ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call Bills 2, 12 and then the balance of the bills as listed on the Order Paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 2--The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 2 on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications corrélatives) standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River? [agreed]

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and to speak to Bill 2, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act.

Whenever I think of Bill 2, the proposed balanced budget act, I cannot help but think of the television commercial featuring Don Cherry flogging Sport Select tickets using two dogs balancing--or trying to balance--on a plank. I guess it is not really a plank but a seesaw or what we used to call a teeter-totter.

At any rate, the heavy dog at one side of the plank forces a small dog at the other side of the plank into the air. Along comes Don Cherry and by manipulating the fulcrum or using a point spread or whatever equalizes the weight of both dogs and if, by magic, the little dog and the big dog are balanced. Perhaps the government should hire Don Cherry and his dog, Blue, as a consultant or consultants to visually demonstrate to a skeptical public how the balancing act works.

I presume that the spoiled little dog up on the high end of the plank, before Don Cherry interferes, is the amount of money the government spends and the big working-class dog at the low end of the plank is the amount of revenue the government collects.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty in hearing the remarks from the honourable member for Flin Flon.

Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, I repeat, I presume that the spoiled little dog up on a high end of the plank before Don Cherry interferes is the amount of money the government spends and the big working-class dog at the low end of the plank is the amount of revenue the government collects. Don Cherry is the great equalizer, the one who interferes on behalf of egalitarian principles, I presume. I guess one could say he represents the government's version of the dog and pony show, balanced budget legislation.

Now, on the surface, just about everyone agrees that balanced budgets make sense in most cases, and I am no exception. Families try to balance the budget. So do businesses, so do fishermen and farmers, but I do not know of any family or business or fisherman or farmer or student, for that matter, or individual who at one time or another did not go into debt. That is perfectly normal. [interjection] Astute observation by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

No family or business or individual wishes to increase the debt load year after year. When a young couple buys a home, a house, they slowly pay off their mortgage. Their home is a long-term investment, an asset, and at some point they will own that home, that house.

Using the logic of Bill 2, this young couple would never attempt to purchase a home, because they could not pay for it entirely within a given fiscal year. So much for helping the construction industry. Similarly, a small business would never get started because, obviously, a small business does not pay for itself until perhaps the third, fourth or fifth year running.

Using the model of the proposed balanced budget legislation, Bill 2, our small business would never get off the ground. Suppose a farmer wishes to expand land holdings because in a very competitive world he or she feels that expansion is necessary in order to survive. If that farmer purchased a half a section of land at, say, $150,000, does one seriously expect that the farmer has that amount of money in a savings account?

Perhaps a few farmers do have such amounts saved, but most are barely surviving. The agricultural markets can fluctuate wildly, yet using the analogy of Bill 2, a farmer would never take a risk unless the farmer was a millionaire to begin with. Using Bill 2 logic, the farmer would never buy more land or cattle, would never buy new tractors or other machinery, would never invest heavily in chemicals and fertilizers in order to improve production.

Again, using Bill 2 logic, no student would ever take out a student loan. How many students can repay a loan in the same year that they take out the loan? It is patently absurd. At all levels, there are long-range investments, long-range debts, that will eventually be paid off, the debts, but can never and were never intended to be paid in one year.

Using the same logic, how would municipalities, towns and cities ever improve infrastructure? How could bridges, schools, hospitals, libraries ever be constructed if these costs would have to be paid within the same year of the construction? For example, the city of Flin Flon needs to upgrade its water and sewage system. That is a costly thing that has to be dealt with in the near future, and even with federal and provincial help, and I am not so sure how much help is available or how much help the city will eventually receive, it will still be a cost that will run into the millions.

Similarly, at Channing, which is a suburb of Flin Flon, it desperately needs a water and sewer system. It has not had one yet, and in order to put that into position would require millions of dollars, and those millions of dollars cannot be repaid within a year.

Bill 2 works only on paper. In reality, it is going to create serious problems. I am sure these problems were foreseen, but for short-range political gain the government tied itself to balanced budget legislation. It is tying rather its own hands for the responsiveness and flexibility it will need in the future. In fact, even the analysts from Standard and Poor's say that same thing. Therefore the limitations of Bill 2 are fairly obvious for all to see.

These limitations are not merely a whim we have dreamt up on this side of the House. If the proponents of Bill 2 do not wish to listen to us, let them at least listen to the academics, to the professors, to the bond rating agencies, to the press, to the people who have really looked at the long-range implication of Bill 2. They all know that public services will be negatively affected.

* (1430)

In fact, if we talk about the press, I could read you some headlines regarding Bill 2: Prepare for the lean years; bad law; devious phrases; proposed law protects the rich; budget fantasy.

I especially like the lean years one because we have already had seven lean years. I do not know if we should expect any more.

Talking about tax referenda, I did not see the Premier rush to a referendum when the public could have been asked about their views concerning the use of public money to pay Jets' losses. In fact, the Premier rejected the idea out of hand. He rejected the idea of a referendum. Why is a referendum useful now for the government when it was not before?

I understand the government's concern about deficits and debts, but all this must be kept in perspective. We cannot allow ourselves to be stampeded into making simplistic decisions now that will hurt this province later on. I think we need to have a good, close look at debt.

The government pays approximately 12 to 13 cents, using its own figures, on the dollar for debt servicing.

An Honourable Member: Is that so bad? I should be so lucky.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, the honourable member says, we should be so lucky. That is not super high that 12 to 13 percent. That is not super low either, but it is manageable at present. It is not a panic situation.

But the government has painted itself into a corner. The government campaigned before the election on fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. Not too many people disagreed with that motherhood and apple pie vision. After all, no one has ever argued or ever campaigned on this, that governments should be fiscally irresponsible or should encourage reckless spending or should incur huge debts. Of course governments have to be responsible. That is a truism. But does responsibility have to be legislated in such a narrow, inflexible way?

But once a promise is made or is even overstated before an election, it has to be kept more or less after an election. The government is held prisoner by its own earlier rhetoric. It has to live up now to its own boasts.

The government knows full well that the bill, that is Bill 2, in many, many ways was an election gimmick. They know full well that massive projects such as Duff's Ditch would never have been built in the past using their own balanced budget logic. The government and its ministers are fully aware of the smoke-and-mirrors aspect of the Bill 2 legislation.

A few days ago I had the privilege of attending the official opening of the Photo Lake Copper Mine at Snow Lake along with the honourable member for the Maples (Mr. Kowalski), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs and Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik). While the Premier and his minister were praising the mining initiative, the jobs that were being created, the boost that this mine would give the northern economy, all true and very commendable, were they also aware that had HBM&S, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, used the logic of Bill 2, the Photo Lake Mine would never have opened?

