Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 14-1:30 p.m., Wednesday, April10, 1996 ISSN 0542-5492

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETI, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, Mary Ann MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affilia tion Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River eaay N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

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

599 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, April10, 1996 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Retention of Hogs Single-Desk Selling Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Dan Kli ppenstein, Gerhard Friesen, Gord Blatz and others requesting that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) consider reversing his decision and retaining a system of orderly marketing of hogs in Manitoba under Manitoba Pork. Home Care Services Mr.

Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Florence Lamoureux, Dianne J ohann son, Esther Revet and others requesting the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Kim Morrison, Jaime Carr asco, Collette Aubin and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr.

Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Irv Riskin, Debby Par adoski, Dianne Riskin and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr • .fun Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I beg to present thepetitionofD. Gorrell, D. Courage, S. Kelly and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr.

George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Sylvia Fediuk, Sandy Sche chter, Augustine Ziffle and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Ms. Diane McGitJord (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Bill Bilawka, Karen Advent, Grace Kusie and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Stacey Pinnock, Maureen Pinnock, Beryl Juzda and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jared Winters, Troy Scott, Mona Chappellaz and others requesting the Premier and the Mini ster of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St.

James): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Donna Green, Louise McQuade, Vicki Cook and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Carolyn Buffi.e, Jennifer Cote, and Yvonne Chartrand requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Bruce Tynes, Carri McCo rmick, Janice Tynes and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Judy Drabik, Raymond Sharp, Iva Sharp and others requesting the Premier and the Min ister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services.

600 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April lO, 1996 Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Kim Marcyniuk, Trudy Walski, Janice Goo dman and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize horne care services. *

(1335) Retention of Hogs Single-Desk SeUing Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Paul Kolrnatiski, Leo Wnuk, Darren Kryschuk and others requesting that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) consider reversing his decision and retain a system for the orderly marketing of hogs under Manitoba Pork. Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader ofthe Opposition): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Rick Vaags, Bill V aags, Michel Gauthier and others requesting that the Minister of Agriculture consider reversing his decision and retain a system for orderly marketing of hogs in Manitoba under Manitoba Pork. Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Karl Kynach, Ron Froese, Harvey Hmms and others requesting that the Minister of Agr iculture consider reversing his decision and retain a system for orderly marketing of hogs in Manitoba under Manitoba Pork. Home Care Services Mr.

Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Carl Porteous, Mary Thiessen, Doug Blaschuk and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize horne care services. Ms. Becky Barrett (WeUington): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Eleanor Bro�nlee, Judy Chir sky, Brenda Dozenko and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize horne care services. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of E. Rae Hatherly, R Hamilton, J.

Fedom and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize horne care services. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Vicki Holmes, Rosalie Mazur, Pat McCorrnack-Speatznr and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize horne care services. Mr.

Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Louise Gaba, Jaroslaw Gaba, Pauline Mirus and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize horne care services. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Retention of Hogs Single-Desk Selling Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: The Clerk will read. *

(1340) Mr. Clerk (WiUiam Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the provincial government announced its intention to move to an open marketing system for hogs in Manitoba without consulting producers as it promised during the last election; and

WHEREAS a majority of hog producers support single-desk selling under Manitoba Pork, the marketing board; and

WHEREAS the hog industry in Manitoba has doubled under an orderly marketing system; and

WHEREAS processors who will contribute to Manitoba's value-added industry have publicly expressed their preference for orderly marketing because it is easier to deal with one agent rather than 2,300 producers.

Apri110, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 601 WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legis lative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Agriculture consider reversing his decision and retain a system for orderly marketing of hogs in Manitoba under Manitoba Pork. Mada m Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the hono urable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

WHEREAS the provincial government announced its intention to move to an open marketing system for hogs in Manitoba without consulting producers as it promised during the last election; and THAT many LPNs have been eliminated from most acute care facilities in Manitoba, including St.

Boniface, Seven Oaks, and most recently HSC; and, THAT the LPNs of this province are valuable members of the health care system, providing professional, competent, skilled and cost-effective services; and THAT staffing cuts will only result in declining quality of health care and potentially tragic outcomes; and THAT it will not be long before the negative results of this shortcut effort are realized, including higher costs and poorer services.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to recognize the value ofLPNs and to consider reversing the decision to cut LPNs in Manitoba.

WHEREAS a majority of hog producers support single- * (1345) desk selling under Manitoba Pork, the marketing board; and

WHEREAS the hog industry in Manitoba has doubled under an orderly marketing system; and

WHEREAS processors who will contribute to Manitoba's value-added industry have publicly expressed their preference for orderly marketing because it is easier to deal with one agent rather than 2,300 producers. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Agriculture consider reversing his decision and retain a system for orderly marketing of hogs in Manitoba under Manitoba Pork. Licensed Practical Nurses Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Home Care Services Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and, THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and, THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to non-government organizations mainly private, for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user pay system of home care; and, THAT previous cuts to the Home Care Program have resulted in services being cut and people 's health being compromised; and,

602 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April lO, 1996 THAT thousands of caring front line providers will lose their jobs as a result of this change; and, THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and, THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and, THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to non-government organizations mainly private, for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user pay system of home care; and, THAT previous cuts to the Home Care Program have resulted in services being cut and people 's health being compromised; and, THAT thousands of caring front line providers will lose their jobs as a result of this change; and, THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Gregory Dewar). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and, THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and, THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to non-government organizations mainly private, for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user pay system of home care; and, THAT previous cuts to the Home Care Program have resulted in services being cut and people 's health being compromised; and, THAT thousands of caring front line providers will lose their jobs as a result of this change; and, THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. *

(1350) Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the ho nourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and,

April lO , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 603 IHAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and, IHAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to non-government organizations mainly private, for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user pay system of home care; and, THAT previous cuts to the Home Care Program have resulted in services being cut and people 's health being compromised; and, IHAT thousands of caring front line providers will lose their jobs as a result of this change; and, IHAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Public Schools Finance Board fo r the year ended June 30, 1995. As well, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Collective Agreement Board fo r the school year 1994-95.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questio ns, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us this afternoon twenty-three Grades 9 and 10 students from Fairholme Colony School and Baker Colony School under the direction of Mrs. Maendel . This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member fo r Gladstone (Mr. Rocan). We also have sixteen Grade 9 students from Faith Academy under the direction of Mrs. Jodi Daly. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member fo r Kildonan (Mr. Chomia k).

On behalf of all honourable memb ers, I welcome you this afternoon. *

(1355) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Hog Industry Marketing System Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the hog industry employs a numb er of people in this province including over 2,000 producers that are involved in this industry.

To borrow a term from the Manitoba seniors letter last week, many of those producers fe el quite betrayed by the action of the government to proceed, in their opinion, with the unilateral action on the marke ting system that we had in Manitoba Many people fee l they were given the word of the government during the last election campaign, and they have been betrayed in that word that they received.

I would like to ask the Premier specifically, did he ever give his word to pork producers here in the province of Manitoba that he would not change the marketing system fo r pork unless the ma jority of pork producers had voted fo r the change? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we have never talked about votes of the producers beca use the filet of1he matter is that Manitoba Pork was set up by the Legisl ature as a sole marketing entity and, indeed, that power is given to a group and can indeed be altered or changed by 1he government.

Indeed, we are looking at this as an opportwrity fo r expansion of hog production, a maj or expansion that has the opportunity to create some 8,000 jobs. We double hog-[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I think the member fo r Well ington (Ms. Barrett) wants to answer the question . Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I asked the Premier whether he gave his word, and I want to table a letter that is signed by Mr.

Darvin Firman, a pork producer who met with the Premier approximately fo ur or five days bef ore the last election cam paign and was told by the Premier himself that there would be no changes to Manitoba Pork unless the ma jority of producers ask fo r a change.

604 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 10, 1996 I would like the Premier to consider his word s, and ask the Premier today: Will he, in the spirit of honesty, keep his word and not proceed with the changes in the marketing system fo r pork producers here in Manitoba unless a majority of pork producers ask fo r those changes? Mr. Filmon: We have always said that governments have to act in the best interests of the people of the province.

The fa ct of the matter is we have an opportunity to add tremendous value to the production in our agricultmal community in this province in a way that will create an additional 8,000 jobs for this pro vince. That is not an opportunity that can be denied by a group that wants to have a monopoly situation on the production and marke ting of hogs in this province. This will require investments of major propor tions , investments in processing that will create 500 to a thousand jobs fo r each new unit of processing, $40- million, $50-million investments. Those cannot be controlled by one private interest group .

We need to have investments in the million-dollar range to create major production fucili.ties in this province, and they need to be bankable. They need to be able to take pork production agreements fo r sale to the bankers to be bankable so that they can have that kind of investment. What we are talking about are jobs. We are talking about thou sands of jobs, and this gov ernm ent will continue to act in the best interests of all Manitoban s. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, the only private interests we see aff ecting this government is the McMaster fa mily on their proposal on We Care and home care, not the majo rity of pork producers here in the province of Manitoba. I have asked the Premier a couple of specific questions about something as fundamental as his word. I have asked him on two occasions to talk about the commitment he gave in the election campaign to pork producers, not the rhetoric he is giving us now in the Chamber a year later.

I would like to ask the Premier, why did he give his word to producers and farmers in Manitoba that they would not change the marketing system unless the majority of the producers desired so? Why did he break his word after the election campaign? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that we had a report that was produced by an independent commission that outlined the alternatives that were available to gov ernm ent. Government has said that go vernmen t makes the final decision, that this is not a matter that will be set to ref erendum, and that is not a commitment that I would ever have made. *

(1400) Hog Industry Marketing System Ms.

Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that the Premier and many of the Conservative candidates in the last election gave their word that they would not change Manitoba Pork unless the majo rity of producers asked fo r this change, in lig ht of the fa ct that feed processors and many of the large packers have said that the system is working very well, will the Premier agree today that what they have done is wrong, and will he tell producers that he will give them the opportunity to have a say, give them the opportunity to have a ref erendum on this issue before they make the change from single-desk selling to dual marketing of hogs in this provin ce?

Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I repeat, the issue here is jobs and economic opportunity for all Manitob ans. The issue here is an opportunity fo r 8,000 additional jobs in pork processing, in transportation, in production, in support services to the fa rm economy. Those are opportunities that all Manitobans should be given. Ms. Wowcbuk: I beg to diff er with the minister. This is a matter of honesty.

I would like to ask the Premier, since they insist on moving into this system on open marke ting against the will of the producers, will he agree to provide an ongoing evaluation of the open marketing system to ensure that it is in fa ct accomplishing what they want and not hurting the producers of this province? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, Manitoba Pork will continue to be in operation fo r the benefit of those who

April lO, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 605 choose to utilize that system. In fact, Manitoba Pork will be strengthened by the opportunity to receive a checkoff on all hogs that are produced in this province which will give them even greater revenues to be able to support and promote Manitoba pork worldwide for the opportunities that exist. Ms.

Wowchuk: Since this is a dramatic change against the will of the producers, will the minister, the Premier, give his word that there will be an evaluation system that will involve the producers and this time that they will listen to the producers if the system is not working in the best interests of pork producers in Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, what we are interested in is not providing monopolies that give privilege to certain people in this province.

The fact of the matter is that what we are attempting to do is benefit the entire society and the entire economy of Manitoba, and that means that we have to have a system that works in the best interests of all Manitobans and their economy, and that is exactly what we will be providing. Home Care Program Privatization Mr. Dave Cbomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Madam Speaker, there is no need for a contingency plan during the strike, no need to force people from their homes into institutions, no need to have a contingency plan in place, no need for coalitions like the coalition that was formed today to fight privatization of home care if the government would only listen to what the public has to say about the privatization, if the government would only listen to the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report that said we had the best home care plan in all ofNorth America.

My question to the Minister of Health is, will the minister stop this in its tracks, feel no need to have a contin gency plan, do the right thing, stop the privatization plan right now, go back to the table, talk to the public, prevent the strike, Madam Speaker? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if I listen to the advice of the honourable member, I would allow our health care system to deteriorate further and further. Manitobans expect much more from us than that.

They expect us to have an eye to the future so that we can pass something on to future generations, something that honourable members opposite have attempted to take away from future generations. Mr. Cbomiak: Can the minister explain how the public of Manitoba can have any confidence in a privatized system or any contingency system during a potential strike when this government, this Department of Health and this minister have seriously botched every major health initiative, including the doctors' strike, the hospital fiasco, the Pharmacare fiasco where they cannot get any of that right, Madam Speaker?

How can we have any confidence in the welfare provided by this minister? Mr. McCrae: In the face of the serious efforts on the part ofhonourable members opposite and their friends to convince Manitobans that there are all of these issues in front of us and all of these problems, in the face of that, Madam Speaker, what I offer and what my colleagues offer is to put the patient, put the client ahead of all other considerations. Mr.

Cbomiak: I thank the minister for that response, so perhaps the minister can now explain to members on this side of the House why his own Centre for Health Policy Evaluation in its most recent bulletin was saying that we should not be going to a private system because it costs 33 cents on the dollar in the U.S. system to go to a private system in administration costs and this government will be giving 33 cents on the dollar to profit companies and taking away from health care.

Will he at least listen to his own health poli cy evaluation division if he will not listen to the public, the opposition or anyone in this province, Madam Speaker? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member would like to have people believe that we are moving towards the American system of health care where millions and millions of people get no care whatsoever. I mean, the honourable member should wake up and smell the coffee. This is not an American system.

We have a one-payer system in our country which distinguishes our system from the American system and from any other systems in the world and makes ours one of the best in the world. What we want to do is keep it that way, and I remind the honourable member that health

606 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April10, 1996 care was one of the key measures that the United Nations used when it judged Canada four years out of five as the best country in the world. Hog Industry Marketing System Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, my question is for the First Minister. During the 1995 election your governm ent made the promise to consult with Manitoba hog producers before making any changes to the marketing system, yet your governm ent has moved steadily ahead with changes to the way hogs are marketed in Manitoba even in the face of strong opposition from hog producers.

Can the First Minister tell this House why this government has unilaterally decided to abolish the single­ desk hog marketing system in Manitoba when 76 percent of the hog producers are opposed to the move? I will table the survey. Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, Manitoba Pork is not being abolished. Manitoba Pork in fact will have greater revenues with which to engage in promotion and marketing of Manitoba Pork worldwide to take advantage of markets that continue to expand and opportunities that continue to increase for the sale of Manitoba pork worldwide.

Those are things that are in the best interests of all Manitobans and particularly our economy. I cannot believe that the member opposite would not be in favour of the creation of additional thousands of jobs in Manitoba. Levy Collection Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Your government announced last month its intention of clearing up the backlog of$300,000 in levies owed to Manitoba Pork. Can the minister tell the House what percentage of this money to date has been paid to Manitoba Pork? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns). Marketing System-Implementation Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): My final question is to the First Minister. The producers have indicated they would like to see a delay in the implementation. Is the governm ent prepared to do so? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, my recollection is that the initial ann ouncement the minister made last fall was that implementation would take place on January 1. That was delayed as a result of many discuss ions and many other procedures that were in place. I think that the minister did respond adequately and properly to the requests of Manitoba Pork on that matter. *

(1410) Teaching Profession Post-Secondary Education Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education. I attended many of the hearings in Winni peg responding to the minister's docmn ent Enhancing Accountability. One of the most poignant presentations came from an experienced teacher in St.

James who talked about his disruptive students, students who ran out of class, the student whose, for example, mother had been shot in her face and the child had never uttered a word since, about the autistic students that he had in his class, about the child who had been raped when she was 11. He conc luded by saying: I want to state that I felt neither overqualified nor overpaid in these situations; I felt underqualified.

I want to ask the Minister of Education, why does she propose in her docwnent that Manitoba's teachers should have less post-secondary education, less training, for an increasingly deman ding job? Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I proposed no such thing in that document. Ms. Friesen: How could the approach of Enhancing Accoun tability which suggests that teachers have four years of education or less, how does that fit with

April lO , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 607 Renewing Education: New Directions which suggests that teachers mu st possess knowledge of their discipline s, have an in-depth integrating and probing mastery of foundational topics, have an understanding of econom ics in the global and local context, an understanding of perso nal financial mana gement, labour market needs, career preparation, the national economy , fiscal responsib ility- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, fortunately it also says teachers should have a sense ofhumour .

I want to ask the minister, which of these is the department reading from? Mrs. Mcintosh: I do not know if I am going to get time to address all the points the member has put on the record. What I will say, Madam Speaker, is the document Enhancing Accountability is a discussion document There are only five proposals in it, those five being a series of variations on the dispute resolution mechanism curr ently in the collective bargain ing.

The rest of the paper simply lists-and the member knows this, she knows it very well-questions , concerns, comments that have been raised by people about education over the last decade. They propose no answers to those questions; they simply raise the questions for discussion. She knows the point she mised in her first question was to deal with those teachers who do things such as get a degree in business accounting to run their summ er store, she knows specific examples, should that be credited as credit for their teaching in the schools?

It is not meant to apply to teachers who go and get relevant education that assists them in the classroom. She knows that. Talk about putting red herrings forwa rd, Madam Speaker, I think we are hearing one right now. Enhancing Accountability Report Accuracy Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, does the Minister of Education then take full respons ibility, in deed, accountability for the research and writing of this document Enhancing Accountability, a docum ent which is not only full of inaccuracies but is demeaning to thousands of teachers acro ss this province? Bon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any inaccuracies in the docum ent. I am aware of two instances where members opposite have raised questions about statements in the document which have then been checked and verified.

I say that this is a government document which identifies the historical background on the collective bargaining dispute resolution mechanism in Manitoba and lists all the questions and concerns that have been raised by trustees over the decade for discussion proposing no answers except five possible models and inviting suggestions for other models on the dispute resolution mec hanism. The rest of the points are there for discussion They raise questions that have been raised over the decade. The member knows that and is trying to make an issue where none exists. Manitoba Hydro Reorganization Ms.

MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Manito ba Hydro. For reasons of ideology and helping his friends in governm ent, this governm ent has broken the Manitoba Telephone System into four divisions making it easier to sell off parts or all of MTS. Having the second lowest local rates in North America is not a reason to keep MTS, according to this governmen t Similarly, this government is upset that Manit oba Hydro has the lowest residential rates in North America and now plans to break it up as well.

Will the minister tell the House who the consu ltants were that reconnn ended dividing Manitoba Hydro up, and were bigger ideas involved in any of the discussions? Bon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Madam Speaker, it always helps a member, I think , when they come to this House to have a sense of history. The member for St. James perhap s should be reminded on this occasion that Manitoba Hydro has gone through internal restructurings in 1981, in 1985, in '86-87 and

608 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April lO, 1996 years when her party was in power, so for a corporation to deal with internal restructuring to meet the needs of the future is not an unheard of thing. Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the minister. Will he tell the House what the plans are, having received it now from Manitoba Hydro, for dividing up Manitoba Hydro? Will the minister table the report? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member for St. James spoke about the operation of Manitoba Hydro.

I can tell her, on this side of this House, we are very proud of Manitoba Hydro in terms of its ranking in the country. It is virtually top or second in its category in all the variety of ratings. It is an extremely efficient and competitive entity and one of the reasons is because Manitoba Hydro over the last number of years has had a very good board of directors and a very, very good president in administration, and they have done internally a very significant review of their operation.

