Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provision of Rule 61 to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the consideration of the following motion related to the events which occurred on September 11, 2001.

I move, seconded by the Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that

WHEREAS terrorism is a global issue that must be combatted by all freedom-loving nations; and

WHEREAS the United States of America was the target of a horrifying and deadly terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001; and

WHEREAS thousands of people from more than 60 countries lost their lives and are missing as a result of the September 11 attack; and

WHEREAS many selfless citizens have donated to disaster relief funds and volunteered their services in the relief effort, including the heroic efforts of many New York firefighters, police officers and port authority employees who risked their lives in an attempt to save the victims of the terrorist attacks; and

WHEREAS these terrorist attacks were engineered by a small radical faction who do not represent the Muslim faith or the Middle Eastern population as a whole; and

WHEREAS this Legislative Assembly and Manitobans condemn discrimination and racist attacks in any form, including unfounded and unfair retaliatory attacks against citizens of Muslim or Middle Eastern backgrounds merely due to their ethnicity or religion; and

WHEREAS the President of the United States has vowed to "find those responsible and bring them to justice"; and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister of Canada has publicly committed the Government of Canada's support for the military action currently being undertaken in Afghanistan.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba condemn racism and discrimination against any individual, group or organization, and to encourage that all Manitobans are treated with compassion, dignity and respect; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly consider doing everything within its power to ensure that there is no place in Manitoba for agents or supporters of terrorism; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly fully endorse and support any necessary economic, diplomatic, humanitarian and military actions undertaken by the Government of the United States of America, Canada and our allies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba forward a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise the House, under our Manitoba rules, that setting aside the regular scheduled business of the House, 34(1), we are not dealing with grievances during the Throne Speech, so it would be after members' statements in the routine business of the House and before the Orders of the Day, any member may move to set aside the regularly scheduled business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance of which the member has given prior notice to the Speaker not less than 90 minutes prior to the sitting of the House.

So I would ask the honourable member, if he wishes to move his motion, to do it after we have dealt with members' statements. That is our Manitoba practice.

* (13:35)

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under the rules, provision 34 does not apply during the Throne Speech debate. You clearly stated that because we do not have a grievance during the Throne Speech. Our Rule 24 states that grievances shall not be considered while there is a motion for an address in reply.

Seeing as the grievances do not take place today, we felt that Rule 61: A motion may, in case of an urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Rule 57, which eliminates the provision for giving the notice.

I would remind the House of Citation 18 (1), (2) and (19) of Beauchesne's 6th Edition where it states: Within the ambit of its own rules, the House itself may proceed as it chooses; it is a common practice for the House to ignore its own rules by unanimous consent. Thus, bills may be passed through their stages in one day, or the House may decide to alter its normal order of business or its adjournment hour as it sees fit.

The House is perfectly able to give consent to set aside its standing orders and give its unanimous consent to waive procedural requirements and precedents concerning notice and things of that sort.

Mr. Speaker, (19): whenever the House proceeds by way of unanimous consent the procedure does not constitute a precedent.

You will be seeing the Government today seeking unanimous consent which relies exactly on these same rules, and that is what we are doing right now is seeking unanimous consent of this House to proceed with this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, and I can certainly provide our views on this matter. This is the first instance, to my personal knowledge, of Rule 61 being used as opposed to a MUPI, for example. There is, of course, a significant difference between the two. One requires unanimous consent, as the member opposite just referred to.

On that point I would certainly say that it would have been appropriate if the member had given notice of this matter to this side of the House, if indeed he is seeking consent, because we are certainly sympathetic to the objectives of the motion, but there had been no consultation with this side of the House.

The second issue under Rule 61 states that this has to be a matter of necessity. It is not a matter of simply an argument about public importance but that it be a necessity. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of interpretation available to you, I suspect that this rule is not available in order to give the Opposition the opportunity to even move this matter in this way. Having said that, we certainly have interest in the subject matter. It is a subject matter of interest, of course, to all Manitobans and certainly members on this side of the House.

What I suggest is that we deal with this matter in a more proper place and that is after members' statements today. We would certainly be prepared to do that, to set aside the Orders of the Day to make that a priority.

Mr. Laurendeau: Just for your information on the point of order, I am willing at this time to agree with the House Leader. We could proceed with the regular proceedings of the day and then move into this motion right after, as he stated, by unanimous consent.

* (13:40)

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, given this, is it the will of the House to proceed with this as a MUPI and under the rules of MUPI so that we have some order of proceeding after Routine Proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House to deal with this matter after we have concluded members' statements?

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, can I just ask, are we receiving unanimous consent at this time to have the debate carry on after Routine Proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: No, I have not asked for unanimous consent. What I am asking of the House is if the House is willing to deal with the matter after we have concluded members' statements. Is the House agreeable?

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe we could deal with the matter of accepting it by unanimous consent at this time so that we could just proceed with the matter at that time.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, I mean our position is that it does not fit within the confines, in our opinion, under Rule 61, because it is not a matter of necessity. We are nonetheless prepared to deal with the subject matter because it is of interest, I think, to all that we have that discussion, but it should proceed as a MUPI, because that, as I argued earlier, is where it more appropriately fits. In other words, the rules as applying to matters of urgent public importance are the rules that should be followed with respect to timelines and so on, and the subject matter will be that as set out in the motion, recognizing that there is no actual conclusion on the motion itself under a MUPI. Nonetheless, it is the opportunity to express the views. I think it is important.

Again, I would urge members of the Opposition, if they are seeking consent on something like this, that they speak to us in advance and we can work out these matters instead privately and come in here with some unanimity on this very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: As the Speaker of the day, my interpretation is that MUPIs would be entertained during Throne Speech and Budget Debate, in my interpretation as the Speaker. If the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Murray) wishes to raise this after members' statements, I would be more than happy to deal with the matter.

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed? [Agreed]

Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present the Annual Report of The Forks North Portage Partnership for 2001.

Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2000-2001 Annual Report of the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and the 2001 Annual Report of the Communities Economic Development Fund. Copies of both have been previously distributed.

Mr. Speaker: I am also pleased to table the 2000-2001 Annual Report of the Legislative Assembly Management Commission. Copies of the report have been placed on members' desks.

* (13:45)

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass the House to see if there is leave for Bill 2, The Security Management (Various Acts Amended) Act, to be given first reading today.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable minister to introduce the bill? [Agreed]

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Ashton), that leave be given to introduce Bill 2, The Security Management (Various Acts Amended) Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House, and, by leave, Mr. Speaker, I would table the recommendation of His Honour.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends nine acts to enhance and improve emergency planning and response for the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have seated from Gordon Bell High School eight Grades 7 and 8 students under the direction of Mr. Paul Fernandes. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms. Friesen).

Also, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Senator Dennis Bercier of the North Dakota State Senate.

Also, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Ms. Susan Thompson, the Consul General of Canada to the United States of America in Minneapolis; the Honourable Larry Gabriel, Secretary of Agriculture for the State of South Dakota; the Honourable Gene Hugoson, Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of Minnesota; the Honourable Roger Johnson, Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of North Dakota; and the Honourable Clay Serby, Deputy Premier and Minister of Agriculture and Food for the Province of Saskatchewan.

I would also like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have the six individuals who were appointed to the Manitoba Legislative Internship Program for the year 2001-2002. In accordance with established practice, three interns were assigned to the Government caucus and three to the Official Opposition caucus. Their term of employment is 12 months, and they have been performing a variety of research and other tasks for private members. These interns commenced their assignments in September and will complete them in August.

They are, working with the Government caucus: Mr. John Crookshanks of the University of Manitoba; Mr. Gregory Kristalovich of Brandon University and Ms. Ciara Shattuck of the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg. Working with the caucus of the Official Opposition: Ms. Allison Abra of the University of Manitoba and Queen's University, Mr. Matthew Enns of the University of Manitoba and Ms. Julie Goertzen of the University of Winnipeg.

Copies of their biographies have been distributed to members, and I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all honourable members, to welcome you here today.

* (13:50)

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

The most that Manitobans can say about the Throne Speech yesterday is that it was a very modest Throne Speech about a government that has very modest things to be about.

The Throne Speech, I believe, should set a vision. What we heard in the Throne Speech yesterday is not where we are going but where we have been. That is a missed opportunity, another missed opportunity by this Government.

We got a laundry list of a bunch of items in the Throne Speech. This laundry list was disjointed. It offered little hope. It was uninspired and it was very mundane. There was nothing in the Throne Speech that gave any Manitobans comfort that this Government realized they are on a spending spree.

So my question to the Premier is: Will the Premier stand today in this House, will he stand today and commit to honouring the balanced budget legislation?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I have always believed modesty is not a bad thing as an attribute. So I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for that compliment.

Secondly, today I would like to congratulate Ron Stern and Bob Silver on repatriating the Winnipeg Free Press from Toronto back to Manitoba, back to Winnipeg. Surely that is great news for all of us and our western populace here in the province of Manitoba, great news.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we would also like to offer congratulations to Bob Silver and Ron Stern. Not only are we delighted that they purchased the Winnipeg Free Press, but they also purchased the Brandon Sun, which is important for Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen over the course of two years that the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) love to pay lip-service and talk about tough issues, making tough indications that they are going to be making some tough decisions.

Yesterday in the Throne Speech, where was the opportunity to give Manitobans their ability to use innovation and ingenuity, the kinds of things that make Manitobans proud? There was none of that. In fact, what we saw yesterday was another attempt of this Government to continue on with their spending, spending and spending. It is lip-service with no result.

My question to the Premier: I ask on behalf of all the taxpayers of Manitoba, will the Premier commit that there will be no deficit in the next Budget that they present?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we recommitted ourselves to reducing the income taxes for middle-income Manitobans. So there has been a statement on behalf of all middle-income earners in Manitoba. We certainly believe that is a positive step forward.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Throne Speech the Premier now decreed throughout the land that "The pillars of Manitoba's new growth strategy are . . . sound management of public resources."

Well, Mr. Speaker, hallelujah. Two years and $1 billion later, the Premier, we hope, has seen the light.

My final supplementary to the Premier: When will the Premier share his new strategy with his ministers and demand that they stop overspending their budgets and millions of taxpayer dollars and live within their means?

* (13:55)

Mr. Doer: I want to table the Deloitte and Touche audit of 1999 for the Leader of the Opposition. The financial review–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): The First Minister has been staying fast and loose with the truth since his first day in office. He knows full well that clearly in that report Deloitte and Touche said specifically that is not an audit. I would ask him to correct the record and state the truth, that is not an audit.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to keep the book kind of cold and chilling underneath there, but we have the dust off it already. Clearly that was not a point of order. That was a dispute on the facts. That is, with all respect, something that should be reserved for debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all honourable members that a point of order is a very serious matter, and I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Doer: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I did correct myself. The Provincial Auditor was involved in the financial review. The numbers have been verified by the Provincial Auditor.

When the Leader of the Opposition reads that document, he will read the fact that in 1999 there were $350 million over budget, according to an independent audit. They can wish away SmartHealth; they can wish away all kinds of other things. The people of Manitoba, unfortunately, cannot do that.

Today when the Leader of the Opposition was asked for alternatives he said he would go ahead with the new arena, which I think they voted against in this Chamber, and they would also go ahead with the Kenaston Underpass, more spending from the Leader of the Opposition, not realistic alternatives.

When the member has an opportunity to join us in innovation with the combination of the school divisions to reduce the administrative costs for schools, there all they can do is defend the status quo. We are going ahead into the future with optimism.

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech contained nothing to demonstrate that this Government has any plan to use ingenuity or the work ethic of the people of Manitoba to help bolster the current economic downturn that we are faced with.

I would ask the Minister of Finance if he could share with the people of Manitoba how far his department has downgraded their forecast for economic growth in the province of Manitoba. In the spring he predicted growth of 2.4 percent. What is he predicting today?

Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I thank the member from Fort Whyte for that question. As you know, we provide a forecast based on the predictions of the banks and the Conference Board of Canada. We take an average of seven, and we are now predicting growth in the order of 1.7 percent, real growth after reductions for inflation. That is a slowdown, but it also moves us up in the ranking where we will probably be among the top half, if not the top three, in the country for growth this year.

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): He was wrong in the spring and he is wrong now. I would like to ask this minister why there were no concrete plans in the Throne Speech to deal with the economic downturn that has gripped North America for the past six to nine months.

Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): As I indicated, we make a forecast based on what the banks and the Conference Board of Canada indicate. As that has changed, we have communicated that to the public well in advance of this Throne Speech and this sitting of the Legislature.

* (14:00)

The Throne Speech indicated very clearly what we are doing to help the economy. We are following through on tax reductions. We are following through on infrastructure investments. We are following through on making university accessible and affordable to young people. We are following through on key investments in health care. All of those things are a stimulus to the economy and the foundation for a prosperous future in this province.

Mr. Loewen: Not a word about economic growth in the private sector. I would like to ask this minister: Why was Statistics Canada confirming that there were 3000 less Manitobans working in August of 2001 compared to August of 2000? Why is there no statement in the Throne Speech indicating how this Government will attempt to generate economic growth and prosperity to allay the fears of Manitobans who are fearful of losing their jobs?

Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, we have the second lowest unemployment rate in the country right now. Not only that, we have the lowest unemployment rate for young people in the country right now. If the member would have taken the trouble to pay attention to the Throne Speech, I would point him to page 3 where we indicated that the Simplot expansion is going ahead for $120 million, the Albchem plant investment is going ahead in Virden, Manitoba, in the order of $50 million. The plant expansions at Standard Aero are on track to go ahead as well as those at Canada West Foods. Those are some of the things that are happening in the private sector in Manitoba right now.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): In yesterday's Throne Speech, the Doer government bragged that by amalgamating the two Winnipeg health authorities in 1999, they were able to achieve and contain health costs. Can the Minister of Health confirm that the $800,000 of savings that he indicated in Estimates have actually been realized?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as most Manitobans know, when we came to office the former government operated two regional health authorities within one city. They duplicated services. One of the first actions we took was to deal with duplication, to deal with administration, to put those two regional health authorities in one city together into one regional health authority to realize extra funds that we could use on the front lines to pay for patient care.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Can the minister then explain why the audited statements of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority shows that operating expenses have actually doubled from $5 million a year to $11 million a year?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I am surprised at the member from Charleswood, Mr. Speaker. I would think she would be very pleased that not only last year but this year the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority has balanced its budget, is not in deficit and is one of the few health regions across western Canada that has been able to do that. That is in stark contrast to the tens of millions of dollars that they were in deficit prior to that.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's 417: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

Mr. Speaker, we are just asking about the doubling of the figures.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order.

Mr. Chomiak: The member asked the question about the budget of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, and I was pointing out that budget in fact was not in deficit as it had been when members opposite were in government.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable ministers of Beauchesne's Citation 417: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to conclude his comments.

Mr. Chomiak: Not only are they in a balanced situation, but they eliminate a number of vice-president positions that members opposite had duplicated by having two health authorities.

Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why under his watch these operating costs have skyrocketed to $11 million when he promised during the election that by amalgamating the two authorities both costs were only going to be $2.5 million?

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind all honourable members, when the Speaker rises all members should be in their seats and the Speaker should be heard in silence.

Also, I would like to remind all honourable members that time is scarce for Question Period, and we would like to try and get to as many questions as we can. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been wrong so often in this House, and so often she has compared apples and oranges, firstly.

Secondly–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate.

We do not need this minister throwing his half-hearted little comments across the way when he knows that we are being factual. They are audited statements that we are dealing with. We were asking why he said it was $2.5 million when it is $11 million.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health, on the same point of order.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite so often have inaccurate statements just because the member states it. For example, she went on radio trying to defend her wrong position about prostate cancer waiting lists and had to apologize.

The fact is the member is making a statement. I have said their statements are very often wrong in this Chamber, have been proven wrong. Last year at this time they were walking around saying the regional health authority had a $10-million deficit, Mr. Speaker, according to their statements, and that proved not to be true. So I am simply reminding members opposite to be very careful with the facts they bring to this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I would like to remind all honourable members that when members are bringing information to the House that information I treat as factual. So I would choose my words very, very carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable Minister of Health please conclude his comments?

Mr. Chomiak: As I indicated before, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority is one of the few regional health authorities in western Canada to balance its budget. Its administrative costs I understand are 5.9 percent of total operations. We took together a number, I think there were something like 10 or 11 or 12 vice-presidents, and cut it down and did not replace those vice-presidents, as members opposite had done.

Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Throne Speech the Throne Speech was virtually silent on the increased crime rate here in the city of Winnipeg. I would like to ask this Minister of Justice if he is aware that Winnipeg is the No. 1 city in Canada for violent crime, for sexual assault, for car thefts. Is this minister aware of this?

