Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Economic Development.

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Dauphin-Roblin (Mr. Struthers), that the report of the Committee be received.

Ms. Linda Asper (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Ms. Asper: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that the report of the Committee be received.

* (13:35)

Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement regarding the wildfire status in Manitoba.

The relatively mild winter with a lack of snow has created extremely dry conditions in the grasses and brush in southern Manitoba. The potential for fast-moving grass fires exists, and we have responded to several of these fires already. Department staff, aware of this potential, stepped up its recall of firefighting resources and looked at other methods of fire suppression.

Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the aerial crop spraying industry, we developed the ability to use spray planes to deliver a long-term fire retardant. Three of these aircraft began operating on April 20 and have been used successfully from the Steinbach airport on several fires in southeastern Manitoba. Due to the dryness, a ban on burning was put into effect last week and radio announcements have been airing on the dangers of grass fires. These procedures resulted in the decrease in the number of new starts within the burning permit area.

Mr. Speaker, fires are still occurring outside the burning permit area, and the Department is assisting the local authorities with fire suppression. The Government's CL-215 water bombers were used last week on a fire near Winkler, on a fire near the provincial park at Rivers and on several fires in the rural municipalities in southern Manitoba. The first wildfire was reported on March 2, and to April 25 the Department has responded to 45 fires, which have burned about 8000 hectares.

The weather forecast for this week predicts a slight chance of scattered showers and a continuation of above-normal temperatures. As additional fires could occur under these conditions, I urge Manitobans to be very cautious in the outdoors until conditions improve. Thank you.

Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister for bringing this issue to our attention. As much as we enjoy the early spring and the beautiful weather, those of us who know Manitoba recognize that fire is always a danger at this time of year.

I want to take this occasion to particularly commend the staff, the experienced staff, led by Mr. Buck in the Minister's Department, that have served this province well over the years in these situations. I take this occasion to invite the media to help the Government and help all of us to make Manitobans mindful of the threat that is there, the destruction that can be caused particularly by man-made fires. Certainly from the Opposition's side, we will be as supportive as we can of this Minister and of this Government in meeting any potential dangers and hazards that are out there. Thank you.

Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): J'aimerais prendre quelques moments pour rendre hommage à un grand homme qui nous a quittés le 13 avril dernier, Son Excellence Monseigneur–

I would like to take a few moments to pay homage to a great man who departed from us on April 13, His Excellency Monsignor–

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Minister, do you have copies of your statement?

Mr. Selinger: J'aimerais prendre quelques moments pour rendre hommage à un grand homme qui nous a quittés le 13 avril dernier, Son Excellence Monseigneur Antoine Hacault, archevêque de Saint-Boniface.

C'est avec une grande tristesse que nous avons appris son décès à l'hôpital général Saint-Boniface à l'âge de 74 ans.

I would like to take a few moments to pay homage to a great man who departed from us on April 13, His Excellency Monsignor Antoine Hacault, Archbishop of St. Boniface.

It was with great sadness that we learned of his death at St. Boniface Hospital at the age of 74.

Born in Bruxelles, Manitoba, he was the first Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Boniface to be born in Manitoba. He was the sixth Bishop and the fifth Archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Boniface, where he served as Archbishop for 25 years.

Monseigneur Hacault était un homme à l'esprit ouvert sur le monde. Il était toujours en quête de nouvelles connaissances et cherchait à rallier tous ses diocésains. Il rejoignait tous les membres de notre communauté et avait appris plusieurs langues pour faciliter cette communication.

Monsignor Hacault was a man whose spirit was open to the world. He was always pursuing new knowledge and seeking to bring together all members of his Diocese. He reached out to all members of our community and had learned several languages in order to facilitate this communication.

He knew very many of us on a first-name basis and was always interested in everyone's personal development. His hard work and dedication to God will not soon be forgotten. Monsignor Hacault was a profoundly religious man who left his mark on the church and on this community. He represented what was best in the human spirit. He had a universal vision of the church. He will always be remembered for living his life by his motto: In the preaching of gospel, servant of the Lord.

* (13:40)

Mr. Gary Filmon (Leader of the Official Opposition): On behalf of all of my colleagues on this side of the House, we certainly want to join with the Minister in expressing our great sadness at the passing of a giant in the local Catholic Church. Archbishop Hacault was known well to many people throughout our province. Certainly those of us in public life enjoyed meeting him from time to time. His warm, generous spirit, his smiling face were always a great welcome at so many different public events.

Archbishop Hacault was of course a person who was born and raised in this province, a person who represented the opportunity of someone to be born in perhaps the lower stations of life in a small community and to rise to the highest levels in his church. All who knew Archbishop Hacault thought of him as a person who loved life, who loved people, who contributed generously to his community, who always was there to support the needs of the community. I recall his efforts in ecumenical gatherings where he saw and addressed the opportunities for the Catholic Church to work with other denominations. I know we will all remember him fondly, that we will all celebrate the many contributions that he made to our communities and to our province. We certainly join with the Minister in mourning his loss.

Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for River Heights. Does the Honourable Member have leave to make a statement. [Agreed]

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise to offer a word on the passing of Archbishop Hacault.

Le décès d'un homme de Dieu est toujours un moment important, un moment historique pour notre province.

The death of a man of God is always an important moment, a historic moment for our province.

I think we owe Archbishop Hacault a major debt of gratitude for his contributions to Manitoba. He knew rural and urban Manitoba well and will be sadly missed.

Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to recommend to the House Manitoba Book Week which was officially launched this morning at the Centennial Library. My particular role was to read I Can Have My Picnic in a Patch of Roses, written by Jenny Visscher and published by Griffin Books. The children loved this book, with its unbeatable combination of rhyming couplets, brilliant illustrations and plain good fun.

Manitoba Book Week is the right time to consider the importance of writing, publishing and book selling to our economy and the importance of the literary arts to our public and personal lives.

I know all Manitobans here gratefully acknowledge the literary community's contributions to the economy. The industry directly supports more than 75 full-time jobs while sales exceed $3.2 million annually. Many of you support the industry during the Winnipeg International Writers Festival. Some of you will attend Brave New Words on Saturday, April 29, and all of you buy Manitoba books.

The role the literary arts occupy in our lives and culture is more subtle, but to my mind well spoken by the Renaissance poet Sir Phillip Sidney who said that art "should teach and delight," or, as the 19th century Romantics put it, "should combine beauty with truth." But perhaps we politicians can better respond to the American poet William Carlos Williams who described literature as "a rival government, always in opposition with its cruder replicas."

The rival governments or alternate visions of Manitoba writers range from Ralph Connor's social gospels to Frederick Philip Grove's moral didacticism to Margaret Laurence's compelling humanism to Catherine Hunter's compassionate voice and experimental dexterity to Ian Ross's delightful but sometimes darkly shaded comic vision.

The writers cited here are only examples, names of individuals engaged with the questions of craft, identity and values. They speak to us of the way we are, life in our times and in our place. But what is most important is not individual writers–not their names–but their writing and their words.

Even if we do not know their names, even if we never read their books, their words and writings are with us, shaping our thinking, deepening our compassion, teasing our imaginations, pushing the forms of language and revealing new truths. These are the tasks of the writer. Writers have always had these duties. Our Manitoba writers follow in this great tradition and we are rightfully proud of them.

In closing, I want to thank the Association of Manitoba Book Publishers for their leadership in Manitoba Book Week and for Brave New Words, our Manitoba writing and publishing gala. We in Government appreciate their dedication to creating this major celebration of Manitoba books and literature. So, show your gratitude, go to an event, attend the gala, but most important, support our writers by buying their books and enrich your life by reading them. Thank you.

* (13:45)

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism for her ministerial statement recognizing Manitoba Book Week. The Manitoba Book Week is indeed the time to consider the importance of writing, publishing and book selling to our economy and the importance of the literary arts to all Manitobans.

We also recognize that there are many, many talented Manitoba writers who make a major contribution to Manitoba's economy. The Manitoba writers are world-renowned, a number of them, and many of us have had the pleasure of both reading their books as well as meeting them on several occasions. A number of them indeed have been recognized for their literary efforts through many volunteer and other appointments and recognitions. One that comes to mind is Margaret Laurence and also Carol Shields, and she was recognized as the recipient of an award at the YM-YWCA dinner. I had a very, very interesting discussion with her. I believe that was a year ago.

In closing, it is very important that we do encourage our Manitoba writers and that we do read their works and ensure that we encourage other young people who have literary aspirations to become writers in their own way. Also I, too, would encourage the members of the Assembly to attend an event but also to purchase many of the literary articles that are currently on the market. Thank you.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger), that leave be given to introduce Bill 7, The Protection for Persons in Care Act; Loi sur la protection des personnes recevant des soins, 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. I would also like to table the Lieutenant-Governor's message.

Mr. Chomiak: Just briefly, with respect to this particular bill, as members of the House who were present at previous sessions will attest to, we did introduce this bill on several occasions in the past. I am very honoured on behalf of the Government now to be able to introduce the Bill and particularly honoured because one of the individuals who inspired this Bill in the first place, who actually visited with me when I was a member of the Opposition concerning all of the Holiday Haven affair, is present in the gallery and had implored us to have a bill of this type to allow for protection of employees and others who need and may require from time to time on those rare occasions to be able to report matters of this kind. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, is there leave of the House to introduce for first reading The Court Security Act?

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? [Agreed]

Mr. Mackintosh: I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Sport (Mr. Chomiak), that leave be given to introduce Bill 9, The Court Security Act (Loi sur la sécurité dans les tribunaux), 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. I have a message from His Honour which I am tabling.

* (13:50)

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a legislative framework for the perimeter security system that has been in place at the Law Courts Building and 1501 Chevrier Boulevard.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there consent of the House to introduce, by leave, Bill 19, The Holocaust Memorial Day Act?

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed]

Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): I move, seconded by the First Minister (Mr. Doer), that leave be given to introduce Bill 19, The Holocaust Memorial Day Act (Loi sur le Jour commémoratif de l'Holocauste), and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes in Manitoba Yom Hashoah, the Day of the Holocaust, as a day of reflection about the enduring lessons of the Holocaust, and I thank the Assembly for agreeing to proceed with this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I have some introductions to make. First of all, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the table so that I may introduce to you the new Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Ms. Patricia Chaychuk.

Ms. Chaychuk was born and raised in northern Manitoba, is a graduate of R. D. Parker Collegiate in Thompson. She holds a Bachelor of Arts Honours from the University of Winnipeg, a Master of Public Administration from the University of Manitoba and is currently a part-time student in a Master of Business Administration program at the Faculty of Management, University of Manitoba.

Prior to accepting the position as Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Ms. Chaychuk was employed with the Committees Branch of the Clerk's Office since 1989 as a Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees. We welcome you here today.

Also, I am pleased to inform the House that Mr. Garry Clark has been appointed Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. Clark has served as Acting Sergeant-at-Arms since November 15, 1999, and served as Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms from 1993 to 1999. Welcome.

Also, I am pleased to inform the House that Mr. Blake Dunn has been appointed Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. Dunn has served as Gallery Attendant since December 12, 1998. We also welcome Mr. Dunn.

Mr. Speaker: Also, seated in the loge to my right is Binx Remnant, former Clerk of this Legislative Assembly. On behalf of the honourable members, I welcome you here today.

Also, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today Dr. Raymond Donnelly and Mrs. Margarie Donnelly. Doctor Donnelly is a lecturer at the Herriott Wyatt University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Also with us today is Mr. Neil Money of the Caithness Sutherland Enterprise Centre of Edinburgh, Scotland. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

* (13:55)

Mr. Gary Filmon (Leader of the Official Opposition): My question is for the Premier.

There appears to be a great deal of concern and confusion about the Government's plans for the establishment of First Nations casinos in our province. That of course is well documented by the meeting that is going on right at this time at the R.M. of St. Andrews, where a great many people are there to express their objection to the possibility of one being located there.

One of the major problems, Mr. Speaker, is the lack of information, the lack of ability to access information on the proposals and the procedure. My question to the Premier is: Why is the Government repressing discussion of and information and a public concerning of the information on these proposals?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition would not be leading as a matter of priority with the agricultural crisis and disaster assistance in southwestern Manitoba, and I think that–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the election campaign all three political parties put before the public of Manitoba their positions on the Bostrom report and aboriginal casinos. We were up front with the public of Manitoba when we promised to look at and implement the Bostrom report. We have always felt–[interjection] Well, I can quote the chapter and verse.

We have always felt that over the massive expansion of gambling in Manitoba there have been two benefactors of that gambling expansion, or maybe three if you count Assiniboia Downs. The second would be the hotel owners, Mr. Speaker, and the third would be the Government. We always felt from early 1992 on that similar strategy as implemented in Saskatchewan or indeed in Minnesota to share some of the economic benefits with Aboriginal people was the right thing to do. That is why we promised to do it before the election, and we are now fulfilling that promise after the election.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, of course the Leader of the Opposition didn't even attempt to answer the question. We are not saying to the Opposition that they should or should not do this. What we are saying to the Government is that people who are legitimately asking for information are not able to get it. In fact, even today proponents of proposals are quoted in the paper as saying you do not want to get disqualified for the wrong comments being made to the public, and that is Chief Roy McKinney whose band is proposing a casino near Headingley. His representative, the business adviser to the Swan Lake Band, Rick Wenaus says: As far as I know, we are under some kind of gag order.

The question is: Why does the Government want to put a gag order on people who are putting forth proposals for these casinos? Why does he not give a fair airing to it so that people who want to know what is proposed, what are the terms and conditions and what is the process, can find out?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the former Premier said it is not an issue of whether you said you were for or against it before the election campaign and during the election campaign. I can understand a Leader of the Opposition who is the former Premier stating that after we saw his flip-flop campaign one way and acting another way with the telephone system. We have taken a consistent position since 1992. We have taken that position in the House; we have taken it in the media; we have taken it in the election. In fact, on August 30 we stated publicly in the election campaign which of course is the major consultation with the public in the sense of having a vote on all the issues before us.

Mr. Speaker, we wanted to have a process that–[interjection] Well, the members opposite who closed the downtown casino and expanded the two casinos in suburban Winnipeg and had costs going up and up and up have no business lecturing anybody about consulting the public of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, we wanted an independent process because we did not want the selection process to be driven or perceived to be driven in terms of sites by politics. That is why Mr. Freedman and Mr. Nadeau have been chosen by the government to proceed with this process. I have a great deal of faith in the two individuals: one, the director of NCI Communications in the North, and Mr. Freedman who is well known to members of this Legislature. I trust their integrity of being able to balance the economic and social needs of Aboriginal people and the community consultation that is necessary to make these decisions.

* (14:00)

Mr. Filmon: Again the Premier has not answered the question. The question is: Why is he putting a gag order on proponents of these casinos who want to be able to discuss with the public, who want to be able to share with them all of the various aspects of it? Today the Premier is quoted as saying there is no gag order.

Mr. Speaker, this report, this request for proposal says "proponents shall not issue news releases or other public announcements pertaining to details of their proposal or the selection process without the prior written approval of the selection committee."

Why the gag order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Doer: The former Premier just answered the question. It is without prior permission of the independent body we have established. In other words, the independent body that is looking at this matter can and will deal with public consultation.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I know that right now there are public meetings going on in West St. Paul. There were previous public views expressed in Headingley. A lot more public debate is taking place on this process than ever happened when the members opposite expanded casinos for $40 million to $240 million in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, with a new question.

Mr. Gary Filmon (Leader of the Official Opposition): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Well, the Premier has raised a good issue. The fact is that just a few days ago the people of Headingley voted 85 percent in opposition to having a casino in their rural municipality. Last week, hundreds of people, and again today, turned out at the R.M. of St. Andrews to voice their objections to having a casino in their rural municipality. If that is the case and this is the kind of valid public debate that he wants, will he listen to those people and ensure that they do not get a casino against their wishes?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the proposal call required proponents to demonstrate the support of the communities. It requires proponents to address the reasonable concerns of adjacent local governments. This is beyond the Bostrom report that was commissioned by members opposite. It is beyond a consultation that was never afforded the public of Manitoba when they closed down a downtown casino. They went contrary to Tourism Winnipeg, the City of Winnipeg, and the hotel association. They told us it was only going to be somewhere around $55 million, and now we find out it is double the cost, and nobody over there wants to take responsibility. We promised this implementation in the election campaign, and we are implementing a process that has selected two individuals that are independent of government. If the former Premier does not trust Mr. Freedman and Mr. Nadeau, we do.

