with the likelihood of an individual carrier catching additional diseases, contracting virus es and so forth, that would be an immediate danger to the individual who has the disease. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , my further question is: given that the concern is with respect to people who may be exposed to a carrier of AIDS and exposed to the virus by virtue of working with or attending with somebody who has AIDS and given that recent information indicates that 35 percent of exposed people will develop AIDS within six to eight years , is there any guideline or established policy with respect to people not attending or not working in contact with somebody who is identified as a carrier of AIDS? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, no.

The issue of carriers, of course - there is a suggestion somehow that casual contact with a carrier is in fact going to result in the contracting of the disease. I've indicated quite clearly - and I believe every study of the disease itself indicates - that is not the case . Casual contact in the context of a classroom is not a danger to others in the classroom, and so consequently there is no provision at this point for the exclusion or the self­ exclusion of either staff or students .

The concern is with the individual carrier, the individual with the AIDS virus or the disease, and what is best for his or her health interests . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that last year individuals who were not vaccinated against red measles

Monday, 9 March, 1987 were not able to attend school because of an outbreak, is there no concern on the part of the Minister that those who have concerns and do not want to be exposed or in contact with individuals who are carriers of AIDS should be given some opportunity to make that determination? MADAM SPEAKER : The Honou ra ble Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, what is being done right now is certainly the worst thing that could happen . There is enough ignorance and panic on this that the main thing is proper education, education with the medical profession and the students.

That is being done with the two levels of government and, as I say, it would be well to leave it with the experts . What the Honourable Leader of the Opposition said today about contacting the disease, as far as the information that I have, is absolutely wrong. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Spea ker, has the government developed an overall strategy to deal with this matter to ensure that there are policies that govern whether or not people have the right to refuse to work in an area in contact with AIDS virus, where they might potentially be in contact with AIDS virus, other than the program which I saw the Minister had announced of a $237,000 education program that was jointly to be administered by the Winnipeg Gay Community Health Centre, jointly funded by Manitoba and Canada?

Other than that, is there an overall strategy that would govern areas such as the workplace safety, such as large areas of attendance of the public , such as our school system, such as hospitals that will have to deal with the tragedy of a victim of AIDS? Is there an overall strategy so that people can be aware of all the consequences and of their rights with respect to working or being in contact with an AIDS carrier? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Madam Speaker , there certainly are. But, I repeat, the most important thing is proper education and making sure that the people don't panic.

That's not going to help at all. There are polic ies and we are working - yes, the education and letting the people know what it is all about with the Federal Government is probably the best thing that we can do right now. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that the Federal Government has committed $39 million over the next five years, is there anything else other than this one program that I referred to with respect to education that will help to fill the breach, and to inform people about the concerns that the Minister of Health has enunciated? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: The Federal Minister, Madam Speaker, had requested the province to cooperate, and it is important that the same information should go all across Canada. That is why the Federal Government has taken the lead. There is also some research being done, and there is a drug company that is working with selected people in certain areas of the provinces, including Manitoba, and hoping that this drug will be helpful. Then, as I say, it's edu cation in the area. 188 We're not going to reinvent the wheel here. We haven't got the same problem as they have in other provinces.

They are taking the lead, and we're monitoring very closely what is being done in the other provinces, such as mostly B.C., Quebec and Ontario -(Inte rjection)- yes, we are. Manitoba Beef Plan - feeder cattle subsidy MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the past , man y producers enrolled in the Manitoba Beef Plan as cow-calf to finished producers , when the support level for finished animals was above the market price.

Could these producers - I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture - buy some feeder animals that they did not raise on their farm and finish them on their own farm and sell them through the Manitoba Beef Commission and receive the subsidy? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the honourable member , I'm sure, is aware that the original intent of the Manitoba Beef Plan, as operated by the Manitoba Beef Commission, was in fact to make sure that there is a beef industry in the Province of Manitoba .

It was originally intended to make sure that there is a cow­ calf operation because, without the cows, there is ostensibly no beef program or beef industry in the Province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, the honourable member's question bears some further elaboration or investigation, but in terms of any individual purchasing animals who is not enrolled in the beef plan, is not a contrac t holder of the beef plan, they would not be able to purchase animals and feed them through and receive a subsidy under the plan.

However , anyone who in fact does take in animals for custom finishing for a beef producer does have the stability of the beef plan in projecting his costs and , of course, can finish animals for other producers, and is able to receive those returns in a stable environment, namely, the support price under the beef program. MR. G.

FINDLAY: I would then like to ask the Minister, now when the support level is below the market price, are these same producers free to buy some feeders and finish them on their property and sell them, without the Beef Commission demanding a premium on these animals that they did not raise on their own farms? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, there is a contractual obligation on which a producer , whe n entering the plan, signed in terms of the amount of animals that would be marketed.

There have been occasions under various circumstances in which, whether through illness or whatever, the marketing agreement was not able to be met by some producers, and the commission does give consideration to some variation of that.

Monday, 9 March, 1987 However , unless there are those extenuat in g circumstances that I have outlined, generally the marketing patterns that were originally agreed to by the con tract holder shall be maintai ned. MR. G. FINDLAY: Yes, I believe that the Beef Commission directors are legally and morally bound by the contract. I would like to ask the Minister if he would investigate whether they are, in fact, following the contract legally and morally and, if not, if he would replace those appointed directors by elected directors, which would not politicize the system. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that now we have the Agriculture critic from the Conservative Party and the former Agriculture critic now recommending that we have a producer-elected marketing board for the marketing of beef. If that's the suggestion that they're making, Madam Speaker, I'm certainly pleased and I will be awaiting their views on that concept. If that can be accommodated over the next period of time, we certainly are supportive of having a duly elected producer marketing board for the marketing of beef cattle in this province .

Manitoba Beef Commission - contract MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden with a final supplementary. MR. G. FINDLAY: A final supplementary, Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister to tell the House if he will determine if the present board is legally following the contract? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that, if there are occasions in which it is perceived or in fact it does occur that the Beef Commission is not following the contract, their decisions may be appealed to the Natural Products Marketing Council.

That council does determine by appeal whether or not the commission is following its contract form. If the honourable member has cases in which he believes that they are not, please kindly draw them to my attention. I certainly will want to take them up with the commission and/or the Marketing Council so that, if they are in fact not living up to their obligations, we want to make sure that they do. AIDS - guidelines for working with AIDS patients MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health, because I am so concerned about some of the half-truths and alarmist language used earlier in this question period. Would the Minister please tell me and tell the House if there is a medical protocol in our hospitals in this province which indeed does provide protection for the 189 medical and support staff, such as sterile conditions which are also in place for most infectious diseases? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Madam Speaker . AIDS - Family Life Education Curriculum MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: A question to the Minister of Education, Madam Speaker , is the Minister and his department adding to the Family Life Education Curriculum a

section on AIDS which will in fact include two emphases: 1) stressing the idea of abstinence; and 2) the use of condoms for those young people who are sexually active? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker . Yes. In fact, AIDS is part of the optional Family Life Health Program as one of the sexually transmitted diseases. I have instructed staff to begin to review the adequacy of the content in that particular

section of the health program. I've also asked for a review of the options of including appropriate information in sections of the curriculum in the high school area , as well as dealing with the issue of providing information at our college campuses and our university campuses. I think clearly this is a problem and , as the Minister of Health outlined earlier, the majority of the answer lies in having the correct information. I think the rather spurious comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the references . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. Order please. HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that comment. I would use the word perhaps " unfortunate." Madam Speaker , discussion of the questions of the AIDS and transmission of AIDS in terms of communicable diseases, I think enough is known, Madam Speaker, about the transmission of AIDS to indicate that casual contact in a classroom setting or in most other work environments should be of no health concern to the people involved. The best information we have, Madam Speaker, from the experts, from the Atlanta Centre for Disease Control and other experts, indicates that to us.

I think it behooves us to be cautious about our statements and the implications that are left when we deal with something that is this sensitive . Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite will know that this issue has been dealt with in a school in Manitoba, and I believe the parents, staff and students were satisfied with the response ... AIDS - curriculum item in schools MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I remind Honourable Ministers to keep answers to questions brief. The Honourable Member for River Heights with a final supplementary.

Monday, 9 March, 1987 MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Yes. to the Ministe r of Education, Madam Spea k er, is the Mini ster of Edu cation con sidering mak ing AI DS educatio n a comp ul sory curric ulum item in Manito ba schools? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speake r, I thi nk it is safe to say that th e issue of AIDS an d t he p rovi sio n of information through the curriculum may, in fact , be a re quireme nt.

The Manitob a Assoc iation of Schoo l Trustees has just written me a l etter requesting a meeting to discus s t his issu e a nd how provisi on o f information might be accomplished and, while ther e may be some discussions over the next while on how best to do that, I think clearly Manitobans want that kind of information provided at an appropria te time for young peop le, both h igh school students and colleg e students in Manitob a. Feedlot program - assurance of M ADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Membe r for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE : Madam Speaker , my question is directe d to the Min ister of Agriculture.

A few moments ago, he stated that it 's important that we ensure there 's a beef industry in this province. No one would agree more than the worke rs at Burns Meats of Brandon, Madam Speaker , where Burns Meats has been forced to cut back on the hours of its employees, and they 're considering layoffs because of a 50 percen t drop in the number of cattle being killed in the past two months.

Given that Burns may be having second thoughts , Mada m S peaker , about a $2.6 million expans ion which would cost some 50 to 60 full -time potential jobs, and given the fact t hat 75 percent of the Burns kill in Brando n is f rom out of the province beca use of inadeq uat e stabilization and because the program doesn 't e xtend to feedlots , and given that we on this side ... MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a q uestio n? MR. J. McCRAE: Yes, I have a question, Madam Speaker . I'm in the midst of my

preamble, and I'd just like to fin ish it up. Given the fact that members on this side of the House, Madam Speaker, in the last Session, through resolutions and throu gh questions, urged the Minister to announce a feedlot program , will the Min ister now be announcing without delay a feedlot program in this province? HON. B. UR USK I: Madam Speaker, I think the honourable member should recall that it was the Brandon operation of Burns that was going to close.