* (14:10)

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I welcome the member to her new position and look forward to the dialogue. I regret that the member did not listen to the Throne Speech. We do have copies available.

I just want to note for the member and the members opposite that the Throne Speech contained a number of new initiatives that we will be pursuing, not just talking about what we have already done–by the way, Mr. Speaker, more in two years than they did in eleven–but the Throne Speech talked about legislation to deal with fortified gang houses, the first of its kind, I believe.

It dealt, Mr. Speaker, with the need to provide greater supports and co-ordination and training for citizen patrols, a tremendous resource, to help make this city and this province safer. It talked about Lighthouses. It talked about children on-line, a national sex offender registry. It talked about Manitoba seniors and a new package. It talked about Aboriginal justice.

I commend that Throne Speech to the honourable member.

Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, is this Justice Minister aware that Winnipeg is No. 1 in Canada for increased rates of violent crime, increased rates of homicide, increased rates of sexual assault? Is he aware that Manitobans now are ready for more than press releases? They want substantial action instead of political talk.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I look forward to working with the honourable member and members opposite, so that we can have early consideration of the legislation dealing with fortified gang houses. I might remind the member opposite that when she wants to talk about statistics, particularly in the city of Winnipeg, and the crime statistic rate for Manitoba, the highest crime rate ever recorded in Canadian history was under the administration of the former Conservative government.

We have to move ahead with innovative change, Mr. Speaker. We are doing that.

Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Justice aware that this Doer government promised to clean up the streets in Winnipeg and make safer streets? Is he aware that we have 27 cars a day in this city stolen, that we have 25 assaults on people a day in this city? Is this minister aware that he has no plan and he is failing in his job as Minister of Justice?

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, we will be very pleased to be putting in place initiatives that were enacted by this Assembly, put in place in just a couple of weeks to deal with the horrid threat of auto theft. Indeed, I do not think weeks go by when another initiative put in place by the new partnerships of MPI, of law enforcement, of justice, are not out there working on the streets to reduce the horrid auto theft rate that we are suffering.

When the member talks about promises, Mr. Speaker, I am just reminded of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) who issues a press release about so-called broken promises of the Government and says that we broke our promise by not implementing a young offender mentoring program. I refer the members opposite to the young offender mentoring program, Ototema. It has been in place since March.

We are not talking press releases; we are talking action. That is what we are committed to, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, when the Premier addressed the Manitoba Association of School Trustees some six months ago, he indicated in his speech that there would be no forced amalgamations; it was not the Manitoba way–[interjection] That it was not the Manitoba way. Obviously, this policy has changed.

What respectful process did the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) put in place to recognize the Manitoba way in decisions that he made on school boundaries?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I encouraged the trustees at the trustees' convention to do everything possible to amalgamate. It was preferable for us to have voluntary amalgamations. Some divisions did amalgamate on a voluntary basis. Then the interpretation the president gave to that was he interpreted that comment to mean no forced amalgamations.

Members will read Hansard, including Hansard in this House in 1994 and 1995 where I said, that ultimately this Legislature was responsible for those decisions. We would prefer voluntary systems. The kinds of decisions that we have made have been partially voluntary and partially leadership.

We are glad that some divisions in the North took voluntary decisions. We are glad that in some places in the rural areas there were voluntary decisions. We regret the single school divisions, some of which did not agree to voluntary agreements, and thirdly, we think that it should be a consistent standard in the city of Winnipeg. We think this is a very balanced plan.

Having said that, we are also bringing in administrative caps for school divisions, with 4 percent in Winnipeg, 4.5 percent in rural communities, and 5 percent in northern communities. This is the kind of innovation that Manitobans want.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): I would like to table the official newsletter of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees with the Premier's quote in it and would refer it to the House.

I would ask the Minister of Education: When the minister crafted the new boundaries in his office, can he indicate what criteria he used to set these new boundaries? What are the criteria that he used?

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): It is a pleasure for me to welcome a new critic. The Member for Minnedosa is an educator with some degree of respect in his region as an educator. It is a pleasure to have a new critic in the House today. It was a pleasure to have the criticism of the Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith) in years past.

The primary criteria in this exercise, and members opposite will recall the Norrie report, which was commissioned by members opposite, in mid-1994, I believe, that members opposite first began to look at this issue of creating greater efficiencies in the school governance of the province of Manitoba.

The criteria looked at a wide array of questions. We consulted widely with school divisions over the last two years in this matter, and we are provided with a great deal of information from school divisions as a part of that consultation.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The criterion that he had put out in a letter to school divisions was that rural school divisions of less than 2000 students were not viable. I would ask the minister: Why would small divisions, like Turtle River with 700 students and Intermountain School Division with 900 students, be left unaffected and not involved in these changes? Why are divisions being treated differently? Why are these exceptions following the criteria that the minister put in place?

Mr. Caldwell: I think it is instructive that today the member opposite wants to go further. Last week in the media he was–we are going way too far. So it is an interesting dichotomy that the member illustrates in his own thinking.

On this matter, as well as other matters that have been discussed in this House today, the member is quite erroneous.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My question concerns an issue which the NDP government has called the grossest misuse of public funds and the grossest mismanagement. I refer, of course, to the situation with adult education and in particular to Morris-Macdonald School Division. My question to the Minister of Education is: When did Minister Caldwell first learn that there was a problem?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable members, when referring to other honourable members, to do so by their constituency, or ministers by the portfolios that they hold, and not by name.

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): The Provincial Auditor's report, I think, illustrated the problems clearly and publicly for the first time in a format that was acceptable to bring substantiation for action.

* (14:20)

Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary to the Minister of Education. As the Auditor indicates himself in his report, why did the minister fail to put in place the policy guidelines and standards immediately upon his appointment as minister, which would have prevented this gross misuse and gross mismanagement of public funds?

Mr. Caldwell: Well, I know, Mr. Speaker, that the member realizes that this adult learning centre program in the province was designed and created by members opposite when they were in office. I suspect the member knows that, when we assumed office and when I reviewed the file, we did put into place criteria for monitoring adult learning centres in the province. I assume he does know that.

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary. I ask the minister, since he has already said on CBC radio that he knew almost immediately as he was elected to office, why will the minister not admit, indeed I ask the minister to admit, that since this would have been preventable by putting policy guidelines and standards in place immediately when he was elected, why will the minister not admit that in fact it was gross mismanagement on his part that led to this problem?

Mr. Caldwell: Well, Mr. Speaker, in this regard I know all of us on this side of the House have confidence in the Provincial Auditor's report. Certainly there has been a historic mismanagement of provincial taxpayers' dollars in this issue and certainly this Government is acting strongly to rectify that situation.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Throne Speech once again failed the farmers of our province miserably. I think it speaks loudly to the fact that this Government, the Premier (Mr. Doer) has signed on to an agreement which would tell farmers to get off farm employment or leave the farm altogether. In fact, mosquitoes were given more prominence in yesterday's Throne Speech than farmers were.

Could the Premier explain why he has not lived up to his promise to arrange a meeting with the Prime Minister? He indicated in this House when there was a bunch of farmers present that he would arrange a meeting any day, any place, any time to address the seriousness of the income deficiencies of the farm community in this province. Why has he not done that?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the member in his comments. He tried to play the same line when we announced our intentions under Program 2000 saying that we were asking farmers to go off the farm. In fact, I will read the line out of the Throne Speech: Project 2000 is a program that will ease the transition between generations of farm families, providing retiring farmers with financial security and allowing young farmers to get on to a solid start.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about taking farmers out of agriculture; it is about getting the next generation into agriculture. I would hope that the member would support young people getting into the industry.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture: When she was in the Franklin municipality of Manitoba, touring Franklin, looking at the huge flood devastation and the huge numbers of acres not seeded this year, why has she not responded to those people when they requested? She told them that she would go back and discuss this with her Premier (Mr. Doer) and respond to them immediately in getting aid out to these people in a prominent manner. Why did she not respond to them?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An Honourable Member: The Americans know how to treat their farmers.

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, before I respond to that question, I will respond to the member from the Interlake, who said Americans know how to treat their farmers. I would remind him that it is the national government in the U.S. that provides the funding for the farm bill. It is our federal government that is not providing the support that we need for our farming community.

With respect to the people from Franklin, I told the people of Franklin that I would raise the issue with our minister responsible for emergency measures. I advised them that they had to declare the area an emergency. The other issue that was raised there was retroactive crop insurance and whether people who had not applied for crop insurance would be able to get crop insurance. I am not sure that the member would support any retroactive insurance.

Mr. Jack Penner: I want to ask the minister whether she has forgot the request that the people in Franklin municipality made to her, that was, Mr. Speaker, to apply the same principles of programming to the southeast part of the

province as was applied to the western part and to apply a $50-an-acre, across-the-board payment to the farmers in southeast Manitoba and that she promised she would raise that with her caucus and with her Premier (Mr. Doer). Will she verify that?

Ms. Wowchuk: What I told the people of southeastern Manitoba is that we have addressed this issue on a permanent basis rather than an ad hoc program that his party had when they were in government. We have put excess moisture insurance in place that is available to farmers every year and not on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, after three tries, this Government has finally thought about discussing rural issues in its Throne Speech. It quoted that it is critical that rural Manitoba remain strong and healthy.

Well, their pattern of abandoning rural entrepreneurs and rural issues has been to the detriment of the entire economy of the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs outline what concrete measures her government will implement to stimulate the creation of these new jobs and opportunities that she outlined for rural Manitoba?

Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): My understanding is that the people in rural Manitoba are looking for the same kinds of opportunities that people are across Canada. They are looking for safe communities. They are looking to see healthier citizens, access to health care, access to post-secondary education. They are looking for clean water. They are looking for safe communities and they are looking, as well, for economic opportunities as well as recreational and cultural opportunities in their own communities.

Mr. Speaker, our program for rural Manitoba includes all of those fundamentals.

Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs confirm if her department has set out job creation targets as part of their sort of Johnny-come-lately approach to rural development?

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, let me advise the honourable member that the Simplot project that we are continuing with will create 230 direct jobs and 500 indirect jobs, that Albchem in Virden, which is looking at its second phase, will create 26 jobs, and that we have a number of other projects that he is well aware of through the REDI programs, through the infrastructure programs, 58 infrastructure announcements in rural Manitoba which will also create some jobs.

Mr. Maguire: In my final supplemental, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to tell this House whether she intends to reassign any of her departmental staff to deal specifically with these newfound interests in rural development.

* (14:30)

Ms. Friesen: The 300 members of our department who are working in rural affairs will continue to work as hard as they always have done for rural Manitoba.

I want to add that from the other side of the House I have not heard one iota of support for the equalization of hydro rates, an action which put $14 million into the hands of rural Manitobans, nor have I heard one iota of support for–

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, on a point of order.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the minister will check the records, she will see that this side of the House voted to support that bill.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, if Manitobans check the complete record, they will discover that members opposite spoke vociferously against it, and when the vote came they sat quietly.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): There is a reason for Beauchesne's 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. If the minister had not provoked debate and put misinformation on the record, we would not have had to have been standing.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Has the honourable minister finished her comments? The honourable Member for Turtle Mountain–Order. The honourable First Minister, on a point of order.

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite interrupted the question-and-answer period with a point of order. You have ruled that it is out of order, and I believe that it is the opportunity for the minister to complete her answer to the question.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order.

Mr. Laurendeau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister had the opportunity to stand. You have recognized the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain to pose his question.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable First Minister, I normally allow ministers 60 seconds to answer questions. When I had finished dealing with the point of order, I had looked at the honourable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I said: Does the honourable minister have any further comments? I received no response, so I recognized the Member for Turtle Mountain.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, we read today where the RCMP lab in Winnipeg was recognized by a national body for its forensic science, but we also read further into the article that this Government has been looking at closing that lab. I would just ask the Minister of Justice today: Will he confirm or deny that this lab will be closing?

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): If this Province had the ability to shut down a federal institution, I would start with the GST. I would never get to the RCMP forensic lab. That is a federal institution. We are doing our utmost as a province to ensure that the federal government, the Solicitor General, maintains that laboratory. The article that the member is referring to, unfortunately, was most erroneous, and I do hope that his research will improve as the session continues.

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): My question is to the Minister of Education. It has come to my attention, with the dividing of the Transcona-Springfield School Division, that the R.M. of Springfield will be further divided into two parts, which is contrary to the usual practice.

My question to the minister is: Can the minister explain why the Rural Municipality of Springfield was split into two different school divisions?

Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): I am not sure what the usual practice is because in 1994 a Norrie commission report was tabled in this House, and the usual practice would be no action on this issue. Of course, that is not the tack this Government is taking on school division amalgamations. There are a number of issues that will have to be worked out in terms of the details on amalgamation. That is in the purview of the divisions, as it should be, and we will see the course of this unfold in due time.

Mr. Schuler: On an equally serious issue, is the minister aware that the part of the R.M. of Springfield that is being split off contains the industrial base of the R.M. of Springfield, and thus it will be denied the school division where the R.M. of Springfield will be added onto? I would like to have the minister's comments on that.

Mr. Caldwell: First and foremost, this exercise is about children in the province, throughout the province. It is about directing resources into a classroom throughout the province. It is about building greater capacity in the public school system and creating better opportunities for children in the public school system in the province.

Transcona-Springfield, the member is quite correct, there will be a division in that particular school division. The details of how that will evolve will occur between now and the election in October 2002.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.

During Oral Questions on July 5, the year 2001, the honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau) rose on a point of order regarding the use of the words "junkyard dogs" by the honourable Premier (Mr. Doer) in reference to members of the Official Opposition.

The honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) spoke to the same point of order, and I took the matter under advisement in order to peruse Hansard. On page 3572 of Hansard, the words "get control of your junkyard dogs" do appear. However, the words are not attributed to any specific member. Although the honourable Official Opposition and the Government House Leaders made reference to the words as being uttered by the honourable First Minister, the honourable First Minister did not state on record whether he did or did not say the words in question.

Without a clear indication, either through identification in Hansard or by admission from a particular member that the words in question were indeed spoken by that member, it places the Speaker in a very difficult position to rule on the language used.

I therefore cannot rule on whether there was or was not a point of order in this instance.

I would, however, like to take the opportunity to remind all members that we should be referring to each other in terms and language that are temperate and are worthy of the Chamber and the positions that we hold.

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. I have used the term before, and so in the spirit of starting off in the highest possible way of decorum, I will apologize for the comment that was made on July 5. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister for his comments. That should end the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing members for members’ statements, I would just like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us Mr. Binx Remnant, who is the former Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 2001, more than 700 people gathered to celebrate the Manitoba Business Awards. These awards recognize and celebrate the achievements of Manitoba businesses and give Manitobans an opportunity to appreciate the jobs and economic activity produced by business in our province.

I find it disappointing, Mr. Speaker, that this Premier (Mr. Doer) did not consider these award-winning accomplishments worthy of note in a ministerial statement. Perhaps the Premier would rather forget that evening, that night he presented the award for outstanding large business headquartered in Manitoba to the Manitoba Telecom Services. While the Premier did little to hide his distaste while handing this well-deserved award to MTS, Manitobans know that the award was well-deserved. For the first time in its history, MTS expects to see its 2001 revenues top $1 billion.

*(14:40)

I congratulate the businesses that won awards that evening, and I express appreciation to all Manitoba businesses for providing jobs and economic opportunities to our citizens and for promoting the best our province has to offer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to describe the invisible ribbon campaign, an awareness initiative that was started here in Winnipeg by the Military Family Resource Centre and has spread nationwide. As the daughter of a Canadian Forces member and because the 17th Wing Air Command is in my riding, this is a very personal issue for both my constituents and myself.

This ribbon symbolizes the "invisible uniform" worn by families, partners and parents of Canadian Forces members. These people play a significant yet largely under-appreciated role as support to our Canadian Armed Forces. They also contribute to our community in countless ways.

For centuries, families have watched their loved ones go off to war. Those who remained were responsible for ensuring the survival of their families. In the two World Wars, women were central to the production of munitions, airplanes and ensuring there were enough workers to keep the nation running.

In our present situation, we have seen ships of Canadian Forces members, many of whom are women, depart from the east coast and leave their families behind. Their time away is not easy for loved ones. Families are often uprooted through redeployment, a very stressful situation that is only exacerbated by the departure of service personnel to duties abroad. The Winnipeg Military Family Resource Centre was founded in 1991 to meet the specific needs of these families. It is run by volunteers, and over half of the board members are spouses of Canadian Forces members.

The Resource Centre provides general and emergency child care 24 hours a day, employment assistance for spouses, youth drop-ins and workshops, as well as a variety of outreach services to families new to Winnipeg and to those in need of friendship and emotional support.