Mr. Filmon: The Premier refers to the Bostrom report. The Bostrom report said the casinos should only go on aboriginal lands. These casinos are being proposed for areas that are not aboriginal lands. They are not reserve lands. That is the point. He has also talked about consultation. He has talked about local approval which is called for in this RFP. What will he consider to be local approval? Will he ensure that there be a referendum or a plebiscite in all of the areas where these are located? Will he consider it, Mr. Speaker? because that is what the people are saying. If you want to gauge local approval, will you say that there must be a referendum?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I know on electronic media during the election, and I note August 30 in the Free Press and September 22 in the Sun and further before that in the Winnipeg Sun, there were the promises we were making in the election that were published and fully available to the public for scrutiny, debate, agreement or disagreement in an election campaign.

I recognize, and our advice from places like Saskatchewan where there have been aboriginal casinos established in Prince Albert and in Yorkton, that it was very stressful at the beginning with the community and the Aboriginal people. It has worked out quite well after it has been established.

I know, Mr. Speaker, there are sensitivities in our local communities. I know that the local councillors have been meeting with some of the proponents of the casinos, but this is not something that has been announced. The expansion of those VLTs to Winnipeg was made by government press release by members opposite. The expansion to the Assiniboia Downs and the gambling on those spots was made without consultation with the public. The closing of the Crystal Casino in downtown Winnipeg and the expansions, with false numbers in terms of what the final results are, were made by members opposite. Right now, as we speak, there is a public meeting going on in West St. Paul. The people are being consulted, unlike members opposite.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the land for the casinos in Winnipeg, both at Regent and on McPhillips, was bought by the New Democrats when they were in government for the purpose of setting up gaming establishments, and that was done without consultation. But this is the Government and the Leader who said that they were going to engage in a new era.

He refers to Saskatchewan. In Saskatoon, the people said they did not want a casino. The government there, the NDP Government, assured them they would not have to have that. They had a vote on it and turned it down. Is he saying, as the Minister said very recently, even within the last month, the Minister responsible for gaming in Saskatchewan was asked to confirm that they would not put a casino into Saskatoon because the people did not want it and he said, yes, we will listen to the people? Will he be as much a democrat as his colleague in Saskatchewan and listen to the people and not put a casino where the people turned it down by public referendum?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who used to say one thing in an election and do something completely opposite, has no business lecturing us.

What we said in the election campaign and where we clearly articulated what we would be doing in the election campaign, we are doing what we said we would do after the election when we made those statements and proposals in the election campaign. I know it is a novel idea to members opposite, but we believe that democracy means you say what you are going to do in an election campaign and you say it honestly and you do not totally deceive the public during a campaign.

We recognize that establishing an independent body from Government, the two co-chairs from Government, means that we have delegated to a politically independent body the decision to recommend where the casinos will be located. We believe that taking the politics out of siting of casinos is very, very important to see at the end of the day that there are logical decisions based on merit and not to be based on perceived politics. We respect that independent process.

We made a promise in the election campaign, and we are implementing it with independent people who are going to make the recommendations to Government. That is the process we established, and that is democracy.

Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, my question also is to the First Minister (Mr. Doer), in regard to the gaming question. I am reminded back in 1994 when the NDP brought in a bill to The Lotteries Accountability Act in which there was a fair amount of reference made to the fact that there should be more public consultation, the public should be involved with the decision making, and that there should be studies made on the social and economic impacts of the casinos.

The Lotteries Minister has mentioned that Winnipeg had enough casinos with two of them. With the casinos being proposed in Headingley and now in St. Andrews, will the First Minister commit in this House and to the people of Manitoba that if there are binding plebiscites held and votes being held by the communities that do not want casinos in their community, whether it is aboriginal or other, will this Government abide by those people's commands and not establish casinos?

Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr. Speaker, just with regard to First Nations casinos, I hope that we do not overlook the fact that host First Nations will benefit, you know, by new jobs, tourism, spin-offs in hotels, restaurants, all kinds of economic spin-offs. [interjection] I am really pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Filmon) say that they are not opposed to casinos.

Mr. Reimer: Maybe I will repeat the question, Mr. Speaker. My question was actually to the First Minister (Mr. Doer).

If there is general support in a community by a plebiscite which was held like in Headingley, will this Government abide by that plebiscite and not establish casinos in that community? That is a simple question. Will they abide by the people, the people who are saying that they do not want casinos in their communities?

* (14:10)

Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not want to predispose any decisions because this is, of course, an independent selection committee, and they have a job to do and far different from some of the members opposite. We trust Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman will truly do an independent job and look at all the criteria and base this on business decisions, and we trust their opinion. They have the trust of this Government.

Mr. Reimer: My question then to the Minister responsible for Gaming. The Bostrom report says that the committee shall be made up of five people. The committee that this Government appointed is two people. The Bostrom report says aboriginal casinos on reserves. They are now talking about off reserve, on urban reserve. Now that they are saying that they have got a report, that they are abiding by the Bostrom report, it would seem that on the weekend we had the Easter bunny doing a hippity-hop; now we have the NDP doing a flip-flop.

Will they abide by the people and listen to the people that say that they do not want them in their community? It is a simple question. If the casinos are to be established, will they abide by the people saying that they do not want them in their community?

Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, next we are going to have the Honourable Member from across the way suggesting that we increase all the staff in the departments and increase Government to larger sizes with–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lemieux: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that we do not want to make any comments that will prejudice the independent selection process in any way. This is an independent committee, independent from Government. They are going to base their decisions on the criteria set out in the RFP, in the request for proposals, and they will certainly pass those recommendations on to Government. The Member opposite knows that. It is an independent process, not to have politics involved in it. The Member opposite knows this very well, that the process like this is certainly the good way to go, and I think members opposite would agree that to have an independent process like this is truly the right way.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a saddened heart. There is a dilemma in the agricultural community in this province, and there is a much, much worse dilemma in the southwest of the province and part of the eastern part of the province. The flooding that was caused last year and the damage caused and the loss of crop have yet to be dealt with.

Last spring when the farmers of Manitoba came to the Province of Manitoba, the Filmon Government then responded very quickly. They put in place a $50-an-acre unseeded acreage program; they put in place a $75-an-acre forage restoration program; and they put in place a $10-an-acre custom seeding program that would allow people to hire people to put their crop in the ground. Currently we have yet to see this Government act on any requests that have been made.

We are on the verge of spring seeding, and flooded producers are still waiting for answers from this Government. What–

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, as important as the question is, of course Beauchesne says a question must be brief and the preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. I think we are moving on to three or four. I wonder if you could draw the Member to order and if he could just pose his question.

Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Government House Leader does have a point of order. Would the Honourable Member please put his question.

Mr. Jack Penner: On the same point of order–

Mr. Speaker: On the same point of order.

Mr. Jack Penner: On the same point of order, it seems very obvious that this Government does not want to hear what has been done previously by previous governments, and they are embarrassed by not having done anything. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Government needs to take action now because producers are hurting out there. I ask the Minister–

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the first point of order, the Honourable Government House Leader does have a point of order because a question should be one carefully drafted sentence. On the same point of order, the Opposition House Leader does not have a point of order. I would ask the member to please put his question.

Mr. Jack Penner: Could the Minister of Agriculture explain to these producers what her government is prepared to do to assist them, to give them further assistance to allow these young farmers to put a crop in the ground so that they can support their families this winter?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am glad that this government finally recognized that this is one of the most important issues facing Manitobans at this time. From the time we took office, we recognized this as a serious problem, and we pulled together a group of non-partisan people to take this issue to Ottawa. As a result of that, we did get support for farmers. There is $100 million that is flowing to Manitoba farmers in this year.

Granted, the issue of the southwest disaster program has not been addressed yet, and we are still working on that. We continue in those meetings with the federal government, but I have to tell the Member opposite that rather than ad hoc programs, as his government had to do, we have taken a positive step. This year we are going to have an unseeded acreage–excess moisture program that, under the previous government, would not be in place. We are bringing stability to our farm community where they have programs that they can count on if there is a disaster.

Mr. Jack Penner: Mr. Speaker, it has become very obvious to the producers of Manitoba that this government simply has no heart. I would like to ask the minister whether she is aware that during the 1997 Red River flood our government and the federal government provided a jobs and economic restoration program–it was called the JERI program–to help restore economic activity to pre-flood levels. We agreed to cost-share on a 50-50 basis with the federal government even though the normal formula of disaster assistance provides for 90% funding.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether her government is prepared to enter into a JERI-style program to help the small businesses, the farms, the non-profit organizations to try and recover to pre-1999 flood levels?

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Highways and Government Services): As Minister responsible for emergency measures, I would like to indicate I am disappointed the Member opposite has chosen to break from the tradition, I think, in this House when it comes to emergencies and what we showed when we were in opposition, which is an all-party approach. I want to suggest that what happened in 1997 and what needs to happen in terms of 1999 is that we get the federal government to follow through as it did in 1997, as it did in the Saguenay, as it did in the ice storms and recognize, when they have designated southwest Manitoba under the DFAA agreement as a disaster area, that they should be following through with the same kind of program assistance that was in place.

I implore the Member opposite to join with us to take that message to Ottawa.

* (14:20)

Mr. Jack Penner: Mr. Speaker, I would be absolutely pleased to chair a meeting of the federal government and the provincial government and act as a conciliator to see if we could not come to some sort of agreement. I will volunteer to do that today.

But, in light of the ineffectiveness of this administration in negotiating with the federal government, would this government indicate to us today whether they would put their hands into the Fiscal Stabilization program and use that program, as it was intended, to help the farmers in the southwest of the province, and especially the young farmers, to put a crop in the ground this year? Would you be willing to do that?

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that our position is the same position that was taken by the previous government, that this is a disaster. I would like to table for the benefit of the Member for Emerson, who seems to be a different Member for Emerson than sat in this House in government a few months ago, that what we have said is that it makes sense to say to the federal government, yes, we should have cost-sharing, but the bottom line is that cost-sharing should be based under DFAA, which is 90-10, because that means for every dollar of provincial support we put in, we get $9 back from the federal government, not one dollar to get one dollar.

I want to stress to members opposite, they got the same message. The real problem here is the federal government that refuses to sit down at the table and discuss the very real needs in southwest Manitoba.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, southwest Manitoba farmers have heard this government's platitudes in regard to saving the farms in southwest Manitoba. They have watched as last fall's trip to Ottawa seeking $300 million turned into a hundred million dollars with nothing targeted to their devastated region. They watched as this government announced that it would not participate in negative margins under which the AIDA program would have targeted more funds to that hardest hit region, but these funds were used by this government to provide their 40% share of the program generally available to all the farmers in the province. While that support is needed in the grain sector today, this government, like the federal government, has done nothing to target assistance to farmers in southwest Manitoba during the '99 flood.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture: When will they make a commitment to these farm families?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The Member asks when are we going to make a commitment to farmers. We made a commitment to farmers the day we took office. We said we would stand with them and get the federal government to recognize this area as a disaster. We went to Ottawa and tried to get special assistance, and yes, we did get a hundred million dollars, and farmers really must appreciate the hundred million dollars that we got for them. We put money into AIDA that was needed, and that has flowed through to farm families.

So I am not quite sure why the Member is talking that we are not standing with farmers. We have stood up with them. We are going to continue to make changes to programs to help farm families continue in a very important business in this province. We need a united front to stand up to the federal government, to have them treated the same way as the people in the Red River Valley and the people in QuJ bec. You should be standing with us on this one, not trying to divide the problem.

Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplemental question. Will this government, having received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal transfer payments from Ottawa since being elected and knowing that they have a responsibility to deal with this '99 natural disaster, take it upon themselves to direct some of these transfer payments or some of the funds from the $27-million Fiscal Stabilization account they inherited to help defer the costs of the lost farm inputs during the '99 excess rainfall and flooding of southwestern Manitoba?

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will thank my friend for that question. The Member asks whether we are going to bail out the federal government on their responsibilities. Really, I do not think any provincial government wants to take on that responsibility. We are going to continue to fight the federal government, and we hope that the members opposite will stand with us to ensure that the people in the southwest part of the province get the same kind of treatment as those people in the Red River Valley and the people in QuJ bec got when they had a disaster. That is what we have to have. We continue to work with the federal government to try to get that to happen. We have put money into the disaster in the southwest, into agriculture. Let the Member not say that this government does not recognize the importance of the agriculture industry.

Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, a final supplemental to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister of emergency preparedness. That is exactly what we have been talking about. Half these ministers or this government demanded that the federal government recognize that the $50 assistance, per-acre assistance paid by this Tory Government to distraught southwestern Manitoba farmers in August of 1999 as our provincial share in a cost-shared program for the $85 million which the southwest rally group and the Minnedosa group were seeking for lost inputs, thereby at least getting the $43 million to our farmers that their own government has conservatively calculated.

Ms. Wowchuk: The answer is yes. I am not quite sure what this member is missing. We have been lobbying on this issue for months now and have been trying to get support for the farmers of all the disaster assistance funds. We are not ignoring them, and I wish that the Member would recognize that as a government and opposition we have to stand together and get the federal government to recognize their responsibility in this issue. Let the Member look at the amount of money–we have enhanced AIDA, we have put $40 million. We have supported the farmers, and I would ask the Member to admit that his comments are not right.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, this morning there were eight patients in the hospital hallways in Winnipeg. The nursing shortage continues. The Minister has announced the two-year diploma program. He suggested this will be a solution to the nursing shortage.

My question is: Exactly when will this program be accredited, so that the nurses who enter this program know that they will actually be entering an accredited program?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for that question. I am not sure where the Member is coming from, whether he wants to address the issue of the hallway situation which has dramatically improved by all accounts; in fact, 80% down in December, 70% down in January, 70% down in March, days which Manitoba has not seen in five years, no one in the hallways, nobody in the hallways. In regard to today, half of the number that were in the hallways this time last year and at one particular location where there is a problem which we are dealing with with respect to the failure of previous governments to deal with it.

Regarding the nursing issue, I am glad the Member asked that, because I know from the Member's comments that he is confused about the process. I look forward to an opportunity to clarify the situation with respect to them, Mr. Speaker. When we made our announcement of our nursing strategy, we were dealing with the situation of a Tory nursing shortage that had been put in place as a result of layoffs by the hundreds, up to a thousand, where we were facing as a Government coming into office a shortage of 600 nurses in this province today and the prospect of 1500 nurses retiring in the next five years.

We decided that we would not do what the previous government did–that is nothing–and we would take action with respect to dealing with the nursing shortage.

* (14:30)

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the Minister failed to answer when the MARN certification process for the course will be complete so that the students will know.

But the fundamental issue here is why, why, Mr. Speaker? When it is going to take two years for the first of these students to even enter the workforce, how exactly does this diploma program address the immediate need for acute care nurses, skilled acute care nurses, obstetrical nurses, ER nurses, and so on?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for that question. I wish we could make our nursing strategy retroactive to take the place of the 11 years of inaction. I will forward to the Member our nursing strategy, which has not just a diploma program, but that talked about $3 million going to the regional health authorities for upgrading and training of nurses, that talked about initiatives to attract foreign nurses, that talked about initiatives to train foreign-trained nurses that are resident in Manitoba, that talked about initiatives to get LPNs back in acute-care facilities, that talked about initiatives to train and provide training to people who are out of the health care field, that talked about inviting people back to Manitoba who have left Manitoba, that talked about workplace improvements to provide improved working conditions for nursing.

I could go on and on about all the initiatives designed to deal with the Tory shortage of nurses that we faced coming into office.

In addition to that, we instituted a program, a diploma nursing education program for which there have been 1500 inquiries to register into the nursing program, something that was unheard of in this jurisdiction for over a decade.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, when we hear more about this program we learn, for example, that it is now going to be 26 months instead of 23 months. I ask the minister: What are the total extra costs of introducing this new diploma program going to be?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the Member will know from his discussions, I assume, that we spend about $9.6 million a year in an agreement entered into by the previous government that trains approximately 150 registered nurses through the baccalaureate program per year.