It was the Brandon operat ion of Burns that was going to shut down, and it was the lack of a provincial prog ram , lack of action on this government that, in fact, was going to allow that to happen. Madam Speaker, that was the allegation made by members on his side . Madam Speaker, what has happened is that the base of kill in Brandon moved from an average kill of about 1,000 animals per week, and has moved up recently 190 to 1,700 a week, necessi tating the kind o f investment and expan sion that is bein g talked about.

The d rop in animal kill is faced not on ly in Brandon , not only in Man itoba , but right across Weste rn Cana da, Madam Spea ker, in terms of the number s of anima ls. In fact, what one has to t ell the honourable member is that the num ber of slaughter animals fro m the commissi on, fro m our o wn plant, has gone fro m 1983 of an amo unt of 54,000 slaught er animals to a high of l ast y ear in exc ess of 84,000 in thos e four years . Madam Speaker , how can the honourable member sugge st that somehow the prov incial plan has not met its objectives?

It has not gone as far as we would have liked to, Madam Speaker , and cert ainly we would want to enco urage more on-fa rm f inishing, but I rej ect catego ri cally the honourable memb er's suggesti on about not enough finishing. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , I'm not getting very far with the Minister of Agriculture , so I'll direc t a question to the Minister of Labour.

In view of the fact that the Marketing Manag er of the Manitoba Beef Commiss ion says that a feedlot program is needed to keep cattle in Manitoba , will the Minister of Labour recognize the pligh t of beef producers in this province, as well as the unionized workers at Burns in Brandon and the people of the City of Brandon, and preva il upon the Minister of Agriculture and his Cabinet colleagues to bring in a feedlot program without delay? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Spea ker, the Honourable Member for Brandon West knows - I'm sure his research has indicated .

I can't lay the blame on him individually, but the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba in government failed to produce agricultural support so that livestock operations were going downhill in Manitoba . The Honourable Minister of Agriculture will confirm again the kind of efforts this government has taken to stabilize agriculture and animal production in this provin ce. Differential tuition fee - out-of-country students MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member fo r Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you , Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

Since the Manitoba taxpayer can no longer continue the practice of subsidizing the out-of-country students at the universities at the same level that they subsidize Manitoba and Canadian students, will the Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to recommend to the universities in Manitoba that a differential tuition fee, which more accurately reflects actual tuition costs, be charged to out-of-country students? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education . HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

Monday, 9 March, 1987 Yes, to the Mem ber for Roblin-Russell. I thin k t he member perhaps should have spent some tim e discussing this issue with the university community, with univer sity students , with many other groups assoc iated with education in this province before he brought forward that resolution.

Madam Speaker, Manitoba has had a long-standi ng policy of not having differential tuition fees in the province and, while there are without question some short-term benefits, some people would say, in establishing a differential policy, universities for many reasons - and I invite the member opposite to visit the universities and discuss this issue with the presidents, as I have. He may in fact find that, despite the solution that he has proposed, there are many, many benefits to having visa students here . Many of them do, in fact, become citizens .

There are questions of their contribution to the economy, in terms of the cost of living in Manitoba for those years. Madam Speaker, it is also true that there is anothe r province which does not have differential fees, as well as individual universities which do not charge differential fees. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH : Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister if he can tell the House what the total subsidized cost of tuition is to the taxpayer of Manitoba for out­ of-country students? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education, briefly.

HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Madam Speaker . I have raised that issue with the universities and with the Universities Grants Commission. The universities have indicated to me that's a rather simplistic approach.

In fact, Madam Speaker , there are many, many spinoff benefits to having those students associated with our universities and in terms of their contribution to our economy, as well as the contacts that they represent when they move back to their country of origin, as well as the question of, I guess in the case of students who come particularly from Hong Kong, the reciprocation that occurs and the investment that comes as a result of their attendance at universities in Manitoba . We have had significant investment, Madam Speaker, from many of those countries. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please .

The Hon ourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister again . Since there are approximately 2,000 out-of-country students in Manitoba universities, can the Minister tell this House what the specific total cost is to the Manitoba taxpayer of subsidizing those out-of-country students? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I don't know what the member means by subsidized .

The majority, if not all of the courses that are being taken by visa students wou ld be offered with or without those visa students . 191 Madam Speaker, ther e is also the fact that the number of visa studen ts has actually decreased over the last couple of years. Finally, Madam Speaker , I would certa inly be willing to sit down with the univers itie s and the Universities Grants Com mission to ascertai n a cost­ benefit analysis of the attendance of visa students in Manitoba. Independen t Living Program - funding MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M.

DOLIN : Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community Services. In reference to the Community Independent Living Program, my understanding is there has been some change in financing of that program and there have been some concerns expressed by the agencies delivering the program . Could the Minister explain and assure that this program will continue and that the financing will not be cut for the support services required for those people in the program? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, prior to 1985, there were not monies available to support teenagers who stayed either in their family 's or foster family's, and the Independent Living Program - really there was not any clarification as to how that would be funded. We have been working to fine tune what the family support grants would cove r and have included , not the board and room portion, but the support worker and the administration portion of supporting teenage rs in an independent living situation as part of the family support grant. Madam Speaker, the agencies have been involved in developing these guidelines.

Most are in support. The new guidelines were announced in February and, after hearing from some agencies that getting that guideline somew hat after they had made expenditures imposed a difficulty, we changed the date of application to January 1987. Our overall attempt in the funding of child welfare services is to shift from the open-ended child welfare or child maintenance account that the government pays to give the agencies the funds so that they can use discretion.

But, Madam Speaker , we have not done it all at one time, until the total caseload levels off and we can , in fact, have some confidence that the resources given to the agencies will be adequate to meet the need. MR. M. DOLIN: A supplementary to the same Minister. Considering the concerns expressed by a couple of the agencies anyhow in a recent press report , could the Minister give assurance that there will be no cutback in the number of people, in the services given to them presently and, if there is a problem, that it will be negotiated with the individual agencies? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, the expenditures at the agencies, there is an ongoing review. In the past,

Monday, 9 March, 1987 a lot of reconciliations for their expenditures were made several years aft er the actual incursion of the expenditure. Our goal is to get where the guidelines are completely clear ahead of time, and we have computerized records of what we call committal accounting. We are not quite there, Madam Speaker, but the method we've been using to wor k with the agenci es and their financial situation is to review periodi cally. We have made adjustments this year on the deficits they're incurring and we have taken into account their current financial situation in developing our budget for next year .

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan with a final supplemen tary. MR. M. DOLIN: A final supplementary, Madam Speaker, just to clarify, any agency that is facing financia l difficulty will be able to come to the Minister and negotiate any problems they're having to ensure that the children in Independent Living rema in there? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, we are undergoing and will continue to meet with them and review these situations, but we must in the final analysis hold the boards and the staff of these agen cie s accountable within some parameters.

So it's that desire to keep some kind of m anagement and review of the effectiveness of the expenditure, along with giving them full discretion or as much discretion as we can, for the young people they need. But as we move into the prevent ive area in the child welfare syste m, the need is almost open-ended so there does have to be some management of how quickly they build up on that type of service. Child and Family Services - agency deficits MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community Services.

Can she inform the Hou se as to how many of the Child and Family Service Ag enc ies are presently predicting a deficit in their operations for this fiscal year? Will she rescind this directive she issued to be in effect retroactive ly, which one agency director called "stupid"? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I think that amount of detail is more appropriate for Estimat es. We did meet with the agencies in the city, and we have in fact made a deficit adjustm ent payment already.

We also have added supplement ary monies for the general open-ended child maintenance grant, and we have looked at their projected budge ts and taken them into account in developing next year's budget. So although severa l of them will be carrying small deficits into the next year, unless the volume continues to escalate, we do have the financing fairly well under control. 192 Freedo m of Information Act - proclamation of MR. G.

MERCIER: Approximately approaching almost two years ago, on July 2 of 1985, the Honourable Attorney-General indicated that The Freedom of Information Act would be proclaimed within a few months. I wonder if the Attorney-General could now indica te when that act will be proclaimed . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture and Heritage Resources . HON. J. WASYLVCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to be able to repor t to the House that progress has been pro ceeding very well in this area and that we .. . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER : Order please . HON. J.

WASYLYCIA-LEIS: . . . are looking forward to proclaiming this legislation in one year. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker , a supplementary question to the Minister who is now fairly responsible for this.

In view of the fact that a draft copy of The Freedom of Information Act was circulating in governmen t circles beginning in about May of 1983, following the Atto rney­ General's statement in 1982 that The Freedom of Information Act would be introduced that year, in 1982; given the fact I believe the Minister now says the act will not be proclaimed for a further year, could the Minister advise the House whether we members should treat that statement in the same way as the Attorney­ General's statement two years ago that the act would be introduced in a few months? HON. J.

WASYLYCIA-LEIS: The member opposite will know that the process of record management and of comp iling an access guide is a very complex process and requires con siderable staff work and resources . This government , within its budgetary resources, without incur ring considerable new expenses that I'm sure all members opposite would be in favour of, is working very hard within those limitations to ensure that we stick to our

schedule and move as quickly as possibl e to the proclamation of this legislation . The member opposite will know that, when membe rs opposite were in government , they became aware of the state of our records, and in fact were presented with a pho to essay of some of the problems and difficulties that were before all of us. We have worked very diligently since that period to ensure that we can put in place a system that is effect ive and responsive to both the needs of Manitobans and to our responsibilit ies under the Freedom of Information legislation. MR. G. MERCIER: Just one brief question .

Could the Minister advise the House that information has not been and will not be destroyed during this period of time?

Monday, 9 March, 1987 HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, the question really doesn't warrant an answer . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I cannot hear the Honourable Minister . HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: This government initiated the freedom-of-information legislation. It is obviously committed to the principles behind the legislation, and we are moving as quickly as possible to put in place effective mechanisms to ensure that members opposite and the members of the public in general will be able to get responses to their requests as quickly as possible.