From the day the first tree was cut at the mine site to the day the first ore sample was hauled above ground was exactly one year. By mining standards, that was a very short mine development, period, but did HBM&S balance their Photo Lake Mine books that year? Of course, not. That would be absurd. Millions and millions of dollars were spent that year on Photo Lake Mine. Not a cent has yet been recovered, but the ore is very rich, and in the next few years Photo Lake Mine will make handsome profits. It was a good investment for the future.

Madam Speaker, 60 to 80 people are working at that mine. Snow Lake, one of the most beautiful communities in northern Manitoba, was given an economic shot in the arm. Thank God that the mine developers did not use Tory Bill 2 logic, because if they had been blinded by the simplistic notions of balancing the budget every year, no such mine would ever be constructed or would ever have been constructed.

Photo Lake Mine would have been doomed from the start, and I am sure that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) would agree that HBM&S, that is, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, is hardly a bastion of socialism, but HBM&S did not follow Bill 2 logic. They know that mining ventures demand enormous pools of capital for a year or two, and then after the mine is in operation, the money is invested, the debt will be repaid, and profits will be made, usually.

What was done at Photo Lake on a large scale is done all the time, every day, on a small scale. Individuals borrow money for useful projects or investments, and that debt is paid off over time. It is not paid off in one year.

While we are on the topic of balanced budgets and mines, there is a second major operation swinging into production at Snow Lake. That is the new TVX gold mine on the site of an older mine. TVX employs 160 people. The shaft is being deepened, and new and renovated equipment has been installed. Now here we have an exciting, innovative project that has been underway for several years. The people at TVX have already spent close to $50 million, and not a single ounce of gold has yet been cast or has yet been recovered.

Now, will this mine produce gold? Of course, it will. Surveys indicate it will produce millions and millions of dollars worth of gold. This mine will go into production very soon, and as much as 600 tonnes of ore will be processed each day. Now, suppose the creative and innovative group of people at TVX had used Manitoba Tory logic, had used the inflexibility of Bill 2 as a model. Would that mine have been constructed? The answer, of course, is no, of course not.

Millions have been sent, many more millions will be spent, and only in a number of years will TVX mine break even, and after that, it will be extremely profitable, I am sure. TVX did not attempt to balance its books in one year. It does not work that way for mines, for businesses, for farmers, for homeowners, for students, for individuals. Only the super-rich can balance their books each year or perhaps the extremely frugal who do not take chances or establish businesses or students who have worked for a number of years or older homeowners whose children have grown up, whose homes are paid for.

I suppose, if you are given a home or business or a farm or if you inherit large amounts of money, then you can indeed balance the books at all times.

An Honourable Member: Win a lottery.

Mr. Jennissen: Perhaps win a lottery, as the honourable member says, but we do not all win lotteries.

What surprises me is that Tories who are always supposedly extolling the virtues of the marketplace, entrepreneurship, rugged individualism, making it in big business are now stressing the importance of Bill 2 which goes against the very notion of creative and sensible risk taking. It goes against the very notion of investing in the future.

The bill is obsessed with a deficit side and gives short shrift to the revenue side. How does Bill 2 fit in with wealth creation? Instead of fighting over an ever decreasing revenue pie, how about increasing the pie? The timid measures of Bill 2 do not address this, do not allow for large-scale expenditures or megaprojects that would create jobs right now.

Bill 2 is part and parcel of the right-wing theory which holds that a government can hack and slash its way to prosperity. It is a deliberate attack on social programs, education and health. Show me a country where the hackers and the slashers have restored prosperity. We did not get out of the depths of the Depression in the 1930s by more hacking and slashing. Look carefully at Roosevelt's New Deal that eventually pulled the United States out of its economic doldrums. The same was true elsewhere.

In difficult economic times, governments should intervene. Even this government intervened in the recession of 1992-1993, even though its deficit was probably $400 million higher than it wishes to admit. Does this government seriously want to weigh in on the side of Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Roger Douglas, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan?

I am not convinced that the government is even serious about Bill 2. Many other speakers have pointed out the weaknesses and the loopholes in Bill 2. On September 1, here is what Paul Martin had to say about the balanced budget laws, and I quote: They are not the way to go. Apart from limiting the choices of duly elected governments, this legalistic approach simply encourages ingenious politicians and bureaucrats to spend time looking for ways to get around the rules through accounting hocus-pocus and subterfuges of various kinds.

Now that was the federal Finance minister speaking, Madam Speaker, hardly a popular person or cultural hero in this House except for perhaps two or three members, but still he is the country's Finance minister and he uses words that should give us at least a pause, words relative to the balanced budget, because these words are fairly harsh. He is saying things, and I quote again, "ingenious politicians," "bureaucrats," "hocus-pocus," "subterfuges."

* (1440)

One Winnipeg tax lawyer quoted in the Free Press on September 25, in the article entitled "Proposed law protects the rich" stated, quote: "(The tax referendum provision) is so loose you could drive a truck through it." That is on those roads you can still drive trucks. It does not include parts of northern Manitoba.

The person I just quoted is correct. The referendums, or is it referenda, according to Bill 2's proposal must be held to raise the rates of various taxes, such as sales taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes. These are the kinds of taxes that are most likely to hurt the rich, the natural allies of the Tories. Bill 2 is the shield or the wall to protect the wealthy, but no referendum or referenda is or are needed for the other taxes or licence fees or tax credit eliminations which impact mostly on the poor. So, once again, we see typically right-wing agendas of transferring wealth away from those least able to pay. Those who are already wealthy get the breaks. In other words, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That is Ronald Reagan's agenda, and he was very successful at it. The rich did indeed get richer, and the poor did indeed get poorer. But is the two-tiered system so beloved by Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, also to be made a reality here?

Madam Speaker, the negative aspects of Bill 2 are not going unnoticed here. Speakers on this side of the House have pointed out the shortcomings and the dangers of Bill 2, the cutbacks to services especially. But not only the speakers on this side of the House, even analysts for Standard and Poor's have concerns about the referenda. The responsiveness and flexibility of the government could be severely hampered by the bill. Besides, governments are elected to govern, not institute self-serving referenda.

An Honourable Member: I do that every day.

Mr. Jennissen: I am glad the honourable member does that every day, but he is probably the exception.

