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 Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, 11 years ago when this government assumed office we had the best home care system in the country. We had the best Pharmacare system in the country. We had the best personal care home system in the country, and high-quality food was served in the institutions. Since then the government, under the leadership of the Premier, has tried to privatize home care, has turned morale on its head. We now have one of the worst personal care home systems in the country as a result of this government not maintaining personal care homes adequately.

Instead of innovation in health care, we have had schemes, schemes of the Premier, schemes like the frozen food, where we hear $20 million has been wasted. We hear today frozen food is taken from the frozen food centre, sent to Deer Lodge, cooked at Deer Lodge, sent back from the Deer Lodge hospital, sent to the frozen food centre, put on plates and sent back to the Deer Lodge hospital, and they talk about efficiency.

We have seen schemes like $100 million on computers while people wait in hallways. They wait in hallways while $100 million, the largest expenditure in the history of the health care system in the province, goes to personal computers. An additional $60 million is required by Winnipeg Health Authority.

Madam Speaker, I am trying to put a 40-minute speech into three minutes, so I hope members will bear with me.

Madam Speaker, what we have seen under this government is a Pharmacare program that the government campaigned on as the best in Canada in 1995, and now a Pharmacare program where two-thirds of the recipients have been cut off of Pharmacare, where individuals cannot get access to their drugs, where individuals in my constituency have been forced to mortgage their house to pay for their life-sustaining drugs. That is a tragedy in Manitoba in the 1990s that individuals have to mortgage their houses to pay for their drugs.

So we are left after 11 long years of Tory mismanagement–people who pride themselves on management–they have left us with a health care system that is worse than ever since Medicare was introduced in this province, and instead we have schemes like $100 million computer projects, $20 million fast food, $4 million plus expenses U.S. paid to Connie Curran. What is the crowning achievement this year of the Conservative government? A $500,000 ad campaign paid by taxpayer dollars while people wait in the hallways to get service. A $500,000 ad campaign, while people wait in the hallways, to tell us how good our health care system is.

There is no doubt that after 11 years of government, not only are they out of ideas, not only have they made the health care system far worse than it was when they inherited it, but it is very clear that now we are seeing cynical pre-election announcements, just like we did in 1995 by the former, former minister. When the minister announced in 1995, as the new minister is going to announce today, all of the capital projects, I said that this was an election ploy–and it is in print–and after the election they were going to cancel it. What did they do, Madam Speaker? They were re-elected and they cancelled it. The tragedy is not politics. It is that those 600, 800 personal care home beds were not built. People have to wait in hallways, and now we have had announcements again that those personal care home beds are being built again. I say: shame on this government, shame on your management. After 11 years of mismanagement, it is your time to go and spend some time in opposition. We will have the most comprehensive health care program that you have seen in 20 years in this province. We will turn it around. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

* (1100)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I would like to be able to thank the member for Kildonan for his contributions, as restrained as they were. I hope that his colleagues will pass along my good words to him.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying, as I have now for 20 years, just about, in this House how much I appreciate the privilege that I get every time I can stand in this House and address the Speech from the Throne and talk about the issues that are of greatest importance to the people I serve and I represent and indeed all of us do throughout this province.

I want to begin by just saying welcome back to all of those members of the Legislature on both sides of the House–

An Honourable Member: We missed being here.

Mr. Filmon: I am going to talk about that. For the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I hope that he will give me a little bit of time to address those serious issues that he talked about. It was ironic that for five months all we heard from members opposite was: let us back in the House. Let us at him. We have got all these issues that we want to do. You know, we have been here now for almost two weeks and we have had absolutely zero in the way of new issues, new questions, or new ideas. All they have done is rehash all the old things that they talked about when we were here last time in the House. It was just kind of a replay, roll the videotape again from last session. That is all they have, and of course people all over the province are saying: Is that all there is? Is this what this was all about? Is there anything more that they have that they are hiding? Maybe they are keeping it in reserve.

That is the way it is. As a matter of fact, in preparing for these remarks, I just picked up one of my clippings. I have extensive clippings to resource, but this was about their annual general meeting just a few weeks ago. The story says: Task force offers few ideas to help kids, is the headline. It is from the March 1 Winnipeg Free Press. It says: There was plenty of rhetoric but few concrete solutions yesterday from an NDP task force that spent more than a year looking at ways to improve the lives of Manitoba children.