The invisible ribbon campaign was started by the Winnipeg, Manitoba, Family Resource Centre in 1995 by two spouses, Barb Little and Maureen McDonald, whose husbands were sent overseas on rotation. Since then, they have been worn across the country to raise awareness and show support for families of military personnel. The Governor General–

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, you know, all too often the citizens of Manitoba, all they see in this Chamber is partisan bickering. I would like to dispel the myth that members in this Legislative Assembly cannot recognize the accomplishments of those across the floor and to give credit where credit is due.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express, on behalf of myself and all my colleagues on this side of the House, sincere congratulations to the Premier (Mr. Doer) for his distinct achievement in which he was recognized by CBC television. Our Premier is an award-winner. Yesterday, the CBC television awarded the Premier of Manitoba the bronze medallion for the third-highest score out of all Canadian premiers for the highest travel expenditures in the year 2000.

An Honourable Member: There is more.

Mr. Faurschou: There is more. Our Premier was also awarded the gold medallion for the number of places visited outside his respective province.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will always recognize those accomplishments that need recognition. With just under $30,000 in travel expenses, Manitobans now know where their Premier has been hiding. They also understand why perhaps he is so out of touch on the things that are important to we Manitobans. Thank you.

Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): I am pleased to see that the interesting new national television show CBC News's "Disclosure" is based right here in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The new show is co-hosted by Wendy Mesley and Manitoba’s own Diana Swain.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to remind all honourable members that in a member’s statement, the member only has two minutes and when it is interrupted I do not think it is very fair to the member who has the floor, of whatever side. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members.

Ms. Allan: I think there are some very hardworking employees at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that would appreciate the opportunity to let me finish this. Thank you.

The new show, CBC News's "Disclosure," is co-hosted by Wendy Mesley and Manitoba’s own Diana Swain. Ms. Mesley was with "Undercurrents" for six seasons, the former host of "Sunday Report" and was also a regular backup anchor for the esteemed nightly newscast, "The National." She has been awarded a Gemini Award for best host in a news or talk program or series in 1999 and in 2001.

Diana Swain is credited as one of the best journalists CBC Manitoba has ever seen. She has served Manitoba for many years and won a Gemini Award for best news anchor for the CBC local news special, "Manitoba Votes in 2000."

Each episode of "Disclosure" will feature two lead investigative pieces, one from each host, as well as a variety of stories that aim to inform Manitobans and Canadians that would not normally be seen on Canadian television. CBC is committed to field investigation and maximum access. It is fast paced, clever, dynamic, bold, cheeky, fearless and revealing. This exciting new production will be based in Winnipeg and Toronto, with additional bureaus in Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, Halifax, Montreal and Saint John.

I think it is great to see programming of national and international significance based right here in Manitoba. It is a testament to the hard work of the employees at CBC Manitoba. CBC Manitoba is an important production centre for CBC television, and it is reflected on the national network in a wide variety of programs. Our local station provides news to all Manitobans and to the rest of Canada and the world. As well as other programs, "Country Canada" is a weekly show that deals with the infinite diversity–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few comments about the current situation in the Throne Speech. There is a lot of talk in health circles about evidence-based medicine, but I think maybe once in a while we need to look at improvements in evidence-based politics.

* (14:50)

I would point out to the Premier (Mr. Doer), to the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) who have been making a lot of claims about improvements in hallway medicine and the improvements in the functioning of the health system that, at the very time that the Throne Speech was being delivered on the Government Web site, there was a report of the situation in terms of patients in hallways and numbers of patients awaiting a medical bed.

Here is what the results or the evidence show. In 1999, two years ago, shortly after the present Government was elected, there were, for the comparable week, 48 patients who were admitted but awaiting a medical bed. A year ago, instead of this improving, the situation had deteriorated and there were now 51 patients admitted but still awaiting a medical bed. This last week, the week reported on the site October 29 to November 4, there were 56 patients admitted but awaiting a medical bed.

Instead of the improvements that the Government has claimed, there has indeed been a steady deterioration from 48 to 51 to 56. The comparable numbers for patients in hallways for 1999, the week in question, was four for the year 2000 and this year it had deteriorated to seven. Instead of the improvements, the evidence shows–

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to raise a matter of House business with all members. Agreement in principle has been given by the Government and Official Opposition House leaders and the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) that the text of the private members’ resolutions will not appear on the day three Notice Paper on November 15 in order to allow extra time for the translation and proofing of the text of the resolutions. In order for this to happen, unanimous consent of the House is required to waive rule 60.(2)(4) which requires that notice of items is to be printed on the Notice Paper two days after filing. The intention is to instead have the text of the resolutions appear on the day seven Notice Paper on November 21.

I am therefore asking the House: Is there unanimous consent to waive rule 60.(2)(b) with regard to the private members’ resolutions so that the resolutions will appear on the Notice Paper for Wednesday, November 21, instead of Thursday, November 15? [Agreed]

The honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau)–I would first note for the House that I did not receive the required notice.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, just some matters to clear up before proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House to recognize the honourable Government House Leader for House business? [Agreed]

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet on Thursday morning, November 15, at 10 a.m., in Room 255 to consider The Forks North Portage Partnership 2001 Progress Report and Annual Report and Consolidated Financial Statements. I have another one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet on Thursday morning, November 15, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 to consider The Forks North Portage Partnership 2001 Progress Report and Annual Report and Consolidated Financial Statements.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I am also seeking consent of members of the House to rise at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28, and for the House to not sit after the adjournment on Wednesday, November 28, until Monday, December 3, in order to allow members to attend the AMM convention.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the House to rise at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28, and for the House to not sit after the adjournment on Wednesday, November 28, until Monday, December 3, in order to allow members to attend the AMM convention? Is there agreement? [Agreed]

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as per the agreement prior to Question Period, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

I move, seconded by the Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that

WHEREAS terrorism is a global issue that must be combatted by all freedom-loving nations; and

WHEREAS the United States of America was the target of a horrifying and deadly terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001; and

WHEREAS thousands of people from more than 60 countries lost their lives and are missing as a result of the September 11 attack; and

WHEREAS many selfless citizens have donated to disaster relief funds and volunteered their services in the relief effort, including the heroic efforts of many New York firefighters, police officers and Port Authority employees who risked their lives in an attempt to save the victims of the terrorist attacks; and

WHEREAS these terrorist attacks were engineered by a small, radical faction who do not represent the Muslim faith or the Middle Eastern population as a whole, and;

WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly and Manitobans condemn discrimination and racist attacks of any form, including unfounded and unfair retaliatory attacks against citizens of Muslim or Middle Eastern backgrounds merely due to their ethnicity or religion, and;

WHEREAS the President of the United Stated has vowed to "find those responsible and bring them to justice;" and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister of Canada has publicly committed the Government of Canada’s support for the military action currently being undertaken in Afghanistan.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba condemn racism and discrimination against any individual group or organization and encourage that all Manitobans are treated with compassion, dignity and respect.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly consider doing everything within its power to ensure that there is no place in Manitoba for agents or supporters of terrorism.

* (15:00)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly fully endorse and support any necessary economic, diplomatic, humanitarian and military actions undertaken by the governments of the United States of America, Canada and our allies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba forward a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, we had ongoing discussions and I know we had some agreements earlier and further discussions, but there may not be a meeting of the minds here, just following this. We will certainly agree to proceed as a MUPI, because otherwise it becomes like an Opposition Day without the necessary prerequisites, and that is not right, that there is a motion before the House without notice to the members. As well, of course, it cannot be dealt with under rule 61.

So my understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the motion before the House is that it set aside its ordinary business to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, terrorism, racism, the tragedy of September 11 and the aftermath. The resolution that was presented, nonetheless, serves as a basis for discussion, but the motion is the MUPI motion.

If there is agreement on that, we can get on with it and have that discussion, but I think it is important that we not countenance an Opposition Day under the guise of rule 61.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, on this matter I do not believe that we wanted to make it political. We wanted to make this apolitical, so that this Legislature could support an initiative that we all believe in.

Mr. Speaker, I thought we had unanimous consent at the beginning of Question Period that we would deal with this matter and let it go to debate after QP, at this time. We have sought unanimous consent. We are hoping that the Government will give us the opportunity to debate this forward.

I do not believe that is an Opposition Day motion. I believe this a motion that should be supported by the entire Legislature, Mr. Speaker. So to call it an Opposition Day, that is not what it was meant to be. This was an offering to the Americans and the Canadians who are there protecting our country today, who are suffering because of what happened on September 11.

I do not want to turn this into a political issue, Mr. Speaker. I want this to be an issue where we can have unanimous consent. We have done that how many times today? Twice we have received unanimous consent. We received it on the security bill this afternoon. We gave them their unanimous consent. We gave them unanimous consent on the issue of some House business today. I am sure that the honourable House Leader will be seeking unanimous consent on a number of other issues that he wants to bring forward in this House.

We are only doing as this House Leader has done, Mr. Speaker, and that is seeking unanimous consent for an issue that we believe is apolitical.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I am bringing it forward to the House, as how we deal with a MUPI. I would first note for the House that I did not receive the required notice of 90 minutes prior to the start of the sitting day, as required by rule 34.(1). However, earlier in the sitting day, agreement was given for the matter to be held over until after Members’ Statements. I will reiterate for the record that there was unanimous consent for the motion to be brought forward in spite of the lack of notice prior to the start of the sitting day.

Before recognizing the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, I believe I should remind all members that under our subrule 34.(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other parties in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. As stated in Beauchesne citation 390, urgency in this context means an urgency of immediate debate not of the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition to speak to the urgency of the motion.

Mr. Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the urgency of this because I believe that, for all Manitobans, they look to this Legislature, they look to the people here as their representatives. In this House, we have members of the New Democratic Party, we have members of the PC Party of Manitoba, and we have a member representing the Liberal Party of Manitoba. So all provincial parties are in this Chamber, and it is the role, I believe, of every one of us that are sitting here in our chairs in this Chamber to be the voice of the constituencies of which we represent. That means that Manitobans are out looking for leadership out of this institution, out of this Legislature, knowing full well that there are incidents that have happened over the past couple of months that are unprecedented.

These issues do not come up, thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, except in very, very extraordinary circumstances, and that requires an urgent action from this Legislature to send a message not only to the people of Manitoba but to those in the world that are looking to perhaps find out what are the positions, what is the direction, what is the sense of a message that is coming out from the Legislature from all parties, because this is not, and we acknowledge, a political issue. It is a matter of urgency. It is a matter of the first opportunity in this session for us as legislators, for us as people that represent our constituencies regardless of their political stripe. It is irrelevant. They are people that are looking for us to provide leadership and direction.

When you look, Mr. Speaker, the federal government, on the first day, they talked about the urgency of the issue. They debated it, and they sent a unanimous signal to all Canadians. The first day that the Ontario Legislature sat, the government introduced and all parties unanimously talked about the urgency and the importance of that incident.

* (15:10)

It is very clear that Manitobans, what their expectation is of this Legislature, what their expectations are of those that they asked and elect to come into this Chamber to talk about the issues that are important, that are perhaps from time to time, as was the case on September 11, unprecedented, something that happened very, very close to home. So, in terms of urgency, I think it is important that today we stand in our places and each and every one of us have a chance to address a very urgent motion that we have presented forward to Mr. Speaker. We think that it is incumbent on this Legislature to move forward unanimously to support those that are out, the heroes that are out protecting what is the importance of democracy in our society.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to see the urgency that this is the only opportunity, the first opportunity, which makes it urgent, that it allows us the first opportunity as a unanimous Legislature to send a message not only to Manitobans but to Canadians, to Americans and to all those around the world that we are unanimous in our support of the fight against terrorism and that we should support actions that the Canadian government has done, that the Americans have done, that the Ontario Legislature has done. We believe because this Legislature is set up that that is the reason that this should be seen as an urgent matter.

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe that, prior to the Orders of the Day proceeding, our House Leader agreed to the matter being dealt with as a MUPI and agreed that we would deal with that by leave following Members’ Statements, something that the Speaker ruled was entirely in order.

We would note, and we would want the Assembly to note, that the first paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, the Government’s Speech from the Throne document, talks about that this is the first time that this Legislature has come together since the tragic events in the United States. The impact of this tragedy is brought home to us by the loss of Christine Egan, an individual who lost her life, a Manitoba nurse, an educator, a health care advocate, a person who some of us knew, who was killed while visiting her brother at the World Trade Center.

We stood together in a moment of silence–and the U.S. Consul General and his spouse were here in this Chamber–in memory of the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives on September 11 in New York, Washington, in the fields of Pennsylvania, and in the days following, Mr. Speaker. So surely this matter of urgent public debate is fully covered under the Speech from the Throne and fully available to all of us under the Speech from the Throne consideration.

Secondly, we have already sent to the President of the United States thousands of Manitoba signatures and names that have been submitted for purposes of–[interjection] With the greatest respect, you do not know what I am going to say. Do not be opposed to what I am going to say until I have finished saying it. Then you can oppose what I say if you do not agree with it.

Mr. Speaker, we have already sent thousands of names and signatures to people in the United States, to the President of the United States, from Internet correspondence, from direct letters. I was absolutely proud of the fact that Manitobans and Winnipeggers spent hours thinking of what they were going to say and noting it in the book.

Members opposite have proposed a resolution. Our House Leader has argued that by unanimous consent we could set aside the rules of the House in terms of notice and deal with this matter as a MUPI. We could argue that the Speech from the Throne already accommodates this debate and therefore it is not necessary to have an emergency resolution or a matter of urgent public importance. that the Speech from the Throne already accommodates this debate, and therefore it is not necessary to have an emergency resolution or a matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Speaker.

But, having said that, we on this side agreed prior to Question Period that this would be dealt with as a MUPI, and we would, Mr. Speaker, in advice to you, urge you to take the advice of the House Leader and the Opposition House Leader and have this matter as a MUPI proceed at this time in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Under rule 34.(2), a member making a motion under subrule (1) may explain arguments in favour of the member’s motion in not more than five minutes and one member from each of the other parties in the House may state the position of their party with respect to the motion in not more than five minutes, and we have now recognized one from each of the parties, under the rules.

There are two conditions to be satisfied in order for this matter to proceed. The first condition is that proper notice is required. The House has given its consent for this motion to come forward. Therefore, the condition of notice has been dealt with.

* (15:20)

The second condition is that debate on this matter is urgent and that there are no other reasonable opportunities to raise the matter. Although at the present time members do not have the ability to raise grievances, discuss private members’ resolutions or debate Opposition Day motions due to the Throne Speech debate being listed as an order of business, I would note that members could discuss this issue during remarks on the Throne Speech debate.

I would note that there are problems in the motion as a matter of urgent public importance. I would also note that there is a procedural problem with the format of the motion brought forward as a matter of urgent public importance. According to a ruling delivered by Speaker Rocan on December 3, 1990, he ruled that it is out of order for members to use WHEREAS clauses and the format of private members’ resolutions in order to bring forward a matter of urgent public importance.

Despite the procedural shortcomings, I note that there appears to be desire on members to debate this matter today. Beauchesne citation 387, as well as past rulings of Manitoba Speakers, takes this into account. I would like to note for the record that there are procedural irregularities with the motion being moved as a matter of urgent public importance as according to a ruling delivered by Speaker Rocan on December 3, 1990. It is out of order to use WHEREAS clauses and the format of private members’ resolutions in order to bring forward a matter of urgent public importance.

The proper format for the wording of a matter of urgent public importance is that under rule 34.(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, and hear a brief general statement of the issue as set forth. Given that there appears to be a general willingness to debate this matter, I will allow the motion to go forward as a matter of urgent public importance in the current format with the understanding that this is not creating a precedent and that all future motions that are raised as matters of urgent public importance should be in the traditional format of matters of urgent public importance.

I will then put the question to the House. Shall the debate proceed? [Agreed]

It has been moved by the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Murray), seconded by the honourable Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), who was in his seat when the motion was moved

WHEREAS terrorism is a global issue–Dispense? Dispense.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to all members that were involved in the discussion to allow us to proceed with this. I do believe it is a matter of urgency, and I think that it is important that we all have a chance to speak as representatives for our constituents.

I was reminded on November 11 at my constituency at Kirkfield Park. I was out at a ceremony and met a number of people who clearly reflected on September 11 as something that was very, very important to them as a day that happened that none of us will ever forget. For those that had the opportunity to see the incredible, horrific attack that took place in New York and in Washington and on the grounds of Pennsylvania, I think that those are images that all of us are absolutely horrified by. Those kinds of images are the kinds of images that stick with you for years and years to come.

