MG-8048 Fourth Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 41 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLII No. 24-1:30 p.m., THURSDAY, MARCH 11 , 1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMM INGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FIN DLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN , Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

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

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

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

923 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 11 ,19 93 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr.Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this Chamber on a matter of privilege, and I am raising this matter at the first opportunity and occasion in which I have to raise this matter after some information was drawn to my attention this morning. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and after I complete my comments, I will be following my comments with a su bstantive motion in this Chamber. Mr.

Speaker, we in this House, in order to discharge our duties, often ask questions to provide information not only to ourselves but to the public. The information we receive from the government and minis ters is cru cial to our roles as parliamentarians. There is much confusion in the community regar ding health care . The strategy of the government is to blame those who are asking the questions. One of the areas of greatest concerns in health care is the area of services provided to children. Part of the problem is the government has not outlined to the public what is happening in children's services.

In the fall, the government announced the consolidation of children's services to Children's Hospital. At the same time it seemed that a portion of children's services would remain at St. Boniface Hospital and some su rgery would remain at community hospitals. That was changed with no public announcement, and it was decided that all services requiring hospitalization would be moved to Children's Hospital. Nex t, wi thout formal announcemen t, the government also decided that children's surgery would be moved from community hospitals to Children's Hospital.

It was not made clear whether day patient surgery would also be consolidated. We received calls in our office, and I personally received calls from parents and doctors. We received calls because these same parents had phoned the minister's office and had been told one thing, and they phoned the deputy minister's office and the head of health care reform and were told another thing. On March 3, I very specifically asked the minister, and I will quote, Mr. Speaker from Hansard whether: • . . . outpatient surgery for children will also be consolidated at the Health Sciences Centre? What is it?

Will outpatient surgery also be consolidated or not?" That very same day the minister replied to me, after much verbiage, and I quote, the minister said: " ... but outpatient services will continue in most, if not all, of the locations currently, including St. Boniface, Victoria-" The answer was clear. I did not have to ask it again, because the minister had given me a precise answer. I sent copies of these answers, Mr. Speaker, to people in the community. Our job was done, or so I thought.

On March 4, the next day, less than 24 hours after the minister had made those statements in the House, a senior dep artmen tal official in the minister's office sent a letter to the community hospitals dated March 4, for Tim Duprey, Executive Director, Hospitals and Winnipeg Community Health Services saying, and I quote: The transfer of all surgical patients, in-and outpatients zero to 14 years of age, who are presently admitted to St. Boniface Hospital and the Winnipeg community hospitals, will be admitted to Children's Hospital. That is what the minister's official said the very next day.

The official said that. Mr. Speaker, the minister said one thing and it is clear he had already made a different decision. This is an indication of what is wrong with health care reform. It is not the only example, but I am sure that for me since I have been Health critic it is clearly the most blatant example. The minister thinks he is pulling one over the public and over members of this House by his cute answers in the House, but he does not do anyone a service when he misleads us in this House. More importantly, what are the parents and the patients to say? What are they to know when the minister does that?

924 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 1993 Now, Mr. Speaker, this morning in my office I received a letter from a doctor, and I want to quote from this letter. This is when the matter was brought to my attention, and I will quote. It is from Dr. Stranc from the Victoria General Hospital. Quote, earlier this week, I received the Hansard extract of March 3 in which Mr. Don Orchard, the Minister of Health, states: "Sir, inpatient services are consolidated to the Children's Hospital.

That means admissions of children to hospital beds, but outpatient services will continue in most, if not all, of the locations currently, including St. Boniface, Victoria-w Yesterday, I received a copy of a letter dated March 4 from Tim Duprey, executive director, in which he said, quote, the transfer of all surgical patients who are presently admitted to St. Boniface Hospital and the Winnipeg community hospitals will be adm itted to the Childr en's Hospita l. This directive seems to contradict the minister's statement of the previous day. It leaves us, the providers of health care, in a state of confusion.

I would be grateful if you would raise this matter in the House to finally clarify whether outpatient surgery on children will be permitted in the community hospitals. * (1 335) Mr. Speaker, I must establish a prima-facie case. The minister very specifically answered a very specific question when he knew his department had adopted a different course of action, unless in the subsequent 18 hours somehow the minister and his department had reached a different conclusion. By reading the letter, it is clear they had not.

Prima facie-the minister said one thing in this House and his official sent out a letter saying 1 00 percent opposite, different. He said outpatient surgery would remain at the community hositals when his own department had already decided, and himself, that it would be shifted to Health Sciences Centre. Mr. Speaker, it was not fair. It is not fair to the public. It is indicative of the problems happening in health reform. He ought to do more than apologize. He ought to clarify and set the record straight. I move, seconded by the member for St. Jchns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis), thatthe Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) be requested to apologize to the House for providing false information to the House on March 3, 19 93. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Clayton Manness (Govern ment House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's tells us that, of course, a matter of privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of Parliament and by members of each House individually. Mr. Speaker, we are also told that a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in our Legislature, should be dealt with with a motion. I acknowledge that the member has provided a motion.

We are also forewarned that a genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House. Mr. Speaker, those issues met, I would say that the prima-facie case has not been established by the member opposite. Indeed, we are told within our Rules that has to be established. Furthermore, under

Section 31 .(1 ), we are told, "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." Mr. Speaker, I submit that is exactly-as I listened to the argum ent put forward by the member, it seems to be exactly what has happened in this case. Mr. Speaker, because the member in my view has failed to establish a prima-facie case,! would submit that the motion that he has put is out of order and should not be considered by the House at this time. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I share with the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in terms of the concerns one has as an opposition member when we put forward a question and we anticipate that the answer will be forthright and deal with the question that has been asked of the minister. In fact, when a minister makes a statement we assume that what he is telling us is correct. As the member for Kildonan has pointed out, this has not been the case.

The concern I have is that if we see this as a matter of privilege, then it is a question of how many matters of privilege could we have when there are numbers of different pieces of information that come across our desks that imply that the facts the minister might have given today or yesterday might not necessarily be in keeping with some information that I get tomorrow. That is wher e I have a bit of a problem with the matter of privilege even though I agree with what the member tor Kildonan is saying in terms of the frustra tion.

As an MLA, you want to have the correspondence , you want to know what the minister is telling you, but Beauchesne's is fairly

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 925 clear when it says answers to the questions should be as brief as possible and deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. Well, debate over facts, Mr. Speaker, I believe is what the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and the government House leader-and I am sure if the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) were to stand up, he would giv e another side of the story . I sympathize with the member for Kildonan, because I too have had that frustration and I think a good number of opposition members have had that very same frustration.

I would suggest to you that in fact this quite possibly might have been a question for Question Period. I am not too sure, given the serious nature of a matter of privilege, that it would qualify for a matter of privilege, but would suggest to you that you take it under advisement and come back to the House, because it is an important ruling as it will have an effect on other potential matters of privilege. *

(1340) Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, indeed, the government House leader is correct. There are some facts which are not in dispute. The member has obviously raised this matter at the first available opportunity. He received correspondence from a doctor this morning, pointing to the clear evidence that the minister did not only mislead the House, but also misled members of the public and particularly health care professionals who are tryi ng to deal with the types of decisions that this minister and this government is making under the guise of health care reform on a daily basis.

That aspect of the matter of privilege has clearly been satisfied. Your job, Mr. Speaker, is to determine whether there is a prima-facie case. I would refer you to the clear indication in Beauchesne's that a question of privilege is partly a matter of fact, and I think the facts are clear. The minister did mislead the House and partly of law in this case, in particular the law of contempt of Parliament. I would argue that what we are dealing with here is not a dispute over the facts.

That indeed is clearly referenced in Beauchesne's as not constituting a matter of privilege and indeed we have many Speakers' rulings. I will not quote them extensively, but I have researched today a numb er of Speakers' rulings that have clearly established that fact, including a number of rulings of your own over the last number of years. Mr. Speaker, this goes beyond that. We have a case here where the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) does not have to answer questions. In fact, I know the Minister of Health exercises his right not to answer questions in Question Period on a regular basis. Mr.

Speaker, we are not dealing here with a confusion in terms of the policy. Very clearly the government has developed a policy in this regard. What we are dealing with is a situation where the minister, for whatever purpose, in this House is making statements in response to a very specific question, very specific statements that are very clearly intended to deliberately mislead members of this House and members of the public. That is why this is not a dispute over the facts. The facts are clear. The minister misled the House. The key decision, Mr.

Speaker, I think you have to make is the degree to which this does indeed represent contempt of parliament. In doing so, one obviously has to look at the context and the fact that this is not the first time that members of this side of the House have expressed concern about the inability of this minister to provide those kind of direct an swe rs, not ju st to us but to health care professionals, about exactly what is happening with this so-called process of health care reform. Mr.

Speaker, when you have such clear evidence between the minister on the one hand and the minister's own department and doctors, patients and members of the public on the other hand, I would suggest there is only one conclusion that you can reach. Indeed the minister is showing contempt to this House, to health care professionals and to members of the public. I would suggest that means, indeed, there is a prima-facie case of privilege and this minister should be asked to apologize to this House and members of the public for showing that contempt. *

(1345) Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members for their input into this matter. Indeed, a matter of privilege is a very serious matter. The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has presented a motion to the House. I will, as I have done in the past, take this matter under advisement. I will peruse all the remarks that have been put on the record here today, and I will come back to the House with a ruling.

