Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 3 (36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No.3 -1:30 p.m., Thursday, December 7,1995

� ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMM INGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

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

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Anhur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norben St. Johns Elmwood Burr ows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Ponage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Tunle Mountain Fon Garry Swan River � N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P.

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

63 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, December 7,1995 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Emergency Health Care Services Community Hospitals Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition oflsle Udow, R.G. Stirling, Shari Mannis and others urging the Minister of Health consider making a commitment to the people of Manitoba that emergency health care services in Winnipeg's five community hospitals will remain open seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Emergency Health Care Services Community Hospitals Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: The Clerk will read. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT emergency health care services are the core of Manitoba's health care system.

THAT Manitobans deserve the greatest possible access to this care. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister responsible for Health consider making a commitment to the people of Manitoba that emergency health care services in Winnipeg's five community hospitals will remain open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Mr.

Anatolii Ivonin, head of the Department for Co operation with the Subjects of the Federation at the Federation Council of the Russian Federation; Ms. Valentina Adrianova, head of the Department on Co operation with Regional Legislatures at the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation; and Mr. Andrey Krivorotov, advisor to the Department of Interparliamentary Relations in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Also seated in the public gallery, we have forty-five Grades 4 to 6 students from Monsignor James K.

Macisaac School under the direction of Ms. Theresa Bachynski. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGi:fford). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Health Care System Emergency Services Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

Yesterday we cited October 6, October 10, October 16 and October 19, Hansard information, Madam Speaker, that is totally contradicted by reports we released yesterday in terms of the urgent and emergent cases at the Winnipeg emergency hospitals.

64 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 The minister later answered, the reason his information was wrong was he was going by 1992 to 1994 information. But in 1994, the minister said to the people of Manitoba, on July 14 of that year, that he would not close down any of our community hospital emergency wards. Because he did not have the data and he would have to monitor the impact on the intake on emergency wards in those community hospitals, he would not close those hospitals down.

How can he say now that he was using data from 1992 to 1994 when, prior to the election-and I would like to ask the Premier-this government said, based on the data they had they were not going to close down those community hospitals? The same information, different decisions. *

(1335) Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member misses the point, the point being that everybody in the system agrees we have sufficient and indeed excess capacity in our emergency services. Whether, as I said yesterday, Madam Speaker, the average usage-which ranges, by the way, in any given year at any given hospital between 1 percent up to 12 percent and perhaps in some cases higher percentages of the pure emergency services, so that whatever percentage one is talking about, the issue is the overall usage of the emergency rooms.

How many times has the honourable Leader of the Opposition been asked, what are we going to do about the inappropriate use of our emergency services in the city of Winnipeg? I wonder what the honourable member's answers would have been. I am sure they would have been, oh, well, yes, we certainly have to do something about that. That is exactly what we are trying to do, and thrown into the whole process is the fact that early this fall, on Labour Day, the physicians and pathologists went on strike, putting us really to the task, Madam Speaker, at which we have been quite diligent ever since. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, my further question is to the new-hope-and-accountable Premier (Mr. Filmon) in terms of government decision making. When the Filmon government made the decision to not close the emergency wards at our community hospitals and announced those conditions on July 14, 1994, not only did they talk about monitoring and gathering more data, which obviously they used later on, they talked about five conditions that would be necessary before they would make any changes to the emergency wards.

This is the promise the government made to the people: five conditions, a provincial trauma centre, a hospital bed co-ordination, interfacility transportation program, a training centre for ambulance personnel at our community colleges. Those would be five conditions. The minister and the government went on to say, where would you go at three o'clock in the morning if you closed down the emergency wards at our community hospitals? We will not let that happen.

I would like to ask the Premier why they had one position before the election and now we have the kind of Mike Harris breaking a promise after the election by the Filmon government, Madam Speaker. Mr. McCrae: I suppose it is beside the point, Madam Speaker, that the honourable Leader of the Opposition failed to refer to the issues that I referred to in my first answer. The issues he speaks about, i.e., a trauma bed usage, transportation and the other two that I did not get down as he was asking his question, are all the subject of the work that is being undertaken now and has been undertaken for years.

We have monitored for years and we have been monitoring very, very carefully ever since that strike began, Madam Speaker, throughout the duration of the strike and since the strike as well. The honourable member also refuses to make reference to the fact that what has been happening has been a reopening of services. When the strike ended, normal service delivery resumed during the daytime hours and that, as I had said yesterday and was reported upon today, further changes are possible as we prepare for the busier season and also as we look to the longer term future. *

(1340) December 7, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 65 Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The minister just contradicted the government's position on July 14, 19 94, when the minister said that no emergency ward would be closed down until the five conditions would be met. He said that in July of 1994. He is now saying they are looking at these conditions now after they have closed down those emergency wards. We have a Minister of Health who is flying by the seat of his proverbial pants, and it is putting at risk the people of this province.

I would like to ask the Prem ier, in light of the fa ct that his own minister said, why go to a busy hospital and wait in line fo r hours and hours or be on a stretcher in the hallway when you do not have to-that was the position of the government in July of 1994-will this Premier give us a new Minister of Hea lth who will be straight with the people of this province, and will he reverse the decision of his Minister of Health and reopen these community hospitals, as they promised prior to the election? Mr.

McCrae: In the summer of 1994, indeed my concern, as expressed by me at the time, was patients and how they would be looked after in the middle of the night because there were recomme ndations that there be downsizing or clos ure of emergency wards at that time. We were thrust into a situa tion on Labour Day. We have now had September, October, November, over thre e months of experience and of very, very careful monitoring. Each and every time honoura ble members would bring to me anecdotal incidents relating to emergency servi ces we were very careful to check them out, Madam Speaker.

We have probably more concern than honoura ble members opposite on this point because we are the ones who are going to be asked about it should there be a problem, and we have monitored very carefully. We have expanded service when necessary and where necessary to ensure that the patients are looked after. We recognize the issue of some inconvenience fo r some people. We are mindful of that, and when it comes to people in nonurgent situations, we get compla ints of longer waits as a result and those are the kinds of issues that we now need to address as well, Madam Speaker. Minister of Health Replacement Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is fo r the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The minis ter misled the people of Manitoba when he said five conditions would be met bef ore they would close any emergency wards . He misled the public when he said it was 4 percent and not the 12 percent he had in his hands. He misled the public when he said there was consensus that the wards should be closed and instead it was only him and his consultant who recommended the closing of the wards.

My question fo r the Premier, Madam Speaker, will this Premier replace this Minister of Health bef ore he does further damage to the health care system as he has done with emergency wards? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speake r, when it comes to misleading the public the honourable members opposite could do seminars to teach people how to mislead other people. In terms of any mislea ding, the mislea ding that the honourable member talks about is nonexistent.

We have been working very, very carefully with all kinds of stak eholders, including providers of services and consumers of services, as we develop these policies. You cannot be misleading people if you are going to have that kind of a process. That is the kind of process we have. We consult. Honourable members opposite do it the other way. Health Care Facilities Alternative Uses Mr. Dave Cbomiak (Kildonan): Then perhaps the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) can assure individuals who live in the vicinity of Misericordia Hospital and individuals who live around Seven Oaks Hospital that their hospitals will not be converted, Misericordia into an outpatient daycare fa cility and Seven Oaks into a chronic rehab fac ility. Will the Premier give assurances that those hospitals are not to be converted, since we are told by officials of Health that it is a 95 percent certainty that is going to happen?

66 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 *

(1345) Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I understand the honourable member took advantage of the opportunity to attend the seminar or the forum that is being facilitated by KPMG, and that forum is used to assist us in developing plans for the future of acute care and other services in the city of Winnipeg in the future.

You see, the disturbing thing about all of this is that virtually every initiative taken by the stakeholders, providers, consumers and the government in the development of a reformed health care system virtually every step of the way has been attempted to be blocked by honourable members opposite. They say they believe in reform. Their actions belie that. Seven Oaks General Hospital Emergency Services Mr. Dave Cbomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, if the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) will not listen to MARN, he will not listen to the nurses, he will not listen to the doctors, he will not listen to any experts in emergency care, will he listen to the 2,107 residents of the constituency of Kildonan who wrote letters to me demanding and asking the government to reopen the emergency ward at Seven Oaks Hospital? If the Premier would like, I am prepared to table the 2,107 letters from residents to the Premier, to me and to the Minister of Health saying, do not close the emergency wards and reopen it at Seven Oaks Hospital. Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Kildonan has demonstrated ever since he has been critic for Health for the New Democratic Party that they have no interest whatever in taking

part in any decision making or discussions related to integration of services, related to getting rid of inefficiencies, related to getting rid of duplication of services in our health care system-no interest whatsoever.

Yet, look at their colleagues when they are given an opportunity to govern in other jurisdictions, how they do it, in Saskatchewan, for example, where their colleagues closed 52 rural hospitals; in Ontario, where before the Rae government was removed from office, they closed 10,000 hospital beds; where, in British Columbia and Vancouver, the Shaughnessy Hospital has been closed by a New Democratic administration, cutting off whole arms and legs of the health care system without consultation and without getting people involved in designing their own health care system.

Madam Speaker, the honourable member, if we listen to him , we would not have a health care system. Louisiana-Pacific Federal-Provincial Review Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. On at least three occasions in the last sitting of this House, members on this side asked the minister to address concerns coming from federal departments on Louisiana-Pacific before public hearings took place. The member for Swan River (Ms.

Wowchuk) and I wrote the minister, again asking that his department deal with these concerns so that the CEC had all the information for a fair and comprehensive review. The minister did not act and as a result the hearings have been delayed. My question is, will the minister and his colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cumm ings) call for a federal-provincial review so that gaps in information do not continue to delay and tarnish this process? Bon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, there is an old saying that says a little knowledge in the wrong mind is a very dangerous thing, and I think that would probably apply to the member for Dauphin. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) at the same time, as well, who is always talking about press releases-he is making fun of press releases from the government side-he should maybe go and check with the member for Dauphin and the member for Swan River (Ms.