You think of some of the young people in this world that are looking for hope and opportunity and looking for those things that they believe that they want to live their dreams at, Mr. Speaker, and you look at what took place on September 11 with that kind of terrorism that attacked our democracy. I can think of no word other than "horrific" to describe it because innocent civilians that day in New York and in Washington and indeed for those that were on the aircrafts that were hijacked, those innocent people were sacrificed for democracy. They were sacrificed because we believe in our democratic right that people have fought for in the last number of world wars that we have seen on this earth.

Nobody would believe that the attacks could occur so close to home. I think that when you look at what took place on September 11, people were absolutely mesmerized by the visual images that they could see on the television set. I think that people were riveted because in disbelief they watched as two major institutions, the World Trade Center, the twin towers in New York, crumbled before the eyes of the world.

So not only what was lost, those civilians, some 5000 people on that particular day, but what about the horrific incidents for some of those firefighters and some of those police officers and some of those port authority people that rushed to the scene not knowing that those twin towers were going to crumble down on top of them. Their intent was to go and save lives, not to have their lives taken away.

So this is a very, very urgent matter because, while there are heroes, they were heroes that went into that rubble of mess, those twin towers, to rescue people that most people knew were dead, but still they fight. And they fight today to try to bring those people, to try to identify those bodies so that the loved ones of those that lost lives can bring some sense of closure and perhaps in some very strange way try to bring some modicum of sense as to why this unspeakable incident took place.

We have seen over the course of time since September 11 numerous selfless citizens either sending donations to support those families, to support the firefighters, to support the police, to support port authority people. We see people spending hours and hours of volunteer time because they want to do their bit to fight against the attack on democracy.

One can only look through the TV sets, musicians, Americans, Canadians, all over the world standing up and saying: We are here because we believe in freedom, we believe in the rights of the democratic society that we cherish so much, and we believe that we will do anything to ensure that our children have the same opportunities to go through a democratic society the way that we have had an opportunity so far.

It is well documented that the people that were involved in this horrific incident were a small radical group. They do not, and I repeat, they do not represent Muslim faith or Middle Eastern populations. Frankly, we condemn those that would take action strictly because they believe somebody to be of the Muslim faith or from a Middle Eastern country. We condemn that kind of racism. It is not the Canadian, not the Manitoba way.

* (15:30)

We see the President of the United States, we see the Prime Minister of Canada on behalf of all Canadians supporting the fight against terrorism and supporting it in a very, very direct way to ensure that they can wrestle it to the ground and stomp it out. But that takes leadership and it takes direction, and that is why we believe it is important that this legislative body, this Chamber, unanimously support the motion that was presented today.

We believe that it is important, whether it is on the economic side, whether it is on the diplomatic, on the humanitarian or on the military action that has been taken, we believe that this Legislature should unanimously send a message to Manitobans and to those Canadians, to those United States of American citizens and indeed the world, how deplorable that action was and why we stand to fight against terrorism.

All of us who have family members, loved ones that every day leave the house to go to whatever job it may be, whether it is on the farm or whether it is in the office towers, those are the innocent people, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those people are the innocent people who on the day of September 11 went into the towers of the World Trade Center, were on airplanes, went to the Pentagon, those are the people that are the real heroes today.

I think it is very, very important that each and every one of us in this Legislature stand in our positions to unanimously support the motion that was brought forward to this House today because it is the right thing to do and it is what Manitobans and all society expect of this Legislature. Thank you very much.

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Government on the resolution that is before us today and certainly the sentiments that we have contained within our Speech from the Throne in the first paragraph that was delivered by the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba yesterday.

The resolution deals with a number of issues that are very important for us. I think it is very important that this Assembly recognize that we have a role to play in dealing with racism and discrimination in our society, in our community. It is important for us to be at many places of religious practice, not just our own, and ensure that people of different races and different religious beliefs that are most directly impacted by the absolute outrage and horror that took place with the terrorist attack on innocent victims on September 11–I think it is very, very important for all of us as leaders to make sure that tolerance and the belief in a multiracial, multicultural community is very much the way this country was formed and very much the way this country has struggled with and remains to be a struggle in this country and in this province today.

It was less than 60 years ago that Canada was dealing with policies of straight passage from India to this country and dealing with the issue of whether Sikhs could have the vote in 1948 in British Columbia, even families who had settled there at the turn of century. We have to again deal, as this resolution articulates, with leadership against racism in our own communities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have to also do what we can, as this resolution proposes, to take the due diligence in our community today. Both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) and I were asked on the radio: Why are you so consumed with measures dealing with The Security Management Act? Well, we are consumed with these issues because things like aerial spraying, things like hazardous waste, areas that have good procedures in place today to deal with the problems of yesterday may not deal with the problems of terrorism tomorrow. We live in a society now, in a technology now, for example, a digital printing system that can unfortunately override some of the safeguards that we might have in terms of identification and proper documentation. We must ensure that the 99.9 percent of us in our society feel safe in our own communities or as safe as they can feel when they go to work or when they go to school.

I know for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this has been a very challenging period of time. We were called on September 11, and I appreciate the call that I received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) on September 11 offering his support and his party’s support, and we exchanged calls on September 12 with the Leader of the Liberal Party.

We were told that morning after that horrific series of television footage where we saw the aftermath of one plane and then we saw the second plane hit the second Trade Center tower, and then we saw them shortly thereafter disintegrate before our very eyes, knowing thousands of innocent people were being killed. We had to deal with 20 planes coming to Winnipeg, 40 planes coming to Winnipeg, 60 planes potentially coming to Winnipeg, 80 planes coming to Winnipeg. We knew the emergency people could not tell those people who were landing what was happening until they were sure that nobody on those planes, particularly the international flights that were travelling to the United States, was a security risk to other innocent people.

I want to congratulate all Manitobans who participated in that effort here in Manitoba. I want to thank people who offered their homes, even though the security people could not allow people to use their homes because they were concerned about making sure that everybody was safe.

I want to thank the health authorities and the emergency staff and the City of Winnipeg emergency staff and the City of Winnipeg police and the mayor and all other municipalities that got their communities ready to deal directly with the impact of September 11. We have a lot of heroes. We had more people giving blood than we could store. We even had to get a plane to ship some of the blood to other centres to ensure that the blood that was donated did not go to waste but rather was there for victims of September 11 or other victims of illness who require blood throughout Canada or North America.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, obviously the stories from that event, the aerial spraying, the other issues, the anthrax, have had a profound effect upon people. People watching the news see a war for one-third of the newscast; they see an anthrax scare for one-third of the newscast, and then they hear about the economy for the other one-third of the newscast. This is very tough stuff.

It is particularly hard on children. I remember going through the scares of the potential Russian location of missiles in Cuba or the actual location of missiles in Cuba and the showdown between Khrushchev and Kennedy. We were told to get under our desks. We were taken out of our schools. Our kids, when they see headlines–I can speak from personal experience–they are very worried about war. They are very worried about their parents going to war. They are very worried about being killed one night, with seeing the bombs and other things. This requires a tremendous amount of leadership on the part of all parents in this country and in this province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a unilateral terrorist group that has now publicly confirmed their unilateral murder on those innocent people. For that reason, on October 7, I put out a statement to support the military action against the perpetrators and supporters of terrorist attacks. We stand behind our armed forces, some of whom are born and raised in Manitoba, some of whom are located here and redeployed to other sites.

* (15:40)

We also have our thoughts and prayers with the military families. I had the chance to meet military families coming back from Bosnia just last spring, and parents and kids and family members who had family members in those war theatres were absolutely on pins and needles until their loved ones arrived back here in Canada and here in Manitoba.

We also support the efforts for humanitarian aid before this attack and after this attack. Too many people are starving in Afghanistan and too many people are dying from food hunger. We must support humanitarian efforts, and I would like to see as much humanitarian effort made to get food to people that are starving as other endeavours that are going on in this country today.

This resolution does not deal with some of the work we have to take from this step forward. We have now changes in even the military environment in Afghanistan alone in the last 48 hours, the last 24 hours, the last 4 or 5 hours. We need now to get international efforts through the United Nations to try to get a stable, democratically elected government in Afghanistan. We cannot have a terrorist group replaced with another totalitarian group. We have to have democracy. We have to work as a world community. We have to work through the United Nations to bring peace and food and stability and security to that country. Of course, we have to do what we can, and we will do what we can, to deal with unilateral terrorists that threaten our way of life and threaten innocent people on our shores and in other countries in the work where terrorists act in a unilateral way. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. I think that the effort today is indeed a matter of urgent importance, this being the first time it is raised, and it is a matter that we should be addressing and attending to here in this Chamber. I am fully in support of the efforts that have been made by the Government of Canada, fully in support, as the other leaders are, of the allied effort to end this wave of terrorism, which has occurred starting September 11.

It is important that we stand together in support of our armed forces and thank those who are participating in this effort and helping to end this reign of terror. It is important as well that we thank and support all those emergency and security workers who have participated in the efforts here in Manitoba, indeed around the world, to try to make this globe, our country, our province a safer place and a more secure place to live.

Immediately after September 11, when I talked to the Premier (Mr. Doer) the next day, we discussed, and I recommended, that there be an all-party-effort committee to address these issues of terrorism. I want to publicly say thank you to the Premier and congratulate the Premier for initiating the effort, the all-party task force, which has now been meeting on a weekly basis for the last month and a half. This has been an important way of bringing the ideas from all parties to the forefront. It was an important part of the steps that the three leaders took in going to Ottawa. We had gone there initially in relationship to water issues and water disputes between Manitoba and the United States, but we spent as much time, as it happened, on security issues with John Manley, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the ambassador from the United States, and with others, looking at what could be done from the Manitoba perspective in providing some input from our position in western Canada.

The weekly meetings that have occurred since have provided a productive forum for discussion input from those involved in efforts in various departments, ministers as well as the three leaders. There have been, I think, as a result of those discussions, some important movement forward in this province on security issues and the approaches that have been taken here to bioterrorism.

Much of course that we have discussed is in fact confidential and I will not bring it up here, but I think that it is clear to me and a compliment to all who have participated that the discussions there have generated some ideas which I think will have a net result in protecting Manitobans and providing Manitobans greater confidence that they live in a province which is secure and one of the lowest risk areas anywhere in the world in terms of terrorism.

I want to talk briefly about one issue which has been raised with me many, many times by Manitobans. That deals with the issue of security at airports and similar circumstances. There has been very widespread concern about the adequacy of screening processes and security processes. When I raised this initially, there was reaction that this was primarily a federal responsibility. But clearly the training and the competence of security workers is under the provincial domain. I am pleased to see in the Throne Speech that the Government will make mandatory the training for security workers. Clearly this is a step beyond the legislation, which just lays the framework.

Indeed, I think it is worth pointing out and commenting briefly that the current legislation probably would permit the Government to move through Order-in-Council or other measures to provide for such mandatory training. Indeed I think that the NDP in opposition may have advocated this. We might have been further ahead if you had moved in the first two years instead of waiting, but at least we will have it now. There is a need for a clearly defined process in place for standards for the training and the competence of security workers. It is important that it be implemented soon instead of having further delays.

I want to move on to talk very briefly about terrorism. We see it primarily as a single, drastic event, but it is quite clear from what has happened with anthrax and other circumstances that terrorism is indeed something which in other countries in the Middle East people have had to live with in their day-to-day lives. In Europe there have been more problems in the last 20 years. Indeed, I remember, I think it was in 1985, after some terrorist events there, there was greatly enhanced security in the European Union. Clearly, we are following in that sort of model as we move forward to put in place appropriate security procedures which will nevertheless preserve the kind of freedom of movement and freedom of speech and other freedoms that we cherish so much.

I think it is appropriate that we look at this battle against terrorism not just as a single battle that we must win but something that we will now have to be alert for on an ongoing basis and make sure that we are ready and prepared to prevent and to intervene, almost in a sense like a chronic disease that we must keep at bay.

* (15:50)

At the same time it is very important for Manitoba that we keep on track in terms of improving immigration to Manitoba, that we maintain an open society where we accept others from all parts of the world after appropriate screening. We must constantly be ready to counter racism, to build tolerance, to build education and understanding.

Let me close with this thought. The test of our success in this immediate circumstance is the extent to which we can put in place in Afghanistan a stable regime which will provide prosperity for people in Afghanistan. A test for us as a global community is the extent that we can put in place around the world more prosperous nations, more stable nations where people will not have to resort to terrorism.

Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wanted to particularly take note of the Premier’s (Mr. Doer) comments in the preamble to us being privileged to have this discussion, and I do thank the Chair, the Speaker, for allowing us to proceed with this matter. The Premier is absolutely right. I, for one, and I think I speak for all, appreciate the fact that the Government recognized the importance of this issue by having the lead paragraph within the Throne Speech, but I do not have to remind the Premier that the Throne Speech is a government document. It is a political document.

Tradition has it that, and while I have not caucused this with my caucus, very likely the chances are good that we will, most of us, vote against that Throne Speech. I have not chatted with the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gerrard), but there is a good chance that he may vote against the Throne Speech for a hundred and one reasons.

But we are dealing with the important issue here that we are trying to pass a message through that it is the Manitoba Legislature that can collectively express this will, this concern. Therefore, I applaud the actions by my leader and the resolution before us as being precisely that way we can unanimously express what already was alluded to in the Throne Speech, the concern that all of us have with respect to the difficult and troubling times that we face in this world, having to come to grips with terror here on our North American continent.

Also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I particularly take note that the resolution supports and strengthens our federal government at this particular time, and it is important that the federal government receive that kind of support from all of us in a non-partisan way. Canadians, to many of us, have tended to become more comfortable describing ourselves as neutrals on important issues. Well, one cannot be neutral on this issue. While some may take offence at the President of the United States’ choice of words, I for one do not. You are either with us or against us.

Where is there room for greyness in this matter? Where is there room for neutrality in this matter? Where was there room for neutrality when another madman, Adolf Hitler, exposed his form of terror on the world? Canada was not neutral then, and thousands upon thousands of Canadians lie in distant cemeteries to prove that point. We cannot be neutral in this issue and should not allow ourselves that luxury of blatant anti-Americanism to be evident in not being fully supportive of what our federal government is doing and what our men and women are doing on distant shores.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I support the resolution put forward by my leader, strongly recommending that the House, with speed and dispatch, endorse it. It is the only forum that we have that can express the unanimous will of this Chamber without getting involved in politics. The Throne Speech we will debate over the next eight days, and believe me, lots of politics will be involved in that debate. At the end, there will not be unanimity. We need this kind of a resolution to provide unanimity.

Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased that the Speaker ruled that this matter should be discussed as a matter of urgent public importance today, because I think that when acts of terror, as took place on September 11, are of such a magnitude that they are imprinted indelibly on the minds of all those who watched with horror as the second plane struck the second tower while the first was already engulfed in flames. I think, even more importantly, those images are imprinted on the minds of New Yorkers and on the minds of children across the Western World, I expect. I agree with my Premier (Mr. Doer) who said that there are very few children who remain confident in their safety and security in the light of what they have been exposed to. So I think it is appropriate that we discuss this matter today as a matter of very significant public importance.

I was on my way into Treasury Board when staff told me what had happened. There was a kind of surreal focus that morning as we were attempting to reach important decisions on matters which I suppose pale by comparison with the significance of the matters that were taking place in the city of New York. Nevertheless, we did carry on, and I think it is a great tribute to civil servants and members of government that the business of government continued while the business of the security of Canadians and international travellers was very ably looked after by the Winnipeg Airport Authority, by NAVCOM, by members of our provincial government, by members of the RCMP, by staff of my department who immediately activated the emergency plan which is part of all of our departments’ responsibilities.

I am pleased that citizens of many countries were offered hospitality and compassion when they were forced to leave their flights here in our city. I think that again I would commend our Premier, and I think that any premier, regardless of party, would have done the same thing when he said that, if travellers need accommodation, they will be accommodated, and we will not worry about asking the questions about whether they can afford it at that particular time. I want to commend him for that. I know that is not a partisan statement because I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) and the previous premier would have done the same thing in that situation.

I think that the matter of what we do in regard to terrorism is multifaceted. First, I think that it must be named as an utterly unacceptable approach to the solution of imagined or real problems. There is no possible defence for acts of terror, particularly when they are directed at civilians. There is simply no moral defence, no theological defence that I know of that would justify the kind of acts that we witnessed on September 11. I think that has to be said firmly, it has to be said quietly, and it has to be said consistently by all of us.

We have to say this in our actions of opposing terror, which of course we are doing now. The means, I think, are best left to national governments to debate and discern because these are complex matters, and in a federation, provinces have roles and federal governments have roles. I am quite prepared to trust my federal government, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the members of the House of Commons, to attempt to discern as best they can the appropriate policy for our country. I think that they are doing a pretty fair job of that.

