Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 64 (35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-64

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocsn Speslcer VOL XLI No. 64 ·1: 30 p.m., TUESDAY, MAY 12 , 19 92 Printed by the Office of the OUHIIS Printer, Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

Johns Swan River PARTY liberal NDP NDP liberal NDP liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP liberal PC NDP PC NDP liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

3264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 12 , 19 92 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): It is my duty to inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker. Therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I would ask the Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Dacquay) to take the Chair. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRE SENTING PETITIONS Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the petition of W.

June Hunter, Kelly O'Reilly, Laurie Januska and others urging the government to consider establishing an office of the Children's Advocate, independent of cabinet, and reporting directly to this Assembly. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Ernest McCallum-Carberry, Audrey J. Harburn, Peggy K. Hood and others reques ting the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba strongly urge the provincial government to reconsider its decision and return the Manitoba Heritage Federation's granting authority.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise Dacquay): I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Human Resources Opportunity Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the unemployed and people re-entering the labour force; and

WHEREAS during the past 1 0 years alone over 1,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and training; and

WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the training centre's recent graduates have found employment; and

WHEREAS without consultation the program was cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and WHER EAS there is a growing need for this program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of Selkirk, the Selkirk local of the Manitoba Metis Federation as well as many other local organizations and individuals. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer) to consider a on e-year moratorium on the program. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable memb er for Ruper tsland (Mr . Harper), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THA Tthe Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal people; and The AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and *

(1335) The AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self-gove rnmen t and the righ t of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system; and The Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of Canada, among many others, also recommend both aboriginal self-gover nment and a separate and parallel justice system; and On January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial government announced it

3265 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the recommendations; and Despite the All- Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self-gov ernment, the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system, an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are solely within provincial jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba sho w a stro ng commitment to aboriginal self-gove rnmen t by consi dering reversing its positi on on the AJ I by su ppor ti ng the rec ommen dati ons within its ju risdi ction and imp lemen ting a separate and parallel justice system. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable memb er for We lling ton (M s. Barrett), and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibility of the gove rnment to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with crime; and The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Rght Back Against Child Abuse campaign . PRESENTING REPO RTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Deputy Chairperson of Committees): Madam De puty Speaker, the Com mittee of Supply has adopted cer tain resolutions and directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr.

Rose), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. INTROD UCTION OF BILLS Bill 88-The Homesteads, Marital Property Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Clayton Manness {Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 88, The Homesteads, Marital Property Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur Ia propriete familiale, modifiant Ia

Loi sur les biens matrimoni aux et apportant des modifica tions correlatives a d'autres lois), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant-Gov ernor, having been advi sed of the conte nts of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table his message also, Madam Deputy Speaker. Motion agreed to. Bill 89- The Family Malntenan� Amendment Act Hon. Clayton Manness {Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 89, The Family Maintenance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'obligation alimentaire), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. *

(1340) Introduction of Guests Madam Deputy Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have in attendance this afternoon Senator Elsie Bear from the Metis Senate; Claire Riddle, vice-president of the Winnip eg reg ion ; De nise Thomas, vice-president of the southeast region; Ernie Blais, board member for the Winnipeg region; Ed Simard,

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 3266 board member for the Winnipeg region; Bernice Potoski, board member for the Interlake region; and Allison Dewar, executive member of the Metis Women of Manitoba. Also with us this afternoon seated in the public gallery, we have 25 journalist students visiting from the Red River Comm unity College, and these students are under the direction of Mr. Donald Benham. Also with us this afternoon in the public gallery, we have with us 20 English language students from Sisler High School under the direction of Mrs. Carol Grier.

This school is located in the constituency of the honou rable memb er for In kster (Mr. Lamoureux). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome each and every one of you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Western Premiers' Conference Regional Development Program Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Last week, the Premier stated in answers to questions that the statistics provided to the government indicated that Manitoba was among all other provinces in Canada in suffering a loss in the labour force.

In every single province in this country, there was a loss in the labour force. Unfortunate ly, the Premier again was wrong. Manitoba, first of all, was second to last in terms of decline in labour force-five times the national average of people dropping out of the labour force. Some 14,000 people have quit looking for work among the 17,000 less jobs we have in this province, both of which rank up in the unfortunate part of Canada. On the other side, Madam Deputy Speaker, provinces like British Columbia and Alberta have shown a positive change in employment and in enrollment in the labour force.

The Premier is attending a Western Premiers' meeting tomorrow and on the agenda, surely, will be the economy. The economy of western Canada has generally suffered dramatically over the last 12 months, but mo re impo rtantly, we see Albe rta and B.C. maintaining a positive economic performance. We see Saskatchewan with a slight decline and Mani toba with a large decline in terms of employment and economic opportunities. I would like to ask the Premier whether he is going to bring any co-ordinated economic strategy to the table at the Western Premiers' meeting.

Will he be calling on a job creation program and a regional development program to get people in western Canada working again, particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where the numbers are so dismal and the challenges are so great? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I can tell you that I am not going to be advocating, like many of my colleagues in the west, that we raise taxes. I am certainly not going to be advocating like my New Democ ratic colleagues in Saskatchewan who raised new taxes, over $300 million in their recent budget last week, of which almost all of those taxes impact directly on individuals .

They have an increase in their sales tax from 7 percent to 8 percent. We have an increase, in fact, a new tax-3 cents a litre on farm fuel-a stake in the heart of farm producers in western Canada who are already suffering from low prices, who are already suffering from difficult circumstances because of international grain trade wars, a stake in the heart-3 cents a litre-which is going to cost thousands of dollars per producer for use of farm fuel. I am certainly not going to advocate that they raise personal income taxes as well, as has been done by way of surtax in the province of Saskatchewan.

I am not going to advocate that we raise taxes like the New Democrats did in British Columbia, raising taxes to individuals, huge increase in personal income tax load-[interjection] I know New Democrats opposite, who, when they were in government themselves here, raised taxes 138 percent in six and a half years, 138 percent increase in the tax load on individual Manitobans by way of their personal income taxes, who raised the sales tax here by 2 percent. I am not going to advocate that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am going to suggest that by keeping the deficit down, by keepi ng-[ interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak more about how the New Democrats have raised the deficit in British Columbia, Saskatchewan as well and Ontario-a $1 O-bi Ilion deficit in the province of Ontario. Those are not the answers. We are going to keep taxes down so that we keep the money in

3267 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 12, 19 92 the hands of the people of this province. That is what we will be doing. *

(1345) Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier should remember the audited statement that showed that there was $5 million extra a month coming in when this Premier was sworn in, com pared to no w where we are running a $530-million deficit, and you have no plan. You are ending up the same way as Grant Devine and the absolute disaster in Saskatchewan, and you are trying to fool the people. We are heading right up to the $900 million lev el of Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the flimflammery in the world does not fool the Provincial Auditor in his financial statements.

My ques tion to the Premier is-1 ask the government whether they have any concern about the fact that they are in last place in GDP growth in 1991. Are they concerned that their labour force dropout is now five times the national average? Are they concerned about the fact that they have lost 17,000 jobs in 12 months? Do they have any ideas and any strategies that they are going to put forward atthe Western Premiers' meeting, because we have a situation now where British Columbia is booming and people are moving to that province?

Alberta is just maintaining itself in a very slight positive way, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba are declining in terms of employment and declining in terms of labour force. Does the Premier have any strategy, co-ordinated strategy, a western Canadian strategy that he is taking forward? Can he tell us what he is going to do, not what he is not going to do in the province of Manitoba? Mr.

Fllmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the only administration in the country that can say that in five straight budgets we have not had to raise any of the major taxes in this province-no increase in personal income taxes, no increase in corporate income taxes, in fact, a reduction in personal income taxes, no increase in the sales tax. In fact, we took two-thirds of the people who had been paying the payroll tax off the payroll tax. In that same period of time, in five budgets, our deficit was running half, on average, the level that it was in the six budgets of the Howard Pawley New Democrats.

We will go there with a record that is unmatched anywhere in this country. In addition to that, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will go there with a forecast from all of the major economic forecasters saying that in 1992, 1993 and 1994, this province will have a growth rate that will be amongst the highest in the country, certainly in the top four. That is the news that we will be taking to that Western Premiers' Conference, because we go forth with confidence knowing that all of the major economic forecasters say 1992, 1993, 1994, we are projected to increase at a better rate than most of the provinces in this country.

Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier is whistling past the graveyard, and it is very serious. Our GDP was last place last year. Western Canada is developing a tale of two regions. It is developing a tale of two regions where we see B.C. booming, Alber ta mai ntai ning itse lf, Sask atchewan dec lini ng -and it is not all because of agriculture-and Manitoba going down more than any other province. Now, surely the people of those four western provinces need some co-operative ideas of how we can work together. The federal government has abandoned western Canada.

I know the Premier still supports the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has abandoned western Canada. Now, surely the four western Premiers can look at the fact that we have competition on investment. We have Cargill putting out the Simplot plant in Brandon. We have Cargill dealing with our meat packing plants. Surely the western Premiers could look at the assets of western Canada and develop a positive agenda for job crea tion and regional economic development. Would the Premier put together a positive agenda to get Manitobans working again and get western Canadians working together again? Mr.

Fllmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot believe the Leader of the Opposition's inability to even read the information that is available to him. That is precisely what this province put on the table last year at the Western Premiers' Conference, an agenda to ensure that we would not fight each other amongst the western provinces with each other's tax dollars.

It was an agreement that was drafted by this Province of Manitoba for co-ope rating with all of the western provinces to eliminate these kinds of programs that see provinces arguing and fighting against each other with tax dollars to attract investment, and we precisely name them. I will get

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3268 him the press clippings. I know he does not read research papers, but at least he could read the press clippings that say that we specifically referred to the Cargill plant in Alberta, that we specifically referred to the Cargill plant at Belle Plain in Saskatchewan. We specifically referred to these various ways in which we have been fighting each other amongst the provinces. We called for co-operation for elimination of these programs, of putting in tax incentives to fight for the same corporations, and in factwe led the way.

