Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway, who has 38 minutes remaining.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): I just heard earlier on the radio from Roger Currie of CJOB that in Portage la Prairie they are opening a museum of the Titanic. It even includes displays such as the chairs and the deck of the Titanic. I wonder if they will also include some of the artifacts from Broadway.

The Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba concluded his Speech from the Throne with an expression of trust that we as members of the Legislative Assembly may benefit from the guidance from the divine providence. Also, this morning when we opened the session the Speaker invoked the eternal and all-powerful God from whom all power and wisdom come that we may be able to frame the laws of this province, attend to the welfare and prosperity of all our people and for the glory and honour of God's name.

May it not be that we honour Him with our lips, but our hearts are far away from Him? If such a pious statement means something, it means that we acknowledge the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present being in our human laws and in our human institutions and in our private and public lives.

As King David said a long time ago, King David of Israel, he said: Thine, oh Lord, is the greatness and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in heaven and in the earth is thine. Thine is the kingdom, Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. So there is the Supreme Being no matter by what name we recognized Him, no matter by what different appellations may be attached to Him, in all the areas, cultural areas of the world, that directs the destiny of man and nation.

For us believers, we can say that the Almighty and all-knowing One, the ground of our being from everlasting to everlasting, the fact of our living is itself believing. Now, we ask, does this divine all-powerful One have anything to do with the affairs of humankind on this earth that we always invoke Him?

According to the Apostle Paul, there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God.

We can now say on the authority of that statement that the institutions of government among human beings are established by the will of the Almighty One, maybe through the instrumentalities of human beings. Even the skeptic, and sometimes they call him—what is the name of a nonbeliever? Thomas Jefferson, agnostic, whatever appellation, even he, when he wrote in the American Declaration of Independence, said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights"—this is the important partiality—"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So governments are instituted among men. He did not say who institutes government.

Now why did he say this? If the source of all life, the source of all power, the source of all authority, the source of all values in human society is the Almighty, how can that be reconciled with the consent of the governed as deriving the source of just powers of government?

* (1100)

It appears that the key to the paradoxical problem lies in the nature of human beings and, more specifically, the ingredient that comprises a true human being, the basic ingredient of his being human, namely, the nature of human choice.

In speaking through the mouth of Moses, the Lord God Almighty states: See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. In that I command you this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments that thou mayest live and multiply. But—here is the choice—if thine heart turn away, so that thou will not hear, but shall be drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I denounce unto you this day, that you shall surely perish, and that you shall not prolong your days upon the land wither thou passeth over Jordan to possess it. I called heaven and earth to record this day against you. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore, choose life, that thou and thy seed may live.

Here is the right ingrained in us by the Almighty in our nature, in our being to make a choice. Why do we have to choose life? He continued: Choose life that both thou and thy seed may live, that thou mayest love the Lord thy God. This is mayeth--may. Unlike angels, the angels of light, human beings may or may not obey, but angels must obey. That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, that thou mayest obey his voice, that thou mayest cleave unto him, for he is thy life, and the length of thy days, that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, to give them.

From this we can say that ingrained in our nature as creatures of God, he has imprinted in us the power to make a choice between life or death, between good and evil.

An Honourable Member: Tory or NDP.

Mr. Santos: Tory or NDP, whatever choice. So it is for us to say, to be or not to be, to go or not to go, to do or not to do, whether for good or for evil and everything in between.

Now, if the authority and power of government, according to democratic theory, derives from the consent of the governed, do the governed make a choice that they come under the rule of other people? How can such a relationship between the rulers and the ruled be explained alternatively?

There is another group of political theorists. They are called the elitists, nondemocratic. Led by the Italian political scientist named Gaetano Mosca, he said that in all societies two classes of people appear, a class that rules and a class that is ruled.

The first class, that is to say, the ruling class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second class, the more numerous, is directed and controlled by the first in a manner that is no more or less legal, no more or less arbitrary or violent.

As the British historian Trevelyan once said: When men collectively are very poor, few must be made rich if there is to be any accumulation of wealth for civilized purposes. When men collectively are very ignorant, progress is only possible through the endowment of an educated few. In such a world, organization can only begin through personal ascendancy and can only be rendered permanent through privilege.

Now, this is the alternative explanation. Whether based on the democratic theory of consent of the governed or the elitist theory of the privilege of the few, what is one plausible explanation why some people are ruling over other people? In every society there is a scarcity of material and other resources which people generally consider desirable. Every natural person like any one of us possessed of the will to power will try to mobilize human and material resources to promote our personal advantage. In the pursuit of our private benefits, which we may call self-interests, there are bound to arise situations of conflicts among individuals.

If the claim to certain aspects of the social and political environment to certain resources around us is commonly shared by some or few people, we may call that group interest so that the actual and potential conflict of individual and group interest in society would generate a necessity to generate some normative rules and some mechanism in society for regulating and settling these conflicts through the making and enforcement of decisions that can be authoritatively enforced in effectively allocating these scarce resources, values, material and nonmaterial.

