PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 5--Midwifery Implementation Council

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe)

WHEREAS Manitoba was amongst the first provinces to recognize midwifery as a self-regulated autonomous profession; and

WHEREAS a Midwifery Implementation Council will be appointed to serve as a temporary governing body; and

WHEREAS the council will work on implementing recommendations of the Working Group Report on Midwifery; and

WHEREAS midwifery care for pregnant women will enhance the range of birthing services available in Manitoba.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the government and the Minister of Health for providing women with new childbirth alternatives and services.

Motion presented.

Mr. McAlpine: Let me preface my remarks by saying that midwives are internationally acknowledged as experts in normal pregnancy in childbirth. Until recently, Canada was the only industrialized nation in which maternity services do not include midwifery care. Manitoba is the fourth province to announce that it will regulate midwifery. Ontario regulated midwifery in January 1994; British Columbia and Alberta have announced their intention to regulate midwifery.

The history in Manitoba, the Manitoba Working Group on Midwifery undertook an extensive review of childbirths, literature of provincial and national and international reports on midwifery. The Manitoba Working Group report included 44 recommendations. The report was released by the Minister of Health on May 5, 1994.

I look on this as a real victory for the future mothers of Manitoba. The minister announced that midwifery would be an insured service for Manitoba women and that it would be an autonomous profession with its own legislation and governing body.

One of the most important elements of this resolution is the phrase, and I quote, providing women with new childbirth alternatives and services. As a government, we have taken great strides in establishing and enhancing community-based health care services. This move away from the institutionalized health care system has many benefits. Two of those benefits are that it helps address the burden of increasing costs in the institutional system and it also moves services closer to home.

With midwifery, there is another important element. The addition of midwifery care for pregnant women gives them an alternative to the more institutionalized childbirth process. Internationally, midwives are recognized and acknowledged as experts in normal pregnancy and childbirth, that is to say, without major medical complications to the mother or to the child. Canada is also the last of the industrialized nations to include midwifery in maternity services. That reflects the change in thinking and a realization of what most of the world has known for centuries. Midwives can serve a valuable role in the childbirth process.

The Minister of Health established the Midwifery Implementation Council in 1994, as I mentioned, when the government announced that midwifery would become an insured service in Manitoba. That council was faced with the task of making recommendations to government to assist in finding the best ways to implement midwifery. This committee has included experts from the field, other health care professionals and members of the public to develop an excellent model on midwifery in Manitoba.

I think it is important for us to understand the philosophy of this committee, and I will use their own words. I quote: Midwifery care is based on the respect for pregnancy as a state of health and childbirth as a normal physiological process. The midwife provides holistic, woman-centred care in all stages of pregnancy and childbirth. Above all else, midwifery care emphasizes informed decision making as a shared responsibility between the pregnant woman and her caregivers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the introduction of regulated midwifery will add to the range of the birthing services available to childbearing women. That is a tremendous philosophy and a clear statement of the vision behind the establishment of midwifery in Manitoba.

I know that many women feel they are not in control of their own pregnancy. Many expectant mothers find the hospital system daunting and impersonal. Some doctors effectively leave the woman out of the decision-making process. Clearly, in the mainstream medical community, the use of many procedures once deemed necessary has now been abandoned or significantly scaled down. We can look at reduction in the length of a woman's stay in hospital after giving birth as an example.

In other cases, advanced technology may be used for tests or procedures that are not necessarily medical but are used because of the discretion of the doctor.

Many hospitals are now embracing a more natural experience in the childbirth process. The Victoria Hospital, as an example, and in my own constituency of Sturgeon Creek, the Grace Hospital are excellent examples of the advance of the birthing room concept.

The woman is made comfortable in a setting that is not unlike a bedroom in your own home except for the physicians, nurses and medical technology at your fingertips. Even with the positive changes in the mainstream medical system, some women feel that the doctor is still the master and not the servant.

We must always remember that what we are talking about is a natural process. What could be more natural than the birth of a child? It is a matter of choice, and if a woman feels more comfortable with a midwife, she should be able to make that choice.

* (1610)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, my only experience as an individual bearing witness to a birth was my own, and as a member of a family of 16, the youngest of 16 children, I did not have the opportunity of seeing other childbirths with my own children or in my own family. But I was born in a farmhouse in Saskatchewan without the aid of a medical doctor, with just older sisters to assist in the birth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was some many years ago, and I think that we have gotten away from that practice, and I think that it is time that we revisited that. So I am encouraged by what we see in this legislation.

Researcher, writer and doctor Dr. Dean Black, wrote that in terms of childbirth, many artificial practices are used when they are not necessarily needed. He writes, quote: More artificial practices have been introduced that have changed labour from a physiological event into a very complicated medical procedure in which all kinds of drugs and maneuvers are done.

I would also like to point out that the research on obstetrics has often been inconclusive. A 1989 report on obstetrics intervention in the United States by the comptroller general concluded that research literature was inconclusive in determining the benefits versus the risks of certain obstetric practices used during labour and delivery.

It also said that there was no way to resolve the question of how often or whether to use the practices effectively, preventively or routinely.

I would like to share some of the thoughts of Dr. Robert S. Mendelsoln, a noted writer in the medical field. Dr. Mendelsoln--and these are his words; they are not mine--says it is important to take the responsibility for your own health and the health of your family; that involves making a commitment to the family as a unit of health.

My approach to this topic is not an attack on the medical doctors in their profession. The medical doctors in the birthing rooms, it is not an attack on them. These people who are attending these births in birthing rooms are loving and caring individuals. It is the approach and the practice that I take exception to and question in many cases.

Dr. Mendelsoln also quotes, and I quote from some of his--and these again are his words: My criticism is directed toward the institution of medicine, he says, the religion of medicine. I go on to quote that the maternal death rate from cesarean sections is still six times that of vaginal deliveries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, he goes on to say that meanwhile prolonged labour has been redefined. The duration of labour taken as an indication of need for a cesarean section has dropped progressively from 72 hours, which was generally accepted when I began my medical practice. Dr. Mendelsoln is not a young man. He died a few short years ago as an elderly gentleman. He says that from the 72 hours that was the custom when he started, that was generally accepted when he began his medical practice, it dropped to 48 hours, then 24 hours, 12 hours, and now, if the doctor is eager enough, even two hours will do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, he goes on to say that we as a society must put the responsibility back in the hands of the people--the women and the people who are making the decisions and involve them in this decision process.

He goes on to say that obstetricians cite the possibility that the perineum may tear as their excuse to perform an episiotomy. This operation is the slashing of the perineum and to widen the opening of the vagina so that it will be easier for the baby to emerge. The operation has become so routine that it is performed on about 85 percent of the first-time mothers today. Its value must be questioned, however, when you observe that it is rarely performed in countries where natural birth is favoured. In Holland, as an example, the operation is performed on less than 8 percent of mothers, and in England it is used on only about one out of seven.

American doctors use a litany of explanations to rationalize doing the episiotomy. He goes on to explain the number of reasons and the explanations as to why they do.

This resolution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think warrants serious consideration in terms of the legislation that the Minister of Health is hoping to bring forward, but in taking Dr. Mendelsoln’s remarks to the fullest, taking on the responsibility for your own health and the health of your family constitutes a political act as long as modern medicine uses political power to execute its attack on the individuals and the family's right to self-determined health.

Our very active commitment to the family as the unit of health and to the community as the collection of families is political because it resists the notion that the individual is the unit of health as well as of society. Our new medicine cuts across all political and ideological lines and touches the core of every person's relationship with life. How long and how well will I live? The new medicine too takes on some of the trappings of a religion.

In closing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would reference the fact that the words that I have quoted are not the words of this member but the words of medical doctor Dr. Robert Mendelsoln.