Wowchuk) who run around making press releases without having very much information, based on how they make these statements. The issue-and I will address that later on when I am making my address to the Speech from the Throne

December 7, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 67 when I will have more time to basically go into details-but I want to tell you that the member fo r Dauphin, as well as the member for Swan River who keeps hiding among the trees I guess on the issue of Louisi ana-Pacific and cannot seem to make up her mind which side of the fe nce she wants to be on on this issue, Madam Speaker- Madam Speaker: Order, please. * (13 50) Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I expect we are getting a preview of the minister's speech later in the throne speech.

I was wondering if he could save his debate comments and perhaps deal with the very serious question raised by the member fo r Daup hin. Madam Speaker: Indeed, the honourable member fo r Thompson does have a point of or der. I would request that the honourable minister respond to the question posed. *** Mr. Driedger: Madam Speaker, I will save the spicy ones fo r later then.

I just want to say, Madam Speaker, that my prof essional people who spent an awful lot of time preparing the inf ormation that was basically presented to the environmental hearing process which is still in progress-it has been postponed fo r a month; it will be resumed in January-our inf ormation is complete. We fe el very confident in the prof essionalism of my people there and I stand by those reports . Information Release Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, if this minister had done his job we would not be dela yed now.

Given that yesterday the minister ref erred several times to a proposal sent to the fe deral government, in the spirit of disclosure, will he now table that document? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was speaking ye sterday-and I was encouraging some comments from him, I suppose, and he made ref erence to the fa ct that we should divulge the position-he asked whether we were supportive of a fe deral-provincial joint process. I told him that we had a proposal, that the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cumm ings) had a proposal before the fe deral minister. At that time he was trying to draw the question or make me reply to the point as to whether we su pported a joint environm ental process. Again, I replied that the Minister of Environment has a proposal bef ore the fe deral minister and that ultima tely- An Honourable Member: Table it. Mr. Driedger: Well, that is his business to do so. If the member for Dauphin wants to raise that question with the Minister of Environment, given the permission with your consent, Madam Speaker, maybe the Minister of Environment would like to address that.

We have the best environmental system in the country, and I stand by that. Mr. Struthers: I will ask then the minister of the Departme nt of Environment. Will he table the proposal that has been sent to Sheila Copps? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I think the member fo r Dauphin should be mindful of a number of times in this House that we have ref erenced the fa ct that we have been working fo r years with the fe deral au thorities to make sure that we have a clean process here that always acknowledges the interests of both the provincial and fe deral responsibility in doing these revie ws.

We have taken every opportunity, both at the provincial and the national level, to encourage the harm onization of environmen tal assessment and environmental reviews. When my collea gues ref erence that activity, I can tell you there is probably a file about

68 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 that thick that talks about how we have been attempting to bring further harmonization to environmental assessment. I think we should all be reminded of the fact that Manitoba is the only jurisdiction in Canada that not only does it require a forest harvesting licence, it also requires an environmental licence to be required at the same time. That is the toughest environmental process in Canada. Education Newsletter Production Costs Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My questions are for the Minister of Education.

I wanted to ask the minister some questions about the blue news sheet that she has asked Manitoba children to deliver home taking useful information to their parents about changes in the education system. I was a little concerned the parents might mistake this for a Tory election piece because the colour is the same and the format is somewhat similar, but it does say very clearly right down here at the bottom that this is from the Department of Education. So I want to ask the minister, first of all, if she could tell us the cost of the writing, the design, the printing and the distribution of this news sheet. *

(1355) Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will take the question as notice and get the specific information for the member as to the exact cost. I will also ask the department for an explanation as to why they chose that wretched colour. Content Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the minister if she would consider an insert in her next news sheet, perhaps such as the one I have prepared here which offers more and equally useful information for parents about the impact of New Directions on the elimination of senior level Canadian history, the reduction in physical education, the elimination of-you can take your choice-industrial arts, home economics or basic French, reduced emphasis on English at the senior high level, a loss of 900 teachers in the last four years and reductions in clinician services.

Would the minister consider that vital information for parents about Manitoba education? Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I apologize for my sarcasm when the member had as her biggest issue in the first question a particular colour of a publication. The comments she has raised just now, I think she and I have discussed and can discuss in some detail.

If she has sugg estions for the Department of Education on any topic, I have indicated before and I indicate again that any suggestions coming from the opposition, if they are constructive and useful and of some ability to improve things, I am most willing to consider them. If they are for other reasons, I would still consider them but probably reject any reasons that are not in that first category of constructive, helpful, meaningful criticism. Ms.

Friesen: Well, then, I assume that the minister will clearly undertake to send out in her next piece this accompanying graph that I have prepared for the department which does document the long-term decline in financial support for public education from the Filmon government, which is constructive and useful for any parent in Manitoba who wants to evaluate their education system. Point of Order Mrs. Mcintosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the member rose and made a

preamble but followed it with no question. Madam Speaker: There is no point of order. If the honourable Minister of Education did not hear a question, that is her prerogative to not respond to a question. Health Care System Emergency Services Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from the member for River

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 69 Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) for the Minister of Health, and it is an interesting quote: "The quality of health care provided to the community must be the primary consideration of all health care providers." That can, in fact, be found in Resolution 27 on today's Order Paper. The member is right, and I ask for the minister responsible for health care, would he not agree as a health caregiver that the primary concern has to be the community health centres that we have, community hospitals?

I would ask the minister specifically to assure this House that no political preferential treatment will be given to any or some community hospitals over the others when it comes down to reopening of emergency services in Winnipeg's community hospitals. *

(1400) Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the honourable member for Inkster calls attention to the significant contribution to policy development made by the honourable member for River Heights. We appreciate his input very much. We also appreciate the input of the honourable member for Inkster who has tried to play a constructive role in the development of health policy in the last year or so, but he does not always follow my advice either.

One of the reasons we need to develop a more efficient and effective health care system, of course, is that his colleagues in Ottawa are making that necessary because of the reduction of funding in the amount of $14 7 million this coming year, $220 million the next year coming off the health and social services account. But even if that was not happening, Madam Speaker, it would be a good idea to make our health system work and make it sustainable for the future, and so we appreciate any input the honourable member has to offer.

The days when considerations other than health outcomes considerations had a place in the debate are clearly over. Mr. Lamoureux: My question is fairly clear. Will the Minister of Health ensure or indicate to this House that the Seven Oaks Hospital and the Misericordia Hospital will be given equal treatment when it comes to emergency services being provided to the communities in which they serve? Will the Minister of Health make that commitment today? Mr.

McCrae: I do not think it is my place to give any lectures to the honourable member, Madam Speaker, but we will try to give proper treatment to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, then I would pose the question to the Premier of the province. Is the Premier prepared, as the Leader of this government, to ensure that Manitobans, in particular Winnipeggers in the Seven Oaks and Misericordia communities, will have emergency services well into the future under his administration? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I just want the member opposite to know that in all of the decisions that we make, we seek and solicit the best advice possible. We are in the process of extensive consultations and we will indeed be guided by the advice that we are getting from the profess ionals. We will not go around making the kinds of political decisions that the member opposite would make if he were in government, or members there, for instance, political grandstanding day after day, suggesting to people, like the Burger King solution, that they can have it their way all the time.

That is absolute falsehood and that is why they are in opposition. Canadian Wheat Board Government Position Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, in the November 16 issue of the Manitoba Co operator we have two government backbenchers advocating dual marketing of wheat and barley. However, in the same

article we have the Minister of Agriculture saying this is not their policy and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said the same at the Pool annual meeting. However, today we see the Minister of Agriculture is saying his position on the Wheat Board is the same as it is on hog marketing, which is dual marketing.

70 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 It is no wonder that Manitoba farmers are confused by this government. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to clarify this government's position on the Wheat Board. Yes or no, do they support the monopoly of the Wheat Board, or not? Hon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify the statements that were attributed to me. I was asked specifically yesterday about the Alberta plebiscite and the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Some view a greater flexibility in any marketing system as the automatic demise of the system currently in place, and it was in that context that I used the analogy of Manitoba Pork. I do not view the introduction of a greater flexibility in the way in which we market hogs in this province as the automatic demise of Manitoba Pork. In fact, everything I have said to Manitoba Pork directly and/or publicly has indicated quite the opposite. I believe that Manitoba Pork can and will continue to be a major force, a major player in the marketing of hogs in Manitoba.

I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board can and will continue to be a major player in the marketing of grain in western Canada and in Manitoba, Madam Speaker. I do not believe that introducing some question of flexibility need in fact be the demise of either of these organizations. Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speak er, I want to ask the minister if he understands that this is not an either/or situation. If the monopoly of the Wheat Board is changed, then it is going to take money out of farmers' pockets and put money into grain companies' pockets. I want to ask the minister who he is speaking for.

Is he speaking for the Farmers of Justice or is he speaking for the many farmers who voted for the advisory committee pro Wheat Board? They want the Wheat Board to stay. Which farmers is he speaking for? Mr. Enos: Having been in this House for some while and having sat opposite the members opposite, on both sides of the House for a period of time, it is surprising that they have in fact become the party of no new ideas, no change in radicalism, just as they are with respect to the health situation.

I might ask her, where does her party now stand on the matter of the $700 million Canadian taxpayers paid out to the Crow? Would they sooner see that to help ease the pain in terms of health cutbacks that all provinces are facing? Is she still calling for the return of the Crow as though this was ancient history time? Let us get on with it Agriculture is changing; agriculture is not immune to the changes that we are all experiencing, and that quite frankly is my responsibility, to help Manitoba farmers face these changes in the best possible way.

Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, let me acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) on the opening day of the session. He acknowledged that in agriculture, in agribusiness, this province and the farmers of Manitoba are responding in a positive way and he lauded their accomplishments, and I support the Leader of the Opposition in that statement. Ms.

Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, after that confusing answer, I want to ask the minister, how can Manitoba producers have any confidence in a government or in a Minister of Agriculture who says in the throne speech that they are going to have a task force that will listen to rural Manitobans on their views on changes in policy and programs and then, the next day after the throne speech, tell them that he is supporting dual marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board which producers have told them they do not want? How can they have any faith in a governm ent that says they will listen and then makes arbitrary decisions? Mr.