I have to tell the honourable member that this curr ent internal reorga nization is very much being driven by the administration of Manitoba Hydro because they are far more foresighted, have far much more foresight than the member for St. James and her colleagues. Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, is the IIllillSter denying that the chair of the board of Hydro clearly articulated at the PUB hearings that an external consultant was being hired to aid Hydro in this reconstruction? Who is it, and how many employees are going to be cut under this plan? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, let not the member for St.

James or her colleagues get into another feannongering campaign about the future of this utility. If the member for St. James would take some time and study the electrical industry in North America-- Madam S peaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the minister's response. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if the member for St. James, as critic, and her coll eagues would take some time to study the changes that are going on today in the North American electrical industry, she would appreciate that Manitoba Hydro has to undergo some change internally in order to meet that.

I can tell her again that this change is very much driven by the administrati on in Manitoba Hydro who is far more farsighted in their view of Hydro and electricity in Manitoba Hydro than her colleagues. I am pleased to inform the member that, yes, they have used some outside consultation. One of the groups they consulted was the electrical utility industry group management consultants, as well as Ernst & Young. I would be pleased to provide her, or have Manitoba Hydro's chief executive officer give her, a full briefing on what they are doing. If she would ask, I would be more than pleased to provide it.

Barb Biggar Manitoba Telephone System Contract Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, yesterday we learned that while this government is cutting hospitals, Pharmacare and privatizing home care, it is also going to be putting on a series of ads co-ordinated by one Barb Biggar at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars. The same Ms.

Biggar has also-we had this confirmed by the Minister responsible for MTS-a contract for communications with MTS, and of course, this comes at a time when many thousands of Manitobans have been speaking out in favour of keeping our publicly owned telephone system in public hands. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) if he can indicate just how much more money Barb Biggar is going to be getting on this contract, the contract with MTS. Bon.

Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Telephone System, through its board and mana gement, makes decisions of the nature that the member is raising the question on as to who to hire to do certain functions and what they are paid. If the member wants to know, I will find out and get back to him. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Since the minister is going to be providing that information later, I would like to ask the minister if the contract will have anything to do with the proposed privatization that the minister has been floating, and in fact, whether there will be, on the other hand, any provision put aside for the members of the

April lO , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 609 public, the owners of MTS, to have input on the final decision regarding the future of MTS? Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act ): Madam Speaker, I think the member is aware that the teleco mmunication industry is under an awful lot of technology change. We have gone from less than 10 percent of the revenue in competition to now 70 percent of the revenue in competition.

We have a technology explosion that is going to cost more money in the future, require more investment on behalf of somebody to keep MTS at the for efront of the industry where it currently is. Madam Speaker, we are going through that analysis as to how to recapitalize MTS in the future, and when that report is in the public will be made aware. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Speaker, I asked the minister and I will ask him again, will the public of Manitoba have a say over the future of MTS, or will they be doing what they are doing on home care and with the hog producers and refuse to allow the public of Manitoba to have a say over their phone company? Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, there is ongoing discussion around what I have just mentioned to the member and discussion will definitely continue around MTS and how it can continue to provide its services in the most cost-effective mann er and keep the strength of the corporation as strong as possible in the process of deliveri ng that inf ormation and that discussion through various processes will defin itely occur. *

(1420) National Securities Commission Proposal Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible fo r the Manitoba Securities Commission. The fed eral governm ent has been actively promoting the idea that there should be one securities lic ensing body in the country. I understand that the Maritime provinces have agreed to this proposal, that Ontario is in serious negotiation on this proposal .

I would like to ask the minister responsible fo r the commission, what is Manitoba's position on having one single securities licensing body in regard to the function of the current commission and the potential impacts? Bon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, since that issue was raised in the Speech from the Throne in Ottawa in February, we have been endeavouring to gather inf ormation with respect to what proposal, if any, is floating out there beyond the 1994 proposed Memorandum of Understanding.

In 1994, when the fe deral government floated this issue, there were a number of concerns related to Manitoba, none of which apparently as yet seem to be addressed. However, we are in an inf ormation-gathering mode at this point to try and find out exactly what is being proposed and then we will have to address the issue accordingly. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, my second question is also fo r the same minister.

Will the minister tell the House what the impacts of suCh a Change might be upon such vital institutions as the grain exchange or the Manitoba commodities exchange, both of which attract and maintain large offices , head offices, here in Winnipeg and are a very vital part of our economy? What is the governm ent's estimation of the impact such a fe deral move might be on those two important bodies? Mr. Ernst: As I indicated, Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, there are a number of concerns that are raised by this entire issue of a proposed national securities commission.

Those are a couple of the issues that caused us some considerable concern, and until we find out exactly what is being proposed and how issues such as that would be dealt with, then we have made no decision with respect to whether we support or do not support that proposal. Proposal-Government Position Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm to the House that there are meetings planned in Ottawa shortly, I believe within the week, to consider and discuss this matter with the fe deral governm ent?

610 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April lO , 1996 Will the minister be representing Manitoba at that meeting? What position will he be advancing on behalf of Manitobans at that meeting? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): For the inf ormation of the member opposite, the meeting is today and at that meeting representi ng the Province of Manitoba are my deputy minister, as well as the chair of the Manitoba Securities Commission.

They are there, Madam Speaker, to present our list of concerns and to learn from the federal government and from the Province of Ontario who have been the only ones carrying on bilateral disc ussions, as far as we are aware up to this point, to find out what proposals they have to make . Treaty Land Entitlements Mathias Colomb First Nation Mr.

Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister about a meeting that he had this morning with the repre sentatives of Mathias Colomb First Nation and ask him to report to the Assembly as to whether any real progress was made in that meeting, sp ecifically in regard to the band's issue of treaty land entitlement firstly and then, secondly, as TLE pertains to the rest of the bands in Manito ba. Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for Native AtTain): Madam Speaker, the member asks two question s. I will deal with the latter one first.

With respect to the overall treaty land entitlement situation, there has been a series of discussions going on intensely over the last week between the three parties involved, and I am hopeful that we will have some very posit ive news in the near future . I am not in a position today to give a full report to the House, as I am sure the member can appreciate .

With respect specifically to the Mathias Colomb First Nation and their particular issue in a Repap cutting area, we wrote to their chief last week and invited him to a meeting this morning that was held not with myself but with my deputy minister, as well as officials with the Department of Natural Resource s. We have suggested very strongly to them that they get on with selecti ng their particular land that they are interested in and worki ng it through the process in that general area.

Part of the problem here has been that they have wanted Repap to stop their cutti ng in a rather large area because they had not yet made their specific selecti on. I understand from the report I had back during the noon hour that they were in agreement with this type of pr ocess . They still had some work to do on their specific sel ection, and I understand we should be meeting again in the next few weeks. Hopefully, this will lead to them getting on with their selection, and we certainly are very willing to get on with the process of actual selection of land. Mr.

Lathlin: Madam Speaker, I comme nd the minister fo r, on the bigger question of treaty land entitlement, saying that there is progress being made and he is not at liberty to say in the Chamber as to when that issue might be settled, but I want to also advise the minister that he knows full well that curr ently in Winnipeg there are meetings going on between a fed eral negotiator and the rep resentatives from the Assembly of Manitoba Chief s.

What I would ask the minister then, as a fo llow-up to my first one, is what kind of time frame is he looki ng at in terms of when the issue at Pukatawagan might be finally resolv ed. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, if I may fo r a moment-the member asks a very good question, I think, about time frames, and one of the problems to date in this whole process, I would hope he would agree, has been quite frankly all of us, includi ng the bands, the provi ncial gov ernm ents, fed eral government, when it comes to specific selections, have been debating a lot of theory and criteria.

One of the things we have suggested in the last while is we get on with specifics, because my experience has been when you look at specific pieces of land, it is much easier to work the problem and be able to resolve it rather than deal ing with theory and crite ria.

On that basis I can assure him that we have made, in my opinion at least, very significant progress in the last while, and I hope that within a very short period to have a very positive announcement, along with my colleagues, of the treaty land entitlement committee as well as our federal colleagues with respect specificall y to the Mathias Colomb Band. They have selected a portion of their land . Some of that we have already agreed to; others we are worki ng through the pr ocess. They have indicated a willingness to select specifically in the area where they are in dispute with Repap, and I am not trying to say

Apr il lO , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 611 there still will not be problems, but I think those problems work themselves through when we get on to specific selections. That is the kind of initiative that we have been talking about and I think has had a good response from everyone involved. I am hoping very shortly that we can have an overall positive anno uncement Mathias Colomb still has a lot to work out. I do not want to give the impression otherwise, but at least we will be working on specific problems rather than theory. Hog Industry Land Usage Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premi er. This year this governm ent embarked on a move to destroy the single-desk selling advantage for Manitoba hogs. My question to the Premier is, when will his government be acting on the sustainability reco mmendations, specifically those relating to the establishment of the livestock operations renewal panel which municipal councils and hog producers could call upon when considering land uses? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). Waste Disposal Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, to the Premier again: When will his government introduce guidelines relating to waste disposal which will specifically examine how much hog sewage can be stored in lag oons, and what the maximum limit will be on the disposal of effluent? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). Marketing System Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, will the Premier show some courage and come out to rural Manitoba with a ballot box and let producers vote on the single-desk selling advantage of Manitoba Pork? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, my response is the same as it was to the similar question asked both by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Pharmacare Income Statement-student Loans Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, I asked him whether it was meanness or incompetence that led to the governm ent including student loans in the calculation of income under the new Pharmacare program, and apparently he admitted then outside the House that it was in fact incompetence, perhaps because he was in such a hurry to get rid of universality in Pharmacare . My question to the minister is: How much will this bungle cost Manitobans in order to correct this mistake, this second bungle by the minister, on the Pharmacare changes? Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, in an overhaul of a program of the nature just undertaken, there are pamphlets and information pieces that go out, and indeed in the one the honour able member brought to our attention yesterday, there was a word that was wron g that led people to the impr ession that student loans were considered income, which anybody can figure out that a loan is not income, and so obviously a mistake was made in the prin ting.