Such normative rules to govern our political interactions either are voluntarily agreed among us participants in that system of interaction or imposed upon us by some politically dominant group within or outside the given political system. The normal set of normative rules has been established effectively in allocating material and nonmaterial resources in society. The political system of interactions become in our parlance a system called political order, because there is someone now in charge of maintaining those rules and enforcing them, a mechanism that will effectively settle all conflicts within society. Where such transformation has taken place, the old, pervading institutional arrangement that assumed responsibility for making and reformulating those rules and the mechanism for settling of conflicts, we call it the government, other terms, the state, because only this entity which pervades all of society had the monopoly of the legal and legitimate use of coercion to enforce its will. That is why it is called the state. That is why we call it the sovereign state, sovereign government, as distinguished from other groups in society who have no legitimate or legal right to use violence.

* (1110)

We cannot allow the state to be overpowered by any other contending group in society, similarly exercising legal use of coercion to enforce their will upon others. There will be chaos. There should be one and only one all-pervading, all-powerful mechanism in society to effectively settle these conflicts. That is what is meant by the government. The political authority to govern is therefore a legitimate and legal right derived from the imperative necessity to create this political order, to maintain and enhance this order so that conflicts may be settled peacefully within society even at the threat of the ultimate use of the powers of government to enforce its will by the use of coercion. But it will be legal because they are the ones who define the law and the procedures of the law and all the processes of the law.

So in our contemporary society, there is a variety of organizations and institutions, bureaucratic and unbureaucratic, inside and outside governmental institutions. These organizations, by the imperative of their size, the complexity of the tasks that they perform in society, the growing differentiation in all the areas of human activities in life, have their own rules in themselves, and they sometimes have their little governments in their own little sphere of activities. They are not only the political, the social, the commercial, economic, industrial, educational, religious. Every one of them have their own set of rules operating within their own sphere of activities but never, never interfering with the all-pervading political authority of the government representing the state. So we have such doctrines as separation of church and state according to tradition, but we have never had such a doctrine of separating the commercial business, corporate power groups, and the government. Indeed, there is this interpenetration of influence between these two sets of functions in society that should be really separate and distinct like the church and the state. That is what is happening and going on now in our society.

So an example par excellence of a powerful group in society other than the government, because it possesses economic power and financial power, will be the multinational, corporate, natural, artificial, as distinguished from natural persons, who can live generation after generation because they have a life longer than the life of any individual. That is just a creation of our mind when we created the corporate entity.

So, basically speaking, there are two grand models of organization and institutions in our society, the governmental and quasi- or semi-governmental organizations, which purpose is to provide basic services to all the people and the other nongovernmental but powerful, sometimes even more powerful than government, whose purpose is to provide the selling and buying of commodities and other services for the purpose of making money.

If the government would like to engage in the buying and selling of goods and services and other commodities and descend to the level of the commercial world, they can do so by creating what we call a Crown corporation--Air Canada, whatever. They create these entities—MPIC, Hydro. They sell commodities. They buy, they sell. But then, when they descend to the level of that place called buying and selling, they, by definition, forfeit their basic right to be the sovereign, the ultimate, all-powerful authority. Therefore, they can be sued now in court, because they descended to the level of the ordinary citizen, if they persist in performing basic governmental functions. I do not think it is wise at all to allow the government to be sued in its own courts. Can you sue the king in the king's court without the king's consent?

So there are these two grand models, the governmental model, whose basic justification for its existence is to provide services. By definition, it has a monopoly of the function, because it is performing public service. Also, it should be tested by its effectiveness, the carrying out of its purpose.

On the other hand, there is the business corporate model, whose very existence is to make money by the buying and selling of commodities. By definition, and they say so, they operate in the marketplace by the law of supply and demand. There is competition there, they say, competition rather than monopoly.

Moreover, they are tested by the bottom line, the ability to make money, and therefore the basic primary criterion of their performance is efficiency rather than effectiveness, keep operating within an honest sphere without any interference and interpenetration over its other. There will be no problem in our society. The government will be performing its basic public service function and then collecting all the funds from all the participants in the political system in the form of taxes. Reasonable they will be.

On the other hand, the private corporate organizations will be raising and trading their own money by making a margin, a profit in all their operations in buying and selling. The government says the government is the government. This other organization should be subject to the regulating power of the state. That is the justification why we have regulatory bodies that regulate the activities of these other entities in our society, because they operate under the economic laws of supply and demand.

Now, what has happened lately? There are these men of power in the financial and corporate world who cannot be satisfied with the wealth and riches that they already have, enormous as they are, greater than some of the sovereign countries in the world, and they begin to make agreements with governments and representatives of governments. They created private entities like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the North American Trade Agreements and, lately, the Multinational Agreement on Investments. What are all these agreements trying to do? They are trying to nibble and eat away that sovereign power of a state so that they can dictate how this government will conduct their own governmental function. Consider all the impositions of the International Monetary Fund on those debtor countries like Brazil, Mexico, other countries. They said you cannot do this, you cannot do this—all these restrictions on the power of government. Cut your social services, lay off your employees before we will lend you the money. This is the power of the love of money.

* (1120)

On the other hand, let us consider the operation of governments. The government because of the nature of their function which is the operation for the purpose of providing services to all the people, they are constrained by some moral imperative in the performance of their function. The functions of government include the provision of health services to all the people. That is not a commodity. It is a public service function. It should not be bought and sold in the marketplace. Health is next to life. It is not a commodity. Therefore, governments should have no hesitation promoting public health, but if they sell public health to multinationals as if they were commodities—

An Honourable Member: Which they are starting to do.