* (16:00)

I think that we need to, as citizens, recognize that the seeds of terror ultimately are sown out of the seeds of racism. They are sown out of the seeds of profound disadvantage. Those who would use that disadvantage or use those racially discriminatory acts to fuel their particular, I think, mad preconceptions of how to solve problems prey on those who can be persuaded that they are disadvantaged in one way or another profoundly or even less profoundly. Terror is a means of appearing to redress imagined or real wrongs. We need, insofar as we are able, to remove the causes, to remove the opportunities to the bin Ladens or whoever else would use such awful means, by treating all races, all religions, all faiths, all skin colours as creatures of God, creatures of the Creator who deserve the same dignity, the same opportunities, the same respect, the same rights before the law and the same responsibilities as citizens without distinction. I think that that is the only sound basis in the long run for a peaceful world, a world that respects the profound historical, cultural and faith gifts that are brought to this global community in which we are one relatively small but very important and very vibrant part, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

So I hope, along with all members opposite, I am sure, that the events of the last couple of days, which I think move way beyond where this matter was introduced as being earlier today, move us far beyond the question of simply external actions to confront terror but into the questions of long-term public policy for the future government of Afghanistan, a nation that has been deeply troubled for many years and has been used by powers on its borders and powers beyond its borders for political purposes rather than for the purposes of the well-being of the Afghan people.

I hope that we will go into the next phase of this issue as it develops with a deep commitment to building stable, long-term governments based on democratic principles in as many of the countries of that region as is possible and that we will recognize that to do that there must be more of the kind of approach that the Western powers took following World War II when the generosity of the Americans, particularly of the Americans, launched the Marshall Plan, which led to the redevelopment of Western Europe and particularly the redevelopment of Germany and Japan, the nations that normally in historic terms might have been punished for years. Many historians would argue the punishment of Germany following World War I directly led to the conditions that caused World War II.

So the wisdom and generosity of our neighbour to the south in the aftermath of the Second World War in the launching of the Marshall Plan I think should guide us in the West and I hope perhaps in partnership with the great neighbour to the north of Afghanistan, Russia, as they might in partnership launch the kind of 2001 version of the Marshall Plan to reconstruct, to rebuild, and, more importantly, to build peace and stability into these countries so that they will have an interest and a stake in the developed world and in their own developing future rather than only a stake in the past.

I am pleased that this matter is before us as a matter of public importance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to thank you and the Speaker for allowing us to come forward today.

Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to rise and put a few comments on the record and thank my leader for raising this issue as an issue of urgent public importance. I certainly want to echo the comments of the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) when he indicates that this truly is our only opportunity to send a strong message and a leadership message from this Legislature, regardless of political stripe, about how we feel and how we need to support our Government in Canada, the Government of the United States and all of our allies that are working so hard to try to ensure that terrorism will be dealt with in a very meaningful way, that we will not tolerate terrorism and the kind of activities that murdered over six thousand individuals at a time of peace in our land. It is something that we cannot tolerate.

I have to indicate that I was the product of post Second World War. I was born after the Second World War and know only too much the stories that my parents talked about and the hardships that many suffered as a result of wartime activities. I was hoping beyond all hope that the kinds of activities that took place and the wars that were experienced before my lifetime would never occur again and that we as a generation would not have to go through a war and that our children would not have to go through a war. I was hoping that the peace that our veterans fought for would last into eternity, but we all know that was not the case. We were caught very much off guard and, I think, threatened very much as a result of the activities on September 11. I have to say very much that sometimes I get extremely angry when I have seen some of the media reports that look at some of the things that have happened in Afghanistan as a result of the bombings and the attacks that have occurred to try to eradicate terrorism and the discussion that maybe one or two innocent lives had been lost as a result of that bombing.

There were 6000 lives taken, men, women and children, throughout the United States as a result of terrorist attacks. Those attacks were certainly, in a time of peace, very significant. We know that in times of war there are innocent lives taken. We cannot condone; we must condemn the types of terrorist attacks that have led to what we are seeing and the unrest and the war that we are seeing today.

I want to indicate that we need to stand each one of us in this Legislature today and support the kinds of activities that are taking place right now, today, and ensure that we pass on a strong message to the Government of Canada and to the President of the United States and our allies that we will stand strong with him to ensure that terrorist activities will not and cannot be accepted across the land.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would hope that we will have the opportunity to vote on this resolution today, to pass this resolution and ensure that Manitobans’ voices are heard, Manitobans’ voices through us are on the record condemning terrorist activity and eradicating it as quickly as we possibly can. Thank you.

Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I am glad to have the opportunity to rise and speak on this important issue that has been brought forward to us here today and echo some of the statements that many of the others have made in this House before me. The barbaric and cowardly act of terrorism is unacceptable, regardless of the magnitude that has progressed. The world has seen terrorism certainly in the European countries for a great many years, regardless of whether it is a cowardly bombing of innocent people in a local restaurant or a car bomb or a vehicle that is parked outside of a building and people are injured or whether it is just simply psychological terrorism that we see constantly throughout the world.

* (16:10)

I think someone mentioned earlier they knew exactly where they were when this event took place on September 11, and I do as well. I think we can all look back at some of the events in our lives that we saw when–I will always remember where I was when JFK was assassinated. I will always remember where I was when John Lennon was assassinated. I think everybody has those memories exactly where they were at the time, and this event is one that I will recognize and obviously always remember. I was on my way, as well, to Treasury Board the morning when it happened. The impact that it has on people and the impact that it had on my staff as I was leaving the office and the impact that it had in actually witnessing real-moment events of what happened at the Pentagon, what happened in an isolated farm field and what happened certainly in the World Trade Center.

The members have mentioned prior to me that terrorism is unacceptable, and it is unacceptable in any form. Certainly, the effects that it has had on our democratic society with my own family, where I see my children asking whether it is safe to be in the community, whether it is safe to continue to operate in our own neighbourhoods because of the horrific and barbaric acts that took place by taking vehicles that we have used for transportation around the world and around the globe quite freely for the last 50 years and turning them into guided missiles into our neighbourhoods.

Certainly, as some of the members have mentioned, we should stand united. We should stand with the rest of the world that have dealt with this on their own ground, on their own turf for a number of years. The events that have happened throughout Europe have been constant, and they continue to be. It has been addressed by many of the standards that have been placed in effect in the European communities with some of the things that we are starting to evaluate here now in North America, both in the United States, certainly in Canada and now around the rest of the world.

When the Premier established the all-party task force and the all-party committee regarding our backyard, I will put it, some of the things in Manitoba we saw as important issues that we needed to deal with. We certainly saw a crossover very quickly on that task force. One of the members had mentioned before, I will not go into specifics on what we are dealing with, but certainly we saw the crossover between our national government and our provincial government, and down to the municipalities that we all represent.

We looked at all our infrastructure in the province of Manitoba, and we looked at each and every one of our departments in a new way. I think that in the past decade it has never been scrutinized and never been looked at in the same light. I do not suspect that it ever will be again. We have come up with some suggestions and some recommendations, and I know the Throne Speech had mentioned a bill that will be brought forward regarding this issue, and certainly regarding and reflective of all members on the task force that have seen the information. We have all seen together some of the recommendations and suggestions and what we need to do jointly within the province, on provincial responsibility, working with our national government on strengthening some of our processes.

I do not suspect before September 11 any of us had really considered a lot of what we had considered on that task force after as a national threat or a threat that in our backyard could be possible. As I watch through the news media the event unfold over and over again, I still after two months, it seems like yesterday that it happened, I still cannot quite believe the extreme that people will go to to inflict injury on communities, injury on democracy, injury on the way of life that we have established and certainly fought for and our forefathers have fought for throughout our lifetimes.

The acts of these individuals certainly are not representative of any ethnic background or group. They are certainly not respective of any religious group. They are certainly not tied to the large broad-based communities that are represented within Manitoba and throughout our nation here in Canada and throughout the world.

The cowardly acts that were committed were committed by a small group of extremely deranged minds. It was committed by some, if you will, for lack of a better term, certainly a devilish act that was created and put into a small group of people that felt this was the way that they would bring attention to a cause that they have.

I can tell you the multicultural community that we have met with since the event in the community has seen some of the reflection of the acts that were committed by these people, by distinguishing features such as colour, as them addressing themselves to be tacked on to a certain group of individuals that we have within our communities. I can tell you that is simply not the case. These people acted on their own with division of slamming our community as we see it, slamming the democratic process that we have in our countries.

It is interesting to note that just prior to the horrific event on September 11, Brandon University, through the minister of post-secondary education, established a course for the first time in Canada, and it did not get a lot of recognition at the time. It was the Applied Disaster and Emergency Studies program that was established for the first time in Canada. Many people said why. Why would we be establishing programs such as this?

It was quite evident, after the fact, that some of the course that these people will be taking will represent some of the GOGs [phonetic] that certainly our emergency response personnel have right here in our communities, the general operating guidelines on massive events we would like to prepare for, certainly hope never happen. One thing it did highlight, and it is recognized here in Manitoba, is the effectiveness of our personnel that we have here in the province, the effectiveness of the police system that we have in our province, the effect on the health care system, the effect on the Fire Department response capabilities with respect to the emergency response capabilities that we have in the province. As we look at the impact that it had on our province, I was very pleased to see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the professionalism and the excellent staff and structure that we have here in the province of Manitoba.

Terrorism can attack on many fronts. It can attack certainly by the horrific deed of the destruction of life and property that we saw take place. It can happen on another level that we are also seeing. We are seeing it on a psychological level where terrorism can inflict its ugly fingers in its grip and put the fear into people within a community. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people in Manitoba recognize that certainly, and they should be confident in the structure that we have here in Manitoba, the excellent professionalism that we have in the capabilities of our response team, not to say that there cannot be improvements in all areas. Certainly we have done that. We will continue to do it in light of the events that have happened.

People can see in Manitoba that quite frankly these acts are not acceptable. We have a good structure in place, and we will continue to fight working nationally with our Government here, our national government, our international government, the United Nations, and will work to defeat terrorism all across the globe. We are strictly opposed to barbaric events. We will support the actions that we see in other nations and assist bringing to the table our professionalism to try to assist in best practices for the world. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I truly appreciate the fact that we are able to discuss this issue today. All of us, I think, were horrified at this mindless act of violence. I know I said to my family that day that the world will never be the same again, and I truly believe that. This has had an impact on all of us. Some of us, probably more vulnerable than others, are going to have a terrible time to understand this and to get over this. I think we need to talk about it and to support the federal government, as governments across this land have done by passing resolutions in their Legislature and taking that resolution and showing it to our citizens and reassure them that we are together on this.

* (16:20)

I have a tremendous admiration for the American political system, where Democrats and Republicans can scrap, go to court over who won the last election, fight amongst themselves, but when there is a crisis that befalls the nation, how they can pull together and put their partisan feelings and their partisan ideology and thinking aside and do what is best for the nation.

This issue of terrorism and what has been happening affects us all. I personally have two nephews who are involved. One is a fireman in Toronto, 30 years old, born and raised in Neepawa. He volunteered to go to New York. Happily, from his family’s point of view, he did not get to go, but these people who do these very difficult jobs, I think, deserve our praise and support, and they need to know as a Legislature that we are fully and totally behind them. I have another nephew who is in the military, who has spent time in Kosovo on a peacekeeping mission and is on standby now in case he needs to go to Europe again or to Afghanistan or any of the hot spots in the world. So these things become very personal.

When you have an act of violence like this, it can only be dealt with with a very strong and determined response to it. I congratulate the American government and the Canadian government for the action that they are taking. We have been watching what looked like a drawn-out war, but I can tell you I took great hope last night on the late news as there were scenes from Kabul for the first time of people with smiles on their faces and joy in their hearts.

I heard what the Premier said. We do not want to replace one despot with another. There is a role here for the international community to put in place some sort of stability there after this ends. But to see the joy and the celebration that something is happening in this war, I do not think this was a staged event. These people have been very oppressed. My goodness, no country should have to live under the type of warfare that has been going on there for all of these years.

I congratulate President Bush, newly elected, newly sworn-in president. Who could believe the pressure that he was put under when these events unfolded? I think he has grown tremendously in stature in the eyes of the American citizens and citizens across the world. Our Prime Minister and our Government are living up to their obligations. Sure, people might say, well, he should have spoken up a day sooner or whatever. The bottom line is the Canadian government has also taken a strong stand. They are there side by side with their American allies. I give Tony Blair tremendous credit. I think that he has just risen in the eyes of the world community by the strength he has shown in this disaster that has happened.

So I urge all of us to take this to a vote, to let our citizens know that the Manitoba Legislature feels very strongly on this issue, that we support this resolution, that we support the Government of Canada and the action that the allies are taking in this disaster that has befallen the world. There are going to be lots of issues and lots of problems that will have to be dealt with in the aftermath of this. I know that an all-party committee has been working on issues to make Manitoba a safer place. I think lots will have to be done with our young people and many other citizens who I think have seen these images.

Unfortunately, CNN is probably too good at what they do. These images have been brought into our home; they are on the minds of our citizens. I think we can reassure them by supporting our federal government, the allied forces in this. I urge all of us to stand tall on this one and support this resolution.

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I will never forget the events of September 11. I was flying in from Thompson, probably one of the last planes to arrive in Winnipeg before air traffic was suspended across North America. By coincidence I had a meeting with a new brigadier general of the armed forces here in western Canada. What started as a courtesy visit turned into a working meeting as we discussed the unfolding horror that we saw in New York. I think it changed a lot of people’s perception, particularly here in North America. Many other areas of the world know war and know terrorism all too well, but for probably the first time certainly in recent history unparalleled violence and destruction happened to our neighbours and friends in the United States. I know we all felt for them. I think we all felt for them.

We are dealing with the ramifications here in Manitoba. We just recently–in fact, just a short time ago announced new security measures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, here in the province of Manitoba, largely reflecting the fact that after September 11 we have to learn to expect the unexpected. We have to rethink some of the things that we have taken for granted. But I want to stress that I think it is really important that we not just focus on the physical or legal aspects of security but on preserving our democratic system. Some members have referenced this, but it really hit home very recently in my own community.

One of my daughters, a best friend’s family, I am talking here–she maybe had about three best friends. She went to school with their daughter throughout school in Thompson. They were horrified recently when they received a visit from the RCMP to find the whereabouts of my best friend’s daughter’s mother’s brother, a landed immigrant. No particular reason to inquire about his whereabouts, but it seems that through the school it had been reported to the police and they visited at the door. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the family is of Pakistani background, and I can tell you from talking to the family how shook up they were, 27-year residents of Thompson, proud Canadians, and how upset they were that they feel they received this visit because of their ethnic background.

Now, the school has not responded. I believe they are in the process of apologizing. I will be raising this with the RCMP, because I want to stress that if we want terrorism to succeed, what we do is we turn amongst ourselves, and I say to all members of this House and through to the public of Manitoba that that could be the worst possible thing.

You know, we have a history of that in this country: Ukrainian Canadians in the First World War; Japanese Canadians in the Second World War. The threat here is not amongst us. The threat is a small group of people who do not value human life and do not value our democratic systems. If we allow this type of situation to occur–and, believe you me, there are many countries in the world in which a visit from the police has terrible consequences, leads to fear in and of itself–if we allow this to happen, Mr. Deputy Speaker, terrorism wins.

I said to the family, and I will continue to say now on the public record, that I felt as their member of the Legislature that what happened was inappropriate. I will be pursuing it because I want to make sure it is absolutely clear that, regardless of where someone comes from originally–and in this country, outside of Aboriginal people, we all have come as immigrants to this country or had our fathers and mothers or other generations come here–we have to make sure that we respect the human rights of all.

* (16:30)

I can tell you that there are very real concerns out there in many segments of society about some of the provisions in the proposed Bill C-36 that would potentially lead to this targeting of certain ethnic groups in our society, certain ethnocultural groups, on security grounds. I want to stress again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in fact, as the Canadian ambassador now to the United Nations has pointed out, I believe, even in terms of September 11, despite all the speculation, it was launched domestically within the United States.

So let us not turn on our values; let us not turn on each other. I say on the record to the family in Thompson to whom this happened, that if I could apologize on behalf of anyone who was involved, that I would, but since I cannot offer a direct apology, I make a statement as their member of the Legislature that I will ensure that this issue is raised with the highest authority.

The other thing I want to stress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the need for us to break these cycles of violence. The member opposite referenced Kabul. I believe there have been four armies that have gone into Kabul in the last twelve years. It is a country that has had much violence.

I want to stress that if you want a model for resolution of terrorism, I would refer–and there is reference to Tony Blair–to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a very current case where former terrorists have laid down their arms and there has been a peaceful resolution of the Northern Ireland problem that is decades old, probably centuries old. There is hope. There can be hope.