We know that for several million dollars over the next few years we are providing intake of 90 students at the diploma program, a 23-month program which will provide and train for nurses in the province of Manitoba to deal with shortages.

I want to clarify to the Member, because I know he has difficulty with the issue with respect to the diploma, I suppose he is going to ask about the diploma exit or the accelerated program. I want to point out to the Member opposite that when the university came to us and talked about it, they talked about the only other jurisdiction that had tried that where there had been one person that took part in it.

In addition, when we asked them, well, what about the diploma exit program? they said, well, we will exit some students earlier, but your net number of students will decrease. So we said we will do what nurses and patients have been asking us to do and, as we promised in the election campaign, we will put in place a diploma program that will provide flexibility, provide more nurses and not denigrate or take away from the already in place baccalaureate program that is in place. It is a win-win situation as far as the public of Manitoba are concerned.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, to mark National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, I have distributed green ribbon pins to each Member of this Assembly. I encourage all members to wear their ribbons in support of this very important issue. Organ donation is a very personal decision that all Canadians–[interjection]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is no participation from the gallery, please. [interjection] Order, please. [interjection] I ask the gallery attendants to please escort the guest out.

* (14:40)

Would the Honourable Member for Charleswood start again, please.

Mrs. Driedger: To mark National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, I have distributed green ribbon pins to each Member of this Assembly. I encourage all members to wear their ribbons in support of this very important issue. Organ donation is a very personal decision that all Canadians must make for themselves and share with their families and loved ones. It is important to raise the profile of organ donation and bring families together to discuss their wishes on this topic.

Canada has one of the lowest rates of organ donation among developed countries. Susan Stobbs of Winnipeg, a kidney transplant recipient, says: Too bad it is not happening here. I do not know what it is. Life is so precious. You never know when something is going to happen and you might need a transplant. People are dying in Winnipeg.

Mr. Speaker, currently there are approximately 50 Manitobans waiting for a kidney transplant at any one time and another 70 being evaluated for transplant. Although more than 23 000 Canadians have received organ transplants in the past few decades, approximately 20 to 30 percent of people waiting for organs will die before an organ becomes available. We can help decrease these numbers by signing our organ donor cards and by informing our family members of our wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all honourable members and all Manitobans to set aside time today to talk about organ donation with their loved ones to ensure that their wishes are understood and carried out. In addition, I would also like to encourage all honourable members to take a leadership role and share this information with their constituents. We can all help raise the profile of this important issue at home in our own constituencies, and I hope all honourable members will take this opportunity to bring attention to the importance of organ donations.

I will be signing an organ donor card today, and I hope all of you will consider doing the same. Thank you.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge the work of George Harris, a Winnipeg man who made national news this past summer when he took Revenue Canada to court to support taxation fairness for all Canadians.

In 1996, he, along with fellow members of Choices, were angered when they read that one of Canada's wealthiest families had avoided paying an estimated $750 million in capital gains taxes in 1991. You will remember that the federal government approved moving $2 billion out of Canada without paying one cent of taxes.

Harris, along with Choices, wrote to the federal government asking it to have the courts review the case to see if the money could be collected. When the federal government decided not to take action, Choices launched Project Loophole. This has now become the basis for Harris's court case against Revenue Canada demanding that it collect the taxes owing it.

I would like to express my support for the hard work being done by Mr. Harris and Choices. Their efforts on behalf of all Canadians who pay taxes and depend on government for services is commendable. It is necessary that we start to acknowledge that injustices in the tax system occur.

There has been wide support from Canadians all across the country who are glad to see someone standing up against a system which rarely gives the average citizen a break but gives numerous breaks to the very rich, including in this case. It is my sincere hope that this case will address the public cynicism surrounding government and the way taxes are collected. Never before has a taxpayer been allowed to take Revenue Canada to court over its treatment of another taxpayer. As of March 9 of this year, the federal Court of Appeal continues to take into consideration whether or not this case will be heard.

I would like to offer my congratulations to Mr. Harris on being able to get this far in receiving the unprecedented right to question taxation inequalities in our country. Thank you.

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the Dakota Lazers Female Atom A1 Hockey Team, the coaches and manager, who were victorious in winning the 1999 Provincial Championship held in Virden, Manitoba.

The team was comprised of sixteen 10- and 11-year-old girls from the St. Vital area of the city. The majority of the team members were only in their second or third year of playing hockey; however, these young women displayed superior skills and tactics when compared to their opponents at the recent competition. The coach last night indicated that the team was quite repeatedly characterized as being small in physical size; however, their desire, ability and sportsmanship prevailed. I would like to recognize the team members, the coach, assistant coaches and manager: Meagan Allison, Michelle Arrowsmith, Courtney Baydak, Jenna Berube, Aline Harding, Kayla Hobday, Jessica Jones, Vicky Klassen, Caitlin Knight, Kirsten Melkie, Zoey Moe, Melissa Morrow, Allison Papko, Catherine Schelander, Diana Shaw, Lana Steck; Coach Rob Hobday; assistant coaches Mike Knight and Kerry Papko and Manager Randy Arrowsmith for a job well done. I am very proud of this team's accomplishments.

* (14:50)

Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Member of this House to recognize an important organization. The Mennonite Central Committee was founded in 1920 to respond to the needs of hungry people in the former Soviet Union, and today it responds to people's needs all over the globe. Since 1920, new chapters have been formed across North America. As an example, the Mennonite Central Committee of Manitoba was founded in 1964 as an agency representing the nearly 200 Mennonite congregations. The MCC plays an important role, both locally and internationally, as a co-operative relief service and development agency. The organization has received much recognition in the past year.

Most recently, Mennonite Disaster Services volunteer Gord Friesen was awarded the Royal Bank Local Hero Award at the Volunteer Awards Luncheon. Friesen was recognized for his efforts to help victims rebuild their lives and access disaster relief after the flood of the century. During the 1997 flood, Mennonite Disaster Services took a leading role and co-ordinated the efforts of many organizations. A Premier's Volunteer Service Award also went to the MCC Manitoba Thrift Stores in the community groups category. The Manitoba branch operates 16 thrift stores which help raise over $1 million to finance a variety of programs. In November of last year the MCC was named outstanding philanthropic organization in recognition of its fine work. The organization runs a number of highly successful programs, including an aboriginal community development program, refugee assistance program and prisoner visitation program.

Today I would like to applaud this organization and its many volunteers. I am proud to acknowledge the important work done by this agency and its volunteers.

Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to pay tribute to a resident of my constituency who has been recognized for a very significant and well-deserved honour. Earlier this year Dr. Curtis Krahn who practices medicine at the Steinbach Family Medical Center was named the family physician of the year by the Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons. More than a constituent of mine, I am pleased to say that Doctor Krahn is also my family physician, so I feel well-qualified to speak to his abilities as a doctor and his qualities as an individual. The dedication he has shown to his patients is well known in our region and now throughout the province. Along with this, however, he has been a valued member of our community and an asset to our region. I might add that Doctor Krahn comes from a significant family of caregivers. Members of this Chamber might recognize the name of Dr. Henry P. Krahn, who is an uncle. Henry Krahn has been a leader in Manitoba in terms of medical advances, including radical prostatectomy and has been head of the Department of Surgery and Neurology in various Winnipeg hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Curtis Krahn is building upon his family's reputation as caregivers and in so doing is benefiting the lives of thousands of Manitobans. The award as family physician of the year is symbolic of the care, dedication and ability Doctor Krahn and so many Manitoba physicians bring to their craft. The occupation of physician is one which carries a great deal of responsibility, and those who practise it seldom receive the recognition they deserve. This award is a tribute not only to Doctor Krahn but to the many men and women who dedicate so much to the health and well-being of our residents. As the Member of the Legislature for the Steinbach constituency and as a friend and as a patient, it brings me great honour to offer congratulations to Dr. Curtis Krahn on behalf of the members of this Legislature and on behalf of all Manitobans. Thank you.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, is there consent of the House to proceed with the second reading of The Court Security Act? [Agreed]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The number of the bill?

An Honourable Member: Nine.

Mr. Speaker: The bill number is nine.

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms. Friesen), that Bill 9, The Court Security Act; Loi sur la sécurité dans les tribunaux, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce Bill 9, The Court Security Act. You may recall that on January 21 of this year I announced the government's intention to table legislation in this session that would ensure perimeter security provisions at Winnipeg's Law Courts.

I want to at first thank the Opposition, in particular the Opposition Justice critic, as well as the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gerrard), for consenting to the early introduction passage of this legislation. During the course of our discussions with the Opposition Justice Critic, a change was suggested. We have accommodated that request, and the bill before the House reflects now his concerns.

This bill provides a legislative framework for the perimeter security program that has been in place at 408 York Avenue in the city of Winnipeg as well as 1501 Chevrier Boulevard.

This program was challenged in the courts. In its decision striking down the program, on December 24, 1999, the Court of Appeal stated that: "It is a matter of notorious fact that security in the buildings that house the courts is a matter of real and sometimes pressing concern, not just for the courts, but also for the government that is constitutionally responsible for the administration of justice in the province. It may well be that a statute or a properly sanctioned subordinate legislation authorizing a perimeter security program similar to the program that is presently challenged would be found to be reasonable."

In order to allow the program to continue at the Law Courts, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench signed an order on December 1999 reinstating the program. The order was subject to further order or legislation. That order was challenged again to the Court of Appeal. Last Thursday, April 20, the court ruled that the order did not have the necessary force of law to allow the program to continue. Therefore, since then there has been no perimeter security program in effect at the Law Courts complex in Winnipeg. Sheriff's officials have been redeployed, however, to provide what security can be provided without the former system.

I just want to refer briefly to the judgment of the Court of Appeal from last Thursday, Mr. Speaker. In the majority decision, and it was a decision three to two, the following is stated: few would doubt the wisdom of ensuring that justice takes place in a safe and orderly environment where all participants feel their physical security is protected.

* (15:00)

It then went on to talk about the different beliefs or the different arguments that come to bear when talking about security systems. They then went on to say the question for us is not which of these beliefs is right who makes that decision.

The issue of courthouse security, as I see it, is a matter of public policy. Such policy issues are usually decided by the Legislature. This is usually so not only because the decision can then be made democratically, but also because it can be made by those responsible to the taxpayers for the cost of the program.

I also want to refer to the dissent. There were two that dissented, as I stated. Chief Justice Scott wrote the opinion. He says that this is essentially a matter of policy and in the circumstances only the Legislature has the ability to act. There he was referencing an argument that was made by a counsel for the appellant. Then, referring to an argument by the appellant's counsel, Chief Justice Scott said that counsel in its argument was putting forward the proposition that only Parliament can enact such legislation. The Chief Justice responds that that argument is quite wrong. It is our view, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is properly within the jurisdiction of the Province and this Legislative Assembly to enact in the course of its constitutional authority for the administration of justice in the province.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this legislation is not just about public safety or the safety of those in the Law Courts Building. It is also to ensure that justice proceed unimpeded, without intimidation. Justice can be skewed by the intimidation of judges, juries and of witnesses. Times have changed, unfortunately, and we all lament how times have changed. We are in a period of increased threats, increased risk of violence. The dissent as well points out this matter. Chief Justice Scott says: "Access to justice is an illusory concept if the public at large, to say nothing of the judiciary and court staff, have legitimate concerns about personal safety within a court facility."

It is a notoriously well-known fact that persons come to a courthouse for a variety of reasons, some by choice and some not. Some are neutral spectators, some are partisan in a particular case or have a grievance, real or imagined, with authority. Emotions sometimes run high. In the complicated and confrontational society that we live in, it is no answer to simply say there is no problem because an incident has not yet occurred. Such a response is cold comfort to those persons with real or perceived concerns about their safety and security.

Over 368 000 people entered the Law Courts complex on York Avenue last year. During that same period 4636 people decided not to enter or were turned away at the perimeter because they were carrying items which could potentially be used as weapons, including knives, scissors and sprays designed to repel animals. Since the implementation of the perimeter court security system in August of 1998 approximately 9000 weapons have been seized. I have seen the list of those weapons, Mr. Speaker, and we have seen the photos of them and the televised portrayal of those weapons. We have seen the array of knives and other kinds of weapons that were designed for the purpose of maiming individuals.

So we are not proceeding on some theory. We are proceeding on the basis of the experience that has been gained over the last couple of years.

Bill 9 strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the members of the public, victims, witnesses, employees of the courts and the judiciary and allowing people access to the courthouse with items of a personal nature not intended to be used as weapons . . . to the legislative scheme is a requirement for an exercise of discretion to ensure that a wide variety of circumstances can be dealt with effectively.

Those who pursue justice in our courts are entitled and must feel safe, must know that their safety has been considered by this Legislature and the people that they have entrusted to make decisions in this House. The measures contained in this bill support that goal. I am pleased to present this bill to the House for its consideration. Thank you.

Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, as the Justice critic for the Official Opposition, I would like to put a few words on the record. First of all, my predecessors in this post within our party who served in the capacity of Minister of Justice and Attorney General recognized over the years the need to have proper security in our courts. In fact, the current scheme that has been now ruled as not having a legislative jurisdiction to back it up was, in fact, an administrative policy put in place by a former Conservative Attorney General, again to provide support and protection for the public using the court process. Regrettably, and that is the way the system works, the current system has been struck down by the Court of Appeal, and the current Attorney General is left in the situation of having to provide that security and requiring a legislative framework in which to do it.

I would like to thank him for the opportunity last week, I believe it was Thursday, when the court ruling did come down–actually prior to that court ruling coming down, he had invited me and the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), to meet with him for a briefing on the bill to seek our respective parties' support to move this through the House in an expeditious fashion. I want to indicate that I had opportunity on behalf of members in this party to meet with the Attorney General and his staff, and we discussed the bill. There was one particular issue that the draftspeople had put into the bill that caused us some concern, and the Attorney General was quick to recognize the concern and to make appropriate amendments to the draft. I understand now from his comments to me privately in the House that that correction has been made in the draft rather than the original plan of amendment at committee. So the bill does meet our test and our satisfaction.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to recognize that it is an unusual step for the House to waive the normal rules of process for bringing forward a bill or any particular piece of legislation. Those rules of process are there for a very important reason. They are not there to convenience us as legislators. They are there to give the public, the people of Manitoba, the opportunity to have notice, proper notice of legislation coming forward that affects their lives; a chance to contemplate that legislation; an opportunity to study our words as we debate it in this House, or, if they are not able to be here, to at least read it in Hansard; an opportunity to appear before committee to offer their advice and comment to us as legislators; and to give us some time period after hearing them before the bill is reported and receives our final approval in third reading.

Each of those steps requires a certain period of time to elapse before we can move to the next step, and that, again, is for, I think, the protection and convenience of the public. There are rare exceptions when we as a Legislature should waive those rules to see a bill move speedily through that process which takes away, yes, some of our rights as members, certainly as opposition members, but also the rights of the public.

This is one of those occasions when I believe the tests for waiving the rules are certainly met. The need to have in place in our court system proper security measures to ensure the safety of the staff, the judiciary, members of the bar, the public, prisoners at the bar, to ensure their safety in the court system, I think, overrides the concerns that we certainly would have in normal situations where a government would seek to advance the rules or advance a bill through the process of the House.

So, on that basis, the urgency of this matter, the importance for public safety, I believe, certainly has been met, and our party on this side of the House will be accommodating a speedy passage. I would look to the Attorney General, though. I understand in the discussions that he is having with my House Leader that there will be opportunity for the public, any member of the public who wishes to offer their comments or advice to us, that that opportunity will be provided for in having this bill go to a standing committee of the House rather than be dealt with in the Committee of the Whole. So I certainly offer our support to the Attorney General in moving this forward as well as enacting this very important piece of legislation.

I just make one last comment to anyone who would say that this is a matter that is not of urgent purpose. All we would have to have in our courts today is one instance, whether it be in a domestic situation or some other matter before the courts, where one individual brought a weapon into the court house and did harm or took a life in our courts in Manitoba. We as legislators then would all have that on our shoulders, and we certainly do not want to see that happen. So I can indicate to the Attorney General that he will have support from members of this party on this side of the House for speedy passage of this important piece of remedial legislation.