The government's grand strategy has been obvious to most Manitobans--at least to 60 percent of the Manitobans. Create legislation, laws, committees to hide behind. Do not admit you are imposing health cuts. Blame it on some advisory group or committee. Failing that, blame it on the feds. That is the approach this government takes. Do not admit to education cuts. Blame it on the committees or the school board or a municipality. Failing that, blame it on the feds. Blame it on Ottawa. After all, fed bashing is an honourable tradition in the West, and at most it will make only three members in this House feel the slightest bit uncomfortable.

If there are disputes over social assistance, South Indian Lake or Granville Lake, it is this government's knee-jerk reaction to blame it all on the feds. Now that is convenient, but it is not always true. The federal government may cause some of our problems, but they do not cause all of our problems. The people of Manitoba have elected this government, and it should govern. This government was elected to govern, not to avoid governing. You cannot hide for long. The opposition, the press, the public are catching on. In fact, Frances Russell--she may not be a favourite with the people opposite--in the Free Press editorial mentioned earlier, summed up the referendum aspects of the balanced budget legislation astutely, I think. She said, and I quote: "The balanced budget tax-referendum legislation is not about sound fiscal management. It's merely a tool to slash public services and reward the Conservatives' core supporters."

I happen to think that Frances Russell is dead on. We can look at the--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Jennissen: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I will work my way around the words of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I will continue--the very good words from the member for Inkster.

We can look at the California experience, Madam Speaker, where referenda and property tax cuts have indeed lowered taxes, but social services, health and education have taken such a hard hit that California is in danger of becoming a have-not state. The poor have become much poorer. Unrest and violence grow daily in California. California jails and prisons are the only real growth industry, unlike Manitoba, where it is food banks, I believe.

Anyway, who benefits from such a system? Not the disadvantaged, not the sick, not the elderly, only an upper strata of well-to-do or rich Republican-minded citizens who believe in applying the law of the jungle to all those less fortunate than themselves.

I am not saying that Bill 2 referendum legislation is as nasty as that of California's, but it is drifting in that direction. Also, I take with a grain of salt, actually a truckload of salt, as a member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) mentioned earlier, the idea that cabinet ministers' salaries would be reduced by 20 percent if the third quarter financial report projects that expenditures will exceed revenues in a way not authorized by the bill.

As my colleague for Osborne has already pointed out, considering the income tax bracket of a cabinet minister, the net loss would not be catastrophic for that minister. It could be more in the nature of a minor inconvenience. Actually, I suspect that the penalty clause affecting ministers who overspend their budget might well be a clever election ploy. The year before the election, the ministers overspent to mollify the electorate, giving them the proverbial goodies before the ballots were cast, and then the ministers are chastised after the election by losing part of their salary. The electorate will love it because it is a tough, responsible Premier or perhaps a tough, responsible Finance Minister chastising the other ministers.

If ministers do not tighten their belts as the electorate must do, then such ministers will pay the price. That would be the message, and I think it would be a good election message. I am suggesting that perhaps there is an element of that in the bill, that it was created for election purposes. It has the potential for becoming an election ploy.

All of us in this House believe in fiscal responsiblity. I would like to get away from the notion that we are the free-wheeling drunken-sailor-type spenders on this side and the real prudent money managers, tight-fisted types are on the other side. I do not believe that is true.

An Honourable Member: No, the record proves it.

Mr. Jennissen: The honourable member says the record proves it, and I have never doubted her veracity in anything.

An Honourable Member: Highest deficit in the history of Manitoba.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, my honourable colleague says they racked up the highest deficit in the history of Manitoba, which is also a truth. That does not match well with the present legislation. No one party and no one group has the claim to fame that only it or they will balance the books. I well remember how Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Allan Blakeney balanced the books in Saskatchewan. In fact, I believe that Allan Blakeney's government showed a balanced budget when no other province and, I believe, no other state did. So the Tories do not have to lecture us on balanced budgets. Talking about Saskatchewan, then came the Devine--[interjection] The honourable member calls me a closet Tory. I do not believe in masochism. Back to Saskatchewan--then came the Devine intervention, the Grant Devine Tories--

An Honourable Member: He was a disaster.

Mr. Jennissen: Indeed the member for Inkster is correct. He was a living disaster, Tory or otherwise. This particular Premier did not balance the books, and he left Saskatchewan as an economic basket case that now Premier Romanow has to try and balance. Once again, the NDP has to clean up the mess. Yes, Romanow will balance the books, but his approach is much more flexible and it is based on a four-year span rather than the one-year span here. There is no tax referenda. We on this side of the House do not need lectures from Tories about balanced budgets--repeat that again. The government, in fact, over there would not recognize a balanced budget if it saw one.

An Honourable Member: Over there? No.

* (1450)

Mr. Jennissen: Right. This government has not balanced its books yet in the seven years or more it has been in office. The last time there was any money left in the kitty was in 1988 when the New Democratic Party government--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Jennissen: --left a $57-million surplus.

An Honourable Member: 1988.

Mr. Jennissen: 1988.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Jennissen: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for bringing to heel the redbaiters or whatever they are. In conclusion, although everyone using common sense will support a balanced budget in theory, this bill, Bill 2, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendements Act--sounds like a bowl of alphabet soup--is not based on common sense.

This bill is as illogically driven as the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) full well knows. It is illogically driven, aimed at electioneering. It is inflexible and has many negative implications for citizens least able to help themselves. Fiscal responsibility, yes, sham fiscal responsibility, no.

As my colleague for Broadway (Mr. Santos) has said, and I think he said it very well in his opening statement on this bill, he said something to this effect: the bill is symbolized by what looks like a bottle of perfume. It has a wonderful smell but in reality it is a poison. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and speak on Bill 2, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act.

A very big name for a bill that I think the party on that side really did not think they would have to enforce. It is really a bill that I think holds a lot of different agendas, and I will take some time to go through some of the reasons why I do believe in balanced budgets, having come out of a local government where we did actually balance a budget, contrary to the record of this government which has not had that experience yet.

However, I can assure you that the economic cycle of a school division, for example, is not one year, and if this bill as presented is passed, unfortunately, this government too will see that an economic cycle is not one year. When we try and balance the budget at times when things are very tough, it is usually those that are weakest who get hurt the most, and that is what the fear is in terms of this legislation. No one in Manitoba wants governments to run up huge deficits, to incur debts. Nobody wants to see our children belaboured by a debt load created by government's irresponsible spending. Nobody wants it, and we have seen it consistently through various governments, through years of Conservative rule here in Manitoba, federally, to a much higher degree by the Conservatives and Liberals in Ottawa. We have seen total irresponsibility, a debt load of almost 45 cents on our dollar, but here in Manitoba the situation is not quite so bad. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, New Democrats believe we must review the balanced budget legislation in the context of how we run our own family finances. In my family, in our families, we pay our way for our day-to-day expenses and invest for long-term assets. We believe that if we applied the restrictions that are set forth in this bill, only the very richest in Manitoba, only those richest families, would be able to function. Families work to balance their budgets, and we believe governments should too, but we do not believe that this legislation is in keeping with the running of our government like we do in our families.