I want to go one step further and it is I think a really important point as we look at unfolding international events. I am a strong believer in the role of the United Nations, and I believe the United Nations, that great hope after the Second World War, has achieved a lot and we as a country have been a major contributor to that, particularly through our peacekeeping efforts throughout the world. One of the key elements is to move ahead with the resolution of international conflicts in peaceful and non-violent ways.

I am very passionate about many causes around this world; for example, the continued occupation of 40 percent of Cyprus, and I say to the international community that there are many situations like that. We have proven, for example, in East Timor that we can have international action that can make a difference. I want to stress that if we are going to resolve the difficulties in terms of war and terrorism, we have to deal with many of the underlying root causes.

I want to say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I believe that in the last few decades we have made significant progress internationally, significant progress. It may not seem like that, but there are resolutions to conflicts that have occurred throughout the world because of international effort. I want to strongly urge sanity when it comes to the very difficult situations we are dealing with internationally because I really believe–and perhaps I have been influenced by Gandhi, by Nelson Mandela, in the last century, who through non-violence were able to lead to the liberation of India, the establishment of the independence of India and Pakistan and what became Bangladesh, and Nelson Mandela who started, by the way–some may have described his activities as terrorism, but after 27 years in a South African jail led to the start of reconciliation and the elimination of apartheid in South Africa.

I believe that international action can work. It did in South Africa. I believe international action can work. It did in East Timor. I believe sitting down with historic enemies can and has happened. I believe terrorists can and will be persuaded to put down their arms, and we are seeing that in Northern Ireland. I want to stress that as we reflect on September 11, that the best response, the best memorial, I believe, to what happened to the victims of September 11 is to make an international commitment to eliminate terrorism and to establish peace in this world because we have all those examples that show it can be done.

So I conclude by saying let us not forget our values in this country. Let us, in the name of the people who have suffered September 11 and its aftermath, rededicate ourselves to trying to establish some sanity and peace in the world. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): The events of September 11 have left us asking many questions. Why? How could something like this happen? Who is responsible for this? Could something of this magnitude happen again? Will we ever again feel safe?

The question I would like to address today, Mr. Speaker, is: What does all this mean for Canada’s young people?

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no easy way to answer this question. We can neither read minds nor see into the future. What we can do is talk to our young people, observe their actions, see what is changing in the world and attempt to formulate predictions about how this could change their lives.

On the morning of September 11, many teachers in this province encouraged their students to close their books and participate in a discussion about the plane crashes in New York City and later Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. Students shared their feelings and asked questions for which the teacher did not always have the answers. Teachers were to reassure their students that Winnipeg was a highly unlikely target for such acts. Some students even asked to go home and were allowed to only if parents were there waiting for them. This was no time to send upset students to be home alone. Some of the younger students, upon hearing of an announcement from their principal detail the events, cried inconsolably, or later complained about stomach aches. This was certainly not an average day at school for our students.

Whether intentional or not, our young people have absorbed an awful lot in an extremely short period of time. They have learned that their future can change in one day. They are aware that the world as they knew it on September 10, 2001, has ceased to exist. Not since the Gulf War have our young people paid such close attention to the news and possessed an increased awareness of the world beyond their schools, friends, families, and sports teams.

In order to deal with something of this magnitude, we much first localize it. Think about what we here in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, can do about what is happening in the United States and on the other side of the world. Our young people have certainly done an excellent job of this.

Students at the Transcona school diligently prepared handmade postcards complete with personalized messages for President Bush. Similar activities took place at St. Emile School, where students presented cards, letters, a peace plant and handmade prayer books to American consul Eugène Tadis [phonetic].

On September 18 the University of Manitoba Student Union organized both a prayer vigil and forum where students could discuss the events and offer their condolences to afflicted individuals. One of the organizers of the September 23 rally at the Legislative building was a member of the Canadian Federation of Students. These are merely a few examples of the contributions we have witnessed from our young people all over the city and province and the country and indeed the world.

Teenagers and young adults are at that age where many aspire to explore the globe, be it backpacking through Europe, swimming off the coast of Australia, lying on the beaches of the Mediterranean, riding a camel in Egypt. The possibilities are endless. Or are they? How many young people have become unwilling to travel because of a newfound or reinforced fears brought on by the events of September 11. How many more places are now considered undesirable to visit as a result of terrorist activities and the war against terrorism? Will such terrorism deprive our young people of opportunities to discover their world?

In keeping with the theme of new challenges to travelling, I would like to share a story featured in the Winnipeg Free Press. On the morning of September 26 a 22-year-old man named Abdullah boarded a plane destined for Ottawa, which was his home city. Shortly thereafter a member of the Winnipeg Police Service, the RCMP removed him from the plane, then subjected him to an interrogation. The reasons behind this were challenged to be the possession of both a fraudulent ticket and an Arabic name. As it turned out, his travel agent had made an error by charging him an incorrect rate. The man received an apology and a seat on the next flight to Ottawa.

I realize this was an isolated incident. I am not suggesting that this will happen again or to every twenty-something Arab-Canadian male. Nonetheless I am speaking today about what is potentially in store for young Canadians. The fact remains that airport security has been drastically heightened and understandably so. This is something we will all be faced with for quite some time to come.

* (16:40)

We are all aware that the economy is experiencing a downturn. The events of September 11 have played a significant role in this. Increasing numbers of companies have thus far been made unable to fully recover and announced plans for massive layoffs. Motor Coach Industries will lay off 200 to 250 unionized workers. Twenty percent of the Thomas Cook Travel workforce in Canada will lose their jobs. Canwest Global Communications slashed 130 jobs at the National Post. The hospitality business has lost thousands of dollars in revenue. This is devastating. I have not even mentioned the thousands of jobs lost at Boeing, Air Canada and now Canada 3000.

How much more difficult will this make finding a job for recent high school, college and university graduates? Are they now going to explore different areas of employment and education than they would have before September 11?

Mr. Speaker, police officers, firefighters, pilots, flight attendants, postal workers, airport security personnel, all of these occupations have been at the forefront of the media spotlight for the past two months. Before September 11, we were aware that these occupations carried certain risks, but unless we had been personally affected in some way, we probably did not think too much about them. However, now we cannot help but address the negative side of these jobs because we have September 11 and the weeks following as a constant reminder.

The fact is, these individuals risked their personal safety, their lives, if you would, to provide public service; however, the police officers and firefighters who lost their lives in and around the World Trade Center are now regarded as heroes. What I now wonder is how our young people view these occupations, having witnessed both the danger and glory attached to them. Are these factors going to encourage or discourage our teenagers and young adults from pursuing these occupations or have no minds been changed? An increased number of youngsters dressed as firefighters and police officers for Halloween this year as opposed to scarier costumes, but we are all well aware that this does not necessarily determine their future occupations.

Mr. Speaker, in the previous weeks, we have seen a decrease in interest rates. This, of course, is designed to facilitate the purchase of larger, more expensive items in the hope that it will keep the economy going. For young adults with stable employment, this certainly works to their advantage. It means they can repay student loans faster, purchase a car or perhaps take out a mortgage instead of renting an apartment. These opportunities may not have been a reality prior to September 11. Fortunately, terrorism has not robbed our young aspiring Olympians of the chance to compete in Salt Lake City in February of 2002.

We should remember, however, the Olympics had been targeted in the past as were the cases of Munich and more recently Atlanta. Our Canadian Olympic athletes will observe heightened security measures such as increased numbers of security personnel and strategically placed metal detectors.

Very subtle changes have taken place in the lives of teenagers and young adults in Manitoba in the last two months, things that they may not even be aware of. For instance, the majority of popular radio stations in Winnipeg have modified their play list. They have omitted certain songs, including Winnipeg artist Chantal Kreviazuk's remake of John Denver’s "Leaving on a Jet Plane" and added songs, such as selections from "America: A Tribute to Heroes Telethon." Only a keen observer or individual who had called in with a complaint would necessarily take note of these differences.

Mr. Speaker, November 11 is commonly known around this country as Remembrance Day, a day where we take a moment to remember those who risked or lost their lives in war. Many young people attended services this year, some for the first time. This day had an added meaning for them, having experienced an act of war so close to home just two months earlier.

To conclude, Canada is our home, and everyone, especially our young people, should feel safe in their home. This is why we are urging the members opposite to support the United States and its allies in the war against terrorism. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Immigration): It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that so many of us on both sides of the House have said this afternoon that they will always remember where they were on the morning of September 11. It is unfortunate that the where-we-were recollections always seem to be for tragic events.

From my perspective as a former American, the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, of Robert Kennedy, of Martin Luther King, later the Challenger disaster that we all witnessed over and over again–who of us will ever forget that plume of smoke and knowing what was happening to those brave people? Again, the Cuban missile crisis as the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith) and the Premier (Mr. Doer) spoke about, I was a little older than the Premier when that happened. That was my indication of a personal potential challenge facing those of us who were in our early and middle twenties.

I think, also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time because this, too, had a personal connection, September 11, for me. My family lived in a New Jersey suburb, many of whose citizens went into New York City, into lower Manhattan every day to work and many of whom worked in the World Trade Center. My father told me when I visited him in North Carolina last month that while he has been retired for over 20 years, that community he lived in up until a few years ago lost at least four or five people who had been in the World Trade Center that day, people that I had known when I had lived there briefly.

My brother-in-law worked a block and a half away from the World Trade Center. We all have direct or indirect stories of where we were and what we were feeling on that day and in those days that have followed. The member who just spoke spoke about young people. People have talked about the effect on children. I find it interesting the effect that this September 11 has had on seniors as well.

My stepmother went through the Depression, the Second World War, and she is more afraid today than she ever was, than she remembers ever being in experiencing anything that she has dealt with in her life or as a member of the United States citizenry. I think because it hit home for people in the United States and it has hit home for us here in Canada as close allies to the United States. I think that we all have thought long and hard about the events of two months ago and what our responses would be both on a personal level, as members of the Legislature, as citizens of this country and citizens of the world.

I think we need to acknowledge that we have really very little that we can do directly because we are far away. We are in Manitoba. We are in Canada. I did want to speak just briefly about some of the things that we have done here in particular relation to one of the RESOLVED, the first RESOLVED, that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba condemns racism and discrimination against any individual group or organization and to encourage that all Manitobans are treated with compassion, dignity and respect. This is a resolution, a RESOLVED, that we in this House I think work for directly and indirectly everyday. I know certainly in my role as Minister of Labour and Immigration and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism attend to directly.

It is critical that we continue Manitoba’s values which are–actually there was a study that was done recently of values and what people feel about immigration throughout Canada and Manitoba came out on top as being the most welcoming and understanding of the positive role that immigrants have played in our community, in our society, in our province. I think that is a remarkable achievement. We have a long way to go. We all have stories of situations that have occurred where that has not been the case and we must maintain diligence and vigilance in this regard.

* (16:50)

Last month I met with a number of representatives of a number of groups to talk about this issue and particularly what can we do not only as legislators but what can we do as individuals, how can we work together. Some of the groups that were represented at that meeting were: the Afghan Association of Manitoba, the Association of Pakistani Canadians, B’nai Brith Canada, the Sikh Society of Manitoba, the Manitoba Islamic Association, the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg, the Hindu Seniors Club of Manitoba, the Egyptian community of Canada, the National Indo-Canadian Council, the Manitoba Islamic Association in Manitoba, the India School of Dance, Music and Theatre, the Hindu Society of Manitoba, and two representatives of the Winnipeg Police Service, Inspector Keith McCaskill and Sergeant Ron Johansson.

We had a very good meeting, a preliminary meeting, sharing our views, our ideas, our concerns and these people who met last month represent communities that historically have not always thought together or worked together, not here in Manitoba but in their countries of origin, and it was very positive to see that they all recognized the challenges facing us. They were all willing to work together. They have established, on their own, a subcommittee of people that are going to come together and work on specific suggestions and recommendations that we can follow as Manitobans, not just as an outcome of 9/11, but as a recognition of the values that we hold and have held so dear here in the province of Manitoba.

As the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) stated, it is critical that we preserve our democratic systems. We have to ensure that even in the aftermath of such horrific actions as took place on September 11 that we maintain the utmost respect for and concern for and acknowledgement of the vital importance of our democratic institutions, because if we do not, the terrorists will win.

It is critically important that we carry on, that we move forward, that we learn from, that we never forget. I think, as the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) said, more young people came to Remembrance Day services than has been the case in the last few years. I think the phrase "lest we forget" is really important in this context.

Without taking away what it is designed to do to support and remember those who have given their lives in wars in the past, I think it is critical to acknowledge what is happening in our world today and to work as we can, as citizens and members of the Legislature, to ensure that all of our citizens are allowed to live and work and enjoy the wonderful things that Manitoba and Canada have to offer. I think we all recognize that that is what we here can do to do our part. Thank you.

Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, regrettably, on September 11 of this year, the world changed for us here on the North American continent. We sat in shock and horror as we saw a terrorist act played out on the people on the North American continent. We saw something that we did not expect to see. It almost looked like a movie. It almost looked like a joke. It almost looked like we were mistaken.

We found out very quickly that this act was not an accident, was not a joke, was not an optical illusion. It was a terrorist act. It did change the lives of young people. It changed the lives of parents. It changed the lives of the military and the police across Canada and indeed across the whole North American continent, because for the first time people on the North American continent, all at one time, in one space of time, felt the effects of terrorism.

Many people talked about the Taliban. I know youth in the schools, as my learned Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) expressed, students in schools talked that day about what had happened. They experienced the horror and the sadness and the distress of the teachers and the parents and the puzzlement, the questions that were asked: How did this happen?

The Taliban, Mr. Speaker, is a terrorist group that we have come to know, that has many aspects to it, but the one aspect that I would like to speak to today is the fact that women’s rights and the right for women to be treated in respectful manners is something that the Taliban did not take into account and has indeed gone out of their way to suppress women, to suppress women’s rights, and to suppress a whole nation.

Mr. Speaker, having said that in this House, today we have the first opportunity in this Legislature to sit together and to talk about the events of September 11 and to agree together, to have one voice, to tell the world in one voice that we will stand behind our neighbour, the U.S., and indeed take the proper steps to ensure that the people in Canada are safe and secure.

Today we have an opportunity to send a message to the world that this is not about politics; it is about rights, the rights of people to be safe, the rights of people to be free. In particular, when I listened to my oldest daughter come home from school–she sat down and she said to me: Mom, I do not believe what happened today. She said: I heard a story. One of my teachers told me about a doctor, a woman doctor who was a very, very close family member of hers. She told the saddest story about what happened in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule.

What happened was this very learned doctor had a thriving practice in Afghanistan until the day the Taliban arrived. The day the Taliban took over the country she was told that she could not be a doctor anymore. She was forbidden to practice healing the sick. So she went behind her house in closed doors, under closed curtains, and she started to do other things. She had patients quietly come to her house so she could heal them. She started to do things like teach her daughter how to read, because she had a young daughter. This was all against the law under the Taliban rule.

Now, here on the North American continent this is almost inconceivable to our daughters and our sons, because here in the North American continent we have respected and acknowledged women’s rights, the right to be professionals, the right to have a voice, the right to be heard.

On September 11, the Taliban put a mark on the continent of North America. It served notice that the Taliban was going to make its mark, put its voice in the classrooms and in the homes of our citizens.

Having said this, this doctor today was found out that she was teaching her daughter at home and her son, she was found out that she was healing the sick. One day she and the daughter went out shopping. When she got home her house had been ransacked and her husband and her son were taken and shot. She was completely cut off from everything. A few weeks later she did land on the streets. She went into prostitution to earn money to keep her daughter. Now she is completely out of contact with her relatives here on the North American continent.

As my daughter relayed this story to me, she says: Mom, I would not have believed this if my teacher had not told me. On September 11 the teacher sat in front of her class, a Senior 4 class, and cried because she said she knew long ago that our country was in danger of possible terrorist attacks.

Today in this Legislature we have the opportunity to sit together with one voice and to say we will not stand for terrorist attacks against any citizen on the North American continent. We have the opportunity to put a message out to all Manitobans and indeed all of the country of Canada that we will be free, we will be safe, people will walk the streets and we will be able to grow, educate our children.

Unfortunately, we have to take steps to make that happen. So today in this Legislature a resolution has been brought forth by members on this side of the House. The request and the desire is to send this resolution to a vote. This resolution has many components that emphasize the right of every individual of every race, of every religion, whether they be male or female, every individual in this province of Manitoba will have the right to be free, will have the right to be safe.