We have had positive editorials all the way across the country saying what we did- An Honourable Member: No positive economic results. *

(1350) Mr. Fllmon: We know about the economic results of the NDP government when they raised their taxes 138 percent in just six years and they forced businesses out with a payroll tax, increased the sales tax and drove this province into destruction. We know, and we have been working very hard to overcome that. Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not need any advice from New Dem ocratic governments who are destroying provinces right across this country. Crow Benefit Payment Plan Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, the $1 million transportation talks report, which was paid for by the federal government and endorsed by this gove rnmen t, was recently released at $24,000 per page, and it told us nothing that we already did not know. Following this, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) immediately made a controversial and divisive proposal at the Agriculture ministers' meeting in Edmonton last week that would see the historic Crow benefit being paid differently in different provinces.

I want to ask the Minister of T ransportation: Does he agree with his colleague's position, with his divisive proposal that he made? Why did he not ensure that this proposal was made first in this Legislature prior to making it public? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, I want to indicate that our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has been a leader in terms of looking after the benefits for the farmers across western Canada.

If you want to compare Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the benefits they are getting there, and what has happened-with the NDP governme nt-to the farmers by raising farm fuel taxes to 3 cents a litre at a time when they are in a deep depression and low prices, I make no apologies for the approach of the Minister of Agriculture. It was not a proposal. They are negotiating in terms of the method of payment, various views out there, and it is not something that is cast in stone at this stage of the game. They offered up a suggestion for something to be looked at. Crow Benefit Payment Plan Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin): I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture: Since this $24,000 fiasco that was tabled by the federal government report, endorsed by this minister, makes no mention of a 50-50 split in the opinion of Manitoba farmers with regard to the payment of the historic Crow benefit, where did this minister get those figures? Will he table the information that he based th ose statements on? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government and myself, as minister, believe in the democratic process.

A set of people went around the province of Manitoba and across western Canada and they got input from people. The consultant said that the position in Manitoba was split. They reported to the press and they reported to us that the split was about 50-50-[interj ection] Madam Deputy Speaker, if the member would read, he would see the word "split" in there very, very well laid out. The split, as they reported to us as ministers-and he can ask his colleagues from Saskatchewan what the consultant said. He said it was about a 50-50 split, too close to call. Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe in ultimate democracy.

I believe the producers have the right to choo se, and tha t represe nts the true establishment of a democratic process. We are looking at the feasibility of that approach, which we have put on the table as a real democratic process of allowing producers to choose, so that both sides-when there are two opposite sides-have an

3269 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 opportunity to have their belief in how this should be done, met in the process. Western Premiers' Conference Crow Benefit Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister knows that this- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Plohman: I ask the First Minister (Mr. Filmon): Will he ensure that he does not put forward this same ill-conceived and divisive proposal at the Premiers' meeting when he meets with the western Premiers tomorrow?

Will he ensure that this is not promoted by this minister and this province, this divisive proposal which will destroy- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker, we have just had a consultation process where some 13,000 producers have come forward and expressed their opinion; some 1 ,300 in the province of Manitoba expressed their opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker.

They are split on what they want to see done, and I believe in being able to allow all producers to have what they want done with this method of payment process- • (1 355) Mr. Plohman: They want to destroy it. We know your agenda. It is very clear. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the honour able memb er for Dauphin wish a response to his question? Mr. Findlay: I would like to remind the member that there were five proposals on the table. One proposal was phase-out, no compensation. That has been removed from the process. Our attempt is to maximize the benefit to western Canadian producers.

The GATT process can and will have an impact when that resolution comes forward. We are trying to be sure that the maximum support to western Canadian producers for transporting of grain can be kept in place and in the fashion that satisfies the vast majority of producers of the province of Manitoba. I am very disappointed that this member does not believe in farmers having the ability to make their own decision of what is good for them. Child and Family Services Accountability Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, on March 10, 1992, the Minister of Justice (Mr.

McCrae) gave, I think what could be said, an impassioned speech-1 did not agree with it, but it was certainly full of passion from his perspective-i n which he believed that it was necessary to warn all native leaders in the province to act more responsibly. He went on to say, the allegations are just astounding, and I cannot believe something like this could happen in the '90s. If it is true, then it has to be stopped because it shows a clear lack of accountability.

Madam Deputy Speake r, last Friday, in a court room in Brandon, it was announced that an internal Family Services department review, which took place in July of 1988 or was requested in July of 1988, had to avoid an open political confrontation with native leaders. It went on to say, any external review might be viewed as political interference into the operation of an Indian Child and Family Services agency and purported that this had to be avoided because it was going to be a federal election year and possibly also a provincial election year.

Can the Fi rst Mi nister explain how the Department of Family Services was acting in an accountable way to a child in this province in need of care? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I saw that report in the newspaper, and I could not believe that somebody would allege that something would be an election year after the election had already taken place that year. It seemed rather preposterous to me that in July, just two months after the election, somebody would be making that statement. The statement is obviously totally in error.

It is an unnamed person who presumably worked in the department who made that statement, and I can only consider it to be a mischievous kind of comment to be put in that report. This government will not tolerate any kind of politics being played with issues as serious as child or spousal or any type of family abuse.

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3270 Chil dren's Advocate Reporting Process Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I am delighted to hear the First Minister say he would not brook any political interference whatsoever. Will he now ask his Min ister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to bring in an amendment to the Child Advocate bill so that the Child Advocate reports to this Chamber and not to a minister who is a politically appointed individual? Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, as the minister has said before, we are following the practice that has been established in other jurisdictions where the Child Advocate does report in facttothe minister. In fact, in Alberta where it was tried the other way, it was changed because of the fact that it was not felt to be an appropriate manner of reporting it. Department of Family Services Internal Review Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had a number of reports dating back to 1983 and Judge Kimel man' s Report recom mending an independent Child Advocate. I tried to access this very report by freedom of information. I was refused access to this report. Madam Deputy Speaker, would the First Minister now be prepared to table this internal review to this House so we can judge for ourselves the political interference of the Department of Family Services? *

(1400) Hon. Gary Film on (Premier): The matter is before the courts, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mrs. Carstalrs: The courts can have it, but the legislators cannot. Mr. Fllmon: Well, the courts do not play politics with issues as serious as this, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unioni zation Government Criteria Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the fifth session this gov ernment has been in office, and it is the fifth session in a row that this government has brought in a bill targeting labour and working people.

While this government is leaving in first contract legislation in the bill, it is now saying that if 64.9 percent of the employees say yes to a union, their voice does not count, and there has to be a compulsory vote. My question to the Minister of Labour is very simple. If 42 percent was enough in the last election to elect this government, why is the government now saying that close to 65 percent is not enough for workers to say democratically yes to a union? Hon.

Darren Praznlk (M inister of Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, it amazes me how the member for Thompson could say that a secret ballot vote is not a democratic way of expressing opinions of those employees. Mr. Ashton: Madam De puty Speaker, if the minister cannot reconcile that inconsistency, can I ask the minister how he can justify-[interjection] I am tal king about the in con sis tency of a government- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Ashton: If members opposite would have listened, I asked the government how it could reconcile its 42 percent of the vote with legislation that says 64.99 percent of workers- Ma da m Deputy Speaker: Order, please . Question. Labour Laws Worker Protection Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. How could the minister justify further changes to the act that watered down the protection of workers against the interference of employers during a certification drive? How can the minister justify watering that down? Hon.

Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, the question from the honourable member for Thompson, I must admit, surprises me, because in the certification process it only requires 50 percent plus one of the employees in the proposed bargai ning unit to certify an employee. He should know that. The requirement for under 65 percent is whether or not the means of testing the will of those employees is by the signing of cards or by secret ballot vote. If one was to get into discussions with the Labour Management Review Committee, as I have done, one realizes very qu ickly in our syste m of

3271 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 certification there are a variety of means of testing the will of those employees. Madam De pu ty Speaker, the certifi cati on proposals in this legislation, I think, are very fair and balanced within the context of the country. There are a number of provinces that require 100 in every case, an automatic certification vote. There are some that require people to purchase cards and have a certification vote. Ours are very fair. Labour Movement Government Participation Mr. St eve As hton (Thompson): My final supplementary to the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), Madam Deputy Speaker, is: When will this government recognize that at a time when we are in very serious economic difficulties, when we are dead last, that the way to proceed is to develop co-operation with working people and the labour movement, not to onc e again bring in anot her ant i-la bour , anti-worki ng-people bill that we have seen four sessions previously- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon.

Darren Praznlk (Mi nister of Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, if the member were to approach the work that was done on this particular legislation and give it a fair hearing, I think he would agree. He may not agree, but I think in reality this is a very fa ir set of ame ndme nts, a very well-b alanced set of amendments. His comments remind me of the scene from Casablanca when the German officer had been shot and the French officer says, round up the usual suspects. The member across the way is rounding up the usual NDP arguments on labour. I do not think they are valid in this case.

Asslnlbolne River Diversion Report Status Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Yesterday, raised the issue of concerns about the Assiniboine-South Hespeler Area Study, which was initiated under the Lyon government and proposes massive water diversion from the Assiniboine River for irrigation of the south-central area of Manitoba. Can the Minister of Natural Resources clarify for the House, what is the status of this report that his department has had for more than four years? Hon.

Harry Enns (Min ister of Nat ural Resources): Madam Deput y Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that report was revised and updated by the Pawley administration and presented to the honourable member for Dauphin in the year 1987- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have recently seen the report. It indicates that in March of 1988, during the election campaign, this was allegedly presented- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member for Dauphin does not have a point of order. *** Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not have the report with me, but I believe that there was an actual letter of transmittal to the then Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Mr. Plohman, that updated the report that the honourable member refers to. Ms. Cerllll: Madam Deputy Speaker, to clarify, clearly in the report the date of that was after the '88 election. My question for the minister, however, is: What is the status of that report in front of this government now? Mr.

Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, both the federal governm ent, through their agency the PFRA, and the various departments and various provincial governmen ts have, I would suspect, certainly since the mid-'50s, studied that region with respect to water sourcing and providing adequate water to that whole South Hespeler region which soil scientists tell us is among the best, second only to a small portion of southern Ontario, for diversified vegetable production and so forth. So there have been a number of reports studied, written and produced, and that is the status of the report that she refers to. It is on file.

It is there as resou rce mate rial . I am sure that different agricultural groups have availed themselves of that information. There has been no official response to that report by this government, by my Department of Natural Resources. •

(1410) May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3272 Ms. Cerllll: To the same minister: Why is the amount of water to be diverted from the Assiniboine that is outlined in this Hespeler report the same as the amount proposed to be withdrawn from the Assi niboine by the Pembina Valley Wate r Co-operative, even though the initial report was to be for irrigation? Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, again, the 15 municipalities several years ago approached both the fe der al gove rnment and the provi ncial gov ernme nt-my colleague the memb er for Emerson (Mr.

Penner) was then the mini ster responsib le-re questing assistance in resolving their immediate, chronic, water-shortage problems as they applied to domes tic and muni cip al requireme nts. They were provided with some funding from both federal and provi ncial gove rnme nts . They certai nly had ava iled themselves of resource material such as the reports that the honourable member refers to, and it surprises me not at all that some of the figures would, in fact, be complementary to the request that is before us: namely, the provision of additional waters for domestic and residential purposes.

Rafferty-Alameda Dam Project Renegotiation Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Deputy Speake r, my ques tion is for the Minis ter of Environment. For four years, we have been expressing concerns about the impact of the Rafferty-Alameda pr ojects in the pr ovince of Sas katchew an. Belatedly, this government started to agree with this but, alas, in words and not in deeds. The project is no w almost com ple te and our and environme ntalists' concerns are being proven correct. The fact is that the reservoir behi nd Rafferty is dry and Alameda is holding no water because of structural pr oblems.

For two consecutive years Saskatchewan has failed to meet the apportionment requirements for the state of North Dakota, and more water is evaporating behind Rafferty than is being caught in the dam. Madam Deputy Speaker, my question for the mini ste r is: Will the min ister now seek a renegotiation of the international agreement and finally protect Manitobans' water supply, given that the agreement does not come into force until the dams are com plete and the pr ovince of Saskatchewan is presently considering whether or not to complete them? Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I am a little surprised that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is now not going to support his colleagues in Saskatchewan and where they are headed with the Rafferty-Alameda projects. Madam Deputy Speaker, the member raises the same concerns that this government has been raising all along in accordance wi th the apportionment and how it needs to be dealt with so that Manitoba receives the required apportionments of water but not receiving them all within two weeks at the start of the season and have the Souris dry for the rest of the year.

A number of the issues that are raised as part of the proposed agr eemen t between Manitoba, Saskatchewan and in apportionment in the flows to North Dakota are raised in the response that the federal government brings to the Rafferty-Alameda report from the findings of the committee. We are continuing to force the federal government, the Saskatchewan government and the North Dakota government to work with us to make sure that those correct apportionments are applied. Min ister's Involvement Mr. Paul Edwards (St.

James): Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that on July 27, 1988, the Mini ster of Envir onment for this gov ernment indicated that the impact of the dams on the Alameda and the Rafferty will have significant good implications for Manitoba. We will have water on a more continuous basis. Madam Deputy Speaker, will this minister take a stand today and get involved in these negotiations so that we are a part of the process because it now appears clear and obvious to anyone that North Dakota's apportionment will not even be met, let alone anything left for the province of Manitoba? Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, unfortunately one of the problems that Saskatchewan has had for a number of years is a drought, and that undoubtedly will have some impact on the volumes. The apportionment of water that this province is entitled to, the basi s, is established through the Mem orandum of Unde rstan ding. It will be rei nforced by the response that the federal gov ernmen t is making in terms of requiring

3273 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 additional respon sibili ty on the part of the Saskatchewan authorities for the management of any structures upstream from us. We will make sur e that this provinc e receives its correct apportionment in regard to those structures. Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is just too little too late. The fact is that the former Minister of Environment- Madam Deputy Speak er: Order, please . Question, please. Mr.

Edwards: My final question for the Minister of Environment: Will the Minister of Environment imm ed iately spea k to his Sas katchewan counterpart to stop the pumping of saline ground water into the boundary reservoir to meet North Da kota's ap por tionm ent needs, which was supposed to be prohibited under this international agreeme nt, be caus e it causes severe environme ntal deterioration of the quality of the water? Will he take a stand now to stop that? Mr.

Cummings: Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not sup port any actions that will lead to the deterioration of that water; and, yes, we will be investigating his allegations. Western Premiers' Conference Agenda Mr. EliJah Harper (Rupertsland): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Premier. While it is known that Churchill has a $20- to $25-per-ton advantage for farmers in catchment areas in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, shipping two million tons through the port would save millions of dollars. As all members are aware, the federal government is currently studying the bayline in the port of Churchill.

The Minister of Transpor tati on (Mr. Driedge r) , hims elf, has expressed his concerns over the unn ecessary and threatening study. Has the Premier put the use of the port of Churchill on the agenda for the upcoming Western Premiers' Conference? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, the agenda for that conference is set primarily by the host province in consultation with other provinces.

That matter has, to my knowledge, come up in previous conferences, and we have certainly made our views known and urged the support-in fact, from 1988 onward, I requested each of the prairie provinces to give support to the port of Churchill, and I will certainly continue to do that at every available opportunity with my colleagues. Port of Churchill Grain Shi pments Mr. EliJah Harper (Rupertsland): I thank the Premier for that answer.

Since the Russian officials have notified the Premier that they have the capacity to pick up additional grain from Churchill, has he had any success in ensuring that the port of Churchill will get its shipment it badly needs, rather than seeing the port closed early and the grain shipped to Russia through Baie-Comeau as occurred last year? *

(1420) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, in my recent visit to Ottawa, I met with the charge d'affaires of the Russian Embassy to enlist their support in ensuring that additional grain be shipped through the port of Churchill this year. I also met with the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board for Grains and Oilseeds, the Honourable Charlie Mayer and impressed upon him our desire to have more grain shipped through Churchill this year. I shared with him correspondence that I had received from officials in Russia that I know has been communicated to the member for Churchill.

In addition to that, I have written directly to the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, and some meetings have taken place bet ween the Minister of Transportation and senior officials of the Wheat Board to further press them to ship additional wheat to ensure the viability of the port of Churchill this year. Promotion Mr. EliJah Harper (Rupertsland): Considering the cost advantages of the farmers and the port of Churchill to the Manitoba economy, has the Premier instructed his Economic Board of Cabinet to launch a major public initiative to prom ote the use of the port? Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have said publicly, we are not satisfied as the previous administration was to try and just utilize the port of Churchill for the shipment of grain. This administration has worked on a number of fronts: One, improving the opportunity for tourism use of Churchill and the railway line to Churchill; secondly, working with the federal government

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3274 towards a potential establishment of a national park at Churchill; thirdly, undertaking and meeting with many companies and interested officials about the reactivation of the rocket range at Churchill. Finally, of course, working with the Russian federation, and putting directly into the agreement that we signed with the Russian federation, the expanded use of the port of Churchill and additional exchange of pos sibl e alternativ e economic activities, if that would benefit Churchill.

So we have been working on four or five different fronts, rather than just the one narrow focus that the previous administration had. Foreign Domestic Workers' Program Min ister's Correspondence Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. Madam Dep uty Speaker, the federal Conservatives have made a decision on the foreign domestics program that will have a severe impact on domestics who are coming to Canada. A number of weeks ago, I had asked the minister to get across our message in regard to the need to reinstate the foreign domestics program as it was.

Unfortunately, that was not seen fit by her federal counterpart. I would ask the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, if she would table any correspondence that indicates that her government in fact did support our position for the retainment of the foreign domestics program. Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): I hav e ind icated on occasion after occasion when asked that question in the House, that our gove rnmen t supp orts domestic workers coming from all different countries to our province, and to our country, because we value the contribution that they do make to the work force of our province. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have communicated. I have met with the domestic workers associations and have indicated to them that we do not agree with or condone anything that might happen that might discriminate against any domestic workers who come from any country.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Time for Question Period has expired. Nonpolitical Statements Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I wonder, Madam Depu ty Speaker, if I migh t have leave for a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] I am pleased today to have this opportunity to invite all members of the House to join with me in celebrating Manitoba's 122nd birthday. The Province of Manitoba was created on May 12, 1870, when Royal Assent was given to The Manitoba Act. The actual proclamation was made on July 15 of the same year.

The passage of that act was Canada's recognition of the vast potential the western pra'1ries could offer a young country. It was the moment Manitoba became a partner in the building of one of the largest and greatest nations in the world. On our centennial in 1970, this Legislature recognized the importance of this date in our history and designa ted May 12 as Manitoba Day in perpetuity. Manitoba Day is a time to reflect on who we are, where we have come from, and what we have achieved. Manitoba Day is also a time to examine our present and anticipate the future.

Across this great province, Manitobans will be recognizing this sig nificant day in many ways. Earlier today on the Legislative Building grounds, we recognized the contribution of the RCMP to the development and history of Manitoba. A citizenship court took place in Room 200 of this Legislative Building this morning. It welcomed 36 new Canadians to life in Manitoba as Canadians. This evening, the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) will host the Prix Awards.

These awards recognize the leadership of individuals and groups who have enriched the lives of all Manitobans by their contributions in the areas of culture, heritage, recreation and multiculturalism. Today, it is especially important that we recognize Manitobans, for it is our combi ned strength, determination and hard work that has given us our greatest successes, our greatest achievements. The strength and incredible talent and ability of Manitobans have been felt in virtually every field and facet of life in our Manitoba communities and around the world.