In closing I would just quote: Taking on the responsibility of your own health and the health of your family constitutes a political act as long as modern medicine uses political power to execute its attack.

This resolution supports those who wish to experience natural childbirth, but at the same time with a practice that is self-regulated and suited to the needs of childbearing women.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker, before addressing the resolution I would like to thank the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek for both the political education and the anatomy lesson. Secondly, I would like to express my pleasure at finding that the women of Manitoba actually have a champion in the upper benches of the Tory Party. We had not expected so. We are grateful, and I acknowledge that.

As the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek alluded to the report on midwifery which was released on May 5, 1994, the long-awaited report on midwifery, I might add, and before returning to talk both about that report as it connects to the resolution, I would like to say that I, along with my caucus members, certainly support choices for pregnant women during pregnancy, during delivery and certainly during postnatal care. We know that the women of Manitoba need choices. They need to be in a position to determine whether they want to deliver their children in hospital, at home. They want to be in a position to determine whether they want an uninterfered labour or whether they want a highly technological birth. They need to be in a position to determine whether they wish to have their partners present with them during the labour and delivery, whether they wish to have their partners assisting with the labour and the birthing processes.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

I know and I believe the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek made reference to the special birthing rooms that are available in some of our hospitals, and the members of my caucus certainly support the need for those birthing rooms. We know that they give women choices that women did not have 20 years ago.

* (1620)

The members of my caucus, along with myself, also think that it is important in an age of high tech to move towards something more natural, something more basic, something which is more cognizant of the needs of women and their babies. We think that birth needs to be a more humane process than it has been in the recent past. We want to return to the kinds of birthing practices that our mothers in some cases and our grandmothers in others were able to have. We believe that midwifery is an important advancement, and we believe it is a choice that the women in Manitoba should definitely have.

Now I want to make the point that every woman in Manitoba should have the right to be assured that at the birth of her child she can have the care provider of her choice. For some women birthing is an extremely stressful event, and it is important to know that women can have the care provider who has been with her during the course of her pregnancy.

Women also need to know that the delivery services will be insured, that the delivery services will be paid for by Manitoba Health. Health insurance in this instance, I think, is extremely important, but I make the point. One of the honourable members opposite mentioned the father. I heartily endorse the presence of fathers in delivery rooms. I think that fathers can be great advantages, especially to delivering women--[interjection] Yes, when they come to.

I want to make the point that those of us who have been denied birthing choices in the past really understand the importance of midwifery and really understand the importance of having choice in childbirth.

Now I want to turn to the specific resolution before us, and in doing so I want to begin with the final clause which, and here I presume that the new childbirth alternatives and services are referring to the services of midwives. I want to begin with this clause because this clause makes it sound as if there are droves of midwives available in Manitoba providing services to pregnant women. But this is simply not the case. I spent some time this morning speaking with a member of the Midwifery Implementation Council, and she was very forthcoming and gave me some clear information. She told me that they at the Midwifery Implementation Council have no real idea of how many midwives are practising in the province of Manitoba. Indeed, she said they have no idea of where some of these midwives are practising. Now, I know there are some midwives practising the art of midwifery in the Health Sciences Centre. The estimate from the Midwifery Implementation Council is that there are probably something like 30 midwives practising.

One of the reasons why the council does not know how many midwives are practising is simply because midwifery remains technically illegal. Technically speaking, it is illegal to practice midwifery in the province of Manitoba. Indeed midwives can still be charged with, and here I quote: practising medicine without a licence.

One of the other implications of this is that women are frightened to disclose whether or not they are practising midwifery, fearing that they may possibly be charged. This would be the case not only with women who are midwives but also with mothers whose children are delivered by midwives.

I understand that this is particularly an issue in aboriginal communities, more remote communities, where women are delivered and no one is quite sure who did the delivery or how it came about. This is not in all instances, but there is a fear on the part of midwives to disclose their profession.

It seems to me, I might add, ironic in view of the minister's report which recognized or presumed to recognize midwifery as a self-regulated autonomous profession, that midwifery outside hospitals in Manitoba is illegal.

The point that I want to make here is that I cannot really support the resolution. As far as I am concerned, the resolution is illogical. It does not reflect the reality of current services.

Here let me turn to the resolution itself and begin with the second WHEREAS clause, that is with the Midwifery Implementation Council as a temporary governing body.

It may be a temporary governing body, though it was news to the members of the group to which I spoke. They did not know that they were a temporary governing body. They feel that they need some very clear indications from the government regarding the kind of support that they as an implementation committee can expect.

For example, despite the 1994 report and despite the resolution before the House today, the women from the Implementation Council tell me that there is no real action plan. It seems to me then that what we have in the resolution, what we had in the minister's report, was the word, but indeed we had no flesh or no spirit to play with the metaphor we heard in the House yesterday.

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

Furthermore, members of this committee fear that nothing will ever happen. They are not at all convinced that the minister's report will indeed ever be implemented. They believe that what the Midwifery Implementation committee requires is an action plan. They believe that the action plan should include legislation and they believe that perhaps the government should start by defining and legalizing midwifery.

In times of restraint, the members of the Midwifery Implementation committee also wonder how accessibility will be ensured. Again, they are very anxious, as I am, that women in remote communities, whether these be rural communities or northern communities, have the same access to midwives as women in urban communities.

Furthermore, the council wants guarantees of insured services and perhaps most important, they insist that preparations and programs for the training and licensing of midwives are absolutely essential.

Now to visit the first WHEREAS clause in the resolution, and I think that the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) has already made clear that Manitoba was the fourth province to recognize midwifery as a self-regulated autonomous profession.

The problem with the second WHEREAS clause is that there is no evidence in Manitoba as to what constitutes a midwife. For example, does Manitoba intend to follow the example of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. and opt for direct entry into midwifery, or does Manitoba intend to follow the nurse midwifery model which links midwifery with nursing and restricts midwifery to those who already have a background in nursing? Which one?

This is an important and vital decision because it will determine whether midwifery will be a multientry program and therefore open to a variety of persons or whether there will be restrictions put in place which will mean the dominance of a medical model in the world of midwifery. My understanding is that the implementation council does not favour the medical model.

The questions that I have raised here remain unanswered. The state of midwifery in Manitoba is uncertain. The future of midwifery in Manitoba is uncertain. Clearly some actions need to be taken; some decisions need to be made.

In conclusion, I want to say that while nearly all women in Manitoba, I am sure, would welcome fully trained, licensed and practising midwives, the motion as it stands is actually premature. It addresses circumstances, in fact, a whole raft of circumstances, which are simply not yet with us. Consequently, I cannot support the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

* (1630)

Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to rise and speak in support of this resolution.

I would point out to the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) that if she had had the opportunity to read a news release that was issued from this government on December 16, 1994, it set out very specifically that there was a 12-member midwifery implementation council to be chaired by a prominent member of our medical community which would serve until a permanent regulatory body was established.

Further, if the honourable member had done her due diligence and read the report in question to which she made reference, it is very specific in that report that this is in fact a temporary regulatory body to implement the parameters of this topic. So I think in fact what one should do is consider the appropriate merits of this program that this government is introducing.

I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in fact what has happened here is that this Conservative government has been listening to the people of Manitoba. This government has been listening to the Council on the Status of Women who have been crying out that they need alternatives for one of the fundamental functions and developments of the human race.

This government has been listening to its constituents and has leapt into the breach, so to speak, in this topic and providing an alternative that will answer many of the fundamental needs of our society.