There would be no intention on our part at any point to destroy material. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired . ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet and the proposed amendment by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs has 20 minutes remaining . HON. G. DOER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me pleasure to be able to continue on on the Speech from the Throne from last Friday.

Madam Speaker, at the last speak ing on the Speech from the Throne, I was mentioning some of the items on Core II that were dealing with the $100 million agreement that the Federal, Provincial and City Governments had settled. Madam Speaker, I just would like to reiterate, in starting my remarks in the dealing with the Core Area II Agreement, that there are four fundamental themes in the second Core Area Agreement.

That is, No. 1, Madam Speaker, that the core agreement is a tri-level agreement between the Federal, Civic and Provincial Governments; No. 2, that the core agreement again provides a balance between the social and needed training programs in a core area and the physical programs of bricks and mortar. The third fundamental theme, Madam Speaker, is that the proposal is to also lever private and public money. In the first Core Agreement, we're up to $75 million in private money levered from the public purse, and we expect that to grow higher as the last year-and-a-half of evaluation of the money takes place .

The North Portage Agreemen t, Madam Speaker, has levered approximately $150 million of private money in terms of the spinoff of the $75 million from public spending . And the fourth theme of the Core Area II, similar to the first Core Agreement, Madam Speaker, is that this would be used as a stimulus for other major projects. In the first Core Agreement , we had the whole situation of the major project of North Portage as a spinoff.

In the second Core Agreement, we have money put aside for the Forks Developments and the East Yards Development . 193 Madam Speaker , there are a couple of fundamental principles that this government will follow as one party in these negotiations: (1) that we're pleased that this land is in public ownership ; and (2) that we believe strongly that the East Yards Development should not take place until or unless there is public input into what the vision of the East Yards should be. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

If honourable members would like to carry on their private conversations elsewhere , it would be greatly appreciated. The Honourable Minister. HON. G. DOER: Thank you. That there be public input is a fundamental criteria for developing the East Yards, and when you look at a slow and mixed development in the East Yards rather than a quick edifice development in that historic site that will be returned to public owne rship in this province.

Madam Speaker , in leaving the core and the comments that were raised in the Speech from the Throne on the Core Area Agreement and North Portage and the East Yards, I'd like to move briefly to The City of Winnipeg Act and the proposed White Paper that we have placed before the House. Madam Speaker, there is no question that the City of Winnipeg review has taken some time, and recieved considerable input from the public over the 1985-86 period. Fundamentally, it would have been our priority to proceed with the adequate input from the various bodies of government with legislation in the 1987 year.

However , Madam Speaker, it was requested by the City of Winnipeg officials and requested by the many elected representatives in the additional zone that we not proceed on a unilateral basis, but rather that we attempt to consult on some of the needed changes and reforms required for the City of Winnipeg . So, Madam Speaker, we will be proceeding only with those areas that are essential for 1987, and we have tabled a White Paper to deal with the issues that still require consultation with the city.

Now, on the one hand, the Opposition Critic informs me that we should be cooperative and proceed on a cooperative approach with the city officials . I even have a copy of his presentation to the Cherniack Review Committee, Madam Speaker, talking about home rule and talking about the fact that they only want a two­ or three-page City of Winnipeg Act as the act for the City of Winnipeg ... A MEMBER: A secret document. HON. G. DOER: A secret document, an unshredded document, Madam Speaker, that we have in our possession . A MEMBER: Privileged information. HON. G. DOER: It's very privileged. MR. G.

DUCHARME: I guess he got that from Alan Artibise . HON. G. DOER: No, we didn't. We got it from D.I. MacDonald, Madam Speaker.

Monday, 9 March, 1987 On the one hand, we hear cooperation, home rule, the philosophy of dealing with city officials. On the other hand , the critic opposite criticizes us for tabl ing a White Paper, rather than proceeding with the City of Winnipeg review holus-bolus . Well, Madam Speaker, I think the White Paper is a good place to start with the City of Winnipeg . I'm look ing forward to the comments of the city councillors and other people who deal with the city.

I'm looking forward to the comments of the critic opposite in terms of his ideas on fundamental issues such as the power of the Mayor , the power of the EBC, the power of council, some of the proposals we have suggested in terms of the Independent Boundary Commission. I notice, Madam Speaker, that the member opposite basically concurs with our position not to decrease the size of City Council. I agree with the member opposite. One city councillor per 21,000 residents and growing, to decrease that would be to appeal to a populist position that is unfounded in the day-to-day , I think , demand on city councillo rs.

That's why, Madam Speaker, we have not proposed a decrease in the size of elected representatives on the City Council floor. I look forward to the comments of the member on a great number of issues. Sometimes I believe , Madam Speaker , there will be agreemen ts between us and I think in some areas there will be disagreements. One of the fundamental areas, Madam Speaker , that I know we will disagree on is the whole area of the Provincial Government in the planning process .

In every province in Canada, there is a strong provinc ial say, an authority, on the ult imate planning for the particular municipality and the par tic ular urban areas .

Madam Speaker , we believe strongly that the area of land tha t is surrounding Winnipeg and that may be part of Winnipeg , and also consistent with the planning that is going on in municipalities outside of the City of Winnipeg, because we have also stated in our White Paper that we have had development outside of Winnipeg sometimes at a greater degree than even inside Winnipeg and we should look at both sides of that equation, but we believe that a Provincia l Government and any Provincial Government must ultimately have a say in those matters as it affects the grain space and agricultural land and the urban sprawl issues in the particular municipality.

In saying that, Madam Speaker, though, we have listened to a great deal of comment on the need for public input if the province is going to provide any changes to the proposed City of Winnipeg development plan. We have put into the proposed planning

section of the City of Winnipeg that the Minister should not unilaterally sit in an office and make changes to a by­ law that has been passed through public input into the City of Winnipeg, but rather any of those matters should go before a public process through the Municipal Board. We have placed that in our planning process so that we were consistent with public input through all levels and all stages of the planning process. Madam Speaker, I would like to also touch briefly on the reassessment process that is taking place, and a

section that was referred to in the Speech from the Throne dealing with Bill 57. I believe that reassessment should take place in the City of Winnipeg after 25 years. I know all of us do share that sentiment, and we believe that the reassessment process should take place in the most flexible and sensitive way possible . 194 There will be shifts, Madam Speaker , but there will be shifts on the basis of Bill 57, if City Council so desires to have those shifts take place within the various categories that have bee n established and have those shifts take place not going through the categories.

Madam Speaker , the projections in this House by members opposite and our members would be a shift of some $26 million take place between the commercial category and the mult iresidential cate gory onto the homeowner . Now the differential mill rates , Madam Speaker , will allow those shifts to be stopped if City Cou ncil so desires by putting it at a differential mill rate. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) We think that makes sense , Mr.

Deputy Speaker, but we believe it is the decision of the City Council that should be key in this matter, as they are the elected rep resentatives dealing with the city. But no one should be under the illusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there won ' t be shifts taking place within the various categories. There will be massive shifts taking place from fundamentally the overvalued inner city housing to some of the undervalued suburban housing. Now, there are lots of exceptions to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that's generally the way it will go. That is why also, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , again consistent with comments that have been raised by members opposite and consistent with positions placed in our caucus, we will bring in phasing-in legislation so that the shifts that will take place , the increases that will take place, can be phased in over the next three years . We believe that is a much more sensitive way to go, given the fact that there has not been radical reassessment in this city for some 25 years .

We think that this legislation is sensitive and flexible, but it will allow the city to get to '75 values and it wil l allow the city to prevent shifts within classifications, but it will also allow the shifts to take place within those classifications. And that's the essence of the bill and the potential action of City Council. Mr. Deputy Speaker , we have announced our funding levels to the City of Winnipeg . They are not massive funding levels and we said so when we announced them. We felt they were fair and reasonable.

The funding level for the operating grant -(Interje ction)- the operating level for the City of Winnipeg will be some 3 percent increase this year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the capital commitment will be some 16 percent to live up to our six year, $90 million capital spending provision with the City of Winnipeg. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the Charleswood bridge has been placed lower on the priority list since the former Deputy Mayor has left. But you will have to talk to your colleagues at City Hall -(Interjection)- Mr.

Deputy Speaker , we don't believe our funding is perfect but we do believe it is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. But I would ask the members opposite to look at what their brothers and sisters are doing in Saskatchewan , where the funding level for municipalities has been frozen at zero percent for the next two years. I believe , Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, for a government to spend $100 million on a jacuzzi pro vision prior to the last election and then to freeze the legitimate goals

Monday, 9 March, 1987 and desires of a municipality at zero for the next two years , is wrong -headed priorities, Mr. Deputy Speak er, that we would not recommend on this side of the House -(Interjection)- $1.2 billion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in deficit. The othe r two areas that I would like to discuss are the two developments in this country that I think are of severe importance to all of us, and that is the whole issue of the wealth of individuals and the second issue is the wealth of the regions.

There is no question that the 13 percent personal income tax raise by the Federal Government, in combination of issues like exempt ions, continuing exemptions , and additional exemptions such as the capital gains tax , is putting an undue pressure , an unfairness in terms of the tax system in this country. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is time we ended most of the unreasonable exemptions that are contained on page 1 of the income tax form so that the total revenue sources in this country can be fair and that we are not just hitting the individuals in the middle class with massive increases of taxation, some 13 percent increases in taxation for individuals, at the same time the capital gains tax has been allowed to rise to some $500,000.00. I am against the proposal to put the limit up to $500,000 .00. I am totally opposed to it. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am in favor of a fair taxation policy, and I am hoping that there will be a taxation policy so that the millions and millions of dollars - the Auditor General predicted there was some $45 billion being written off in this country by wealthy corporations and some individuals - be allowed to be taxed on a fair basis, rather than that revenue being lost, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than that revenue being gained by the ordinary taxpayers that have had their taxes go up 13 percent in two years.

The Federal Government , when they were in Opposition, promised us growth, growth, growth, and they have given us tax, tax, tax . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Pembina has a point of order? MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable Minister might permit a question at this time? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Urban Affair s. HON. G. DOER: When I finish my comments, yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker . I'll be finished in time. In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the second issue that concerns me greatly is the whole issue of the wealth of our regions in this country.