So there they are working for over a year and they have the best minds in their party. Now, that, of course, is an oxymoron, but they have the best minds in their party putting together their plan for the future for the children of this province, and they do not have any ideas. But of course when they were embarrassed by the question by the reporters, Chairman Lawrie Cherniack provided a brief overview to the delegates. Then he said that things were desperate for children. But, when he was asked for anything concrete, he said: Well, just, you know, wait. We will have some ideas. Give us another year or turn government over to us. Give us some way in which we can act. Trust us, I mean, we will have some ideas.

That is unbelievable, but that is New Democrat through and through and through, every member of the New Democratic Party in this House and every member in their executive and beyond. No ideas, absolutely no solutions, but plenty of criticism and plenty of rhetoric, day after day after day.

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if you have felt the same sort of sense as we watched Question Period every day with no new ideas, nothing new to offer, no excitement, nothing. Just the sound of the air going out of the balloon is all that you hear day after day after day.

Anyway, I do welcome the members opposite back despite their lack of ideas, despite their lack of any positive contributions for the future of this province. It is nice to have them there, and it is reassuring to know that our judgment about them and their capability and the public's judgment about them and their capability have not changed in the number of months that we have been out of session. We get the same old, same old day after day, and the public, of course, is well aware of that.

Madam Speaker, I neglected, I got a little bit side-tracked there by a comment from the members opposite, to say how much we appreciate your presence here presiding over the Chamber in the fair and even-handed way in which you always do. Despite occasional criticism, despite occasional, I think, inappropriate comments and disrespect from members opposite from time to time, you have an even-handed, fair-minded way of dealing with the issues here. We respect that very, very greatly.

I want to, of course, welcome back the table officers and the staff and thank them for all the contributions that they make to the workings of this House and this Legislature and to the people of Manitoba. I want to thank and welcome the pages and say how happy we are to be able to see them here and to have yet another fresh influx of youth, enthusiasm, and talent to support the efforts of this Legislature, and we hope that they will find this to be not only an experience that provides them with information and knowledge but an experience that they look back on as an enjoyable one. We hope that it is always that for them as they look back on their days as a page here, that they will know that they have made a contribution to democracy in our province.

I also want to take the time to thank in particular four individuals on our side of the House who have chosen not to run again in the forthcoming election campaign, whenever that may be. I say that in every case our lives have been enriched by their presence among us as colleagues, as friends, and as fellow workers in the road to democracy in this province. I want to endorse very, very strongly the things that they have done for the people of Manitoba and their constituents.

I begin with Jim Downey, the member for Arthur-Virden, who preceded me in this Legislature, who welcomed me when I arrived in this Legislature, and who served, in so many different ways, the people of this province. I remember Jim Downey as the forceful, aggressive, very upbeat Minister of Agriculture in this province who made all of us sit up and take notice when he said he was going to wrestle the Wheat Board to the ground on a particular issue. Thankfully for us, the Wheat Board continues to exist, but the Wheat Board also has changed for the better as a result of the influence of a very, very strong-willed and well-informed and very caring representative of the agricultural community in Jim Downey. The Wheat Board continues to look at new and better ways in which it can expand the agricultural industry of our province in positive ways.

* (1110)

Jim Downey, more recently as the Deputy Premier, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, has been–I would say I would get almost no argument from this–in fact, last evening at the Invest Manitoba forum banquet, several people came up to me and said that there has been no greater promoter of Manitoba over the last decade than Jim Downey. He has ranged far and wide throughout the world in ensuring that everybody knew what a great place Manitoba was to live, to invest, to raise a family, to be able to prosper and grow. Whether it is trade or investment, in job creation, he has been very centrally involved in all of these statistics that I am going to talk about in just a little while of the great achievements of our province in all those areas of economic opportunity.

Every step of the way, of course, he was accompanied by his wife, Linda. Although, members opposite from time to time took cheap shots--and continue to, as the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) just did—I can tell you that Manitobans got two for the price of one. Linda Downey was an unpaid, unremunerated spouse who gave immense talent, knowledge and support to the job of raising the profile of Manitoba, of increasing investment in Manitoba, of increasing our markets for trade. Linda Downey was the type of person who would go out on a trade mission and she would have her purse full of little products that were Manitoba made. She would have bought these things to show people all the different things that we make that you might not be aware of.