Enos: What I can tell the honourable member, Manitoba farmers and producers have a great deal of faith in the future of agriculture, and that is being demonstrated every day in the farms and in the farm businesses across this province of Manitoba The member is hung up with the words "dual marketing," "flexibility," "choice." An Honourable Member: Freedom.

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 71 Mr. Enns: Some would call it some freedom of marketing. Madam Speaker, what is obvious as a result of the significant numbers of producers who were asked a question on that matter in Alberta, there is a great debate going on on the western Prairies on that issue. As I have indicated before, I am quite prepared, I am looking forward to the panel appointed by the federal minister, whom I am sure will be spending time and having public occasions to discourse with Manitoba producers on the future of marketing grains by the Canadian Wheat Board in Manitoba, and await their decision on the future of that organization come this spring. *

(1410) Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Pinawa Research Facility Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St James): Madam Speaker, my questions are to the Premier. We are seeing today many of the people of Pinawa and southeast Manitoba rising up and speaking about the proposed closes or pending closes or possible closes to the Whiteshell research facility. We are very concerned about this potential loss, as we are of the loss of over 300 jobs that we have already seen since 1988. Almost two years ago our Leader called for an all party agreement to protect the jobs in Pinawa and to try and remove some of the politics from this issue.

Can the Premier tell the House what proactive measures has his government taken to develop the linkages between Manitoba businesses and the research facility in Pinawa? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we have facilitated a number of different meetings and linkages through the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. In fact, the Economic Development Board of Cabinet met with senior officials from Pinawa. I personally have been there at least twice in the past year and spoken to officials there, held meetings there.

We have attempted, as much as possible, to create opportunities for commercializing some of the developments that have taken place there and set up linkages with the business community. We have also, as the throne speech says, appointed a committee that will be chaired by the member for the Pinawa area, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.

Praznik), who will be leading a delegation of his colleagues, and we have invited the participation of members opposite to help us in the effort to convince Ottawa that, when it comes down to a political decision, there are very, very strong reasons why AECL's operations ought not to be centred in Chalk River but ought to remain distributed because of particularly many of the locational advantages and the assets that are in Pinawa that can help them do a better job than they ever could do in Chalk River. Ms.

Mihychuk: My question to the Premier: Has the Premier, given the seriousness of this situation and the importance of that industry to Manitoba and the people of Manitoba, called up the Prime Minister and asked him to intervene, to be fair with Manitobans? And, if so, what was the result of that conversation? Mr. Filmon: As I indicated, the member for the Pinawa area will be leading a delegation of ministers and members to Ottawa and has himself initiated discussions. I leave that option obviously for a future potential, depending on what we are told.

The fact of the matter is that AECL has taken out ads in the major newspapers claiming that nothing is happening, and we will want to see the results of the actions before I proceed to the Prime Minister level. Real Estate Industry Fraud Investigation Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs. In 1993 and 1994 at least 30 houses were flipped under a ring that worked together to defraud CMHC for well over $500,000 and likely much more.

I would like to know, on what date did the minister contact CMHC on the need for proper appraisals, and what were the results of any investigation that was launched?

72 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 Bon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): The question of jurisdiction with respect to the control of the real estate industry in the province of Manitoba rests with the Manitoba Securities Commission. The complaint is lodged with the commission, they investigate and, if necessary, take the appropriate action. It is a quasi-judicial board and as such there is no ministerial interference. Mr.

Maloway: I would like to ask this minister, when he became aware of the investigation that was ongoing, why did this minister not issue some sort of public warning on the fact that these operations were preying on low-income people? Mr. Ernst: As minister responsible for the Manitoba Securities Commission, I became aware of this matter yesterday upon my return to the city, having read some certain newspaper articles that occurred. If there is legitimacy, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, then it should be lodged with the Manitoba Securities Commission, and they will take appropriate action. Mr.

Maloway: I would like to ask my final supplementary to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister launched any investigation as to how these properties were listed at the Land Titles Office? Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am very careful about any details which I reveal relating to investigations, so I will have to take the question as notice and, if possible, provide some information to the member. VLT Revenues Information Release Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, yesterday I raised questions about the commitment in the throne speech to, after nine years of this government, greater accountability of public sector institutions, and no public sector institution is probably more secretive, nor is the government more secretive in the area of lotteries, and particularly in regard to the breakdown of lotteries that have been siphoned out of rural and northern communities.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Lotteries whether under this legislation and supposed new policy of the government, we will now receive, as has been requested by such organizations as the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, information on how much is taken out of communities, far more than the current 27 municipalities that are listed out of the 202 in Manitoba, because we do not get information on the rest, Madam Speaker. Bon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, I think the member for Thompson knows that the reason that a summ ary was prepared in the fashion that it was, that it only shows breakdown for communities that have more than three locations, is because of third-party confidentiality. That was something that was acknowledged by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, was supported by the Ombudsman.

Certainly I would hope that he would appreciate that in many instances there is a need to protect third-party confiden tiality and that information will continue to be prepared on that basis. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, how can the minister justify this supposed new policy not giving a breakdown for close to 180 municipalities? Those are machines that are owned and operated by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. That money goes directly into his Treasury. How can he justify under this supposed new policy still refusing to give information to the municipalities on how much money is taken out of their community? Mr.

Stefanson: Madam Speaker, all I can do is repeat the same answer to the member for Thompson and hope that he listens, that the Ombudsman and Manitoba Lotteries Corporation respect third-party confidentiality. I know he does not and at times the NDP party does not. We do, and we will abide by those rulings. REDI Program Information Release Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): So, if nothing has changed, Madam Speaker, I have a further question in

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 73 regard to the other side of the lotteries ledger which is in terms of such programs as REDI which has also been subject to some criticism by the UMM.

I would like to ask the minister responsible for the program if, under this new policy of accountability, we will still-as we currently have as recently as this week-have to go through Freedom of Information through his department to try and get a breakdown on where REDI grants go, or will we finally get information given to us without the kinds of delaying tactics we have had over the past nine years of the tenure of this government? Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I was not aware that in fact the member had requested information on the REDI program, but indeed that information is available. I would be happy to provide him with the information with regard to the REDI projects that we have proceeded with over the last couple of years. I would be pleased to do that. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. *

(1420) Speaker's Rulings Madam Speaker: I have two rulings for the House. On October 24, 1995, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) about the content of a nonpolitical statement being made by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). In raising his point of order, the Leader of the official opposition indicated the subject of the statement, that being the Charleswood Bridge, is a matter of political disagreement in this Legislature and that the statement was therefore political. The government House leader (Mr.

Ernst), in his submission, stated that the project was completed and the politics of the project were over. I have reviewed the comments of all concerned with care and have looked at past rulings of Manitoba Speakers. On October 24, 1989, Speaker Rocan, in ruling on a point of order about what was complained to be increasing political content of nonpolitical statements, noted the following points: Nonpolitical statemen ts are made by leave and are allowed for by practice of the House, not by our rules.

The history of nonpolitical statements appears to have begun in 1973 and for about 15 years the statements were what we could call truly nonpolitical or nonpartisan, focusing on community or athletic achievements. Since 1988, it appears that the trend has been that the statements have been more political in words and intent. As recently as June 9, 1995, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) was called to order when he attempted to congratulate a political party on its election to government.

Turning to the specifics of the statement on October 24, I have carefully considered the topic and I must rule that the honourable Leader of the official opposition indeed had a valid point of order. The building of the Charleswood Bridge has been a controversial and a political issue, and the statement of the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) was not in order. Having ruled, I would like to reiterate what I said on October 24, that I believe members' statements would be a good topic for an early discussion of House leaders.

Perhaps using some of the practices of other Canadian Legislatures would be useful in facilitating members being able to make statements with a greater degree of freedom of topic than the Manitoba tradition has provided for up to now. *** Madam Speaker: I have a second ruling for the House. On Tuesday, October 31, 1995, during Question Period, a point of order was raised by the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) stating that words used by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) were unparliamentary. I took the matter under advisement to check Hansard.

Having done so, I find that there was no point of order. Procedurally the matter had already been dealt

74 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 with when I cautioned the honourable member for St Johns on his choice of words. ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (Second Day of Debate) Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in answer to his speech at the opening of session, and the proposed motion of the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who has 15 minutes remaining. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, yesterday just before we adjourned I believe I had taken a significant portion of my time to try to explain to ·the Minister of Health about the transfer payments, the $14 7 million, the $220 million, and I guess it just did not seem to have sunk in with respect to the Minister of Health. I really appeal to members and ministers, in particular responsible for those three departments.

I really do appeal to those ministers to be a bit more forthright and honest with people when they start to talk about the $147 million, and once again appeal in particular to the Premier and others to tell me where they get the $220 million from when they talk about the following budget, that being the '97-98 budget, because I am unaware of where they are getting that $220 million. I would welcome and appreciate-and particularly from the Premier because the Premier has also made reference to this not only inside the Chamber but outside the Chamber, whether it is on radio or other groups.

Madam Speaker, I want to continue on where I left off yesterday when I was talking about the greatest potential for economic growth that is here in the province of Manitoba is in fact within the small business sector. What government needs to do in order to facilitate that growth is to start working with small business people, trying to get better ideas on how they might be able to streamline.

I recall a release which our party had put out in which we talked about getting rid of some of the paperwork, some of the duplication that is out there that the average small business person has to go through in order to get a business up and going. We also talked about capital, how difficult it is for the small business person to be able to acquire the financial reso urces that he feels is necessary in order to get himself into the market These are areas where, Madam Speaker, I would hope that this government would take more of a proactive approach.

We need, very much so, to expand the apprenticeship, the way in which we train people or provide post-secondary education and in fact, I would argue that we do not have to wait until a student graduates from high school in order to start training that individual for a particular job. You do not have to wait until they go to Red River College or to the university. You can in fact implement more apprenticeship, work training, co-operatives within our high school system, our S 1 to S4. Some school divisions have done that.

I look in particular at Seven Oaks; one of the school trustees was talking about some of the programs that are out there.

I believe ultimately that the government, the Department of Education in co operation with the Department of Labour are in fact in the best position to ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach so that school divisions that do not have the same sort of resources do have the ability to bring in apprenticeship or work-sharing programs that will in fact train individuals that maybe might not have the desire, in some cases might not even have the ability, to go to a university or to some of the courses at Red River.