Since the Rowell-Sirois Report and many of the actions by our forefathers and foremothers in terms of Canadian building, we have had a strong Federal Government and strong regions, because of the way in which we have shared the wealth in this country to allow regions to succeed and to succeed very well over the years. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am totally opposed to a system in this country where the last predictions have been that some 90 percent to 95 percent increase in the wealth of this country is going to the Province of Ontario and specifically to the City of Toronto .

I think it does not bode well for all the regions, particularly the west 195 when the wealth is being created in one area of the country and, at the same time, many of the regional development measures, the transfer payment measures , the wealth of individuals has been restricted in such a way that the wealth in the regions and the fairness , the sharing in the particular regions is not being shared equally in this country. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I think it's time that all of us speak on the issue of developing fairness in our regional development , and we should not have had a budget that decreased the amount of money that goes into regional development in the last federal budget , as we saw some two weeks ago as introduced by Mr. Wilson . In conclusion , Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been pleased to speak on the Speech from the Throne to talk about some of the positive chang es we are proposing for the City of Winnipeg, to talk about the crisis in agriculture that all of us share, and share in a very, very serious way, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I feel we have to have tax reform in this country so that individuals and the middle class that have been hit with a 13 percent incr ease, it will be spread to those groups who are now enjoying the $45 billion exemptions, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Further, some of that $45 billion I would like to see go into the agricultural crisis and to go into regional development in this country so that we just don't have a boom in Ontario and Toronto , but a boom in every part of this country. Thank you , Mr. Deputy Speaker . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Pembina . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Minister agreed that he would respond to a question. I believe he has time. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: We've got two minutes. MR. D. ORCHARD: When the Minister made his very forthright position against these wealthy Canadians who are avoiding the taxation system, my simple question for him is: did he clear that position with his Cabinet colleague, the Member for Transcona? HON. G. DOER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have heard the Member for Transcona consistently speak on the need for a fair tax system in this country .

Ever since I've worked on the Member for Transcona's campaign in 1973, I've heard him speak on the issue of fair taxation. Mr. Deputy Speak er, in 1981, 60 Canadi an corporations paid no income tax, and I think that the middle class should not be hit with a 13 percent increase in personal income tax as it has been in the last two years. At the same time, we're raising the capital gains tax exemption to .5 million. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I know the Member for Transcona and every member of this caucus share s that priority to return fairness to our tax system. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you , Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to rise today in debate of the Throne Speech, and I think it's a privilege for us

Monday, 9 March, 1987 to be able to do this in a province and in a country that still lives by the principles of democracy. Before I get into the Throne Speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to wish my leader and members on my side of the House much success and, by the looks of things as they're proceeding, I think we are having a successful Session on this side of the House . I would also like to, on behalf of the constituents of Roblin - Russell, congratulate Doctor Johnson in becoming the Lieutenant-Governor for Manitoba, and also Mr. Justice Sterlin g Lyon.

To the members opposite , of course , my best wishes, and it is my hope that some sanity will preva il over there and, through the course of this Session, we will see some legislation that is positive and frui tful to Manitobans. Now to the Throne Speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We're grossly disappoi nted in the content of the Throne Speech. For 45 minutes, MLA 's and invited guests listened to the Lieuten ant-Go verno r read a document that was supposed to represent the government's plan for the immediate future for this province. For 45 minutes, what did we hear? -(Interjection)- Wind and rabbit tracks is right.

We heard a rehash of old promises. We heard bashing of the Federa l Governmen t. Now not only is this governme nt taking it out on the Federal Government, but they have found two new victims, that being the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Alberta. We heard excuses for inability to act because, all of a sudden, trans fer payments were not available from the Federal Governme nt, so therefore our programs were failing. We heard misrepresentations of facts , and there was no evidence of a plan for any vision for the future . Oh yes , Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it was a carefully crafted document, giving the impression th at t his government had concern and care for the plight of Manitobans. If I were to base my remarks on the substance that was contained in that speech, my remarks would be very brief, so I must go beyond that. I must go to the concerns and the plight of people that I represent, the people in rural Manitoba, the peop le in my constituency . I live in a rural constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one whose livelihood is almost entirely depende nt upon agriculture .

The small service towns that are spotted throughout the constituency service the area , ser vice the grain producers, the livestock producers . Those small towns , those small communities, are beginning to feel the squeeze very hard, and that is going to precipitate itself to the urban areas as well. It's just a matter of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think there is some impa ct being felt already, as we have seen the impact on Versatile, for example, a direct impact from what is hap pen ing in the rural economy . A MEMBER: What help did this government give Versatile? MR. L.

DERKACH: Oh no, this government did not give any help to Versatile, but yet they blame the Federal Government for its inaction. Yet, it was the Federal Government that made a significant contribution in help ing Versatile to become viable once again. What about the jobs that were created by the ability of 196 Versatile to continue , even though it is under new ownership? Thos e jobs are jobs for Manitobans, Mr. Deputy Speaker , and they were not in any way enhanced by this government.

It was an initiative that was put forth by the Federal Government , the government that this group, th is bunch, continues to point at and blast every time they get up to answer a question . I would not be representing my people prop erly if I did not emphasize the appeal to this government for the need of immediate action to help the farmers in this province. As has been said by my colleagues, by my leader, the farm situati on is in a cris is state. Unfortunately, we can't get throug h to the Minister of Agriculture. He has not been able to understand the plight of Manitoba farmers . You know, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , some three weeks ago, or perhaps it's a month ago now, the Minister of Agriculture visited my constituency on an inv itation from, I believe, i t was the Manitoba Pool Elevators Association and also some of the R.M.'s. He dro ve up in a government car and , on the government car, was a large sticker or a stic ker on the back wind ow that was promoting his party. What a cheap way to propagate your party, Mr. Deputy Speaker . At who se expense? At taxpayers' expense -(Interjection)- oh yes, it's fine to go in a government car. I did not say he could not go in a government car.

But you did not see my leader or anybody from this side of the House dri ve a governmen t car, pasting our party stic kers on it. I don't th ink that's in very good tas te at all , and neither did the people from my const ituen cy think that was a very good on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. Nevert heless , Mr. Deputy Speaker, the meeting went on. And what did we hear at the meeting from this Minister of Agric ultu re? Not very muc h, not very much more than we've heard here in the House.

For every question that was asked , this Ministe r would stand up and accuse the Federal Governme nt for not doing its share. He did not offer one sing le program , not one single plan of action that he was willing to undertake to help those desti tute grain producers , and he left the meeting. I talk to those farmers on a weekly basis, many of whom were at that meeting, and what do they think of our Minister of Agriculture? They shrug and they say, well when is this guy going to realize what the true situation out in ru ral Man itob a is. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I doubt whether this Minister will ever realize what a desperate situation is like in rural Mani to ba. This is the government that continues to say that they are the ones who stand up for Manit oba. All through the election campaign we saw: "Thi s is the government that stands up for Manitoba. " How do they stand up for Manitoba , Mr. Deputy Speaker? They kind of slouch in their chairs and hope that the problems will go away.

Do they stand up fo r Manitoba when the Member for Virden called for the Agricultural Committee to come into Session and to hear the plight of farmers from farmers not from us from Chambers of Commerce and frdm concerned Manitobans? Did they stand up for Manitobans then? Not a bit, not a single one, they all voted the same way. For the last week-and-a -half , my leader and my colleagues have questioned the government with regard to its plans for agriculture. Why are we doing this, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Because we on this side of the House

Monday, 9 March, 1987 understand what the plight of farmers is. We under stand the situation out there . Many of us are farmers ; we come from the rural area . But that message, that kind of understanding is not present on the other side of the House . Every time one of the Ministers, whether it was the Premier or whether it was the Minister of Agriculture, would stand up in response to a question , what did we hear? We heard nothing but empty words or words that would blast the Federal Government or blasting the Saskatchewan Government or bashing the Alberta Government.

Not once did they say, well we do have a plan. We will just have to wait till we get it together and then we'll present it. Not once did they admit that there was a hint of some good action by members from this side of the House . There were several suggestions of how this government could act to help the farme r. Yet today, nothing has been done . The promises that this government had before the election have gone astray. Why did Manitobans elect a socialist government? Did they elect a socialist government because Manitobans are socialists? Absolutely not .

Manitobans elected this government because of the vast array of promises that were made to Manitobans under false pretenses, Mr. Deputy Speaker, promises which have not been kept, promises which cannot be kept. I think that the cartoon in the Winnipeg Free Press showing our Honourable Premier holding a tin cup with a little sign saying : "I'm destitute , please help," is symbolic of the state that this government is in. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have the Minister of Agriculture who sees it more popular to bash Ottawa, to bash Saskatchewan, to bash Alberta than it is to help Manitoba farmers who are in desperate straits. These are typical responses that we have from the entire government, whether it is the Minister of Agriculture or whether it's the Minister of Education or the Minister of Highways , or whoever it might be. Their responses are all the same. I think they get together in their little Cabinet or their little caucus room and they say, here are the answers that we're going to use today.

I think they 're stuck on one answer; they 've been stuck on that answer for the last Session-and-a-half . On Friday, for example, I asked the Minister of Education about the High School Review. A MEMBER: Did you get answer No. 1 or 2? MR. L. DERKACH: Well, I think I got the same answer that the rest of them give . So what did he stand up and say? He didn't give us any kind of an answer . Last year, when we asked him about the High School Review, he said, well we'll have a plan of action ready for October . Well then he said , not really October, because we can't have it ready then.

We'll have it ready in December. Well December has come and gone . We're into the spring of the year, and we have seen no position paper yet. So in sincerity, I asked the Minister of Education when this position paper was coming down. Well now we really don't have a date . We just started working on it and, whenever it happens, it will. We may or may not come up with a position paper. It kind of depends , but it's probably the Federal Government's fault in some way. 197 So we have a government, we have Ministers who catap ult themselves from one crisis to another . We should not be surprised, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, about this kind of attitude, about this inaction and about the way that the responses are coming, because somewhere in their surveys this bunch has foolishly ascertained that it is more popular to bash the Federal Government, the Opposition and anybody else to get Manitoban 's attention away from the real important details that this government should be addressing. So there is no concern for the economic plight of Manitobans.