There will be subsequent reprints of the document because Manitobans will continue to need to be informed about how to access the Pharmacare program, and in subsequent printings that error will be correc ted. Mr. Mackintosh: My supplementary to the minister since he did not answer the question is, how much will this mistake cost Manitobans? Mr. McCrae: I do not think there is any cost attached to the correction of the problem. There will be a cost attached to subsequent printings which would have been undertaken in any event.

612 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April lO , 1996 Enhancing Accountability Report Written Submissions Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education has ordered that all the written submissions to Enhancing Accountability and the hearings that were held across the province, that all those submissions be held in confidence and that citizens of Manitoba be required to go to Freedom of Inf ormation and pay the fe e, wait the time, to learn what their fe llow citizens said els ewhere in Manitoba.

I wonder if the minister could give us some explanation of why this requirement fo r such secrecy. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the member frequently just goes to Freedom of Information without coming to me first to get us to do her research fo r her-saves her caucus staff some time, I guess-not withstanding that, the written submi ssions are certainly available.

The only things that we have said are not available, and in my opinion would never be available from me in my 16 years as an elected official, are private letters that come to me which have always been treated by me as confidenti al. Something addre ssed to me I never reveal without that third party's per mission, and that is how Freedom of Inf ormation works.

Any written submission that is in a fo rmal presentation is certainly available without FOI, but if she is talking about people, and she knows I have received many written documents that were sent to me as personal correspondence, without those people authorizing the release of those, I would never breach their implied confidenti ality to me. Madam Speaker: The time fo r Oral Questions has exp ired. MEMBERS ' STATEMENTS Manitoba Pork Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, on each member 's desk there is a fridge magnet from Manitoba Pork.

I would tell all members to keep these becaus e they could become collecto r's items at the rate this government is going to destroy Manitoba Pork. I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the delegates at Manitoba Pork who are having their annual meeting in Winnipeg and fa cing very serious challenges because of the actions that this governm ent has taken. When I tabled my petition, I heard one of the members across the way call me a dragon.

I will have to tell him that if I have to be a dragon I will continue to be a dragon and fight fo r the producers of Manitoba if that is what it takes . I did not make any promises during the election. I said that I will stand up for Manitoba Pork, and I will continue to, not like the other members across the way who, at many public meetings-we know that their candidates said that there would not be any changes to Manitoba Pork unless it was what the producers wanted. The public, the producers of Manitoba, have been misled.

The pork industry is a very important industry in this province, and we want to see it survive. We want to see the producers in this province survive. But what this governm ent is doing is moving towards vertical integration. All mem bers, I am sure , saw Country Canada where we saw what this system in North Carolina did, what it did to the people of the area, what it did to the water supply in the area and what it did fo r the producers who got caught up in the system and ended up losing very much. I would just like to say that what the government is doing is wrong. They should be listening to producers .

Producers should have the opportunity to have a say if there is going to be a change in their industry, and we will continue to fight on that. Thank you. Government's Economic Strategy Mr. David Newman (Riel): Madam Speaker, this governm ent 's economic strate gy is about jobs. We have long recognized two key fucts : firstly, that the strength of our economy depends on keeping Manitobans employ ed and, secondly, that our role as a government is to make Manitoba a fe rtile environment which is ripe for investment and job creation.

April lO , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 613 Creating an enviromnent which is attractive to business and investment is a strategy which is working, and we can find evidence of this from a variety of recent sour ces. For instance, recently the Conf erence Board of Canada provided statistics and projec tions supporting the topic that Manitoba was st eamr olling ahead. We posted growth of 5. 4 percent in the manuf acturing sector last year. We are expecting to expand another 8.4 percent this year. We also posted 6.8 percent growth in mining and 15. 4 percent in construction. This kind of growth creates jobs.

In fa ct, this led to the creation of about 10 ,000 new jobs last year. Many people point to Winnipeg as an ideal location fo r busin ess. Linda Rankin, fo r examp le, the president and CEO of the Women's Television Network and Winn ipeg 2000 publication written by proud, young Manitoba entrepreneur s-and I urge all honour able members to read it-she lists several reasons fo r locating her busin ess here rather than in Toronto .

These are significantly lower business costs, friendly and supportive municipal and provincial government, available skilled resourc es; lower housing costs and a supportive business community among other things. This is not the only story but one of many. This morning 's Free Press reports that the Winnip eg office 's vacancy rate is the second lowest of all of Canad a's major centres . This is attributed to the growth of small busin ess. We have consis tently stressed the importance of small business to Manitob a's economy and have diligently worked to provide an enviromnent where small business will flou rish.

Evidently this is working. Our eff orts as a go vernm ent to provide an enviromnent which is friendly to business and provides jobs fo r Manitobans is indeed bringing about results. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Seasonal Camping Permit Rates Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, yesterday our Natural Resources critic raised the outrage of many seasonal campers over the ridiculous increase of up to 100 percent in seasonal camping fee s brought in by this govermnent . The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) had the nerve to stand up and say this is because of the services that are being provided.

There is no improvement in service s. In my constituency, people who use Paint Lake, including a senior who phoned me who has used it for 22 years, will not be able to aff ord to have a seasonal camping permit this year. There is no increase in the bare-bones services that exist at Paint Lake. What is happening is that the governm ent is engaged in a revenue grab from the seasonal campers. Madam Speaker, the minister also said yest erda y he thought that people would not mind the 10 0 percent increase.

Well, have I got news for the minister and this government Now, the news I have to indicate came from a public mee ting of over a week ago which was attended by seasonal campers in my constituency: I cannot repeat all of the comments because 90 percent of them would be considered unparl iamentary, but they are all of the nature of, give us a break, let us get serious , do not increase the fees by a hundred percent If you are going to look at any incr eases, look at reasonable incre ases. Landlor ds are allowed a cost increase of what-1 percent. The cost of li ving is 2.7 percent.

Even if you go back to the last increase that took place in 198 9, even if you calculate the inflation rate, it is still significan tly less than a hundred percent. Madam Speaker, what is particularly infuriating is the fa ct that this government brought in these changes with a two-week notice, and in fa ct because of the diff erences in the timing of applications, many people had a three ­ day period in which to decide whether they were going to renew their camping permits in Thompson or look at other options in southern Manitoba.

I also want to indicate, Madam Speaker, I do not think it is any accident that most of the big increases have been in northern Manitoba. Northern Manitobans are sick and tired of being punished by this government, and seasonal campers say to the Minister of Natural Resour ces, (Mr. Driedger), get serio us, do not increase our fe es by a hundred percent. Working for Value Rural Task Force Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today. Over the last seven weeks throughout February and March, I had the pleasure of being the co-chair for the

614 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 10, 1996 Working for Value rural task force, and I would like to say that it was a real pleasure to travel around Manitoba. We visited some 26 different communities and had a chance to talk and to have discussion with the people in rural Manitoba. I would like to thank in particular those people who helped us in terms of logistics of putting on the task force, some of the staff members who travelled with us, and to them we owe a deep gratitude for all the help that they gave us.

But, more particularly, Madam Speaker, I would like to give thanks to those people who participated, who took time out of their busy daily activities to come and spend some time at the task force, and particularly in participating in the discussion groups because it was in the discuss ion groups that we were able to find out from the various communities some of the strengths that they had, some of the opportunities, and, yes, they also pointed out some of the constraints that were in their way whether it be from government or otherwise. We really appreciate those comments that were made.

We indicated to the people at that time that we take their comm ents very seriously . We have. We will be doing a preliminary report at the rural forum in Brandon with a final report this fall. So I would like to again thank everybody who participated in these rural task force meetings. That is all I have. Thanks. * (1 430) Immigrants Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Cultural diversity is one of Manitoba's greatest strengths. Unfortunately, the Conserva tive governm ent does not feel the same way as the New Democratic Party. This fact is reflected in the 1996-97 provincial budget.

The Conservative government cut over $1 million from Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. In fact, there was a decrease of $96,700 towards the development of programs that assisted immigration admission as well as to provide support such as training and language skills for the integration of immigrants in Manitoba. There was a 5.4 percent cut in grant assistance to immigrants, a 26 percent cut to the Multic ultural Grants Advisory Council and a 25.7 percent cut to the Community Places Program. It is clear that this governm ent does not support new immigrants in their diffi cult transition into our society.

Cuts to these essential services in the provincial budget ensures that the linguistic and cultural barriers that immigrants face are maintained. Lack of a systematic and formal plan of action on the governm ent's behalfto monitor and assist immigrant entrepreneurs arriving has contributed to business closures and a lower rate of immigrants staying in Manitoba. It is important that this governm ent recognize the contributions that immigrants make to the Manitoba economy.

Immigrants bring money when they enter the province, assist the economy through their consumption of products and create jobs through investment in business development. The Manitoba government should put pressure on the federal government to eliminate the immigration head tax which was re-enforced in the federal budget. By not eliminating the head tax, the federal governm ent has condoned the maintenance of a two-tier immigration system. Such a system is reminiscent of the immigration policy that existed during a dark period of Canadian history.

Immigrants contribute a great deal to our society; however, policies such as the head tax simply target and penalize this group of people. The Tory governm ent must speak out against this indirect taxation scheme. Immi gration to Manitoba has dropped by nearly 50 percent since 1990. In addition, Manitoba is the only province in Canada to record fewer arrivals in each of the last five minutes. The Tory government must take responsibility for its own actions and try to find innovative methods to increase and maintain the immigration to the province of Manitoba. Thank you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE (Fifth Day of Debate) Madam Speaker: To resume debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and on the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto, and on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in further amendment thereto.