But, Madam Speaker, those individuals do have a right to be provided some form of training as we offer all individuals who graduate, even those many individuals who do not graduate from Grade 12. I would hope and I would like to see government more involved in that area. I recall during the last election when I had an opportunity to tour a number of businesses and one individual was talking about lathe work, steel lathe, and he was indicating how he had one student who was corning in there, gaining the experience, first-hand experience while still being able to meet a certain academic performance by having to

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 75 be obligated to go to school to finish those basics, while at the same time gaining real-life work experience so that in fact when this individual graduates from high school he is going to be walking into a job. Whether it is a he or a she, Madam Speaker, this sort of pro�ing and government involvement, whether it is at the municipal, provincial or federal level, should be applauded, and hopefully we will see more of that. I wanted to talk very briefly on rural development.

Rural development is something that is very important, always has been important to the Liberal Party- An Honourable Member: To you? Mr. Lamoureux: To me, too, Madam Speaker, to the minister who asked, to me. When the government came out, for example, with the Grow Bonds Program, the REDI program, contrary to what the government might try to give Manitobans the impression, in fact, the Liberal Party was quite supportive of the programs. [intexjection] One minister says we called them small potatoes. Well, Madam Speaker, I have seen those small potatoes being misused, misquoted.

It is much like when the former Leader of the Liberal Party Mrs. Carstairs made reference to personal care homes and if we had better home care services for seniors in their homes that there would not necessarily be as much of a demand for personal care homes. Well, put everything in its proper perspective, and the ministers, and some more than others, have an excellent way of taking things out of perspective so that in fact they can try to put such a spin on it that it portrays us Liberals to look possibly in a bad light. I find that somewhat unfortunate, but that is a part of the game I guess.

It might not necessarily be the highlight of the game, but it is unfortunate, and we have seen many different examples of that. *

(1430) Madam Speaker, when it comes to rural development or agriculture, what we are really talking about is rural diversification and how government can in fact enhance that diversification so that the vibrancy of our rural communities is going to be there well into the future. All Manitobans, I believe, want to see a vibrant rural Manitoba I know I do, members of the Liberal Party do, and I choose to believe that all members in this Chamber in fact support that.

So, Madam Speaker, when we see good ideas such as the Grow Bonds or the REDI being brought in, we welcome that and we applaud the government on its actions. Sometimes, depending on an election cycle, you might see more advertising and so forth, we could question that. There are some aspects in the way in which government brings in programs of this nature that do warran t some sort of questioning and constructive criticism, if I can use that term. Another issue which I want to touch upon is the whole issue of gambling. We have a very important commission report that is coming down sometime this month.

That commission report was actually supposed to be coming down in September, but it has been put off, put off. I hope and trust that this government will, once they have received that report, bring forward that report to the public, that they do not sit on it. Madam Speaker, it would be wonderful to see a standing committee of this House, one of which the Liberal Party has presence on that standing committee, that we could actually discuss it so that in fact we can once again provide that constructive criticism, because in this area this government needs to be criticized.

Gambling policy has been nothing more than a tax grab. That is the driving force for gambling policy in the province of Manitoba from this government. Madam Speaker, all we need to do, as I pointed out in the Question Period, is go across from the high school out in The Maples and you will see VL T machines. Every little corner in this province, city of Winnipeg, rural Manitoba, you have VL T machines scattered throughout. We, in the Liberal Party, acknowledge that there is to a certain degree gambling and that gambling is going to exist.

We would rather see it based on tourism as opposed to what this government is doing. Our Leader has made reference to this government's policy. It has more of training Manitobans to gamble

76 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 so that they can go down to the States, and when Regina opens up with their first-class drinking, I do not know what they are going to have in that particular casino. The NDP have made a fine art out of gambling-[interjec tion] No, I have not booked; actually, I have not been to any of the bingo palaces here or VL Ts. Anyway, Madam Speaker, I digress.

I would like to see the government take a policy on gambling that is tourism based and start opening their eyes to some of the social costs that have been put on Manitobans as a direct response of irrespo nsible government policy, and that is in fact what has happened. I used to be the lotteries critic for our party a couple of years back, and I recal l the way in which gambling was brought and introduced into the province, Madam Speaker. I think that this government proved itself to be extrem ely manipulative, demonstrated its ability to try to cover the real issues of gambling, and they were successful.

They were successful in bringing it in, trying to tie it to economic development in rural Manitoba and the VL Ts in the city of Winnipeg, the casino. They tied it to health care in order to prevent that legitimate debate about the social costs of gambling, and that is unfortunate. Also, Madam Speaker, limited time, unlike the Leader of the New Democratic Party, so I have to try to crunch as much as I can. The Winnipeg Jets-you know, I had a very interesting comment over the weekend from a fe llow who attended the McDonald's, and he said you know, Mr.

Lamoureux, it would be wonderful if government did not subsidize pro sports at all. In fact, if you take a look at all those successful NHL teams, who is actually subsidizing them? You have all these company boxes and company seats and all these huge corporations, to a certain degree, that are using them as tax write-offs which give an advantage to cities like Toronto and New York and Boston and Chicago, that in fact Winnipeg could if you took away all of those tax incentives that are given to all these major cities, if you took away those tax incentives that in fact we would be able to sustain.

There is a lot of disappointment, no doubt, that the Winnipeg Jets are leaving the city of Winnipeg, but the way in which this government has dealt with that issue has been most unfortunate, most unfortunate, and ultimately Winnipeg will survive. Madam Speaker, there is no doubt many other issues that I should be talking about such as the Canadian unity and the importance of trying to resolve this issue. I look forward to being able to participate. I was a bit disappointed in the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Doer) opening remarks regarding it, some what concerned. It will be interesting to see how it follows.

I would like to pledge the support from all three of the Liberal caucus members here that in fact we are going to do what we can to ensure that the country does in fact stay together while at the same time protect Manitoba's best interest. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), THAT the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words: And further regrets : (

a) THAT this government still has no solid vision of health care ref orm and instead of consultation has, as demonstrated by this governmenfs decision to reduce access to emergency care, resorted to ministerial decisions without ref erence to the public's health care needs; and (

b) THAT this government has failed to recognize that competitive advantage in the global economy is the product of one's ability to acquire and apply knowledge and that this is fostered by an eff ective and modern education system: and (

c) THAT this government in an effort to cover their own mismanagement seeks to blame the fe deral government for all its problems and refuses to accept respons ibility for their own decisions. Madam Speaker: The subamendment is in order. Motion presented.

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 77 Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege and an honour to participate in debate in this House even after the many opportunities that I have had. From time to time I have been semicritical about the benefit of having the kind of debate we have in here but then the longer that I am in this building, the stronger I feel, I suppose, about the system that we have in place, the democratic system. In spite of all its faults, it is still the best system there is in the world.

We have our days when sometimes we feel that we are not accomplishing an awful lot, but I think that by and large even the opinions-and we are entitled, in the throne speech especially as well as in the budget debate, to expound our own views and opinions as to what happens. How productive it is, I do not necessarily want to say, but it is certainly better than the different options or the alternative to that. I fmd, Madam Speaker, in this particular case, a lot has happened within the last year. We had a provincial election in the spring. We have had the civic elections in the fall.

We had the referendum election in Quebec and it has been a relatively hectic period of time for Manitobans and Canadians, I guess, but Manitobans more so. I feel now that all the voting and electioneering has taken place there seems to be a bit of stability that has developed within the province and the people especially of Manitoba, because one thing that I feel when I get out among the constituents is that there is a feeling of quiet optimism out there. *

(1440) I get the sense that people have a feeling of satisfaction out there, and over the 18 years that I have been in provincial politics that has not always been the case. Many times it has happened that the general public is annoyed with the government of the day, that they have issues that they are violently opposed to or concerned about. When you look at what are the issues out there today, there are not really that many. The one thing that probably comes to mind in terms of a debatable issue is to some degree in the rural area related to the dual-marketing system with the hog commission.

I know that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) will be dealing with that in his comments within the next few days, so I will not get into that, but by and large there is a feeling of confidence out there and especially at a time when we are getting close to the Christmas season, the holiday season. If you walk into a shopping mall these days, I think there must be a tremendous optimism out there, because they are packed and people are buying, spending money. I think that is a very positive sign. I was listening to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer), who has been there a considerable amount of time. In fact I think this is, if I am correct, Madam Speaker-you could probably give me a sign whether I am correct. I think this is the eighth time that we have the chance to debate a throne speech this government. Would I be right? Yes, I think it is the eighth time, and for the same reasons that we then speak positively in the throne speech, it is the eighth time that the Leader of the Opposition has got to come up with his response to it. I listened with interest to the enthusiasm of the Leader of the Opposition in terms of being negative.

It seems as if-[interjection] You were enthusiastic about being negative. I guess it comes with the territory. If you have been in opposition, the Leader of the Opposition for that long, negativism comes automatic. He is enthusiastic. He is saying all the things that are wrong, I found, and chuckled to myself and felt it must be challenging. There must be times, when the general public-like it is now in Manitoba-is optimistic, that you must feel optimistic as well. It cannot always be negative. I can recall having been in opposition.

I was in opposition from '81 to '88, and it was challenging to always try and look at the negative sides of the government of the day. It was more easy with the government of the day at that time than it must be for them with us. Madam Speaker, there is an optimism out there. In fact, the information that we have received lately, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has said that we have a tremendous increase in the sales tax in this province year over year. I will tell you something, if people are not happy they will not spend money.

Obviously, there must be a lot of happiness out there because the position of the people in Manitoba is much, much more positive than I have felt it for a long time.

78 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 Madam Speaker, you start fe eling proud to some degree for the people of Manitoba because if you compare whichever province you want, I think almost anybody would like to be in our position at this point in time. Over the last eight years, we have made some difficult decisions . We have had our unpopularity but now it is finally showing that they were positive things that we did compared to what happened in Ontario.