One of the problems that I am sure many women face who live in our more remote areas of the country is that they do not have ready access to obstetrical services. I am told that women in the North, women in remote areas of our province, when they are approaching their confinement, in fact, that expression takes on a literal meaning and that they are flown out of their communities and they are sent to a medical centre where individuals who are foreign to them are administering care. They are people who are not in harmony with their culture. They are not often people who perhaps can even communicate, and these caregivers, while they are well meaning, often add to the trauma of the whole birth process.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can give some personal reflections on this topic, that, in fact, when my two sons were born, I had the opportunity and the distinct honour and pleasure to attend in the birthing room. My wife and I both respected and welcomed this alternative service, and I would hope that I was able to provide some solace to my wife. I certainly felt an immediate bonding when both my sons were born. I was there at the moment of conception, and I pride myself that I was there at the moment of delivery. [interjection] I am told on good report. [interjection] There you go.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that for the continuity of care it is essential to the whole process that people who are in harmony with the birthing mother be allowed to attend, and it is proposed with the midwifery process that the midwife would attend upon the expectant mother long before the delivery, that there would be the opportunity to give the expectant mother advice on nutrition, advice on deportment and behaviour through the pregnancy, which in our days, as we know, is essential to the birth of a happy and a healthy population. Our papers are filled with unfortunate statistics of fetal alcohol syndrome, of neglected babies, of malnutrition, and this is an opportunity that we have as responsible lawgivers to afford an opportunity to our population that they receive the essential information in order to birth happy, healthy people.

One of the unfortunate shortcomings of our current obstetric service is that often young people, adolescent teenagers who find themselves pregnant, do not often consult with obstetrical services until well on into the gestation period. This could be for many different reasons. They might be fearful of the opprobrium that might be levelled against them from a judgmental society. It is suggested and hoped with the midwife program that in fact there would be a bridging.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is proposed with this resolution and implicit in this resolution that this temporary council will develop the enabling legislation and the amendments to the related provincial acts to implement this program, this program which is going to be so vital to our future population and to birthing mothers.

The legislation in question would affect and impact The Medical Act, The Pharmaceutical Act, The Hospitals Act, The Health Services Insurance Act, The Blood Test Act and The Narcotic Control Act. It is envisaged that this program will be something that will be integrated with our present services.

It is envisioned that the midwife will have admission privileges to the hospitals. She will be able to, or he for that matter--I am sure that we in these gender-sensitive days would entertain the aspect even of male midwives--but, nonetheless, the midwife would be able to prescribe narcotics if they are appropriate for the case in question.

As my esteemed associate the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) indicated and queried, she is concerned about whether there will be appropriate education, whether there will be appropriate regulation and licensing for this profession. In fact, that is implicit in the study and the work that is before this committee and that is implicit in the resolution that has been advanced to this Chamber today and the direction and mandate which has been issued from the Department of Health.

This midwife program will develop the mandate and the limits for the society, the profession. They will develop the standards for this profession, the guidelines for the training programs. The committee will invite proposals from all the stakeholders in the community in order to gain a wide view of the topic, to gain a sensitive view of the topic so that in fact this is implementing the needs. This is going to be a program that is needs driven and consumer driven. This is sensitive to the individuals who are so vitally involved in this process, namely our mothers.

* (1640)

It also conforms with another initiative which has been launched by our Department of Health in the recent past, which is, rather than resorting to large, impersonal institutions, our Department of Health is going to be viewing our whole health-giving process from that actual perspective, that this is in fact a healthy step in our development, this is a normal step in our development. These women are not sick, and so therefore they ought not to be committed to institutions with technological intervention. This is a natural and holistic development in our growth, and therefore the Department of Health in these days of escalating costs, exploding costs, have researched alternatives for delivering health and health care to our communities.

One of the initiatives that has been proposed by this government in its wisdom is that there should be as much care given in the home and in the natural environment of the population as possible. Number one, that is more effective and more far-reaching; No. 2, it is certainly cost-effective. So this is harmonious with the present growth of our health care system, and philosophically it is far more harmonious to what should be a jubilant expression of our development.

There will be an extensive consultative process to ensure that there will be representation from all the individuals, all the interest groups, who would be concerned about this activity. One of the most important things of course is that the midwifery program will be integrated into our health care system so that in fact if there is an abnormal or a high-risk pregnancy develop that there will be an opportunity for the midwife to refer the client to an obstetrician for further care. This is not something that is stand alone but is rather something that is an additional choice, an additional aid to our mothers in our community.

Midwifery will be a collaborative process as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and when I say "collaborative," it will be collaborative with the consumer, with the consumer's family. The mother herself will have the opportunity to interact with the caregiver, and this makes for a far more supportive environment for the delivery of the child. It reassures the individual woman involved that this is not a process that is being imposed upon her, but rather she is participating in it. She is empowered and she is in control of many of the processes that are enveloping her life. This is so essential because I can speak not from personal experience but from vicarious observation that this is an experience in a woman's life where the forces of nature do take over and control her life. So therefore we as government ought to make sure that there is as much control invested in the woman as possible in order to ensure that this be a positive experience.

Therefore, I would wish to re-emphasize that the midwifery program is a system of care which ensures that the decision making will be a shared responsibility, that the pregnant woman will be involved with her caregiver, that she will drive the system as far as emotionally, intellectually, physically possible, and it is something that I would commend to this honourable Chamber that should be supported and heartily endorsed. [interjection] I am sorry, conception? Well, you must conceive that this is in fact a positive policy that our government is advancing, and I thank you very much for the opportunity of being able to address a few humble remarks to this topic.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I too am interested in speaking on this legislation, interested in hearing some of the comments made from the mover of the legislation, the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). I appreciate hearing some of the comments that he made.

You certainly do not have to convince those of us on this side of the House to support midwifery. In our platform from the last election, as part of our commitments in neighbourhood health organizations, the development of community-based health care, we had a commitment to include midwifery as part of that kind of a delivery system for health care. I think also we could talk about how we have a belief that women's health issues such as this are a fundamental part in women's search for equality in our society.

I have to say that although the members across were trying to, it seems, like convince us to support midwifery when what they have to do is convince us that the government is actually taking action on the report by the working group and midwifery and that the implementation committee is actually doing what it set up to do. I am afraid they have not convinced me of that. The comments on the other side of the House did not convince me that the government has any time lines set in place.

I have the recommendations from the working group in front of me and they are very specific. They want to see programs developed to deal with the education of midwives. I have not heard anything from the government that they have put either the structures in place to develop curriculum, to develop a system in health education institutions to do that. I have not heard any deadlines for when we can expect that kind of training to be provided. I have not heard them comment on progress on regulations or legislation that would be required and for ensuring that midwifery is truly going to become an option.

I have also learned some interesting things from listening to the discussion here today because it seems from the news release that was issued by this government May 5, '94, where the Minister of Health said that he was now going to be ensuring that midwifery would be an insured service in Manitoba which I think those of us on this side of the House we would certainly support that. It seems that there is some confusion that it is still illegal to perform this. So do we have some kind of contradiction here where we have an insured health service that is currently illegal and is in fact available for women to have this kind of support for birthing covered under medicare?

It is interesting, when I was reading the terms of reference or the parameters that were given to the working group, the last one is that they would recommend, if possible, a method of implementation which does not result in ongoing additional costs in the health care system. I would hazard to say that if we had functioning operating midwives, particularly for women who would choose not to have their children born in a hospital, it would save money. I know of women who want to make that choice. I have read some of the comments from doctors and health care practitioners that they would oppose that, that there is concern. I think there is concern among the general public, too, for women having the option of birthing at home.

I think, if that is going to be the case, that we are providing choice, it could actually be a savings in that. What may be costly is the education part of the training for midwives. That may be an additional expense, but I think that if we are going to provide a full range of options it would not be an expense.