Mr. Santos: —and they are doing this. They are calling it health care industry. Notice now the change in the metalanguage. It is now an industry. It is a conversion of what is a public service into a private commodity, and therefore this is all for the name of money. There will be deals between those who represent government and those who run private corporate entities. Where that exists, are we living up to the moral constrain of our power to promote the welfare of all the people?

Education is not a commodity. It is a public service of government to its people. Unless all the people are informed and educated enough to understand the choices that are to be made in society, they will be those people of long ago who had been taken advantage of by the ruler. The only hope of the people is to be aware of all public choices that are being made in their name. What about social services, social welfare services to those who are needy, to those who are old, to those who are afflicted? Is it not a responsibility of government as well? It is. But the moment we started applying and transmuting these social services, considering them as commodities, selling them to some private operators who will then make their own profit and margin in these dealings, are we being true to our role as representatives of the people?

An Honourable Member: The old 30 pieces of silver—

Mr. Santos: The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) selling your birthright for a plate of beans, selling your birthright for 30 pieces of silver. So there are certain moral codes in all of antiquity. Let us start with the oldest code, the Code of Hammurabi. You may not have heard of this, but I think it is one of these—[interjection] I do not know, who is he? I do not know who is more sincere. [interjection] This one maybe. Hammurabi was King of Babylon and he was a lawgiver. He gave edict and law, and one of the laws he gave concerns the health care of the people. What did the law provide? Here is one such law: If the doctor in opening an abscess shall kill the patient, the doctor’s hand shall be cut off.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Santos: That is the law of Hammurabi. [interjection] He is the King of Babylon. But if the patient was a slave rather than a freeman, the doctor simply supplied another slave. See, there is a distinction already between slave which is considered property and a human being, a freeman. Even in the Greek city state (polis), if you are a freeman you participate in the marketplace in the making of the law; but if you are a slave you have no say, no rights.

How many of us have been slaves and were not given the right to vote and participate until so late in this century, to many of us? Why is that law in Babylon? Because in Babylon it was the custom to simply lay the sick on the street. They just lie there on the street and anyone with compassion can offer medical advice, can operate on him. You know everyone is an amateur physician, so if you dare and you do not know, you may risk cutting your hand if the person who is sick is a freeman. You have to ask him first, are you a freeman or a slave?

In most Christian countries of the western world, we inherited the Judeo-Christian religion and tradition, the Decalogue of Moses, the 10 Commandments.

An Honourable Member: I bet you it was easier on lawyers because they were the ones writing the law.

Mr. Santos: Well, there was a lawyer who asked the Lord, who said, what shall I do Lord to inherit everlasting life? He said, Go and sell all that you possess, give to the poor, come and follow me.

An Honourable Member: And he went away sad.

Mr. Santos: No, he went away. He said, I cannot do this.

So what does the Decalogue say? There are 10 of them. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make any graven image. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Thou shalt remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it. Honour thy father and thy mother. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour—that simply means do not lie. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Do not be greedy. Well, not one of us human beings can satisfy all these rules. In the first place, there are too many of them--10. We do not remember them all. And it is written: I say in my haste, all men are liars. That is written by David, King David.

* (1130)

An Honourable Member: That is sexist. What about women?

Mr. Santos: Well, it includes women, you know. Human beings, they call them men. So these 10 are too many, so what did the Lord Jesus Christ do about the 10 too many? He summarized them. He said, love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment, and the second one , like unto the first, love thy neighbour as thyself. It is so simple. Love God; love your neighbour. So the rule is love, but then we again misinterpret love, you know. I love you, therefore this and that. But what kind of love are we talking about? What kind of love are we talking about? The reference here is agape.

Do you know what the Apostle Paul said about this kind of love? I think I will sing it because that way you will remember it better. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not love, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. Though I have the gift of prophecy so that I understand all mysteries and all knowledge and have not love, I am nothing.

There are more than that. Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love is all suffering and is kind. Love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself and is not puffed up; doth not behave itself unseemly; seeketh not its own; is not easily provoked; thinketh no evil; delighteth not in iniquity, but delighteth in the truth; beareth all things; believeth all things; hopeth all things.

This is the kind of love that they are talking about.

Madam Speaker, am I done? This is the kind of thing that we should live our life for so that we may be true to the invocation of the Almighty in running this government. Thank you.

Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I once again have the honour of addressing all of the honourable members in this House, the people of Manitoba and the residents of La Verendrye on the subject of our government's most recent throne speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to welcome back all the members of the House. I am confident that my colleagues were out working diligently in their communities consulting with the residents and discussing the future of this beautiful province. I am certain that they are delighted, as I, to be back in this House and bring forth the valuable insight gained through speaking with the people they represent.

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to the Chamber's six new pages. The day-to-day activities of the Chamber are exciting and challenging. Your presence here is greatly appreciated. Your efforts and your help make the House run smoothly and efficiently, and I hope you enjoy this opportunity and gain valuable insight from it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the life of a treasured colleague and respected member of this House. I was deeply saddened to learn of the untimely passing of a friend and colleague, the late Neil Gaudry. Mr. Gaudry's desire to work for the betterment of his constituents in this province will be greatly missed. Mr. Gaudry was a legislator who believed in working together for the people of Manitoba. His sole interest did not lie in partisan politics but in a genuine spirit of co-operation. Neil's commitment to the people of St. Boniface is something all of us as legislators should endeavour to achieve. Mr. Gaudry will be missed by the people who knew him best, the people he represented, the members of this Chamber and the people who strived to follow in his legacy.