I saw the budget come down from Ontario the other day, and, oh, geez, I mean, just unbelievable and irrespective of whether it was Tories, Grits or the NDP, somebody would have to bite the bullet. The reason why the previous Premier Rae got thrown out was because even the tough things he did were not satisfying the people anymore. So if we do a comparison province by province, this is a nice place to live. I like it and I am proud to be a minister of this government at a time when there is a positive thing happening in Manitoba I am glad my colleague the Minister of lndustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Downey) is here as well because he has had a very challenging last six month s. I do not know how much work he has really been doing but he has sure been going around doing openings and announcing openings of new investment, new businesses-tremendous. [interjection] Well, I will tell you something, that somebody has to do that, but it shows the confidence is not just that we have here as government. It is not just the confidence that Manitobans have. It is the confidence that the people across Canada have in this province, and that is why announcement after announcement is coming, has come and more coming.

So it is these kinds of trends. This is early on in our mandate. We are what, seven months into our new mandate, and things are starting to build. The job creation is there. The wealth is starting to accumulate . We are looking at a balanced budget, first time, the strongest one. I have to say that with some tongue in cheek a little bit. It made me a little nervous when we passed that kind of thing where it maybe could be affecting our wages. But things are coming along very nicely, and I think we all should fe el proud of what we are doing with that legis lation.

Madam Speaker, having said this in a sort of a general consensus to start my comments , I want to discuss a fe w issues here today related to my departmental challeng es. In spite of the fact that there is optimism out there -generally the ma jority of the people are very happy-that does not mean that there are not problems. There are problems in the various departments. There are always challenges out there, and certainly I have those within my department and I want to just maybe address a fe w of them. An Honourable Members: There are still problems with the NDP MLAs. Mr. Driedger: Yes, yes.

Incidentally, thanks forthe-1 have to go back to general comments again. I guess maybe what makes me proud to be part of this government in the eight years or going on eight years that we have been government, there has not been any scandal within our government, and you show me any government with that kind of a record. You show me any government with the kind of record that we have in terms of ma jor taxes. Our sales tax has stayed consistent all the time. We decreased the personal income tax, corporation tax. This is why people like to come here .

It used to be a challenge to get people to come and move into Manitoba to take up certain positions. Now they are coming. They want to come here. They fe el comf ortable living here. But as I said, Madam Speaker, there are challenges, certainly within my department, and other ministers can make ref erence to theirs. I want to make some comments about water issues. I want to talk about forestry in a minute, because I said I would address some of the concerns out there, and I want to talk a little bit about the environmental process that we have in the province.

But, Madam Speaker, related to water issues, we have had a challenging year. You know, things have changed in the last two years dramatically compared to what they were for the seven years prior to that when we had dry conditions, very little water problems. The last year, just so that members maybe would want to know, was an all time record flood in the Assiniboine Valley. It was more than double anything we had ever

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 79 seen in the recorded history of the valley, and with that of course came related problems. Flooding affected people all the way down from the Shellmouth, all the way down to Brandon, all the way down to Portage and through the diversion that we were operating at Portage. We also had flooding along Lake Manitoba, so once you have that kind of thing happening it spreads throughout However, most of the planning of the past that took place many years ago saved Winnipeg harmless from these floods. The Portage diversion was operating effec tively.

We did that until fmally it came to the point that we had so much water in Lake Manitoba that my colleagues, the constituents out there, the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cumm ings) had major concerns about the levels of water that were affecting his farm people out there, but by and large, considering the size of the flooding, we basically managed to get out of it. It affected some people. There are still concerns out there. Some people were affected very nega tively fmancially, but by and large it could have been dramatically worse. *

(1450) Madam Speaker, what I foresee happening in the water issues is that we have new challenges facing us. Life as we knew it in the past is not the same any more. Where we used to take and deal with draining every pothole, draining sloughs, draining water off the farmers' land as fast as possible, we as government -and I think everybody, the farmers included-are now talking of saving a very valuable resource which is basically water.

As a result of the concerns that are out there, we have estab lished a deputy minister's committee which is starting to work on water policies related to water retenti on, because we have problems developing, and the- help me out a little bit-where we have our Assiniboine Valley at the far end at the Shellmou th Dam where the Saskatchewan farmers by and large have developed extensive drainage systems, and as a result they are looking at-and you cannot fault them- An Honourable Member: Langenburg, Langenburg. Mr. Driedger: The Langenburg project is out there. Maybe some of the members opposite know about that.

Certainly I believe the member for Swan would know about the Langenburg projects, major drainage projects that have been undertaken which basically lead into on both sides of the Shellm outh Dam, and we have major concerns that have to be dealt with.

I can just say that myself and two of my colleagues went down to the Saskatchewan government after the last election, sat down with the ministers, had a good meeting, and as a result of that meeting we have agreed that we will take and develop a major study together with the fe deral government, the government of Saskatchewan, the government of Manitoba, and address what is happening with the major drainage concerns out there. Further to that, Madam Speaker, we also are looking at doing water reten tion.

And I have some concerns about where we have gone to some degree with the environm ental process, because if we had had an envi ronmental process in place at the time when the Winnipeg floodway was built, when the Shellmou th Dam was built, when the Portage diversion was built, I do not know whether those projects would have ever got off the ground, and, still, they have served a very, very good purpose for us as Manitobans here .

I think that, ultimately, when we look at dealing with the important asset of water, that we probably have to start looking at having retention programs again, and that could involve dams. It could involve major dams. If I had my way, I would like to see some of that happening because there are many benefits. Just look at what has happened at Shellmo uth with that dam out there. You have recreation, you have the water control, the flood control, which is the purpose it was built for. We should have more of those.

Related to the need for water, because there is an old saying that if you drain it, it rushes through and it is gone. There is no value in it, and I will tell you something. With the announcement that was made by McCain at Portage, part of that is related to the requirement of having irrigation take place. That is just an example, and I think we can expand on that greatly, but we have to make sure that we have the water resource there. From time to time, I have made the comment, Madam Speaker, that water is the most important asset

80 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 that a country can have. If you look at history, more fighting has taken place about water than about anything else, and I think we are getting to that point again, where possibly we have to be very concerned about what we do with water. Certainly, I know that our neighbours to the south have major concerns . They would just love to have the water resource that we have here.

So the challenge that I perceive at least, and I think my colleagues agree, for my department and Water Resources is how do we best deal and try to make maximum use out of the water resource. We are working in those areas. I hope that we can do these things, expeditiously move it along, and, again, making reference carefully that the environmental process is necessary but it should not necessarily stop or be a total deterrent for many of the projects that I think we have to undertake. Madam Speaker, I want to address to forestry issues, as well. During Question Period, the member for Dauphin (Mr.

Struthers) raised some questions, and I, of course, anticipated it would happen because I happened to make some comments related to some of the news releases that were put out. I want to just clarify to some degree that forestry is a very important asset for Manitobans. It is a renewable resource that if handled properly is always going to be able to provide the kinds of jobs that people need. It will provide economic benefits that we need.

The challenge that we are faced with, especially my department which is responsible for forestry, is how do we do this in such a way that an annual allowable cut is there, that we have a sustainable product out there, that we can do it in such a way that we address wildlife concerns, fisheries concerns, the concerns of all the people involved. There is a process in place, Madam Speaker, which is a very extensive one. It has been said many times, and nobody can challenge the fact that the Manitoba environmental process is the toughest in the country.

It is tougher than the federal government one, and this is where the argument starts developing because we have a process in place that is going to address the concerns of the public. I want to maybe just give a little bit of a snapshot. My department basically deals with maybe about a hundred applications for development of all natures, big, small, otherwise. The normal process is when it comes into my department, it would get circulated into the district, and then the district supervisor, my district individual, circulates it to the various games people, the water people, the fisheries people.

Everybody has a chance to reply to it. The normal process is that it takes about-what are we looking at, 100 days, 30 days, the process from the time that an application comes in? It gets put out there, and they have 45 days. The region then basically responds back. It gets back into my policy department who then take and gather all the inf ormation and then submit that forward to the Clean Environment Commission. If we have concerns , they are registered. If not, we say so as well. That is a process that basically evolved with Repap. That is a process that has evolved basically with Louisiana-Pacific.

My people have responded, professional people. I cannot tell you whether it is going to affect the rabbits and the poplar trees out in Swan River or not or whether it will affect the fish swimming and spawning in certain streams. That is why I have professional people out there, biologists, other people, that basically know exactly what effect it will have. I rely on that and accept the fact that we have professional people out there that know the impact that it has. When the application comes in, we develop our scenario.

The inf ormation package, it is then forwarded to the Clean Environment Commission, and basically then our people have to defend it. That is the process that we have been on right now. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) were at the CEC hearings, both in Swan as well as here in Winnipeg. When the questions were raised by whomever anybody can raise questions out there. In fact, one of my own staff people, which is highly unusual, was criticizing his colleagues in terms of the information that they had.

I do not think that was very wise, really, but that is what happened. So the member for Dauphin raised today the question in the House as to, you know, if we would have had our

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 81 information there, they would not have had to postpone the hearings. That is not the case at all. What has happened here is that the fe deral government is trying to develop a stage where they fe el that they have a requirement or a say in the matter in terms of the environmental process. As I have said before, our process is much stronger than the fe deral one would be, and they are basically creating some difficulty right now. That is why some of the questions that have been raised for responses, my director of Forestry was there responding to it.

This thing will evolve as it should. Madam Speaker, I saw the news releases where the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) are putting out news releases saying we should resubmit L-P review to CEC, and they asked the Auditor to review the Louisiana Pacific deal. That is why I was a little sarcastic in my replies during Question Period, but justifiably so because, I repeat again, a little information in the wrong minds is a dangerous thing.

If they would have taken time to find out exactly what the process was related to the deal- * (1 500) I want to talk specifically to the Louisiana-Pacific deal, where the concern that my critics raised, said it is a bad deal . I have to read this. This is the fmal statement in one of the releases. It says here : We believe the Provincial Auditor can address some of these concerns so that Manitobans are not faced with another fiscal fiasco like the Jets' operating losses agreement, Struthers concluded. I nearly fe ll off my chair when I read that.

I do not know how they could get the Jets tied into a Louisiana Pacific deal. Then, in doing some of the checking, I find out that they have some concern related to the agreement where there is a commitment by the province somewhere along the line as conditions change. It is a 20-year agreement that if conditions change that there is some liability by the province. Now let me back up. It was the community of Swan River who invited Louisiana-Pacific to come into their area there and try and establish a plant.