So I was saying that while there may be some good intentions with this resolution that the member for Sturgeon Creek has brought forward, I am not convinced that we can support the resolution because I have not seen any evidence that there has been real progress, as the resolution says, on providing women with new childbirth alternatives and services.

I have some statistics here that suggest that under some international formula midwives should not have a caseload of more than 60 births a year. If that is the case, then Manitoba would need 241 midwives. I can ascertain from what the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has said that some people may not even--there may not even be a clear understanding of how many there currently are practising and where they are.

* (1650)

So it seems like there are still a lot of questions unanswered in this area, and perhaps this could be a call on the government that they have to give more attention. We have heard often that this government has created some hundred-odd number of committees working through the Department of Health, and we often are waiting for them to issue reports. Often when they do issue reports they are not acted upon expeditiously. So I am wondering if that is what has happened with this here. The ministers of Health that we have had, both Mr. Orchard and Mr. McCrae, have wanted to make it appear that they are dealing with this issue, which has been a concern in the health community, in the women's community and the general public perhaps as well, but they have not actually gone forward and acted on recommendations and the action plan that is in place.

I am wondering if the cabinet actually has approved the recommendations that were put forward from the working group on midwifery. If that is what the implementation committee is taking forward, what is the government's policy on some of the specifics dealing with this issue? Have they accepted everything that is in the report here?

I am concerned that some of the recommendations that focus on what I would call the bureaucracy of creating midwifery as a true option for women are going to affect the very reason that women would choose this as an option for giving birth. They would often, I think, choose this because they do not want to be caught up in a very impersonal, bureaucratic, sterile kind of approach to childbirth, and they want something that is more human and more personal involving the friends and family that they are close to.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

If the system that is being proposed here is going to affect that, is going to overbureaucratize midwifery, when I read some of the approaches that are being suggested, that is a concern that I have, and I am wondering how the government is going to deal with that to ensure that this option does not just become subsumed in the very bureaucratic and medicalized model that we have practised in health care in this province. Women that choose midwifery are trying to get away from that. They understand that health care has been overmedicalized, and they do not see childbirth as a medical emergency. They want to have it be an important part of their life that is very much something to be shared with their family, and, as I said, I am concerned that could be lost.

I think we have to realize that we do have to have some balance, that there is some responsibility in a health care system to protect the public and to protect newly born children, but at the same time I do not want to see us lose the very reason that people chose midwifery by creating an overly bureaucratic, a very much more medicalized approach in midwifery.

I guess one of the other issues that we have to deal with is that there seems to be more of a willingness to provide midwifery as an option for rural and remote areas. It is interesting when I read this because there seems to be the perception that there is a difference between native women in urban centres as opposed to remote and rural centres or northern centres.

Maybe there is now, but I think we are missing the point if we try to think that this is being done because there is a cultural difference and not simply because there is a difference in the standard and quality and accessibility of health services in the North. We know that in the North there is much less opportunity for people to have access to health services no matter what they are, and midwifery and child birth would be one of those.

I think we are deluding ourselves if we think that we are doing this for reasons other than the fact that it is going to be more difficult financially and otherwise to provide services in the North. So it seems like people are saying, well, we will allow northeners and people in remote communities to have access and have this option and those women in Winnipeg will not.

Before our culture was here, the white culture was here, aboriginal people were having children without medical assistance for thousands of years. It would be interesting, I think, for us to learn from those practices. I think aboriginal people in the North have been horribly disserviced by the current system of forcing pregnant women to leave their communities and leave their families and have to spend extended periods of time in a hospital, a very impersonal, sterile atmosphere.

It is interesting because I caught a bit of a program on television recently that showed the procedure and circumstances for giving birth in hospitals in eastern Europe. It was quite horrifying the system that is used there, where the mother is separated from her child, and the child was bound and wrapped and put in a row with numerous other children.

It is weeks before the mother and child are brought together again, and then the child is very elaborately wrapped and presented to the father and the mother in a way that suggests this was a gift that the hospital is giving to the family rather than the fact that this was a gift that the hospital is giving to the family rather than the fact that this was the child that the parents had just created.

I guess in conclusion I just want to raise some of the questions that need to be answered by this government. The first one is, why is it taking so long for action to be taken on this? It was first initiated in 1991. The report from the working group was made in February '93. They made a big deal of the policy direction and the decision to proceed, but it seems since then we have not heard much other than this resolution here today.

Presently, midwifery really is not a viable option for women in Manitoba, and that is why we are having problems supporting the resolution even though, as myself and the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) have said, we certainly do support increased services in midwifery.

The other questions that are outstanding is, who will be the midwives? Registered nurses or lay people? How are we going to deal with those that are already practising especially if they are women from other cultures like native aboriginal people in the North, and how are these people--

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

* (1700)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I can speak to this particular resolution. Midwifery is in fact something that the Liberal Party has been very supportive of. In fact I can recall, I believe it was in the 1990 provincial election, when the then-leader Sharon Carstairs suggested that what we needed to do is move in a much faster fashion towards legalizing midwifery. Here we have a provincial government that has now been in power for in excess of seven years and from our perspective has not even come close or far enough on this particular issue.

You know, when we talk about--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

When this matter is again before the House the honourable member for Inkster will have 14 minutes remaining.

As previously agreed, we will now proceed to do the second resolution in private member's hour.

Res. 6--Infrastructure

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that

WHEREAS the Canada Infrastructure Works Program represents an outstanding example of what federal, provincial and municipal co-operation can achieve; and

WHEREAS Manitoba was one of the first provinces to sign an Infrastructure Works Agreement with the federal government, and the Manitoba-federal agreement has served as a model and framework for other communities and provinces across the country; and

WHEREAS Manitoba communities have been active and aggressive partners in developing infrastructure strategies; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has consulted extensively with local communities to identify and prioritize local needs; and

WHEREAS the Canada Infrastructure Works Program has facilitated Manitoba's economic recovery through the creation of short- and long-term employment via investment in local communities; and

WHEREAS the Canada Infrastructure Works Program has enabled the enhancement of Manitoba communities' physical infrastructure; and

WHEREAS the Canada Infrastructure Works Program will create an estimated 3,320 (direct onsite and offsite) jobs, 370 infrastructure projects, for a total investment of $188.3 million injected into Manitoba's economy.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the government for its proactive role in securing employment for Manitobans through the necessary upgrading of infrastructure via the Canada Infrastructure Works Program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly urge the federal government to expand the scope and extent of the Canada Infrastructure Works Program in order to maximize the generation of employment for Manitobans.

Motion presented.

Mr. Helwer: Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be able to introduce this resolution to the Legislature and a real opportunity for me to speak about the benefits of this program that have been derived in Manitoba, in all of Manitoba and especially in my constituency.

In our first WHEREAS, we talk about the Canada-Manitoba--how the Infrastructure Works Program represents an outstanding example of what federal, provincial and municipal co-operation can achieve. The high degree of federal, provincial and municipal co-operation was characterized by the implementation of the $204.8 million. The works program is best exemplified by the program's early and quick start in Manitoba.

For example, on January 4, 1994, Manitoba was among the first provinces to sign the master federal-provincial Infrastructure Works Agreement, and with that, Manitoba's first infrastructure announcement was by far the largest first announcement compared to any other province. The announcement had 133 projects worth $132 million, over half of the whole Manitoba program funds.

Only one other province announced projects before Manitoba, and that was Nova Scotia, which was a much smaller announcement and a much smaller number of projects, actually 11 projects totalling $38 million.

Also, we talk about where Manitoba was one of the first to sign the agreement, because being first out of the gate has allowed the evolution of a made-in-Manitoba program. An example of that is one that is regionally sensitive as opposed to a program superimposed from a national perspective, not always responsive to the local situation. Manitoba's assessment and approval process, which ensured local governments were involved in making decisions, served as a role model for all other provinces. Manitoba was also the first to provide project application forms to all municipalities and to consult regularly with the representatives of local governments on approved projects.