It is this ability that has contributed to the success of Canada itself, and indeed despite the many difficult decisions Canadians face, Canada is still one of the most favoured nations in the world. We

3275 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 are indeed one of the most fortunate peoples in the world. We, in Manitoba, have often played a leading role in our country's largest challenges. For instance, it was Manitobans who put aside political differences and worked side by side to create the Manitoba Constitutional Task Force. The Manitoba task force has been used as a model for constitutional action across Canada. It began here in Manitoba. It is Manitobans who are calling on all Canadians to recognize this is not a time of ultimatums with our neighbours.

It is a time for working together, a time for nation building. From the time of Manitoba's original population, our aboriginals, we have always achieved through partnership, hard work and vision. Similarly the Metis, who are with us here today, have contributed to Manitoba. That indisputable fact has been recognized across Canada. In fact, in the House of Commons on March 10, 1992, a unanimous motion stated that, and I quote: This House recognize the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and his contribution to the development of Confederation.

We, in Manitoba, are proud of the Metis contribution to our province and acknowledge the role of Louis Riel. As well, it is my pleasure to announce that I will be bringing forward a resolution to this Assembly which will recognize the significant role of the Metis people in the development of our province and the historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba. I will look forward to the support of all members of this House. So it has been, throughout our history, each of our many peoples have contributed, each has added to our wealth of human potential and achievement, our multicultural diversity.

Manitobans living, working and achieving together, side by side, has always been an intrinsic part of our identity. We are many cultures and heritages with a wide variety of languages and customs, but we are all proud to be Manitobans. *

(1430) We have come to recognize this tremendous cultural diversity, our multicultural mosaic, as a source of that pride. It is indeed an integral and cherished element of Manitoba's historical legacy. It is also the source from which we will continue to build a strong Manitoba, a Manitoba rich in new potential and achievement, a Manitoba that will help to build a renewed Canada. In the mo nths ahead, the strength of our commitment will be tested. We will have some difficult choices to make, but if we make the right choices together, I believe our country will be immeasurably stronger.

Renewed confidence from a renewed union could also add much to the momentum for economic recovery. It is a prospect that I would very much like to see in Canada's 125th year. Canadians deserve it, and we owe it to ourselves and to our children to make certain it happens. I know that the ability and strength of Man itobans will lead the way in Manitoba, in Canada and in the world. Thank you. Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like leave for a nonpolitical statement. [Agreed] I too want to rise on the occasion of our birthday, our Ma nitoba Day, 122 year s si nce the establishment of Manitoba as a province, in 1870, on May 12. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very important day. I am pleased that we began in 1970 to celebrate the heritage and history and the people of our great province of Manitoba. It is a great holiday for all of us in terms of reme mbering and commemorating the tremendous contributions that have been made by numbers of peoples in our great province of Manitoba.

The Prem ier (Mr. Filmon) me ntioned the Manitoba task force. I think, more than anything else in the Manitoba task force deliberations, we heard the voice of the people and the vision of Manitobans from all walks of life and all regions of our province coming forward with a strong vision of our heritage and a strong vision of our province in a strong and united Canada. There are some very important messages that we should remember today in this very important period of time in our country.

Manitobans from all walks of life and in every region of this province believe that we are Canadians first, and that Canada and a pledge to our country is the overriding priority of people living, working and raising families in our province. They wanted a national country, a strong Canadian government with the ability to redistribute wealth to other regions of the country, and the ability to maintain opportunities for all peoples in our

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3276 country. Just like our traditions in the '30s, '40s, '50s and later on, people in Manit oba want to maintain a strong Canadian government on behalf of all Manitobans as their No. 1 priority at this very im portant ju ncture in our co nstitu tional deliberations. Manitobans also wanted characteristics of our country that truly reflected the development and her itage .of our province. They wanted the aboriginal peoples to be described as the original characteristic of our country.

Then they wanted to describe the characteristics of the French and English, and, of course, the multicultural dynamics that go through our history and through our heritage were also to be described in the characteristics of Canada. That, of course, was a unique contribution from Manitobans in the Meech Lake deliberations and again in the deliberations that are taking place in our country today. I would remind all of us that too was a very major priority of Manitobans in descri bing our total characteristics.

That leads us, of course, to the Metis people and the tremendous contributions of the Metis people in establishing and settling our province. Louis Riel did set up the first provisional government in this province on May 12 in 1870. It is important to remember today that we often did not pay tribute and remember the real contributions of Riel to this province. I was raised in Manitoba with the school here. I remember taking history in Grade 5, I think in Grade 8, and again in Grade 11 where I was taught a different history than I know today, about the contributions of Louis Riel.

I suggest many members of this Legislature that took history in Manitoba were taught a different version, to the version we know today, of the contributions of the Metis people in establishing the province of Manitoba. I think it is very important we not only work together to pass the resolution, and we commit ourselves to passing the resolution that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will be forwarding in the Chamber today, but we also work diligently to correct and revise the history which I understand has taken place.

But we must be vigilant to show the true history in our province when we teach history to our children and to our students. Madam Deputy Speaker, the whole issue of Riel's contributions and his provisional government's contributions, perhaps we should also, besides passing resolutions in this Chamber, recognize the contributions of the Riel provisional government with some kind of symbolic display in the halls of this Legislature of the first provisional government in Manitoba. We have lots of celebrations of our Manitoba heritage.

But I believe that also the Riel heritage and the Riel contributions should be displayed in a prominent place in this Manitoba Legislature. Madam Deputy Speaker, we, indeed, will support the resolution of the Premier (Mr. Almon). We will work to celebrate all the heritages, all the great heritages, of our province. We will work in a co-operative way with the government on the priorities that Manitobans established in their presentations to us as we proceed in this very, very crucial period of time in our country.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to conclude with the words stated in Parliament in 1870 in piloting through The Manitoba Act. George Etienne Cartier stated, and I would repeat today in the House: May the new province of Manitoba always speak to the northwest the language of reason, truth and justice. In commemorating the great contributions of Riel and the heritage of our province and our 122 years of history, we pledge ourselves, again, to reason, truth and justice, the hallmark of Manitoba. Thank you very much. Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Could I have leave for a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] Madam Deputy Speaker, well, today is a birthday, 122 years since Manitoba became a province. When we speak of birthdays of the country, we tend to think of Fathers of Confederation. I remember last year when Joey Smal lwood died in Newfoundland, and they said the last living Father of Confederation has died. But somehow or other, when we speak of Manitoba, all too infrequently do we speak of Louis Riel as a Father of Confederation, and yet that is exactly what he was.

If it had not been for Louis Riel and his group of trusty and stalwart Metis, Manitoba would not have been a province in 1870. As it was, the history textbooks always refer to it as the "postage stamp province" because in 1870, that is all it was, just a little postage stamp in the overall part that we know of today as Manitoba, that

3277 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 con tinued, of cou rse , to be the Northwes t Territories. What of Louis Riel's ancestors in the province of Manitoba? Have they been given the justice and the equality of opportunity of those who came later, sometimes much later? I would suggest to you that they have not. We are, in our negotiations right now, in the process of the Constitution, trying to right some of those wrongs with respect not only to the aboriginal people but to the Metis people.

I was pleased that the meetings and the deliberations yesterday in Vancouver seem to have led to some recognition of the rights of, and therefore our responsibilities to, the Metis people. Today I went to a citizenship court ceremony, as did the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), and the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) who sponsored the event here in the Legislative Assembly. I think, Judge McDonald said that they represented 22 countries. Well, that is Manitoba.

The factthat you can have a citizenship ceremony and you can ask to take their Oaths of Allegiance to Canada and they stand there-and there were some who obviously had come from the Orient, there were some who had come from Africa, there were some who had come from Europe, there were some who had come from South America, there was even one who had come from the United States, to settle in this land where we have agreed among all of us that we shall live in justice and harmony with one another. But we must recall on each and every birthday that some of us are more equal than others.

Some of us have the right to stand in this Chamber and to speak freely. Others, particularly those who are newer immigrants, still do not feel they have that freedom. They do, but they do not always believe they do. It sometimes takes a generation before they have the confidence of knowing that, yes, they can speak freely in our nation without persecution. There are those who have lived in this land the longest who are persecuted only because of the colour of their hair, the shape of their eyes, their skin tone.

Until we can celebrate a birthday in which none of that occurs, in which each and every Manitoban has equality of opportunity, then we must commit ourselves on each and every birthday to make sure that the next birthday, it is a little bit better, until the time comes when each one of us feels a true equality with our brothers and sisters . •

(1440) Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Could I have leave for a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] Madame Ia vice-presi dente, permettez-moi de faire mon discours en frangais encore une fois, pui sque Louis Riel lui-meme etait un grand defenseur de Ia langue franc;aise et Ia culture franc;aise lors de 1870. II me fait plaisir aujourd'hui d'adresser Ia parole a cette aug usta assemb lee afin de celebrer et perpetuer le souvenir de notre riche patrimoine. Cette journee du 12 mai 1992 marque Ia Fete du Manitoba et le 122e anniversaire de notre belle province du Manitoba.

Tout le monde reconn ait le role unique et historique que Louis Riel a eu dans Ia creation du Manitoba et le developpement de Ia confederation canadienne. Sous le le adersh ip de Louis Riel, le gouv erne ment provisoire des Territoires du Nord-Ouest adopta en 1869 une liste de droits protegeant tous les gens etablis et vivant dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest. La liste des droits adoptee par le gouv ernemen t provisoire fut acceptee et adoptee par le Parlement canadien. Le 12 mai 1870, 1e Parlement canadien passa I'Acte du Manitoba et c'est en consequence directe de I' adoption de Ia liste des droits.

Le 15 juillet 1870, le Manitoba fut Ia premiere provi nce creee dans I' Ouest canadien et le Manitoba fut Ia cinquieme province a se joindre a Ia confederation canadienne. Le transfert des Territoires du Nord-Ouest au Canada et Ia creation de Ia province du Manitoba furent le resultat direct de !'adoption de Ia liste des droits du gouvernement provisoire de Louis Riel pour les peuples des Territoires du Nord-Ouest par le Parlement canadien.