926 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 1993 ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Ann Ozunko, Alex Ozunko, Linda Stannard and others, requesting the governmen t of Manit oba consider taking the necessary steps to reform the Pharmacare system to maintain the comprehensive and universal nature and to implement the use of a health "smart card." Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Heather Mcivor, Ta ma ra Walsh, Lynn Ban ger t and oth ers, req uesting that the governmen t of Manitoba consider reviewing the state of Highway 391 with a view towards improving the condition and safety of the road. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the provincial government has not implemented the major recommendation of the Kopstein report which was to bring in no-fault auto insurance; and

WHEREAS over four years ago, the Kopstein report found that if Manitoba adopted no-fault auto insurance it could have saved $40 million; and WHE REAS over two years ago, a second government report found that over $63 million could be saved if Manitoba adopted the Quebec plan of no-fault auto insurance; and

WHEREAS the provincial cabinet this year after being extensively lobbied, rejected a business plan capping insurance commissions that would have saved Manitoba motorists a further $2 million; and

WHEREAS the rates for auto insurance are 11ow being raised on average by 9.5 percent to 14.5 percent when the inflation is less than 1.3 percent making this the highest actual increase in the history of this province; and

WHEREAS one in five car drivers in this province will now face increases of 13.5 percent; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has not implemented other aspects ofthe implementation of the Kopstein report. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings) to consider implementing no-fault auto insur an ce, capping ins uranc e commissions, and bring in other recommendations of the Kopstein report that the government has delayed acting on. TABUNG OF REPORTS Hon. Eric Stefanson (Mn lster of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report 1991-92 of Manitoba Industry, Trade and Tourism and the Rtness and Sport Directorates. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Third Quarter Report of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation for the period ending December, 1992. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon, from the Grant Park High School, twenty-five Grade 9 students, under the direction of Mr. Richard Dooley.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) . On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. •

(1350) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Consolidation of Health services Minister's Clarification Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdon an): Mr. Speaker, spoke with some parents of children, who get surgery at some of the community hospitals, this morning and they are still not sure what is happening with respect to outpatient services. Can the minister tell me how he can reconcile his statements of March 3 in this Chamber when he told this House that • . .. outpatient services will continue in most, if not all, of the locations currently, including St. Boniface, Victoria-", with that of his official Tim Duprey, executive director, the very next day when this official said: The transfer of all surgical patients

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 927 who are presently admitted at St. Boniface Hospital and the Winnipeg community hospitals will be admitted to the Children's Hospital. How does he reconcile those two statements, Mr. Speaker, that in Hansard and that of his official? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with very little difficulty in fact, Sir, because, as I have indicated in answers to my honourable friend in the House, tha t the consolidation of inpatient pediatric services will be consolidated from the respective community hospitals and St.

Boniface to the Children's Hospital for the provision of inpatient services. Sir, that will be accomplished by several initiatives which have recently been completed. I will share these with my honourable friend because I know that he wishes to have full information provided to all Manitobans. One of the initiatives that we have undertaken in order to accommodate this shift is, for instance, Sir, to upgrade a fifth operating theatre at the Children's Hospital at the Health Sciences Centre complex.

That will allow us, with the additional operating time dedicated to the existing four surgical suites, to accommodate all inpatient surgical needs in the city of Winnipeg at one facility. I know that this is a confou nding process for my honourable friend because he was not part of go ver nmen t when Ch ildren's Hospi tal was envisioned, but this has been the entire planning thrust since 19 75, to consolidate pediatric services for children to a centre of excellence, namely the Children's Hospital. Sir, that process will happen. In the attempt to make that process happen, Dr.

Aggie Bishop who is the head of pediatric services at the Children's Hospital is in consultation with surgeons giving pediatric services to assure that they have admitting privileges. In the instance of the surgeon refe rred to, that individual has, as I understand it, admitting privileges in both Victoria and the Health Sciences Centre. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. I will ask it again.

For the parents, the patients and the surgeons, is outpatient surgery to be consolidated from the community hospitals to Children's Hospital as per the letter of his official, or is it not, as per the minister's own comments in this House, March 3? [interjection) Mr. Orchard: My honourable friends over there say, it is simple, and Mr. Speaker, ! will deal with that later. Mr. Speaker, let me give my honourable friends some sense of the kind of service provision we are talking about in terms of surgery cases 19 91 -92, which is the last full year that we have statistics available.

Children's Hospital provided surgical procedures, both inpatient and day surgery-6,571 cases out of a total of 8, 731 . Right now, without the consolidation from St. Boniface, Victoria, Grace, Concordia, Seven Oaks and Misericordia, the He alth Scienc es Centre, Children's Hospital provides 75 percent of the day surgery and 70 percent, rough figur es, of the current inpatient services. To provide, Sir, those consolidations, we are opening six of the 11 beds which have never been opened sinc e Children 's Hospital was commissioned, in order to accommodate the additional inpatient services.

Now, that is the first transition of service from inpatient surgery in those community hospitals to Children's. Currently, we do 75 percent of day surgery at Children's Hospital. Over time, I believe that there will be a natural flow of the balance, but the issue, Sir, is the inpatient services which are being consolidated with full accommodation of children, families and the professionals delivering those services. * (1 355 ) Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that parents and children are concerned, given that answer? Mr.

Speaker, I ask for a third time, given that his own of ficial said that this will take place April1 , 1 993, will the minister tell us, will outpatient surgery presently performed at the community hospital be transferred to Children's Hospital as per his own of ficial's letter and contrary to what he said in this Chamber on March 3. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the letter says, acute care services will be provided at the Children's Hospital. Let us not forget, while my honourable friend the new critic for the New Democrats was standing up

928 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11 , 1993 and posing as wisdom, he made this statement, and I will give you the date that it was made, CKND TV, February 16 , 199 3. Here is a direct quote from the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chom iak): The government has not been up-front in terms of its bed closures and has not been clear-{interjection] Well, I hope he is still clapping when I finish, Sir - Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Orchard: Oh, now they are going to drown me out. The member for Kildonan went on to say: -has not been clear as to the fact that St.

Boniface Hospital will completely close to children-Mr. Speaker, including emergency services, which would have endangered children with that kind of false statement out there as fact. And, Sir, that is what we have been correcting in the last three to four weeks. If anybody owes an apology to the people of Manitoba-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Canadian Economy Manitoba Decline Mr. Leonard Ev ans (B randon Eas t): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance ofte n complains that the opposition picks out one economic statistic without looking at the whole economic picture.

I have analyzed Manitoba's economic perfo rmance between 19 88, when this government took office, and 1 992 and compared it with the rest of the nation. In so doing, I studieci 14 economic indicators. Almost without exception we see Manitoba failing to keep pace with the rest of the nation, and as a result Manitoba today accounts for a smaller proportion of Canadian economic activity than in 19 88 when this government assumed office.

Whether we look at population, gross domestic product, employment, labour force, retail sales, housing starts, investment and so on, we see Manitoba as a smaller percentage of national totals. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance is very straightforward. Why has Manitoba declined to become less significant in the natiunal economy? Why are we shrinking relative to the Canadian economy? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): The simple answer, Mr. Speaker, is, thank God we came to power in '88 and salvaged this province from the taxation policies of the members opposite.

I do not have to remind the member that his government, indeed his colleagues the ministers of Finance through the '80s ripp ed away, from disposable income, $800 million from the people of this province. Of course, what the Conference Board is saying now in terms of '93 is, it ex pects Manitoba disposable income to increase by $204 for every man, woman and child in the province after adjusting for inflation-fifth best among the provinces and the best outside of Atlantic Canada, would result in $224 million in take-home pay. The Manitoba 19 93 increase is nearly three times the '71 increase for Canada as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, our policies are working. We are saying the taxpayer can do better with disposable income left in their pocket as compared to the gove rnment rippin g it away like the NDP did throughout most of the '80s and destroying the economy in doing so. • (1 400) Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share this information with the Minister of Finance, therefore, I wouid table this report: The Economic Decline Under The Filmon Conser vativ e Government 19 88-1 992. I also have copies for members of the House, for any other member who may wish to study the figures and look at the facts for himself.

This is my qu estion, Mr. Speaker. If the minister would look at the ·-1ery last page, for example, and see information on Total Construction Work Perfo rmed, you will note that Manitoba now accounts for a much smaller percentage of the Car.adian total than we did when this government took offi ce. That is true for almost all of these statistics that we have, Mr. Speaker. My question is straightforward to the minister then. Why have we slipped, for instance, in total construction work perform ed? Why do we have a smaller percentage of total construction activity in Manitoba today? I have counted it up.

Then we did- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, alii can say is, thank goodness the members of this House are subjected to the professorial views of the member for Brandon East once a year, and thank goodness he is not in

March 11 , 1993 LEG ISlAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 929 the classroom every day because of the inane information that he presents, couched, of course, in a very selective way as he likes to look at certain areas in factoring out so many of the years. I have looked at his analysis before, and I am sure the basic foundation and methodologies have not changed over the period of time. Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this particular point in time is that we will continue to stay the course.

The reality is there are budgets coming down, I understand, over the next week or two in other provinces, some of them governed by Liberals, some governed by NDP. I will be looking very carefully to the results that they put into place on the expenditure side, on the taxation side, and also the supporting economic information that the member is trying to share with us today. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to debate this, but these are offi cial Stats Canada figures. There are 14 basic economic indicators which are used by most economists in measuring the performance of the economy.

So they are straightforward facts. My question is: Is this minister- surely he is prepared to accept some of the responsi bility for Manitoba's poor economic perform ance. I know we can talk about the recession and globalization of federal policies but, surely, this minister has to acknowledge that his government's policies of cut back- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the respons ibility. I can say one thing.

I feel badly that the forecast that we brought down in last year' s budget did not come to be, to the extent that I accepted forecasts that came from outside of the jurisdiction. I feel badly about that. I also say that on the good side, I take some consolation for the two-year period, and this again is the Conference Board of Canada, '93 and '94, Manitoba real disposable income per capita is expec ted to increase by $544. This implies Manitobans will have an additional $600 million in income after taxes and inflation to spend in the Manitoba economy to boost economic growth.