Time and time and time again, I learned about Manitoba and the products it produces, and the innovation that was going on throughout our rural community because of Linda Downey and her interest. In every place that she was, she would pick up a new idea, a new suggestion for something that we could do to promote better the province of Manitoba and its people. What did she get from the members opposite? Criticism, cheap shots, all the kind of abuse that they are known for, Madam Speaker.

The member for Osborne, of course, is responsible for the Status of Women and jumps on another woman and criticizes her at every opportunity. That is the kind of thing—petty, and we do not appreciate that, but Manitobans do not appreciate it either. I can tell you that I had not too long ago two different media people say to me that all you need to do to ensure success in the next campaign is invite the member for Osborne to be regularly on the media, radio and television, and every time she opens her mouth she loses support for the New Democratic Party. That is the kind of negativity, that is the kind of stuff that they have become known for.

The member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), of course, as a former auctioneer was quite shy coming to this House, but he overcame that shyness with a great deal of hard work and effort, and he eventually became, as I say, the greatest promoter that this province has seen in decades. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude, not only the people of his constituency, who I know are immensely proud of him and his efforts, but all Manitobans who have been touched by his extra efforts, and it was not just the on-the-job things. I mean I have been to many an event at which the member for Arthur-Virden would stand up on a volunteer basis and have an impromptu auction and raise money for local charities as he did time and time again. He once auctioned off one of my ties for a $150; the problem was it was worth $200. Just kidding, I buy everything wholesale. I have never had a tie worth more than $20. Anyway, the person who got it thought it was worth $200, I should say. In any case, we thank him very much for everything that he has done, Madam Speaker.

The next long-serving member who is stepping down is my colleague the member for Steinbach (Mr. Dreidger), another member of the class of '77 who was here when I arrived in this Legislature and we were seatmates. We sat next to each other in the seats of the Minister of Urban Affairs and the Minister of Government Services, and we became friends instantly. I think in my first throne speech session we jointly moved and seconded the throne speech, and we both really hit it off and got along well.

I went out many times with him to various public events to learn from the master about how you really build a constituency from the bottom up. Albert Driedger took what was traditionally known throughout the early part of this century as a swing seat and turned it into a solid Conservative seat He did it along with his wife, Mary, who was a tremendous partner for him, tremendous asset not only to Albert but to the people of–at that time of course it was Emerson constituency and then eventually he became the representative for Steinbach. They would go door to door to door, from farm to farm, make friends at every stop, encourage people to get involved and created a network of support and an active community interest that ultimately became an absolutely solid foundation for Progressive Conservative voting in that area, changed it completely, so much so that even some of his former opponents are now very active members of our party. I met one when I was with our member for St. Norbert, and this is a former New Democratic candidate who is now one of our most active supporters and vice-president of the constituency association in St. Norbert. A lot of that had to do with Albert Driedger making friends everywhere he went and ensuring that people had trust and confidence in him and our party and our government.

Of course, as an almost nine-year member of cabinet, he had tremendous achievements there. In the area of Natural Resources, of course, our whole commitment to the World Wildlife Fund's Endangered Spaces Campaign was quarterbacked by Albert and the work that he did throughout that period of time that he was the Minister of Natural Resources. So many contributions towards our parks and our special places, the way in which we now ensure that we are leaving a legacy for the future of Manitobans and their children because of much of the efforts of Albert Driedger.

I have to tell you that I remember caucus debates over things like barbless hooks and catch-and-release policies, and I remember how people argued that Americans would not come here to fish or people from outside the province, and we now are regarded as leaders in Canada because we have preserved our wildlife resources, our fishery, some of the best fisheries in Canada.

Last year I was up in a northern fishing camp, and I spoke with Americans, some from Texas, some from Minnesota, some from the Midwest. I asked them all about these things, and they had been in previous years in northern Quebec, in Northern Ontario. They said this was some of the finest fishing, in fact, the finest fishing that they had experienced in Canada, and they said they would come back. The reason was those visionary things that Albert Driedger had the courage to convince our government to do over the years and have changed entirely our prospects for tourism and northern economic development.