We talk about the active and aggressive partners in developing these infrastructure strategies, and the project submissions from local governments and other proponents outstripped expectations. By the application deadline of June 10, 1994, over 800 applications had been received, requesting some $1 billion. The total requests were for over a billion dollars that had been submitted to the Manitoba Infrastructure Works secretariat. An application deadline was set to ensure that funds were allocated early and that construction was given an immediate green light. Also, the deadline allowed all projects to be reviewed on an equal footing for receiving funding.

We also talk about how the provincial government has consulted extensively with local communities and to identify and prioritize the local needs. Meeting the needs and priorities of local governments is a basic principle embodied in the master federal-provincial agreement. With the agreement signing on January 14, 1994, a special committee, the Provincial Local Consultative Committee on infrastructure or the PLCC, as it was called or is more commonly known, was struck to assist in reviewing and approving these project proposals. The first meeting was held within a month. For administrative convenience, members of this PLCC split into two communities: one was for rural areas; the other one for the city of Winnipeg.

* (1710)

The six-member committee dealing with projects outside Winnipeg includes the presidents and vice-presidents of the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities and also the Union of Manitoba Municipalities. People on this committee were Mayor Art Dyck of Altona and Thompson City Councillor, Stella Locker, representing the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, whereas Jack Nichol, reeve of Springfield, and Larry Walker of Miniota represented the Union of Manitoba Municipalities. They were guided by the agreement's general criteria, which were that the two committees reviewed the submissions and recommended projects for approval. They also developed additional criteria as time went on.

I talk about how this affected Manitoba recovery in the resolution. In the first year, as an example, the program had a significant economic impact on communities across the province. In just nine months of the program, Manitoba's minister responsible for infrastructure, the Honourable Eric Stefanson, and his federal counterpart allocated more than 90 percent of the $204.8 million of the program to 377 projects throughout Manitoba. Some 3,500 jobs in direct and spin-off employment have been created by these projects; 65 projects have been completed; and by the end of this construction season it is expected that the majority of projects should be complete.

The variety of projects across Manitoba reflects the broad and practical definition of infrastructure agreed upon by the province and the federal government. The flexible approach also allowed the program to support projects offering strong economic benefits, whether they be realized through educational, cultural, recreational or other lifestyle enhancements, plus traditional infrastructure improvements like expanding and upgrading water and sewer systems, rebuilding roads and bridges, raising standards of local infrastructure and improving the general quality of life.

In addition, the improvements can also help smaller communities attract and sustain further economic development.

The arts and cultural projects are also reflective of the types of projects supported through a flexible approach to infrastructure.

While these projects make up a small portion, only about 5 percent of overall infrastructure funding, they will impact the economy through increased tourist traffic and spending and a larger cultural base.

We talked also about the enhancement of Manitoba's communities for the physical infrastructure, and we talked about how infrastructure enhanced the Manitoba communities through a variety of ways. Water and sewers is one of them; projects to provide clean water and reliable sewage systems are creating over 1,000 jobs actually and benefiting more than 100 communities in Manitoba.

For example, some of the projects in my constituency, sewer and water treatment plants or a treatment plant in the R.M. of Gimli and a storm sewer in the town of Gimli, a sewer and water project for the village of Teulon, a sewer extension--this is just one example of the many projects and programs that help the different communities in my constituency and many communities throughout Manitoba.

Also, road projects are underway in many communities. In my constituency, the town of Stonewall had a very large road program that was one of my largest projects. I believe the town of Stonewall's was $468,000; their infrastructure program for streets and roads certainly helped improve that community with the sidewalks, proper drainage and certainly did a lot to improve the streets in that community and in many communities throughout Manitoba, as I have said.

The arts, also roads and bridges, we talked about sidewalks. The Town of Winnipeg Beach put the new sidewalk on their main street, the new removable bricks that made it very attractive and certainly improved the looks of that main street. Just a great number of projects were of that type.

When we talked about community facilities, some $11.5 million has been spent in improvements in 63 recreation and community centres throughout the province and this will provide better sports and sports facilities and enhance the quality of life overall in many communities.

One of my communities to take advantage of this program were the addition and the improvements to the rec centre in the town of Gimli, and there they have a very nice rec centre with a curling rink and the arena together plus a hall in the centre. It is a very nice facility. We did some improvements to the curling rink section to help make it more usable for many events in the community.

In announcing the resolution, this private members' resolution provides an opportunity for me to update the members with some of the statistics also that are available on the program. As of May of this year, some 377 projects have been announced, creating some 3,560 jobs and investing some $192 million in the Manitoba economy. So it is very, very significant to the whole province and very, very helpful.

The way this was split up, the City of Winnipeg got 30 percent of the projects or about $60 million and the rural about 30 percent, about $60 million, and then there were other strategic programs that took about 40 percent. So the way it was split up I think it worked very well and was very fair to everyone, fair to the communities all around Manitoba and it worked very well.

Also, we talked about how the Canada-Manitoba infrastructure assigns the lead responsibilities program so we could get delivery to the province of Manitoba. The federal government also cites Manitoba as a role model for the rest of the country when they are referring to an effective and speedy program implementation and consultation with local governments. Manitoba's overall objective has been to obtain maximum economic impact from this whole infrastructure program and to generate as many jobs as possible while building an economic base that will serve the province for many years to come. This balance is being achieved, as well as the fair balance between the traditional infrastructure projects and the strategic new initiatives. So with the help of the provincial local consultative committee, a fair balance has also been struck in the distribution of the funds among urban, rural and also the North.

The expectations and demand have far exceeded the available dollars. For years, provincial premiers, as well as all the municipalities, have been calling for an infrastructure program like this, and in particular since 1988 the premiers have led the call for a national infrastructure program to renew the roads, the highway transport facilities, water and sewer infrastructure and other forms of traditional infrastructure. So, in January of '94, Manitoba was at the forefront in getting the current program underway and in Manitoba projects--

* (1720)

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this resolution, because the issue of infrastructure is extremely important to many Manitobans, particularly many residents of my own constituency, the eight communities in the Thompson constituency.

I want to say from the beginning that I am somewhat surprised that once again the government has been putting a resolution that really does not contribute that much to debate. I would suggest to the member that if we want to have debate on infrastructure, that is fine, but if the member wants to congratulate himself or any other part of the government, then he should bring in a resolution at his caucus meeting, debate it there, discuss it there, pass it there. They can vote on it unanimously and then allow us the opportunity in private members' hour to discuss the issue, free of that kind of political window dressing that we are seeing. We saw it yesterday.

I have looked through the resolutions, and as I said yesterday, I am wondering if there is not a computer program that has been developed by the Conservative caucus. You might want to call it private member puffery, Madam Speaker, the pat-your-back-on-the--Most computer programs, if you notice, will have pointers. You know, Windows has hands that you use that select programs. Well, here they could pat themselves on the back. You know, they could have little icons representing each one of them, and they could go and they could set it up so they pat each one of themselves on the back individually. It may be very gratifying for those members if they do that, but this is private members' hour. In fact because of the way we have arranged the schedule, it is actually now two hours of Private Members' Business, and you know, let us deal with those concerns.

I would like to hear from the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) what he thinks about infrastructure for his own communities. I think that would be appropriate rather than talking about that, and I know what he talked about.