There is concern only for their own selfish well-being and the enhancement of their own ideology, which serves no one but themselves, a wicked and destructive action which will be paid for by Manitobans for several generations. I guess we'll see more of this kind of response , this kind of attitude, as we continue through this Session, because this government is broke and it is defunct of ideas . Its actions have been irresponsible and irrational and here we have a government that has no vision and no regard for its inhabitants.

Even the Premier has stooped to a low ebb in the way that he has responded to ques tions that have been posed to him lately. The Throne Speech had something with regard to Manitoba families . The government tries to show the people of this province how it cares. It's got a caring and sharing attitude, and all of this is a facade. They make eloquent speeches that they are committed to this ideal of sharing and caring, and what do we see? Well, let's take a look at our day-care system. Instead of trying to be flexible and allowing private day-care centres to oper ate in this province, this government says no.

We want to control day-care centres. We want to control everything. So what is their ideology, Mr. Deputy Speaker? State control of the individual from the cradle to the grave, that is what they 're all about. What about health care, Mr. Deputy Speaker? This is the government that cares and shares for Manitobans, and yet what has happened? We see large blocks of beds close in major hospitals. We see people being shifted out ·of hospitals into what? I don't know what they call it anymore. They just come and go, and you 're sent home as soon as you see the doctor. You can't stay in the hospital anymore .

And this is the way this government cares for Manitobans. Is it standing up for Manitobans? Is this what you call standing up for Manitobans? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. L. DERKACH: I say to this government: why don 't you let the people of Manitoba be free? Inste ad of trying to be the player and referee both, why don't you get back on track and play the role that a government is supposed to play? I believe that Manitobans need less government in their lives instead of more government , but let's have proper government.

Manitobans need , for example, greater protection from criminals, sex offenders and child abusers. Deterrents must be put in place where offenders are severely discouraged from committing those offences again -(Interjection)- oh, and you say, more money. More money for what? For the protection of Manitobans , is that so wrong? All of us in this Assembly , I'm sure,

Monday, 9 March, 1987 would support a move that would discourage offenders from repeat offences . Society needs more protection, not less, both in urban and rural areas , not like the move that was made by this government in reducing the law enforcement agencies in Southwestern Manitoba . That is not offering Manitobans greater protection, not at all. I'm sure that, even by its own surveys that it conducts, this government must real ize the desire of Manitobans for a better system of justice to protect the innocent. What abou t our education system , Mr. Deputy Speaker? A MEMBER: No, don't talk about that. MR. L.

DERKACH: Well, we just heard a response not that long ago , during question period today, from the Minister of Education with regard to a straightforward question that was posed to him . He could not give us an answer, just bafflegab. Funding for our universities and for our public school system is a concern. The condition did not occur this year. It's been creeping up on this governm ent for the past number of years, and why? If only this government had passed along those transfer fees from the Federal Government to our universities, today our universities would probably be in a better state than they are.

Why is there no long-term plan for financing our universities, for funding our universities? Why isn't there a long­ term plan ? Well it's kind of a band-aid situa tion here . You just go from one situation to the next. Why doesn' t this Minis ter meet with the universities and discuss funding levels and needs of universities and decide on a long-term plan? Well I think that's just showing a little bit of his incompetence. Well, what about the publ ic school funding? This funding is in a mess, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

Before I came into this Legislature, the Member for Morris raised this issue and tried to impress upon the government that this formula was not working. Last Session , we again addressed this conc ern and we again pointed out to the government that the formula was not working . But did they listen ? Did the Min ister take any of th is under -(Interjection)- how many divisions , he says, are complaining this year? Mr. Deputy Speaker, obviously he has not been out to the rura l school divisions or to the school divisions to see how many are complaining . How many for mulas do we have today, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

We're not sure . We have at least three, maybe four, and then we have some grandfathered school divisions, and then we have some that we're just kind of throwing money at to keep them quiet for a while. We have pointed out the shortcomings of the GSE formula for a long time . Mr. Deputy Speaker . This government pride s itself in saying that we have kept the foundati on levy constant , and our support for schools has increased . Well, let's take a look at some statistics from Bra nd on School Divisi on where , in 1984, the provincial support was about 82 percent. In 1986, that support had gone down to 74 percent.

What about their special levy? Where did the spec ial levy go? It went from 22.3 mills in 1984 to 39.9 mills in 1986. Why? And why? -(Inte rje ction)- the Min ister says, well I never changed the special levy. What a foolish answer , typical again of a Minister not being able to untllerstand the 191 situation. The provincial levy goes down , so who has to pick up the slack? The local taxpayer , Mr. Deputy Speaker . I go to the funding of public schools in saying that the Premier committed himself to 90 percent funding for school divisions by 1990.

Last Thursday, the Premier said that this comm itm ent has now withered into a hope . A MEMBER: Withered into a hoax. MR. L. DERKACH: I think it's withered into a hoax is right. So can school divisions expect any move towards the 90 percent fundin g? I say no. What does the GSE formula do? I think it's been pointed out by the Bran don Schoo l Division , who took the lead in this attempt to get some reason and sanity into the formula, that the for mula was inadequate because all it was doing was rewa rding those school divisions whose spendings were high in the previous year.

So if I was a school division that practised some efficiency and practised some cutbacks in spending , how was I rewarded by this government? I was rewarded by getting fewer or smaller per pupil grants for the current year. That's the way this formula works, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Yet this Minister will not change that formula to reflect the needs of Manitoba school divisions. It's just another example of incompeten ce. But we will not change our approach. We will keep pressing for a change in that formula , so the burden of taxes will not be shifted to local taxpayers but will be the province 's as it should be.

Even the Brandon School Division, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it asked this Minister where his long-term plan was. I'd like to read the question to you: The questio n must be asked whether or not the re is a long-term plan or only short-term decis ions which result in the creat ion of new stopg ap formulas." That's what this governmen t is abou t. That's what this Minister is about, creating new formulas as stopgap solutions. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I guess we could spend the entire time on funding , but that's not the only probl em there is in education.

What about the quality of education when we talk about qual ity of education throughout? What has this government done with regard to quality of education in our schools? I say this for the record, that after pressure from this side of the House, the former Minister finally agreed to a high school review. Then I think they were going to shelve it. They were hoping that we wouldn 't touch it last year. Then when we did raise it, the Minister of Education said yes, we're going to have a high school review. But where is this high school review? What's happening with it? The Minister scoffs ; he huffs and puffs . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the high school review has gone nowhere yet . In talking to several school divisions, I haven 't found one division that can tell me what the status of the high school review is. There are some meetings behind closed doors, as I understand it. There are some conflicts in terms of what the position should be with regard to the working papers . We've talked about a high school review for a long time. Parents , administrators, teachers have asked for a high school

Monday, 9 March, 1987 review for years, and yet there's procrastination . There's an unwillingness to go ahead with it as expediently as possible. HON. J. STORIE: Why don't you check some of this out then? MR. L. DERKACH: He says: " Why don 't you check some of this out? " Where has the high school review gone? I've asked him in the House where it is. He couldn 't tell me. All he could do was bafflegab. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'm sure , if the Minis ter had it his way and if we would stop pressuring him on the high school review, he would sweep that high school review process under some rug and leave it there and hope that no one would ever mention it again, because he hasn't got the courage to go ahead with the prope r high school review. But we won't let that happen. Just because we have an incompetent Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker , we will continue to push for a proper high school review. How competent did this Minister appear when he proposed to keep teachers' salaries at zero percent?

He was going to be the hero, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and he made the statement that now he was going to have the teachers' salaries frozen at zero percent. A MEMBER: That was a Christmas story. MR. L. DERKACH : Yes, that was a Christmas story. He was going to entice them by giving them a miniscule fund that would be administered by the board and the teachers. What does this do to our bargaining process in this province, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Yet, what did we see in other sectors of our society?

Well I know, for example in the Civil Service, there was something like a 4 percent increase for this year, but yet teachers were asked to take zero percent. Well now, is this Minister prepared to intervene in the arbitration process? Where is the arbitration process now? What is he going to do with his fund when school divisions, in fact, settle above zero percent? We're going to watch with interest as to where this is all going to, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The education system in Manitoba, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is plagued with many problems , ranging from funding to programs , transportation, right through the whole array in the education field. But I'm going to leave education now for a while. I'll leave the Minister alone, and I'd like to mention Crown corporatio ns, Mr. Deputy Speaker . This area has been touched by my leader and my colleagues of this House, and there has been more money squandered in this area, I think, than in any other area that the government has under its jurisdiction . We saw the MTX fiasco . What could $27 million - and ticking higher , I suppose - do for this province?

Well what could it do for our farmers? -(lnterjection)­ well are you proud of the MTX affair? You were the originator of the MTX affair, Mr. Minister . Are you proud of it? Twenty-seven million dollars, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what could that do for our health system? What could that do for our education system? What could that do for our farmers? But where is it? Squandered by an incompetent Minister and an incompetent government. 199 Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have to publicly thank my leader and the Member for Pembina for attacking this government and for finally bringing the issue to the fore and making sure that this Minister resign from that portfolio so that there wouldn 't be any more squandering of money, or at least not that much squandering of money as there was under his jurisdiction. The Premier did not have the audacity to ask him to resign . But did he resign from Cabinet? Oh, no, because then that would mean he wou ldn't have a salary, so therefore you only resign one part of it and you keep the other just to keep that salary going.

Well we go from one Crown corporation to another . Then we have Manfor . What kind of incredible losses have we had in this corporation? But rega rdless of the losses, this government tries to say that Manitoba is doi ng well under its Crown corporations. How much more time will elapse before the losses get so incredible that this corporation will also be dum ped? If this Minister cannot handle that portfolio , why doesn't the Premier ask him to resign? Instead of this, what do we find? We find that we're going to have another layer of bureaucracy.