Under this legislation, only the richest families would be able to buy houses without borrowing for the mortgages. Who in this room would recommend to their children or to themselves that it would be wiser to rent than to take out a debt, a loan, and buy a home? [interjection] That is true, absolutely. It is absolutely true that it makes more economic sense to incur a loan, a debt, to pay off your assets. Eventually you end up with an asset, your home, even though you do have to make monthly payments. Some of those payments do go, you know, to pay for the interest, and we would all like to accelerate that as much as possible, but we do not sacrifice the health and well-being, for instance, of our children. We also try to ensure--I mean, with this legislation we would not look at the opportunity of perhaps borrowing to go to university. I do not know how many of the members on that side had to take out a loan.

An Honourable Member: I did.

Ms. Mihychuk: I did too. I see a couple. I can assure you that--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Strange, but I keep hearing all these voices, many different voices in fact, beyond the one individual that I had recognized to be speaking at this point in time.

Ms. Mihychuk: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In fact, if we use another analogy, and we are talking about families running their own homes according to the provisions of this bill, it would be like a family deciding to sell their home to pay for their food and their heating bills. It is a ridiculous idea. It is not a wise investment. It is not something we would recommend. It is not something we would do at home, and I would suggest that that is one of the greatest flaws in this bill.

In fact, if we look at--I would like to cite the Winnipeg Free Press, September 22, which cites this bill as being the most restrictive balanced budget legislation in Canada, if not North America, and the members across the way are cheering the most restrictive balanced budget legislation in Canada and North America. That is exactly the reason why it not only says this government does not have confidence in its own ability to govern, to balance its books, it requires the strongest, most stringent legislation. It is also the reason why this balanced budget legislation presented before this House is indeed flawed.

Many governments of all stripes are looking at balanced budget legislation, quite different from the balanced budget legislation that is presented before this House. One of the major flaws in this bill, or in the way that the government has been performing, especially in the past couple of years, is in terms of our Crown corporations. In our family we do not sell our assets, our long-term assets, to pay for everyday expenses, but here in this bill the proposal is that we do just that.

This bill promises more of the same kind of sleight of hand that we have seen in this year's budget. In 1994, this government sold McKenzie Seeds, a money-making Crown corporation, an asset to the people of Manitoba, an asset to this government who does not see the value of what we have built up over the years.

The government sold McKenzie Seeds, manipulated that sale so that the proceeds were put against the '95-96 expenditures of this government, contrary to reasonable accounting practices, contrary to common sense. Would you, for instance, go and sell your cottage, your car? Would you sell your tent trailer to pay for the heat bill?

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Mihychuk: Would you sell your home?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

* (1500)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that their remarks should be addressed through the Chair, through the Speaker, and that the members should not be questioning members on the opposite side of the House, if they really want co-operation from the Speaker in maintaining order.

Ms. Mihychuk: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, I just want to continue talking about the balanced budget legislation before the House. I would just like to point out, in fact, if you do have to sell something like your tent trailer, something like your--whatever asset you had the good fortune to build for a bad year, for instance; and if you take that into what you consider your operating funds, what are you going to sell next year? Your couch? Your buffet? Maybe that is all right. What do you with the year after?

Eventually, you will run out of assets, and you will not be able to maintain your current expenditures. That is the major flaw. That is the deceit in terms of balancing the operating budget by selling off assets and putting them into your operating line.

The other point that I would like to make is that if you do decide--and philosophically the government has taken a position of selling off Crown corporations; they believe that private enterprise is a better vehicle. I am not here really to debate that. I know that that is the philosophy. I do not agree with it, but if they were to sell off a Crown corporation, if they do sell off an asset, if you do have to sell off something at home, something that you have built and you have as an asset, do you sell it when the time is right? Do you wait until you can get a good market value? Of course. That, Madam Speaker, is the time to sell.

Given that the government's ambition to balance the budget has caused the sell-off of McKenzie Seeds, can the people of Manitoba be assured that top dollar was received? Was the priority to balance the budget more imperative than ensuring that we have good value for that Crown asset? That is the question, and that is what this bill is proposing to do for our other Crown corporations.

With this legislation in place are we going to see more of the same? Are we going to see a desperate sell-off of the province's resources? Are we going to see this government sell off our telephone company or our hydro company? Today, as we were talking to the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission and noted that they brought to our revenues over $140 million annually, are they going to sell off our Liquor Control Commission?

What are we going to have for tomorrow? Sell it off for a short-term balanced budget and you lose your assets.

There was also, in this government's record of trying to balance their budget and looking at various things, selling off and pulling money from here and there, a special lottery slush fund that was created, which was credited as an asset of the province. This was drained and included in the current year's revenues.

What are you going to do next year? Obviously, these types of special accounts to bring into operating is not a wise way of accounting. It is really a short-end measure to create the illusion that you are balancing the books. I have to say that, for the most part, those kinds of manipulations, accounting manipulations, have been done very effectively by this government. Is it honest? Is it open? Are you being clear to the people of Manitoba? That may not be true. What the people of Manitoba do want to know is the truth and a clear accounting of what is true value for Manitobans.

We cannot support any legislation that will promote the sale of our Crown corporations for the short-term political gain of the Conservative Party. We have seen this. We spoke against the sale of McKenzie Seeds, and we will be there to speak against the sale of other Crown corporations in this government's agenda to balance the budget in a short term.

How does this bill compare to proper accounting procedures? The same practice of selling long-term assets is unacceptable to our rating agencies as the Conservative government found out during the election. I am sure they did not like to hear the news when the Dominion Bond Rating Service said that Manitoba's boast of a balanced budget was really a deficit of $96 million. Truly, they did not want to hear this news. Again, cooking the books, moving money from the sale of an asset and putting it into operating.

Just last month, Madam Speaker, the Canada West Foundation pointed out a disturbing and confusing part of the Manitoba budget is that the province is reporting a surplus this year, but the tax-supported debt of the province will actually grow this year by $141 million, over 166 for every Manitoban. This prediction of a surplus was nothing more than creative accounting to slide the Conservatives past the election, and this legislation promises more of the same kind of deceit.