I would also like to hear the member for Gimli perhaps talk about some of the draining of funds that has gone from his community as well, some by the way which has gone to infrastructure, but his community of Gimli is one on a per capita basis that is probably losing more money through VLTs than any other community in this province, and it is reported. That, Madam Speaker, I think raises the obvious question whether that money should perhaps be returned to the community of Gimli in the form of infrastructure programming, because Gimli is right up there with Thompson, The Pas, Swan River, Dauphin. I do not know how it got mixed in with those communities, those NDP-represented communities, but Gimli is right in there.

I respect the member for Gimli. I have known him for many numbers of years, and I would suggest that perhaps this might be an opportunity to raise that. Because one of the key issues I think when we are dealing with the money that is being put into the rural and northern communities and put here in the city of Winnipeg, that is one side of the ledger. The other side of the ledger, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) knows only too well--

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Have you ever been to Gimli?

Mr. Ashton: Have I ever been to Gimli? Yes, I have been to Gimli, for the Finance minister, and I am sure you could probably even hear the money being sucked out of the community of Gimli. I think it is appropriate for the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of two of the levers in terms of sucking the money out of Gimli and has his own roots in that community. Because here we have a situation in which the money is being drained out of that community, going straight into the coffers of the Minister of Finance and he is also the Minister responsible for Lotteries. In fact, Madam Speaker, at the rate we are going in terms of growth, it will not be too many more years where Lotteries and Finance will be the same thing, because that basically is the dependence we have developed in terms of that.

So in fact I find it interesting that the Minister of Finance seems to be asking--yesterday he asked me where I was coming from, and of course, it is Thompson. Now he is asking me whether I have been in Gimli. You know, I appreciate the sort of geography of the Minister of Finance, but he should look at a map too, and he should look at those plus and minus figures because--

An Honourable Member: Is crime still going down?

Mr. Ashton: Yes, indeed, crime. I am trying to figure out where the government actually stands on its Lotteries commission. This is I think the only government anywhere that could actually put out a report that has that claim, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that I believe the resolution is on infrastructure, not on lotteries, and it should be relevant to the resolution being debated.

Point of Order

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, you will note that, of course, the infrastructure funding from the provincial government does come from lotteries, so I believe it is pertinent to the debate.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition indeed does have a point of order, and I thank him for his advice.

* * *

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, as I was indicating, my concern with this whole agenda basically is to make sure there is some fairness and equity, not only in terms of what is put into the community but what is also taken out. I think that is what we should look at, because rural and northern communities in particular have been drained of funds.

Here we have the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) getting up congratulating the government in terms of infrastructure, but I ask the question in terms of Gimli itself, because it is one of the communities that is being drained. Thompson is being drained, $2.4 million. I believe Gimli is about $750,000. The Pas is in excess of $1 million. Flin Flon is in excess of $1 million. That is one side of the ledger, and that money, the little that gets back to northern communities, outside of some of the grants that take place in terms of lotteries, is through the infrastructure program.

So I am making the argument that we need more emphasis on rural and northern infrastructure and some of the real needs in the city, not the money that has been spent or was going to be spent on the Kenaston underpass or the money that has been sent from lotteries to the Winnipeg Jets. The Winnipeg Jets, what kind of infrastructure is that? An infrastructure of debt for this province. This is of no benefit whatsoever, and these are the priorities of this government. This government is willing to put money into such things as the Winnipeg Jets rather than the infrastructure needs of this province.

In fact, when I look at the city of Winnipeg, the condition of Winnipeg streets and I look at the sewer and water problems in many areas of this city, and of course, coincidentally it seems that many of those constituencies are--

An Honourable Member: The same people who used to run the City of Winnipeg.

Mr. Ashton: In fact, yes, it is the same ones that used to run the City of Winnipeg, but unfortunately it seems some of the areas of the city of Winnipeg that have those needs just happen to be represented by NDP members. I do not know if there is any connection there, but some of us perhaps wonder on this side.

I want to suggest that the government, instead of bringing in these pat-yourself-on-the-back resolutions, go back to the drawing board and recognize the need for some real infrastructure development. The original allocation for infrastructure was inadequate. It has been watered down, stretched out over a period of time that has been increased so it is even more inadequate than when it started. I can list off numerous areas, and I did this in 1993 right at the beginning of the process so that the government could not turn around and say, well, there was no input from members opposite.

I will tell you what I suggested at the time:

The improvement of existing roads, particularly roads such as Highways 391 and 281, and that is a focus that could be expanded upon the infrastructure we have currently.

A Northern Development Agreement, for example, could be set up, a Rural Development Agreement, construction of roads, the communities with no all-weather road access. I have four of them in my constituency, no roads period.

Extension of sewer and water to communities that have partial or no sewer and water. There are communities in northern Manitoba that do not have sewer and water, and this would include both reserves and Northern Affairs communities.

It could also include upgrading in communities such as Thompson where, by the way, money was allocated, but it is still not enough to finish the project, which is something the city of Thompson has made a request to the provincial and federal governments to do.

Upgrading of the bayline and the port of Churchill. You know, the port of Churchill, its future is at stake. It has just had the second worst year in its history. We have to deal with those.

I talked about other infrastructure because I think you have to include health care, education, recreation. For example, there is a great need for recreation in northern Manitoba and some of the other services provided. I think our child care system is part of our infrastructure as well. So I made those suggestions, as did many other Manitobans; rural Manitobans made suggestions, many people in the city of Winnipeg.

What I want to suggest to the government and to the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) and other members on the government side is that much more needs to be done. I would suggest, and I say this as a northerner, I think that the very basis of our infrastructure is being threatened. Just add up the last number of years, Madam Speaker. I think anyone who looks at the record will see what has happened.

The federal government has cut back in terms of rail maintenance. The federal government has cut back in terms of the use of the Port of Churchill. Now that is part of our transportation infrastructure. They have cut back in terms of airports. The flight control tower in Thompson, for example, has been closed down. We had questions earlier today from our Highways and Transportation critic. They have cut back in that area as well.

The provincial government has cut back in terms of roads. They decreased the amount spent on northern highways to an historic low last year. It has resulted in the kinds of poor highway conditions that we have seen, that have threatened the safety of many northern Manitobans when they have to travel roads. It is not just northern Manitoba. I am sure the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) can talk about that as well from his community, all the many needs.

* (1730)

I think if you look at it, Madam Speaker, this government, in conjunction with the federal government, is threatening the very basis of the fabric of this country in terms of economic development and in terms of services. You know, Canada--it was interesting the World Bank came out and said that we are the second richest country in the world. If you look at the underlying reasons they look at, a lot of it is the assets. You know it is two things, above and beyond the mines and the mineral wealth we have, the oil, the petroleum, it is basically the human capital and the capital that is invested in terms of infrastructure. It is interesting that infrastructure is primarily publicly owned, a public investment.

So I suggest to you that if we continue in the same way that we are now, and if we continue to fail to reinvest in infrastructure--and the levels of reinvestment in infrastructure have dropped significantly as a percent of GDP from the 1960s; I think it is about one-third of what it used to be--we are not even going to replace the level of infrastructure we currently have. Name me one business out there in the private sector that could continue to operate for 20 or 30 or 40 years without investing in infrastructure. There is not one. Well, there may be a few that rely on making money in other ways.

But I will tell you Inco has to invest and reinvest in its infrastructure. It has done it constantly. Inco and the government of Manitoba were in the same situation. You have to invest in infrastructure. The bottom line to my mind is we should be investing more in infrastructure. We should have specific programs for infrastructure development such as a northern development agreement. We need a Parklands development agreement; I know as well it is an area of concern on our side. There are many areas. We need a Winnipeg development agreement that does not just deal with the priorities of the Premier and a few people sitting around a cabinet table. It needs to deal with the people's priorities, fixing roads and sewers and water systems in this province.