Le nom Manitoba fut soumis par Louis Riel; ce nom est d'exp ression autochtone et signifie "I'Esprit qui parle." Eh bien oui, !'esprit de Louis Riel nous parle en ce jour du Manitoba et c'est pour ces maintes raisons qu'il est plus que dans l'ordre et justifie, que Ia province du Manitoba reconnaisse officiellement Louis David Riel com me le fondateur de Ia province du Manitoba.

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3278 Ceci, Madame Ia vice-presidente, est un souhait personnel qui m'est tres cher et que j'aimerais voir se realiser sous peu . Merci. [Translation) Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me once again to make my speech in French, since Louis Riel himself was a great defender of the French language and French culture around the time of 1870. It gives me pleasure today to address this august Assembly in order to celebrate and perpetuate the memory of our rich heritage. This day, May 12, 1992, marks Manitoba Day and the 122nd birthday of our beautiful province, Manitoba.

Everyone recognizes the unique and historic role that Louis Riel had in the creation of Manitoba and the development of the Canadian Confederation. Under Louis Riel's leadership, the provisional government of the Northwest Territories adopted, in 1869, a list of rights protecting all persons settled and living in the Northwest Territories. The list of rights adopted by the provisional government was accepted and adopted by the Canadian Parliament on May 12, 1870. The Canadian Parliament passed The Manitoba Act and this was a direct consequence of the adoption of the list of rights.

On July 15, 1870, Manitoba was the first province created in the Canadian West, and Manitoba was the fifth pro vince to join the Canadian Confederati on. The transfer of the Northwest Territories to Canada and the creation of the Province of Manitoba were the direct result of the adoption of the list of rights of Louis Riel's provisional government for the peoples of the Northwest Territories by the Canadian Parliament. The name, Manitoba, was put forward by Louis Riel.

This name is an abor igina l expression meaning "the Spirit who speaks." Well, indeed the spirit of Louis Riel does speak to us on this Manitoba Day, and it is for these many reasons that it is more than in order and justified that the province of Manitoba officially recognize Louis David Riel as the founder of the Province of Manitoba. This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a personal wish which is very dear to me and which I would like to see realized before long. Thank you. Mr.

Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased also to say a few words on this special occasion in which we are celebrating the birthday of Manitoba. But I would like to point out on this day that we are recognizing, as part of the nation-building process that took place many years ago, the contribution that Louis Riel made to this province.

We must not forget the original people, the First Nations of this country, because oftentimes, we talk about the Fathers of Confederation who met in Ch arlo ttetown and other people lik e Joey Smallwood. The recognition that we have always wanted as aboriginal people is the recognition for the contributions that we have made in this country. As a matter of fact, why can we not consider even our forefathers, our forefathers who signed the treaties with the governme nts, with the settler people who came to this country, why can they not be considered and recognized as nation builders?

It was these people who signed the treaties that made room for newcomers to this country. It was based on a vision of equality, a vision of coexistence, a vision of co-operation and respect. Our forefathers signed these treaties so that other people could come to this country. Why can they not be recognized also for their contributions, even recognized maybe as part of the Fathers of Confederation, not necessarily in the sense of the structures that were incorporated and accepted at the meeting in Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island?

But that recognition has been denied for centuries, the kind of contributions that our ancestors have made to this country. I would like to point that out. It seems that someho w the development of this country, the development of civilization, only started 500 years ago. But we have been here for thousands and thousands of years. As aboriginal people, we deserve that recognition. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Canadian Constitution failed was because of that lack of recognition. As my Leader (Mr.

Doer) quoted Georges Etienne Cartier, he quoted him saying, he made the new province of Manitoba, how we speak to the Northwest, the language of reason, truth and justice, that this country was not necessarily built upon good will, that it was based upon exploitation, racism and assimilation degradation. That is the

3279 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 12 , 19 92 reason why this country failed; it is because of that; it was not based upon good will. It was the aboriginal people, the First Nations in this country, who extended the hand to the rest of the world so that other people would enjoy the resources and benefits of this rich land that we have today. We have not been recognized for the tremendous contributions the aboriginal people have made. Indeed, the Canadian Constitution only recognizes the French and the English in this country. It does not tell the truth.

The Constitution does not tell the truth about this country, and it has to be rectified. That is the reason that I keep saying that based upon these principles, the foundation of this country will not stand, because, as a matter of fact, the foundation was built upon sand. It must be based upon truth and reality, the true foundations of this country. Today, I recognize the contributions of many other people, including Louis Riel and many other leaders who have provided the development of Manitoba. Indeed, we are recognizing that today.

But I thought today that I would make that point that because of the constitutional discussions that we are having today across the country that the truth should be spoken and the recognition of the aboriginal people should be contained in the Canadian Constitution, the supreme law of this land. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. *** Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): May I have leave for a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and to congratulate a young gentleman in my riding on his receipt of a national award in striving for excellence.

Patrice Dupuis won one of the regional awards from the Youth Science Founda tion. The foundation honours students who promote science through art. One national and five regional awards are distributed annually, selected from the hundreds of submi ssions across the country. Patrice's subm ission was a technical illustration of the damage incurred in the lungs as a result of smoking. Produced by computer and by hand, the illustration sends a clear message as to the effects of smoking on the lungs and the benefits of not smoking.

Patrice Dupuis' receipt of this award is a first for Ma ni toba and represen ts a tr em endous accomplishment. Patrice is currently enrolled in the co-op program at the Sturgeon Creek Regional Secondary School, working with Sunwest Graphics of Winnipeg. After the completion of the program in June, Patrice has an excellent opportunity of being hired full time by Sunwest Graphics due to his experience with the company under the co-op program. Mr.

Gordon Grist, an advertising art teacher at the Sturgeon Creek Regional Secondary School, submitted Patrice Dupuis' work and those of other students for judging by the foundation. *

(1450) Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask that all members of the Legislative Assembly join with me in congratulating Patrice Dupuis on the receipt of this award and wish him luck in this future endeavours. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. *** Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable mem ber for Selkir k have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed) Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to add my comments to those made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) and others, and the member for St.

Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), on this very special day for Manitoba. As a Metis member of this Legislature, again, I would just like to add my comments to those of the other members. My ancestors arrived in this province in the early 1800s, of the last century, and they married native women. I am a proud product of that unique blend of those two wonderful and distinct cultures. As was stated before, Louis Riel, of course, was the founder of Manitoba, and I believe and others believe that he also the father of Confederation.

I would like to pay a contribution to those of the Metis Federation and the Metis movement in this province, who are with us today in the gallery, who worked hard to get Riel recognized in Canada by the Canadian government and now by the provincial government. Let us hope that it does not take 122 years in the future before they get their rightful place in this country. Thank you very much. Committee Change Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3280 Stu rgeon Creek (Mr. McA lpine), tha t the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson). [Agreed) ORDE RS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam De puty Speaker, I mo ve , seconded by the Min ister of High ways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Madam Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Health ; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training. *

(1520) COMMITTEE OF SU PPLY (Concurrent Sections) HEALTH Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this

section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Health. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 1.(

a) Minister's Salary on page 82 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I have been watching very carefully the events, not only of the review of the Estim ates of the Department of Health over several hours now, although I certainly have not been in attendance for all of them, very few of them as a matter of fact, but from a distance I have been watching, and I have been listening very carefully to questions put by members of the opposition, particularly members of the NDP, over the course of many Question Periods now, particularly the member for St. Johns (Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis) and at times by her Leader. I guess, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, some would say that health is politics and politics is health, and yet, I think, the intentions of all people in the Chamber are such that they want to see maintained the health care system we have now in Canada. I honestly do not believe that there is not one person who sits in that House whose intentions are other than wanting to see maintained the system that we have. Of course, we present our views in different ways.

Some do it by way of resolution; some do it with passion with respect to their questions and their answers; some do it by bringing specific exam ples to the Ho use and to the Legislature as to individuals who are either receiving or not receiving care in a fashion in keeping with what we would expect. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I, for one, in no way want to denigrate anybody's viewpoint with respect to health and the manner in which they hold it in high value, and indeed the principles that surround our system of medicare within in our country.

I am somewhat disturbed by activities, particularly of the NDP, over the course of the last several weeks. I want to tell you why. I can remember when I was in opposition, and I would listen carefully to our Health critics at the time, and I started when I came in, in 1981. The Health critic for our party at the time was Bud Sherman. I can remember sitting across from him in our bay of offices. Those of you who knew Bud Sherman, those of you who did not know him, at least, would know that he put an awful lot of time and effort into preparing his comments, hand-writ ten, always hand-writte n.

Of course, he took great fancy-1 do not know if it was because of his journalistic background-he took great care in preparing his text and the way he worded himself in preparation for statements or criticisms, mostly constructive by the way, on health care. I can remember, of course, when he and Larry Desjardins used to debate health care for hours upon hours. Those of us, of course, expecting more exciting debate, either at that time headed by the present Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) or other individuals in the House, when we would listen to what we called the Bud and Larry show. it became extremely boring, but what you did if you forced yourself to sit in on that discussion you would see a high level of debate about where health care was going. The concerns at that time were not an awful

3281 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 lot different, as I recall. They were not an awful lot different than you hear some of the concerns being presented today. I can also remember when the present Minister of Health, the member for Pembina, was also then given the responsibility of being the Health critic when we were in opposition, I believe, for three years, four years, '84 to '88, '85 to '88. Also, when he was on a fast learning curve with respect to health care issues, again, using maybe some of the same elements and criticisms used by the member for St. Johns (Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis), because, of course, you always, when you are sitting on the side of opposition, have incredible opportunity to be in a win-win situation. Nevertheless I can still remember the former Minister of Health, Mr. Desjardins, pleading with the opposition of the day-which we were, of course, we were the opposition of the day-to try and look at health from a very balanced position, trying to take into account the incredible potential growth.