It was Swan River that invited Louisiana-Pacific and then asked the province whether they could assist in trying to see whether they could establish a plant in that area, a very economically beneficial plant. So the process started, Madam Speaker, and one of the requirements that Louisiana-Pacific basically needed was a commitment for supply.

They claimed that, and we have an agreement, they need 900,000 cubic metres of hardwood annually, hardwood being basically poplar and ash, basically the product that we have burned and we have cut it down and nobody ever had any use for it, but Louisiana-Pacific makes strand board out of it and they have a use for it. So we cut this agreement and people said, well, how can you give away that amount of resource? First of all, they pay stumpage, and that agreement is also renewable, you know, where they have to renew the resource, sustainable development.

Madam Speaker, when people say 900,000 cubic metres, first of all, nobody knows how much that is; it is pretty hard to figure out how much that is. However, we have available annual, allowable, harvestable hardwood to the tune of almost 1. 4 million cubic metres, and 900,000 cubic metres of that we have allocated to Louisiana-Pacific. Now, in that agreement, there is provision if there are some variances, you know, that we need some of this area for some of the wood for parks and other things. We have a variance factor in there of 45,000 cubic metres. That is stage one.

Now, if there is going to be under treaty land entitlement or for whatever other reasons there is going to be a major variance in there, at that point in time the province is then committed to take and replace that wood. If for certain reasons we would withdraw a certain portion of that wood from the 900,000 cubic metres, we then have to replace that. We have no difficulty with that, Madam Speaker, because we have very close to 1.4 million cubic metres of wood and of that total allowable cut that we have-let me explain an allowable cut.

That means, every year you can cut that much wood, and that is based on the information that we have that that supply is out there.

82 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 That is why we have the reforestation agreements which are part of it However, in hardwood, let me tell you that you do not have to replant popular trees. You cut and they grow. Softwood is different. Now, the deal that we have with Louisiana-Pacific, they are going to be accountable for that whole region for the forestry areas that we have allocated to them. They have to do the forest renewal thing, reforestation, not only for the hardwood, according to our terms that the deparbnent has set out, the deparbnent of forestry, but also for softwood.

They have no quota to cut softwood. They have to do that because if we were going to go back and ask, we have 300 smaller quotaholders in the province, Madam Speaker, and if we would ask each one of them to take and do the renewal, it would be a mess, so the deal the way it is set up with Louisiana-Pacific, they will do the total renewable, they will do the reforestation. The final clause, Madam Speaker, the one that really sticks in the craw of the member for Dauphin (Mr.

Struthers), I think, is the fact that if we do not have enough wood somewhere along the line in terms of replacement that we would have an obligation to take and pay the company monies. Now we have an investment here by L-P, a 20-year agreement that we have. They have made a substantive investment, millions, an $80-million investment in the plant It is a good agreement It is a good deal. It is a good deal for Manitoba and it is a good deal for L-P, but they also need some assurances. Let me illustrate.

If, for example, governments change-and God forbid that the NDP would form government-and then they decided, Madam Speaker, to withdraw the Porcupine mountains and the Duck mountains out of this agreement, then, by concurrence of the Manitoba government that they would do so and so much wood that it could not be replaced, there would be a financial obligation, but only if the Manitoba government concurred. That is the reason why that agreement is in there so that when there is change somewhere along the line then there is an obligation.

Why would somebody put in an $80-million plant and not look for some assurances? It would be stupid. It would be ludicrous. They are sticking in $80 million; there have to be some assurances that, if governments would change the rules in five years time or 10 years time, there has to be some obligation. So we have covered everything off the way we feel. Now, Madam Speaker, I want to continue, but I wanted to clarify that because I think there was a misconception. That is why the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) makes reference to the Jets fiasco. How do you compare that? It is stupid.

That is why I felt this was something that I could not really respond to totally in the Question Period. Knowing I was speaking, I wanted to clarify that. Madam Speaker, I find it a little frustrating-and that is why I made the remark about the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) hiding among the trees-because she is the beneficiary. Her area is the beneficiary of the jobs that are being created and the economic spin-off that is taking place there, and then we have the naysayers and the critics that try and make this thing out to be a bad deal. It is the area that wanted it.

Everybody is a winner in this thing, and our challenge is to make sure that all Manitobans are protected as well as being winners in this thing. I cannot, for the life of me, sometimes see how these people come up with these negative attitudes about the positive things that happen. With all due respect, I do not very often compliment the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux}-! am probably a little bit harder on him than most people-but at least he has enough vision if there is something positive to say it as positive.

I am surprised at the member for Dauphin, having been here only seven months, has already fallen into that sort of a category where everything is negative. Maybe that is how he feels about his area out there that he represents. I feel very positive about the area that I represent, and I think all Manitobans feel positive about that Certainly, my colleagues do. Madam Speaker, I want to just make a little reference further to the forestry issue before I continue. How much time do I have? Madam Speaker: The honourable member has nine minutes remaining.

,, December 7, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 83 Mr. Driedger: Madam Speaker, are we changing the rules so it has to be less yet? I will leave that fo r now then. I might have a chance again when we get into the budget. I just want to make some other comments related to my department. We are having a very interesting year, and I want to talk a little bit about wildlif e. An Honourable Member: About whom? Mr. Driedger: Wildlif e. Not like nightlife, I said wildlif e. An Honourable Member: Do you have nightlife too? * (1510 ) Mr. Driedger: My colleagues have. I am getting too old fo r that.

Madam Speaker, the wildlif e situation in our province is in a very healthy state by and large. We have more deer than we have ever had in this province, and, God fo rbid, we have more beavers than we have ever had too. Many of you proba bly have realized the problems that we have with beaver, and I will touch on that just briefly. The average population of the beaver in Manitoba was between 300,000 and 400,000. Well, we are well over a million and going through the roof .

As a result, what has happened is that with the beavers being the industrious engineers that they are-God, I wish I could harness them and make them do the things I would want them to do, great engineers-but they happen to build dams and dikes all over the place, in culverts, along roads and the cost to municipality and provincial government is dramatic. That is why we have a control program in place, and that is why we are very concerned when the European union is trying to ban the trapping of fur animals.

If that happens, it has a dramatic impact on not only Manitoba but all Canadians who basically-especially the people in the North-make their living from this. I am very concerned about what has happened with the extensive lobby. The fe deral government and all provinces join-I mean this is not political fo r us within the country-together, Manitobans, Canadians, even the United States and Russia, are all combined in terms of trying to deal with the extreme views of the environmental groups in Europe. We are hoping that we can get this resolved because that could be dramatic.

I want to make ref erence a little bit to the deer population, as I started off. We have problems, we have expanded our seasons where the hunters can take two deer. We have made provision with the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, to whom I want to give recognition, and with good imaginative thinking have made provision that those people who like to hunt but do not necessarily want to utilize the meat, it can be taken to certain abattoirs and that meat is then turned over to Winnipeg Harvest. It has just turned out tremendously. It has just been working really ace.

In fa ct, because of the kind of approach that is taken, people have brought more than just deer meat. Some of them have brought actually cattle and hogs. It has really caught on. In meeting with the president, Larry Milian, from the Manitoba Wildlif e Federation, we fe el very positive about the work that they have done. Madam Speaker, we have too many deer. We have deer problems along the Red River Valley. Close to the urban areas we have-my colleague the member responsible fo r Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Mr.

Cumm ings) can probably give some figures as to how many accidents take place by hitting deer, but we also have people along the Red River Valley who are market gardeners who basically cannot get insurance or any coverage. We have 50-60 deer getting into some of their market gardens and just cleaning everything up. We are looking at the possibility of developing a control program with them as well and utilizing that meat again through Winnipeg Harvest fo r the utilization of people who need it.

The one concern I have right now, to tell you some of the challenges and problems that have come with making decisions, we have snow, more than we have had fo r many a year already and we are just barely into December, and under these conditions there is that possibility that-and it has happened in years past-a good percentage, up to 50 percent of our deer population could just literally starve.

84 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 Then comes the question, what do we do? Do we continue with the control program for the people along the Red River Valley to deal with the market gardeners? Do we establish fe eding programs for the elk and for the deer in certain parts of the province? We really cannot take and afford the cost of fe eding deer to that extent. My first report from my staff people say that under these circumstances right now if we were going to try and fe ed elk and deer, we would be looking at half a million dollars minimum. I mean, it is just not in the cards.

Nature has a way of sort of dealing us a blow of this nature. I would rather utilize the wildlife resource through hunting processes and the process that we do now that maybe that meat can be used for those that are not as fortunate as others. So these are the challenges and decisions that I have to make somewhere along the line. Madam Speaker, I sense that I am running out of time, but I want to touch on fisheries a little bit. We have major challenges in the commercial fishery.

Where numbers are very healthy in wildlife, in the fishery end of it we are· having problems, and Lake Winnipegosis has experienced ma jor difficulty. Years ago it was closed down for three years. The fish rebounded to some degree and then in two years time they were fished out and we have a major problem again. The poor commercial fishermen have the licences and the quotas we have there, they cannot make a living. We are challenged with making decisions and we have great lakes, we have great productive lakes, but we have to manage them wisely.

In the case of Lake Winnipegosis, we are working with the commercial fishermen to estab lish fish hatcheries, and when you do that, then the sport fishers come up and say, you know, how come you are helping the commercial fishermen? We pay this little stamp too and we need it for our own sources, but these are challenges that we will face and deal with. Then we have Lake Manitoba where we have different challenges, and we have such great lakes, and there is so much history in terms of the commercial fishing that has gone on from the time that commercial fishing was established.

If anybody has ever read some of the history of it, it is quite dramatic, and very innovative people that would-[interjection] Okay, thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just want to say that the biggest challenge I am facing right now is Lake Winnipeg where we have so many diversified groups that are involved with the commercial fishery and questions that were raised here, and one of the questions actually created some of the discomf ort that you experienced in this House when comments were made related ro-I cannot say the word, I guess-you know, when the member for The Pas raised some questions here with me as to whether our policies were fair, unfair or whatever. But we are undertaking, we have a private consultant who is doing a third party review of Lake Winnipeg.