So obviously in Highways and Transportation, Albert had great achievement and made many friends. Certainly all of us now know the terror with which the heavy construction industry views even the remote possibility that members opposite would ever be in office because they remember all the potholes and the devastation to our road network that was left by the New Democrats who starved highway construction because they believed there was not enough votes in building roads, so short- sighted when you consider that this province is built on trade, transportation and distribution. They do not even understand the relationship, because members opposite, every time there is an announcement that there might be some jobs lost in the railway industry, they keep saying: Oh, we used to have so many more jobs. What they do not realize of course is the railways across Canada have diminished, and we have had a proportionate share.

* (1120)

What they do not realize is that this has become the centre of trucking in Canada. Eight of the 13 largest trucking firms in Canada are headquartered here. We have over 30,000 people employed in transportation distribution, more than ever before in our history. Members opposite of course are living in the past as they always are. The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is chirping away, and he does not know anything about transportation distribution because he does not understand that we are dealing in a world in which it is multimodal, that there are opportunities that continue to increase and grow for air transport. There are opportunities that continue to increase and grow in trucking, and that it is a big picture. But of course there is a lot of tunnel vision opposite, and the member for Transcona represents that very well.

I want to also recognize the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) who also is not running in the next election. The member for Springfield, of course, came to us as arguably one of the best informed people on agriculture in this province. I remember him before he joined government as a professor in agricultural economics at the university, and many of my friends with a background in agriculture talked about his knowledgeability, talked about his well-informed position on so many national and international issues in agriculture. I know we could always turn to him for a cogent analysis on issues of international trade in agriculture, and all of those things. He, probably more than anybody else, led the way in Canada in getting the transition that needed to be taken for farmers as they faced so many different pressures in world trade changes.

I remember us arguing for particular things in the GATT round of negotiations. The position that Manitoba had on the table invariably was the position that ultimately Canada took because it was the best position to take in a lot of these trade negotiations. We had to get rid of all of those subsidies from the European community, from the United States. We have not been totally successful in that, and it is rearing its ugly head again; but, for a period of time, because Canada's position, which basically was the position of the member for Springfield and his people who developed it, was that we had to stop these subsidy wars because we had to go to the most efficient and lowest cost producers prevailing and not use government treasuries to impact and unnecessarily influence the agriculture trade in the world.

Then of course, very much so, Manitoba, through the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay), was instrumental in the development of things like GRIP and NISA in the aftermath of getting out of these kinds of subsidy wars. There still had to be things that were not GATTable, but that were able to be used as assurances on a long-term basis of income support for farmers. They were not perfect. Believe me, none of these programs end up being perfect. There are always concerns about them, and whether or not there are better ways of doing it. We continue to struggle for better ways, but certainly the member for Springfield was always looking for creative solutions and better ways of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our farm economy and our farm community.

I can tell you that the whole effort towards diversification and value-adding, which has put us now light-years ahead of where we used to be decades ago when we were just growing whatever was the easiest, whether it is wheat or whatever, I mean today we are in a situation in which last year the value of our canola production and our pork production exceeded the value of our wheat production. We are now the largest edible bean producer in Canada, the second largest potato producer in Canada. We have changed in so many ways to diversify, to strengthen and to stabilize our farm economy. There is much more that can and will be done, but I know that the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) was so much a part of that.

His wife, Kay, of course, was with him every step of the way. Nobody attended any more functions than Kay did, perhaps Linda Downey, I am not sure, but every time you went to an event in rural Manitoba there were Glen and Kay, and it is because of that that they did such a tremendous job, first representing Virden, secondly representing Springfield, and in that field of, firstly, agriculture, and then of course they have made many people impressed and gained many supporters in the whole field of heavy construction. Again, as Minister of Highways and Transportation, he knew and understood the issues that had to be addressed and was more than willing and more than capable of taking them on and making positive change.

So the member for Springfield is one who leaves this Chamber with a tremendous legacy of achievement and certainly somebody who has made his constituents proud but indeed has served the people of Manitoba in a tremendous way, and I thank him for all of that.

The member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) is also leaving us and she has taken on many, many big challenges, and she has taken those challenges on and contributed her knowledge, her insight, her training as an educator, as a child psychologist, her training in the law and in all those respects, but most of all she has a Ph.D. in working with people. The member for Fort Gary has made many, many friends, countless friends throughout the length and breadth of this province and beyond by virtue of her understanding of people and her ability to seek consensus and overcome difficult challenges.