* (15:10)

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, let me begin my comments on this legislation by thanking the Minister of Justice for having the meeting last week. He impressed upon me and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) the importance of rushing this bill through. As a result, I have consented to speedy introduction of this bill so that it can be debated. I, however, want to raise not what I think is a small issue which can be easily corrected, as the Member for Lac du Bonnet has raised, but rather that there are some fundamental issues about this bill which I think need that broader discussion, which need that broader input, which need some extensive public input at the committee stage.

I think that we should pause before rushing to feel that we need to implement this with absolutely the greatest haste of possibility. The Minister of Justice, in talking about the 9 000 weapons, it turns out did not mention that some of these weapons were metal nail files, that there was no cultural sensitivity in the approach, as my friend Kevin Lamoureux has pointed out and members of the Sikh community have pointed to me, that there really is a lack in this bill when one looks at it carefully, a lack of concern for the ordinary citizen and the ordinary citizen's rights.

If you look at this bill, it speaks loudly and clearly for the rights of those who would inspect people going into the Law Courts, who would seize weapons, who would search, but it does not speak very much or at all to the rights of the individuals. It is those rights that we must be very careful of. It is important, I suggest, that we have in this House not just the Tory party which put in place this process for search and seizure initially, not just the NDP party which has in fact now brought forward legislation to implement the procedure which was instigated by the Tories, but that we have a voice for the conscience of the citizens of Manitoba. That, I suggest, is an important voice for this Chamber.

I believe that there are three questions that we must answer. The first question: Is this legislation necessary? I would raise, as we contemplate the circumstance, that neither the Minister of Justice nor the critic in putting forward their point of view or their concerns cited examples where there had been violent acts, where there had been threats and intimidations by people using weapons inside the courthouse. All that was cited was the presence of many weapons which had been seized. As we all know, it is not just a knife or a kirpan or a nail file, it is how you use it. Certainly we need a greater degree of concern for the protection of citizens. We need a greater concern for the rights of individuals who will be searched.

I think that there are, in the way that this operation was initially implemented, a number of concerns as a result of the operation. There were at times very lengthy waiting lines. There were delays in court procedure because people were turned away. Whether it would be a pair of scissors that they wanted to keep, there was no way that they could do anything except either throw them in the garbage or throw them out in the parking lot, I suppose, or take them home. So many in fact went home and were not present at the court appearances or were late, so that there really has to be some rethinking and some input from the public on how the procedure operates.

I suggest that a courtesy at the Law Courts might at least be the ability to hold items which may be treasured whether we are dealing with an heirloom metal nail file or something else, a Swiss army knife that has been used to open wine bottles or other things but was never intended to be used as a weapon and just happened to be in a person's pocket going into the Law Courts. I think that there is the opportunity in the committee hearings to look more carefully at the procedures to improve the process considerably.

I would say in looking at this question, Mr. Minister, of whether this is necessary that we could compare the circumstances at the Law Courts to the circumstances in the Legislatures. In fact, in the Legislatures of this country there have been a number of instances where weapons were used in violent circumstances. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that if you are concerned about public places and weapons, your ability to move fast should at least be as much here within the Legislature as it is within the Law Courts that you are showing a disproportionate haste in one circumstance and a disproportionate slowness or tardiness in the other. Let us have some balance in how we approach this. Let us approach with due consideration to citizens' rights and to individual rights and to freedoms and liberties rather than a hasty approach which, while working hard on the basis of security, threatens some of those very important civil liberties which we all treasure.

The first question I suggest is: Is this bill necessary? I think the answer probably is yes, but the sad thing is the Minister has not presented the evidence. The second question is: Is this bill effective? Is it the Minister's attempt to completely get rid of any possibility of threats or intimidation in the Law Courts? No, clearly, just those using weapons of one sort or another. The effectiveness clearly, is it targeted in the right place? Do we need to be seizing nail files and scissors and things like this? [interjection]

* (15:20)

Well, I understand that the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) may think a pair of scissors is a weapon. Maybe the Member for Lakeside has been using nail files as weapons, but there are others who have a contrary view. Let us in our approach to this take a balanced view in which we are respecting the rights of individuals as well as working on behalf of safety of people at the courthouse.

The third question that I think it is important to ask: Are there in this bill sufficient guarantees for the rights of individuals, the rights of citizens? I think that this is perhaps the most important of the three questions. The bill talks about the appointment and powers of security officers. The bill talks about the use, the powers of the judiciary. The bill talks about offences and penalties, but it does not talk anywhere, I would suggest, about the rights of citizens. I think that the rights of citizens need to be considered and need to be considered carefully.

I think we can use, as it were, a number of illustrations. The question: What is in the bill that will protect Manitobans from violations of their privacy? I suggest that it is not there. The very members of both the other parties have failed to recognize that there are important cultural sensitivities here.

I would suggest to you that this bill looks like it was drawn up by the Conservative Party and introduced by the NDP, as it were a wolf in sheep's clothing which does not recognize the rights of individuals, that the NDP have tried to cover up what is the problem inherent in this bill, that there are some important rights and freedoms of individual citizens, that there are important needs to respect cultural sensitivity.

I would talk with example of members of the Sikh community and their recognized procedures and their needs to be during the committee hearing the ability to respond, to listen to members of different cultural communities, to recognize what has taken place under other circumstances, airlines, for example.

I am opposed to this bill as it is written. I do not believe that this bill adequately deals with the rights of citizens. I think it is curious that we have a Conservative Party which when they brought in casinos did it without public consultation, that we have a Premier now who is bringing in more casinos without public consultation and public referendum and that it is time that we make sure that there is adequate input from the public when we are introducing and passing important legislation. Just because the Tories did it before does not mean that the NDP should be doing it now. Just like there needs to be better public input on the casinos issue now, there needs to be better input on this issue, on this bill before we pass it.

I think it is curious if we move from casinos to the situation in southwestern Manitoba and talk about public input and citizens' roles and citizens' rights that there are farmers who are–

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am really enjoying his gibberish, but he is going nowhere. He is not talking about the bill that is before us.

Could you bring the Member to order and have him speak about the bill that is before us. It is called, for his information, The Court Security Act. We as Conservatives support this type of protection for Manitobans.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the honourable Member to please continue with his speech.

An Honourable Member: I am going to have to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Order, please.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour to sustain the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the ruling of the Chair, please say nay.

An Honourable Member: Nay.

Mr. Speaker: I would say that the Yeas have it.

Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for River Heights, please continue.

Mr. Gerrard: There is an important issue here which is relevant, and that is the question of the speed with which we act, and the speed with which we act should be in proportion to the needs of the situation. I suggest to you that in southwestern Manitoba we should have action with quickness, that there are options, as the Tories have suggested, that the Government could proceed with but is not and that the Government should be moving much more quickly. Here they are moving quickly on The Court Security Act when there are some real and important issues which should be thoroughly debated.

I think that there are issues; there are questions. We know that in this province for many years there was not this procedure there. It was only there in the last three years or so. Yes, there have been a lot of weapons found, but the real test is what were the violent problems, what was the intimidation that was present, and that unfortunately was not described by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) nor by the Opposition critic. What is the use in other jurisdictions? Yes, there are other jurisdictions which use similar procedures but how broad? I think that the Minister of Justice should have done more homework when he presented this.

Clearly, there is a need for an emphasis on the rights of citizens, the right to prevent undue inspections, the right to make sure that when an individual has his day in court that if they have a prized pair of scissors, a prized nail file, even a prized knife, that there be provision for holding that while the individual is in court, rather than that has to be tossed in the garbage or taken home in a way that must delay the court. I believe it is up to the Minister to show effectiveness of legislation in helping, in speeding up justice, rather than delaying it by producing long lines. So I would hope that sometime in the committee hearings that the Minister will present his recommendation for addressing this very real problem. I look forward to the Minister's comments at that time because clearly he has not addressed it so far.

So I will close at this point, but I would urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) to look at the rights of citizens to restore the balance in this bill and to make sure that in seizing weapons that there are procedures in place that will not delay court proceedings, that will in fact smooth the justice process that we have and allow more effective and quicker justice, rather than slower justice and justice that can be trampled with or people interfered with in ways that may affect individual rights and liberties. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 9, The Court Security Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

* (15:30)

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I wish to announce that the Law Amendments Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 26, that is, tomorrow, at 10 a.m., to consider Bill 9.

Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that the Law Amendments Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 26, at 10 a.m., to consider Bill 9. Agreed? [Agreed]

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Kildonan (Mr Chomiak); St. Vital (Ms. Allan) for Dauphin-Roblin (Mr. Struthers), The Maples (Mr. Aglugub) for Riel (Ms. Asper).

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), that the composition of Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner).

* * *

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there consent of the House to proceed with second reading of The Holocaust Memorial Day Act (Loi sur le Jour commémoratif de l'Holocauste), Bill 19?

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to grant leave for Bill 19, The Holocaust Memorial Day Act? [Agreed]

Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): I move, seconded by the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that The Holocaust Memorial Day Act be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Ms. Barrett: I would like to say that it is a pleasure to get up and speak on this piece of legislation, but I think any reference to the Holocaust or the events in modern-day Europe or frankly through the past 5700-some-odd years of the Jewish history, pleasure is not really a word that you should use.

It is my privilege–probably a better word–to get up and to be able to support this piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that is similar to legislation that has been enacted in, I believe, four other provinces in the country. I am delighted that the Opposition and the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) have agreed to send this piece of legislation through quickly into committee so that we may have this act in effect and in force on May 2, which according to the Jewish lunar calendar would be for this year the Yom Hashoah, the Day of the Holocaust.

I know many people want to speak to this piece of legislation and the events that have led to this bill being presented today. So, I will not take much time so that others will have a chance to speak on second reading.

While this piece of legislation refers specifically to the horrific events of the 1930s and 1940s in Europe, I believe that we have to put it in the context of the history of the Jewish people, history that I will be the first to admit that I do not have an enormous background in, but I do know that their calendar is over 5 700 years old. I think it is probably fair to say that in virtually all of the centuries of those 5 700 years the Jewish people have been subjected, in one form or another to persecution, to the worst possible forms that a society can think of to punish physically, emotionally, and every other way a group of people, either for their religious beliefs, or for their perceived role in the economy, or for any one of a number of reasons. Humankind does not need a good logical reason to persecute another individual or another group, unfortunately.

The interesting thing, one of the things that I find fascinating about the history of the Jews in this world is that there are two streams that go along with it that comprise the history for me. One is that they have, as I have said, been persecuted throughout their history. In the Old Testament, it is in Egypt, in Babylonia, in any of the countries of the Middle East, anywhere in the world that they have gone–and the Jews have been dispersed in their Diaspora for virtually all of their history–but they also have been the chosen ones. They have managed throughout that incredible history of persecution and hatred and mass killing that has culminated in the Holocaust in surviving, in showing a remarkable degree of ability not only to survive but to remain strong, no matter where they were, no matter in what circumstances they found themselves, no matter how far from their homes they were. So I think those two strands of the Jewish character and the Jewish history need to be recognized as we debate and discuss this legislation and what has brought it about.

Mr. Speaker, in our own lives, perhaps in our own communities, the persecution of the Jewish people goes on, and I do not mean that in the level that we talk about it in the Holocaust. But we all know situations where either directly or indirectly the Jewish community has been treated with less than the respect and the honour that is due any group of people in this country and in this world. They have been in the past, and maybe in some places still are, excluded from certain clubs, certain private organizations. I think that that is a very small slight in comparison to the Holocaust's sense of exclusion, but it does speak to the fact that the Jewish community in Winnipeg, in Manitoba, in Canada, in the western hemisphere and throughout the world still has challenges to face.

That is one of the reasons why it is very important that we support this piece of legislation here today, that we recognize as legislators, as people who are in leadership positions in our communities, the absolute necessity to remember the whole history of the Jewish people but also in particular to remember the events of the Holocaust.

Very briefly–and there is no way to adequately respond to the enormity of what happened in western Europe in the years from the early 1930s to the mid-1940s–but it is just overwhelming what happened to the Jewish community. We all know that there were 6 million people murdered, and I think all of us have difficulty accepting the size of that number, that there were 6 million people murdered solely because they were different from the ruling party, from the ruling junta, from the ruling masters of Germany and the countries that it overtook in the Second World War and prior to the Second World War.

* (15:40)

They were murdered simply because Adolf Hitler and his henchmen tried to impose their theories of Social Darwinism and felt that the Jews and others posed a threat to the purity of the German blood. It was not only Jews but homosexuals, Gypsies, the disabled, anyone who was "different" in any way who would dilute the purity of the Aryan race was targeted systematically for destruction. Events happened through the mid-1930s all the way through the end of the Second World War. I will not go into that in great detail except to say that people for 12 years or more were targeted, were killed, were murdered, were destroyed in an attempt to completely annihilate an entire population.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to reflect on the enormity of that situation that happened because whether we were here in Canada or in western Europe or wherever we were–or maybe we were not even, but wherever our families were–directly or indirectly, we hold some responsibility for what happened in Germany. We must take a sense of responsibility for being human, for being party just by our humanity for what happened in Germany and western Europe during the Holocaust.

That is why the phrase "lest we forget," which we in Canada use in terms of World War I and World War II and Korean veterans who have given their lives or who have subsequently died, I think the idea behind that phrase is something that we must keep in mind when we think about the Holocaust because we are all so close to–I mean, we all like to think that we would never participate in anything that remotely resembled a holocaust, but we are members of the human race, we are members of communities, and if we do not remember what happened between 1933 and 1945, if we do not remember what has happened to the Jewish community over 5700 years, if we do not remember what is happening in the world today to other communities, to other races, to other groups who are identified for destruction simply because they are "different" from the group that holds power or has control, then we run the risk of being different only in degree and not in kind from what happened in western Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.

We need to remember, as well, the spirit of the people who survived and even the people who did not survive the Holocaust. We need to remember that we also have stories of people who survived the internment camps, stories of people who survived the ghettos, stories of people who helped the resistance in all of those countries in western Europe and how unbelievably heroic those people were, not only the ones who were in the camps who made it possible for there to be some form of life there even though they knew they were not going to survive, but those people outside the camps who worked at great risk to themselves and their families and in many cases who were also murdered when they were found out, to help those individuals, people throughout the United States, throughout the rest of western Europe, in Canada who also assisted. Those people need to be remembered, too, because that is also part of our human spirit, the indomitable part of our human spirit that refuses to say I give up. I individually may die, my family may die, but it is critical that what I believe in, what I stand for, the positive parts of being a human will not die because in my own actions I will take responsibility for ensuring that that happens.

That also is a part of our humanity and that is why this piece of legislation, small though it may be, at least gives us a small sense of participating in the enormity of what happened in western Europe from 1933 to 1945 and hopefully will remind us, and I would hope more than just once a year, that we should never ever allow that to happen. With every fibre of our being we should fight against it when it happens in western Europe, we should fight against it when it happens in Africa, we should fight against it when it happens in South America, in Southeast Asia, wherever it happens, in our own communities.

In our own communities, when we say no to something, no to someone because they are different, because they challenge us, because they make us uncomfortable, we should stop and think what are we saying here. Let us celebrate the positive streams of our humanity and do our best to ensure that those dark, sadistic, evil parts that are still in all of us as the human animal are forever submerged and that the positive, life-fulfilling, life-enhancing elements are what we remember and what we celebrate about the Holocaust, those who survived it, those who lived through it and those who did not, so that this will never happen again. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): Mr. Speaker, as the critic for Multiculturalism, I am pleased to rise and express support on behalf of my caucus, my constituents, my family and myself for The Holocaust Memorial Day Act.

The atrocities of World War II and indeed all wars must never be forgotten. It is painful to address these issues, but it must be done. It is the only way towards ending hate, discrimination and racism.

Many Manitobans join the thousands of Canadians who helped secure Europe's freedom from the Nazi oppression leading up to and during World War II. We must never let the atrocities committed against the Jewish people ever take place again. Over 6 million men, women and children were persecuted for their religious and racial origins. This truly is unthinkable but, yet, nevertheless it is a fact of history. The sad fact of the matter is that systematic genocide, violence, racism, hatred and persecution continue to occur around the world in spite of our collective efforts to eradicate these horrible incidents.