I would just like to tell a little story of running into Neil once on my travels up north. You see, I was born in Spearhill, Manitoba, which is north out No. 6 highway, and it runs through St. Laurent. I know many people, including the Lieutenant Governor prior to his being appointed here, I knew him for a short period of time before that, and he came from St. Laurent also. On passing through St. Laurent one day, Milly and I, my wife and I, decided that we would stop in and see an old friend of mine who I had worked with at Community Chev, a fellow by the name of Clem Chartrand.

In looking for his place and finding his place, and then I did not know, but they were celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary when we drove in. There was just a tremendous amount of cars and a tremendous amount of people there. When I walked in and Clem recognized who it was, of course he and his wife came running over and gave us a big hug. Clem is a very boisterous person and so everybody knew that we had arrived. On looking around, I recognized a number of people who had also worked at Community Chev that I knew. Then I spotted this white-haired fellow sitting there; it was Neil Gaudry. Of course he got up and laughingly came over and shook hands and said how nice it was to see us. He said: But these are my people. I said: By the welcome you better think about that. It was very nice. We did have a lot of fun together, both here in the House and out there. Neil was a tremendous person and will definitely be missed.

Before moving on to the matters of government, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the Honourable Yvon Dumont. As I have said, he did come from St. Laurent also, and I knew him briefly prior to his being appointed. After his appointment in 1993, Mr. Dumont fulfilled his responsibilities and duties as the Queen's representative with genuine care and pride for Manitoba. I had the pleasure of knowing him, as I said, prior to his appointment briefly. He has served as a member of a number of boards and councils and especially as the president of the Manitoba Metis Federation. I thank him for his service to this province and wish him well in his future endeavours.

* (1140)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to speak of four of my members of our caucus who will be retiring from politics this year. During my nine years as an elected member, I have had the honour and pleasure of working with these members, who demonstrated their dedication and commitment to this province and government on a daily basis.

Twenty-two years ago Jim Downey was elected to the Manitoba Legislature from the constituency of Arthur-Virden. Since that time, Jim has demonstrated a sense of leadership in his role as MLA and in his various cabinet positions. As one of the longest-serving members of the House, his experience and guidance will be missed by his colleagues and the constituents of Arthur-Virden. I thank both him and his wife, Linda, for their service to this province and to this caucus.

In 1988, Glen Findlay was elected as a member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. Since that time Glen has served as Minister of Agriculture, Minister responsible for telecommunication, and also the Minister of Highways. The residents of Springfield will deeply miss the friendly, hardworking style of the Honourable Glen Findlay.

The Honourable Rosemary Vodrey was first elected as a member of the constituency of Fort Garry in 1990. Since that time, she has worked diligently to serve her constituency and to fulfil her cabinet responsibilities. Rosemary currently holds the portfolio of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, where she is well respected. I wish her and her family well in their future endeavours also.

Then we come to the Honourable Albert Driedger, first elected to the Steinbach constituency in 1977. Much of Albert's time was spent in the role of the Minister of Natural Resources and Highways and Transportation. He was a dedicated, very dedicated cabinet minister and representative of the people of Steinbach. They really are truly proud of Albert and have always been proud of him. Fellow caucus members and friends will also miss him. I can tell you that having been the MLA for the constituency of La Verendrye and living next to Albert's constituency, where I represented him and the Premier and the government on many occasions in his constituency, the people really did have a healthy respect and love for Albert Driedger. So as I said, they definitely will miss him also.

Friends, I wish Mr. Downey, Mrs. Vodrey, Mr. Findlay, and Mr. Driedger the best of luck and continued success as they embark on their next chapter of their lives. Their dedication and commitment to the province will provide lasting benefits for all Manitobans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak now on the matter of government and respond to the throne speech. I have to take you back to 1990, when I was first elected. It has been nine years now and has taken in many different changes. Whether it is health care, education, highways, you name it, there have been many different changes. But I want to point out exactly what happened during those years.

When the changes to health care were first introduced by Mr. Don Orchard, or the Honourable Don Orchard, the NDP then said that there were no changes necessary. Everything was great. Everything was hunky-dory. Do not make any changes. Do not do anything. We explained, or our minister and the rest of us explained, that indeed we had to make changes because our population, our baby boom, if you will, was indeed aging. The more the years rolled by, the more numbers of aging population we will have and aged people or people who are 50 and more indeed take more out of our health care system.

But there is one thing more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we also know, and it has been publicized, if people have been paying attention, and that is that as much as we would like to believe we are, we are not in the best of shape. Now, I am not looking around the room anywhere or pointing at anybody in particular, but I could be in better shape. The point I make is that the people within the baby boom are not in the best of shape and, again, not just being aged but the fact that people are not in the best of shape also takes money out of the health care system or is taxing, more taxing on the health care system.

That being said, explained to the NDP in those days and all the way along, they could not quite understand or did not want to understand, and so kicking and squealing they were dragged along year after year. After a year or two, they then said, their line was that, yes, indeed we do know that change has to take place, but they would point out different little things that they thought should not have taken place. So as the years went by, we also introduced the changes on education renewal. Once again, the same, familiar ring from the opposition benches, the same thing all over again. That was indeed that no changes were necessary. Do not make any changes, leave it as it was, no vision for the future or the needs of the future.