I would say, although at times there were outbreaks and the Minister of Health and the former NDP government, of course, would lash out-not so many times at the present minister, but certainly at those of us who would tend to come into that forum-and who, on the pretext of being concerned about health, but playing politics, would lash out in a moment of fury or anger, of course, would tell us that if we did not try to bring some reason to where health care was going, that ultimately we would lose it. Then we went into government, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, after the '88 election.

I can also recall probably the first close opportunity that I had in becoming daily associated with- well, I should not say daily-becom ing very closely associated with the broader political context of health care funding. Now, it happened on a daily basis, of course, at Treasury Board. More importantly than that, one of the first national conferences or meetings of ministers that I attended was in concert with the present Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), when we went to a meeting in Moncton, New Brunswick. I believe that was in early 1989, February '89.

It was a joint meeting of Ministers of Health and Finance, because there was a growing call. I do not know where the initiative came from that particular meeting. I think it came out of Health. It came out of Health ministers in Saskatoon, realizing that if this whole agenda of health care was not taken out of what I would consider a relatively narrow area of concern, that meaning the Ministers of Health, and if it was not shared with other powers around Executive Council tables, then indeed it might very well flounder. Now, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I can tell you, it is one of the great learning experiences that I had. I do not know whether members opposite who had been part of their Executive Council or not or had been part of the caucus had realized it. I hope that our members of our caucus realize it, and no doubt they have over a period of time. Anybody who has been on Executive Council as a minister would know that you soon realized that Health is the largest department going, the largest call on taxation dollars, and in many respects by far the most se nsitiv e , emo tional area that we have in governme nt-health care.

When it comes to Executive Council, Treasury Board and cabinet and how it is dealt with, that in some respects even in spite of all of the importance that it has within the public mind set, within the important considerations of the day, that within decision-making areas it does not maybe warrant-! will not say the attention, because the attention is great-but the analytical background that other departments do. You may say, well, why is that? Is that the fault of the present minister? I am here to say absolutely not. The memb er for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) knows of what I speak.

Is it the fault of the Premier (Mr. Filmon)? It certainly is not. Why is it that it happens to be that way? Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, sitting back and analyzing it like I have for a period of time, I think it tends to be the way it is because of the major delegations that have taken place over a period of time. *

(1530) Massive amounts of money have been delegated. Policy decisions in some respects have been delegated, and through it all, through this process that has evolved over a period of time, in spite of the best efforts I know of our Minister of Health, and I dare say his predecessor, members of Executive Council at times do not have the analytical background with which to make joint decisions with respect to health care. Here it was a case- well, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) says it talks about

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3282 filibustering, but this is crucial. This is an extremely crucial decision as to where health care is going. The member can call it filibustering all he wants, and that is fine, because it is your right to call it anything you want, but the reality is 50-some hours have been spent on Health. I believe other members of the Executive Council have, and certainly the Minister of Finance has, I think, some important statements to make for the record, because we are all in this together. I think it is unfair for the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) to leave the impression, at least with some, that he has to carry this responsibility by himself. Anyway, I digressed for a second. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what happened is that Ministers of Health from across Canada realized that they had to share this lack of knowledge that some of their colleagues had in government with, indeed, a growing or broader cross-section of Executive Council, so they reached out to Ministers of Finance. In February 1989, in attendance with the Minister of Health, I was in Moncton, New Brunswick.

I will never forget the meeting, because it was the first occasion in which I had an opportunity to meet Premier McKenna. He told us, bringing in the greetings, how important it was at that time that we take this meeting very seriously. What I quickly realized once we got into that meeting was that some of us-and maybe it was because we came as new ministers, the Minister of Health and myself-came there with sort of an apolitical bent, to use the word. We were not alone, because we were also there with a relatively new government from New Brunswick.

Finance Minister Maher and their Minister of Health, I cannot recall his name presently- An Honourable Member: Frenette. Mr. Manness: Frenette, that is right, from a Liberal administration. We were actually singing from the same hymn book. That was, look it, let us set aside all the politics on this issue; it is too important. Let us set aside all of the politics. [interjection] Well, of course, when we are under attack, we all do what we have to do. We all have to do what we have to do.

At this meeting, at least there was a willingness from two political parties, two political governments representing two political parties, to say: Okay, let us see what we can do on the positive side. What is it we can do as 1 0 governments to try and hold back the costs associated with driving health care expenditures? What can we do within reform? Most of the discussion was led by the Ministers of Health, and the Ministers of Finance were trying to come to grips as to what we could do in support.

It became painstakingly obvious about two hours into the meeting that the older governments of all political stripes, all three political stripes, their sole purpose in attendance at that meeting was to hit the federal government for more money. Simply to ask for more. That was the solution by the vast majority of people there. Again, of all political stripes, the solution, just get more money from the federal government. Sorry [interjection] No, the member says there was not a provincial NDP administration, but there was Socred , there was terri torial representation.

The request was, well, this is an easy solution. I mean, we have been doing it now for 15 years; let us go after asking the federal government for more. Now I am going to say something for the record which is going to criticized. I, as the Minister of Finance, from this new fledgling government in minority said: Hold it. That is fine, but let us-surely there must be something more than that. If the federal government is going to take us seriously, they are going to-1 mean, understanding human nature, you are going to want to at least appear to come in in a positive way.

I could not believe the looks of consternation that occurred in that room. How dare anybody suggest for a moment that maybe we could come together and try and find solutions amongst ourselves. Anyway, some of the tone of the letter was changed as a result of certain pleading and some of the communiques; the emphasis of the communique was changed. That was my first introduction to the dynamics, political dynamism around health care reform. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, since that point in time, I made it as one of my major thrusts into every Ministers of Finance's meeting that I have attended to not only address the question on equalization, because equalization is a critically important issue to Manitoba. I found it interesting today, coming from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), when he asked the question as to what our Premier (Mr. Filmon) was doing with respect to a unified western voice

3283 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 towards economic devel opm ent.

I found that qu estion strange because where we hav e said-when we have gone to meetings of First Ministers and western Ministers of Finance, and we have called about breaking down borders to opportunities of trade, and we have talked about what we could do on an integrated basis to try and reduce costs and overlap and duplication whether it is in education, whether it is training, anything we could do to try and reduce costs, throughout it all, we always asked the question, are Alberta and British Columbia pr epared to tal k about equalization, bearing in mind that Saskatchewan and Manitoba given the circumstances today would not be in a position to provide the same level of services that these other provinces, these "have" provinces do?

Would they always be prepared to talk about equalization flowing through a strong, central government in Ottawa so that we, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and other provinces, would have an opportunity to provide in the area of health care and post-secondary education the services that people wanted? Always, we are given the assurances from Socred governments in B.C. and a Progressive Conservative government in Alberta that they would maintain and want to see enshrined even more strongly, fully equalized tax points. I only say that, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, because in the last three years when I have been in all of these Ministers of Finance meetings that not only have we supported equalization, because that was the No. 1 issue on the agenda, butthe second issue, believe it or not, was health. Not specifically health, but cost-driving systems in all other areas of government. When you talk about the cost- drivers, you are obviously talking about health. So much so that after many years we finally got the federal government to acknowledge that they would buy into co-ordinating a study on the cost-d rivers in all areas of government.

Because, quite honestly, we know that if we did not come to grips with what was happening in not only health but in other areas, if we did not remove overlap and duplication, ultimately the health care system we have today would no longer exist. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I feel it is important to point this out to you, to let members of the opposition particularly know that the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) does not stand alone on this issue, that the Minister of Health has the support certainly of the Minister of Finance and other members of the Executive Council and, indeed, all members of the government caucus. Because there is no more time. This issue cannot be pushed off any longer.

To make my point, members opposite, if they want to be fair and look at the budgets in all of the other provinces, if they want to see the increased resources provided to health care regardless of who is in government, they will know fully well that restraint-and I do not care whether you want to use the buzzwords of 1 0 years ago, whether they are acute, protracted, you can use any adjectives you want to describe it-it is here. *

(1540) So much so that when one-1 finally had the Estimates break-out for Saskatchewan today. I am not going to engage in a debate as to the horror story that the government there found with respect to the finances, because I think that would be fruitless. But when a government in Saskatchewan takes out of the base $53 million, print over print, an NDP government, when I would say their No. 1 priority is no different than ours, no different than the NDP in Manitoba or the Liberals would they be in power.

Health, when you strip out $50 million-plus, strip out out of the base, it tells you the seriousness of the situation. The members opposite can try and couch it in the terms that this government of Manitoba is purely trying to address it as a bottom-line issue, that really all we are concerned about is the bottom line. I can tell you, and if you want to read the editorials who said that ultimately philosophy, ideology has nothing to do with it, bottom lines ultimately are driven, they are imposed upon you. So here we are in Manitoba. The members of the opposition have been calling for our reform package.

First of all, they chastise the minister for not doing it quickly enough; then in other cases when he has made announcements in the past, they have chastised him for not consulting them. I have to be very careful when I say opposition, because there has been a difference in the viewpoints of opposition. I have to be very careful. I do not want to, certainly, get the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) into trouble. He is trying to play, in my view, smart politics. An Honourable Member: He is doing a good job, too.

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3284 Mr. Manness: Yes, he is, and he is going to get his credit, and his credit is coming, and it does not need to come from me, because coming from me is no tribute. It is more important as to his constituents, not only his constituents who vote for him but obviously the people in the health care fraternity, who obviously he is close to.

There is an obvious difference between political parties, because you have the Liberals, quite frankly, who I know the NDP are going to try and damage because of their view, and this is not siding with government now, and I never ever want to say that to the member for The Maples. He is not trying to side with government. What he cares about is the maintenance of the health care system, and we understand that.