I wholeheartedly support the spirit of The Holocaust Memorial Day Act, which encourages not only remembrance but education for generations to come so the past will serve as a lesson for future generations. Our children, tomorrow's leaders, must be educated about the horrors of the Holocaust so they can ensure that similar atrocities never occur again.

Let us ensure that Holocaust Memorial Day becomes a day about encouraging all Canadians to express their views about genocide. Canada has a tremendous history of mutual acceptance and tolerance.

I am pleased that Manitoba will be adding this province to the list of provinces that have enacted Holocaust Memorial Day legislation.

As legislators, it is also important that we reaffirm our commitment to uphold human rights and to value the diversity and multiculturalism of Manitoba society. Perhaps through continued education our children will be able to achieve what our generation has not been able to do, to put an end to systematic violence, genocide, persecution, racism and hatred that continue to occur throughout the world.

The Holocaust touched each and every family in Israel and thousands of Jewish people around the world. Commemorating Yom Hashoah will reinforce the commitment of all Manitobans to fight intolerance and racism in their daily lives. As time passes, it becomes increasingly important to preserve the memory and reality of the Holocaust in order to combat new forms of hatred and xenophobia.

* (15:50)

It is indeed a privilege to be part of the process that will see this bill enacted. I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to this distinctly horrible event in our history in hopes that those who come after us will learn from our experiences and the experiences of those who came before us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Holocaust Memorial Day Act. I am very pleased to be a part of the Legislature which is moving this bill forward quickly and appropriately so that it will be enacted, passed before the day of Yom Hashoah, the Holocaust Memorial Day, which is next May 2.

I think that it is important as we recognize the Holocaust, recognize the impact that it has had on Jewish people, the impact it has on global history. In the southwest corner of the grounds of our own Manitoba Legislature, we have a memorial which recognizes approximately 3700 Holocaust victims, victims with, in some form or another, Manitoba connections. It is perhaps symbolic that these victims are on a monument which is in the form, when you look from the air, of a Star of David. But, in fact, that star is incomplete to recognize the awful nature of the Holocaust, the tragedy that it was, the reality of what it meant, not only for people of Jewish background but for people the world over, because it was an extraordinarily terrible and all-too-real example.

From a historical perspective of what happened only some 55 to 60 years ago when the madness that was then in Germany under Hitler swept through many people with extraordinarily tragic and devastating consequences. It is a reminder to all of us that we must continually be on our guard. We must be on our guard, I suggest, not for terrible things like genocide, but we must be on our guard day to day to day for those things that will break down or interfere or trample on the rights of citizens and individuals in Manitoba, in Canada, elsewhere in the world, because we have built a society which is tolerant, a society with a system of justice which protects the rights of individuals.

It is with considerable pride as a Liberal that I remember the day when we had in our Constitution a bill of rights enshrined for all Canadians. Under a federal Liberal Government it is the composition of that Bill of Rights which is important that we remember in day to day to day. When we think of what happened in the Holocaust, not just the terrible things that happen in genocide, but the things that, in fact, if we are not careful, could happen: racism in communities in Manitoba; a lack of tolerance for individuals; a lack of understanding; a lack of ability to reach out and be concerned and compassionate for those who are different, for those who are needy.

So it is with pleasure and pride that I stand here today to speak on behalf of The Holocaust Memorial Day Act, to recognize the contribution that Jewish people have made to Manitoba society in an extraordinarily different and a variety of ways. Approximately 15 000 Jewish people in Manitoba have contributed in very important ways to what we have now as a province. They have contributed not only through their entrepreneurship, not only through their generosity, their compassion, but because they are there time and time again to remind us of the need for tolerance, of the need that we must always be cautious not to get carried away, always to be concerned about individual and citizens rights and the rights of those who may be different.

I spoke not very long ago on the Court Security Act on the importance of being culturally sensitive as we deal with people from the Sikh community and their tradition of carrying a Kirpan. So it is with the many different communities that we have in Manitoba that we must consider, we must be tolerant, we must be compassionate, we must recognize that our real strength in this province is our diversity. Our real strength is in remembering the importance of building on that diversity, building it in a strong way but always being cautious and tolerant and compassionate.

This act is symbolic. It is a testimony from government in the face of Holocaust denial by anti-Semitic and racist forces, right-wing fringe elements. It is a rallying point for those in the human rights community on education, human rights advocacy and so on. It is a recognition, an important recognition for the survivors and the families of survivors and victims for the Jewish community as a whole. For all Jews are survivors in a way. It is a recognition for all who speak out and who combat racism in all its forms and all its guises. It is an interesting statistic that the number of direct Holocaust survivors in Manitoba is not negligible, is about 300 people. So we pay testament to the extraordinary trials and difficult times that they faced as we pass this legislation and enact it into law.

Let me close once more speaking out on behalf of Liberals in Manitoba, on behalf of the Jewish people in Manitoba to build a province which is tolerant and compassionate, which remembers some of the previous disasters of history and uses as a rallying point that remembrance to build a better society. Thank you.

* (16:00)

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support The Holocaust Memorial Day Act legislation that is before this Chamber, legislation that has been supported in other jurisdictions in Canada and a strong signal from this Legislature that the Holocaust will not be forgotten by the people of Manitoba, through the act of this Legislature.

This act, of course, provides for the recognition dealing with the Holocaust day. It is consistent with the requirement to have the specific day consistent with the Jewish lunar calendar that is stated in this Act. The Yom Hashoah part day of the Holocaust will be determined each year by the lunar calendar.

Mr. Speaker, I remember being briefed by my dad about the war when I was younger. I remember he had a number of newspaper clippings from World War II. In and around the time of victory there were newspaper stories dealing with rumours and then confirmation that 6 million people were killed in a state-sponsored state plan, state execution of the Jewish people in the Second World War by the then-Nazi Government under Hitler.

I could not even begin to comprehend this act of murder perpetrated by a fascist regime on the Jewish people of Europe starting with the Jewish people of Germany, and I still cannot comprehend it. I still cannot understand the fact that this took place within the last century, within the last 67 years.

I think it is important. It is so unbelievable that it is important for us to have legislation in this Legislature that combines with the Memorial and other acts that we take to never forget this day and this deliberate and planned state-sponsored persecution of the Jewish people and the death of 6 million people, women, children, men, systematically executed. It is still incomprehensible that this happened, and it happened virtually within a couple of generations of all of us in this room.

The Act talks about the need for recognizing this day and the obligation that this Legislature has to protect Manitobans against violence, racism and hatred, emotions that we certainly want to deal with and manage in our communities across Manitoba. We want to protect Manitobans from racism, violence and hatred. We should be a Legislature that strives to do that with all our waking hours in terms of government action and legislative responsibility.

I have met with members of the community when they asked us to sponsor this bill, and I want to thank members opposite for co-operation in its passage, the timeliness of its passage for our Jewish community that exists in Manitoba and from the National Jewish Congress that is sponsoring this bill and this resolution throughout Canada. It requires all-party support today after the work provided by the Minister responsible for citizenship, and I think that it is important that at this time of the Jewish calendar year that this legislation is considered and dealt with on a timely basis.

I was at the monument when it was first unveiled on the Legislative grounds, and I have also been involved in the reading of the names where we all take turns readings the names. And to go on and on and on–I think it is over 7,000 people in Manitoba who are on that list, that testimony to hatred, that testimony to murder, that testimony to state persecution–is an emotional day because you hear 6 million, you hear 7000, but to read the names of each individual and its connection to families here in Manitoba humanizes the dehumanization and murder that took place, as I say, within the last 70 years.

I want to say that we as legislators must pass this act. We must continue to read the names. We must participate in the gathering at the memorial. We must look for and anticipate any signs of hatred and racism before it is allowed to manifest itself in our community or anywhere else in the world. We must recognize the Holocaust as a day, an event that this Legislature and humanity must never forget. This Legislature in passing this bill shall not forget the victims of the Holocaust and shall not forget the lessons of humanity to prevent a holocaust in the future.

I therefore support this bill, and I am proud to have participated with members opposite and our minister on the provision to move this forward and provide leave to deal with this bill today. Thank you.

Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour I think for all of us today to have the opportunity to participate in the discussion or the debate on this particular bill. I feel very honoured and privileged to be in this Assembly to have the opportunity to add a few words and comments to those that have been said very eloquently by those who have spoken before me.

The Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) and the Honourable First Minister (Mr. Doer) both referenced the Holocaust Memorial on the grounds of this Legislative Building, and that is a memorial that I think for those of us on this side of the House were most proud when as a new administration it was one of the first projects on the grounds of this Legislative Assembly that took place after our election in 1988.

It was is a very special monument and memorial, and one that is very unique on the grounds of our building. There are some 7000 names that the First Minister references. They have one thing that is different from all other names or almost all others that appear on the monuments of this building, and that is that with all of those 7000 people they were not Manitobans. They did not know our province. They did not know its beauty. They did not live here. They did not work here. They did not call Manitoba home.

What they had in common or as a tie to our province is that their family or relatives that survived the Holocaust, many because they had immigrated to Manitoba prior to the Second World War, others because family members had survived the Holocaust in Europe, the war in Europe, and had immigrated to Canada in the post-war years. Their tie to this province was that their family was here and paid tribute to their memory by having their names placed on that memorial on our legislative grounds. It is, I would remind members, the only Holocaust memorial on any parliamentary grounds in our nation. I think that makes Winnipeg and Manitoba a very special place in the Canadian mosaic.

Every time I look at that monument and I see those names–and there have been many days when I have walked by and I have looked at it–just what strikes me is that, for all of those 7000 people, the only memory or place in the world where their names survive is on our legislative grounds and in the hearts and memories of their families. It is quite a privilege for us to be the home, the repository of their public memory.

I remember some years ago as a young MLA when we were entertaining a delegation of German parliamentarians, and when they realized that we had a Holocaust Memorial in our province, on our legislative grounds, they asked if we could arrange for a wreath laying by their delegation at that memorial. I remember calling the Canadian Jewish Congress and indicating that we have had this request, and they were quite pleased to accommodate. We went out there on an afternoon, and there were quite a number of us. There were a representative of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a number there from the Jewish community in Winnipeg, and the German parliamentarians who laid a wreath. Mr. Alexander Longolius, who headed that delegation, who was a member of the Berlin State Parliament, spoke on behalf of the German parliamentarians, and a gentleman whose name now escapes me spoke on behalf of the Jewish Canadian Congress. It was one of the most moving and memorable occasions of my life as a member of this Legislature.

* (16:10)

Here we had people who, about a half a century before, had been part of such an incredibly terrible and painful part of the world's history, and here it was a half a world away on our Legislative grounds. The gentleman who represented the Jewish Congress was a Holocaust survivor which made the event even, I think, more significant. I remember that individual saying in his closing remarks, making an act of forgiveness to those who were there, and it was when I thought about what that person had been through and the great kindness, to make that act or those words of forgiveness terribly impressive to me, but he also gave a warning. He said to all of us gathered that evil is in the hearts of all human beings, and the struggle of life is to prevent that evil from growing and developing into the actions of human beings. What wise words to those of us who were assembled that day. What very wise words!

Throughout the course of human history there have been countless examples where one race or group of people or nationality has persecuted those of another race or nationality, and they have done it on the base of race or nationality. Our history books, from the earliest time that human beings have recorded the events of their history, record such events. In fact, in my own background, my father being Ukrainian background, we think of the persecution by the Russian communists in Ukraine in the 1930s and 8 million Ukrainians dying of starvation in a land of plenty. We can think back to the persecution of the Mennonites in Russia at the same time. We can think in our modern era of the persecution of people in Africa and other parts of the world today when we witness it on the miracle of CNN before our eyes.

What made the Holocaust, I think, so different for our world in its time, was it was the first time in human history when all of the abilities and aspects and powers of the state, of a modern industrial state, were applied to genocide on a sustained and long-term basis. Here we had a modern industrial nation using all of the tools that are available to a modern industrial nation to organize the mass murder of a people on the basis of race and religion in a manner and with an efficiency never before seen or available in human history, and here in the mid-point of the 20th century, in the century of enlightenment, of technology, of humanity, we had that take place in a brutal, cruel manner.

Many times in this House we have debated and discussed issues of past wars, military service, and today when we remember the Holocaust and we debate a piece of legislation that shall enshrine in our statutes Holocaust Memorial Day, we can look back as a nation with some pride that our resources as a country, Canada, that our young people in the service of our nation participated in a war that brought the Holocaust to an end. There are many, many in our society today who argue for peace at all costs; for those young people in Canada in 1939 and 1940 going to war, putting their lives at risk, in many cases having their lives taken, was for a purpose, was for a purpose that was noble and honourable, that being the ending of a regime that could create such an evil in our world. So if anyone had any doubt about our participation in the Second World War, all one need do is visit Auschwitz or Dachau or Bergen-Belsen or many of the other camps to know that that war was not in vain and the sacrifices made by free peoples the world over were not in vain to bring that to an end.

I have what I consider to be a somewhat unique experience, but I gather it probably is not unique to anyone who has travelled overseas. As a young lawyer, I had a chance to spend a few weeks on holiday in Germany and other parts of Europe many years ago, and on a Saturday afternoon I found myself in Munich. I said to my travelling companions at the time I would like to go and see Dachau; I would like to go and see a concentration camp. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I had not raised it with them earlier because I thought that they might not be interested, but we went from downtown Munich to Dachau concentration camp.

The first thing that amazed me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was it took only 20 minutes to get there, and we took a circuitous route, 20 minutes in a car from the downtown of one of the largest cities in Europe. How close did that horror exist to so many millions who said they did not know or did not want to see.

So we arrived at Dachau, and much of Dachau has been lost to urban sprawl and development, but the core of that concentration camp remains. Many of its buildings are gone, but you still walk through the gate. I am not a superstitious person, but never in my life have I felt such feeling rising up in a place. You could sense as you walked in the evil that had taken place in such a facility; again, all of the power of a modern industrial state put towards the killing of a particular race, a race as in groups of people in that concentration camp.

We walked around. It was the last hours before it closed, and we walked around and looked at the buildings. What was odd was we all had cameras but not one person in our group or any other could actually take a picture. It was something that said to us that the evil that had gone on here was not something that you could photograph.

We walked along, and there at the far end was a number of religious facilities. There was a Catholic chapel that had been built there, and above it was a quote from scripture. There are many in this House, the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), I am sure, who could quote scripture far better than I could ever dream to quote, but there is a quote when God–the Cain and Abel story–when He confronted the brother who had slain his kin.

God asks where his brother is and he denies knowing. God says to him his life spirit rises out from this very ground, calls out from this ground. That quote was so appropriate, because from that ground you could feel, you could hear the spirit of the thousands who perished there cry out to those who walked it that day and every day since, and every day in the future that spirit will cry out.

* (16:20)

What does it say to us? It says to us, as that Holocaust survivor said to us on the lawn of this Legislature some years ago, that there is evil in all human beings, and when we allow that evil to triumph, it is the worst of all things, that we must continue to fight that evil within–within countries, within societies, within ideas that persecute, within ourselves. That is what this is about.

This is not just about one community in Manitoba picking a day that is meaningful to remember a great tragedy in its collective life in history. This is about all humankind remembering what happens when evil is allowed to run free and wild, when evil is not contained and fought, when the great power of an industrial nation is applied to that evil, what terrible things can happen. So it serves as a memory to us.

It is more, I would say, to all members, it does give us cause to reflect on things that we are doing today. Let us not forget that in the 1930s Canadian immigration policy turned away thousands and thousands of people from Europe who would perish in the Holocaust. Does that give us some thought to think about how we apply our immigration policies today? Certainly it must. It should remind us as well about our dealings with other countries, about their development of democratic institutions, their respect for human rights, their participation for allowing evil in their countries and how we deal with them. It must also remind us of our own policies in Canada.

There are members of this House, I am sure, who could rise today and tell us how policies in our nation, the way in which we have dealt with peoples in our country, with First Nations peoples, have on numerous occasions been seen from eyes that many of us would not necessarily have fully appreciated. So today tells us again that not only must we remember what happened in history, but we must remember it in making our own decisions.

What always amazes me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is those in our country who would deny the Holocaust ever took place. It amazes me that there would be those people who would want to push the Holocaust or any event like it under the carpet of history and human knowledge and what purpose could be gained by doing that, because, for whatever reason, that evil continues.