I say, this will be the third largest aggregate dollar increase behind Quebec and Ontario. Mr. Speak er , our approach is working as compared to the approach of the members opposite which is one, tax more and second, continue to spend and take the deficit to a larger number which of course is increased taxes for the years coming. Our approach is better, because I look around Canada today and most people and most provinces of all political stripes are following the same approach. Personal Care Homes Quality of Health Care Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Twenty-five RNs at the Central Park Lodge on Poseidon Bay had their jobs terminated today. They will be replaced with less-qualified staff . The personal care home owner is Trizec, a real estate giant. It seems that the action of the Central Park Lodge is sending a very destructive message to the health care prof essionals. Can the Minister of Health tell this House whether he has been advised of this situation and what he has done to rectify this very serious problem in our health care area? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, I am not familiar with the circumstance my honourable friend brings to my attention. I will attempt to get as much information around the circumstance and provide him with full information. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the question is that the personal care homes are being run by some of the private owners, but the Department of Health has the responsibility to set certain standards and a certain code of ethics.

We are simply asking the minister to make sure that procedures are put in place so that these health care profess ionals are protected and also, the quality of care should not suffer at the expense of certain personal care home procedures. Mr.Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I accept my honourable friend's motivation in posing the question. My honourable friend shares a concern that we share on this side of the House that we maintain quality health care.

I am prepared to share with my honourable friend whatever circumstance exists around the decision that he alleges has been made at Central Park Lodge and give him the investigation, if any, that we have done to date.

930 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 1993 Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we have received many calls on some of the communications, and we have been very careful not to alarm the health care professionals. Government Funding Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): My question is: What procedures are put in place to make sure that the go vern men t funds , which are being appropriated to the personal care home, are being used for the health of Manitobans? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, in terms of personal care home provision, we have consultants and ministry staff who visit personal care homes, for instance, to ensure that standards that have been set by' government are being met. Certainly, we have had a role in some instances over the last number of years where we have had to inves tigate com plaints about circum stances involving inappr opriate care, or inappropr iate treatment of patients by not only staff, but other residents, and attempt to work with the facilities to assure that, in all circumstances, the quality of care and the safety of patient care is maintained.

I cannot offer to my friend any more detail without further specifics other than what my honourable friend shared with me. Overseas Students University Differential Fees Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, overseas students in Manitoba make a gross contribution to the Manitoba economy each year of $24.5 million, based upon the fees that they pay and their living expenses. If we subtract from that the support that Manitoba offers to every university student, then we still have a net contribution to Manitoba of more than $10 million a year. My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

I want to ask him: What advice did he offer to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) when she proposed to introduce differential fees and put at risk what are essentially export dollars? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker , I believe that Manitoba universities are the only universities that do not have a differential fee in terms of foreign stude nts. Every other university across Canada has such a fee.

When we had done a comparison of the numb er of foreign students coming to Man itoba with what is hap pening in other jurisdictions, we did not find that there was any correlation to a lower fee. Therefore, in terms of the issue of the fairness across Canada, the same standards across Canada and the contribution to our education system, it made a great deal of sense to do the same in Manit oba as is happening across Ca nada , recognizing that we still expect to get at least the same number of students here to Manitoba because of the high quality of education that we offer here in this province. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Speaker, I think the minister will find that the University of Saskatchewan does not have differential fees, although the one at Regina does. I think he will also find that the number of students at Manitoba uni versities is, in fact, declining. I want to ask the same minister to confirm that where differential fees have been introduced in other jurisdictions and where studies on such have been concluded, in particular Ontario, what they have found is that you lose at least a third and up to a half of the overseas students immediately.

If we assume in Manitoba that we lose a third, a conservative estimate, this would lead to an immediate yearly loss of $3.6 million to the Manitoba economy for the purpose of raising $1.6 million in additional fees. I want to ask the minister: Why is he prepared to forgo such revenue under the present economic circumstances? Mr. Stefanson: The simple answer, Mr. Speaker, is because we will not be forgoing the revenue referred to by the honourable member. The information we have is that does not occur in terms of the comparisons to other provinces.

We expect that there will be the same level of foreign students participating in our universities. Because of the standards that we offer in this province, because of the ethnic communities that do exist here that have contacts back to those countries, because of the graduates that we have from our universities and our alumni associations throughout other parts of the world, we will maintain the same number of students. Therefore, in terms of a net benefit to the economy of Manitoba, we will, in fact, be ahead and these

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 931 students will be contributing more to the cost of education. As we all know, the cost of our universities-the taxpayers of our province pay some 80 percent towards the cost of the education at the universities. Foreign students will now be making a contribution to obtaining an education here in Manitoba. * (1 41 0) Ms.

Friesen: Then I invite the minister to table the studies that he has, and I want to ask him to, in fact, recommend to his government that they delay this decision until they have reconsidered the long-term implications of the loss of these students. Mr. Stefanson: We will not be delaying the decision. It has been part of the announcements made by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey). I have already outlined why the decision was made.

From all of the information we have in terms of what is happening within Canada, in terms of fairness within Manitoba, in terms of fairness within Canada and in terms of our ability to attract foreign students, in terms of the confidence that we have in our own ethnic communities to promote our province, to attract students to Manitoba, in terms of the confidence we have in form er University of Manitoba graduates who are in other parts of the world to promote our universities, we will maintain the same level that we currently have, Mr. Speaker. Transportation Industry Empl oyment Government Action Plan Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Manitoba's history and economic structure was built on a transportation base. Today we learned that Standard Aero is eliminating 21 jobs. From 19 89 to date Manitoba has lost approximately 5,000 transportation jobs. The Department of Education estimates that in rail jobs alone we will lose another 1,700 jobs. My question is for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger). What action plan does the Minister of Transportation and his department have to stop the hemorrhaging of well-paid, high-skilled jobs out of the province of Manitoba? Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the member that Manitoba is not unique and standing by itself in terms of the changes that are taking place in the transportation industry. We know that there is downsizing taking place with!n the rail industry. We know the problems that the air industry is facing, and in our meetings that we basically have been holding with officials from these com panies we have asked for fair consideration so we do not get treated differently from other provinces. However, the member asked, what have we done?

Our Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his five budgets that he has brought down has tried to help create an environment that is conducive to investment here, and we are trying to use that kind of an approach to have people come back and invest here. We prom ote this kind of an idea with the companies that are involved. We say, this is a good place to do business. Our tax structure is good. This is a good place to try and create employment. Rail Line Abandonment Manitoba Employment Impact Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): My question is for the same minister.

Will the Minister of Transportation indicate to the House the policy of his government on the recom mendation of the NTA Revie w Commission that will allow railways to abandon rail service without demonstrating a financial loss or the absence of public need? What will be the impact upon Manitoba communities and the jobs in this province? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): The day before yesterday the commission tabled its report, which is two major documents.

I gave the indication to members in the House yesterday that we had made our submission in August, a very subs tantive document that addressed all the transportation problems and issues that we thought were involved in the National Transportation Act. Mr. Speaker, the member is starting to pick certain things out of that report, which is a very substantive document. There are some positive things in there. There are some negative things in there. We are doing a very precise assessment. It is my understanding that the federal Minister of Transport, Mr.

Corbeil is referring this study to the transportation committee to take submissions and to review and make a recommendation back some time in June. We intend to do a full assessment of

932 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 1993 that report and make our submission to the standing committee on transportation. Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty simple. There are only 55 recommendations there. I am sure the minister should have had the opportunity to read them by now. CN Rail Privatization Manitoba Impact Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Given that Manitoba still has a few CN jobs left, what is the position of this gov ernmen t wit h respec t to the review commission recommendations to privatize CN Rail? What will be the impact upon the province of Manitoba if CN Rail is privatized, Mr.

Speaker? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday I made a public statement to the effect that I, at first blush, was opposed to the suggestion of privatization because we do not know what that impact would be. There are many things to be considered in terms of, when we talk of privatization, the Canadian content in there which is now at 73 percent according to law, whether that can drop down to 51 percent. There are so many aspects of that whole report.

The member, I do not know whether he has read the whole report because it is two substantial documents. We are going through that because some of the recommendations that we brought forward to the commission have been addressed in terms of the safety issues and railways and airlines. Some of the ones that we brought forward have been accepted, others have not. We are reviewing that, and we will be putting forward a document which I will then table in the House before we present it to the st andi ng com mittee on transportation. Headlngley Jail Safety Compliance Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, my qu estion is for the minister respons ible for workplace health and safety . Back on March 22, 1988, an improvement order was issued to Headingley Jail requiring that range bars be put in place, reinstalled for the protection of guards. The province did not comply with that at that time and only complied in November of 1988, after I had raised it in the House with the minister and two extensions had been granted. Mr.

Speaker, after that arduous process to get compliance back in 1988, I was signif icantly surprised to learn that yet again Headingley Jail administration wants to remove these safety bars and in fact issued a direct memo, dated March 27, 1992, which has subsequently been acted upon, indicating the range bars should be removed. My ques tion for the minister is: Why has Headingley Jail administration now again ordered the remo val of these range bars in dir ect contravention of the original Workplace Safety and Health order? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, if the department is in violation of any part of Workplace Safety and Health that will be dealt with, but I am not aware of a decision to remove the range bars, nor have I had a report or complaint coming up through the normal system of complaints with Workplace Safety and Health. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that answer surprises me and disturbs me, more so from the perspective of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) than the minister of Workplace Safety and Health.

Did the Minister of Justice not consult with the minister of Workplace Safety and Health or seek the direction of his department before he contemplated removing range bars in direct contravention of an order of the Workplace Safety and Health Division? Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, as the member for St. James may or may not be aware, specific orders of the department deal with a particular situation.