Dr. Norman Cameron, an economist at the University of Manitoba is cited as stating he expects the government will wiggle out of its self-imposed straitjacket, meaning this bill, by resorting to accounting tricks. They--Dr. Norman Cameron is referring to the Conservative government--have proven themselves pretty creative, he goes on to say, where finances are concerned, too creative, in fact.

I think that when we look at the bill, we must remember that the Filmon government's record on deficits has been quite atrocious. First, the 1988-89 budget that they inherited from the NDP resulted in a budget surplus of $58 million. Both the Provincial Auditor and the Dominion Bond Rating Service confirm this, a level that has not been matched since. In fact, in the last 25 years, the only two budget surpluses that were incurred were by the Schreyer government and by the Pawley government, both NDP governments, something this government does not want to talk about.

In fact, let us look at this government's record. In 1992-93 the province recorded the highest deficit in its history, $742 million, according to the Provincial Auditor. They did not tell us. They tried to cover it up. In those seven years in government, they have not yet bettered the achievement based on the budget set forth by the NDP.

This government takes a short-term view of the future of this province. Gone is the long-term vision of Roblin and Schreyer who could see that a timely investment in the present could save many more dollars in the future. In fact, if we look at the Free Press dated September 27, Dr. Loxley, an economist at the University of Manitoba, is quoted as saying: It requires not just balance every year or, in exceptional circumstances, balance over a two-year period, but also requires significant surplus to finance both the FSF and the DRF. Whereas the economic cycle spans four to eight years, this bill assumes only a two-year cycle at best.

* (1510)

The economic cycle for Manitoba, Madam Speaker, is between four and eight years. This bill, in fact, moves it to a one- to two-year cycle. Talk about short term, clearly this bill is focused on the short term, not for the economic health of Manitoba.

If this shortsighted view of the government finances outlined in this bill were in place when Duff Roblin was Premier, the floodway may have never been built. Each spring thousands of Manitobans would have suffered flood damages to their homes. Each one of us would remember doing some sandbagging along the Red River, trying to prevent serious flooding to homes. We know that type of flood has a frequency that is fairly rare. However, the investment paid off many times over with the wisdom and foresight of that government. After all, it was Roblin himself who said: Who can say what the monetary cost is of not building a road, a school or a hospital?

So too the Schreyer government was prepared to invest in schools and personal care homes. So today we have these assets for the benefit of our parents and our children.

In the last seven years, we have borrowed. This government has borrowed, the people of Manitoba have borrowed, to create The Forks development, a development which created jobs, a major tourist destination, and reclaimed our history, our heritage for generations to come. Could we do that if this legislation was in place? Likely not.

In the future, we may wish to invest to secure the future of the Churchill spaceport. Could we do that if this legislation was in place? Would we have a referendum of the province of Manitoba? Would they understand the complexities? Would we be able to develop the spaceport in Churchill? Likely not. Could we do that if this legislation was in place, or do we doom Churchill's future because of this inflexibility?

I find it incredible that this government, with so many senior ministers--the minister from the Interlake, for example, who has been in government for many years, understands that government needs the flexibility to look at a longer cycle, not to be held by the confines of legislation which do not allow duly elected representatives to do what is best for Manitobans.

They are moving their responsibility from this Legislature into a bill. They are tying their own hands, and I say to them, I am surprised that senior members of this government would be in support of a bill that did this.

Under this approach to balancing budgets, most small businesses would be unable to operate. Madam Speaker, we know that when we wish to start a small business, we have family and friends that have tried to do so, they have had to incur a loan, take out a debt to get established. That is a wise investment. We may not know whether the business is going to be successful immediately. In fact, statistics indicate it is going to be very tough in the beginning. It may take two, three, four years before you get on your feet. Are we to say no to the challenge? Are we to say, we cannot invest in this business, we do not believe in incurring a debt? Hardly. That does not make sense, and we would not have small businesses. Following through on legislation like this, we would not have small businesses being created in Manitoba.

Not only do small businesses require debt to get going, but many farmers require debt to get going. Unless you inherit your farm, it is virtually impossible to get into farming without incurring debt. The cost of equipment is enormous. If you want to become modernized, at the top of the line, you are talking about millions. The equipment now that we see travelling across our fields is worth a great deal of money, and that investment is not coming out of their savings account. Obviously, farmers must incur a debt, must take out loans to operate farms. They have a long-term debt, which is their combine, the sprayer, their tractors and other equipment. Their short-term loan that they require is in the beginning of the year when they may have to incur a loan to buy the seed to put in the ground. They then recover the capital--

An Honourable Member: Not always.

Ms. Mihychuk: No, not--they recover the capital usually during the year, pay off their initial loan for the seeding and have some profits to pay down their debt on their combine. Sometimes that does not happen, Madam Speaker. Sometimes the farmers in a cycle where it has been bad times--and farmers have known bad times for actually too many years--lousy prices, Crow rate dissolving, disappearing, those challenges on the farm have been incurred over several years.

We have seen farmers have to incur even a larger debt but with the view that, maybe not next year, maybe in a couple of years we will see the cycle turn around. The economic cycle of farming will turn around and those farmers will be able to then pay off part of their debt. You do not go and sell your farm operation in one year because you may have incurred a slight loss in one given year. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) would agree it would not make farming sense, would not be good for the province of Manitoba. So the same analogy can be used in this bill.

I want to look at the family budgeting and how the average Manitoban family runs its finances. Unless a family has a large pool of inherited wealth, it must balance its income against its expenses. Manitobans balance their interest, their food, clothing and other bills with their income. At the same time, they also budget for a mortgage to buy a house or a loan to get an education. As the members on the other side will realize, that is happening to more and more people through their working life.

Many of us are being challenged to go back to school to get upgrading, to change our careers, and there may be times where you will incur an educational loan, a wise investment most would say, a needed investment, important to get retrained, look at another direction so that you, too, can be an active participant in Manitoba's economy. We would say, yes, it is a wise investment to take out the loan to go and get educational experience. If Manitoba families had to operate like the government proposes to operate, they could not afford to buy a house or to attend a university or college.

This bill is also extremely inflexible. The inflexibility of this legislation means that our services will not be able to withstand any minor fluctuations in the economy. If a combination of a drop in metal prices--and we have seen that for a sustained length of time in the mineral industry. In fact, we are now seeing a miniboom, and, hopefully, it can be sustained, of metal prices, but we did see in the not-too-distant past a drop in metal prices and a reduction in equalization payments from the federal government, which we expect, drops provincial revenues by $200 million and in the total budget, Madam Speaker, we know that that is not unrealistic.