We as legislators have a special responsibility. We do not always get it right, Mr. Speaker. We do make mistakes. Sometimes we look at issues with clouded eyes, our issues of the day, the particular constituency we represent. I say that in the broad sense of things, but something like the Holocaust should always give us cause to look at issues, to look at people from a broader perspective and to think about how we are acting, what policies we are adopting and how we are affecting people.

So today is more than just giving passage to a bill for a particular community in the province of Manitoba. That community, by bringing this bill to the House for passage, has reminded us of our greater responsibility to humankind. If the Holocaust is to serve any purpose, it is the purpose of reminding us to fight evil wherever we find it, wherever we should find it in our world.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the privilege of being able to speak to this today. It is a momentous occasion and event for our Legislature and our province. I am very proud as a Manitoban to say to the world that we are today the only province in Canada with a Holocaust memorial and one that I hope joins many in passing this legislation, because the lesson of the Holocaust must survive the survivors; it must survive the participants in the military forces of the day; it must survive in our collective memory. This bill is one of the tools by which it shall do that. Thank you.

Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise on a bill that ought not to be necessary, but history demands that there be such an act, so we are in both the position of sorrow in having to support such a bill but also in a position of deep respect for those in whose honour and in whose present memory this bill is intended. I think that for me the reading of names is perhaps the most poignant and powerful of acts that we can do in rehearsing the sad events of the Holocaust.

As others have said, my colleague the Honourable Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett), it is also important to remember that this movement towards genocide had its roots in the eugenics movement, had its roots in the belief that somehow one race is inherently superior to others. So an eminent jurist and psychiatrist in Germany in the 1930s, the early 1930s, in fact, before Hitler came to power, wrote a small treatise that was entitled Towards the Release of Life That Is No Longer Human.

It is difficult to imagine a scarier title for a book written by a psychiatrist and a jurist than Towards the Release of Life That Is No Longer Human. That we should have the ability to define groups, individuals, races as no longer human and have the effrontery to actually dignify that in medical and juridical language is a truly frightening commentary on our power to dehumanize each other. The gentlemen in question were Professors Hoeke and Binding and this small treatise still exists. In fact, I saw a copy about 15 years ago at a conference sponsored by the Canadian Association for Community Living–it was then the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded–because as some members opposite, particularly those who have sons and daughters or brothers and sisters who are mentally disabled, will know, the first victims of Hitler's extermination were those who were mentally ill and confined to institutions for the mentally retarded. Gypsies were targeted; homosexuals were targeted; Jews were targeted. Jews being so much a part of history's persecution, from time immemorial really, they paid the heaviest price, but the other groups also paid proportionally a very heavy price.

I think that it is difficult for us to internalize and understand the process that goes on that leads to the sort of thinking of Professors Hoeke and Binding that it is even possible to consider a policy that assumes that some life is not human. Yet, you know, if you talk to military people, they will tell you that that is the key to teaching people to kill. The key to teaching people to kill is being able to dehumanize, desensitize, depersonalize the "other," who is the enemy.

* (16:30)

In fact, we had a psychologist through town here I think only about a week ago who had come from the United States War College and was expressing his profound concern about the level of violence, graphic violence on television and, more particularly, on the Internet, where it is possible to access without any kind of scrutiny at all the most amazingly violent and dehumanizing games that encourage children to think somehow that it is both acceptable and harmless to identify people who could be successfully and acceptably killed.

So, when we talk about the Holocaust Act, an act that I think it is an honour for Manitoba to put forward as a first province to do so, but it also needs to be understood in the context of a society that appears to support the systematic dehumanization of all sorts of groups. Even though our public pronouncements are antiracist, antihomophobic, and we can list the anti's that we might include, those are our public statements. Our media, which in many ways, I think, speak more clearly about where our culture is, appear to be prepared to act in a completely opposite direction, that is, to identify enemies and others and to reinforce the notion that it is somehow acceptable to kill and eliminate those who appear to be different. That, of course, is the root. That is the root of the Holocaust. It is the root of stereotyping. It is the root of eugenics, policies that focus on difference, magnify the difference, devalue the difference, then depersonalize and ultimately dehumanize, and then permission to do almost anything is relatively easy to gain.

The Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) quoted Scripture, and, of course, there is no end of quotes that could be used from that source, but to me the single most powerful thing we do every year is to gather on those south steps and simply, without comment, without any editorials, without any statements such as "we are making importantly here today"–and I do not denigrate that function–but the single most powerful thing we do is to rehearse the names of those who were killed.

I think perhaps the most poignant part of that rehearsal is that in many cases nobody knows where they were killed. So we have names, and they will say Bergen-Belsen or they will say Buchenwald or they will say Auschwitz or they will say Lwow, but in some significant number of cases there is no place of death. They have simply disappeared. What an anguish that is, to read a name and you do not even know where they were exterminated.

I, too, am a child of the Second World War. My father fought his way through Holland and Belgium and into Germany. It was interesting, and is interesting to me still, although he died many years ago, but he would never talk to me about his experiences. They were, I guess, I have only learned from a few others who shared some of those experiences–I guess they were simply too painful to tell to anyone, and so he did not. But, anytime I would express an interest or perhaps even suggest that there was something wonderful about that war that he took part in, he would not say anything. He would just give me a book, and I have it still. It is a coil-bound, quite cheaply produced pictorial history of Holland before the war, during the war and after the war in black and white photos, very, very high-quality photographs but very stark. He would just say take a look at the book. He did not want to talk about it, but that was his way of helping me to understand what this really was all about: the Stars of David visible on people's armbands, the emaciation and ultimately the many, many Dutch Jews and Christians and non-believers who simply died of starvation during that time.

So today we will speak and I hope by early next week we will have in place a bill which allows a nation to rehearse both to itself and with us the awful memories that must never be allowed to be forgotten. It is perhaps a trait that may be related to our Victorian ancestry–I think that is probably where it started–the notion that somehow if we were quiet about something or we can put it away that it will not hurt so much or it will not be repeated. But in fact, you know, again the Dutch people have a much more wisdom about this. I think one of the most powerful things they do is to assign to most Dutch schoolchildren the responsibility of tending the grave of a soldier who died in the Second or First War, primarily the Second War. So Dutch children learn and have a duty of remembering that our children do not have, and I often think it would be a good thing if we did.

But we will pass this bill, and I think our culture and our community will be strengthened by the insistent repetition every year of the names, so that we cannot ever forget that at some point in history a nation was targeted for extermination. Would that this had been the last time this had happened, but of course it was not. We have Rwanda, we have Sierra Leone, we have East Timor, we have nations still at each other's throat in Pakistan, in the Kashmir and India. It is important that at least in this case we have this bill and that we say neither this extermination nor any extermination shall ever be allowed to be forgotten and that we in this province will support anyone, any race, any group that wishes to actively remember to rehearse the names and to say never again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today on behalf of the people of Fort Whyte in support of The Holocaust Memorial Day Act. This piece of legislation, which all of us in this Assembly support, is about respect and it is very much about hope. It is as much about the striving for a better future than it is about remembering the events of the past.

Yom Hashoah, or the Day of the Holocaust, will be a day to remember with great sadness, the violence and the terror experienced by European Jews at the hands of the Nazis between 1933 and 1945. During that period of state-sponsored persecution and genocide, over 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler and his Nazi scourge. Over 1.5 million of them were children. We must never forget the suffering European Jews experienced at the hands of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazi Nuremberg laws deprived German Jews of their civil rights and storm troopers destroyed their businesses and places of worship. Following their defeat of Poland, the Nazis established urban ghettos and eventually extermination camps. It was not until the end of World War II that the extent of the atrocities put upon European Jews by the Nazis was fully understood.

* (16:40)

Yom Hashoah is an opportune time to reflect on the enduring lessons of the Holocaust and to reaffirm our commitment to recognize and value the diversity and multiculturalism that characterizes Manitoba society. This diversity is an asset to be cherished and to be celebrated. We in this Legislature have a unique opportunity and responsibility to speak up, to have our voices heard, to join forces in the community with those who directly experienced the Holocaust. This task becomes even more difficult as the survivors and their families get older and there are fewer people around to impart first-hand their knowledge of what happened, to impart first-hand their knowledge to their children, to their families and to their communities.

At some point that generation passes from the stage of history, and what we are left with is the knowledge that has been given to us, the pictures, the stories, the words and the images, but the people who were there, the people who suffered, are gone. The challenge then becomes, for those of us who are here, to take that knowledge, wisdom and experience and to ensure that the lessons that were to be learned from that are never forgotten and to ensure that it never happens again.

I wholeheartedly support the spirit of this bill because it encourages not only remembrance but also education, so future generations will come to learn from the past and never forget this black mark in the history of humanity. Our children are tomorrow's leaders. They must be educated about the horrors of the Holocaust so they can prevent similar atrocities from ever occurring again.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I say this legislation is not only about remembering the past but also about hope for the future. It is about ensuring that our children learn from our collective past. It is about hoping that one day we will live in a world without genocide, without persecution, without racism and without hatred. It is about the hope that we will never again see the kind of human atrocities that occurred during the Holocaust. We must guard against those who would spread hate and ignorance, those who believe that the problems of their own group can be solved by dehumanizing their enemy and eliminating them.

Events in Rwanda and Bosnia and Cambodia and other places around the globe have shown us that our generation has not always remembered the lessons of the Holocaust. They have reinforced the need to educate our children about what happened to the European Jews during World War II and to teach them about understanding, acceptance and inclusion. We must do this in word and in action. We must set an example for our children to follow. Today, I feel that we the members of Manitoba's Legislative Assembly are doing just that. I trust that this Act will be a symbol and a reminder to us to make a commitment each and every day that we will have respect for one another, that we will challenge injustices and that we will accept our differences and celebrate them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Linda Asper (Riel): It is very rewarding and healing for me to speak in support of the proposed Holocaust Memorial Day Act. The bill is important not only to Manitoba's Jewish community but for all of our citizens. The need for Manitobans to establish a day to remember the Holocaust is crucial as a perpetual reminder for the lessons it teaches. As some of the speakers have already stated, the Holocaust was the murder of approximately 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators.

Between the German invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 and the end of the war in Europe in May 1945, Nazi Germany and its accomplices strove to murder every Jew under their domination. Because Nazi discrimination against the Jews began with Hitler's ascension to power in January 1933, many historians that I have read consider this to be the start of the Holocaust era. As has already been mentioned by colleagues, the Jews were not the only victims of Hitler's regime but they were the only group that the Nazis sought to destroy entirely.

There are other historical events similar to the Holocaust, but the Holocaust has characteristics that in the opinion again of many scholars make it unique. Mass murder, sometimes on a scale of millions and targeting specific religious ethnic or social groups, has occurred throughout our history. Governments other than that of Nazi Germany have used camp systems and technology to serve deadly plans, and the Jews have been persecuted throughout much of history.

However, the Holocaust may be considered unique for two main reasons in my opinion. First, unlike their policies towards other groups, the Nazis sought to murder every Jew everywhere regardless of age, gender, beliefs or actions, and they invoked a modern government bureaucracy to accomplish their goal. Secondly, the Nazi leadership held that ridding the world of the Jewish presence would be beneficial to the German people and all mankind; although in reality, the Jews posed no threat.

Grounded in the racist ideology that considered the Jews the destructive race, it was this idea more than any other that eventually led to the implementation of the murderous policy known as "the final solution." As mentioned by others, vixens of the Nazi regime were Germans because of their political activities, those who suffered from mental or physical handicaps, those who were homosexuals, criminals or nonconformists, Gypsies and peoples of such countries as the Ukraine, Bulgaria and Russia, including Communists.

Today, I am speaking in support of Bill 19 by sharing with you my own personal experiences related to the Holocaust however insignificant they are in light of the suffering of Jews in that period of world history. All of us have shared stories of the Holocaust through images such as film, for example, the Story of Anne Frank, Sophie's Choice, Playing for Time and Schindler's List. More striking to me, however, than the images in our society have been the visits that I have made with my husband to Holocaust memorials around the world. For example, the New England Holocaust Memorial, located along Boston's Freedom Trail across from the City Hall, is striking in its simplicity and yet heart-wrenching in its stark reality.

The memorial consists of six glass towers, each etched with 1 million numbers. Each tower sits aside a pit dedicated to one of the six principal death camps. In this memorial, a small quantity of steam rises from the pits and fibre-optic panels create the illusion of fire. Evocative text and quotations are etched in the glass at eye level and on granite blocks flanking the entire way. Historical text is etched in granite along the edges of the space between the towers. A cylinder containing ashes from death camps is buried at the dedicated panel located there. The memorial is a statement to the memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of Nazi tyranny and a reaffirmation of the basic rights of all people.

When I was there on sabbatical a few years ago, I would often visit this memorial with my husband and experience the emotion it evokes as visitors perform acts of remembrance by leaving flowers and loose stones on top of the granite entry portals. I would look at some of the 6 million numbers and wonder which ones belonged to my husband's relatives who were murdered in the Holocaust.

* (16:50)

Terezin, another memorial, is a tragic symbol of the Second World War made into a Gestapo prison by the Nazis in 1944 and where tens of thousands of persons died. The majority, however, died in the extermination concentration camps in the east after their deportation from Terezin. In 1998, my husband and I spent a day visiting the Terezin memorial outside Prague, including exhibits prepared with the help of former prisoners. We saw an embroidered handkerchief made by Anna Simkova of the places where she had been imprisoned, the last message of Marie Hornofova before she perished later in Auschwitz, and the drawings by the Terezin children.

The Jewish cemetery and crematorium were grim reminders of the Holocaust.

In one section of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., that I had the privilege of visiting a year earlier, I saw a house-like structure tipped upside down on its roof memorializing the children perished during the Holocaust. There is an excerpt from a poem written by a child in the Terezin Ghetto: "Until, after a long, long time,/ I'd be well again./Then I would like to live/And go back home again."

This Washington museum tells the story of the Holocaust through artifacts, photographs, films and eyewitness testimonies. It includes Daniel's Story, written by Manitoba's Carol Matas, the history of the Holocaust from the perspective of a child growing up in Nazi Germany.

A highlight for my visit of 1997 was the Wall of Remembrance, a memorial of over 3000 tiles painted by school children, memorial to the 1.5 million children murdered in the Holocaust.

My most chilling experience related to the Holocaust was a 1992 visit to the Holocaust Memorial Centre in Wanssee. As part of the visit to Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, my husband and I toured the villa that now serves as a memorial and an educational centre.

On January 20, 1942, high-ranking civil servants and SS officers met in the villa, a meeting now known as the Wanssee conference, concerned with the organization and implementation of "the final solution," the decision to deport the Jews of Europe to the east and to murder them.

Words cannot describe the photos in the centre, photos that show the atrocities of the segregation, persecution and genocide of European Jews.

Wad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial monument in Jerusalem, was created to provide a perpetual reminder of the Holocaust, particularly its victims. Visiting this memorial is a very moving experience. An eternal flame burns. The building is a simple, low structure with a ceiling that adds to an overwhelming feeling of oppression, of being closed in and crushed the instant you cross the threshold. Inside are the names of the concentration camps inscribed in the floor.

I think the most touching thought that I would have on that was my husband when we left that memorial saying that one of the bars of soap could have been a husband or the skin lampshades could have been one of his relatives in the Holocaust.

Some 50 years later after the Holocaust there is ample evidence on the Holocaust through published documents such as material from war crime trials to video testimonies of survivals and other witnesses of the horror.

As many around me, I will continue to search for an explanation of the Holocaust, in keeping with human moral values and reason. I was reminded again of the need for us to speak out against hate and prejudice during a February visit this year to Brussels. On a late Sunday afternoon, my husband and I were on a public tram when an older gentleman got on wearing a paper yellow star on his lapel. We concluded that he had participated in the rally that afternoon against the political situation and individual politicians in Austria. It was a stark reminder of the feelings that linger from the war in Europe in particular, the potential that exists for a return to the persecution of people, and the danger of right-wing zealots that permeate society even in the most democratic countries.

To conclude then, Mr. Speaker, the Day of the Holocaust in Manitoba would be a day to reflect on and educate about lessons of the Holocaust. This recognition would be a natural extension of the Holocaust Memorial on our Legislative grounds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, prior to putting my remarks on the record, I wonder if there would be a willingness of the House to allow me to complete my remarks. I would probably be extending the time by about five minutes, maybe.