I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that if we do that, we can ensure, as we head into the next century, that we can have appropriate economic development in Manitoba. I would suggest to you in return that if we continue to disinvest in terms of infrastructure, we are going to have major problems with economic development in this province. I can tell you that from personal experience of northern Manitoba because the disinvestment is starting in the North, and it will impact on economic development.

The time to stop it is now; the time to invest in our province is now. That is why this resolution, instead of patting the government on the back, should be pointing to the inadequacies of the infrastructure program and the need to do better next time. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I am more than pleased to stand and talk on infrastructure for Manitoba, especially from a rural Manitoban perspective. We see, especially in the Parklands area, a very rapid decline in the population of our area, the very rapid decline in the number of small family farms that are so dependent on a good, effective, efficient infrastructure program.

Madam Speaker, in 1993 I had the honour of representing the NDP in a federal election in which we approached Canadians with a strategy for a full-employment economy. In that strategy, we outlined an infrastructure program, a national infrastructure program that we were to--[interjection] Yes, about seven seats ahead of some of the parties.

What we decided to do was approach the Canadian people with an infrastructure program that would accomplish a number of things. Number one, it would create employment. It would encourage co-operation amongst governments, it would improve the infrastructure, it would assist areas whose tax base was low, and it would also be designed to help out areas where there are high levels of unemployment.

This program, photocopied by the party that eventually won the federal election, was put into place some time later and I believe that, put in the hands of fair-minded people who believe in co-operation, would have been a good program. Unfortunately, that did not occur.

There is nothing fair about the way this infrastructure program has worked out over the last short period of time. There is nothing co-operative about it. The government can talk all it likes about extensive consultations. The truth is, it did not occur, unless the government thinks that co-operation means five guys getting together to rob a bank. That is the kind of co-operation that I see happening here.

Co-operation flies out the window when you have politicians in my area of the province scrambling, trying to outdo each other, competing with each other to get the headline in the front of the Dauphin Herald when the announcements are made for the Parklands recreation complex, one provincial politician outmanoeuvring a federal politician with news conferences simply to get the headline on the front page. That is what this infrastructure program has boiled down to.

Let us talk about the jobs that have been created in Manitoba and the cost of these jobs to Manitobans. You would think that for $1 million a provincial government in co-operation with the federal and municipal levels could create more than 14 jobs, but that is how it has worked out. For every 14 jobs we create we spend a million bucks.

The member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) made a number of good points in the speech that he just gave to the House, and I commend the member for Gimli for speaking on this topic. He mentioned there were two committees that were put in place, rural and urban, and if I remember correctly there was a third one that was put in place as well, and they split up the $204 million that was available for Manitoba, $60 million for the rural committee, $60 million for the urban and $84 million into something called strategic initiatives.

Now, what exactly does that mean? The biggest chunk of the Manitoba money was going into strategic initiatives, and we do not know what it is. Where is the accountability when it comes to taking taxpayers' money and doling it out into projects? Who is the strategic initiatives committee responsible to? Who do they answer to? Where did the money go? If you took a good look at where the money has been going, it does not play out evenly across the province. For example, if you looked at the figures and you looked at them honestly, you would see that northern Manitoba is not coming up to its fair share of Manitoba's total of the infrastructure program. [interjection] Yes, exactly. The member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) just pointed out to me the reason. They do not have any Conservative members in that area. That is very crass, very patronage-based kind of politics that we have become used to with this government.

Let us take a look at some of the other fiascos that have taken place. The Kenaston underpass is a very good example of the kind of manipulation that has gone on in terms of Manitoba and this infrastructure program. What ever happened to the $20 million that did not go through and be spent on the Kenaston underpass? Was that money taken and spread out over the projects that were not given enough to get started? Were there other projects that were put in place of the Kenaston underpass or did that money just kind of float back into the pockets of each of the levels of government? Who knows? Where is the accountability?

I want to take a look at some other specific examples. I want to mention the Arborg water infrastructure project, a project that was halted because the federal government would not fund Phase 2 because it said that there were higher than projected costs. Where is the fairness when it comes to giving out money and just having politicians look for the headlines in each of these smaller communities in the lead up to a provincial election? It is fine if you hand out some money for some of these projects hoping that you are not giving enough to encourage the project to go ahead, hoping that the local people will sit back and say, we cannot raise the rest of the money, we are going to can the project. That is not fair.

As a result of the federal government bailing out of the water infrastructure project at Arborg, the local community is now being forced to divide the project into two phases, the second phase into a whole bunch of smaller phases. Now, we know what happens when we start splitting up these projects into smaller phases. They end up costing us more money in the long run. That is not good economic management. Those types of situations are occurring across the province.

* (1740)

As a result, as well, the Arborg community itself are in a position where they have to assume a greater percentage of the costs, more costs than what they had bargained for in the first place, or they will see their dream of a water infrastructure project go down the tubes. So what it amounts to is that the federal and provincial levels of government are again offloading onto the local level simply so that federal and provincial politicians do not have to go around telling them that they have raised taxes. They can let the municipal people go out and tell them that they are going to raise taxes and whatever other kind of fundraising to pay for their infrastructure projects.

Let us look at the Selkirk water upgrade. The first phase of this project was to construct a storage container to hold reservoirs of water while Phase 2 was to build a well to fill the first container. The federal government again bailed out leaving the second phase and the entire project in jeopardy. Again, the pressure is then put on the local community to come up with the funds if they want their project. What happened to this grand goal of co-operation amongst the three levels of government that was talked about by the member for Gimli and his government throughout the whole debate over the infrastructure program? There is no co-operation there.

The last project that I would like to touch on for a brief moment is the Parkland Recreation Complex in Dauphin, of course, one of my favourite topics, no doubt. [interjection] Well, when it comes to pork barrelling I take those comments from the opposition pretty seriously because they know more about pork barrelling than I will ever know, I am sure.

The Parkland Recreation Complex from Dauphin was a project that originally was to cost $9.2 million. When they made their proposals, what they were told was that $1.8 million was to be contributed to the Parkland Recreation Complex, $600,000 from the feds, $600,000 from the province and $600,000 from the local community. When you look at how much money went into this program and you look at how much money was projected for it to begin with, you can see that $1.8 million, or to be more exact, $1.2 million from the top two levels of government was pretty much a spit in the ocean when you look at how much the whole project was going to cost.

Again, it is my belief that the federal and provincial levels of government had no intention of seeing this project go ahead, that all that would happen was that the people in Dauphin would be scared off at the amount of money that was left for the local community to raise in a town with not a great tax base and then have the government sit back, watch the plan go down, but you have already got your headline in the Dauphin Herald. That is what I think this whole infrastructure project has come down to.

The one thing I want to point out as well is that there was more money go into the fountain and all the cement being poured out at the back of the Legislature than there was in the whole Parkland Recreation Complex. More cement will be poured behind the Legislature here, more dollars go into the project just to the south of this building than there will be in all of the Dauphin Recreation Complex, a complex serving communities throughout the Parkland and beyond.

Now, I really have to question the priorities of this government and its priorities in handing out money in the infrastructure program when that kind of money can go into a fountain when we in the Parkland have to struggle to put together a facility of the magnitude of the Parkland Recreation Complex, something that is really going to be a use to the people of the Parkland in our quest to keep people in Dauphin and to keep people in the Parkland area.

Madam Speaker, just to wrap up, I want to repeat the lofty goals that this infrastructure program had from the beginning, which is of co-operation of three levels of government, creating employment and specifically in areas of our province where unemployment is high and where not a lot of attention has been paid over the last six years.