We're going to have another group of Ministers oversee the Crowns . What are they going to do with them? Well we're going to have more bungling. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say that, if a Minister is not capable of looking after a portfolio, it should be taken away from him instead of creating other layers of bureaucracy. This government is deteriorating into a joke. What about Flyer Industries? It's been mentioned already. After millions of dollars of losses , what happened to this corporation? Did they sell it? No, they had an offer to sell it, but that wasn't pol itically expedient for them. So what do you do?

You give it away, and then you give some fringe benefits with it. Why do you do that? Because it makes you look good to some sectors . And the list goes on to MPIC. It's unfortunate that the Minister responsible for MPIC is not here. But what kind of management and responsibility do we have when we look at the Carman Agri Service situation? If it hadn't been for the Member for Pembina , where would this enterprise be? It may still be there, Mr. Deputy Speaker , but at least there might be a glimmer of hope. We would have a livelihood ruined. We would have people put out of jobs, people put on welfare. Why?

Because this Minister bungled it, because he didn't know how to do it. He is incompetent. Again, does the Premier ask him to resign? No, he just keeps staying on. We'll keep losing more . A MEMBER: Who's he going to replace him with? MR. L. DERKACH: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I shudder to think what we haven 't uncovered yet and what still remains that we don 't know about in these Crowns. Then we go to Workers Compensation. Here is the new loser on the street; it's joined the bunch of losers that we have. When the Conservative Government left office, Workers Compensation was in a surplus.

Now it' s millions of dollars in debt. Do you know what the Minister of Highways said to us across from his seat the other day? He said, it's the former administration 's

Monday, 9 March , 1987 fault, because they were charging premiums that were too low and their payouts were too low. That's why Workers Compensation was in trouble. What an attitude! Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have to move on, and I'd like to say a few more words about agriculture in the time that's left. Agriculture is near and dear to me, because I am a farmer, but the time has come to face the challenge at hand.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture to put aside those political ideals that he has and to stop blaming the Federal Government, the Saskatchewan Government and the Alberta Government, and to face the situation in front of him. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Premier was in my constituency two weeks ago and , when he spoke to a school opening, he said, "I had a unique exper ienc e today." -(Interjection)- We let him in th is time. But after 18 years in politics, he said tha t he had the unique experience of having both sides of the House agree on a bill.

I expect or I would hope that this Premier could have another unique experience because, if he brought something sensible into this House with regard to agriculture, he would find how quickly we could agree , but we're waiting for that . But I'm not sure whether the Minist er of Agricult ure can do that. We mentioned several programs that coul d be implemented, and I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture is here to hear them , because I think that some of the suggestions were genuine and I think they were meant to help the farmers, not simply to grands tand.

The first suggestion came from the Member for Arthur, who said that we should implement a land con servation and family preservation plan - a sens ible plan. It makes sense to us. It even made sense to some of the members across the way, and I'm wondering whether the Minister of Agriculture could really bring himself to seriou sly consider something like that. The Mem ber for Virden brought forth severa l different ideas.

He said: "Why don't we take a l ook at the Saskatchewan Loan Assistance Plan to far mers ?" He said : "We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to implement a program," and that's what the Minister of Health said today. Let's take a look at the positive aspects of that program, and see if we can apply it to the farmers in Manitoba . What about a fuel rebate to the farme rs in Manitoba? What is wrong with assisting farmers who use fuel to put in their crops with a bit of a rebate? What about interest reli ef for MACC?

I mus t c ongratulate the Minister of Agriculture for putting in that plan last year. There are other initi atives, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I'm sure could be embarked on. Can the Minister or the Premier bring themselves around to some meaningful discussion on these topics? Will the Minister call the Standing Committee on Agriculture to listen to far mers, to Chambers of Commerce and to people who may have some concern and regard for agricultur e? There are monies available if we want to make them available . What do we do by propping up the farm economy? We keep the rural communitie s going .

First of all, we keep the farmers going and then we kee p the rural communities going. Then we keep businesses open, farm machinery busine sses open, and we also keep manufacturers open in the city. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker , it keeps jobs alive. So therefore, the economy starts to grow; the economy starts to move. It isn't stagnated .

I say, in a time of stress, in a time of total economic breakdown in agriculture, it is time for us on both sides of this House to pool our resources together , not merely to throw good money after bad, but to assist the farmers who are in a genuine dilemma and who need help at least in the short interim. If we want to, Mr. Deputy Speaker , we can find the funds, and nobody is going to criticize the government if they have to take it out of gene ral revenue in the short interim, because that is really propping up the Manitoba economy.

Everyone knows that, if a rural econo my is strong, the rest of the economy is healthy as well. I live next to Saskatchewan and I see the effects of those programs , and they are positive. I see the differen tia ls in the fuel prices and I know that those programs are a benefit to those farmers. 200 Let's not try to be cute. Let's not put programs in place that mean nothing to anyone, such as - and I give one example - the Farm Start Program. How many people have taken advantag e of the Farm Star t Progr am to date? When I checked last with MACC , there hadn't been any. A MEMBER: Oh, this fake prog ram .

No wonder he wouldn't tell us the other day in the House when he was asked how many. MR. L. DERKACH: Is this Minister now goi ng to bring in the Land Bank Prog ram, a program which did not work bef ore? I challenge th is House, Mr. Deputy Speaker , to join us in our desire to do something positive for agriculture in Manitob a.

In moving the Throne Speech, the Member for Lac du Bonnet attem pted to illustrate the need for support for the agriculture indus try but, unfortunat ely, I think he was embarrassed by his move just prior to his speech because, in his move to support the action of th is government , he clearly showed that he was not supporting the farmers an d the farmers of his constit uency . But that's not surprising, because I th ink the Member for Lac du Bonnet has found himself in that kind of a position before . In closing , Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to put it on record that the Throne Speech did little for Manitobans .

It lacked in vision, in directi on and substance , giving litt le hope for constructive action on the part of the government. This government has lost sight of its mandate , and has resorted to bla ming everyone for its despicable performance . Who stands up for Manitobans, Mr. Deputy Speaker? On the MTX issue, who stood up for Manitobans? Was it the NDP? No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was this side of the House . Who stood up for Carman Agriculture? Was it the government? No, it was this side of the House . Who stands up for agriculture? Well, we haven't seen anything out of that bunch over there.

What about Crown corporation losses? Who stood up for that? That government? No, it was this side of the House . And who has been standing up for educat ion and funding of education and qua lity of education? Has it been the Minister? No, it certainly has not . I close in the hope that some sanity will prevail over there , and somewhere or somehow there will be some glimmer of hope in what can be done by this administration for Manitobans .

Monday, 9 March, 1987 Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thank you, Mr . Deputy Speaker . I take a great deal of pleasure and pride in joining in the Throne Speech Debate on this occa sion, Mr . Deputy Speaker. I firstly want to take this opportunity to mention a few people, I think, who deserve thanks and compliments.

I think it's true that very often members of the Legislature can vent their frustrations by standing up here for 40 minutes and berating the Opposition or the Government, as the case may be, and they get rid of a lot of their pent-up frustration. Yo u don't see that many nervous breakdowns and difficulties in politicians, I think, because of the fact that they can stand up here and give someone heck in a very formal way with a 40-minute time frame. Not that many people can get someone to listen to them for 40 minutes, and vet their complaints and their concerns.

It's one way of doing that, that we have I think that keeps sanity on this side, as the Member for Roblin- Russell was hoping would exist and would continue to prevail on this side of the Hous e. But I want to, before I stand up here and raise some concerns with the Opposition, and talk about a few of the programs and policies that we have put in place for the people of Manitoba that I think have benefited the people of Manitoba over the last number of years, just extend my congratulations to the new Lieutenant­ Governor who has been appointed.

I think he will be a worthy representative of Her Majesty in Manitoba. I also want to extend best wishes to the former Lieutenant-Go vernor, Her Honour Pearl McGonigal, who I believe served that office well. I had the opportunity to act as her landlord, as Minister of Government Services, for a number of years, and she took a great deal of pride and interest in calling me her landlord every time I saw her. But I'll tell you that I believe she did an excellent job as Lieutenant-Governor in the Province of Manitoba. I also want to express some of these compliments in a very sincere way.

I noticed that the Member for Brandon West decided to go and compliment a few people at the beginning of his spee ch, but then I read on and I came to the conclusion that he wasn't very sincere about what he was saying. He said - and it's a selective quote - "The key to political success is sincerity . Once you can learn to fake that, Madam Speaker , you've got it made." Now I think that the Member for Brandon West , if he believes that he can fake sinceri ty, then he's not got the key to success, Mr . Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Brandon West raising a point of order.

Wo uld the member state his point of order? MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of Highways has really flushed me out, and he has shown the House what he means by sincerity when he spoke about this definition of sincerity . I wish he'd read the few lines before. I, in fact, insist that he do that, Mr . Deputy Speaker. 201 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Disagr eement about what's been said is not a point of order. The Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the member across the way was insulting this side of the House and the New Democrats generally by saying that this is our creed; that is, that we fake sincerity and that's the key to our political success. Of course, I can see clearly that the Member for Brandon West is definitely on the wrong track insofar as his own personal political success if he believes that is the case for any politician in this House. Certainly sinc erity is not some thing you can fake. So, when I give complime nts to people in this room and in this Cham ber, Mr . Deputy Speaker, I'm saying tha t with all si nceri ty.

I want to compliment my colleagues for the excel lent work and job that they have been doing, the Ministers in Cabinet, and the backbenchers in caucus on this side of the Hous e. Particularly , I want to compliment our House Leader. I think our House Leader has taken steps to restore order and sanity as much as any can in this House. It's not being done by himself. It is being done in conjunction with the Opposition House Leader as well, and I want to extend compli ments to both of those House Leaders, because I believe that they have demonstrated cooperation can exist between the parties.