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Mr. Rocan: I would like to thank all honourable members for that leave.

First of all, I would like to thank our Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) for bringing forward such an important bill, and I thank the members for giving me this opportunity just to put a few words on the record about this important piece of legislation.

As previously stated, on September 16, 1990, I had the privilege of participating in the unveiling of the Holocaust Memorial on the southwest corner of the Legislative grounds. I am probably one of the few MLAs now in the House who was present when the Canadian Jewish Congress dedicated this monument, and I can recall quite vividly the remarks that were made on that most memorable day. There were many speeches that told us of the atrocities that happened during the Second World War. I am very familiar with the plight of Europe's Jews as my wife, Anita, is of Jewish descent. As such, I am very proud to say that I have a Baba and a Zaida, Morris and Rita Goldberg, and, as such, I have often had the occasion to be present at several events hosted by the Jewish community where I have heard from individuals who have talked of the terrible events that characterized Hitler's 12-year reign.

I have heard the names of many who fell to this evil, heard the names of the death camps, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, an almost surreal history from the lips of friends and family. This tragedy must be remembered. The lives of millions must not have been taken in vain. Their memory should be honoured.

The creation of a Holocaust Memorial Day would be a good effort in this regard. The Holocaust Memorial Day Act is part of a growing national trend of provincial Legislatures to recognize this day of commemoration. Ontario was the first to enact legislation, and I know that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec have all passed similar legislation. It is essential that through such measures we as Canadians reaffirm our commitment to be vigilant to the cause of human rights both here and abroad.

We hope that this action will encourage other provinces and other governments to acknowledge the importance of Holocaust remembrance. This type of legislation honours the memory of the 6 million Jewish men, women and children and the many others brutally murdered by the Nazis for their race, religion or physical or mental disability. It will serve as a sacred and lasting reminder to all Canadian citizens to treasure and protect humanity in all of its diversity.

The passing of The Holocaust Memorial Day Act will allow all Manitobans to devote at least one day–one day–to a consideration of a horrific past event that is linked to us because victims and perpetrators came from the same western tradition that lies at the root of our own society. By its actions today, the government has shown its awareness of the significance of memory and history in human action.

The systematic attempt to annihilate a group of people is a unique event in history with enduring universal lessons for all humanity. These lessons must be learned and remembered if we are to prevent similar atrocities from occurring in the next century. As legislators, we hope this day will serve as an important reminder that we must be ever vigilant in the fight against intolerance and racism.

The Holocaust Memorial Day Act speaks to the need to defend our framework of human rights and democratic freedoms which we enjoy in this province but which still eludes millions of people worldwide. The bill will help us focus our personal memorials to the victims of an all-state-sponsored genocide and provide a focal point for education on the central theme, never again. This bill recognizes that we must defend our democracy to best defend our human rights. It is only by those actions that we can claim true international citizenship and can call on our fellow citizens to defend us should we need their help. This bill is meant to call attention to what was done to the Jewish people in Europe and by extension to all victims of genocide.

I hope that schools will use this recognition as a springboard to teach the profound lessons of genocide and to teach of man's inhumanity to man in numerous places around the globe. As perhaps the best known and most deadly genocide, the Jewish Holocaust is a symbol of all other state-sponsored genocides.

It is still true, however, that the most poignant of these atrocities to any individual is the one with which they have experienced personal loss. The real danger in our society is that with time we might forget the very valuable lessons of the Holocaust. We might forget because far too many who witnessed the genocide and human tragedy were never able to survive to tell their tale. With the passage of time those survivors who did, some of whom are with us today, are with us in smaller numbers.

My heart goes out to all the victims of this most terrible form of murder. This is murder where a person's own Government charged with improving their well-being is acting absolutely against their continued existence.

I ask this House to join with me and vote to include Manitobans among the citizens of the world willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with that citizenship. The symbolism of our Legislature passing this bill will send an important message right across Manitoba and indeed the world that collectively we will work to ensure that the memory and experience of the victims and survivors of the Holocaust are never forgotten and collectively in Manitoba we will never allow those who propagate hate and violence to go unchallenged. I thank you very much for letting me put those few remarks on the record.

* (17:00)

Mr. Speaker: When the matter is again before the House, the debate will remain open. The hour being five o'clock, it is time for private members' hour.

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): I move, seconded by the Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger),

WHEREAS breast cancer is currently the leading cause of death among women between the ages of 35 and 55; and

WHEREAS since the inception of the Breast Screening Program in 1995 almost 50,000 women between 50 and 69 years of age have been screened; and

WHEREAS to date, over 300 cases of cancers have been detected as a direct result of the screening program; and

WHEREAS self examination leads to the detection of 75% of all breast growths; and

WHEREAS detecting breast cancer at an early stage increases the treatment options for women; and

WHEREAS the combination of regular mammography screenings and breast exams has been shown to reduce mortality by as much as 30%; and

WHEREAS in 1998 the then Progressive Conservative government introduced two mobile mammography units and mammography technologists to rural Manitoba to take the screening program on the road; and

WHEREAS the then Progressive Conservative government planned, developed and opened the Breast Health Clinic located at 100-400 Tache Avenue, to provide a centralized on-site facility that includes comprehensive diagnostic assessment, risk assessment, counseling, genetic testing and emotional support.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to consider supporting the goals and efforts implemented by the previous administration through the Manitoba Breast Screening Program in order to help reduce the number of deaths from breast cancer and to provide a service that is sensitive and responsive to the needs of women."

Mrs. Dacquay: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this resolution, a resolution whose topic has had an impact on the lives of so many Manitobans. I would like to begin by urging all members of this House to support this resolution, as the matter it touches upon is really a non-partisan one. I am sure that the lives of most members of this Assembly have been touched through the loss of the lives of loved ones to breast cancer. I am no exception. I have lost both family members and friends to this dreadful disease.

The face of breast cancer is not a pretty one. The cause of breast cancer is as yet unknown, and unfortunately it cannot be prevented. We know that a family history of breast cancer significantly increases one's risk. However, people with no family history of the disease also fall victim to it. According to the Breast Cancer Society of Canada, as many as 2 million North American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during the 1990s. Of these, more than 500 000 will die, or one every ten minutes. That is a startling and highly disturbing statistic.

The importance of breast self-examination cannot be underestimated. Women themselves detect nine out of ten growths. Male incidence of breast cancer accounts for 1 percent of all cases, so they need to be vigilant as well. In fact, my father was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent surgery for a complete mastectomy.

The smallest detectable lump is about 2 to 3 millimetres and could contain approximately one billion cancer cells. Fortunately, eight out of ten breast growths are non-cancerous.

It is heartening to know that breast cancer can be cured if it is caught in time. The odds for a complete recovery from breast cancer are highest when the disease is detected early. People must be encouraged to examine their own breasts regularly. Finding out that you do not have breast cancer is more important than the time and effort required for an examination. The public can never be overly informed about this dreaded disease. Perhaps we need to examine incorporating education about breast cancer into the curriculum at the secondary school level. It is important that all young women of secondary school age become comfortable performing breast self-examinations.

Education on breast cancer must also engage everyone in society. Information about breast cancer needs to be made available to the full spectrum of communities that exist within each city, town or village in Manitoba. Perhaps we need to do a better job of disseminating information about breast cancer in a variety of public places such as food stores, public markets, shopping districts, social service agencies, medical offices, local community centres and places of worship. That way information would be readily available to a broad cross-section of society.

We must also be mindful of the dynamics of socioeconomics, culture and religion in communities when preparing and disseminating breast cancer educational materials. Recipients of the information need to see themselves reflected in the material presented. Health promotion must not assume all women to be literate. Instead, the presentation of information must be creatively developed to be inclusive. In addition to written pamphlets, posters, books and articles, alternative forms of communications, perhaps such as songs, stories, video, et cetera, are required. These are issues that will need to be examined in the future as the province continues to develop programs targeted at breast cancer. Under the previous administration, a number of important programs were implemented to help detect and treat breast cancer in Manitobans, and I sincerely hope that this important work will be allowed to continue.

* (17:10)

In 1995, as I mentioned earlier, the breast cancer screening program was introduced and nearly 50 000 people have taken advantage of it since then. Our administration also introduced mobile mammography units and mammography technologists to rural Manitoba to take the breast-screening program on the road. This was especially important as it made it much easier for people in all corners of the province to have ready access to mammograms.

The former Progressive Conservative Government was involved in the development and opening of the Breast Health Clinic located at 100-400 Tache Avenue. This facility provides a centralized onsite facility that includes diagnostic assessment, risk assessment, counselling, genetic testing and emotional support. I think it is critical that the new administration recognize the success of these programs and ensure that they are continued. I know they have paid positive dividends for Manitobans and also that these programs were extremely well utilized.

The previous government was committed to helping reduce the number of deaths from breast cancer and to providing breast cancer services that were sensitive and responsive to the very needs of the clients. I am sure that the new administration shares these same goals and will explore further detection and treatment options for cancer patients.

One of the Manitoba's best screening program's strength is its ability to reach out to women who might not otherwise go for screening. As breast cancer continues to be a major health problem for Manitoba women, ongoing awareness of the options for early detection and diagnoses and treatment is necessary. For women between the ages of 50 and 69, the combination of regular mammography screenings and breast exams has been shown to reduce mortality by as much as one third. Response to the Manitoba breast cancer screen program has been extremely positive. This program has allowed health care professionals to reach women within the target age group who either had not had a mammogram at all or had not had one within recent years. This is a very tangible result and will prove of great value in detecting breast cancer early thereby improving the possibility of a positive outcome.

A woman who attended the program in The Pas wrote: I really appreciate having a screening program brought here to our community. It is something we women should tend to, but when it involves a trip to Winnipeg we tend to forget it. The mobile screening units are moved out of the vans and into a community site where technologists provide a mammogram and clinical breast exam. A screening mammogram is an X ray of the breast used specifically to detect breast cancer in healthy women who have no problems. Participants are encouraged to watch a video on breast self-examination that reinforces the need for women to practise early detection of potential problems such as lumps and changes in the breast.

Since the inception of the Manitoba breast screening program, approximately 50 000 women have been screened. The goals of the program are to reduce the number of deaths from breast cancer and to provide a service that is sensitive and responsive to women's needs. I am confident that these goals are being met and that lives are being saved because of the program and its dedicated staff. I look forward to the debate on this issue, and I hope that the members will give this resolution unanimous support.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): I want to begin by thanking the Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for bringing this resolution forward. I want to congratulate her in recognition of an issue that is of very deep importance to people, particularly women, in the province of Manitoba. So let me begin by putting those words on the record and expressing my appreciation for her bringing this issue forward.

I believe that for a number of reasons we should be taking this issue very seriously here in the Manitoba Legislature because we represent a lot of people who have been affected by breast cancer, and I think what we need to do as well is take the steps that we can as members of this Legislature to raise awareness as much as we can on this very problem that people whom we represent are living with every day.

Obviously, the first people whom we need to be concerned about are the people who actually have the cancer, but as the Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) has alluded to and has spoken on, this disease affects a lot of people. I know our family has struggled with cancer on a number of occasions, and I know what it is like to try to be a support to someone who is sick, to someone who has grave consequences when dealing with this sickness. It is hard on the people whom we represent.

This is a time, as well, I think, when there is an opportunity for us to debate this issue and recognize those out there who are supplying the supports for people who have developed breast cancer. The first line of support that we have out there is our families. I want to say that as I speak, I think of a friend of mine in Dauphin who has recently been diagnosed with cancer and is receiving treatment for that. I cannot help but think of not just the stress that she is under but also of her husband and the two children that she has. They are enduring a lot of stress, but they are providing a lot of support for my friend who is going through a very tough time right now.

Different supports in the community are important at this time as well. I think of neighbours in farm communities, neighbours down the road, who provide in so many ways the kind of support that is very much needed in times such as this, and churches, places where people worship. In the case that I referenced just a minute ago, my friend is a member of the United Church in Dauphin and receives much support and a lot of the prayers of people with whom she attends in that particular church. Schools, the programs available for her kids to help her kids through this time, these are all very important. They are essential if we are going to look at the total health care of our citizens here in Manitoba.

That is dealing with the supports that we need to have in place out there. Our government, as well, is committed to dealing with this disease. We are committed to the program that is there now. We are committed to improving it so that we can not only meet the goals that we have set to this point but expand those goals to involve the identification and the treatment of more people, because as the Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) has pointed out in her remarks, the earlier you detect the disease, the more chance you have of dealing with the disease in a positive way. That we can clearly say is a commitment of this government to people, particularly women, in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, we have available to us screening services. These services are provided for women in both permanent sites and through mobile units. The permanent sites that are set up now are located in Winnipeg and Brandon and Thompson. That is great, but representing, as I do, communities that are of some distance from those three permanent sites, I cannot understress the importance of these mobile units.

* (17:20)

The folks that live in the Parkland region, whether it is cancer or any other health care services that we need, are often confronted with a horrendous dilemma, a situation that just exacerbates the disease or the treatment that we need, because so often people from our area need to go to Winnipeg or to another community to receive the kind of diagnostic care that they need. They have to go for tests to larger communities. They have to make trips for surgery. That just adds to the amount of frustration and level of stress that people deal with.

It is not just the Parkland area. There are other areas of this province that very much benefit from the services provided by the mobile units. Of course, the other aspect of that is the dollar amount that it ends up costing individuals when they come from a community of some distance. Let us say they travel into Winnipeg. Usually, it is an overnight stay. It ends up costing money for hotel rooms, if you do not have friends or families that you could stay with, the amount of money you spend travelling back and forth. So that, too, adds to the stress level. So whatever we can do as a provincial government, as a body of MLAs, to decrease that stress level on people whom we represent, I say that that is a good thing.

The goal of the screening program that we have in place right now is to get 70 percent of women in the target age group. The target age group is 50 years old to 69 years old. Our goal is to get 70 percent of the women in that target group to be screened every two years. So that is the goal that we have been working with. It translates now into about 33 000 or so Manitoba women each year who are screened. Our goal is to increase that. We want to make sure that we do everything we can to screen as many people, as many Manitobans, as we can so that we can detect early signs of breast cancer.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that every year that this program has been in place we have come a little bit closer to that goal. Every year we get a little bit closer and a little closer. I am going to give an example. From April 1998 to March 1999, the program screened 25 437 women. The next year from April 1999 to March 2000, March of this year, the program screened over 28 735 women. That is an increase of just over 3300, which I must admit is 10 percent of the goal that we have set, but we are moving towards that. We are getting closer to our goal every year, and I think we need to recognize that.

I think we need to celebrate the improvements that we make as we go on. We have to keep in mind, though, that we have not got to our goal yet and that we have to recommit ourselves as a Legislature, as 57 MLAs who are concerned about the health care of women, particularly women, and we have to recommit ourselves to hitting that goal, to getting as close to that goal as we can and, once we hit the goal, then raise that standard again and again until we get to a point where we can rest assured that we are doing everything we can to detect early the presence of breast cancer in women in the province of Manitoba.

We have dealt with the target group according to the ages of 50 to 69. Manitoba women under the age of 50 and Manitoba women over the age of 69 are able to access breast screening on a fee-for-service basis and through physician referral. Now, again, here is a case where we need to concentrate on prevention. We know what our targets are. Our goal is for our target age groups. That is not the only area that we need to be concerned about.

We need to understand that prevention is important at whatever age a person is. That is as much a general statement about health as it is about this particular health issue, but we have to remain committed to the program and also look towards expanding the program to include as many women in the screening as we can, which, Mr. Speaker, is a goal of the screening program, that is, to increase the accessibility to breast screening for women throughout Manitoba.

The dramatic increase in the number of women screened in St. Theresa Point is a great example of this Legislature's and particularly this Government's commitment to making more accessible the services of the screening and the mobile units, complemented by the permanent sites that are there.

At. St. Theresa Point, the mobile unit actually travelled over the winter road to this isolated community and was able to provide the kind of services to a remote community in northern Manitoba because, as we know, the incidents of breast cancer are not confined to geography. They are not confined to one part of the province or another. Indeed, if one looks at the statistics and looks at the demographics along with those statistics, you can find with many diseases concentrations in one part of the province or another. Quite often we find that some parts of the province with higher rates of disease end up being left out.