If there was some change in the use or operation of that facility which would then change the basis on which the or der was issued, that would not necessarily be a violation of either a previous order or regulations under The Workplace Safety and Health Act. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, will the minister of Workplace Safety and Health at least commit today to immediately taking this up with his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr.

McCrae)?-givent he Minister of Justice's comments back in 1988 that, quote, this government has decided not to quibble or quarrel with Workplace Safety and Health or with the union involved at Headingley. We will move quickly, and we have done that. I can tell the member that range bars will be installed by November 1 , 1988. Will the minister of Workplace Safety and Health immediately take this up with his colleague the

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 933 Minister of Jus tice who does not seem to understand- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, I just say this to the member for St. James. In the operation of any government facility, there are decisions that are made by the administrators who are in charge of those areas. They change programming. They change the way in which the particular area operates. They have respons ibi lity as administrators to ensure that they are complying with the appropriate legislation and regulations.

I am sure that the Minister of Justice and staff in the Ministry of Justice will ensure that they are in fact in compliance with the appropriate regulation. * {1420) Street Youth Service Funding Ms. Marianne Cerllli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the other day I raised a serious issue of homeless youth and violence and health risks that are associated. The Minister of Family Services said that they would work actively with groups that they do fund to try and assist in any way that they could provide the service through existing organizations.

I would like to ask the Minister for Family Services: How many children and youth are homeless and on the run and living off the streets in Manitoba? What services does this government fund that are similar to the SKY project that address the special needs of those youth? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, yes, the member started to ask some questions about this program the other day, and I indicated that there are a number of organizations that do receive funding from other levels of government and when that funding runs out sometimes they come to the provincial government to ask us to provide funding for th em.

I had indicated that we have been able to assist some groups in the past and we would, in the case of this program, work through existing organizations such as Children's Home of Winnip eg, through the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency to try and provide these services for the youth of the inner city. A good example of what we were able to do, if you will recall your colleagues were asking last year about funding for Pritchard Place. By working with the officials from Pritchard Place and the Winnipeg agency and other funders in Winnipeg, we have been able to stabilize their situation.

I would hope that with the existing agencies that we would be able to provide the services for those youth. Ms. Cerllll: I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this province is not provincially funding any programs for street youth. My question for the same minister is: Can the minister compare the costs of funding a program such as the Street Kids and Youth program that is going to help young people avoid street life and prostitution and compare that with the cost of treating someone with HIV or, in fact, full-blown AIDS? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr.

Speaker, the member is asking for detail on health-related issues which I am sure she can pose to the Minister of Health during the Estimates process. I would indicate that we do fund the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency and organizations such as Children's Home and some of the other treatment centres that work with many of these youth. A number of the individuals that the member is asking about are children who are in foster homes at one point in time or in the treatment centres.

Some of them leave on their own volition and then come back into the system where they are provided with the assistance that they need by those existing organizations. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Spe aker, does this minister understand that the kids who are living off the street and are turning to prostitution, have been through the institutions? They are no longer turning to those institutions. What services are going to remain in this city and in this province to reach out to those kids, kids that still are under the legal responsibility of this minister's department? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr.

Speaker , the existing organizations that were there a number of years ago are still there today to work with these children. I have indicated that they have been in the care of the agency. Many of them have been in private treatment centres, in foster homes, in group homes. I recognize that there is a certain small segment of those children that come into care that do not remain in care. They leave of their own volition and re-enter the system at some time later.

934 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 1993 We will work with the existing institutions to provide the services that those children require. We are not in a position to provide new programming that is going to meet the needs of every one of those children, but I would say to you that those institutions that are presently there can go a long way to provide that assistance. Public Child Care Centres Smoking Polley Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, it is well known that smoking and secondhand smoke cause cancer, and that every year thousands of Canadians die from lung cancer due to smoking and secondhand smoke. Estimated deaths from lung cancer in Manitoba in 1992 were 41 0 men and 220 women. Between 80 to 90 percent of these deaths were caused by smoking. This contributes to the cost of health care and to the loss of employment and indeed to life itself. Can the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) tell the House whatthe current policy is regarding smoking in publicly funded child care centres? Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the boards of the daycare centres are in a position to make policy in reference to those facilities. I think you will find, in many of the daycare centres, that they have a no-smoking policy, and they come under the guidance of the board that is elected to govern those institutions. Mr. Martindale: I am surprised that this is left up to the individual daycares and their boards, since smoking in public places is prohibited under

an act that applies to the whole province of Manitoba. Daycares are publicly funded, and they are public spaces. What is the policy regarding smoking by parents in family daycare homes? Is the minister concerned that this policy exposes children in many licensed family daycare homes to secondhand smoke, a proven health hazard? In fact- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, many of the things that go on in the homes of Manitoba, of course, is the business of those people who live there.

In reference to daycare homes, we have some of the highest trained professional daycare providers in the country. We are very proud of the standard of care that daycare givers give, both in the institutions and in the homes, and the decisions about smoking in homes is left up to that provider. Mr.

Martindale: Will the minister change the regulations and require that family daycare homes be nonsmoking as a condition of being granted a licence, in order to protect the current and future health of children, a change which would be endorsed by the Manitoba Child Care Association and the Manitoba Family Daycare Association? This is public money which is being used to subsidiz&- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, we certainly will review the situation as I have indicated in a number of letters that we have had recently.

At the present time, we have no plans to change that, but we will review the situation. We are meeting with the daycare providers and the unions that are involved with the daycare workers in the very near future. VIdeo Lottery Terminals Social Costs Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Lotteries. The government has side-stepped the issue of gambling, Mr. Speaker, in trying to address it through rural economic development where we have clearly seen a change in government policy. I want to ask the minister a question with respect to the cost of gambling.

We have had individuals in rural Manitoba wher e there has been some suggestion, where there has been suicides. I have heard stories where children have fallen asleep at the side while parents have played the VL T machines. My question to the minister is: Can she indicate to this House what work this department is doing in terms of tracking the social cost of this government's greed to get additional revenues through VL T funding? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster has already put his question. Hon.

Bonnie t.ltchelson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, as I announced at the beginning of this fiscal year, we ar e

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 935 endeavouring or have undertaken a study on gaming in the province of Manitoba. We are anticipating that study will be completed in the very near future, and we will deal with the issue of problem gambling as a result of what we learn from an internationally renowned consultant who has had great experience in dealing with those who have compulsive gambling problems. *

(1430) Moratorium on Expansion Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree today to put a moratorium on the expansion of VL Ts until we know what the social costs of gam bling are? That would be the responsible thing to do. I ask the minister to be responsible and to put a moratorium on VL T expansion. Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, I have already made some announcements on the opening of the new entertainment facilities in the city of Winnipeg.

We have made announcements on the expansion of VL Ts into city of Winnipeg hotels come this fall. I am slightly puzzled on what the Liberal policy might be on expansion of gambling, because I have in my possession a letter from the now Leader of the Liberal Party asking us to expand video lottery terminals into legions and veterans' clubs and we have other members of the Liberal Party asking us to stop expansion. So maybe they should try to get their act together, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, Deba te on Second Readings, would you call the bills in this order, please, Bills 5, 8, 3 and then starting atthe beginning of the order and continuing down the page. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 5-The Northern Affairs Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 5 (The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les affaires du Nord), standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am rising to put some comments on the record today on Bill 5, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act. As the members of the House know, I am not a resident of a northern community in Manitoba.

I have, on numerous occasions, had the opportunity to visit northern communities in the province of Manitoba, as a matter of fact perhaps more times than some of the members of the government benches, both front and back-excuse me, upper. At any rate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have a couple of major concerns with The Northern Affairs Amendment Act as we read it now and would like to share them with the government.

Again, as I have stated in my other comments on other bills this session, while the amendments may appear-and they certainly are being presented by the government as minor amendments, they are being presented as amendments to bring the act to reflect more current policy and current practice. Madam Deputy Speaker, as in the case with The Oil and Gas Amendments Act and The Endangered Species Act, upon closer reading it would appear to us that there are some major things that are going on in these amendments that require further clarification.

As I have stated in my discussions on these other two bills, I would hope that the government would respond to our concerns during second reading so that we can continue a debate and a dialogue back and forth, knowing exactly what the minister and the government have in mind. Failing that, we of course will assume that the public hearing process will provide the answers to our concerns. According to the amendments as they have been presented by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.

Downey), one of the major areas of change is going to be that the renewals of Crown land permits that are located in and around communities in the northern part of the province would automatically be approved without consultation with the northern communities.

936 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 1993 Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister, in his address to the House on December 9 when he presented this bill, stated that the process of consulting with Northern Affairs communities on initial dispositions only is well understood and accepted.

The inclusion of this amendment • . . . is to establish the existing process in legislation." Madam Deputy Speaker, this is causing us a fair bit of concern, because under the existing act the minister shall consult with a community council or the local committee of the incorporated community council regarding the disposition of Crown land permits located in a community or within eight kilometres of the community boundary. This to us makes a great deal of sense, because the disposition of Crown lands can and does have a major impact on the lives and the surroundings of many of these northern communiti1�s.

We believe that this amendment, if we are accurate in our reading of this amendment, is a mistake. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Whatl Ms. Barrett: I will repeat for the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). We believe that this amendment to th is

section is a mistake, this particular clause. The original intention of The Northern Affa irs Act was meant to shift decision-making powers from the government to local people, and that decision­ making shift from the government to the local community is seen in the current act whereby changes to Crown land disposition are shared with and are done after consultation with the local communities affect ed. There is the eight-kilometre boundary range that is currently in place.