It's very important that they be recognized for this work and that their leadership carry over into the caucuses, to the other members in this House as we move forward during this Session so that we can stick to the issues, as the Member for St. Norb ert is saying. He's a little bit embarrassed at the fact that he's getting so many compli ments, but the fact is they are made with sincerit y. I really believe that he and the Mem ber for Churchill have been doing a great job as House Leaders in this House. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to just say though that it is imperative on all of us, when we do stand up here and vet our frustrations in our speeches and bring forward our concerns and suggestions, that we do not perpetrate misinformation on other members of this House, and that we do not use misinformation and partial truths in our questions in this House and in our answers in this House, but that we accurately reflect the facts to the best of our abil ity. I think that point is being missed by members of the Opposition in many instances in this House.

They have used selective information, misinformation in this House on many occasions. I won't go into the many examples in their Throne Speeches, but I will mention a few that they have brought forward insofar as their questions in this House. I guess one of the most blatant examples tha t I've witnessed was the one personally brought forward to my attention by the Member for Ste. Rose, coached by the Mem ber for Pembina, when he gave the information to this House and left on the record that the bridge north of Selkirk was now going to cost 50 percent more than the estimates, and that is $28 million.

That kind of misinformation ended up in the hands of the Member for River East, who either heard it in caucus or dis cussed it with the Member for Pembina, as he lays his leadership plans in the Opposition caucus.

Monday, 9 March, 1987 But they should realize , the Member for Ste . Rose, the Member for River East should remember that the Member for Pembina has also been referred to on many occasions as a loose cannon. He strikes out; he misses many more times than he hits. Eventually, he does strike something out of the bush, but usually he's missed all over and he's firing like a loose cannon . And those members , the rookie members for Ste.

Rose and River East, should take some thought, take it seriously, consider very seriously whether they want to be that kind of a politician who is going to miss 99 times out of 100 and be known as a loose cannon, as opposed to someone who does indeed do a thorough job of research before he gets into questions and issues. That kind of statement by the Member for Ste . Rose was, I don't think, becoming of him as a representative of that constituency .

I hope that, in the future, he will stick to the facts when he brings information to this House and when he raises questions in this House and that he does not distort it. I think it 's importan t that when he does bring information that is misrepresentative of the facts in this House, he should stand up - he owes that out of respect - in this House and clarify that misinformat ion and apologize for it to this House. I think that's very importan t. He has not done that to this point in time. There are other examples of misinformation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we've also seen.

Of course, we've seen the situation surrounding agricultural assistants in this province and the members there have chosen - as a matter of fact, the Member for Roblin-Russell was referring to bashing Saskatchewan and Alberta, but he doesn't remember the fact that it is that side of the House that has brought forward the comparison, and said Saskatchewan and Alberta are doing all of these things for agriculture in their provinces and now we should be doing more here. But the fact is that the information that they were using - and it was a Western Producer magazine

article that they chose to use as the basis for their comparison without doing any research into the facts. So we saw a prime exampl e there of misinformation in this House being used as a basis for their question , without them first determining whether that information was accurate or not. They seemed not to be concerned whether it's accurate, whether the people of Manitoba are getting the facts with regard to agriculture, a very important topic . You know, Manitoba is not doing enough. The farmers are in very difficult straits.

We all recognize that, and the fact is they are in difficult straits right across this country and in many places of the world. However, there is a need for greater leadership and initiative to be shown at the federal level. Now, when we're dealing with agriculture , the fact is, in '86-87 alone, there were $106 million - $106,512,000 - and in addition to that, there was other indirect aid given to the farm community of some $53- $54 million in fuel tax and retail sales tax rebates that they did not have to pay.

So if you add those up, it's close to the $160 million that we're referring to in one year in assistance to the farm community, rather than the $34 or $36 million that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition in his questions , and perhaps by the Agriculture critic as well. The fact is that, on a per farmer basis, Manitoba is doing very well and has to do more, and we intend to 202 do more in the future .

But one thing that the Member for Virden should realize is that, by putting up a smokescreen and attacking this Provincial Government, he is not going to be able to change the attitudes of the farmers as to the facts. That is, the farmers know that agriculture is a federa l responsibility for years. It is the same in this count ry as it is in other countries, the same as it is in the European Common Market, in the United States . How much does North Dakota put in to aid the farmers who are in difficul ty there? The fact is, the states do not put in those kinds of figures of aid to agriculture.

They don't do that in other countries. In the European community, they are very much receiving federal aid under federal programs. It is not a matter of the states or the local governments providing assistance for agriculture . And in Canada , it is the same. But we have the Federal Government coming forward with low initial payments that are going to break the farmers, 20 percent reduction last year and it looks like another 20 percent -(Interjection)- dastardly 20 percent reduction this year that will cripple the farm community if that is allowed to happen.

That is why our Premier and Minister of Agriculture have taken some leadership and said to the Federal Government and to John Wise , the Minister of Agriculture, who is telling farmers to pay more attention to the marketplace and not rely on the federal treasury when deciding what crops to plant, that they must take leadership. They must show leadership, and they must take action during this difficult time. No amount of smokescreen from the Opposition in this House is going to change the attitude of farmers and the people of Manitoba as to the facts . They know that the Federal Government is not active.

They are not taking substantive action. Deficiency payments are not going to replace the initial prices, the low initial prices that they are announcing. They have to keep those initial prices up because the fact is, if they do not, the farm community is going to be in a very difficult situation in terms of credit and the ability to obtain credit to get the next crop in. So those are the facts . Instead of doing something about it at the federal level, they continue to complicate further the plight of the farmers in Western Canada instead of taking action.

We can look at The Patent Act, at the farm chemicals, the fact that the Federal Government has refused to take action that would see a sharp reduction in farm chemicals in this country. In fact, what they've done is the opposite. They've introduced changes to The Patent Act that will increase pharmaceutical drugs by a tremendous amount over the next number of years, and the Keystone Agriculture Producers have recognized the significance of that move insofar as farm chemicals are concerned .

As a matter of fact , the Keystone Agriculture Producers have passed a resolution to vigorously oppose proposed amendments to The Patent Act. They said that the higher prescription drug prices will result from monopoly pricing of pharmaceuticals without generic drug competition, and generic drugs have saved Canadians $211 million in the year 1983 alone. That 's taken from a commission report by Professor Harry Eastman. They are very concerned, the Keystone Agriculture Producers, with this move by the Federal Government ,

Monday, 9 March, 1987 led by the Member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River, the same constituency that the Member for Ste. Rose is in, and he has not raised that issue in this House. He hasn't spoken out when his Member of Parliament is leading the crusade to raise drug prices for senior citizens and others by millions of dollars in this province and count ry. He has sat on his hands; he hasn't done anything. Now they say -(Interjection)- I seemed to hit a hornet's nest over there. The facts are . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J. PLOHMAN: Right. Now this is honest. This is the truth.

The fact is what they are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker is that somehow there are going to be all kinds of jobs created in Eastern Canada. All these jobs in the chemical industries that are going to be created in Eastern Canada. We're, in Manitoba and Western Canada, supp osed to pay for those mythical jobs that might be created by their actions. Is that fair? Is that something that we should all be supporting in this province? That's like throwing in the extra dollars for the CF- 18 cont ract that it cost the people of Canada so that jobs could be created in Quebec. Is that something we should support?

It's the same thing. There is no reason why Mani tobans shouldn't be speaking out vigorous ly, and Canadians general ly, against that kind of policy that the Federal Government is putting in place. Those members across the way, Mr . Deputy Speaker, should be lead ing the assault on the Federal Government with regard to that. They should be leading, because they apparently have some kind of inroads with their federal brothers and cousins in Ottawa.

If they will talk to them, if they will talk to this Opposition, they should stand up and make their point known so that they don't go ahead blindly trying to stymie deb ate on that issue at the hearings, and holding them in Ottawa and making it difficult for people to make representat ion to hear the facts with regard to that issue. Enough of that issue, but that is typical of the kind of approach the Federal Government has taken towards the patent issue, drugs, and certainly they have done nothing with regard to farm chemicals.

They could be doing a substantial amount to reduce the input costs for producers, and they have failed to do that, while at the same time allowing the Wheat Board to continue to announce lower and lower initial prices. Now you know, Mr . Deputy Speaker , the situation in Saskatchewan, as the members sometimes like to refer to as "the golden land at the end of the rainbow," should realize that in Saskatche wan things have gotten very very bad. Mr .

Lane, the Finance Minister for Saskatchewan, rece ntly was quoted as saying that the deficit is triple - well, he didn't say that, but he was quoted as saying that the deficit will hit 1. 2 billion, which is triple as a fact of what he had first annou nced. For the year, '86-87, 1. 2 billion in one year, th ree times - and the members opposite talk about mismanagement by a New Democratic Government - th ree times by a To ry Government in Saskatchew an! What's going on?

I thought they had the secret to success, to balanc ed budgets and so on. 203 (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) But they're going to take action there. He said he's not worried. Mr. Lane says he's not worried even though it's triple. He is going to take some action. He's going to take some action on the backs of the average working person in Saskatchewan. Even Garth White of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was critical of Lane and the administration. He said the government must take a lot of the blame. "The fact is Saskatchewan 's deficit is out of control.

We 're on the brink of dis aster ." That is Ga rth Whit e of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That's not a union leader in Saskatchewan. That is Garth White of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He says that the Saskatchewan Government has failed miserably , but they are going to take some ac tion, not on the revenue side -(Interjection)- well, the fact is that the members opposite continually refer to Saskatchewan as the golden land. That's how it's supposed to be done, but look at the facts. They are going to freeze wages there for two years, they said.

They are going to cut 2,000 jobs. They are going to do all of those things that are going to hurt average people in the Province of Saskatchewan. Now that certainly isn't what the people of Manitoba want in this province, and it certainly isn't what they are going to see when the Minister of Finance brings down his Budget very short ly. We don't want to bash Saskatchewan and Al berta, but the fact is it is those people opposite, Madam Speaker, those Opposition members, who consistently use Sask atchewan as the example that we should be following in how To ries operate.

So it's good to bring out some of those facts. The fact is, Manitoba is doing very well. Yo u know we can look at my own constituency a little bit, and I would like to talk about the Dauphin constituenc y.