So our government remains committed to taking steps to support women in improving their health status. What we commit to do is work with the people at CancerCare Manitoba. We want to work with the regional health authorities from one end of this province to the next. In that way we believe that we can respond in a very helpful way to those people in Manitoba, particularly women, who do need this service. So I want to thank the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for bringing this resolution forward and thank you for allowing me to speak on this resolution. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): It is an honour to speak in support of this very important resolution on breast health awareness. I would like to begin by urging all members of this House to support this significant resolution, because we are talking about women's lives. How do women react to the news that they have breast cancer? Here are some quotes: "I remember feeling fear, just fear, fear of dying, fear of being sick, fear of being in pain, fear of dying in pain." Another woman said: "When I heard the words 'breast cancer' I felt I had been handed a death sentence." Carol Shields, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author who spent much of her career in Winnipeg, said: "The shock was numbing. Waking up every morning during those first weeks and saying to myself or sometimes out loud to the ceiling, 'I have breast cancer.'" At first she was unable to tell family and friends directly about her cancer even as news of it spread quickly through Winnipeg. She said: "For a while I lost the ability to make ordinary phone calls or even to pick up the phone. It was as though I could not speak the words aloud myself, at least not without weeping."

* (17:30)

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women in Canada. In fact breast cancer rates in Canada are among the highest in the world, ranking second only to the United States. More than 18 000 Canadian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year and more than 5300 Canadian women will die of it. One in nine Canadian women can expect to develop breast cancer in her lifetime and one in twenty-five will die from this disease.

Mr. Speaker, these statistics are staggering but I feel that it is important to share them with the members of this Chamber. The more we know about breast cancer, the better armed we are to fight this dreadful disease. I would venture to say that no Member in this House, myself included, can say that they do not know anyone who has not been affected by breast cancer, whether it is a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a sister, an aunt, a colleague or a friend. We all know someone who has had breast cancer. We all know someone who has battled breast cancer. Unfortunately, not all of our loved ones win the battle. Breast cancer is a very personal issue for me. It is not easy for me to talk about this, but I truly and honestly believe that women need to do this to put a real face on the topic. Twice I have been faced with the possibility that I could have breast cancer. Fortunately, neither growth was malignant but that does not take away the four months of fear, dread and anxiety I experienced in the late '80s, four months from discovery to diagnoses, time to worry, pray, wonder what would happen to my two little boys if I was going to die.

My experience as a nurse, everything I had seen and heard, caring for women pre- and post-operatively, seeing a mastectomy being performed as part of my student nurse operating-room experience, caring for women on chemotherapy, setting up and running a cancer support group, all made me aware of what challenges I would be facing if I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I cannot help but think of my former nursing colleagues at St. Boniface Hospital. Four of them were diagnosed with breast cancer. I will never forget one of them coming to see me after the birth of my second child. Here I was holding my newborn and she was in bandages from her mastectomy. I am happy to say that she is still cancer-free and living life to its fullest, grateful to have precious time with her grandchildren.

Others have not been so lucky. My nursing boss at St. Boniface Hospital struggled for so long in her fight against breast cancer. Through chemotherapy and radiation, she never gave up. One of the hardest things I have ever had to do was to watch her dying slowly from this horrible disease, in incredible pain, knowing that beyond being a supportive colleague I could not do anything to help her. She was not as lucky as the others, but I will always remember the courage and strength with which she fought.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we put a face on this horrible disease. It is very important for everyone to know that breast cancer can at any moment affect anyone of us. Many members of the House will remember the 1998 Charleswood by-election when I was first elected to the Legislature. It was during that time that I discovered a second breast lump. For a few weeks, I campaigned door to door while at the same time wondering and worrying once again if I had breast cancer and this time perhaps I was not going to be as lucky. However, I was indeed lucky and blessed once again.

Alison Bales, [phonetic] a Winnipeg nurse, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1990 and since her mastectomy it has spread to her spine. She says she refuses to let the cancer kill her. As she put it: "When I was diagnosed I made a bargain with the Creator. Just please let me live another five years. Let me live to 50. Let me get my kids into adulthood. Let me get this far."

Her children are now grown. He daughter is 20 and her son is 21. Alison Bales [phonetic] turned 50 this past December and is not giving an inch. She said: I have to live.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it clear that I believe it is important to talk about breast cancer and the physical and emotional effects that it has on women and their families. This topic was fairly taboo even 10 short years ago. If we are not willing to talk openly about this horrible disease, then we will never be able to fight it effectively. Ten years ago, rarely would the word "breast" be used publicly or the topic of breast cancer be discussed so openly. In fact, I doubt that an MLA would have stood in this Chamber and shared her anguish about this very private part of her life.

We have seen much progress in the past decade when it comes to addressing breast cancer and breast health. No longer does a woman have to wait an endless four months to find out if a breast lump is malignant. Just last year under the previous government, Phase 1 of the comprehensive Breast Health Program was launched. It included the opening of the breast health centre, a diagnostic and assessment centre which includes genetic testing services, a commitment of funding for the Hope Breast Cancer Information and Resource Centre, designation of three hospitals in Winnipeg which will be the sites for breast surgery, information system linkages to the Manitoba CancerCare network and a commitment of program management resources to ensure co-ordination, quality, integration and consistent access to services.

Prior to this, in 1995, the government began funding a public breast cancer screening program for women. In 1998, the government introduced two mobile mammography units to rural Manitoba to take the screening program on the road.

We now need to focus on the prevention and early detection components of the program as well as to provide support to women and their families in the community. It is important to work within communities to link women and men to existing services and to address the special needs of each community. With this approach, there will be community involvement not only in identifying local needs but also in the delivery of services. This is a significant next step because delivering prevention and early detection services will lead to a reduction in morbidity and mortality associated with breast cancer.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all members of this House will unanimously support this critical resolution. I urge the Manitoba government to continue to support and strengthen the goals and efforts implemented by the previous administration in order to help reduce the number of deaths from breast cancer. The Manitoba government needs to be committed to moving ahead with the next phase of the comprehensive Breast Health Program thus providing a service that is sensitive and responsive to the needs of women. We must do no less.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution from the Honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay). I believe and I urge the government and members also to support and allow this to go to a vote. I would suggest that this is an important resolution for a variety of reasons. I speak here as a physician, as a doctor who looked after children with cancer, and so I think I can speak with some authority in terms of medical problems and in terms of cancer.

The early prevention, diagnosis and treatment of women with breast cancer is important to Manitoba. It is important because it saves anguish, it saves lives through the progression of the cancer, and it saves costs, because detecting and treating very early on allows for lower-cost medical care than when it is later on, when it becomes more extensive and requires higher-cost and more extensive treatment.

So as we move and we want to move in today's world to a health care system which is of higher quality and lower cost, here is an example of how we can do that by promoting and improving our ability to detect and to prevent and to treat early-stage breast cancer.

* (17:40)

I think it is important that the government allow this to go to a vote because, even though we have many problems and I have some problems with some of the things that were done under the Conservatives, it is important to recognize the substantial positive steps that were done when they were done. In this occasion there was some very positive momentum in improving the detection of women with breast cancer, and I would urge the government to build upon that momentum and to take it the next step. I believe that that next step means even more promotion, wider availability of prevention, but I believe it also means that we must constantly work to have a better understanding of the nature of the cancer, the reasons for both the genetic and the environmental causes and contributors to breast cancer, the need for the research to understand those so in fact we can do increasingly better in the years ahead. We know now clearly that there is both genetic and, we presume, considerable environmental components to breast cancer, with the everexpanding understanding of the genetic basis of disease. There is an extraordinary potential for improving the detection, the prevention and the treatment of breast cancer.

At the same time there is much evidence which would suggest that environmental causes are a major component of breast cancer. Although we understand precisely not very much, there are a number of factors which have been implicated, from the level of fat in the diet to the level of estrogen- like compounds in often traced components in the environment, sometimes perhaps basis of pesticides like DDT, and certainly the increase in the incidents of breast cancer was timed. Years after the introduction of DDT, as we would expect, for the development or the cause or the promoting factor which leads to cancer, for we know that cancers develop many years after those factors which are triggering or promoting the cancer itself.

So understanding these areas, being involved in Manitoba more, supporting those who are involved at the research level is important as the next building component. Indeed, we could benefit from significant additional investments partly because of the increased investments coming at the federal level through the Canadian institutes for health research and nursing research programs and so on. And because these are competitive, the better investments which are made here, the better advantage that we can take for Manitobans of the federal investments if we make comparable investments here in Manitoba.

There is potential, I would suggest, for improving the screening procedures. I was discussing with some of the honourable members the situation with prostate cancer and the prostate-specific antigen, and it is likely that there is potential for breast cancer screening tests along the same sort of vein and the development, the implementation of such blood or chemical tests. Indeed, one of the interesting findings right here in Manitoba has been at our NRC's Institute of Biodiagnostics, the use of techniques and technologies by Dr. Ian Smith, which may have the potential to detect breast cancer very early on. This is a program which again should be supported and helped so that we can improve the situation for Manitobans who may be susceptible to breast cancer and do it in a significant way.

Improving the screening and improving the treatment–over the last 20 years there has been a significant improvement in the treatment of breast cancer, but it is a constant, step-by-step, incremental approach that we need to take.

There are some rather exciting agents coming along, agents which would be involved in suppressing, for example, the growth of blood vessels into a cancer, thereby blocking what is called angiogenesis or blood vessel growth, blocking the growth of the cancer and stopping the cancer cold. Some of these treatments may in fact have much less in the way of side effects and so we should be actively exploring.

Although I was complimentary earlier on, I am critical of the previous government because there were some efforts in a major way to extend this here in Manitoba which they failed to support in timely fashion, this development of new approaches to blocking angiogenesis. For lack of such support we have lost time, we have lost a Manitoba initiative.

Moving on, let us build on the positive steps. I would urge the NDP members of this House to bring this to a vote and have a vote in support of this important resolution and to let it pass on an all-party basis.

Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Thank you for the opportunity to join the most eloquent and comprehensive presentations by my female colleagues here. I would like to join in support of the services that the previous government had suggested we continue to support.

I think I agree with the whole idea of putting a face on the disease. I would like to speak as a personal and a professional who has also been impacted. I am sure everyone in this room has been. I think for me this is a particularly significant year. Forty years ago my grandmother died. She was not 60. This year I will be turning the age she was, so it is very much uppermost in my mind and a constant reminder.

She died too young. I think I am too young. I have a lot of commitments. I think of the fact that her sister just died this year, had lived two-thirds of her life again. I am very, very aware that my grandmother did not see my children or my children's children. Her sister has lived to see her great-great-grandchildren.

I say I am too young; she was too young. Ethel Mayhaft [phonetic] was too young to die, but there are many, many women who die much younger than her. This is a disease that attacks women at a very young age; even though heart and stroke may be more prevalent, it attacks women at a young and vulnerable age, leaving young and vulnerable children.

As a health care professional–I was a social worker working in oncology, working in an outreach breast cancer program, working in palliative care–I have seen the faces of fear, the trauma. It is not just the woman with the cancer, it is the family that is traumatized. I understand what families go through, and I would like to address maybe that psychological factor just a little more. It is a very complicated disease. For women I think it is not just the fear of death, the fear of pain; it is also the fear of even through the treatments there are losses; the fear is that it is their sexuality. If they have nursed their babies, it is their nurturance; it is their identity. I think even the survivors of breast cancer are forever scarred just through losing a piece of themselves, maybe not a physical piece, but a piece of themselves in some way.

* (17:50)

I guess, given my family history and my knowledge of the disease, I want to share what my feelings have been. You would think I would know better, but this breast screening clinic, I think I would like to tell you how grateful I am because, despite knowing better, I had to get the second letter. We all have the fear, the denial. It took a second letter when I finally said, yeah, yeah, you are right. Come on, Bonnie, get in there. I think the thing that impressed me the most when I finally did get in there is the professionalism. It is the attitude of the people. You have made reference to the sensitivity to the needs. The skill level of the people working there, it is so clear. It was so clear to me personally that the professionalism and the caring, the information, the desensitizing in a way of just paying attention to what they are having to say took away from the fear, the humiliation.

I think even men can imagine what the actual mammogram is like. There is no getting around it; it is unpleasant. But these clinics and the people who staff them today have made such a difference. It has made such a difference in my life. But that is only one aspect. That is once every two years that you are called in. The other part of it, as you have also spoken to, that I took away with me that I think is also really important is having it become a routine, something like putting your seatbelt on when you get in the car. It is a prevention. People have to be educated to think of it in those terms, and these services have to provide a vehicle for taking away the fear so that it just becomes an automatic thing that it is time to do this.

I think I agree totally with the member for–Seine River? I am sorry, I am new at this–that education is key, and I think we have to get at the young people. Now I think that one is a tricky one for me because I am thinking we do need to get it into our schools. We do need to have young children think not only is it something they should be doing regularly, but they have to get past that body thing. I have granddaughters. I just try touching them anywhere, and I just cannot imagine them at this age being comfortable with that. We have to help our young people become comfortable with their own bodies, to be aware of them, to be able to think about doing self-examinations. That is even more critical in the prevention. As we know, early detection and diagnostic treatment saves lives. That is where we have to aim at. We do not want those surprises of finding the lump and then going in and being reassured; we need to have it reinforced that we feel we get checked, we get the clean bill. It is getting that clean bill that removes the fear, I think. I know personally that, to go in for the check, the worst part is: what if they find something? It is just incredible. It is like that dagger hanging over your head.

The other thing I think that is really important is timeliness. That really impressed me with the clinic: within a week, within a few days, getting that letter, that clean bill of health. Timeliness is critical. That is where the mobile units, I quite agree, time is a factor for the rural areas for people to come in.

In terms of the self-examination, I just want to make reference to the buddy system that our Honourable Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) brought and spoke about last year. I think that, as it was stated, if every woman in the province of Manitoba undertook monthly breast self-exams, the rate of breast cancer would be reduced remarkably and the severity of breast cancers that were identified would be much less. So you would detect the cancer at an earlier stage and have a higher success rate in treatment and longevity for women, and you would reduce the need for invasive treatment that many breast cancers require.

Now this buddy system, I think, fits in with that whole–to me the two key things were timeliness and routine that we need to build in, and the buddy system fits in beautifully with the routine. I do not know if anyone remembers or was listening, but I will go over the Buddy Check program. It has five points where you choose a buddy and you keep a set of stickers. You place a Buddy Check sticker on your calendar on the same day of every month. I think that is a wonderful concept. You check with your buddy to make sure that they have done that as well, and you use the yearly reminder sticker to get a yearly breast exam, although our screening program will remind you of that, thankfully.

It is kind of like exercise too. You know, when you are doing exercises with somebody else, it makes it more fun; it is healthier. It is part of a healthy lifestyle, and the breast exam can be incorporated into like thinking of have I eaten the proper meals today, have I exercised enough, have I done my monthly breast exam? If you have someone that you are buddying with, you are more likely to do it for yourself and the other person. You would be letting down the other person as well. So that kind of partnership makes it much more successful.

This buddy program started in Minneapolis and is also in Florida. It was a television station that undertakes the program, and I hear now that CKY has adopted this program. I think it is marvellous. I think that we should be promoting that. [interjection] Well, you were right. You were close with the figures. Since the inception of the Manitoba Breast Screening Program in 1995, a total of 59 362 women have been screened. As well, and I think even more importantly, 23 301 women have had a repeat mammography examination through the program. In all, 82 663 mammograms have been done by program staff.

Access to breast screening is available on a fee-for-service basis by physician referral for women under 50 years of age, which is not a bad idea either, and women over 69. Our Government remains committed to programs and services that help to reduce the number of deaths from breast cancer for both men and women. It does not cost women a penny to do breast self-examination every month. To not have early detection and services to provide for early detection is going to cost the Government money in the long run. It costs far more to deal with the ravages of the disease by not providing these services and–

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

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to pick up where the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski) has left off and to continue talking about a variety of issues important to breast cancer and the kinds of services and programs that are necessary, the kinds of changes that are necessary to deal with this problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is before the House, the honourable Member will have 14.5 minutes remaining.

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