I remember very well, and it brings to mind, of course, the great sadness that we all feel and will have an appropriate time to address that in our condolence motion for the member for St. Boniface, but I remember the workings to bring of course French language governance into our school system in Manitoba and how long and hard the member for Fort Garry worked then as the Minister of Education. The support that she received from some members in this Chamber, particularly the late member for St. Boniface who, in a nonpartisan way, wanted to find the right solution to an issue that had plagued us for a long, long time and ultimately took a Supreme Court decision to resolve, and then we had to implement the solution in a way that met the tests of the Supreme Court which was not easy. The member for Fort Garry was principally responsible for bringing it to a conclusion that was seen to be not only acceptable but perhaps better than solutions that have been implemented across Canada.

So she has taken on major challenges. She certainly had major challenges as the first woman Attorney General in Canada, and she did us proud as an Attorney General and brought in laws that are the example of the best in Canada in family dispute resolution, in all of those, and in reducing the incidence of family violence, whether it is dedicated prosecutors, dedicated court, all of those matters to be dealt with have seen us as the leaders in Canada. The antistalking legislation that was promoted, developed under the stewardship of the member for Fort Garry, these are all ways in which we are seen as leaders in Canada, thanks to her efforts.

* (1130)

Her husband, Mitch, of course, was very much part and parcel of all of her efforts and continues to be one of her biggest boosters, one of our biggest boosters at every event that I see him. I say that as well in terms of her work on the Status of Women, immense legacy there, having appointed people as a member of cabinet, as the first woman to be the Provincial Auditor, first woman to be our Chief Judge, first woman to be our Provincial Trustee. The statistics that I saw recently of how many dozens of women we now have in the executive service category of our province, many, many times the numbers that were ever achieved by members opposite who talk, who have all the rhetoric and talk about women and women's issues and never walk the talk, never walked the talk when they had a chance.

The member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) has put us in the leading areas in Canada. You know, even the City of Winnipeg recognized the talent that she had showcased and raised to senior management levels by virtue of hiring firstly our Provincial Auditor, then nextly Gail Stephens, the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Winnipeg. These are all people who were allowed to develop their talents and be promoted within a supportive environment in our public administration in the province. More and more of our women are seeing that we have removed the glass ceiling for them, and we have removed the opportunity for them to be discriminated against and created an opportunity for growth and personal development because of the efforts of so many, but certainly the member for Fort Garry was very centrally involved in that.

I want to say as well that I personally, and I think many colleagues, will miss the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). I still see him out at public events. He was at the first hearings on the Young Offenders Act changes. He is now practising his skills in getting back into shape to be an officer in the Winnipeg–[interjection]

We do not want to talk about the donut shops. No, no. Just kidding, just kidding. But I have admired the work of the member for The Maples because he has been so involved in community-based organizations, with respect to youth particularly. I know I have seen him at so many different events at which he has accompanied youth from the high schools in his area and come out to these events, supported them, encouraged them.

An Honourable Member: The youth justice committee.

Mr. Filmon: Youth justice committee, so many different ways in which I know why he was so highly respected and highly regarded by the people of his constituency, because he was a good MLA. He was and is a good person who has tremendous commitment to his community and to the people of this city and this province. I, for one, am going to miss his integrity, his honesty and his forthrightness in this House in calling a spade a spade and being able to put his views on the record without fear or favour of anybody else's views in this Legislature. I wish him well in returning to his old career, a career that I believe we ought to respect very greatly and support very greatly, and that is the maintenance of law and order in this province.

Madam Speaker, I want to speak briefly about so many highlights in the throne speech that are very important. First and foremost, of course, the sense of optimism and confidence that is in this province today. It is one that is growing every year, year upon year upon year. Young people are coming back to our province, seeking their careers, and staking their future here. It is so exciting to see and to listen to those people.

Several of us were at that dinner last evening, and I turned to the member for Arthur-Virden and said: You know, look at this crowd that are here as entrepreneurs and investors and people who are working with the creation of jobs and opportunities here, and take a look at the average age. I will tell you, it was not much above 35. These are the people who are staking their livelihoods on making this a better, more exciting, more productive place to be. Boy, it was so good to see all of that last evening and during the day yesterday at that Invest Manitoba conference, but that is what has produced the all-time record levels that we are seeing in this province, all-time record levels of economic growth and opportunity being created.