April 10 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 615 Bon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in support of the ninth budget of this government, the ninth budget in which Manitobans continue to experience no new increases in personal income tax and sales tax rate s.

As the MLA for Rossmere, time and again, my constituents-and I assume the other constituents for the other members are telling their members the same thing, that they are taxed to the limit, and I am pleased to continue to tell them how proud I am to be a part of a government that has been able to maintain the longest running tax freeze in Canada. As my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stef anson) stated, this budget also delivers the first back­ to-hack budgetary surpl uses, $12 0 million fo r 1995-96 and $22 million in '96-97, and this has been for almost a generation, I believe 1971.

Madam Speaker, this is a respo nsible government. A government that is looking to the future , ensuring that our youth do not have to cany the burden of irrespo nsible spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax-practices that the previous government left us as its legacy. What it will be remembered fo r is spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax. This government is taking action to protect future generati ons, and the Minister of Finance 's budget is paving the way fo r this to happen. Our balanced budget legislation does provide the basis fo r a stronger economy.

Numerous news articles prn.ising our government 's eff orts in this regard have been written by reputab le, knowledgeable and impartial analy sts. In 1982, Manitob ans paid through their taxes $1 14 million in a year in interest on the debt. In 1988, when the NDP, with the help of one of their fo rmer colleagu es, was extracted from office, the taxpayers of Manitoba were paying over $545 million.

For a party which is constantly criticizing businesses and banks, there seems to be a real aff ection towards banks because they love to pay banks interest If there was an ything that they love to do, it is to find a bank to pay them intere st. Well, Madam Speaker, I do not think that is a good policy. As much as we appreciate banks and any company creating jobs here, I would rather the government of Manitoba not owe them any inter est. Yet that is still the philosophy that my colleagues on the other side want us to adhere to.

Our largest single source of revenue is the personal income tax, and almost half of what Manitobans pay goes towards that interest on the debt. That is money that is not able to be spent on health care , education, justice or highways. This is money that is not available even fo r tax reducti ons. By again balancing the budget and paying down the debt, we will reduce the burden of intere st payments and eventually free up more money for service s.

Again, Madam Speaker, this is responsible governance, caring about our future generations and ensuring that our youth do not have to carry the burden of previous governmen ts' mistakes, the burden of deficits and debts created, yes , by our genera tion. (Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) You know, as much as I sometimes try to avoid the Winn ipeg Free Press, there are notable changes in the last little while that the Winni peg Free Pres s-yes , even the Winnipeg Free Press-appears to be recognizing that this government is doing some things right.

And I am not just saying that because a member or a fo rmer member of our House is now an editor of that Free Press and coincidentally happens to be sitting in the galler y. An Honourable Member: Who would that be? Mr. Toews: Well, I will leave that, for the record, anon ymous, but, Mr. Acting Speaker, Mr. John Douglas recognized on April 6 of '96 in the Free Press business

section that the Pes' fiscal policy is paying off and again recognized, and the only unf ortunate thing is that this recognition goes in the business section, usually the back of the newspaper, and perhaps this type of article, this type of good news should be brought up more to the front along with some of the better editorials that are being penned by the Winnipeg Free Press. * (14 40) But this year the Filmon government will spend, he says, 33.8 percent of its budget on health care. That compares with the NDP, who, in 1985-86, spent 31 .4 percent of their budget on health care.

This week 's budget, I would also note, as did Mr. John Douglas note, was noteworthy because it spends more money this year on economic and resource development than on public

616 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April lO , 1996 debt costs. In fact, the $575 million Manitoba will spend on debt financing this year is the fifth highest expenditure, and as John Douglas says, that is quite a diff erence from the NDP days when it was third. But that is the priority of the NDP governm ent in the past. It is not the priority of this government. We do not want to pay banks more interest; we would like to pay banks less interest, despite the encouragement of the members opposite. The Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson) shared with us the positive economic performan ce in the areas of manufacturing, agriculture, mining and nonresidential construction, transportation and retail sales. There is optimi.sm; there is hope. Manitobans understand the need for restraint to ensure a brighter future, and I believe that Manitobans are willing to help in the process. Unlike, Mr.

Acting Speaker, the voice of doom mired in socialist rhetoric of the 1930s that our honourable members from the NDP continually spread throughout the province, they offer no hope, and they continue to be defenders of the status quo and old style governan ce, which is not a viable option in the new economy . It is ironic that we are called the Conserva tives, when in fact the true reactionaries, the true people who do not believe in change, are the NDP, the defenders of the status quo. I see more life, more optimism even in the Liberal Party than I do in the NDP. As I have indicated in this House bef ore, Mr.

Acting Speaker, there are two key global trends that are continuing to occur and continue to have an impact on the way we do busin ess, the way our people in Manitoba do business and the way the governm ent must react. These are the globalization of trade and the globalization of investment capital. These are facts. They are not opinions. They are not options. They are realities that we must deal with. Members opposite would have us build walls around this province.

The walls will mean that the business, the jobs, the opportunities will walk around us and will find other areas in which to invest and to create jobs. With the disappearance of businesses and jobs go our social programs. I fail to see how members opposite do not recognize this integral connection between the encomagement of the private sector to create wealth and the strength of our social programs. We believe in social programs here. We believe in sustainable social programs. That is why we believe that we need to encourage private investment.

Members opposite think that we can create wealth by just having government pay other government departments and continually circulate the old money. That is not the way it woiks. They know better , and they only create mischief when they suggest otherwise. I recently had an opportunity to attend a conference entitled Industrial Relations in the 21s t Century. The topic of trade and the globalization of capital and the effects on labour relations were discussed and debated. Attendees were from Canada, Mexico and the United States.

There were representatives from the union movement, from employers and from governm ent officials. It was evident throughout this conference that the globalization of trade and capital is having a huge impact on the way countries around the world do busines s. Times are changing rapidly, and traditional ways of doing business, traditional ways of creating wealth are proving to be outdated. Just by way of example, any of you who have experienced the Internet have witnessed the incredible acces s to information that we have in a matter of seconds.

Technological advances are surpassing traditional methods of communication. There is an emerging public that is no longer dependent on newspapers or even television to get their information. We can now communicate through the Internet at a fraction of the cost of the traditional telephone system. Change is occurring rapidly, and we must move to stay ahead of that change to create the wealth, to protect our social programs that rely on that wealth created by private industries here in Manitoba. Manitoba is a trading and outward-looking province. It is in the forefront of that change.

Manitobans lmow that their prosperity is dependent on their ability to adapt. It is unfortunate that the opposition keeps on trying to pull Manitoba back into the old ways of doing things. The old wald, populated by socialists with their cries for government handouts and a free ride, are rapidly losing their way. What is the response then of governm ent in this time of change, and where does this lead industrial relations? It was interesting to note, while attending the conference on industrial relations, what the experts were saying. When I am speaking of experts, I am referring to individuals

April 10 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 617 representing major unions, employer s, governm ents and academia. There was one common theme emerging through that conf er ence, and that is change. The reality is that we are working within a different econo mic structure . Labour legisl ation, Mr. Acting Speaker, is a reflection of the times, and we must continue to ensure that labour legis lation is relevant in today's economy.

Laws under which unions operate, laws which protect workers, laws which facilitate jobs, laws which facilitate small busines s and a mobile workforce must be examined to ensure that they protect the traditional con cerns regarding workers, workplace safety and the job itself. Today's economy stresses mobility and capital. Business moves freely throughout the world. Whether we like that fact or not, it does, and we must ensure that we capture our fair share of that market to ensure that our people in Manitoba, our people in Canada, benefit from this new economy.

Our young people who are graduating from colleges and universities today know this. They know that they must adapt to a changing world. Our labour relations must ensure that walls are not put in the way for our youth to enter the workforce . Labour relations must also provide opportunity not only for those who already have jobs but for people who are entering the workforce. They must provide this opportunity. I see some very encouraging signs that employers are recognizing the changing environment.

Unions, as well, recog nize that if they do not take steps to address these new realities and change structures and program delivery that they too will be by-passed by businesses that will find a way to work around them rather than work with them. I know, Mr. Acting Speaker, that it will grate the mem bers opposite when I say that if the labour movement does not change they will become irrelevant. We only have to look south of the border to see what is happe ning in the United States. In the United State s, unionized workforces are at an all-time low, approximately 11 percent.

Is this what the unions want in Canada? * (1 450) I would just briefly make note of an

article in the Winnipeg Sun on April 9 in 1996 headlined, U.S. unionist offers practical real ism. This particular individual, a union leader of Council 62, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, represents municipal workers in the city of Indianapolis. The city at that time was faced with many of these same problems that our municipalities and our province faces. They realize that unless they restructure some of the ways that they deliver their services, they would not be able to afford these servic es.

Now, this particular union leader opposed strict privatization of city services, and he was pretty aggressive on that point. He spoke out for his memb ership, and he specifically ran in his cam paign against that kind of pl atform by the mayor who was running. Now, in fact, when that mayor won the election, and the union suddenly realized they had to work with government in order to secure the future of their members , they did work together, and today in that city privatization is a nonissue. What the real issue is, Mr. Acting Speaker, is compe tition.

What the union leader said, he wants the city union to win because it gives administration more flexibility. So he wanted them to win these bids because the way they delivered services would offer a better business deal to the city. He said, we can throw a blade onto garbage trucks during snowstorms, for exam ple. He said: That is just an example of the versa tility; you use one set of equipment for another purpose. He demonstrated to the city, this is the way you do things, you work together.

To compete, what the union did was to remove narrow, old-style task descriptions that had the dual eff ect of raising costs and pricing members out of jobs. Instead, what he said is, let us look at how we deliver those services, and in most of these situations, the unions have come out on top by preserving jobs for their mem bership . If the unions say, we will not co-operate, we will not work, we will not deliver services in any other way than we have been, they will lose every time in the long run, but the progressive unions, mainstream unions, have adapted and have protected their worke rs.