Now, the concerns that I have, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the amendment would remove that local community consultation process from the act and would mean that the Crown, the government, can dispose of or make changes to the disposition of those Crown lands wi thout com muni ty consultation, that only the original disposition would be done after consu ltation, and any futu re dispositions, changes, reapplications or renewals of permits would not need to go to community councils. One of the important principles that is being put in jeopardy by this change is local control.

This government has talked ad nauseam about choice, about the difficult choices and decisions that have to be made by governments and organizations. They have also talked at great length about sharing those dif fi cult decisions with othe r groups, organizations and agencies in this province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this sharing of the load in virtually ever y other context has meant an offl oading of expens e to a lower divis ion of government-offloading of social assistance costs to the City of Winnipeg, offloading of policing costs to rural mu nicip alities , off load ing of school expenditures and requirements to local school boards and local communities. In ever y single one of these cases, the responsibility has been offloaded, not the resources that would enable communities to implement those responsi bilities.

This is what the government talks about when they talk about giving local communities choice. It is an attempt on the part of the government to offload their own legislated, statuto rily determi ned responsi bilities in an attempt to put the political backlash onto another organization or another level of government. Parenthetically, we on this side of the House believe that strategy is not only morally bankrupt but will prove to be politically bankrupt as well. End of parenthetical comment. This amendment to The Northern Affairs Act sort of puts that whole concept on its ear.

What it does is it gives the government a much larger degree of power and control over the disposition of Crown lands than it had originally, according to our reading of this legislation. This is something that is not a progressive step but a regressive step for a number of reasons. It would appear that this amendment, this change, will circumvent the original intention of the act which was to give northern communities a voice in the decisions that directly affect them.

It is very clear to anyone who has spent any time at all or even travelled through the northern part of this pro vince that Cr own lands are a major component of the physical surroundings to virtually every northern community in this province, that the disposition of the permits to organizations and bodies and corporations of those Crown lands plays a vital role in the political ecology, the physical eco logy and the social ec ology of these communities. It is not a small change, Madam Deputy Speaker, to take away any kind of local

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 937 control or local consultation from these communities in this regard. •

(1440) The minister, again in December when he was discussing this legislation, says that consultations on renewals of Crown land permits are "inefficient and expensive." Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, much of what the government does as a legitimate part of its function could be considered inefficient and expensive if you are talking only in terms of cost, money out and money back.

For example, the highway syste m in the province of Manitoba is seen by virtually every resident in this province and, certainly, by all the levels of government, as a vital infrastructure component to our ability to function as a province. Now we do not expect the Department of High ways and Transportation to run a department that, when you compare the costs of running the Department of Highways and Transportation with the potential revenue sources, direct revenue sources to that department through licensing and permits, et cetera, those figures to balance.

We know as a community that the provision of the highway system in this province is never going to be economically viable on that straight kind of comparison of costs to revenues, but we do almost without thinking recognize the importance that highways and a good highway transportation system play in our province in enabling the residents of Manitoba to communicate, to move from one part of the province to an oth er. We realize the importance of a highway system in enabling goods and services to move from one part of our province to another.

This is an example, Madam Deputy Speaker, of a service and a component of our government that we all expect to be provided without a definite or specific directly attr ibutable benefit to us. We know that the costs need to be born and that the benefits, if it is properly structur ed, will outweigh those costs.

I would suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, thatthe concerns that are rai sed by thi s ministe r's comments that consultations on renewals are inefficient and expensive are in the same category as saying that highways do not pay for themselves in a direct line item so, therefore, we should cut out the expenditures on highways. The act, we believe, was originally intended so that local councils and locally elected community groups could conduct the business of Crown permits, would have a major say in Crown permit applications and renewals.

According to a brief prepared by the Department of Northern Affairs in 1983, Madam Deputy Speaker, the act was intended to shift important decisions to the local council or committee, with only techn ical assistance bein g supplie d by the Dep artm en t of North ern Affairs, tec hni cal assistance to enable the local councils and communities to make the decisions that are most relevant and important to them. This, 1 0 years ago, was the clear intent of the act as promulgated by the previous New Democratic Party government.

The act intended local councils to conduct the majority of consultations with government there to assist them in that process. The government was not ever intended to be the major player in this process. Another intention of The Northern Affairs Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, was that individuals and el ected represe nt ativ es in thei r northern communities would initiate proposals to the review and approval stage. Again, this is real local control. This is not the current government's offloading of responsibilities with no concomitant offloading of resources.

The intention of The Northern Affairs Act, in this context, was to provide real, concrete control over the lands surrounding their boundaries to local communities. Madam Deputy Speaker, what this amendment will do is remo ve that local control from communities.

It will mean that the provincial gover nm en t, with its le ss-t han-ex empl ary commitment to the preservation and protection of Crown lands, to renew or provide for permits to any organization, association or group they choose to without consulting with the local community-a Crown land permit could have been issued 1 0 years ago, after consultation with a local community. The permit comes up for renewal. Who is to say what local changes might have taken place in that community or in the surrounding environs in that 1 0 years that might have a major impact on whether that permit should be renewed or not?

According to our reading of this amendment there is nothing that states there shall be consultation with the local community. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has retaken the power. The Minister of Northern Affairs has consolidated and centralized power in his department that should not be there. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, we worry

938 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA March 11, 1993 and we are concerned about the rationale and the philosophical underpinnings of this decision. The question I have, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this regard as well is: Are there any environmental concerns regarding the usage and occupation of Crown lands near communities? What assurances do communities have that they will remain where they currently are free from exploitation? What assurances do those communities have that they will remain free from exploitation?

Madam Deputy Speaker, our knowledge and underst anding of the negative impacts of much of our actions on the environment is increasing exponentially. Things that were seen to be acceptable 1 0 years ago or five years ago are now being seen to be ecologically and environmentally unacceptable. This amendment does not recognize that, Madam Deputy Speaker. It does not say that environmental impacts should be done when Crown land licences are being renewed or an application for their renewal is being undertak en. There is no environmental recognition in these amendments.

Another concern with this is there is no guarantee that the minister, if the minister is dead set on maintaining control or retaking control over these permits in his own department, there is no guarantee in this legislation that he or she, whoever the minister might be, will undertake to look at the environmental impact on these permits. That is a very major concern thEit we have, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Another question on this is: Is there a process in place, either currently or in these amendments, whereby northern communities could challenge the automatic renewal of a permit for Crown lands ifthey felt that the occupation or usage of those Crown lands within the community boundaries was harmful to their community? For example, was it going to harm their environment? Was it going to harm the local ecology? Was it going to have a negative impact on their wildlife, on their health facilities, on their ability to have clean drinking wat er, on their community planning, on their whole entire way of life?

No, Madam Deputy Speaker, according to these amendments, there is no provision for local input into that permit-granting process, number one; and, number two, once the permit has been reissued, there is no process for a community to make an appeal of that decision. •

(1450) The members of the northern communities in this province have had first-hand experience of the unwilli ngness of this government to take their concerns seriously. We have seen cutbacks to programs in the Natural Resources area. We have seen cutbacks to programs in health care service delivery. We have seen cutbacks to social service program delivery. We have seen cutbacks to policing. We have seen cutbacks to Highways and Transportation. We have seen all of these cutbacks which have an inordinately negative impact on our northern communities.

We have no security, either historically or in these amendments, to give us any kind of comfort that these environmental, these quality-of-life issues will be looked at by this minister or any other minister of this government in the future . I guess, Madam Deputy Speaker, again to just conclude on this

section of the act and the concerns that we have is that Manitoba is almost unique, I think, in Canada as a province in that over 60 percent of the population, and it is growing larger everyday , lives within half an hour or 45 minutes of the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg. The rest of the population lives in smaller urban centres such as Thompson, The Pas, Brandon, Dau phin, Steinbach, Winkler, Teulon.

It is important that the legis lation and the regulations implementing legislation on the part of the government recognize this im balance in the population distribution in our province, that it recognize this imbalance by making sure in every single one of its pieces of legislation that the needs and the rights and the services for northerners and for rural people in this province are protected.

With a population that is as skewed as the population of Manitoba is, it is vital that people who live outside the Perimeter, or within 45 minutes of the Perimeter, it is important that people who live outside that ring feel comfortable that the ir government is looking after and allowing them an input into issues that concern them greatly. Madam Deputy Speaker, these amendments do not in our view allow for that support and that understanding on the part of the government for these issues and concerns. It is taking control away from local communities. It is putting it into the hands

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 939 of a gove rnmen t that ha s never shown its commitment to the people of northern Manitoba. It is taking the responsibility and the power to make these important decisions away from the people who are most closely affected by them. It is giving it to not only the minister, but to the minister's staff, who are overworked, who, in July and August this summer, will be working only four days a week instead of five.

All of these things make us very uneasy that the legitimate concerns, the legitimate views of these local communities in northern Manitoba will not be address ed, that the only concerns that will be addressed are the concerns of the people and the organizations that have the minister's ear. Those people and organiza tions are not the local communities in northern Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is one other area I would like to touch on in these amendments.

The third element that the minister was attempting to address when he tabled this legislation was to make some changes regarding obsolete language in the legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have no quarrel with the concept of rendering language in legislation modern and reflective of current thinking as far as language is concerned. We are delighted to see the concept of gender-neutral language being at least addressed in a minimal way by the government in these amendments.

However, there are maybe two or three sections and subsections that have changes to "obsolete" language, i.e., rendering the subsections gender neutral in their language. There are 14 sections where gender-neut ral language is not rendered obsolete by these amendments. I cannot understand why the government would have made the attempt in a couple of instances to change his to his or her and then not made those changes in 14 other sections. I would like to briefly list the sections that still have gender-biased language in the m. No. 1 is the powers of the minister. Well, yes, the current minister is a man.