Exports are at an all-time record high. You know, we went from $3 billion a year of exports from this province in 1990 to $7.7 billion last year, phenomenal growth. Nowhere else in the country has that been exceeded. A tremendous number of jobs, because for every billion dollars of export growth, you add 11,000 jobs. So what we are talking about is there are over 50,000 jobs by virtue of that export growth from 1990 to 1998.

The members opposite ran against free trade. They hated free trade. Even in 1995, their candidates were going to the door saying that free trade is a bad idea. It reminded me of when I was in the debate at MAST with the Leaders of the other two parties. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) said, you know, in the coming global economy–the coming global economy? I mean, holy mackerel. Talk about Rip Van Winkle. I mean, this guy, where has he been for the last decade? But they were opposed to free trade, they were opposed to the creation of opportunities, and they still are to this day. You talk about living in the past and just not getting it–duh–there they are.

Capital investment is at an all-time record high in this province, and in fact we have had seven consecutive years of growth in private capital investment. No other province in Canada can say that.

Our numbers of jobs last year hit in the seasonal peak an all-time record level again, and it was the third or fourth consecutive year of hitting an all-time record peak; 560,000 Manitobans employed. They earned almost $14 billion in wages and salaries last year, which again was an all-time record level of income for the people of Manitoba.

The members opposite are always wanting to compare themselves to some New Democratic administration who they think might give them a leg up as being maybe an example that they could do something worthwhile. They oftentimes compare themselves to Saskatchewan. I will tell you a number of things. Saskatchewan last year I believe added only 2,000 jobs. Manitoba added 10,000. This year we are projected to add another 7,000 or 8,000 or 10,000 jobs. Saskatchewan is expected to add zero jobs to their economy. Saskatchewan is in the lowest three on almost all the economic forecasts, the lowest three for economic growth.

That is what the members opposite say, but in addition to that of course you have here a February 11, 1999, Western Producer article that says: more hospital doors may close in rural Saskatchewan. So even despite the fact that Saskatchewan has closed 52 rural hospitals and one urban hospital and even though they have done a great deal to try and keep things in balance, their economy is not diversified like ours. They do not have the diversification or the value-adding that you are seeing in rural Manitoba. It is not seen in rural Saskatchewan even in terms of one area that Saskatchewan used to have an advantage on us, which was in agriculture research.

* (1140)

We are getting Monsanto setting up the ag research centre for all of Canada here at the University of Manitoba. We are getting ag biotech research taking place in a whole variety of areas, because they know that this has become the most diversified, the most innovative, the most entrepreneurial part of the agricultural economy in all of Canada right here in our province. We are doing well in all respects.

I might say another thing, that members opposite oftentimes, and they will be, I predict, during the budget debate, criticizing the use of the rainy day fund. I want to just tell them that if they choose to they can read and learn a little about how Saskatchewan has been attempting to budget and finance over recent years. Do you know that in this past year Saskatchewan has taken over $450 million out of their rainy day fund--it is what they call it--in order to keep their budget balanced? Now that rainy day fund, I might tell you, is made up of their revenues from liquor and gaming and all of those areas that they put aside in a separate little account that they call the rainy day fund. They have now got it down to the lowest level that it has been in a decade in order to try and keep their budget balanced through the tough times that we have.

It could also be that this is an election year and that they wanted to not only keep the budget balanced but do a little bit of tax reduction. Yet members opposite are going to say, well, it is an election year and all those kinds of things, but what they do not acknowledge is that this is precisely what their colleagues in Saskatchewan have done, only in much greater degree than we have, in utilizing the rainy day fund.

We have balanced budgets, by law. We are paying down our debt, by law. All of these things members opposite are opposed to, absolutely opposed to. They are opposed to lowering taxes, if you can believe that. The members opposite say that they do not want to lower taxes. Well, Madam Speaker, I just want to give you a couple of examples of what happened under the six and a half years of NDP administration to taxes in this province.

The sales tax went up from 5 percent to 7 percent. They introduced and increased the payroll tax to 2 1/4 percent of payroll. They introduced a personal net income surcharge of 2 percent. They increased the corporation income tax from 15 percent to 17 percent, the highest in Canada. They increased the corporation capital tax from .2 percent to .3 percent and also introduced a .2 percent surcharge and increased the bank rate to 3 percent. They increased gasoline taxes from 6.4 to 8 cents a litre. They increased the diesel fuel tax from 5.7 to 9.9 cents a litre, railway fuel tax from 3.8 to 13.6 cents a litre. The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is red in the face, and he should be.