What I am trying to point out here simply is that had things been in the hands of the NDP, things would not have changed and, indeed, we would really be in trouble today. [interjection] My nursery is going great. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems that I have woken somebody up over there.

The changes that had to take place in the health care system have taken place in a very consultative fashion. That was pointed out right from day one, and it has. There has been more consultation done on health care in Manitoba than on any other subject in the history of Manitoba. Indeed, you can tell that those changes were consulted with the people working within the system and that indeed those changes were put into place.

We have and will have the best health care system in Canada, undoubtedly, by the end of the year. We will have something in the neighbourhood of 400 to 600 nursing home beds online by the end of 1999. Indeed, the NDP, I guess you might have even heard them today heckling from their seat, talking a little bit about cold food. My goodness. We have been playing that one for quite some time. They do not know it yet, but those particular little problems that we were having--and we did have some; any change that you make you are going to have some problems--but those problems have indeed been fixed. [interjection] They have been fixed. The fact is that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) asks if indeed they have been fixed. They have been fixed, but it is like they expect there are never to be any kinds of problems. I guess that, if you never change anything and if you never do anything, you will not have any problems, but that goes with the 1980s and the NDP that were in power in those days. The debt that they incurred is something in the neighbourhood of $4.5 billion or $5 billion worth of debt, is one of the extra things that indeed cost this province much of the needed monies that we could put into our health care system and our education system. That, indeed, was the responsibility of that NDP government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Education, we have heard in travelling around the province, from school to school, from division to division, right now with the howling from the NDP caucus that indeed these things were not good. What I am hearing now from the teachers, and this I quote: The curriculum that is now being implemented is the best curriculum that they have ever seen. Ever.

* (1150)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I felt really good to hear that kind of thing, because as you go through all these different changes—and, yes, it was done on a consultative basis again—but, as you go through these many changes and every step that you take, you have the opposition, and now I guess it is the Winnipeg Free Press, but you have opposition who throw out comments. Yes, it does at times; it does, it does make you question yourself sometimes. So it is nice when you have people who indeed were not in favour of the changes that took place in the beginning now realize and see that indeed the curriculum that is being implemented now is in their words, not mine, the best they have ever seen. That really does fulfill, or completes, if you will, to some degree the work that we have been striving to complete.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have talked about Health. We have talked about Education. We have not talked too much about Highways and many of the other departments, because what we have is Health and Education, Child and Family Services, where we have made strides, steps forward that are really quite incredible also. I have received many calls in my constituency office saying that indeed the changes to The Child and Family Services Act have been widely accepted also, and the changes that we have made within the department as a whole have been very good too.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is something here that we have to key in on, and that is for all of these things somebody has to pay. The economic development that has taken place in this province has not taken place just by accident. The atmosphere in Manitoba has been set over the years to where business people, entrepreneurs, have the opportunity and want the opportunity in Manitoba to start a business, to build a business. Many have come here and many have just started here through Agri-Food. It is endless the list. I do not have it with me today, but the list is absolutely endless.

But indeed without that kind of economic development to drive forward in the creation of wealth, we would not be able to do the things that we want to do in this province with our people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cut out a few articles out of the papers over the last year or so, quite a few actually, and I would like to touch on a few of them. I will just read a little bit out of a few of them.

The first one here in large letters says, Health authority gets major hike in funding. The South Eastman Health received a $1.4 million booster shot from the provincial government last Thursday. This was in the Carillon News. The province announced annual base funding for the region will be increased by $1.1 million this year and $1.4 million in future years.

Funding for the 10 rural regional health authorities in Manitoba will be increased by more than $13 million. I have a little picture here and it happens to be of the Premier and myself, Roy Seedler [phonetic] and Guy LaCroix who happens to be the superintendent of Seine River School Division. The Premier and I had the opportunity to visit and tour a brand new school in Lorette. It was a very nice tour in a school that will take us and our children in Lorette area into the future where technology is really a part of this school system. It was nice to be there.

This next one here is Steinbach. I was there. It was Steinbach designates year recognizing older people. As everybody knows it is the International Year of Older Persons and I was there representing my neighbour, Mr. Albert Driedger, and was accepted very nicely there.

Once again we have the Premier here, and this was in Lorette, again in the collegiate, and what he spoke on was coming change need not be feared, as the Premier said, and had some of you been there, you would have seen the students and the Premier speak quite openly about what is happening today in education and how it will take them into the future.

I have another one here, a report from the Legislature by Ben Sveinson, MLA. I will not go through that, but I do these things just to keep my constituents abreast of the things that are happening here and, of course, in other parts of my constituency.

We have another one here, a Seine River tributary to be presented to the public. That was a fun thing to attend. Mr. Danylchuk, who happens to be the Reeve of the R.M. of Tache, and I, and the Reeve from the R.M. of St. Anne, have been working with our Resources people looking at a possible ditch along No. 1 Highway East so that indeed the waters will not go into the Seine River above Lorette and each spring flood them. We might bring it down the No. 1 Highway expanded ditch to put it into the floodway. It is a possibility. It is not something that is indeed there yet, but we are definitely looking at it. That was very well received also by the people throughout the whole area.