That is not necessarily always going to be the case. The legislation should reflect the possibility of a change, not only in gender, but other changes that might very well take place as well. The current

section says, in addition to his other powers, rights, duties, et cetera, the minister may assist, and then, as he deems appropriate, et cetera. I mean, in this one section, there are two or three allusions to gender-biased language. Another

section is again dealing with the minister acquiring real property, allowing the minister to perform any of his powers , rights, privileges, et cetera. Again, what would have been so difficult about perusing this piece of legislation when you have already stated that you want to eliminate some of the obsolete language in this legislation. The minister, another

section has powers that in his opinion are required. Nothing further need be stated about that. Whenever the approval of the minister is required before giving his approval, the minister may do X, Y and Z. Again, a simple change. There is another area where it is not dealing with the minister, but with a person who is appointed to conduct an inquiry under a certain subsection of this act may require any person to appear before him and give evidence on oath and for that purpose he has the same power, et cetera.

So we are not only talking about the minister being referred to only as in the relation to one gender, but another person who has powers under this act, a power of inquiry is also referred to only as he. The minister has powers regarding payments from funds, and in this

section the requisition shall be signed by the minister or a person designated by him. Yet, again, the minister is referred only as a him. Again, the minister invests a surplus, but obviously according to the act only the minister can do this only if the minister is a he. The local committees can be established, Madam Deputy Speaker, to assist the minister, i.e., him, and act in a consultative capacity to him.

Community councils will be continued as he deems necessary. * (1 500) Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is another category of people who are referred to in this act who are still referred to by only one gender and that is employees. Now, granted, many government employees, particularly I would think in the Department of Natural Resources and Northern Affairs, are male, but not by any manner or means all of them .

One would hope that this current government will do something in actions rather than just words to ensure that gender balance becomes a reality in the actual workplace of this government, as well as in the legislation.

940 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 11, 1993 Finally, there are several sections that talk about employees in the context of he, his employment, him. Again, only male pronouns are used in these sections. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would seriously hope that the minister will take both of these general comments and concerns into account, and I would expect to see a series of amendments when we come to public hearings that will make the rest of the sections ofthis act nonsexist, gender neutral in their language. I do not understand why it did not happen before.

I think I have some suggestions as to why this has happened, but I will leave those to another day. With those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my discussion of Bill 5. Thank you. Bill S-T he Insurance Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of BillS (The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les assurances), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) . An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] * * * Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) al:iked me to peruse Hansard, and, after perusing Hansard, I would like to sincerely apologize to the House and to the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for some very inappropriate statements that I put on the record. Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St.

Norbert for those comments. * *. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to put a few remarks on the record about Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment Act, which is, even within the context of the limited agenda of this particular government, a relatively small bill. It is one which has yet to go to committee, and we have yet to hear the opinions of both the insurance industry and of the many customers and clients of that particular industry throughout both urban and rural Manitoba.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is perhaps within the range of context of a housekeeping bill, although I am sure the minister herself-and in fact I would join her in this-would suggest that that is not the best use of the word "housekeeping," but it is one that has, as the minister said, three principles. One of these is to reduce the potential time delays, particularly in the area of crop and hail insurance.

I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, from speaking to those who are from rural Manitoba in our caucus and those who particularly are in touch with farmers, that these changes are ones which are likely to find a welcome audience in parts of the province. So I think those particular amendments, the timing of those, the attempt to be very clear about the time at which the insurance will be taken and recorded, are ones which are useful.

The second principle that the minister enunciated was that some of the changes that she is suggesting in this act are ones which have been due for some time, particularly those which relate to the use of new technologies, particularly fax machines. Here again, Madam De puty S peaker, I think it is worthwhile,! am sure, for all ministers to look at their legislation that is part of their departmental responsi bilities and to see whether there is the opportunity to update those bills in the context of the new technologies which are available through much, but not all, of our province.

So, in principle, the tightening up and the changing of the wording of those particular sections are probably quite helpf ul. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there are some times where we will have to be concerned about that. I am not suggesting a blanket licence there, because one of the areas I think that the Free Trade Agreement and increasingly the North American Free Trade Agreement will touch is the very rapid transfer of goods and services, particularly financial services such as insurance, the transfer of those very quickly across international borders.

There are some concerns there, Madam Deputy Speaker, in principle, not particularly related to this bill, but in principle, some concerns about the questions of employment in Manitoba, particularly rural employment and employment especially in insurance, goods and service industries. We have seen some of the results of those changes that are happening across our country and internationally in the recent loss of over 80 jobs with

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 941 the enRoute technology changes in Air Canada in Winnipeg, the ability to transfer those jobs very quickly to Montreal and possibly out of the country. It has been a very rapid change and one which I think we have to be greatly concerned about.

It is one of the areas that we have indicated time and time again that we have concerns about in the current Free Trade Agreement and one where we see certain companies, the multinationals largely based in the United States, who have pressed particularly for free trade agreements, largely for the purposes of financial services and service industries, things which can be transmitted very quickly and across international boundaries and which are, partly because of the technological change and partly because of the increasing reluctance and inability under some of the free trade agreements of governments to regulate those kinds of industries.

Again, in principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we have to be very careful about changes that we make in that area.

I look forward to some of the comments of industry people, not just on the specifics of this bill which, as I say, at the moment are not a direct cause of concern but the willingness of governments, the willingness of Conse rvative governments in particular to accommodate with great powers multinational corporations who are involved in these new technologies and which are able to supersede national boundaries, able to supersede national communities and, I would argue, to supersede the powers and abilities of Legislatures such as this to address the legitimate needs, social and economic needs, of our own people.

A third area that the minister has underlined in this particular bill is an area of language. She has argued in her introduction to this bill that she has brought some changes in language with a view to making the language clearer and plainer. I would like to congratulate the minister on this. I think the changes that she has brought are indeed simpler. I know that the minister has a particular concern for language and the correct use of English and that she has put this into practice in this bill. It is simpler. It is clearer in the sections that she has changed.

I wish she had been able to convince some of her colleagues, particularly those who deal with some of the very complex bills such as the oil and gas bill for example, to take the same approach.

I congratulate her for that, and I think it is very appropri ate for a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to see this as part of her role in protecting consumers. * (151 0) Another area that minister has underlined is that again in terms of technology she wants to eliminate some of the sections of this bill or wording of this bill which might have been inappr opriate or made it impossible to use under certain types of new printing technologies. So rather than, for example, use red ink, she says that we are going to use bold print or we are going to go boldly. I think perhaps she means into the future.

I think if this is acceptable to the industry, if it is clear to the consumer, if it protects the interests of Manitobans, then I think that too will be perfectly acceptable, but one can only wis h that this government would go boldly in other areas.

One can only wish that this government read the letters that I get every day and the phone calls I get every day from people who see no future for themselves in this province, people who have had jobs for much of their lives, and now at the age of 50 or 52 find themselves unemployed and looking at a lifetime now of unemployment just staring them in the face, or that they would listen to young people in this province who are facing an unemployment rate as high as that of the island of Montreal, as high as that of parts of Newf oundland, an unemployment rate for young people which is growing.

If they listen to those people, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think they would want to tread boldly there too. The absence of any initiative for youth unemployment I think is one of the most tragic things that I have seen happen to this province in many, many years. To listen to those students in high school, many of them now who are coming back to try and improve their grade 1 2 marks, staying in university longer and longer in order to improve their jobs to compete for an increasingly narrow segment of employment in Manitoba, it is a tragic loss of young people's ambition and enthusiasm.

It is a tragic loss to Manitoba, a great wastage that is happening every day across the province, hours and hours of potential labour and work that is being lost, experienced labour. People who have given 30 years of their lives to this province and who are now no longer given the opportunity to put that expertise and that experience to work, either in training young people in an

942 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 1993 expanded apprenticeship system or indeed in terms of their own productive labour, the work of their own hands. There is nothing that this government is doing about that. There are no bold steps in the area of unemployment. There are not even any bold steps in looking at the magnitude of the conditions which are facing people, not only in my riding, but right across the province.

How can we stand here and listen to those voices from young Manitoba, those voices who have never had a job, and many of them now 25, 26 years old, often with reasonable educations, high school graduations, one or two years of either community college, and increasingly graduates so-called of these private training institutions and for whom there is no work. Other countries, other jurisdictions are indeed looking at the issue of youth unemployment.

This is an issue which is concerning people around the world, but it seems to me that this government, first of all has no unde rstanding of the magnitude of the problem that they are facing, and indeed are creating in this province. By turning a blind eye, by turning their backs on those young people who will never find a job under their conditions, they are in fact creating a potential future for Manitobans which is very, very serious, and other governments around the world recognize this.

You look at governments in Germany, you look at governments in England, you look at what the Clinton administration is doing in the United States, and every single one of them knows the danger of continued youth unemployment. They are seeing those rising crime rates. They are seeing the increasing violence of young people, but this government does not. It does not listen-[inte�ection] Is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Findlay) suggesting-{interjection] I would not want to put the comment of the Minister of Agriculture on record, that is up to him, but it does seem to me that it w as one of those typical 3d hominem or ad feminam arguments that are often used by the other side in answering questions in the House, not usually furthering debate, but, often, I think, ones that people often resort to, and I guess we all do it or are all tempted to do it on occasion. Perhaps it is best not done in this particular House or this particular setting.

I was talking, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the minister, who I think has reason in many cases to be proud of sections of this bill, and I was congratulating her on certain areas of it and picking up her language of going boldly into--t do not think she says the future, but certainly a government which is actin g bold ly-and expressing my frustrat ion, my concern, my lament, I think, that this government has not chosen to address boldly one of the issues which I think is the most tragic, most dramatic issue which is facing most jurisdictions around the world.