They introduced the land transfer tax. They increased the tobacco tax. They increased tax upon tax upon tax. They increased $820 million a year of taxation.

The New Democrats never saw a tax they did not like or did not hike.

The one administration that they rarely compare themselves to these days is the NDP government in British Columbia. I want to tell you that the people who worked for the Pawley-Doer administration here, those who were out of a job, went to B.C. They did not go the Saskatchewan; they went to B.C. So all of those things that are happening in British Columbia are happening with the refugees from the New Democratic Party in Manitoba at the helm. You have a union boss in British Columbia leading the party and a union boss in Manitoba leading the party. The parallels are awesome, I have to tell you, just awesome.

I will depart from that for a minute because I do not have a lot of time, and I want to talk about health care. I want to talk about the fact that we are in the process of investing massively now with some help from the federal government, we are investing very heavily in health care in the areas of principal need, and that is almost over 600 personal care beds that are under development right at the present time to take the pressure off our hospitals. We are investing in all of the technologies that will get down our waiting lists for diagnostic services and, of course, for surgery. We are ensuring that our health care system is going to meet the needs of today and the future, not the needs of 30 years ago.

What do we hear from members opposite? Oh, well, they do not give us any specifics. They do not tell us any better ideas. They just say they are against anything that this government does. They do not have one new idea. They have absolutely no idea of how to solve any of our problems. The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is chirping there, and I was going to speak about education and she reminds me of something. Members opposite are opposed to testing in schools, and the reason is, of course, they do not want to know whether or not our children are really learning. So now we have an understanding of–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister was recognized to continue his debate. The honourable First Minister.

Mr. Filmon: Here is a folder that was just sent out at public expense by the member for Wellington to her constituency, and what does it say? Centra deal, then hydo privatization. H-Y-D-O. I presume that it rhymes with Fido, her Leader. That is what a public school education did by the New Democrats, for a New Democrat, and that is why they do not want to be tested, because they do not meet any test of knowledge, understanding or anything.

Madam Speaker, I just want to speak very briefly because I am running out of time. I would like to read into the record a page and a half from the Monnin inquiry report, Madam Speaker. It is page 57. Now members opposite, I know, are terribly embarrassed by this, and the jelly spine from Concordia, of course, can talk here, but he will not say a thing to the little guy sitting in the back row who obviously has something on him. Here is what it says about the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), page 57: "I also wish to express my views on an incident which occurred during the investigative process. Sale is the NDP member for the constituency of Crescentwood. He was deeply involved in an investigation of his own and in the debate in the Legislature prior to the establishment of this Commission. My investigators held a formal interview with him on August 5, 1998.

"On September 21 or 22 he participated in a three-way telephone call with Sorokowski and the peripatetic Kim Sigurdson. He learned that Sorokowski was to be interviewed within a few days by Commission counsel and the two investigators. In response to Sorokowski stating that he was not keen on meeting with the investigators, Sale, by his own admission, told Sorokowski ' . . . it is my understanding that if you don't want to meet with the investigators, you don't have to.' Sale subsequently met with and interviewed Sorokowski before his interview with the Commission investigators."

* (1150)

What is wrong with that? Well, No. 1, the information he was giving was not only wrong, it was contrary to the requirements of our legislation, that, as is said by Justice Monnin, our legislation says "they must tell the truth and not rely on a statement to the effect 'I was not asked.'" So he was counselling people not to appear before the inquiry. He was telling them, contrary to the law, that they did not have to testify. Now we know that of the two people he was on the phone with, one, Kim Sigurdson, did not show and the other one eventually did.

So, Madam Speaker, we have one member of this Legislature implicated by the Monnin inquiry, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), who was implicated not only for going against the things that he was speaking of in this Legislature, where he was saying: we want a full and open inquiry. His Leader and his party were saying that. He was behind the scenes counselling people to break the law and not appear before the inquiry.