We know that there are going to be days coming, and they may be around the corner, very quickly, where he will disagree violently with ultimately what is released, and certainly with the government and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), let alone the Minister of Health, and that is fair. But today is not the day to run against the governme nt-! do not care what gov ernment it is- pur ely on Healt h, because the reality is, governments are not going to be able to deliver the system that is in place today. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, when the Minister of Finance from Saskatchewan says, and I quote: I think the imperative right now is for Saskatchewan to send a signal to the international money markets that it is going to bring this deficit under control, said Dennis Kendel, Registrar of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons in Saskatoon. Some would say that oil and water do not mix, and they do not, but I am here to tell you money and health care mix.

They mix like any soluble in water, because you cannot have one without the other, so when they talk about reform in Saskatchewan, some change has already begun. Mr. Tchorzewski said two hospitals in Prince Albert have agreed to unite under a single administrative board. Similar moves in other centres. Saskatchewan has 134 hospitals, are expected to follow, including a reassessment of the way health care is provided to people in rural areas. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, that is not an issue today, but the reality is I do not imagine there are an awful lot of politics to the NDP government in Saskatchewan having to resort to a move, whether it is voluntary within the city of Prince Albert or whether it has been pushed along a little bit by the government, I do not know.

I am here to tell you that the pressure that we are putting on the Minister of Health, those of us in Treasury Board, is extreme, and he is going to be asked to review all elements of reform that take place elsewhere, and he is going to be asked to share with mem bers of Treasury Board and Executive Council what is happening elsewhere, and to that end I am telling you that there is another meeting of Ministers of Health and Finance planned in June.

Ministers of Finance everywhere will be pushing their Ministers of Health to be involved in that process of sharing and to finding ways of rem ovi ng overlap and dup licatio n. Reform , however defined, will be the leading issue of the day in every province. However, what we have going for us in this province is we have a Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) who is reform minded and who also under stands not only the system- which he understands so well-but understands exactly what will happen if we do not come to grips with this question.

That is why this Minister of Health is on the Economic Development Board of cabinet, because he fully understands how the two come together. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have too many more remarks to make, and I know the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is overjoyed to hear that statement, but the reality is these remarks had to be put onto the record, because I think it is crucial. Well, there is no better time than Estimates. This is the Minister's Salary. This is opening free-ranging philosophical debate. It is the best time going for this type of discussion.

So I say in closing that there is not a Minister of Finance across Canada-as a matter of fact, I am almost tempted to ask the Premier to come in here, to enter this room and share with members of the House some of the commentary that occurred at the last First Ministers' Conference by First Ministers coming from the provinces and the territories. He probably would not do so in fairness to the system which says that we treat things in confidence.

I am here to tell you that there was not one political party, a spokesman which did not call out how we had to work together, how we had to try and set aside the politics with respect to this issue so we can maintain medicare. Furthermore, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me say this, that I have been critical of the federal

3285 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 government in the past. Some have accused me of not going after Manitoba's share of the national wealth with the same enthusiasm maybe as others, but I still believe that the Canadian government when they go for tax money they go to Canadians for tax mo ney and those Canadians are Manitobans. We get 4 percent, we have 4 percent of the population. Beyond that, I guess I am highly critical of the federal government in one respect, in this whole area of reform in the area of health care.

I think they have just too simply, so simply walked away and said to the provinces, look, under the Constitution it is your power, you deal with it, you take the lead. I say, if you are a federal government, you have a responsibility to share the leadership if indeed this is an important program to you. I have said that over and over again to Ministers of Finance. My time is up, maybe I will have an opportunity to come back a little later on. Thank you. Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): I want to take this opportunity as we were discussing in the late hours of last night.

We have gone through some of the issues the Minister of Finance has raised. I wanted to go back on some of the issues which are very important from a realistic point of view from our caucus. I want to tell the individuals who are going to read this Hansard that if anybody thinks that we are not smart, we are not intelligent, we are not caring, they are fooling themselves. I think the problem is that people are feeling insecure because they think and they believe-and it is true-that the health care reform is going to be successful.

That is the fear in the political mind of certain individuals and certain interested groups because they are going to lose their power. The power struggle is going to end when the reform is going to come. I think that is the issue here. It is not what Mr. Orchard is going to do, or Mr. Filmon is going to do, or Mrs. Carstairs is going to do, or Mr. Doer is going to do. The question is the politicians are going to lose the power struggle in this issue. *

(1550) This is disappearing at a rate faster than we know today. Even while we are discussing this issue, every province is doing it already, and some are afraid and some are simply watching. Some are more timid, they are going to run away from the re spons ibi lity . Running away from the responsibility, not on the basis of their harming gener ations to com e, they are simply being dishonest to themselves-wake up in the morning and they go and just one day is gone and the next day is gone. The issue as I have persistently said for four years, it is not what this Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) is going to do that is going to benefit you today, it is going to benefit the next government and possibly in 1 0 years time. He is cleaning the mess of somebody else which was left uncleaned five or ten years ago, whether it was a Tory government, or a Liberal government, or an NDP government. The issue is that when the Canada Health Act was brought in in 1966 it was one of the most beautiful things in the whole world, but they failed to recognize what was going to happen in the future.

It took them-how many?-1 8 years to again reaffirm it because they were afraid, but they simply reaffirmed the principles but without realizing what was happening and left the system open-ended with no control attached, and left the hopes to the people that everything is going to be just fine and will continue to be. That is not true. If anyone would read the Hansard between 1980 and '90, the question I have asked the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) more than any Health critic has ever done and probably will-but then we realized the issues. Everyone knows it. The Minister of Health knows the problem.

We know the problem. We have to come to an agreement in terms of how to reform the system. The system can only be reformed if there is a political will, and the political will only comes from individuals who are credible, who have experience and who have courage and conviction. That is why we said that we are not going to vote on these silly things-t raditionally political things which have no real meaning to the taxpayer on the street. They want to see the reform, and they want to look at the whole picture. We do not want to say that everything is just rotten, which it is not.

We may not agree with the minister in many areas, but we want to have a good look at the system before we will say, yes, or no, or maybe. That is why none of our caucus members on the health care issue has come here and spoken in that way, because we have made the decision. It is a risky decision, but conscious and very, very smart for the taxpayers, and people will appreciate it. I do not care how the mailing is going to go into my riding or the memb er for In kster's (Mr. Lamoureux) riding or somewhere else, because

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3286 there are many individuals who will throw that mailing out once they know what is happening in this House. That is why we had a vote yesterday, and that vote was not reported because the media knows what is happening here. I mean, they know it, how the reform is taking place. Just to frame individuals and say that more than 68 percent of Manitobans who voted for the two political parties, they are wrong?

If you want to have a look at it from that point of view, between us and the NDP there is a difference of 2,1 00 votes, and that does not make them any more credible than all of us. The issue here is that all of us have to work together to have a good look at the system. That is why when we said that no special interest group, whether it is the physicians or nurses or somebody else, should have a final say. We have a basis to say that because it has happened. It is very good for the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). He will be very popular. He will tell them, you solve your problem and I will watch from the side.

I will be referee. That is a very easy way, and four years are going to be gone and he could have easily done that. He does not have to go through this. I am sure there are not many ministers who are knocking at Mr. Filmon's door who want to be a Health minister- they are not. The question here is simply whether the government is serious. All the signs we have seen so far are positive in terms of seriousness. Whether the outcome is going to be achieved in a positive way remains to be seen and public opinion will judge that, but not 56 of us. Some of them have no knowledge of the health care system.

It takes years and years of experience and knowledge and learning and everything. Even sitting here more than 280 hours we are not even close to what we should know, but we are learning. But if you are not learning from what you do not know then you are a pretty dishonest person. That is why I think people in this province are not calling radio stations and complaining about us. They are not, so there is something that is being done which is right. We are not receiving calls; we are receiving more positive ideas. People are telling us how they would do it.

That is why I dare to challenge any member in this House to put those comments on the record. That is why we have brought Bill 51 to give an opportunity to all of us to give our views as to how we see our health car e syste m. So far, unfortunately, the NDP has not even once, I stand to be corrected, have not spoken on that bill even. That shows the seriousness of the matter. I mean, the political structure is there, all the phenomena is set up, the communication is there to hurt us, but they are not hurting us individually, they are hurting themselves. I want the member for St.

Johns to realize, because she has a good chance to be Minister of Health and if she wants to do good for Manitoba, then she should learn and 1 think the time is to look at the package and then make your judgment call based on the facts and scientific evidence, not based on the political colours. I will be very interested to see whenever the package comes how each and every party is going to react. I think then the real debate is going to start because this year when we started the Health Services Commission I asked the Minister of Health, I said, what do you want me to debate in this one?

These numbers are not real. If these are real, then you do not have reform and if you have reform then why are you debating this? Why do we not come back in two to three weeks' time and debate the whole thing? *

(1600) Unfortunately, we did not have the package in front of us. Once we have the package then we will see how each and every caucus member, even the government members may have difficulty with some of the issues but I think it is worth talking and discussing, bringing the issues out. Can you tell me that the Premier of Newfoundland is not smart? Can you tell me the Premier of New Brunswick is not intelligent? Can you tell me that Bob Rae, the saviour of the socialist party, is not smart? Can you tell me Mr. Filmon is not smart? Can you tell me Mr. Roy Romanow is not smart?

Very credible individuals who are giving their time, but they see the truth and I think truth is that the system has to change, whether we like it or not. I think that is why it is so important, somebody can say that we are wasting time, this is not wastage of time, this is making each and every one realize how serious the problem is. I mean, governments can fall on Autopac rates within 12 or 13 percent. The NDP government fell on that issue, but we will be raising health care for 178 percent over eight or 1 0

3287 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 years. Everyone thinks it is free. It is not free. You and me and everyone is paying it. It was one of the easiest things in politics to do it, say that we care. I mean, who does not care? Anybody who comes to this House, they all care. They may have their political affiliation, but deep down they want to work and why would they work against what the majority of individuals are wanting? Who wants to take any stand in this House and say they do not want care for themselves?

All of us would like to have the best possible health care, but that can be achieved and if somebody would say that within the money we have, we cannot manage the system, so either we are lying or the other countries who are doing better than us within the same framework are lying, or they are not doing the right things, or they have a direct pipeline to some other genius. They do not; they are people like us. They have the same policies, same framework, but they are spending less money. Because they had control, they knew what they were doing. So there is something that has gone wrong.