* (17:00)

Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on record again that when we talk about our youth, September 11 did change what our youth thought about safety. We felt it in many subtle and many different kinds of ways. At my younger daughter’s school the trip that was planned from the Japanese students was cancelled because of the fear of terrorist attacks on the plane.

We hear on the news every day, maybe we hear too much about it every day because it kind of dulls the mind sometimes. But, here in this Legislature, we are here to be the voice of the constituents whom we represent, and here in this Legislature, we have a responsibility to support this resolution. We have a responsibility to have one unanimous vote in supporting this resolution to put this message out clearly to the people of Manitoba and, indeed, of Canada.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to contribute to this debate and would like to say that we have to analyze things very carefully and very cautiously.

There are basically two forces, according to the philosophers, that are at work all the time: The wish to live as against the wish to die. The wish to live creates. They build. We build civilization. We create. But there is the opposite wish. They destroy and they kill. It is like light and darkness all the time at work, outside of us in the universe and within us in our conscience.

The attack on the twin towers on September 11, 2001, is physically an attack on the United States. But this is only symbolic. It is really an attack on all that the United States stands for. It is really a clash and a struggle for different values; openness which we value in our system as against a closed society, democracy that we cherish as against despotism, diversity and respect as against exclusion. These are the values that we are standing for, but we have to be mindful also about the consequences of violence identical with terrorist acts.

It is written those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. If there is violence and we return violence, there will be escalation of a higher level of violence. We should remember all the time that no man is an island in itself as the poet John Donne, the Englishman, said. We are always part of the continent. This is physically true here in Canada. We are part of the continent of North America. Indeed, our protection head in terms of military protection covers the United States, as well as Canada. If we forget that, sometimes we do not know for whom the bell tolls. We have to remember John Donne's statement; it sometimes tolls for thee, for us.

Yet the human spirit will not surrender. We have to return with compassion, with understanding of the root causes of all these things happening around us. What are some of the root causes if we analyze the situation? It is ignorance or illiteracy, lack of education. People who are simple and know no better are easily led by those who have the will to destroy. It is also caused by poverty, people who have nothing to eat, nothing to live on, nothing to hope for, cannot progress, cannot expect their children to improve themselves in the next generation. They become desperate, and they become easy prey to people who would advocate the destruction of the more powerful one. So another cause, of course, is envy. It is very natural for us to look upon people who are very fortunate and then say: Why am I here and they are there? These are the things that we have to remember. So we have to return compassion and understanding because if we have our faith on force alone that will be relying on violence again. But, if we can translate our faith in force into the force of faith, there will be hope for the world.

If we rely on mere love of power and meet power with power it will escalate to higher classes of power. There will be destruction on both sides. So we have to conquer the love of power by converting it with the power of love.

* (17:10)

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker. When I saw the motion coming forward I went to the Legislative Library, and I would like to credit Maclean’s magazine. I would like to just read into the record the 24 names of the 24 Canadians who died in the attack on September 11: Mark Ludvigsen, 32 years old; Arron Dack, 39 years old. I would like to just apologize to the family. I would love to read their entire life history into the record, but time does not permit it. So I will just read the names and the ages.

Meredith Ewart and Peter Feidelberg, both in their 30s; Cindy Connolly, in her 40s; Ken Basnicki. It does not give an age but he was on the 106^th floor. Vladimir Tomasevic, 36 years old; Mike Pelletier, father, and in his 30s; Donald Robson, father of two sons, Geoff, 22, and Scott, 17; Garnet Bailey, has a wife, Kathy, and son, Todd, 22; Christine Egan, Manitoban. Her 14-year old son said of his godmother: "I will miss having Chris by my side."

Ralph Gerhardt, 34-year-old; Mike Arczynski, 45 years old; Alexander Filipov, born April 11, 1931; David Barkway, father expecting a second child had just turned 34 years old; Colin McArthur, 52 years old; Debbie Williams, 35 years old; Rufino Santos, 38 years old; Albert Elmarry, in his 30s; Jane Beatty, 53 years old; Chantal Vincelli, 38 years old; Stuart Lee, 30 years old; Michael Egan. The Egans moved with their two boys, Jonathan, now 18, and Matthew, 16, from Montreal in 1991. Bernard Mascarenhas, 54 years old, happened to be visiting the towers.

On behalf of all members, our condolences to the families.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation that we have seen in this House today and that we plan on seeing in the future in this House on important matters, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to bring this matter to a vote.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same issue.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): If I took the Opposition House Leader to ask for consent to have a vote, it was, of course, our understanding that it would be dealt with as a MUPI. That is why we agreed to set aside the ordinary business of the House and the Orders of the Day so that we could debate this matter, recognizing that on a MUPI there is not a substantive motion except the motion that we set aside the business of the House. So it was on that understanding, recognizing that we had no notice of this, of course, but nonetheless we are prepared to deal with it. That was the agreement, Mr. Speaker, and we are prepared to live with that agreement.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River East, on the same point of order.

Mrs. Mitchelson: On the same point of order, I would hope that all members of the House would, after debating and looking at this resolution, want to ensure there was closure and that the ability to forward a message on behalf of Manitobans from all members of the Legislature to the Government of Canada, to the Government of the United States would be something that we would look at and endorse as all members of the Legislature. I cannot understand not wanting to do what legislators right across this country and what the federal Legislature has done, and that is send a strong, united message that we are certainly endorsing ensuring that terrorism comes to an end in our world.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The request from the honourable Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau) was to seek unanimous consent and there is no need for it to turn into a debate.

I would like to ask the House: Is there unanimous consent of the House to conduct a vote after the speeches conclude, after the two hours' conclusion, at 5:25? Is there unanimous consent to put the vote? Agreed? No.

Unanimous consent has not been granted. We will go back to debating until–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will resume the debate until 5:25.

Order. The honourable Member for Russell, on a point of order.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Throughout this debate I think there has been a real concerted effort on the part of this side of the House to ensure there was unanimity in the way that we dealt with this very, very important resolution. Our member, the member from Springfield, chose to make his remarks very short to enable us to put closure to this resolution. Throughout the afternoon all of us have had ample time to look at this resolution and indeed bring it to closure. Although unanimous consent has not been achieved, I would ask that this House consider forwarding this resolution to the President of the United States and to the Prime Minister of Canada in the spirit that it was intended when the resolution was introduced by my leader.

Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Ashton), the House has already made its decision on the matter, and we are resuming debate until 5:25.

I will entertain, to be fair, because I have already recognized the honourable Member for Russell, I will now recognize the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services, on the same point of order.

An Honourable Member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: No, I said I would listen. Very brief.

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I think the House Leader did not hear, but his member got up on a point of order.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I am very disappointed when we are dealing with the events related to September 11 that there was no effort by members opposite to consult, as we have done for example with security legislation, to try and continue what we have done in this House which is to forward the Book of Condolences to the U.S. Consul here in Winnipeg. Surely, there should not be any kind of politics in what happened after September 11.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed that members opposite now get up 10 minutes before a time which they declare is time for a vote on a MUPI. A matter of urgent public importance does not involve a vote.

I want to say to members opposite that we have members that wish to speak on this. In the spirit of maintaining a democratic system we should allow members to speak on this and not to try and shut off debate. It is noticed, Mr. Speaker–

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

I have been entertaining on the points of order, and I do not want the points of orders to turn into debates.

Mr. Murray: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. We did not bring this in as a MUPI in the first place. We brought it in, No. 1 as under rule 61. We explained that at the beginning. We did not bring it in until we had an opportunity to review that the Government did not bring one in, Mr. Speaker. Every other government brought in a resolution, but this Government did not. They sat on their laurels and did not do anything. That is why we had to come forward and bring forth a resolution. This Government is not prepared to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

* (17:20)

Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the honourable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and we have about four minutes remaining.

Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I understand that the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) and other members of my colleagues would like to speak as well, so I am left with very few minutes as a result of this dispute.

I will say that as with others I watched in disbelief at the unimaginable and the unspeakable happening on September 11. I also attended the service at the City of Winnipeg and listened there to the many speeches that were made and listened in coffee shops and elsewhere as people in Winnipeg and elsewhere talked to each other about their connectedness with those who had suffered as a result of these acts of terrorism. People whose sons and daughters lived in the United States or who were travelling there, who might but for a particular happenstance have been there on that day.

We remembered with particular sadness Christine Egan, a professor at the University of Manitoba. Not someone I knew but somebody who had friends, who had colleagues and who will be much missed and was greatly loved. Mr. Speaker, Christine Egan was a nurse, she was someone who had great interest and passion for the north, who worked in our common and fellow communities in Kiver Lake [phonetic], in Coral Harbour, in Povungnituk and as well in other parts of northern Manitoba. At St. Theresa Point, as well as in The Pas. She taught nursing in The Pas and, as one of her legacies, has been to provide a student grant and student aid for an Inuit student from the north to pursue a nursing career. It is a terrible loss to her friends and to fellow Manitobans and we add our condolences to the many that the family, friends and colleagues have received in these days.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, because I do want to give the opportunity to other people to speak, that we will always remember September 2001 for the terrible tragedies that occurred. We will remember the coming together of countries around the world including Canada and Australia, the United Kingdom, and many of the countries of Europe to join in the war on terrorism. Many Manitobans have signed the books of condolences and given blood and made donations to help victims and their families.

I think we do not yet know the full impact on our own country and on our fellow citizens but I do think we have all been made aware of the interconnectedness, the global connections that are so close and so immediate that has been brought home to us by this tragedy and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that one of the responses that we can have to this tragedy is to recognize that those communities that will be successful, that will hold together, that will have concern for one another in this new global world, will be societies which have learned to deal with, to accommodate differences of faith, of cultural and of languages, and have built societies which like Canada and like Manitoba have begun to be success as societies which are respectful of differences. We know that we do not have all the answers, but we know that we must begin to build on those foundations.

Mr. Derkach: With a few minutes remaining, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this is a very important issue and a very important motion that was brought forward today. What is sad is that we sometimes act as politicians rather than as human beings that care about one another and care about our fellow man who has been hurt in other parts of the world.

Today this resolution was crafted and designed to send a message to the United States, to the Prime Minister of Canada that indeed this Province, this Legislature, and the people of this proud province support the national government, they support the United States and indeed we support those families who are in pain today as a result of those drastic and dramatic and tragic actions that were taken on September 11. So, Mr. Speaker, that was the intent. Every Legislature in Canada is doing this, headed by its government.

Today we brought in the motion. And it does not matter who brought the motion in. The important thing is that we send a signal to the world that indeed we will not tolerate this kind of action against humankind. Unfortunately, we have fallen short because we are not unanimous in the message that we want to send. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I am advised that the House has been debating this matter for two hours; therefore, pursuant to subrule 34.(4), the debate has now concluded and the House shall proceed to Orders of the Day.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I move, seconded by the Member for Riel (Ms. Asper), that the following address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: We, the members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, thank Your Honour for the gracious speech addressed to us of this Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Legislature of Manitoba.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to welcome back all members to this Legislature. They all look reinvigorated, and they certainly sounded reinvigorated in the last half-hour I have been listening.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with you over the coming weeks and months. I also wish to make welcome the pages. I particularly note that this group of pages this year, that one gender is extremely well represented. I am happy to see that.

I also want to welcome back the staff of the Legislative Assembly and the six new interns. I have had a chance to work with some of those new interns already, and they are indeed keen and bright young people.

It is an honour to be able to move this Throne Speech. I think it is an excellent, progressive Throne Speech, although I am sure there will be varying opinions on that. However, this Throne Speech took place in a different political and social climate than to that to which we are accustomed.

Since September 11, the world has indeed changed. For many members opposite, and even on this side of the House as well, it is easy for us to say that but it maybe does not feel like that internally. Let me assure you, ladies and gentlemen, I may be the only person in this building that was raised in occupied Europe during the Second World War as a child. For three years I lived under Nazi occupation. My memories are of bombs coming down. My memories are horrible. I would not wish that on any other child in this universe. So for me to ever in any way say war is a correct course of action would be extremely and most difficult. It is perhaps foolish for me to say so, but I have a feeling that in my heart of hearts, I would back J. S. Woodsworth prior to the Second World War, because I do believe that living by the sword you also die by the sword. I have never yet known two wrongs to make a right or more violence create the problems created by violence. I do not want to get going on this topic, because I could go for a long, long time.

It is true, things have changed for us, and the horrible reality is outside of our own continent have finally come back here and we have to be acquainted with them, as well, and we are. This is traumatic, but it is no more traumatic than what we faced in Europe during the Second World War. It is horrible, but it is the reality we have to unfortunately face and deal with. Not only has that social climate, those confidences been shaken, literally shaken, the economic climate has suffered, as well. The economic climate, the safety, the security, all that is now trembling.

What our Budget last spring said about possible economic slowdown is now becoming a reality. We now even hear occasionally the "r" word, recession. It does not make us happy. None of us are happy about that, but it is a reality. This changing economic climate, and particularly the horrors of what happened on September 11 have shaken certain sectors, particularly the transportation sector. I do not have to talk about what this means for airline business in this country, in this continent, in this globe. Apart from that, the Canadian dollar is also declining in value. This makes our citizens very jittery, very nervous, although there is a silver lining also to that dark cloud because it helps our export industry when the Canadian dollar is low.

* (17:30)

Still, despite all of this, and the Throne Speech has indicated that, Manitoba continues to be well positioned economically. We have a diversified economy, and we thank God that that is so. We have a highly skilled workforce. We are centrally located. Sometimes I think we forget that we are positioned favourably geographically in the middle of this continent, although somewhat north, but it is a favourable place to be located. Recent statistics show us in Manitoba doing very well compared to many other provinces, doing extremely well.

We have done a lot of good things. For example, we have reduced administration costs of government by reducing the size of government. We have streamlined health care and education–not without a squeak; I know there are problems–but we have tried to streamline it. We are streamlining it. But the overwhelming concern appears to be the events of September 11 and how they have shaken us, and we have to be aware that we did not sit idly by. We came back with a measured response to September 11. We did not react in panic. We brought forth new security legislation. I think we are very lucky also that we have gone through the ’97 flood, lucky in the sense that we have learned to be prepared, not that it was a good thing to have the flood, but that has helped us. I think getting ready for Y2K also helped us get ready for some possible horrible happening in the future. We hope it never will happen, but it could happen. Our emergency responses are there. We have sharpened them.

Can you protect yourself against a random event? I do not know. I do not know if you can make air travel perfectly 100 percent hermetically sealed safe. I doubt that, but we can try and we can certainly improve.

Last month, we established an all-party committee to deal with emergency responses. We are working with the federal government, as well. So do not let anyone say nothing is happening. A lot has been happening. We must remember that we have skilled and highly trained people who ensure that plans are in place to keep Manitoba safe, and I do believe Manitoba is still one of the safest places to live, to work, to raise a family. I have no doubt of that, and I have lived in other places in this world. This is a hard place to beat.

Now a Throne Speech is a good blueprint of the direction of a government, a direction that a government wishes to pursue, and this Throne Speech is basically the culmination of throne speeches that have gone before. The Throne Speech attempts in a sort of theoretical way the point of the direction that we are going to try and concretize over time. This is another instalment really of what we promised in 1999. So we have to see this Throne Speech as part of the growth since 1999 because then, before the election, we put before the people of Manitoba competing visions. The Liberal Party put forth a vision, the New Democratic Party put forth a vision, the Progressive Conservative Party put forth a vision. The people of Manitoba had to ultimately choose which of these visions would be most acceptable, and we know the outcome of the 1999 election. I think what we promised and we seriously believed and still believe was reasonable, measurable, achievable, pragmatic and, I think, we are delivering and have delivered much of what we promised. We did not, in 1999, place before the people of Manitoba some quick-fix blitz, something to get you through an election. That would have been, I believe, an insult to the intelligence of the Manitoba voter.

What did we promise? We promised, No. 1, centrally, probably most important in our platform, to end hallway medicine and rescue health care. Despite the enormous pressures on this health care system, we have largely met that target. How have we done that? By getting patients out of hospitals and into personal care homes, by carrying out the largest flu prevention campaigns in the province’s history, by investing more resources in homecare, by changing the culture of hallway medicine. It was at one point becoming an established pattern to have people in the hallway. That is no longer the case.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has recognized Manitoba’s plan for ending hallway medicine as the best in the country. That is a reality. We have made solid headway in our long-term strategy for health care, especially in the two areas at the heart of our health care system. The training of health care professionals, and the delivery of effective health care services.

I think it would not be a miss here to point out a few of the many, many highlights, the things that we have done positively about improving health care over the last two years. There are more nurses being trained than at any other time in the last decade. There are over 1400 nursing students in the year 2001. Next year, by the year 2002, there will be three times as many nurses graduating as in 1999, three times as many as in the last year of Tory rule.