I would hope that the government in future announcements keeps in mind some of the advice that those of us in the opposition have given today, and I hope that we can see a much more efficient and fair operation of Manitoba's part of the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure program. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to welcome you back again in your responsibilities as Speaker in keeping this House running in a most efficient manner. It is also my pleasure to welcome the new Pages that we welcomed to this House and we certainly look forward to the pleasure of working with all of them during the continuation of this session and also the interns that have been appointed, and some of them are in the gallery today. We certainly look forward to working with all of them in the future and wish them well in their endeavours and hope that they take something from this building when they leave here and embark upon their future endeavours.

I want to congratulate the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for bringing forward this resolution. I think it is not only a very, very timely resolution, it is a very pertinent resolution. It identifies a lack of responsibility that the previous Pawley administration simply failed to address, and that is, of course, the recognition that Manitobans must have proper highways, must have proper communications processes, must have proper energy sources and must have proper sewer and water disposal systems at their disposal in order to make their communities grow.

That is really what the resolution says. The resolution speaks very clearly to the need of supplying for Manitobans proper infrastructure in an affordable manner and that it be properly cost-shared between the three levels of governments and individual companies as they progress and build and provide jobs in our province.

If the members opposite would have read the resolution and looked at the programs that have been developed and the projects that have been initiated over the last eight years of our government's mandate, they would have noted that we had not only embarked upon an agreement with the federal, provincial and municipal governments which is going to expend some $204 million, but they would have noted that we had increased our highways budget from a mere $70 million when the Howard Pawley administration left office to some $105 million currently under a highways construction program.

They would have noted that MTS, in spite of Manitoba Telephone System under the Pawley administration moving into the Saudi Arabian market, we turned it around, brought it back from Saudi Arabia and had Manitoba Telephone System invest $800 million to provide private-line service to all our communities in Manitoba.

* (1750)

That, Madam Speaker, is an indication of a government that has its priorities in order, knows where it is going and has a commitment to the business community, the people of the province of Manitoba in providing not only jobs, but providing the technology that will allow us to advance into the world market. By supplying not only roads, railways, sewer, water, power and energy through natural gas expansion and those kinds of things, not only through that type of a process but in fact providing a sound economic base through fiscal management, proper budgeting and bringing our expenditures in line are we attracting industries from far and wide.

I think the announcement today made by McCain's industry to expand their operation in Portage is a clear indication as to how companies, corporations from outside look at Manitoba. If it had not been for the expansion and the taking care of the mess that had been created in Portage la Prairie under the Pawley administration in their sewer and water infrastructure--we cleaned it up, we expanded it. It is now in a position where companies can actually come in and comfortably expand, their operation grow, provide jobs--better than 140 jobs will be provided by this new initiative--and do it without being afraid of having the environmental department come down on their backs the day after.

The announcement of a brand-new canola-crushing facility in Ste. Agathe is another indication that these companies are looking for a home that will give them the satisfaction and the comfort that there is a government in place that has the ability to keep their economics in line and provide services to their people at the same time.

If you look at further opportunities that I think will come forward, you can look at the pasta-processing plant in Altona that was announced just last week. It will get Manitoba into a brand new market, but it will further provide--this infrastructure program and other infrastructure programs that we have initiated--opportunities for other industries such as the bean industry which is becoming a major, major industry in southern Manitoba. A new processing plant having been built at St. Joseph by the Parent brothers is now processing a shelf-ready product which will be exported mostly to Mexico, to India, to Latin America and very little of the product that they are going to process is going to be utilized in Manitoba. It will bring a very significant number of foreign dollars into Manitoba, and it will provide a significant number of jobs. I think that is just the tip of the iceberg of what we are going to see under the new Manitoba and under the new Manitoba law of industry.

I think that we as a government, when we took over and when we said that we must balance our budget and that we need to bring forward legislation to ensure that future governments will in fact follow the economic agenda that we have set for this province, when we brought that kind of legislation forward it was a clear indication to Manitobans that they would no longer be subjected to the ruthless mismanagement of our economy as had been done under the previous governments. That in itself allows us to encourage people to invest in themselves. That is why we developed the bond program. That is why we developed the REDI program, and that is why industries or individuals are encouraged to build such plants as the bean processing plant in St. Joseph.

Madam Speaker, there are dramatic opportunities that are going to offer themselves in the future. We have an absolutely fantastic opportunity to expand the livestock processing industry in this province. I think by properly nurturing, by ensuring those industries that they will have proper roads to travel on, that they will have proper sewer and water facilities, that they will have proper energy sources and proper communication sources such as being provided under the joint efforts of a Canada-Manitoba infrastructure program and in joint effort with the municipalities, we are going to get there. We are going to provide jobs for our young people.

I think it is very significant that when you read the latest statistics that Saskatchewan actually had a decrease of about 1,000 people working over the last year where Manitoba had an increase of 15,000. It is clearly an indication as to where this government is going and how people, industries and others are looking at our government and our province. Clearly the people of Manitoba, whether they live in Dauphin or whether they live in Sprague or Vita, are going to be the beneficiaries.

We made a commitment to the Pembina Valley Water Co-op less than a year ago, a commitment that Manitoba would provide funding to put in place a water system in the Red River Valley. It was dependent on matching funds from the federal government. The communities within the Red River Valley were very, very interested in ensuring that they could guarantee proper water supplies to people that were interested in building businesses and industry. It is imperative that we, as a government, continue to pressure Ottawa and that we support the efforts of the municipalities in the Red River Valley in their efforts to encourage Ottawa to make again that same kind of a commitment that we were able to come to under this infrastructure program, because that is where the essence of the new Manitoba lies, and the future of our future generations, the employment opportunities of our future generations are going to be prevalent.

So regardless of the criticism that has been extended to the resolution by opposition members today, I think it clearly demonstrates that we should from time to time, periodically, examine where we have been, as the resolution did, and what direction we are going to take. Whether we would want to do that in a negative fashion or a positive fashion, I think, is a difference in philosophy between our government and the opposition benches.

I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that if the opposition members will keep doing what they are doing, and I encourage them to be as critical as they can of not only programs but other communities and point fingers where we have done things where they might not have benefited or they have benefited and others have not, but keep pointing fingers in other directions; we will be in government for many, many years to come. So I encourage them to take the kind of tack that they are bringing to this House in this new part of the last session that we started in the spring. I encourage them to not change direction because the people of Manitoba are looking very clearly at who, which party should rule and govern and which policies they want to support and not support.

We just came through an election, and I think the election was very encouraging that the direction that we had taken over the last seven, eight years in coming to agreements with municipalities, in coming to agreements with federal governments, showing that we are in fact willing to partnership, take part in funding and provide the necessities of those communities in all of Manitoba.

I think those of us that sit in this Legislature, those of us who come to the city of Winnipeg every week to participate in the debates and the discussions and make laws for our future Canadians will be the beneficiaries in the future of this kind of initiative that the member for Gimli has brought to this House for debate. So I congratulate the member.

I want to say to you, Madam Speaker, that if we do not deviate from our direction and if we ensure Manitobans that our budgets in the future will be balanced and that the expenditures that we will incur on their behalf will in fact bear benefits, then I would suspect that the opposition members will be in the opposition for a long, long time. So I congratulate all the partners, the municipalities, the towns, the people, the federal government and the provincial government for putting this kind of program in place, and I hope that that kind of co-operation can prevail into the future.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): I certainly appreciate the very few couple of minutes that the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) has provided this member in speaking to this resolution. I listened for the last 55 minutes to, again, as one of my colleagues had indicated earlier, the amount of about 40 minutes of backslapping and cheering and waving the Conservative flag around like we are the do-all and the come-all of the infrastructure program, when in fact if you go out and talk to the people in rural Manitoba, in certain areas of rural Manitoba, you will hear them say that basically from the provincial side of it, the thinking from the province and from this government was backward.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) will have 14 minutes remaining.

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