Now, what do we want in Canada? Do we want the destruction of the union movement? I would say no. I would say, we do not want that destruction of the union movement, and indeed, the policies of the members opposite are in fact ensuring the destruction of the union movement, ensuring the same course of conduct that occurred and resulted in a rate of unionization at 11 percent in the United States. We want to work together

618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 10, 1996 with the unions to provide the services for our people, and we provide the contracts to those unions not because they are public or private, but because they were competitive and delivered the best service . I believe that Canadians are no less able to adapt and to provide that level of service . In Canada, in Manitoba, we must work together. The worst thing that we could do, whether we are employers , governm ent or unions, is not to accept change .

It is not to participate in change, and the worst thing is not to keep talking about how these changes should occ ur. Our young people, as they move into the workforce, will have little understandi ng, patience or sympathy for a baby boomer generation that throws up roadblocks making it difficult for them to enter into the workforce. I recently read in The Globe and Mail an

article re garding job growth. He referred to the different · emplo yment picture in Europe versus North Amer ica. For the last decade, Europe has basically seen no employment growth while in North America employment growth is steadily incre asing. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) As well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is intere sting to note that the U.S. is much higher than Canada in terms of employment growth.

The reason that Europe is doing so poorly in creating jobs according to this expert opinion is because of a rigid labour market, high taxation, stultifying governm ent regulations and an overegulated economy . What is happening in Europe is an example of what takes place when governments do not get their own house in order and are not proactive in dealing with economic realities in a changing world. Recently I had an occas ion to travel with my colleagues in southeast Manitoba.

Perhaps that has been one of the most exciti ng things about my year in politics so far, not only the honour of representing the people of Rossmere but to travel with my colleagues in rural Manitoba. They have taught me many things, and they have shown me many things. I know that they are trying their very best to break me out of this Perimeter mental ity. To a great extent, they are. I would encourage all members to go beyond the Perimeter more often, those especially who live in the city, and to see the dynamism that is occ urring in the rural areas. Why is this?

Why is this dynamism occ urring in small-town Manitoba? Why is the economy booming? Why are people optimistic about the future? For the one thing they do not have the Free Press to contend with there . But secondly, they have seen the future, and they are adapting to it. They are ahead of the future . They are making their move bef orehand. They have seen the future, and they are making the economy boom in Manitoba. We here in the city are benefiting directly from the aggressive business and marketing of those people in these rural communi ties.

Believe it or not, sometimes we here in the city of Wimripeg have things to learn from our rural cousins and our nual colleagues and our rural frien ds. If we can take some of that dynamism and import it-[inteijection] Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member put his prese ntation forward. I would ask the minister if he could put his comments through the Chair. It might add to the decorum of the House. The honourable minister, to continue . Mr. Toews: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I was just encouraging members opposite to embrace some of this new dynamism, some of this new optimism, from whatever part of our economy it comes from, from whatever geographical part of Manitoba it comes from. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) We do not just want to talk about rural Manitoba.

We also want to talk about northern Manitoba. * (150 0) I know that some of my colleagues in the NDP have seen the dynamism of workers in the North as well and the mine operators working together with the unions to ensure that wealth is generated and that those taxes are paid as a result of these jobs that are being created and that our social programs are protected. I do not think I can speak with exception. Let me put that in a positive way. I speak without exception in this House when I know that we all want to protect our social programs. We have different ways of approaching it.

I believe the system that is reflected in the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is, in fact, the best,

April 10 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 619 but that does not stop us from listening to members opposite from time to time. Sometimes they, too, have a good idea. Madam Speaker, I would now like to take a few minutes to talk about health, education and family services. These are the three priority areas for myself, for the government and for the Manitoba public, as well.

I am in constant touch with the general public and various special interest groups in the social services, health and teaching professions, and I do not use the concept of a special interest group as a derogatory term because some of these groups have special interests that they represent, and they have a mandate to represent those groups, but we have to recognize where each of these special interest groups come from, and we take that advice from all sectors of the economy, from all segments of our population, and consider it in determining policy.

But I think that what all of these groups are saying is that we must protect these priority items, and the money that we are spending clearly reflects our priorities. The reforms that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is bringing in through the budget is bringing forward affordable health care, sustainable health care and will ensure that it will protect our health services in the future. I would urge members opposite, Madam Speaker, to talk to the Premier of Saskatchewan or let members of the Liberal opposition speak to the Prime Minister or indeed to Mr. Axworthy or to Premier McKenna.

Now, we may not agree here in the governm ent with the priorities of the NDP in terms of their tax, tax and tax or the Liberals in terms of cutting the wrong end, but I am sure that both the Liberals in Ottawa and the NDP in Saskatchewan could educate members opposite about the hard fiscal realities, and I am proud to be ass ociated with a government that has made hard choices in the long-term best interests of the people of Manitoba. Now, I understand that my time is almost at end. I will have opportunity later on to speak about some of the proposals in labour reform, and I welcome comments from all groups.

I have been going throughout the province speaking to all groups, the unions, to employers, and my ideas, the ideas of our party are, in fact, going to ensure profitable labour relations for all parties involved. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): It is an honour to be able to rise on this occas ion to speak on behalf of the government's budget Howev er, I rise with a sense of regret and disappointment. Madam Speaker, the budget is an opportunity for the government to present its priorities, its vision. However, I think that truly this government has lost its vision.

This budget is very disappointing, because its clear agenda is to mislead the people of Manitoba through omissions, underestimates and deliberately misleading language. There are always winners and losers in a budget and, in this budget, the majority, the average Manitoban, is the loser. For example, if we look in the sector of health care, all of us will become ill at one time in our lives. Now we see a clear attack on those who are ill.

Individuals who have received care in institutions are now in their homes and, to the benefit of this governm ent, they are reaping the savings of that community-based health care. In my own family, my mother-in-law looks after her husband and her mother in their home in Woodlands, saving the governm ent thousands of dollars in care. She does that out of her good will and out of compassion for her family members. The idea that this government would now consider privatizing and for them to lose that continued service perhaps is a great disturbance to our family. Madam Speaker, does it make sense to do that?

Does it make sense? Most people in Manitoba would say no. It is true that the cost of health care is rising, but of course we are not so naive to forget that we have an aging society. It is to be expected that we have increased health costs. It is a responsibility of those who are younger, who are in the workforce and who are able to support those needs. We have made that commitment as Manitobans, as Canadians to support those who unfortunately need to use our health care system.

This government, I believe, has lost its focus and, through a budget which has mislead Manitobans by not clearly articulating how it is going to proceed with the cuts, has betrayed Manitobans. Not only do we see a major revision of the Home Care program in the agenda, but Pharmacare was radically cut, Pharmacare, which

620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 10, 1996 provided medication to many families, medications which are basically a fo rm of treatment. I cannot understand a gov ernment that does not think that taking medications is an integral part of a comprehensive health care system. If this is not dismantling a health care system, I am not sure what is. Medication will keep many people alive and many people healthy enough to continue in the workforce . Madam Speaker, these types of cuts will not necessarily impact the poor, and that is true, the government has to be given credit.

There are some people that will be covered and will actually have a more comprehensive program. It is not the very rich that are worried about these changes in Pharmacare. Who does it hit? It hits the working class, it hits the middle class. Those are the people that may do without, that may decide to skip a certain medication, will think, well, I have some choices to make in om household budget. The increased cost of paying for medication can be as high as $3,000 for some families, a Vf!Y difficult situation fo r any family to face.

Not only did they basically wipe out the Pharmacare program fo r middle income earners, they also have a hidden agenda ofhospital bed cuts and, quite frankly, we have not said that we would not support some bed closures in hospitals and institutions . In fact, we are looking to provide more community care. The problem with the budget, in my opinion, is that it has not clearly articulated where those cuts are going to come. This is why the gov ernment has lost credibility, Madam Speaker. Be honest with Manito bans. Clearly articulate how many hospi tal beds are going to come out of rural Manitoba?

How many hospital beds are going to come out of the Grace Hospital? Tell us what is the plan fo r the Misericordia Hospital. Does it make sense to close Seven Oaks Hospital when that community struggled for years to create a state-of-the-art facility which is supported by those people? I do not think so. To do what? To move those beds from a community setting. A community hospital provides service fo r less than the teaching hospital s. How does it make sense to move it from a community hospital into St. B and the General? It just economically does not make sense. An Honourable Member: To you? * (1 510 ) Ms.

Mihychuk: Well, just look at the- a member on the other side of the House is saying "to me." Go out and speak to Manitob ans. When you tell them what the cost of a bed at Seven Oaks is compared to St. B, what makes sense? Obviously, the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has lost focu s and is not looking at co mmon sense or economic planning with these decisions fo r bed cuts. In addition, we have seen the release of people from hospitals or the encouragement of people to leave hospitals very early.

Madam Speaker, I had the great fo rtune to have a baby last year at the Misericordia Hospital and stayed less than 24 hours in the hospital . I feel very satisfied with the care that I received; however, there are many families who do not receive the support that they need A recent study that was cited yesterday on CBC indicated that although 80 percent of women try to breast-feed their infants they do not receive the support at home because of early dismissal from hospita ls.

So women are left to struggle trying to provide a warm and a workable feeding environment fo r infants without the care from the hospital s. That means that apparently there has been a substantial increase in the number of infants retwning to hospitals through dehydration and not getting the proper nourishment. Mothers being frustrated, not getting the proper attention at home, the medical care that they need, and then abandoning nursing.