Also, we have here another picture of yours truly. Whitemouth waste management facility up and running in the Whitemouth area. I believe Mr. Praznik was there at the time. I am not sure, the Honourable Jim McCrae might have been out there too. That was a facility that is one that many people around, many municipalities around could go there and take a lesson from this because there is very, very little of anything that ever goes into the ground to be buried. Most of it is recycled and reworked and so on. The composting part of it is there, and it is really something to see.

Another one we have got here is the opening of the credit union. That goes back to the summer months. The opening of the credit union in Landmark. Indeed, that was a well-attended opening. The people were really quite happy to see that happen, but it is something that was needed in the community. Although they did have a credit union, the building was one that is now their own. So it was nice to see, and I congratulate them for that.

We have another little article here. A Ste. Anne elementary schoolteacher is recognized for outstanding work and dedication. He just received another award, by the way. It is a project leader. Dan Forbes is the teacher’s name, and doing a tremendous job in Ste. Anne. He just received another award for the work that he is doing. So I congratulate him also.

* (1200)

There are many, many things, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have here, and all of these things are happening in La Verendrye. Pardon me. There was one there from Steinbach. However, many of our people do visit the Steinbach area, whether it is for shopping or different things or friends.

Oh, yes, we have another little article. It says here: MLA applauds hike in education funding. La Verendrye MLA Ben Sveinson says the increase in education funding announced recently by his government will benefit at-risk students throughout the province. Education minister Linda McIntosh announced an additional $17.7 million in funding, and in the 1999-2000 school year, an average increase again of 2.3 percent.

All of these things cannot be done without an engine that is really moving along. Our economy is perking well--[interjection] You are absolutely right.

Another one, and it just keeps going on. The reason why I am pointing these out is that if you really pay attention you will see R.M.s to receive 2.8 million. It is another one. Rural municipalities in Manitoba will be receiving an additional $2.8 million in provincial municipal tax in addition. I mean, it just goes on and on.

I do have to go on and on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I really want our people to understand what is happening out there. I am just talking about La Verendrye. This is happening all over Manitoba. Make no mistake. This is happening all over.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): And in Winnipeg as well. [interjection]

Mr. Sveinson: Well, they are doing for Burrows, too.

We have a little article here. Last month, Ben Sveinson, MLA for La Verendrye, had the opportunity to meet with Martha Penner and students of the Riverside School as they toured the Legislative Building. You noticed my school was in here the other day, and it was very nice to have them here. We have the advisory committee appointed for the millennium.

Oh, yes, and here was a nice one. Ben Sveinson, MLA for La Verendrye, was on hand for the greening of the Richer School in June. That was really a tremendous thing. You see the Richer School grades are from Grade 1 to Grade 8, and it was the younger students who were indeed working on this particular project. They did receive a little bit of monies. I believe it was Sustainable Development. That is right.

Mr. Enns: Sustainable Development Fund.

Mr. Sveinson: That is right.

Mr. Enns: I sit on that committee.

Mr. Sveinson: Yes. Right here, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). I was there as you can see. I was there helping the young people plant these plants, and we had a tremendous morning at the Richer School.

We have another one here, Elite Swine hosts appreciation banquet.

An Honourable Member: Oh, boy, that was a dandy, eh.

Mr. Sveinson: Oh, this was something. Now all of us know how much the hog production has increased in Manitoba and the jobs that it has created in Manitoba. I would just like to touch on this just to show you how big this is, how huge this is. More than 700 people were in attendance for a sit-down dinner catered by Clare's Restaurant of Niverville when Elite Swine Inc. of Landmark held their annual customer appreciation banquet in the Landmark Arena. The dinner, of course, was followed by presentations for the best hogs in all the different categories that they have. What I am trying to point out simply is that when you talk 700 producers, you take that and you can multiply that by approximately five to even 10 for employees, that is incredible. That is incredible.

Mr. Enns: That is why in his constituency the rural population is rising.

Mr. Sveinson: That is right. Another one, and I am just pointing out the things that are happening. I am not making up any of this. This is all right in the newspapers here. Along No. 1 East--

An Honourable Member: This is like the gospel.

Mr. Sveinson: This is gospel. The No. 1 East Highway, if you go out just past No. 12, is where it mainly starts as far as the many different resort things that we have there. We have, for example, the Lilac Resort celebrates 40th year in the family-run operation. What began as a slight ponderance upon gazing at the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway has progressed to become a place of summer memories known as the Lilac Resort. On July 4, 1998, the well-known eastern summer spot will mark its 40th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I could go on and on and on with many of the different things. The money that indeed flows into—and I say not just my area but all over the province. For example, as you know last year and the year before were some hard times within my constituency be it with the flood, and one of the notes here is the R.M. of Tache adds $235,000 to the flood relief account. I delivered a cheque to them for that amount of money, and that was only partial amount that they received at that time.

Also, there is another one. Community Places grants blanket the southeast. Look at this. Residents in La Verendrye will receive, what is it, $82,000 in support for a number of different projects. I mean tremendous, tremendous things are happening all over Manitoba. If we would just take a moment to stop the bickering, the poking of fun, if you will, from opposition benches just to see what is really happening out there, it would really be a nice thing.