Programs will be cut to meet the balanced budget target, programs that we have built, programs that serve Manitobans, programs that serve those who need those programs. There will be no exceptions, no excuses, and, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) pointed out in his last budget, a cut of just half of that amount in education would be the equivalent of a doubling of college and university fees. Madam Speaker, what would be the impact of that to the families in my riding whose income may not be more than $20,000 a year, maybe less than $20,000 a year? Would families be able to afford one member to go to college? No, that would be out of reach for most. That is why those types of situations would only be accessible to the more wealthy in Manitoba.

* (1520)

We, as a government, whether it is the Conservative or NDP, have tried to provide opportunities for all Manitobans. Is this government now saying that there is only going to be access for those who are wealthy? I am sure that there are members on the other side who may have had to take out a loan, may have taken the opportunity to get an education. They would not want to cut off those opportunities to other, perhaps, young Conservatives who would not be able to afford the university and college fees. They would not want to reduce those opportunities. That is one of the flaws with this legislation. That is one of the consequences of the legislation, Madam Speaker.

The result of these cuts is a vicious cycle, Madam Speaker. Fewer costs and increased services means less people can afford training opportunities. Fewer people being trained means more prolonged unemployment. Prolonged unemployment means higher welfare costs and lower tax revenues and the cycle continues to spiral downward.

Madam Speaker, let us look at the debt costs. We must always look at the full balance sheet. We must look at our debts and our assets when assessing our overall financial situation. Today, the costs of our debt service are amongst the lowest in the country; something that I do not think most Manitobans would understand; something I do not think that this government would like to make very clear to most Manitobans. If Manitobans realized that our debt service was at 12.7 percent of total expenditures, most would be very surprised, most would say, I wish that was my situation at home. Is it the case of most families in your ridings, of most Manitobans who carry a mortgage? Are we looking at 10 percent, 12 percent?

An Honourable Member: Not everyone carries a mortgage.

Ms. Mihychuk: A member on the Conservative side says, not everyone carries a mortgage. Well, that may be true, but I can assure you that most of the people in my riding carry a mortgage. I carry a mortgage. Many of the people in my family carried a mortgage and took many years to pay off that mortgage. We work hard, and we make the payments that we can. It is not very easy paying off a long-term debt. We have to look at a longer cycle, which we do.

If our debt load was only 12 percent, I think we would consider ourselves very healthy. In exchange, we have a great deal of assets. We have roads, which, unfortunately, because of shortsightedness, have become not well maintained, particularly in the North.

I had a recent example where an elderly woman who lives in my riding went to visit her son in Lynn Lake and, on the way back from Lynn Lake to Thompson, incurred $700 of damage on the road that this government has not maintained. Can she submit that bill to the government for reimbursement?

Short-term goals. They cannot maintain our roads. So what happens? You incur greater costs for the people of Manitoba. If that one individual travelling on that road incurred $700 worth of damage, how many citizens of Manitoba have had their vehicles damaged because that road and those roads in the North have not been properly maintained?

We do have a road system. We have schools, schools which we consider an asset. However, we have also seen short-term gain drain the capital upgrading of schools over the past five or six years. The budget for capital improvement of schools has been cut consistently year after year after year to the point now where some schools are in desperate need of capital upgrading, capital upgrading that this government does not see as a long-term investment. They have said no to schools. They have said no to the children that are in those schools.

This government is looking at a short-term balance sheet, not the long-term, good investment for Manitobans.

Madam Speaker, we also have hospitals; we have power plants. We have power plants that we reap the benefits of because of the wise investment of previous governments. If you have ever been to the Jenpeg or Limestone power stations, you know that the investment was a wise decision. We invested in those hydro dams to create revenue for the province, the ability to sell power to other jurisdictions in Canada and in the United States to reap benefits for the people of Manitoba. A wise decision for our future.

Relative to most of Canada, our finances are in good shape. Let us look at tax increases and the Filmon record. I believe that the Filmon rhetoric in this case is that there have been no tax increases. However, if you asked those citizens of Manitoba, would they say that there have been no tax increases? Hardly. Again, we say smoke and mirrors. The hypocrisy of the Filmon government taxpayer protection policies is made clear by their record. In 1992-93, when the government raised taxes by $400 per family, not one of those taxes would today be subject to a so-called referendum, and the government came and claimed that it was not a tax. The people of Manitoba did not agree. They knew. They saw the cost of their living increase. They saw those taxes incurred in their local levels. We saw the taxes rise for families.

In the Premier's own briefing note, it indicated that the tax increases, that $400, amounted to 5.6 percent in income taxes or 1.4 points of sales tax. Tax credits were reduced and the sales tax was broadened and fuel taxes increased. It is clear that the intention of the Filmon government is to do more of the same, stay away from the taxes listed in this bill, but increase user fees, decrease tax credits and offload costs. The result is more cost for the middle-class taxpayer and a clearer understanding of the kind of deficit practised by this government.

Madam Speaker, a brief overview of one of the more controversial new laws the Filmon Conservatives have introduced, a reintroduction of their balanced budget legislation and an effort not just to fulfill a campaign promise but I also believe an election gimmick to bind themselves into an irresponsible fiscal straitjacket.

The Filmon Tories have been cooking the books for the last eight years in an effort to confuse and manipulate public opinion about the province's overall financial position. They have used the serious but not fatal debt situation to justify a very mean-spirited and regressive measure directed at those in our society with the least ability to defend themselves.

* (1530)

However, the debt did not appear to have been a factor when they signed the blank cheque Jets deal in 1991 or a more recent $40-million post-election surprise arena fiasco, Madam Speaker.

The reality in Manitoba was that when Filmon took office in '88, in that year the province actually ran a $58-million surplus. The Conservatives instead borrowed more money that was not needed and set up the Fiscal Stabilization Fund--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.

As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

Bill 12--The Louis Riel Institute Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 12 (The Louis Riel Institute Act; Loi sur l'lnstitut Louis Riel), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure today to rise to speak to this particular piece of legislation brought in by the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 12, The Louis Riel Institute Act.

I want to begin by stating that we on this side of the House will be supporting this bill. I encourage other members on both sides of the House to speak to the bill. This bill allows for the incorporation of a Metis cultural and educational institute to promote education and training for Metis people and foster understanding and appreciation of Metis culture. It also will serve as a centre of research in Manitoba's history, a history that all members of this House recognize as being very important to the development of this province and, in fact, a very colorful history.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was just yesterday that myself and, I know, several other members of the House had the opportunity to participate in a ceremony just outside these chambers honouring Father Ritchot and his contributionsto Manitoba. It was stated at that ceremony that Father Ritchot was the individual who named the province Manitoba, an individual who led the negotiating team that was brought together by Louis Riel to negotiate with the federal government The Manitoba Act, which concluded with this province of Manitoba coming into being in 1870. It was quite important, I thought, to be there and to recognize his contributions to this province.