The fact is that, in 1981, when the Ly on Government was ousted by the people of Manitoba after one term because of ineptitude, because of acute protracted rest raint, because of a lack of sensitivity and because of a lack of rec ognizing the importance of gove rnment's initiative in the econo my, we had a situation in Dauphin - I was on the town council at that time, and I recall that there was very little hope. It was doom and gloom for people in 19 81. There was difficulty getting any assistance for urban and municipal infrastructure from the province.

There was no program whatsoever at that time, no assistance. We ll, they have the grant-in-aid that's been in place through the Highways Department, but nothing in addition to that to help mun icipalities with special projects that they might want to undertake. The whole initiative was stifled at the local level. The hospitals were frozen for a couple of years. The Dauphin Hospital was a victim and the planning process began again. There were a number of other serious concerns that were raised at that time.

The Member for Sturgeon Cre ek, I believe, was the Minis ter for Busi ness Development or something of that nature at that time, and he had an audi t of the Parkland Reg ional Development Corporation for no reason whats oever. They were in very difficult straits, because of the aspersions that that audit cast on their integrity. There

Monday, 9 March, 1987 was the recommendation and then the closing of Smith Jackson School in the south end of Dauphin. There was only talk about the Dauphin by-pass. There was very little action on hig hways and roads. There was no assistance for beef producers. It was very difficult at that time in 19 81. But since tha t time, we have seen a com plete turnaround in the attitude and in the results in the Dauphin constituency and thr oughout Manitoba, at least in terms of the attitude of people towards the future.

Even with the difficult financial crisis in agriculture at this time, the global difficulties and national difficulties faced by rural people, there is still more hope by them, and more results to look at with pride than they had in the four years while the Ly on Government was in office in this province. So we've seen results. We've seen Main Street Manitoba in places like Dauphin and Winnipegosis. We 've seen help and assistance for bridges for rural municipalities. We have seen assistance for the arenas and recrea tional facililties that enhance the quality of life in rural areas.

We 've seen progress and development in health care on health care projects, on capital projects, on new schools for the communi ties in that area, Madam Speaker. We have seen the results all around and the people responded positively last March 18 because of that. They did not, Madam Speaker, elect this government under false pretences. They elected - as the Member for Roblin- Russell just said in his speech, that is not why they elected this government.

They re-elected this government because of the results and the example that we demons trated over the first four years of our government, the fact that we would work for the people of Ma nitoba. Tha t is why they re-elected this government, not on the basis of promises, Madam Speak er. And we will continue, Madam Speaker, to work for the people of this province right across the province even in all of the - despite the inept representation by members across the way, even despite their lack of understanding of the issues, we will get results for their constituencies. We will get results.

We will work for the people in the Member for Emerson's constituency and we will work for the Member for Ste. Rose and the Member for Portage la Prairie, despite the fact that he is not encouraging us in a positive way to do so. We will still do that, Madam Speaker. And I can assure -(I nterjec tion)- well, the Member for Brandon West will also be able to take some pride in the results of this government because everyo ne benefits from good government in the whole province. And I want those members to know, opposite, that is my intent that I would only hope that they will endeavour to bring forward the facts.

I want to compliment the new critic for Hig hways - he's just been named to that post - and I want to let him know that I want to wish him well and to hope that he can stay in that office for many years in the future and bring forward good suggestions and constructive suggestions in the highw ays and transportation area that the government can act upon.

But surely , it is incumbent upon him to not continue on the wrong foot that he started with here last week when he asked his first questions about hig hways and transportation in this province. 204 Let me just mention - the fact is that I have clearly stated in this Hous e that the North of Selkirk Bridge was located there for reasons that are a matter of record. The fact is that the R.M. of St. Clements, the R.M. of St.

Andr ews, the To wn of Selkirk, the Selkirk and District Chamber of Commerce, the Selkirk and District Planning Board, all of those organizations asked us to put the bridge in a north of Selkirk location. We do not ignore the positions. The Member for Emerson wants something south of Winnipeg. He thinks that's the only place where you can put anything that's worthwhile perhaps. The fact is that there are constituencies that are underserviced over the years in this province, and we have to rec ognize their needs too.

So when local governments, local planning boards and local Chamb ers of Com merce put forward their views, we do not ignore those views. We take them into consideration in making our decisions, and that's what was done there. Let me say that there was ample consideration for the future traffic counts for that area. There was consideration for the need for a future bridge south of Selkirk, as well, sometime in the future. There was also a recognition that the Federal Government has a respo nsibility south of Selkirk, because they have the Lockport Bridge and it's a federally-operated facility.

The fact is that, sometime in the future, they'r e going to want to close that dam up in terms of bridge, and they will want to come forward at that time, hopeful ly, and ask for the province to construct a bridge and be offering to put in some sufficient monies to share in that cost. However, if we were to build a new bridge south of Selkirk at this time without having that kind of proposal from the Federal Govern ment, surely we would have had to pay the whole thing and the Federal Government simply could have shut down the Lockport Bridge with no problem, no implication for future.

Now that is a serious consideration. We now have an additional bridge in that locat ion. Yes, the costs escalated from the original estimate, and you know why they did? Because the original estimate was for a bridge with a 32-foot clearance, similar to the North Perimeter. Yo u see, the engineers based it on that bridge that was there at the North Perimeter. They did not realize that ther e were other considerations at the time they gave the initial design and the initial cost estimate. But they found out soon tha t ther e were other considerations, that there was recreat ion in that area.

There was a federal dredge, if you had a 50-foot mast on it, and they had to accommodate those other considerations. Natural ly, the cost of the bridge went up significantly after that time. Of course, the initial decisions that were made as to go or not to go on the bridge were based on a lower estimate, which is unfortunate that happened. But the fact is the bridge is still warranted and justifiable in that area of the province.

Madam Speak er, I want to just speak a little bit about deregu lation, an issue tha t faces this province, particularly in transportation, and one that I am very much interested in at this particular time as the Minister of Highw ays and Transportation. I would hope that the members opposite would do everything they can to assist this government in putting forward forcefu lly the views of Manitobans with regard to deregulation in this province, because it is going to take a gigantic effort

Monday, 9 March, 1987 to in any way influence further the Federal Government's plans with regard to particularly trucking and rail dereg ulation in this countr y. Manitoba's voice is a small voice insofar as all of Canada is concerned. We do not have the clout, as we have seen demo nstrated in many, many different situations with regard to such issues as CF -18, that other provinces have in our Confedera tion. So we have to band together when a serious issue comes forward, and we have to put forward one strong united voice. I believe we have the makings of that kind of consensus in the province.

We have the trucking industry, who is speaking out very strongly against the all or nothing kind of approach that the Federal Government is taking in deregulation and the fact that they wish to move so quickly that ther e is not a transi tion pe riod, without first understanding the implications of their actions and then moving forward in a consid erate and prudent way.

So the trucking indus try is very concerned about what is happening, and labour is very concerned about what is happening because, Madam Speak er, the experience of the United States would show that hundr eds of thousands of jobs were lost in transportation when deregulation occurred. So they have reason to be concerned that there is consolidation. Rather than more competition, what ultimately takes place is a consolidation of the transportation companies that are serv ing. Therefore , you come closer to monopoly situations, rather than competitive situations.

Before that, during a transition period, you have hypercompe tition, which is destructive competition because it leads to taking short cuts. We've seen it in air, in rail and in trucking in many parts of the United States and in Canada as well, particularly in the last few years. So they wanted to take short cuts, and safety then is sacrificed in many circumstances. We can't let that happen in Canada.

We have also to be very, very careful in Canada that the Americans are not in a position to take over and domi nate our transportation sector, and they will be able to do that unless we have some safeg uards in place. Yet the Federal Government, in its interest and desire to facilitate and expedite a fair trade agreement to somehow rescue the Prime Minister, he hopes that somehow this is going to catch on with the public of Canada, and it hasn't done that yet. I just saw a recent poll this morning.

It says the same number of people are skeptical about free trade initiatives as were five months ago; noth ing has changed. So that is a grave failure on the part of the Federal Government, but they are trying to move forward. They haven't even put transportation on the table. They've already taken it off and given in to the Americans insofar as transportation is concerned . They're not even going to talk about it at all. They'r e just going to say to the Americans, we will do whatever you want in tr anspor tation. We will comp letely deregulate, yes.

I have come forward and said, let us at least make an effort to negotiate an agreement for transportation in all modes, but particularly in trucking. The fact is that the Minister of Transport has ignored those requests from many different sectors up to this time. So we don't even see transportation on the table. We see that already pulled off the table. What we need is an agreement that will recognize certain thresholds of control of the transportation sector 205 that would be accep table under the agreement.

Perhaps transpor ter trucking between Canada and the United States could be 50-50 or 30-70; 30 by Canadians, 70 by Americans controlled. If it went over that, they would recognize our right to control and regulate if there was a threshold that was broken. But they haven't got any thresholds, and they don't have a dispute mechanism that would be put in place to resolve disputes in the event that there will be disputes. There will be disputes. There is no doubt about it, once all of the safeguards are taken out of place that are in place now to protect the Canadian industry.

So we're going to have a rather chaotic situation, I believe, in transportation in the next number of years, and I think the risk is there that Manitoba and Canada could lose a great deal in terms of control of the transportation sector. By losing that, we will lose jobs, Canadian jobs, Manitoba jobs, and we will also lose the abi lity to mob ilize, Ma dam Speaker, the transportation sector when and if it is required in terms of national emergencies.

The fact is, if it is controlled by the Americans, they are going to say that the transportation sector in their country is a top priority if there is ever a national emergency and we will rate second fiddle here in Canada. We can't allow that to happen. That is just a basic req uirement, I believe, of the futur e of transportation in Canada. We have to have some protect ion. It is not the voice of labour speaking; it is not the voice of the trucking industry speaking; it is not the voice of the shipping community speak ing. It is all of those voices speaking, Madam Speaker.

They are all concerned about this and they have said that in Manitoba. We need the support of the Opposition as well in this issue so that we can go forward with a strong voice and influence the Federal Government in what they are doing in the transportation sector, so that safety will not be impacted negatively and jobs for Canadians are not impacted negatively. That is our