Those types of shortsighted health care by cutting institutional care and not providing the comm unity-based care leads in the long run to more health care costs, a less healthy community and a very poor planning on behalf of this government . In terms of preventative health care this government 's vision is indeed very poor. Perhaps they consider the fact that their vision is so poor, they thought they would do it fo r the rest of Manitobans by cutting the eye care program fo r Manito bans, but we will not be foo led, Madam Speaker.

The fact is that regular eye examinations do detect certain diseases and changes within eye care. We hope that indeed these types of cuts will be remembered, and I have no doubt that this gov ernment is on its last pitiful legs of governing as we see Manitobans fmally seeing the deception and the poor planning on

Apri110, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 621 behalf of this government. Not only have they lost their vision. but they have also done other things, Madam Speaker, that have impacted on preventative health care For example, they now have moved towards providing schools with the option they call-and they are very big on using the word "choice" -[interjection]-choices. Choice and choices is becoming a fa vourite term of this government However, what it really means is the choice to exclude physical education from the curriculum in schools . Is that preventative health?

We know that our children are less healthy than they have been in the past, that the one thing that we need to do, which is very important, is to increase their physical activity so that it will provide them with an environment with a healthy condition to learn better, and at the same time this government is squeezing out programs like physical education. In addition. Madam Speaker, the emergency room closme fiasco that we went throu gh just bef ore Christmas was an example of a government that has very poor vision at best.

Here we have a situation where the government decided it was going to close emergency rooms in community hospitals at night. Had they given it more than a second's thought, perhaps they would have kept emergency rooms open at night when the community fa cilities such as clinics are actually closed. Many of these decisions have been reversed because of basically I think the good work of Manitob ans who were outraged by such fo olish decisions . Madam Speaker, I would like to briefly discuss some of the items that this budget off ers in terms of education which was, quite frankly, vety little .

The losers in this budget are public schools. Let us not fo rget that this is a government that cut public schools by 2 percent a fe w months ago -announcing that separate from the budget-and in addition has provided a vety clouded, mis leading statement about the funding of private school s. The language has been radically altered. What they are now discussing is providing supports on the basis of actual costs . We have some school divisions where the actual cost to educate a student is close to $6,600 per pupil. Support by government is less than 60 percent.

Some estimates have it at 54 percent of the actual costs are covered by the government. Does that mean, Madam Speaker, if their goal is to cover 50 percent of those costs, that it is coming close, it is going to be equitable to the actual government grant that a public school gets? The language and the commitment that this government has made has ensured that independent private schools will have even better than bef ore. The agreement of an 80 percent commi tment-which I did not agree with, which we did not agree with on this side-does not necessarily equate to the new language of 50 percent of actual costs .

Madam Speaker, had they looked in some detail, this is a radically diff erent funding fo nnula, and what I find so obj ectionab le is that there was not the clear articulation of that in the budget If you have made this commitment, be honest, be open. Tell Manitobans that you have come up with a new funding fo rmula, you have made a new deal with private schools, you are going to go and increase funding and come out and be honest and be brave enough to tell us what the increase fo r private schools is. As indicated, if we look at the actual numbers, it could be an increase of over 15 percent.

Madam Speaker, this government 's funding decisions in terms of public schools have meant fe wer resources, older textbooks that are going to be recycled over and over and over again, more students in classrooms, less help fo r those who need it, few er options fo r the gifted students that we hope will accelerate and be the future leaders, fe wer options and much less help fo r those students who need it, ESL students, handicapped students. The decisions that may seem fa irly sterile, a minus 2 percent, impact on the classroom and impact on our children.

The decision at the same time as announcing a minus 2 to public schools to start a directed attack against public school teachers was done delibera tely, and that also provi des uncertainty and low morale fo r those teachers who are fa cing even more pressures in the classroom, Madam Speaker. *

(1520) The other day I happened to have the opportunity to talk to one of our superintendents of our inner school division who was telling me about a case where we have students who have gone through or are about to go through the justice system, in this case a student who has been accused of murder, Madam Speaker, accused of

622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April lO , 1996 murder, who is in a classroom, afraid that he will be attacked by gang members and, of course, the other students in the school and in the classroom are very fe arful and anxious about the relationship and what is happening there . The Justice department has basically reneged on its respo nsibility, letting these students be in a school without the proper supports, without the proper protection for this student, without the ability-this student is not prepared to learn. This student is there trying to get through the time bef ore they get to court.

They do not belong in a clas sroom, or if they are going to be in a classroom, then the Justice department should provide the supp orts, so that the teachers are not left dealing with a situation which is such a crisis. Madam Speaker, the budget has slashed public schools, increased the amount of pressures on teachers and, at the same time, they take credit fo r increasing the amount for the ref orm, the blueprint, $1.7 million. Let the gov ernm ent tell Manitobans how much their provincial examination program will cost.

Estimates fo r the English exam alone were over a million dollars for that one exam, an exam that was written twice and had to be produced in French in both cases and is going to be expanded. So if we look at the costs , fo r exam ple, estimates have reached over $20 million fo r the testing program. If the gov ernm ent would be honest and open, I believe that they should come fo rward and give us a realistic budget estimate of how much this program of provincial examinations is going to cost Manito bans. Not only that, Madam Speaker, the other losers in tetms of this budget are taxpayers.

Local taxpayers have seen property tax incr eases directly related to the cuts from this gov ernm ent and no one else. In addition to that, this government is still looking at school division boundary chan ges, a program that we have seen through several studies which have indicated that it will not mean a cost saving . It will disrupt services, and it will not benefit studen ts. I plead to this government to use some common sense, to listen to what the people say and abandon a foo lish program of school board chang es.

Change them where they are necessary, change them when divisions have seen the need, and you do have several that are ready to amalgamate . I encourage the gov ernm ent to move fo rward in a more logical plan. Because they have a Norrie Commission and they have spent well over a million dollars does not mean they have to be foo lish and implement a program that we now know, having done some cost analys is, will cost taxpayers much more than having the programs as they are . The winners, of course, are the private schools, and we still have to hear from the Minister of Education (Mrs.

Mcintosh) as to the actual in creases. Madam Speaker, people are very upset all over the province , here in the south when we have had the opportunity to visit rural Manit oba and southern Manitoba Here in the city we visited many people. We have been on tours of the Interlake and the North . Hog producers are particularly upset. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is determined to push fo rward a program not supported by hog producers , a program which they, even today in the House, were here to say to the minister, Harry Enns, slow down, stop. Let us have an opportunity to decide on this.

I know, as a man of wisdom and a member of honour who has been in this House fo r many years and who respects the wishes of his neighbours and the hog ind ustry, he will give this some serious thought, and I hope will listen to the hog producers of Manit oba. Rural muni cipalities were speaking to us the other day about their con cerns about the downloading of the maintenance of gravel roa ds. Any member here who has rural roots knows that the roads are in deplorable condition and maintenance of gravel roads is a major expenditure for many rural mw;rici palities .

That downl oading is a major concern to rural munici palities . How many rural hospital beds will be cut? How many sc hoo ls will close because of boundary changes, not only just because of the depopulation of rural Manitoba? You are going to have an increased pressure because of school division bmmdary changes that this gov ernm ent seems to be bent on moving ahead with. We look fo rward to a retraction on that position. Madam Speaker, people are upset with the idea of losing the Manitoba Telephone System. Thousands of people have responded to petitions and phone calls in regard to the proposal to priva tize.

They say no. They say we have a system that wotks effecti vely, provides low rates and has been there when we needed it When we

April lO , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 623 needed to provide single line service to our farm in Poplarfield, it was done by Manitoba Telephone System, and it was done through the co-operation- An Honourable Member: Under what government? Ms. Mihychuk: The NDP in its election platform also would have done it. We have to congratulate­ [inteij ection] Who did it? The Manitoba Telephone System did it. Would a private company take that risk? I do not think so.

That is the point, that the Crown corporation under the will of this House will provide servi ces that are not deemed economic in the short term, but are deemed as useful for the people of Manit oba. That is why it does not make sense to privatize the telephone system. Does it make sense given the pro jections that we have been hearing that telecommunications and telephone companies are going to see larger profits than ever, at a time when we are going to see increased incom es, this governm ent is consideri ng privatizing? It seems to be very shortsighted and not to the benefit of Manitobans .

Manitoba Hydro, a corporation envied around the world, a corporation that is the most effective and productive corpo ration in North America, has gone thr ough a massive structural change, Madam Speaker. For what purpose? Under the pretence of deregulation and competition, that there needs to be restructuring to handle it. The Dominion Bond Rating Service indicated that there is no other utility more prepared to handle those challenges than Manitoba Hydro. This government 's position to deal with competition is to raise rate s.

Let me explain to them that the way you deal with competition is to lower rat es. [interj ection] No. Manitoba Hydro is a success story. They have trouble in saying that, that a Crown corporation is a success story, and it needs to remain for the people of Manitob a. That is why we are conc erned. Why tamper with a corporation that is so strong, so effective and providing a sustained, cheap service? The reason is clear. Ideology and political philosophy are driving this governm ent. They would sell any thing if they could find a buyer, and they will sell it off for virtually not hing.

It is as if they are paying off their fr iends as they are in their last leg. They are saying, adios, here have a little gift and have a piece of Hydro, have a piece ofMTS. Madam Speaker, quickly, there are some winners in this budget, and I just wanted to articulate some of them. Certainly, we have seen some friends of the Tory governm ent reap huge benefits . For example, the private home care provide rs, We Care, will be in line to reap huge profits off of the idea of privatizing Home Care . Not only that, we are seeing certain PR contractors getting huge bene fits.

Barb Biggar, for example, is a big winner in this budget. We also see that Mike Bessey and Faneuil are stable and are doing very well, thank you very much. Huge hog producers are in the winner 's circle, and not only that, but in terms of education exam markers are also going to see a heyday. Not only that, there is one other sector that we know is doing very well, and that is the manuf acturers ofVLTs. * (1 530) On a sector that is close to me, the mining sector, we have seen an increase of activity and reven ues, and we all celebrate in that.