I was suggesting that other jurisdictions are addressing this, and there is an opportunity here for this government whose children and grandchildren they know and I know are facing a very, very difficult future. There is an opportunity for them to address this, to look at some of the programs which are being put into place in other parts of the world, the youth unemployment program, for example, in Australia. Australia faces a very similar situation to parts of Canada, and Australia in fact has argued that this is the emergency of their decade.

What they have done is to address, is to create an emergency youth employment program, one that they hope will touch at least a th ird of their unemployed youth which will provide both training and jobs. It is an initiative which I commend Prime Minister Keating on, a Labour Prime Minister, for recognizing that this is one of the most vital issues that has to be faced . I believe that he has addressed it in an appropriate way by combining education, by combining training and the provision of jobs and particularly expanding training on the job and expanding the appr enticeship system in Australia.

In France, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have taken a similar approach. Again, another social democratic government has said, what are the issues that are facing us at this time? Where must we tread boldly? They looked at the conditions they were facing in France, and President Mitterand in particular saw the two issues of employment for the worker over the age of 50 and employment for those people who have never been in the labour force as the two crucial elements facing France.

Given the rise of right-wing nationalism, some would call it facism, given the rise of that type of ideology, their actions on the streets, the social issues that they are bringing to the fore, not just in France but in other parts of Europe as well, again, I

March 11 , 19 93 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 943 think that this is an important strategy, and it was one which, within a relatively short period of time had considerable success, and, again, it combined education and job placement. The two crucial areas that Australia and France and, in a different way, Germany have also chosen as the route to go boldly into their future. Madam Deputy Speaker, from this government, I think we have in March 1 993, with an unemployment rate that is growing, a picture of stagnation and economic decline in this province.

We have an absolutely small agenda of legislation and a government which cannot bring itself to bring in a budget. I do not know what they are waiting for. I would think one element that is at issue here is that this is a government which has fired about 1 ,500 civil servants, which has crea ted such demoralization amongst its own employees that they are no longer prepared to tell the government the truth. They have got their heads down.

You are losing the confidence of your civil servants, and when you do that, you are in real trouble because they are your eyes and ears, and you will be alone. * (1 520) Any government which engages in that kind of wholesale dismissal of its civil servants will have a price to pay. I think one of the prices we are paying, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the delay in the budget, the lack of initiative in this government and its ability to prepare programs, the inability of the government to, in fact, negotiate a labour force development agreement.

We have seen three, four years of delay on that particular agreement, a strategy which may not be a panacea for all the ills of Manitoba. It certainly will not be. In fact, it has some ... [inaudible] Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Friesen: . .. provincially, federally [inaudible] on the Civil Service, I think, which has confidence in this government is one of the difficulties we have. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the individual who was recognized to speak on this bill. Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I was trying to put some remarks on the record as to my understanding of why this government has so many difficulties in bringing forth legislation and why it is having some difficulties in bringing forth its budget at the appropriate time. I think one of the difficulties is that they have fired a great number of civil servants and created a great deal of disarray amongst those who are left, losing the confidence of the very people who should be their eyes and ears on this province. This is a government which is presiding over the decline of Manitoba. My colleague the member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans) has presented today a series of tables representing the economic arguments which show the net loss of people in Manitoba, and, of course, we face a government across the way which is stepping boldly, as the minister said, to increase that situation, to add more people to the unemployment rolls, essentially to send them on a very short route to the welfare rolls. This is a government which opens the door for you, smiles broadly, have a nice day, they say, and off they send you to the unemployment lines, a very short step away from the welfare rolls.

That is the bold step that this government is taking. They are adding to the unemployment crisis that we have in Manitoba, and it seems to me that those are the kinds of bold steps which certainly the people who write to me and who phone me do not welcome. They recognize what in itself this government policy is doing to the economic conditions and social conditions of life in this province. In a way, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a double crunch that is happenin g her e . It is happening in the city of Winnipeg, and it is happening throughout Manitoba.

These are the bold steps that are affect ing the people of this province because, on the one hand, unemployment is increasing and in part, yes, there is a global recession. In part, yes, it is largely due to some of the spec ific policies pur sue d by the federal government that have exacerbated the economic crises that did exist internationally. Yes, all of that.

But the particular policies of this government have made Manitoba suffer extraordinarily within the context of other provinces, and those are the kinds of tables and stu dies which my colleague has tabled, and I hope that the government will take them to heart and they will re-examine with the few civil servants left to them the kind of economic positions which they have taken and the way in which they have contributed to unemployment in this province.

944 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 1993 I suggested, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there were two things happening here .. One of them is the unemployment to which this government is adding, and the second thing is that the policies of this government and the policies of their allies in City Hall are in fact to add a second stab in the back or a stab in the belly to the people of Manitoba, because what they are doing is deliberately taking away the public sector.

They are taking away the very institutions that those people who are unemployed and who face a lifetime on welfare who face no jobs, they are taking away that very area of public institutions when people need the most. It is that double slam which I think makes people so resentful and so angry at what this government is doing.

They are taking away the libraries, the affordable public transport syste m, the inner city recreation, medicare, Pharmacare, eating away at all of those areas which we thought and which we had built as public institutions, institutions which we could all share whether we were rich or poor, the public sector that we built. You may never be able to equalize income amongst Manitobans. You may never be able, and you have no interest of course in redistributing income at all. What you have done is in fact take away that public sphere that people could have participated in on an equal basis. It is a double whammy.

It is the great unfairness of it all, and it is in effect the kind of structure that this government is creating for the people ?f Manitoba. So, yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, they are st eppin g boldly. There are some pieces of legislation here, some sections of this particular bill of plain language, the adoption of some new elements of timing and the introduction of language which takes into account new types of technology.

All of those I think are reasonably straightforward, although, as always, I am not an expert in this area, and I always look forward to hearing the presentations that are made at committee and very much value the legislative system of Mani••)ba which does enable that public participation and input into every bill. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I will close. I believe that other people will be speaking on this bill later and I look forward to comments of all members of the House.

Bill 3-The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 3 (The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz natural et appor tant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Bill 2-The Endangered Species Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 2 (The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Ron (Mr. Storie). An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] BIII 10- The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on sec ond reading of Bill 1 0 (The Farm Lands Owner ship Amen dmen t and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia propriete agricola et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). An Honourable Members: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] * (1 530) Bill 11 - The Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 11 (The Regional Waste Management Author ities, The Municip al Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 945 dechets, modifiant Ia

Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] 811112 -The International Trusts Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 12 (The International Trusts Act;

Loi sur les fiducies internationales), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed) 811113-The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill13 (The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia Loi constituent en corporation le fonds de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).

An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed) Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to be able to speak on this bill. I want to talk about this bill in the context, obviously the changes it proposes to the Manitoba government's support of the Crocus Fund, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Act being the enabling act which brings in to statute the establishment of this particular fund.

I want to talk about the entire concept of employee ownership, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think it is important that we as members of the Legislature discuss I think this particular fund and the particular potential that is available in this type of ownership of an alternate ownership structure which builds upon some of the principles of the financial business world, the corporate structures, but it goes beyond that and establishes some unique dimensions, some unique features. It has a great deal of possibility for this province.

Let us start from the economic context we find ourselves in, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to commend the previous speaker, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), on outlining the economic circumstances we are in. This is particularly relevant when we are discussing the whole question of this particular fund and the whole concept of alternative ownership. I point to the situation we are in, Madam Deputy Speaker, as very effecti vely outlined by the member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans), our Finance critic, in the document that was tabled in the House earlier, entitled "The Economic Decline of Manitoba Under The Filmon Cons ervative Gover nment 19 88-1 992." This document is similar to some of the other analyses the member for Brandon East has conducted in terms of the economic situation of the province. I noticed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) earlier today said that the only thing he was pleased with was thatthe member was here and notteaching this in the university context.

Indeed, I do not blame the Minister of Finance for stating that, because I am sure the Minister of Finance does not want people who are studying economics to see how dismal the record of this government has been and how bankrupt this government has been in terms of economic policy. Let us face the reality. What we are dealing with in Manitoba is not strictly a result of the international recession or the national recession, Madam Deputy Speaker. If that was the case, one would expect that there would be an averaging out of the economic indicators, that Manitoba might not perhaps be the best or the worst.

There might be an averaging out of those economic indicators. Madam Deputy Speaker, look at this document in terms of the various different indicators that the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) has analyzed, and you know there is no requirement to look selectively at statistics. Whether one looks at population or economic growth or employment or the unemployment rate or labour force statistics or the average weekly earnings, the retail sales, housing starts, manufactu ring shipmen ts, manufacturing employment, farm cash receipts, investment, building permits or the value of total

946 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11 , 1993 construction work, Manitoba is not first or second. It is not third. [interjection] Well, we are first maybe in decline, Madam Deputy Speaker-f irst maybe in decline, but there is a very clear trend in evidence. What is happening-and I quipped this from my seat earlier, I think the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) should have entitled this, using the title of the movie that was put out by Walt Disney. I think that is appropriate, given some of the Disneyland analyses we have had from members opposite.

He cou ld have called this, Honey, I Shrunk the Province, because that is what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has done. The Premier in four years basically, going into five now, almost to the fifth anniversary of the election-in fact, we were into the election campaign five years ago-in that short period of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier has indeed shrunk this province in comparison to other provinces across the country. One can see it in terms of Manitoba as a percent of Canada in population; we have declined from 4.18 percent in 19 88 to 4.00 percent in 19 92.

