IS SN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 123 - 10:00 a.m., MONDAY, 1 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BAHMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Ha:ry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W .J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW , Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constitue ncy Ste.

Rose Springfield Thomp son La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kil don an Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gla dstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 1 August, 1983. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitio ns . . . Reading and Receiving Petitio ns . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report on the status of the aerial spraying program to combat a potential outbreak of Western Equine Encephalitis.

During the weekend, aerial spraying was conducted over Brandon, Dauphin, Virden and Swan River. Thi s brings to 20 the numb er of "h igh-r isk " communities throughout Manitoba which have received the aerial appli cation. Monitoring of the mosquito kill in sprayed areas has proven the aerial appli cation to be very effective and, as was mentioned earlier this week, monitoring of viral activity in mosquitoes and birds is continuing and expanding throughout Western Manitoba and the Red River Valley area.

I would also like to report that the central task team has asked that the DC-6 aircraft used to conduct the aerial spraying be kept in Manitoba on a stand-by basis for up to a week until viral activity monitoring results have been received and evaluated. Again, let me restate that despite reports that a horse case of Western Equine Encephalitis has been positively identified, there has not been a single confirmed case of a human or a horse having the di sease. The Emergency Information Centre has handled over 8,000 telephone calls since becoming operational July 20th.

As the communities designated as high risk have all been sprayed, I am announcing that the Emergency Information Centre will operate on reduced hours throughout the remainder of the health emergency. The hours will be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Anyone with qu estions or concerns about Western Equi ne Enc ephalitis or the aerial spraying program is invited to contact the Information Centre. As an aside, I can inform the members that the City of Winnipeg has completed its larviciding program within a five to ten mile radius around the city and will start larviciding in the 10 to 15 mile zone next week. MR.

SPEAKER : The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker , we thank the Minister for his further statement with respect to the Aerial Spraying Program and wish to indicate support for the position of retaining the aircra ft on stand-by for one further week in order that, if further problems arise, the aircraft will be available for further spraying. There seems to be reports indicating a growth again in the number of mosquitoes and perhaps it may very well be necessary to use the aircraft again and we think it is a worthwhile position for the government to keep the aircraft on stand-by. MR.

SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... ORAL QUESTIONS Western Equine Encephalitis MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. In the report that he just presented to the House, he ind icates that a horse case of Western Equine Encephalitis has been positively identified and then goes on to say that there hasn't been a single confirmed case of human or horse having the disease. Would he care to clarify that for me? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Government Services. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Speak er, I'd be happy to. The case was identified clinical ly, but it has not been confi rmed by the lab, so therefore it is not confi rmed. It is still in a suspected list case, although it might be very probable. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: To the Minister of Government Services, Mr. Speaker. Unlike Baygon, has there been any adverse reaction with this new agent, malathion, reported at all? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I think that question is best answered by the Minister of the Environment, however, I can inform the House that the ill effects have been minimal. There have been virtually no reported problems from human cases or problems with humans with regard to the spraying, but the Minister of the Environment might want to elaborate more on the monitoring program that has gone on as to the effect that it has had on people and other animals and insects. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speak er, just before calling the bills, I might indic ate to the House that there will 4720

Monday, 1 August, 1983 be a sitting at 2 o'clock this afternoon, lik ely one at 8 o'clock, �!though I'll confirm that this afternoon, and I'm giving notice now that all the bills that are called from this afternoon onwards will not be allowed to stand in the name of any speaker. We want to see debate pursued in the House, Mr. Speaker. This morning we will start with Bill No. 95. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed mo tio n of the Ho nourable Mini ster of Labo ur, Bill No. 95, the Honourable Member for Tuxedo. (Stand) HON. A. MACKLING: Bill 10 7, Mr. Speake r. MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motio n of the Honourable Minis ter of Community Services, Bill 10 7, the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. (Stand) HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I will leave one then. Bill 55, Mr. Speak er. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motio n of the Ho nourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 55 , the Honourable Member for Lakeside. (Stand) HON. A. MACKLING: Bill 62, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER: On the proposed mo tio n of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill 62, the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. (Stand) HON. A. MACKLING: Bill 77, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motio n of the Ho nourable Mini ster of Ed ucatio n, Bill 77, the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. (Stand) HON. A. MACKLING: Bill 30, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed moti on of the Honourable Minis ter of Agriculture and the amendment the reto proposed by the Honourable Mem ber for Kirkfield Park, are you ready for the question? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I am unsure what is before the House. Does the honourable member wish to proceed with Bill No. 3? HON. A.