The institute is to operate exclusively as a charity and nonprofit corporation without shared capital. There will be a board of 11 appointed members: seven appointed from the Manitoba Metis Federation; one Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointee; three academics, one from the University of Manitoba, the University of Winnipeg and Brandon University; and the Governor-General will have one appointee as well. The institution will have the power to acquire and hold interest in property, to sell mortgage, lease or dispose of property, to solicit and receive donations--I know they are starting to do that now, I believe--to borrow money, to invest funds for operation in any manner, to make banking arrangements, and so on. Members are to be appointed or reappointed every three years.

As I state, we do support this particular piece of legislation, although we on this side of the House have been very condemning and will continue to criticize the government for some of its actions as it relates to aboriginal and Metis people in this province, and, in particular, one of the more insidious cuts a number of years ago was the complete 100 percent withdrawal of funds to Indian and Metis friendship centres here in this province. I know that, in my own particular case, the friendship centre in Selkirk lost three employees as well as they had to discontinue very useful services to members, both native and non-native, in the Selkirk community. Some of the important programs that friendship centres used to provide were the assistance to elderly individuals, to the homeless, youth programming.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we hear a lot today of the problems associated with youth. There was the friendship centre program in Selkirk, and I know in the city of Winnipeg and throughout this province they had a number of programs that were designed to help young people. We on this side of the House were always supporting the friendship centre movement and the different services provided by the friendship centres, and, in particular, one of the better programs, we thought, was the program that dealt with young people here in this province.

The socially disabled families in crisis, recreation and cultural programming, some of the programming that this bill will now--I hope this institution will help to take up some of, unfortunately, the slack that the friendship centres can no longer perform.

As well, they used to provide housing relocation, fine options counselling, court assistance, a number of different and important programs that friendship centres used to offer, but, unfortunately, this government saw, in its infinite wisdom of a few years ago, to cut those programs. There are also the cuts to Access Programs, to New Careers, to the northern freight fish subsidy which benefitted northern fishermen. Most of those fishermen were aboriginal, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

But I do not want to be completely negative of the government. I will give it credit. I will give the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the government credit on recognizing an important person in my community, a Metis leader, and that is Senator Elsie Bear. The government in 1991, I believe--she was awarded the Order of the Buffalo Hunt, and I know this is a very prestigious honour, and I do congratulate the government for recognizing Mrs. Bear, her contributions to Metis people and to all the people of the province. She is very well known, and it was fitting that she was to receive this honour. I know that she prizes it along with the many other awards and shows of recognition that she has received over her many years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am speaking on this bill today because in my background, I am a person of mixed native and European blood. My European ancestors arrived in this part of Canada; in fact, basically in the Selkirk area in 1813, 1814, around that. They were young men who left either London or the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands. They were Scottish and Englishmen. They left their land, their impoverished land, to seek out an opportunity that existed here in this part of the world. They left to work here in the Hudson's Bay Company. All of them were in the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company. Their names are Smith and Massey, Hourie, Sinclair, Swain and Dennet, Cochrane.

* (1540)

All these individuals left--[interjection] Well, my Dewar ancestor arrived significantly later, in about the 1870s. He came from Ontario, but the other ones on my mother's side and my dad's mother's side arrived in the early part of the 19th Century. They were young men who left their homes to seek an opportunity here in this part of the world. They worked for the Hudson Bay's Company until the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company were amalgamated. I believe it was around 1824 or 1823, around that time, and they decided not to return to Scotland or to England. The opportunity was there for them to return to these areas, but instead they decided to stay here in Canada and in Manitoba and seek out their livelihood here in this community.

I have had a chance to do a little bit of research into my family's background, and from here at the Archives I found a considerable amount of information and discussed these with my mother and my father. Those young men who decided not to go back were in their 20s and their 30s, decided to stay in this land and to seek out their opportunities here. For the most part, I believe, basically from what I could discover in the records, they all married First Nations women at that time and the union of these two nations, the Europeans and the First Nations here in Canada, the product of these two groups was the Metis people. The Metis people were generally of French and Indian background, but my background is more of Scottish and First Nations or whatever they called them, country born or, in a more derogatory term, they were called half-breeds.

It was these individuals who for a large part were responsible for some of the institutions that we have here in the province today. In fact we all recognize the Metis contribution of Louis Riel and the first council, his provisional government, which negotiated with the federal government the rules and the regulations which allowed the Province of Manitoba to come into existence. This was done around 1870. So we do support the concept of this institution. We recognize that there is a need for Manitobans to do more work and to really discover this unique part of our history, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As I said, there were basically two groups that emerged from these unions. One was the Metis people. These, I have said, were the result of French and First Nations marriages. As well, there was the European or, I would say, Scottish or English marriage with Indian women and they were called country born or, in the more derogatory term, half-breeds. The country-born individuals were clustered within their own district of the settlement, usually in the parishes of Kildonan, St. James and later St. Paul and St. Andrews and St. Clements and Headingley, and they were generally Protestant. Most of them took, as their living, farming, although I know some of my ancestors worked as educators and clerks.

Of course, this division of occupation was not hard and fast. Many country-born individuals earned their living by hunting buffalo; Metis families were also full-time farmers. But, in general, the Metis people, as we look at a Metis person, are a combination of French and First Nation, and they made their living in the buffalo hunt.

This area that we live in now was a significant centre of the fur trade. The Metis people specialized as buffalo hunters. They supplied both the North West Company and the Hudson's Bay Company with pemmican. We are all familiar with pemmican. I am sure that it is a staple of the diet of individuals years ago. Pemmican, of course, was a combination of buffalo meat and buffalo fat. It provided the fuel for the running of the fur trade and that particular system of commerce in the 1850s, in the 1860s, in the 1870s, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In fact, it was the First Nations people that allowed many of these individuals to exist when they arrived 150, 170 years ago. It was the First Nations people that provided Lord Selkirk settlers with shelter and with food to allow them to survive those early years when they arrived in 1813.

So we on this side of the House recognize the importance of this particular piece of legislation. We recognize the importance of this institution, which will be created to look into the history of Manitobans and particularly the history of Metis people and First Nations people. I hope the mandate is expanded to include that as well. I am sure that it will be.

We on this side of the House support this piece of legislation, and we look forward to going into committee stage, and we look forward to hearing the individuals there. Thank you very much.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to add my comments to Bill 12. The speakers before me have eloquently spoken on the contributions that Metis people have made to the development of this province and certainly to the rest of Canada over the years.