That is ethics for you, Madam Speaker. But this is not new. The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), when he was a member of the Crown Corporations Council, a New Democratic appointment to that council, was going out using the information from the Crowns of who was getting contracts from those Crowns, and he was then going and calling those people to raise funds for the New Democratic Party. That is what he was doing in the '80s.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the First Minister is clearly engaging in unparliamentary language, specifically Beauchesne Citation 484. (3), which makes it clear that a member shall not impute any member's unworthy motives. In this case, the Premier is making accusations of counselling for illegal activity, which, I think, is not only unparliamentary but definitely a rather bizarre statement by the Premier. I notice that he has not referenced the numerous parts of the Monnin report which have pointed to at least four individuals, all of whom are Conservatives, as having broken the law, and I would note that he did not reference the infamous comments about Judge Monnin never having seen as many liars. Those liars were Conservative members, including his former chief of staff, his campaign manager, his chief civil servant, his chief fundraisers.

I would note, apart from the irony of this Premier, who supposedly last week was sorry and learned his lessons from the Monnin inquiry, it is clear that today he abuses our rules by making comments that are totally unparliamentary and certainly unworthy of a Premier of this province who should know better.

I would like to ask, Madam Speaker, that you call this First Minister to order immediately, ask him to withdraw those comments. He can engage in debate on the Monnin inquiry any time he wants, but he should not be making accusations which are totally fallacious and totally against our rules of this House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, all I am doing is quoting what is in Monnin. This is what Mr. Monnin said: "I would have expected Mr. Sale, a member of the Legislature, to urge in the strongest terms possible cooperation with the Commission's investigators. His advice is directly contrary to what he was expounding in the Legislature–a full inquiry in order to get to the bottom of the matter.

"I note that the 1998 amendments to the two statutes in question now provide that all persons called upon either at the investigative stage or at the hearing stage must co-operate and testify fully. They must produce all relevant and available documents and exhibits whether investigators require same or not. They must tell the truth and not rely on a statement to the effect 'I was not asked.'"

That is what the member opposite was urging them not to do is what Mr. Monnin says is required by our law.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I believe I have heard enough advice on the point of order, and I will–

An Honourable Member: I do not think so, Madam Speaker.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I want to remind all honourable members that a member has the right to speak when the member is recognized. I did not see the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), and for him to utter what I consider almost a threat to the Speaker is terrible.

An Honourable Member: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood.

An Honourable Member: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood has been recognized.

An Honourable Member: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, if you perceived–I want to just apologize, get it on the high road.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

An Honourable Member: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am already on a point of order, and I have recognized the honourable member for Crescentwood to speak to the same point of order.

An Honourable Member: Madam Speaker, point of order.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask for the co-operation of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) to deal with the point of order that the honourable member for Thompson raised. I have been advised you must deal with the point of order on the floor first.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, first of all, if you perceived any remark on my part to be a threat to you, I apologize for that. It certainly was not my intent.

Madam Speaker, Citation 489 of Beauchesne and Citation 492 both have clear indications that one member ought not to accuse another member in the House of an illegality or of counselling or committing an illegality. The proper place for that to take place, of course, is outside the House where the courts are equipped to deal with that sort of thing.

Further, I would simply say that the information I gave to Mr. Sorokowski was found to be true and correct in law by the commissioner in the hearings, as the transcript will say. Secondly, immediately when I told him that it was not required under law that he speak voluntarily, I said: You will then be subpoenaed and you will have to speak. That is also in the transcript, I believe in four different places. I not only counselled Mr. Sorokowski to comply with the law; I counselled Kathy Aiken and virtually everyone else we brought forward to do the same. To suggest we were not interested in having people come forward to the commission is ludicrous in the extreme. It is incorrect on the record, and it is incorrect in law. The minister was unparliamentary on at least two citations in Beauchesne.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I will take the matter under advisement to consult with the authorities and report back to the House.

* (1200)

Madam Speaker: Pursuant to our subrule 40.(4), I must interrupt the proceedings in order to put the question on the motion of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that is the motion for an address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Do members wish to have the motion read?

An Honourable Member: Yes.

Madam Speaker: THAT a humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows: We, Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled, humbly thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has been pleased to address us at the opening of the present session.

Is the House ready to adopt the motion?

An Honourable Member: No.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, please, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

The question before the House is the motion of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that is the motion for the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 30, Nays 24.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I think if you would canvass the House you would find a willingness to call it 12:30.

Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30? [agreed]

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