This year alone I have been talking to the Minister of Highways, our new Minister of Highways (Mr. Praznik). He tells me that there is going to be considerable roads fixed in my constituency, that indeed we are looking at a considerable amount of money. Although I do not have the amount yet, he told me there is a considerable amount of money going on that 59 highway where Grand Pointe had flooded. They are going to make part of the dike around Grande Pointe as two lanes of the highway, so it is a very expensive thing to do. They will be starting some work on that this year, this summer.

Madam Speaker, I also have a resort area in my constituency known as the Whiteshell Provincial Park. A very, very pretty place to visit, to have a cottage, to set up a tent, to go fishing, boating, skiing. These last two years have been a growth time for what is known as Falcon Trails. It is an environmentally friendly resort area. We had the Falcon Ski Hill that indeed over the years, I do not know exactly what reasons, but the attendance there was dropping and the amount of cost to running that facility was indeed quite high. So we did pass it off to or sell it—lease it to some people who had run that ski hill for quite some time and worked around it for quite some time.

* (1210)

What they did was they visited a few other places in North America who have done the environmentally friendly thing, if you will. For example, there are no motorized vehicles or boats allowed in and around this area. Motorcycles, anything like that, are not allowed. So there are trails and nature hikes that will be set up for schools throughout the summer where they can come there, and they will take them through areas. They will be showing the many different types of flowers, trees and so on, a real nature hike and a real good time for our schools to come there.

In the winter time, of course, just so that this facility is operating year-round, schools have for many years actually attended the Falcon Ski Hill for skiing and having fun. Also, there are cross-country ski trails. It is just absolutely endless. There are mountain bike trails there. It is something to behold. I do not know how many of you or if any of you have been out that way yet this year or to visit the new facility, but please do. If you wish, give me a call. I would be only happy to meet you there, maybe even have dinner and then take a little hike of our own through that area. It is a beautiful spot. There are canoes there that you can rent to go for, a little boating area. It is really something to see, and I welcome not just the Premier (Mr. Filmon) but all members of the Legislature to my constituency for a nice visit.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, back in 1988, I, along with a group of individuals, was elected for the first time, and an individual that stayed around and was extremely successful in elections that followed both in 1990 and 1995 was indeed a friend not only to me but to many members, if not all members of the Liberal Party. Of course, I am talking of the late Neil Gaudry. His contributions to this Chamber have been well noted by members of all sides of this House. His contributions to the Liberal Party have been noted at the annual general meeting. On a personal note, I had the opportunity to get to know Neil in many different ways in which many people had not had, and I was indeed quite privileged. I can recall many pleasant experiences with Neil; in fact, at the last caucus prior to his passing, I had seen a very happy individual with the prospect of a provincial election. I think Neil was about 95 percent convinced that he was indeed going to be running, and it was nice to see the energy and synergy that he was expressing.

On behalf of the Liberal Party we extend our most sincere condolences again to the family of Neil, and I would ask all of my colleagues inside the Chamber to show their condolences by having a moment of silence expressed.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave by honourable members in the Chamber to have a one-minute silence to recognize the bereavement of the former member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)? [agreed]

Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank all members of the Chamber. You know, in a very partisan way, how wonderful it would be if we had a provincial election tomorrow and 57 Liberal MLAs were indeed elected. Not only would I be ecstatic, but so would the Leader of the Liberal Party.

But on a personal note we would see a lot of friendships that I have been able to develop over the years--those friendships would continue but would definitely be missed in terms of some of the personalities and contributions that members have made. I have had the opportunity to gain some experiences whether it is from Jay Cowan of the past who stepped down to some of the individuals who are stepping down or who have indicated that they are not going to be running. I extend my best wishes to the family of the four Conservative MLAs, Jim Downey, Glen Findlay, Rosemary Vodrey and Albert Driedger, and applaud them in their efforts in trying to make Manitoba a better place to live.

Of course, I have a very good friend in Gary Kowalski, and I extend my very best wishes to a very—you know, in politics it is difficult to express it, but in politics you get to know a lot of people. You get to make a lot of political acquaintances. In my experiences, ever since I left the forces, every individual that I know has been a political acquaintance of one form or another. It is because of politics that I got to know that, and very few, and I would really have to stretch if I could find an individual who has gone as far as Gary has gone in terms of a personal relationship. He will be missed not only as a political acquaintance, Madam Speaker, but as a soul mate, as an individual who has been very supportive of me, an individual that I know who will do a lot in servicing his community, or our community, as a member of Winnipeg's finest. As a friend, I wish him the very best in whatever may lie ahead.

Having said that, I think it is fair to say that the Liberals in the past praised, and will continue in the future to praise, the government where it has made positive contributions, and it will criticize the government where we believe that the government needs to improve. We need to be aware that, in fact, this throne speech is indeed an election throne speech. They reveal a gap between Tory promises and performances. Perhaps you had a vision, that being the government of course in 1988 to clean up the mess created by the NDP, downsize government, eliminate deficits. It gave the government a purpose, but it is now gone. Essentially, we have a government that sees a limited role for government that runs away from problems like child poverty, a health care system in crisis, a declining population base and an urban economic development.

We question the absence of leadership that is needed to create and communicate a vision. Where is the vision here? There is nothing but an emphasis on the status quo, pass some legislation, promise a little more because it is a pre-election throne speech. Liberals looked at the last pre-election throne speech brought down by this government. On December 1 of '94, this government offered us 11 pages in a throne speech with many promises. Then an election came in early '95. It got re-elected, in part, based on the promises of its throne speech, and they did not deliver.