Fifteen new doctor training spaces have been created in Manitoba’s medical school. Waiting lists have been reduced dramatically for breast and prostate cancer treatment and bone density testing. The onerous $50 northern patient transportation user fee has been eliminated. This fee for a long time was a source of discomfort and even anger for northerners. It was an irritant. We felt it was unfair. It was not a huge budget item, but it bugged us. I am very glad we got rid of it.

As the Throne Speech indicates, the Government has also embarked on a closer to home strategy, which will bring routine medical procedures directly to the community, eliminating some of the need for costly medivacs. Medivacs are extremely, extremely expensive. Some of our isolated communities have to rely on them almost exclusively.

I remember one year Pukatawagan had more than 300-some medivacs. It is not a large community. This is extremely expensive, this procedure. Therefore, if we can reduce the number of medivacs via the closer to home strategy, we will save money and it will be an efficient way to operate.

We have upgraded equipment. We have trained more health care professionals. We have expanded service, and at the same time Manitoba provincial government expenditures on health care have decreased to the fourth highest per capita, down from the second highest in the country since we came to power. So that is progress.

For these and many other positive initiatives aimed at improving the health care system we can thank the Government generally and the present Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) specifically for a job well done. I know and you know that the health portfolio is not an easy one anywhere in this country.

However, as in other provinces, there are challenges and stresses in the system. It is a vast system. It is a complex system. It is an expensive system. But it is being better managed and controlled now by far than it was a few years ago. The success of the public health care system is extremely important to all members in this House. We as a political party have always felt closely associated with Medicare, ever since the days of Tommy Douglas. When in 1944 Douglas was elected in Saskatchewan, medicare came on the radar screen. It was not implemented until the early ‘60s, but it was on the radar screen in 1944.

So even on a symbolic level this particular party, and now this Government, has been closely tied to medicare and health care. It is part of our tradition, part of our history. We have taken great strides forward, despite the challenges, but that does not mean we can be complacent. I do think we have reasons to be proud.

Secondly, the Throne Speech continues to stress the importance of creating in Manitoba an environment in which young people can succeed. That was the second of our five promises in 1999 to give renewed hope to young people. People, including young people, are moving to this province. There is a net gain. Immigration is 24 percent higher than in 1999. That is quite astounding. We all know that a well-educated workforce is the key to success.

We must continue to create a climate that enables our young people to succeed, and to this end we have done a number of things. I will only list a few. College and university tuition has been reduced by 10 percent and frozen for two years. This can only be good news for young people. We are building a new downtown Red River College Campus. Community college expansion will create hundreds of more spaces for Manitoba students and, as noted in the Throne Speech, in the last two years, there has been a 12% enrolment increase in Manitoba’s universities and colleges. That is a most encouraging sign. There has been increased funding to universities, increased funding to public schools after years of cutbacks or status quo funding, no increases.

* (17:40)

We also made a third promise, and I think it is the easiest promise of all to keep. That is keeping Manitoba Hydro in public hands. That is not a hard one to keep, but it is an important one because we are not in the business of selling off Crown corporations for quick-fix political solutions. We have in Hydro the cheapest hydro rates in North America and possibly the world. We have clean, renewable, affordable energy. I think in light of the Kyoto Accord this kind of energy is what we want because most of Manitoba Hydro’s energy is clean energy and all of us in all countries are working together to attempt to temper global climate change so this clean energy, this green energy is extremely important. I might add that the Province is also involved in a climate-change strategy because that fits right in with where we are trying to go with the Kyoto Accord.

I should also point out that there is legislation now requiring a referendum before we can sell a Crown corporation such as Hydro. The people of Manitoba will have a voice in what happens to their Crown corporations.

An Honourable Member: Unlike MTS.

Mr. Jennissen: Unlike MTS, like my colleague says.

We equalized hydro rates. That is extremely important, particularly for northerners and rural people–$14 million saved a year, northern and rural people, particularly rural people because at one time we had different ways of assessing the price of electricity. So, if you lived in Winnipeg, which is high population, high density, you paid considerably less than if you lived in isolated northern Manitoba or on a farm, a rural place in Manitoba. So it equalized hydro, something that should have happened a long time ago.

We have also in Hydro forged First Nation partnerships. We are working with various First Nations, notably Split Lake and Nelson House, in regard to future Hydro developments. There will be future Hydro developments, there will be dams, and First Nations will be part and they will be the partners, not the opposition in future Hydro development.

As well, we are dreaming that there will be future hydro links to places further north because northern Manitoba is not really north, north, there are places further north–Nunavut. Hopefully at some point there will be hydro and road links to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. We are positioned extremely well, and the Port of Churchill is also positioned extremely well, for further trade, further commerce and further business with places north.

Our fourth promise was making our community safer. In the light of September 11, this has taken on a new and added and urgent dimension, but I would again caution us in the light of September 11 that we do not overreact, we do not panic. We are in this province and have been for quite a while building safer communities. Over the last few years, we have created safer communities by being proactive with Healthy Child initiatives and programs. If children have hope then we know we are going to develop children that will become adults who will be productive in our society. We have a new Gang Action Plan. We have a Lighthouses initiative to provide healthy alternatives for youth so schools and gymnasiums can be open after schools, so young people have an alternate place to go, somewhere else to go, not the streets. We have a new safe schools program. There is support for the arts task force. There are increased sanctions for auto theft and support for auto theft prevention. I am happy to see that now we are even going high tech and we have discovered methods of preventing auto theft on a high-tech level.

We are bringing the RCMP up to full complement for the first time in a decade. Security, of course, also means security on the road.

I think that the Graduated Driver Licensing Program that this Government has initiated will save lives. The former government sat on this for years. They could have done something; they did not. The Graduated Driver Licensing Program will save lives, and I have nothing but commendation for the minister of highways and transportation for pushing this initiative forward as well as a number of people in this House who support it very strongly.

Our fifth and last promise that we put before the people of Manitoba when we gave them our vision of what Manitoba ought to be was keep the balanced budget legislation and lower property taxes. We have since then two balanced budgets in a row. We have had increased property tax credits. We have continued reducing taxes for small businesses. The small business income tax will be cut to 5 percent by the year 2002. We have increased threshold for small business tax calculations. I can only assume the Tories will be impressed with this; we have got a 10.5% cut to personal income taxes by 2003. That will save Manitobans $165 million annually.

This Government has taken seriously debt repayment and pension liabilities. Now, as a northern MLA, I am particularly gratified by this Government’s refocussing of its attention to northern Manitoba. There may be others in this House who figure that we may be exaggerating a little bit and maybe stressing it too much, but I do not think so. I think it is a redressing of an imbalance that existed for many years. We are not governing for the exclusion of other parts of the province. No government should ever govern excluding parts of the province. We govern for all regions and for all people of Manitoba. In the past, northerners particularly but many rural people, as well, felt that they did not get their fair share, and they felt that a perimeter mentality ruled and basically controlled and people in northern Manitoba felt like they were sometimes second-class citizens.

Many northern Manitobans felt, particularly about the former government, that the former government did not appreciate the challenges or the opportunities of northern Manitoba. They felt that they were neglected for over a decade. I must admit in the past there was little real understanding of the geographic realities of northern Manitoba, the vast distances, the isolation. I think that people generally in Manitoba are unaware of the degree of poverty in some northern communities, particularly on some of the reserves, Third-World living conditions in this rich, powerful and secure nation. This is not acceptable.

We also feel, I feel and many of the northern people that I represent feel, that there traditionally has been in the past a lack of sensitivity to other traditional cultures or languages or world views. In the past the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry has clearly shown the need for major changes. Some northerners also felt they were being trapped in a ping-pong game between the provincial and the federal governments. I remember when social assistance was denied Granville Lake and South Indian Lake, denied by the feds, the Province got into a big feud with the federal government. So it was bouncing back and forth who was supposed to be paying.

Now northern people get very edgy when they become bounced around between two jurisdictions. In general, in the past there was a lack of sensitivity to northern needs and northern reality. For example, the former government failed to take into account how crucial it was to bring northern roads up to the same standard as elsewhere in the province. In the North a road is not just a road. Well, first of all, the road is the only road. You do not have four ways or five ways or six ways or ten ways out of town. There is just one road. If it is not in a good shape then you cannot get out to the rest of Manitoba for medical reasons or buying groceries or going to schools, whatever.

In the North a road is sometimes the only link to the rest of Manitoba, and some of our communities do not even have that road, therefore I am proud of the accomplishments in northern Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker, proud of the accomplishments of this Government with regard to roads and airports. I will give you one tiny example, Pukatawagan. There is about a three-mile stretch from the railway to the boundary of the reserve which is a road that is, I suppose, basically a no-man’s land and the Mathias Colomb First Nation does not have the money to upkeep that chunk of road, so we have taken that on. We did not have to do that, but we did, I suppose you could say as a good-will gesture, but also because I think that is the right thing to do. The people of Pukatawagan are isolated, and the railroad is the only way in at present other than very expensive flights. They certainly deserve some decent roads, but, unfortunately, the reality is that the roads internally are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. We could easily say let us ignore that three-mile stretch, but we are not going to do that. I must commend again the minister of highways and transportation.

The public winter road system was extended. Now I know some will argue that we should not be extending the road system because we have trouble even maintaining what we have got; but, if you realize how important that this is to northerners and people that live in isolated situations, you realize we have to extend it and we did extend it to Lac Brochet, Brochet to Tadoule Lake. A winter road system much superior to what we had before and best of all no tolls. These were toll roads before. That further added to the aggravation of northern peoples who would have to pay a toll in order to get out or come back in on the winter road. That is gone now.

* (17:50)

There is a major road upgrading as well for Norway House and Cross Lake. Last year there was a major road project in Flin Flon which had been on the books for many, many years. We could never get those two kilometres of No. 10 highway fixed, the one that leads directly into Flin Flon. It was in bad shape until finally the minister responsible for highways and transportation did fix it last year. The city of Flin Flon is very grateful. In fact, Dennis Ballard, the mayor of Flin Flon at the official opening, said it is the integrity of this Government and particularly the integrity of the minister of highways and transportation that has led to that road being built.

South Indian Lake road, $23 million, part of the Northern Flood Agreement. The former government sat on this since 1991. They were obligated to build a road, I think it was over a decade or so, but they did not do anything. I remember being the transportation critic, and I am sure others asked the same question that I asked: When are we going to get started on building that road to South Indian Lake? Always the answer was: we are studying it. But we did not study it. We are building it.

There is a new airport terminal at Lac Brochet. This terminal is three times the size of the old one. The old one was simply not acceptable anymore. It was too small. It was falling apart. It reflects higher traffic volumes in northern Manitoba. I look forward to the official opening which is slated for the end of this month or early in December. I look forward to being there with the minister of highways and transportation and any other of our colleagues that may care to join us or have time to join us. You are certainly welcome.

There have been other benefits to northern Manitoba. As I mentioned earlier, northerners and others will have benefited from new and uniform hydro rates, but there are also resource partnerships–resource partnerships, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with Aboriginal people, in hydro, in forestry, in mining–because we are recognizing the importance of First Nation and MJ tis people to the future of this province. They are not only the history of this province, but they are also very much involved with the future of this province. We want to give them their place in the sun, their rightful recognition.

We have First Nations as partners in future hydro development, not only the actual dams themselves, but also in training and apprenticeship programs, as was done with Limestone. This will certainly involve Nelson House and Split Lake and perhaps others. It is fair and just that we have a host of partnership roles for First Nations and the MMF. We have created an Aboriginal justice implementation commission roundtable. We have co-management agreements. We have an Aboriginal resources advisory council. We have reopened the Aboriginal and Northern Affairs office in The Pas. This may not seem like a big deal to some people, but it is symbolic. It is symbolic of this Government’s intent to not take northern Manitoba for granted, to not see northern Manitoba as a hinterland, but to make northern Manitoba a full partner of this province.

We have put approximately half a million dollars into ecotourism initiatives. There has been more funding for Access programs, and we are particularly gratified that Winnipeg will be hosting the North American Indigenous Games this coming summer. We can showcase this province. We can showcase this capital city, but, above all, I think it shows the positive strength of the Aboriginal people and the Aboriginal culture, a very important part of Manitoba.

The first bursaries for the Helen Betty Osborne Foundation have been given out and I am happy to see that. There is an Inuvit memorandum of understanding signed and together with the federal government; we are looking at future roads and hydro links to Inuvit and other northern regions, as I mentioned before, because the federal government will have to become involved as the federal government became involved when we extended the winter road system to Tadoule Lake, Brochet and Lac Brochet. They became partners and they have to become partners because, let us face it, they have some of that extra money. It would certainly be nice if we could get our hands on some of that money they levy on gasoline and fuel taxes, put it back into the road system or the transportation system. Surely that is done in every other country.

I do not know of any country in western Europe, for sure in North America, that does not have a national highway strategy. Industrialized countries need some kind of central funding for their transportation system. The dishonourable exception, I guess, is Canada. The least the federal government could do is to give us back their portion of tax on gasoline, so we could use it as we use the provincial portion for building roads.

I like to point out that, despite all the wonderful things we are doing, there will remain and there are major challenges, particularly right now in the resource sector, in mining and in forestry. I am certainly concerned and I think all of you are about the future of a mining town such as Leaf Rapids. Leaf Rapids is under a cloud, there is no doubt about it. When we discovered that Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting had speeded up or was speeding up the date of closure of the Ruttan Mine from 2003-2004 to anywhere between now and May, 2002, we were very concerned. The day after the Finance Minister (Mr. Selinger) and the minister of highways and I went to Leaf Rapids to talk with the people of Leaf Rapids, I think that was a very prompt response because the people were concerned and we wanted to put into place transition mechanisms.

I like to point out some of the things we have already done in Leaf Rapids. In June, a community development officer was jointly funded by Leaf Rapids and the Province. There is now also a labour and also a community adjustment process that is started. Part of these adjustment strategies and processes will involve the federal government. Again, we will need their support, and we aim to work with the federal government, not against the federal government.

We will also have to access the Mining Reserve Fund because that is what it is there for, for mining communities that have fallen on hard times. I would also like to point out that the future of Leaf Rapids is not only under a cloud, it affects the whole region. It is a domino effect. It will also affect South Indian Lake and Nelson House and Lynn Lake and Pukatawagan and Brochet and Lac Brochet and Tadoule Lake. It affects the entire region.

For example, if ore cannot be hauled from the Ruttan Mine in Leaf Rapids to Lynn Lake, if the mine is being closed, that means that there could be a possibility that the Sherridon line will close. If the Sherridon railroad line closes, is no longer operational, then Pukatawagan is without a railroad link to the outside. Now Pukatawagan can obviously use VIA rail, or the people of Pukatawagan, until it closes, but VIA rail is also not a great service. I could give you all kinds of horror stories about the insufficiency of VIA rail passenger service to Pukatawagan and Lynn Lake on the Sherridon line. I hear it is somewhat better on the Churchill line, but it is not great service to Pukatawagan, I will tell you.

In fact, last week I talked to Chief Shirley Castel of Mathias Colomb First Nation Pukatawagan, and she told me about a horrible incident last August 2 and 3 when a group of people from Pukatwagan went shopping, to do their monthly shopping in The Pas, two passenger cars went to The Pas but only one came back. So 50 people were stranded with groceries and perishables, and then in order to prevent other people to try and crowd onto the first VIA railroad car the VIA people, apparently the VIA people, closed and locked the railroad car in incredible heat.

We had women on that car and babies and so on. I mean this is no longer acceptable. These people deserve service like all of us deserve service and I am glad that Chief Castel raised this issue with me, because I think I am obviously going to be writing letters to VIA one more time.

This Government has been as proactive as possible, as I have said, working on transition mechanisms and I should point out a little bit about the history of Leaf Rapids in the little time I have remaining. I had the good fortune of being in Leaf Rapids a few years ago on its 25^th anniversary with Ed and Lily Schreyer and I will never forget Ed talking about when Lily and he were walking in the sand dunes around Leaf Rapids envisioning this town that was going to be built, not just a regular mining town, but a really well-planned town. And a well-planned town was built.

There are many, many positives about Leaf Rapids, the town centre, great housing stock, beautiful location, fantastic fishing. But now we are facing difficulties. We are looking for solutions. One solution that comes to mind is perhaps the urban reserve concept. Some of the chiefs in the region have shown some interest in that. You cannot beat the town centre. You have got a hospital there, you have a school there, you have stores there, rinks, everything. We would certainly like this modern town with great houses to be fully utilized and not become, I would not say a ghost town, but not to be downsized by 70 or 80 percent. So we are looking for positive alternatives.

However, the economic reality is–

Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable Member for Flin Flon will have seven minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m. this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.