The Metis people have in the past been regarded as the forgotten people, people that were not Indian and people that were not white. In recent years, many members here will realize that if you looked in the dictionary and you looked for the word "Metis," you found in the dictionaries that Metis translated to something to the effect of somebody or something that was a mixed-bred animal.

Fortunately, history has changed a little over the years and now the Metis people have taken their rightful place in Canada's reality. I believe that Metis people have made significant strides in that recognition for their contribution to this country, not only with Louis Riel being regarded as the father of this province, but indeed in 1982 during the constitutional debate when the Metis, the Inuits and the Indian people became part of Canada's Constitution.

I remember travelling with my late father and other elders from our home community in Norway House and Cross Lake, and in 1967 I remember being a young boy coming to the old Royal Alexander Hotel in Winnipeg. There was a conference convened by the Indian and Metis leaders of this province. My father was a part of that movement at that time. There was a considerable amount of discussion at that time at the old Royal Alexander Hotel as to the aspirations of the Metis people and the First Nations of this province.

There came a decision following a couple days of heated debate that First Nations people indeed have a different agenda and that Metis people or non-Status Indians have also another agenda. It was at that time that I watched the leaders of that day, including the late Grand Chief David Courchene and the late president of the Manitoba Metis Federation, Angus Spence, and the late Alfred Head, who was from Cranberry Portage, and his good wife, Margaret Head, and many of our Metis elders that are still with us and providing guidance for our leadership today who were part of that movement.

* (1550)

It was the late Angus Spence who took the helm as president of the Manitoba Metis Federation at that time and set a course to correct some of the injustices that Metis people have faced in this province over the years. It was under his leadership as president of the Manitoba Metis Federation that we saw a change happen in the aboriginal politics of this province. We saw the First Nations undertake their own course of action with the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood with David Courchene, the late David Courchene being the grand chief, originally from Sagkeeng and a mentor for many of us First Nations people and, of course, Angus Spence, who was the first president of the Manitoba Metis Federation.

There have been many presidents of the MMF that I have become acquainted with over the years, including Edward Head, whom I had an opportunity of talking with a little while back, John Morriseau, Ernie Blais. Yvon Dumont, of course, who is now our Lieutenant-Governor for the Province of Manitoba, was the leading figure with the Metis National Council in having the Metis people recognized in Canada's Constitution during the constitutional debates in the early '80s and then resulting, of course, in the Metis people being recognized in Canada's Constitution in the Constitution Act of 1982 and, of course, now Billyjoe DeLaronde, who is at the leadership of the Manitoba Metis Federation. All these gentlemen that I have mentioned, and many other men and women who have been a part of the Manitoba Metis Federation, have contributed significantly to the progress that the Metis people have made and to the ongoing life of their nation and of their truly unique way of life.

My colleague the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and also the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), my colleagues both talked eloquently about the Metis people. Having grown up with people who are known as Metis people and, in some cases, being relatives or having close family relations with Metis people--unfortunately, what aboriginal people have experienced over the years is that some were categorized to be Metis people when in fact they were rightfully non-Status Indians. In our community where I grew up, we had the opportunity of growing up side by side, the Metis people, the First Nations people.

I will forever treasure that opportunity for being able to grow up with these people who today, some as a result of Bill C-31 proclaimed in 1985 by the federal government, many are no longer designated as Metis people but in fact are now Bill C-31 Indians as the law set out to do it to correct some injustices that occurred in the past. For example, when a First Nations woman married an outsider, and our people were incorrectly labelled as Metis people, perhaps when people went off to war in order for them to be around their friends, to be in drinking establishments, they forsook their treaty cards and became non-Status Indians or blue card-carrying Indians as they were known back then. Many of our people lost their status as a result of marrying non-Status Indian people. Only that injustice was corrected in 1985.

Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, today we are faced with another reality. We have hundreds of people who are running around saying they are Metis people, whereas before they would not disclose their aboriginal nationhood. For whatever reason, we certainly are of the opinion on this side anyway that our Metis nationhood is gaining in strength and certainly gaining in numbers. The struggle of aboriginal people in general, including the people as defined in Canada's Constitution--the Inuits, the Indians and the Metis--are trying to find their way out of the situation they are in today.

With respect to the Louis Riel Institute, we do have some questions, and my colleague mentioned some of the concerns of our party with respect to the make-up of this institute. We are looking forward to this act going into committee. We do want to talk in great detail about the significance and the role that First Nations people and Metis people have had in the development of this province.

Perhaps it goes unnoticed that in fact aboriginal people, too, have had a role to play in the development of this province. It was aboriginal people who were on the front lines during World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict to protect the freedom that all Canadians now enjoy and perhaps some take for granted, and again we congratulated the government of Manitoba last year on November 8 when it was proclaimed Aboriginal Veterans Day. We took our hats off to the government at that time.

This is something that aboriginal people are all proud of throughout this province because for once we were acknowledged as being a contributing factor in the development of this province and not simply as being a tax burden that, unfortunately, aboriginal people are labelled as in today's society. That is the reality of the situation that aboriginal people are faced with in this province and in this country.

In 1870, after the Red River Metis under Louis Riel failed in their attempt to maintain an independent government, the people of the Red River settlement entered Confederation as the tiny Province of Manitoba, the first province created under the new Dominion government. For a time Manitoba was often called the postage-stamp province because at first it only covered an area of 11,000 square miles, its northern boundary traversing the lower part of Lake Winnipeg. Its population comprised approximately 12,000 persons, only 13 percent of whom were white, 5 percent were Indians, and 82 percent were mixed blood. To the north and west lay the vast reaches of the Northwest Territories with their sparse nomadic Indian population and scattered white tribes.

The questions that we have with respect to the act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are, first of all, who are the students of the institute going to be? Is it going to be the average Manitoban? Is it specifically geared for high school students, or is it going to be geared to mature students? Secondly, is this an institution with its own campus where students will attend classes on campus? I know that the Education minister indicated that it is to provide an increased awareness of early Manitoba history. To whom is she referring to as benefiting from increased awareness?

Those are some of the questions that we have, and I imagine we will have an opportunity to further discuss this when we get into the committee stage or in third reading. Also, will the information gathered by the institute complement the present history curriculum in primary, secondary and post-secondary schools?

Those are some of the questions that we have, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are there going to be tuition fees? Will students receive credit? Will credit be recognized at other institutions, and certification? Those are some of the other issues that we would like to ask.

* (1600)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

The hour being 4 p.m., it is time for private members' hour.

When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 27 minutes remaining.