* (1220)

On May 23, 1995, following the re-election, there are barely two pages in the throne speech with few promises and certainly no vision. If they had a vision following the '95 election, our province would not be facing as many problems in health care, infrastructure, child poverty, First Nations and Metis, education, and education of our children. If they had a vision now, this House would not have waited 250 days-plus before reconvening, and we would not be debating a worn-out throne speech. This throne speech goes on for 12 pages.

If they performed as poorly as they did last time and they form government after the election, we can expect two to two-and-a-half pages in the next throne speech, along with more broken promises. This is not acceptable to Manitoba Liberals and not deserving of the support of this House. We find it remarkable that a Tory throne speech could exclude any reference to the agricultural community, an important contributor to the Manitoba economy and this most important one in much of rural Manitoba. A Liberal vision would include agriculture because the application of technology in this field will make it essential to the well-being of a nonurban Manitoba health care.

An Honourable Member: Who wrote that?

An Honourable Member: Dr. Gerrard wrote that.

Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Madam Speaker, a most urgent public policy is in fact needed. No comprehensive integrated vision for health care in the throne speech. We need—

Point of Order

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for The Maples, on a point of order.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On a point of order. We are only two Liberal members, and we cannot shout as loud as the 56 other members here. So we would like to get our message across, and we would like the indulgence of all members to listen while my colleague for Inkster gives his message.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Norbert, on the same point of order.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. The honourable member does have under Beauchesne, the throne speech, the right to read his speech, but I do believe that is the only way Dr. Gerrard can get his words on the record. So let the honourable member read.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On the same point of order. In the season of apologies, I want to apologize for my intervention to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I just wanted to make the point that when he gives his own words and his own thoughts and his own feelings in a speech, I always find them more interesting than reading somebody else's speech, but that is his call. I am sorry, and I apologize, I apologize, I apologize.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for The Maples did indeed have a point of order, and I thank the honourable Leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, very quickly, I can assure honourable members it is not completely a read speech. Every member has read some material into the record before.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, we need a health care system that is based on meeting the needs of patients and on respect for the care providers. We have had too many years of Tory mismanagement in health care, with the reliance on unproven economies of hasty reorganizations, of premature bed closures followed by more promises of additional bed closures, of important hospital food that passes the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) taste test, but does not for many others. Our corridors in hospitals are crowded with citizens looking for decent care, while there are empty wards without nurses on any floor.

The legislation proposed to update health care professional institutions and the government is to be commended in part for that at-last movement on requests from associations, but we need to offer them respect as caregivers in a decent work environment. The best policy to maintain our health care professionals in this province is to retain those we have already by offering decent compensation, and compensation that will encourage others to undertake the training here in Manitoba. We need to open up the health care system so that its operations are more transparent, so that it is less likely to fail as poorly as it has under this government in the past number of years.

The Liberal Party applauded the government's progress in applauding health services for Manitobans that require dialysis. It is reported that diabetes consumes up to a seventh of our health care budget dollars and particularly affects the aboriginal communities, but these few measures alone fail to reassure Manitobans that the whole health care system will work better.

In terms of Winnipeg urban development, Madam Speaker, Tory promises to act in the city of Winnipeg are not credible. If people refer to the March 31 editorial in the Free Press with respect to the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Tweed), there is a great deal of concern in terms of what the government's intentions really are in terms of economic development for the city of Winnipeg, where the preference is obviously given to rural Manitoba.

Recently, a KPMG report confirms that the future prospects for Winnipeg are questionable without leadership and the partnership among all stakeholders. We know from in particular the Minister of Industry's comments that the Manitoba government under a Tory administration will not be one of the active leaders in that partnership. There is no provincial commitment to work with the City of Winnipeg on addressing the decay of our downtown.

The government has long recognized that the aboriginal issues in our urban centres need to be addressed. We are now promised in the throne speech both an aboriginal education strategy and an aboriginal health care strategy. Perhaps it is well to remind members of this House that this same government promised an urban aboriginal strategy in its first throne speech over 10 years ago. None has ever been developed, which explains why the aboriginal community should be very sceptical of this latest promise.

In terms of fairness in democracy, Madam Speaker, we think it is long overdue that we move towards an elected Speaker.

We believe that there is a need for fixed sitting days inside the Legislature, Madam Speaker, that would at least assure us 100 days in total in any given year.

The electoral boundaries, the government should be soundly condemned for its actions of not reconvening the session in order to pass those boundaries. Equally, the New Democratic Party has been provided the opportunity to ensure that those boundaries would in fact have been implemented. There is an onus on all parties in this House to take responsibility and to pass these new boundaries prior to the next provincial election.

In terms of fiscal policy, Madam Speaker, lower tax commission is a window dressing if the government plans to reduce taxation prior to consultation. This consultation should address questions of equity and transfers to school authorities as well as the level of offloading taxation. The government has recognized that property taxes in Manitoba are too high, yet Tories reduced the minimum property tax credit from $325 to $250, a reduction of 23 percent. That was not promised in the Tory throne speech, but they did deliver it anyway. Is there more of this to come?

The government has failed to fund school divisions properly over the years, downloading responsibilities without funds and minimizing the general formula increases. School authorities--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 12:30, when this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) will have 25 minutes remaining.

The hour being 12:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.