I am hoping for that report by February, March sometime and I want to say that we will be making some tough decisio ns related to Lake Winnipeg by the time that the next fishing season rolls around. Madam Speaker, I would like to actually cover a fe w other issues yet, but I appre ciate the opportunity and I want to say that I think that I want to wish all members of the House a happy Yuletide season and a very good New Year, and I hope that they develop a more positive attitude, especially the members of the opposition. Thank you. Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I thank the members and I thank you for allowing me a chance to respond briefly to the Speech from the Throne that we heard a couple of days ago. I would like to keep my comments brief , but I realize that with the number of cliches and old, old, tired, worn-out, out of-touch, out-of-date sayings that came out of the Speech from the Throne the other day, I am going to have a very tough job in keeping my comments brief , but I will try my best.

My opportunity here, the second throne spee ch of the seven months that I have been an MLA representing Dauphin, I am told though that this is the first real throne speech that I have been able to listen to, because the first one really was not a throne spee ch; it was just warmed over from a previous throne speech. So I was

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 85 really very much looking fo rward to experiencing a real throne speech fo r the first time in my political career. I must say that I en joyed coming back to the Legislature and seeing everybody within the House again and participating in an event that I think is very important. When I was a schoolteacher at the junior high level, I taught social studies.

Part of the social studies curriculum is devoted to civics and working with young people in terms of figuring out how we are governed, learning about how decisions in our country and in our provinces are made, and indeed even at the municipal level. One of the lessons that I remember as a teacher, working with the students on, was the uses of a throne speech; the uses, the intent, the objective of doing a throne speech, why we do it in the Legislature, what the purpose of a throne speech is. I took it upon myself at this time to bring in some experts, as teachers across the province sometimes do.

I figured I was just a teacher, who was I to be talking about what politicians do. I brought in some real politicians to talk to my students. I brought in a Mr. Brian White, who was our Conservative member of Parliament at the time, and he talked to the students about a throne speech and how important it was at the fe deral level. I brought in a Mr. Leonard Harapiak, who was the MLA at the time where I was teaching, and he talked about the value and the objective of a throne speech at the provincial level. I want to point out fo r the member fo r The Maples (Mr.

Kowalski), who is listening here today, that I even brought a Liberal in to talk to my students just to make sure that it was kosher right across the board. * (1 520) What they told us at the time was that a throne speech, put out to all the people of Manitoba through its elected representatives and through the media, off the desk of the Lieutenant Governor of the province, it set out the goals, the objectives, the road that the government is going to fo llow along, the guidelines that will govern the future actions of the government fo r the session.

It puts fo rth, if you will, a road map telling people where this government is heading. Now, Madam Speaker, these are the kinds of things that we teach our students in schools. Unfortunately, my experience so far in seven months does not back up what we are teaching our students in our classrooms. I think in schools maybe we should continue to teach what a throne speech should be used fo r, but I think we should also maybe tell them what it has been used fo r, and in my experience in this year it has been a political tool. It is another way fo r the government to get its spin on certain issues.

It is another opportunity fo r the government of the day to get a hit in the media, to get a little bit of attention. It provides a lot of nice words, it provides a lot of nice phrases, but they end up being a lot of tired, old, out-of -date, out-of-touch cliches. Now I would not want to go back to the junior high that I was teaching at and have to tell the students that all that happens in a throne speech is a government taking a political action in setting out-taking advantage of an opportunity to put its own political spin on the issues of the day. How did things happen over the last session?

We heard a throne speech. We all came back into the House, debated bills. We debated budgets, we debated Estimates, we had all kinds of debates on the issues of the day. How were things actually decided over the last session by this government? Did they have anything to do with the throne speech back that they gave on May 23? I do not think so.

May 23's throne speech was made up of a lot of nice words and nice phrases, but the real agenda of this government was played out not through the throne speech but through such things as cabinet decrees, Orders-in-Council, ministerial decisions that were made with very little, if any, consultation with the public and very little, if any, debate within this House. So I have to admit that I am a little bit leery as we start out in this session springing from yet another throne speech that is full of cliches.

Now I thought maybe that this is just something that is recent with this government, but I have checked around with other fo lks who have been here longer than I have, and they assure me that it is not just this one throne speech or not just the one from May 23 that is full of cliches and hot air but that this has been a pattern that has developed with this government, that over the years

86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 that it has been in it has never ever had its throne speech match up with its legislative records that followed. That, Madam Speaker, is too bad because, when I think back on the students that I was teaching in junior high and I was telling them what the real reason for a throne speech was, and Mr. White and Mr. Harapiak when they came into my classes to help me out on this, they told the students what it should be like . This government could not be any further away from what the idea of a throne speech is. Here is an example of what I am talking about.

If the government had been honest with us throughout that last session, somewhere in the May 23 throne speech there would have been a statement that would have read something like this: My government proposes to close emergency room services in five hospitals in the city of Winnipeg. But as far as I can remember and as much as my research has indicated, it was never contained within the May 23 throne speec h. There was no mention of closing hospital emergency rooms in the 23rd of May throne speech of 1995. Here is another example.

If this government had been honest in its throne speech of May 23, the Lieutenant Governor would have read that his government would have unilaterally moved to kill the Hog Marketing Board, that this government would move to dual marketing instead of the Hog Marketing Board. Nowhere in the May 23 Speech from the Throne did I ever see any mention of going to dual marketing and killing the Hog Marketing Board. Nowhere in the May 23, 1995, Speech from the Throne did I see any lines that the Lieutenant Government said that my government would offload provincial roads onto the rural municipalities across the province.

Nowhere, and yet that is what is happening. Nowhere in the May 23 throne speech did I read the statement that my Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) will stall and stall and stall the setting up of distance educa tion in rural and northern Manitoba What do we get from the Minister of Education? We get press releases. We get photo opportunities. We get a fancy kind of a news release but no substance. It was not mentioned in this Speech from the Throne. It was not mentioned in the May 23 Speech from the Throne.

I understand in a Speech from the Throne sometime back in the history of this government that they did put a line in there about distance education where they made a commitment, a commitment that a vast majority of schools in rural Manitoba would be set up with distance education facilities. Where is that now? How close is this government to obtaining that objective? They are not even close, not even close, nowhere near their objective that they set So it does not surprise me at all that it is not contained in this Speech from the Throne. The member for Emerson (Mr.

Penner) might be interested in this little example that I have of another statement that I think should have been put into the May 23, 1995, Speech from the Throne. I think that the Lieu tenant Governor should have had a statement in there saying that my Minister of Agriculture will offload research and development onto the backs of farmers through Bill 15, but it did not. It did not have the courage to tell people exactly what it was doing.

This government back in May opted for nice fancy words and nice warm phrases, a whole lot of hot air, but it did not have the courage to say to farmers exactly what it was doing. It snuck this in through as quietly as it possibly could.

When we tried to get the public hearings to come out to Neepawa before we made any kind of decisions on this, the governm ent would not come out to rural Manitoba to face farmers on this, not even in as neutral a constituency or as a neutral a town asNeepawa So my point that I want people to consider here is that the throne speech which is supposed to outline where the government is heading and is supposed to give Manitobans an indication of what to look for over the next session, that very fine objective has been pushed to the side by this government.

In the Speech from the Throne that we listened to on December 5 there were quite a number of cliches that were thrown out, I suppose intended to impress people that this government was doing a good job. Right on the very first page the Lieu tenant Governor claimed, on behalf of the government, to continue to fulfill commitmen ts -

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87 they made to the people of Manitoba in the spring election-<:ontinue. That is the only word there that I really have problems with. If you are going to continue something, you should have started it in the first place. * (15 30) Prudent financial management. It is easy to throw these kinds of buzzw ords and cliches out to people, but if you were really prudently financially managing the economy of Manitoba you would have been able to some time in there balance a budget. Did you? Think real hard. Remember what year you balanced the budget in. None. None.

Think back to what year it was when you set a record for the highest deficit ever in this province. Think what year that was. It was not too long ago. That was $819 million. Think of who got the second highest deficit ever in this province. What government would that be? What fiscally prudent managing government would that be? Would that be the government that is across the way right now? How can they get away with saying in their Speech from the Throne that they are going to prudently fiscally manage this province?

They are talking about innovative approaches, programs providing services to the citizens of our province, better health care. Let us take this better-health-care cliche that they have thrown into the Speech from the Throne and let us see how that plays out in my constituency of Dauphin. Based on a promise that was made during the election, based on a promise that the Filmon team made during the provincial election in the spring, many health care facilities around the province started to make decisions, financial decisions, and that is what happened in Dauphin at the Regional Health Centre.

They were told that there was going to be capital funding available, so they decided they were going to renovate the fourth floor of the Regional Health Centre. They started to move patients out of the fourth floor to other parts of the hospital so that they could make room for people coming from the Brandon mental institute. They were setting this fourth floor up to provide mental services to people in the Parkland. They had got the architect in; the plans were in place. Some of the renovations were started. People had been moved.

Staff and administrators in the hospital had taken all kinds of time and eff ort to get things set up based on a promise by the provincial government. Now what do we find out? We fmd out that a Tory election promise is not worth the paper that it is written on. It is not worth listening to. All of a sudden, no money. Is that better health care? Is that what we have to look forward to over the next session, more of those kinds of decisions? Building a stronger school system, anyone can say that. Continue to build on its record of fiscal responsibility and accountability. Accountability, what does that mean?

Can we expect more deficits and more giveaways like the Jets and like the corporate training grants that we have been asking questions about? In Dauphin, does that mean that we can expect more farm and business foreclosures? Can we expect more layoffs in hospitals, more layoffs in teaching? Does that mean more unemployment? Because if you are trying to tell us that you are going to continue the policies that you had over the last seven years, then that is what that means. It means higher unemployment levels.

Here is another good cliche that is found within the throne speech from Tuesday: protecting essential public services. Does that mean that you were wrong when you closed emergency rooms in the city? Does that mean that you are wrong when you close beds across the province in our hospitals? Does that mean that it is wrong for you to ignore the doctor shortages that occur right throughout this province? In the town of Grandview in my constituency, there are people right now who are very frustrated with the lack of response on the part of this government to the doctor shortage in that community.