We have seen it in regard to Manitoba as a percent of Canada gross domestic product; we shrunk from 3.64 percent to 3.62 percent. Manitoba as a percent of Canada in terms of employment; we have shrunk from 4.03 percent to :3.95 percent. We have seen it in terms of a whole series of other statistics. The labour force, we have shrunk from 4.03 percent to 3.88 percent. In terms of average week ly earnings, industrial composite index , Manitoba as a percent of Canada shrunk from 91 .60 percent in 19 88 to 88.84 percent in 19 92.

Retail sales, Manitoba as a percent of Canada has shrunk from 3.49 percent to 3.45 percent. In housing starts, Manitoba as a percent of Canada has shrunk from 2.45 percent in 19 88 to 1. 37 percent in 19 92. Manufacturing ship ments- that is the only area where we have not shr unk, Madam De puty Speaker. We remained static at 2 .. 25 percent of the rest of Canada. Manufac turing employment, however, we have dropped from 2.99 percent in 19 88 to 2.87 percent in 199 2. Farm cash receipts, we have dropped from 9.34 percent in 19 88 to 6.95 percent in 19 92, Manitoba as a percent of Canada once again.

In terms of investment we have dropped from 3.08 percent in 19 88 to 2.79 percent of the overall investment in Canada. Another decline under this government. Manitoba as a percent of Canada building permits have dropped from 2.27 percent to 2.01 percent, and the total construction work performed has dropped in 19 88 from 3.54 percent, that being the percent which Manitoba constiMes the Canadian total, to 2.83 percent. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a pretty dismal record. This is not, as I had mentioned before, these are not strictly the absolute statistics.

These are the comparative statistics, because I think governmen ts , to be fair, should be judged comparatively. They should not be judged strictly in terms of absolute numbers. We all recognize there is an international recession, and there has been a national recession . In fact, in many ways the Conservative government nationally through its policies led us into the recession a lot earlier than most other ind ustrial countries were in the recession.

So the bottom line is that there is indeed a recession, but if we were holding our own in a recession, those statistics I read earlier would either have shown that we have continued to be the same percent of the cou ntry or would indeed, perhaps, as some indicators, shown an increase. Those are the comparative statistics. These show that Manitoba is doing worse than other provinces in those scores because in-{inte�ection] The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says does that make me happy. No, it does not. It shows that we are not living up to our potential in this province. Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): What does make you happy? You tell us. Mr. Ashton: The Minister of Health says what does make me happy. What would make me happy in this particular case is if we showed some signs in this province that we were going to be doing better, that we are going to be getting out of the recession. �nte�ec tion] The Deputy Premier talks from his seat as he indee d does about deb t. I mean, this government inherits a $52-million surplus and ends up-w ell, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was confirmed by the Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness). They should maybe discuss that.

They now are looking at the highest deficit in the history of the province. Oh, I notice there was no howling that time. They know that is true. The minister the other day talked about credit cards. They have the credit card now, the Province of Manitoba credit card. They have been running up those slips, and they have been lecturing us in

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 947 the House about the previous NDP government. The highest level of deficit left by the previous NDP government was $592 million. They are looking at $700 million. Perhaps the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) was not aware of this when he ran. Perhaps he would like to ask the question to his own members before he gets up and turns to these types of issues and ask them what their cumulative deficit has been from 19 88 to 19 93.

How much have they run up the deb t of the province in that period of time? [interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, you know, is it not interesting, the Minister of Environment starts, well, how much of that is the interest on your debt? It is interesting, the finger pointing. I raise this to point out to this government by its own definition, and I remember the minister of cultural affa irs, and I have quoted this in the House, said in 19 88, she said, the one thing you can count on is that we are not going to have a higher deficit. We are going to reduce the deficit. Reduce the deficit?

As I said, we are looking at a $700-million deficit in this province. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has admitted as much. You know, it is interesting, because over the period of time they have been in, we are doing worse economically, but we are also doing worse fiscally in this province. The more they apply their so-called economic philosophy, the more they are digging this province into the hole in terms of the economic performance and in terms of the fiscal performance. Those are the facts. • (1 540) The Minister of Finance, on the one hand­ [interjection] Indeed, the member for Portage (Mr.

Pallister) says, where are my ideas. That is one of the reasons I am speaking on this bill, because there are alternatives. There are things that the provincial government could be doing to promote economic development and not the kind of failed economic policies we have seen, the policies that have led us in virtually every indicator to perform worse than the Canadian average. Indeed, to the member for Portage, I will be outlining in my speech today a number of them. That is why I am speaking on this. Indeed, I believe there is a lot of potential in this province if we can work co-oper atively.

I am speaking on this particular bill because this is one small example where co-operation can make a difference. It is only the beginning of the type of co-operation that is going to be necessary for us to get out of the hole that we are in in this province. [interjection] Well, you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says the hole that we dug this province into. He has been in government for five years. What is the cumulative value of the increase that they have attached to the debt while the economy has been going downhill? What is the cut in services that has taken place?

You know , Madam De puty Speaker, the Conser vatives-[interjection) Well, I hear the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) speaking from his seat. Perhaps he is trying to answer that question that we still have not got an answer for earlier today. If that is the case, I look forward to hearing the answer. But, let us face it, the policies of this government have left us worse off than in 19 88 economically with fewer services and a higher deficit. No one can dispute that fact. We are worse off on every score, not just absolutely-as I said, it would be unfair just to compare absolutely.

Comparatively, we are failing in this province. When I say we, I mean the provincial government, but we all collectively share as residents of this province in the failure that we are looking at economically. After five years, this government has clearly shown that it is not only bankrupt financially, but it is bankrupt economically and bankrupt in terms of ideas. As I said, there are alternatives that we could be looking at.

The bottom line is, Madam Deputy Speaker, one small example of this has been in terms of the Crocus Fund, because this is the kind of co-operative approach that has been tried in other provinces, in Quebec, for example. The fund in Quebec, the solidarity fund, has been in existence for many years. It is not a new concept. The previous government had introduced a very similar concept, in fact, basically the same sort of concept with different capitalization, but it had introduced it in its budget in 19 87-88. So this is not a new initiative in that sense, but it is a welcome initiative.

It is a co-operative initiative. Let us look at what it is aimed at doing. It is aimed at keeping capital within Manitoba. It is aimed at keeping Manitobans' savings in this province, invested in this province. It is aimed at keeping it

948 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11 , 1993 here creating jobs in this province. It is not the only type of mechanism that does that. I go back to the original Autopac debates when there were really two arguments on Autopac in the original days. People may have forgotte n some of those deb ates. One of the argument s was obviously that there would be lower rates, and that has been borne out by the practice of Autopac. [interjection] Well, relatively speaking.

One of the reasons I am concerned about what has been happening currently is the fact that the gov ernmen t is not dealing with some of the structural problems in the sys tem, particularly the fault/no-fault aspects that are leading to a rapid escalation of rates related specifically to the increased amount of litigation related to personal injury claims. An Honourable Member: Actually,litigation is not up but the costs are. Mr. Ashton: Well, costs are up, that is what I am saying. I realize that is what is happening, and I thank the minister for that clarification, and I realize what is happening.

What is happening is that the awards that are coming in are significantly greater than they were a number of years ago. That has been predicted, Madam Deputy Speaker, since the mid-1 980s. In fact, if one goes back to the Kopstein report, it is specifically identified as one of the major challenges facing Autopac, and I hope it will be dealt with. I do not want to gel into that debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, not that I do not look forward to having a debate with the minister at some other time, and I know we have it on an ongoing basis. That is the cost end of it.

The other argument for Autopac-and it was an argument I remember the former member for Inkster, Sid Green, was particularly vocal about at the time-was that it keeps funds in Manitoba, the funds collected by the insurance company, keeps them in Manitoba, provides a capital pool that is of significant benefit to this province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have always believed that one of the reasons the Lyon government, when it looked at privatizing Autopac in the late 19 70s, besides the fact that there would have been a major uproar from Manitobans on the rate side-one of the main reasons they kept it is that I think even they, with the benefit of hindsight, having opposed Autopac when it was first brought in, recognized that it would be a substantial loss to Manitoba.

If one went to the national and multinational insurance companies, if one went to the previous flows of capital that took place, one would end up in the position where once again you would have money flowing outside of Manitoba. So the retention of our savings collectively in this province, in Manitoba, is an important part of other aspects of government policy, and I would suggest in this particular case is key in this particular bill.

This bill essentially, Madam Deputy Speaker, attempts to ensure there is adequate support to the Crocus Fund in its initial stages, to ensure that it can establish itself and provide that kind of source of investment that it has a great deal of potential to do. A good example, good model of a co-operative approach-gove rnment with , in this case, the Manitoba Federation of Labour-and a shared goal, the goal of investing in our province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to suggest that there are many other areas that we could be looking at doing this, and many other sources of revenue, I think, would be more appropriately put to use in this province. I go back to the video lottery terminal debate, and then I have some difficulty, and I look to mem bers op posite from rural constituencies, from northern constituencies.

I have some difficulty when I go, for example, as I did to the hotel in IIford recently and I saw the big banner that was put out originally by the Lotter ies Foundation, saying Video Lottery Terminals, and it says right underneath that proceeds will go to rural economic development. Madam Deputy Speaker, the difficulty I have is, it is not that some of the proceeds are not going to rural development. The difficulty I have is that much of it is now going to go into general revenues, and that is not what the original intent was.

I understand there is some debate over what the experience has been, and there is some suggestion that the video lottery funds were more than were anticipated. But I think that when people go in there, they have a sense that they are putting their money into something, and it is going for a good cause. I hate to say it, a lot of people are just into gambling for gambling's sake, but there are a lot of people that it does make a difference for them. I am sure a lot of people would not gamble in the same sense if they felt it was going for private profit-[i nterjection]

March 11 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 949 We have been asking for updated figures in terms of what percentage is going