As commodity prices incr ease, we are seeing boom times return as we had them in the NDP administration in the '87 to '89 area. But it is commodity prices that are driving this boom, let us not be fooled We are in a competitive world community when it comes to mining, that is true, and the governm ent has eased and made some regulations better. In fact, I must congratulate the Minister of Mines (Mr. Praznik) for recognizing the disparity and the inequity of having a tax on geophysical equipment. For example, geophysical equipment provides the exploration geologists or a mining company with the ability to see.

So in fact they have actually provided a grant or recognized, improved the vision of mining companies while at the same time cutting the eye care services for regular Manitobans . That is a dichotomy; that is the hypocrisy. That is the ridiculous focus of this budget. Clearly, we are pleased that there is some clear vision provided to mining companies, and we celebrate that. However, there is a clear difference, and, Madam Speaker, in the few minutes I have left, I just wanted to discuss some of the differences between mineral exploration and oil exploration.

I had the opportunity to raise this during Question Period. As we know, Manitoba has a small, modest oil field in the Virden area, an oil field that we have been working on and have developed for many years, and we all wish that it was much bi gger. However, estimates have indicated a 10- year reserve .

624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April lO , 1996 The North and parts of Manitoba have huge mineral reserves that have never been explored. That is the difference. What you are talking about is further development in Virden by paying off oil companies, rather than true exploration as is occurring in the far north. Madam Speaker, what are the real economic signs in Manitoba?

They are quite disheartening: a 19 percent increase in the use of food banks by children; twice as many people on welfare; housing starts only a thousand, while during our mandate 6,000 to 7,000 per year; Statistics Canada indicates over the last year Manitoba is the second last to Newfoundland in terms of GDP growth in Canada; Workplace Saf ety and Health statistics indicate a 1 7 percent increase in the number of injuries reported; backlogged courts, particularly for young offenders; and an all-time low of consumer confidence.

This is a budget document that is a true reflection of this governm ent, which has contempt for the public, clearly a lack of honesty, and it shows the lack of credibility that this governm ent has. Arrogance is seething on that side of the House as they think that they are pushing forward on programs without any care to what the real wishes of Manitobans are. Madam Speaker, we look forward to challenging this governm ent in Estimates in the future, and I thank you for the time to comment on the budget. Mr.

Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure for me to rise today and represent the constituents of Morris on our governm ent's 1996-97 budget. I guess while it must be a source of tremendous frustration for the members opposite to listen to our governm ent deliver the budget as fiscally responsible and forward thinking as the one tabled last Tuesday, it is equally satisfying to hear for those of us elected to the responsibility of mana ging the province's finances.

I would like to take this time to thank all the members in the government benches for the contributions of time and effort they gave to the creation of this budget, and I would like to pay special acknowledgement to my colleague the provincial Finance minister (Mr. Stefanson) for delivering a budget that will serve us well both now and in the future. Since being elected to represent the Morris constituency in April of '95, I have come to truly appreciate the difficult decisions that governm ent must make.

A large part of what makes these decisions difficult is the fact that they must take into account the effect they will have on future generations. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) It would be a relatively easy task to operate a government if all the decisions that were made by that governm ent were done so only with the thought of their most immediate impact. In fact, up until recently many governments did operate under a short-term, self­ destructive mindset. Manitobans would be quick to recognize many of the members opposite in belonging to such a former government.

We can only assume that during the seven years from 1981 to 1988, while the former NDP governm ent was busy increasing Manitoban's debt by 424 percent, there was little thought given to the need for an adequate health care system in the '90s, an education system in the '90s or any reasonable social programs in this decade. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the shortsighted and irresponsible spending habits of that former administration, an administration that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer) proudly counts himself a member of, would have led this province into a state of economic and social disaster had it been allowed to continue along its reckless way. Fortunately, we can thank the people of Manitoba for recognizing the problems associated with such a lack of planning and such a shortsighted vision. Residents of the Morris constituency, and I believe this to hold true for the majority of Manitobans, know that as individuals they must plan for their future and look forward.

As such, they establish savings funds for such thin gs as their education, for their retirement and for unforseen emergencies. They also realize, if they spend more than they earn for long periods of time, their future lifestyle will eventually be affected. Manitobans realized in 1988, after eight consecutive deficits, that the NDP government did not understand finances as well as

April lO, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 625 Manitobans did, and they took action at the polls to protect their future and the future of their children. Mr. Deputy Speaker, my apologies. Our government began laying the groundwork fo r economic confidence and social stability in 1988. Other provinces have not acted so quickly and are now fa cing very difficult decisions.

This government, however, began cleaning up the financial mess left by the previous NDP administration nearly a decade ago, and now, after many tough decisions, we have restored confidence in government, confidence in the economy and confidence in Manitoba. Signs of this renewed confidence are all around this great province and can be fo und in virtually every sector of the economy. In 1995, Manitoba experienced the biggest decline in the unemployment rate in over three decades. In fa ct, 10,000 fe wer Manitobans were collecting unemployment benefits at the beginning of this year than last. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is 10 ,000 individuals who not only have a new income but also have a renewed confidence and a renewed sense of worth. Young people also have a reason to be optimistic as our province now has the lowest unemployment rate in all of Canada. These are not jobs that were created by the government directly. NDP governments have long shown the futility of pouring money into an economy in the hope of creating long-term jobs.

By proving to business that Manitoba is a place where they would not continually be asked to pay higher taxes but proving to them that government could control its own spending, we have created an environment where businesses fe el confident and secure to invest their money and employ workers. In fa ct, last year, total investment in Manitoba increased by 12.5 percent. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this was the highest increase in all of Canada, and second place was not even close.

While Manitoba can boast investment increases in ma nuf acturing of 58 percent, increases in commmrication s and utilities of 51 percent and increases in wholesale and retail trade of 46 percent, these are not really the numbers that are important to Manitobans. Those numbers are reflected in the 7 5 to 100 jobs created by Repap investment, the 500 jobs by Schneider's, the 120 jobs by Standard Knitting and the 45 jobs created in my home constituency by Canadian Agra investment at Ste.

Agathe. * (1 540) The confidence that has been created in Manitoba's government has filtered down through the economy and is providing Manitobans with new opportunities and prosperity. While that confidence may not show up on the bottom line of any statement or as a line on a graph, its reflection is at the heart of this budget. Mr. Deputy Speaker, fo r the first time since 1971, Manitobans have a budget that delivers back-to-back surpluses.

As part of this governmen t's long-range financial plan and as committed by The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection Act, this year's budgeted surplus, along with the '95- 96 surplus, will be placed in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. All future surpluses will be placed in this fund until it reaches the target level equal to at least 5 percent of operating fund expenditure. The fund is an integral part of the government 's plan to retire the accumulated debt in 30 years or less.

This fund, which is designed to be used when unf oreseen events such as fire or flood take place, is part of the Filmon government 's proactive rather than reactive approach to money management. Members need not look any further than at the accumulated snow we have outside our Legislature to see the possible need fo r such a fund this spring. While it seems that mem bers across the House would prefer that government adopt a don't worry, be happy approach to money management, we, along with most Manitobans, pref er to plan fo r emergen cies.

Just as many individuals and fam ilies put a percentage of their income away fo r such unplanned occurrences as car trouble, so should a government be able to respond quicky to emergencies without having to sacrifice social programs, spending or increasing taxes. The type of see-what-tomorro w-brin gs approach to budgeting prescribed by members of the opposition is not good enough fo r the people of Manitoba or their government Our province has been able to climb out of the financial hole it fo und itself in in 1988 not by stmnbling along from day to day but by doing long-range planning and preparing.

In the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press on Wednesday, April 3, there was an

article that contained the fo llowin g: When the Tories first came to power in 19 88 they promised to reduce taxes, balance the books

626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 10 , 1996 and make Manitoba more attractive for investing. They have largely lived up to those promises over the years. I have already outlined the success we have had in attracting investment to this province, and the budget itself is testament to our commitment to balancing the books. This governm ent's ability to deal with the enormous debt left by the previous governm ent, which ran deficits that ranged around half a billion dollars per year, while not increasing major taxes for nine consec utive years is an accomplishment unma tched in Canada.

In 1988, when this governm ent was elected, Manitobans made it clear that they were paying enough taxes and that governm ent needed to look at how it spent money in order to eliminate the deficit. By examining each department, each expenditure, Manitoba now has the lowest cost governm ent in Canada. This governm ent has absorbed the massive federal Liberal transfer cuts , has inherited the NDP debt and has mana ged both not by asking Manitobans to pay more but by ensuring our own efficiencies.

This budget continues to look for increased efficiencies with the esta blishme nt of seven new special operating agencies known as SOAs . The 15 operating agencies in place represent 3 percent of the civil service and $65 million in business for governm ent. These agencies represent a pioneering eff ort by our governm ent to deliver and finance services. Their success has resulted in other governments modelling their operations after Manitoba's. Manitobans asked governm ents to become more efficient, and we responded. We will continue to look for better ways of providing servi ces. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this governm ent was elected last April for the third cons ecutive time because Manitobans have faith in this governm ent, its priorities and commitments . We were elected because the people of Manitoba do not believe the rhetoric spouted by the opposition. During the election and ever since , the people of Manitoba have been inundated with erroneous information by the opposition about this governm ent's commitment to health care , education and social servi ces. The fact is that this budget continues our previous practice of devoting the bulk of our expenditure to these three areas.

I would like to relate the fact to all members of this House which members of the opposition conveniently overlook. Since our governm ent took office, 90 percent of the increase in our program spending has been allocated to health, education and family servi ces. Our 1996-97 budget dedicates almost $3.5 billion to these priority programs . This is nearly $1 billion more than was spe