What has this government done over the last couple of years to help that particular community? Nothing. [interjection] Getting re-elected, I would suggest, is a step backward in helping people in rural Manitoba to put doctors into place. My government will speak out where there is a threat of unfair actions on the part of the federal government.

88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 Let us think of Dauphin again.

When the federal government comes up with its transportation policy and helps in the 1993 federal election to get itself elected based on cancelling deals at Pearson Airport and such, now when this federal government comes along and takes the profits that Pearson Airport was making and gives it to a whole bunch of its supporters instead of a whole bunch of Tories from bef ore, and tells rural and northern airports that they are out to lunch now, that they can go and die on the vine someplace in rural Manitoba, where was the provincial government?

Right now, the Dauphin airport is being oftloaded from the federal government right past the provincial government, being offioaded right to the R.M. and to the Town of Dauphin. What is this provincial government doing? It says here that it is going to speak out when the federal government takes unfair action. Well, I am waiting. I want to hear you guys speak out. Support for our agricultural industry-lets us look at Dauphin again. It was this Premier (Mr.

Filmon) who was in Dauphin during the election campaign making a $1 0-million announcement on agricultural diversification, trying to get some votes in Dauphin, which, I might add, did not work, but trying to get some votes in Dauphin by saying they are going to put $1 0 million into agriculture so that grain farmers can move into cattle. Well, where is the money? Where is the promise? Support for our agricultural industry-it is easy to put it into a throne speech, it is another thing to actually come through and do something about it.

On May 23, 19 95, you said a lot of fancy things in your throne speech and you did not come through on them either. Another paragraph from the throne speech that I was really particularly interested in was to read that a task force would be established to travel throughout rural Manitoba and listen to people, listen to farmers, consult with people, look at programs that were targeted at rural Manitoba Then we hear, even well before these consultations take place, that the Agriculture minister is not only proposing that we get rid of the hog marketing board and shift to something called dual marketing.

If we think that we can go to dual marketing and keep the hog marketing board, then we are living in a little fairy tale world somewhere, and we should really wake up and smell the roses. * (1 540) It is absolutely dishonest for people to try to tell farmers and try to tell Manitobans that you can have a hog marketing board along with dual marketing. It is just as dishonest for people in positions of decision making to go around telling people that we can have dual marketing of wheat with the Canadian Wheat Board as well. You are not being honest with the people of Manitoba when you talk in those terms.

The other thing that you have to worry about is that you have the cart before the horse. You have things backwards when it comes to consultation. Part of the consultation process is that you do not make a decision until you have consulted.

You have made your minds up on hog marketing, you have made your minds up on the Wheat Board, you have made your minds up on everything that is fundamental in agriculture today, and now you are going to go out and you are going to talk to the farmers about it That is not consultation, that is damage control, because everybody knows that when you make your decisions and you go out into rural Manitoba, you are going to get an earful , and they will tell you how counterproductive your policies and your decisions are . It becomes a matter of damage control on the part of a political party.

One of my governm ent's guiding principles has been the management and accountability. If that was the case, why do we have-if that was the truth in the Speech from the Throne, why do we have a situation today where there are layoffs throughout the public service, reduced workweeks throughout the public service and yet the Premier of this province gets an increase in salary? Is that accountability? One of the other themes that I picked up as I went through the Speech from the Throne was that the government is trying its best to try to convince people that it actually values the input of front line workers,

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 whether it be in the health care field or the education field or whether it be in agriculture or any of the other going concerns of the government, as far as I am concerned, to say that this government has benefited from the input of nurses and doctors and other health care professionals is ridiculous. Again, when you make decisions in health you make the decisions and then go to consult. It is a pattern that has developed with this government. To try to smooth this over in a fancy Speech from the Throne is just shallow.

Madam Speaker, I have taken a little bit of time to point out some of the things that trouble me about the Speech from the Throne. I also want to point out some things from the Speech from the Throne that I think should be in it that are missing. The first thing that I want to key in on is a lack of support for the Canadian Wheat Board and orderly marketing. I do not think that the members across the way understand the absolute importance of orderly marketing to agricultural producers, not only in Manitoba, but across the country.

Orderly marketing has served our producers very well for a lot of years, and my worry is that we are going to throw out the whole concept of orderly marketing, throw it out at a time when we have signed a North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States which will never allow us to again go back to our system of orderly marketing. This is something that I think both sides of the House should really understand. We are not making one temporary trial basis kind of a decision. You are making a decision that is going to affect farming forever.

Unless somebody in the federal government has enough guts to rip up the NAFT A agreement that we have with the United States, we are never going to get back the Canadian Wheat Board when we lose it, we are never going to go back to the hog marketing board, because the Americans will consider it an unfair trade practice. Now, you know that and we know that. My hope is that you take that into consideration before you actually go and do something silly with the Canadian Wheat Board. Another thing that was lacking in the Speech from the Throne was any support at all for the Port of Churchill.

Again, this is something that has benefited farmers in our region. It is something that we are in danger of losing. It is under pressure from the federal government, who also does not seem to want to show any support for the Port of Churchill. It is not getting the support from the provincial government that I would like to see. It is not getting support anywhere other than from this side of the House.

It is my hope that someplace, seeing that you did not cover this in the throne speech, my hope is that maybe you will introduce something over the next session of Parliament that just might show some support for the Port of Churchill. There is no indication in this throne speech of any kind of a plan to help farmers transport their product to market. Oh, sure, there are a lot of things that say we are going to take away some of the things that have been helping farmers, but what are we doing to help them out?

You are simply saying, by leaving this out, by not addressing this problem, free market system, boys, go ahead, you are on your own, market. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) That is not co-operation with farmers. That is not going to produce any kind of spin-offs in our rural communities that will eventually help business and keep schools open, keep some sense of community spirit going in rural Manitoba. That is just simply that I'm okay, Jack, kind of an attitude, that very simplistic, individualistic, greedy attitude that we do not need in this province.

What else is missing from that throne speech was a commitment to help kids who live in poverty. More than 60,000 kids live in poverty in Manitoba, and what is this throne speech going to do to help them? What broad general direction, even without being specific in the Speech from the Throne, in some general way how is this going to help kids? It is not. It does not seem to be a priority with this government. It does not seem to be something that this government thinks is important.

There is nothing in this throne speech that would lead anybody to believe that you are going to take the problem of child poverty seriously. A major area that is lacking in this throne speech is any kind of a commitment to the principles of

90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 7, 1995 sustainability. I do not even have to refer to the throne speech much here, I will just refer everybody back to the questions that I asked earlier today in the House having to do with the environmental process that we are now putting the Louisiana-Pacific project through. This government from Day One was not committed to sustaina bility.

If it had been committed to sustainability, it would not have split the process in the first place to allow the mill to be gauged first, and then, gee we got the mill, I wonder, let us take a look to see what the effects are on the trees and the rivers and the wildlife and everything else. That was the first mistake that this governm ent made. That was the first clue that people should have that this government is not committed to sustaina bility. So then what happens? Well, we end up in a situation where we have a Minister of Natural Resources talking about how good he thinks the process is.

And what do we get from him? We get a lot of old sayings. Today I counted three old sayings that we got from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), old sayings, old tired cliches. No new ideas on what we should do about sustaina bility in this province. No commitment to any sort of legitima te process to ensure sustainability, to ensure that there are enough trees going into this plant to allow our children in years down the road to enjoy the same kind of benefits that we have had in our parks, the same kind of benefits that we have had throughout the cut area of Louisiana-Pacific.

There is no commitment there to sustaina bility from this government. *

(1550) If this Minister of Natural Resources was as committed to sustaina bility as he says he is, and if he is so positive that his department and himself have been squeaky clean in putt ing together the information they have had so far, why is it that the chairman of this Clean Environment Commission would have to halt the hearings? He has to halt the hearings because this minister and his government did not take seriously the concerns raised not only by myself and by the member for Swan River (Ms.

Wowchuk) and others on this side of the House, but by people throughout the province of Manitoba including people from the Swan River area who have some concerns with the sustainab ility of this project. Did he act to try to relieve the concerns that federal departm ents had in Fisheries, in Forestry Canada and the Department of the Environment? Did he act to do anything to relieve people's minds in terms of Treaty Land Entitlement? Every time the answer is no.

What we learned today in the House is that a hockey game that we may be playing in the future might be quite an exciting one, because I think the Tories have shown and displayed to us that they can stick-handle pretty good. They can pass the puck back and forth from one minister to the next and try to avoid the questions that the opposition has about sustainab ility. That is about all we learned this afternoon.

It is absolutely ridiculous to tell the House that the process is a good one and then tum around and allow the people at the front lines of the department three days to go through the complete Louisiana-Pacific environmental impact statement, and then expect the people of Manitoba to have any kind of credibility at all in the process involving environmental sustainability of any project, not just the Louisiana-Pacific project, but all kinds of projects that will come towards the table here in the Legislature, all kinds of projects that will impact our environment having to do with all kinds of resources issues.

The process is not quite as good as what the minister says, but in any government the process is only as good as the people who make the decisions, and this minister is making the decisions having to do with this process. All they have produced so far is a circumvention of whatever process we have there now. Madam Speaker, one of the main themes we have to think about -sorry, the new and improved Mr. Deputy Speaker-one of the themes that we have to remember as elected representatives is that people send us here. Who is it that we represent? In some of these cases, I wonder.

When we make a decision to go to dual marketing of hogs, who is it that we are representing? Are we representing farms around Manitoba? Are we representing the family farms out there today that are working hard and contributing to our economy, or are we representing those very, very few producers who might benefit from this kind of a move? Are we representing the lawyers who represent those people who we might benefit? Who are we here

December 7, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91 fo r-the benefit of the majority of people or the elite of this province who are going to benefit somewhat and even maybe benefit from a decision like this? Who are we representing when we skewer the Canadian Wheat Board? Who are we representing? Are we representing those f anners who live within 12 miles of the American border? Are we representing those fa rmers who are large enough to supply an American market? Are we representing those f anners who are large

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cd7e1130dbf74026585b5c11447413180c4364e0

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