Talk to each and every person, they will give you good ideas. They will tell you how we can improve the system, but the system will only improve if there is courage, and bold steps are being taken. Bold steps means not looking after one bed, two beds, here and there. We have talked about the bed situation. The bed is the power symbol of a given profession. If a bed is there, the saying is, it will be occupied. That is not com ing from somebody who is interested in making votes. It is coming from the health economists. It is coming from physicians who are practising and they are credible individuals.

It is coming from the conference which happened last night at Deer Lodge Centre. It came from that group, ve ry, very inte lligent people who are hardworking from all particular backgrounds. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would repeat again that it is very important. The system has to succeed. Our interest is then that the minister should succeed for the sake of health care. If he fails, we will all fail. That is the way I look at the whole system. We are giving a lot of time, a lot of hours. I am working 1 02 hours per week. I have to maintain another part of my life. But still, I think this is very important.

I do notthink we will ever get this opportunity again in terms of making a contribution. Individuals will say, as they said last night, single MLAs or a third party cannot make a difference. I think we can. A single MLA, two, three MLAs, people who know what they want to do, and a third party, can make a lot of difference. I just want, again, to jolt the conscience of those who do not want to listen. Please, be in touch with the real people not with the interested groups. Only then we can achieve health care. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Depu ty Cha irperso n, I think the debate this afternoon is already most informative. I want to follow up, and I want to say this without any intonation or anything, I just want to state this as a statement of fact. The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) has a professional discipline which, to put it very bluntly, he has a larger income-earning opportunity than any other person around this table, and is here because he cares about the health care system. That is why I have listened carefully and attentively whenever he has made comments, because he does not have to be here.

I cannot say that for myself and for many other indiv iduals, who, from time to time, offer observation, because this may be as worthy a place as they can find for the time being. But that is not the case with the member for The Maples, and he understands the system from the inside, from practising within it. That opportunity to practise his professional training is being curtailed by being here, making suggestions, to make sure that the system is there to offer the services that people need. That kind of approach to health care changes is gaining respect.

I simply say that because I know, I saw in the Souris paper, where my honourable friends the New Democrats, again cranking up the paper mills out of their caucus room, have been putting out the press releases saying, well, once again, the Liberal Party has joined with the Conservative Party on health care issues and there was a chance to defeat the government on health care issues, attempting to discredit the positive discussions and suggestions that have been offered by the Liberal Party in this Estimates process. What I find to be offensive about that approach is I have pleaded with the member for St.

Johns on behalf of the New Democrats to simply give us an indication of what they do believe in. We can find out at any moment of debate what they do not believe in, but we do not know what they believe in.

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 3288 They allege to believe in health care reform, that they want to support the process, that they want to contribute towards it, but we have had absolutely no observation as to what they believe a reformed health care system can be, and how we can get there. (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) When we posed the question quite simply to the New Democrats, well, give me a hint. Tell me which province, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, emulates the kind of policy that you think are more appropriate than ours? The silence is deadly.

So I posed the next question, which province, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, more closely emulates the funding policy that a New Democrat in Manitoba would feel appropriate? The silence is double deadly in that case. We have not had any idea of where New Democrats stand except that they want to achieve gov ernm ent. To do what, we do not know. Because we note governments have changed and elec ted New Demo crats. You can read the pre-election rhetoric from Bob Rae, and you will find a significantly changed Bob Rae when he is in government.

Because the cold, hard reality of facing decision making, as government does not afford the luxury of being on all sides of all issues. You have to make decisions. Consistency in approach is something that will win us all favour with the electorate, because we are not fooling with people. The people of this province understand the real challenges that are there. They know that there are no quick fixes to very serious and fundamental problems with government. They are sick and tired of pure, political posturing. They want to have some integrity brought around the debate.

They want some honesty from their elected officials, and they want us to deal with issues and try to resolve them. That is what they are really looking for. *

(1610) The taxpayers of this country and the voters of Manitoba are just a lot more intelligent than the demeaning press releases that, from time to time, emanate out of political parties trying to paint a picture which is inaccurate, for narrowed, political purposes. I recognize we are in a political forum. But Manitobans and Canadians want this political forum to start making decisions for the betterment of our respective provinces in this nation of Canada. I will be there, trying to make those kinds of decisions.

I will also be there listening to advice and criticism where we have, maybe, proposed an inappropriate course of action. I am willing to listen to a better way. That again, I have to say, we have received that kind of support from the second opposition party, and we have made changes from time to time when it has been pointed out that what we were going to do needed to be changed. That is the essence of this process of Estimates debate in this Legislature. I look forward, as quickly as we have the opportunity, to discuss the action plan that we have in the vision for the future of health care reform in Manitoba.

I look forward to the kind of discussion we can have to see whether all elected officials in this Legislature can rise above the fast political advantage and start dealing with a very serious issue in a very constructive way. That is going to be the true test of elected life in this session of this Legislature. Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, first let me indicate that this is a most un usual finish to our Estimates: The government speaking out and filibustering the Estimates for the Department of Health. I think that although the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) would like to pretend that is not the case and suggest that this a philosophical discussion, it is clearly much more than that. There are some very interesting dynamics at play in this room this afternoon. I am not sure whether to feel flattered, whether to be outraged, or whether to be deeply saddened. There are reasons to feel any one of those three characteristics. I certainly have reason to feel flattered, having seen over the last couple of days the big guns being sent in to defend the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and his reputation.

We sat here, we are sitting here now, hearing from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) about the great integrity, the intelligence, the major contribution of this minister to the province of Manitoba. We heard last evening from the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) who wanted to tell us just how warm and fuzzy and cuddly the Minister of Health is, and what a pussy cat he is in contrast to the appearance he presents here in Estimates.

3289 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MAN ITOBA May 12 , 19 92 How many more? How many more speakers, members of the cabinet need to come forward while we are still in Health Estimates and defend the Minister of Health or to deal with the great threat that I pose to this government, that I as an individual appear to pose, that the Minister of Finance suggested is the case. I wish he could stay to hear these remarks because in fact the Minister of Finance imputed a lot of motives, questioned my integrity, made all kinds of insinuations about my role as an MLA.

That is why I do not know whether I should feel outraged, personally outraged, at the kind of attack that the government and the Minister of Finance-1 do not need to mention the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), I have been under that kind of attack for almost 60 hours-and now joined by the Liberals , the other Conse rvative Party in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) came in at the end of our Estimates process, after the end of almost 60 hours of debate, without knowing what has transpired in this room.

He does not know the kind of attack that I and others in the New Democratic Party have been under by the Minister of Health. He does not know the kind of abuse that has been heaped upon me. I have made no secret of describing to others outside of this room and this building the kind of macho game that is played out in these hallways, the kind of verbal abuse that has to be tolerated. I have made no secret about telling people that I have left many a session of Estimates feeling like a battered women. I make no exaggeration here.

The kind of insults and personal attacks that the minister has been so willing to dish out have been nonstop for almost 60 hours. So if the Minister of Finance wants to question anyone's motives and anyone's integrity, he should start looking in his own caucus room, around his own cabinet table. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have come to this Estimates process with the intention of asking questions and getting information about our health care system. I do not believe I have wavered from that intention and that goal.

I have not come here to try to personally attack the minister, to go after the intentions of the Liberal health critic. I have come here to ask questions and I have asked questions, hundreds and hundreds of questions for which I have received almost no answers. I have brought before me so that the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) can witness what I have gone through and what others have gone through apart of our Estimates discussion, which if he cares to glance through, he will notice that for every short question that is asked taking up an inch or two of space, we have columns of response by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) as he uses up the 30 minutes allocated to him to avoid the issues and questions posed by the opposition, by the New Democratic Party. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have done nothing but ask questions.

That brings me to the third feeling I have this afternoon of being deeply saddened because in fact, by implication, the Minister of Finance of all people is suggesting censorship in these hallways, in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, in the committee dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Health. Mr.

Acting De put y Ch ai rper son , he has suggested that throughout this process I and other members of the New Democratic Party have done a disservice, have done a disservice to this process, this specific one we are in, the Estimates process, and to the broader legislative process that we are a part of on a day-to-day basis as elected members. He has suggested that, by doihg all this, by asking questions, there is something wrong. We are less honest than we should be. He has suggested that we should not be doing all this. That is nothing more than a form of censorship. He wants it both ways.

The Minister of Finance suggests that we should be putting our position on record. The Minister of Health keeps saying that. But then he suggests at the same time that by asking questions we have done something wrong. Now, which way does the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health want to have it? Which way does this Conservative cabinet want to have it? What is it? What do you want out of this process, except, as far as I can see, you want passivity. You want no questions of any kind of significance as you sort through these very difficult issues.

You want something that has never been afforded any government anywhere in our democratic process at any time in the history of Manitoba; you want the opposition not to ask questions. You want them not to be there, raising concerns they hear in their constituencies and in health faci lities and com muni ty health centres and

May 12 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 3290 nonpr ofit organ izations and health care professionals right around the province of Manitoba. (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) You want us not to be bringing forward those conce rns and voicing their questions.

By so suggesting that here this afternoon, each and every one of those are advocating that position, which inclu des all memb ers, obviously, of the Conservative government-now, it would appear, all members of the Liberal Party-and are suggesting that we should not be doing the first role and carrying out the first responsibility that we have as elected members of the Legislative Assembly. That is to speak up for our constituents, to represent those who do not have voice in this Chamber, to speak up for the powerless, the most vulnerable, the weak members of our society. That is our first obligation.

That was why we were elected. That is what we are here for. *

(1620) Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for the last, almost 60 hours, that is what I have been doing. That is what other members of my caucus have been doing. We have been raising the questions that constituents have been asking.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-64
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 64.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f96f2ec46e45703297faf2b36078984d6650fcd2

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