MACKLING: 30 - three zero, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motio n of the Honourable Minister of Finance, Bill 30, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Tuxedo. (Stand) HON. A. MACKLING: Bill 11 0, Mr. Speak er. 4721 BILL 11 0 - THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motio n of the Honourable Minis ter of Con sume r and Corporate Affairs, Bill 11 0, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speak er, I'm prepared to speak on this bill, as long as it stands in the name of the Member for Tuxedo. (Agreed) MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speake r; if there's any bill in this Session that shows the total lack and incom petence of this government, here is one. We have a clause in this particular bill which I'm sure none of the members opposite have had a serious look at. That clause that I refer to, Mr. Speaker, is the one dealing with the measure which will preclude any retailer, any person that makes a custom-made product in this province for some consumer, to charge more than 5 percent deposit with regard to that particular product. Mr. Speak er, that is absolutely ridiculous.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Sp eake r, I belie ve the honourable member has already spoken on this bill. I will have to ask the Clerk to confirm that. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speak er, just another indication of how incom petent this House Leader is. HON. A. MACKLING: I'm advised that it's a simila r speech, Mr. Speak er, but apparently made on another bill. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the idiotic House Leader on the other side who thinks he's the smart man in this group just has to go out and take this bill to the small retailers in his constituency and find out what they say, so he can sit there and laugh as much as he can, but this bill is indicati ve of the fact that this government has lost total touch with the small business person in this province and with the consumers in this province.

There is no way that somebody making a custom-built window for an individual can make make that window and charge a 5 percent deposit and hope tha t particu lar consumer is going to receive th at product. There just is no way, in doing busine ss in this province, that this type of legislation can be allowed. What we have seen with regard to members opposite, in their haste and their preoccupation with the bilingual resolution, which is now before us, they seem to have lost control of other types of legisla tion that they' re bringi ng into this Chambe r.

I, several da ys ago, mentioned the fact that this particular

section of the bill, which deals with this deposit requirement is one

Monday, 1 August, 1983 which the government should remove immediately. Why not tell the people of Manitoba you've made a mistake on this one, withdraw it before it comes to comm ittee and you're going to have to hear all the small retaile rs, the furniture dealers, the people who are involved in issuing specialized or custom equi pment for consumers. These people can't deal with a 5 percent deposit; it's absolutely lud icrous.

You take a person who's a small entrepreneur in my town, who's making drapes, making custom-made drapes for people; you're going to say to him or her now they should only take a 5 percent deposit? What business is it of the government, if those funds are going to be put in trust, what busin ess is it of the government to tell the consumer and the retailer what kind of deposit is to be made? This is absolutely ridiculous. It's tinkering of the worst order that this government has done.

I want the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to tell the people of Manitoba that he is erred, that just because some bureaucrat or somebody who's never been involved in the retailing sector sits down and thinks it's a good idea, sits behind his desk with his $35,000 or $40,000 a year, and says, this is a nice thing to do, Mr. Speak er, they know not of what they speak.

The Minis ter of Econo mic Development should intervene in this case and have that removed, because after a 1. 5 percent payroll tax, after a numb er of measures that this government has imposed, I'v e had many people call me in the small busin ess sector, and say, hey, it's just not worth it. Why should I bother emplo ying some people and working these long hours when this is the type of recognition this government gives to that. Mr. Speak er, there are a lot of people in this province that are ready to throw up their hands when they see this type of legislation come in.

Not only is it totally impractical, it also flies in the face of what every retailer and every consumer knows is something that should be worked out between the two parties that are making the deal, but to go ahead and tell the people of Manitoba that you are now not allowed to pay more than 5 percent of the cash price of your product as a deposit, Mr. Speak er, that's lud icrous. I've ind icated publicly that I will support the portion of the bill which says to people, to retaile rs, that that money should be put into a separate trust account.

I've been talking to banks and other people - I did that about six months or a year ago - to see if there were any steps that could be taken to avoid the type of thing that we had at Oiiman's Furniture, that we had at Terry Balkan where there was some di fficulty. I think at the Terry Balka n receivership, I think General Motors, as well as some other people, honoured just about all the deposits that were made. There's no question that where somebody leaves a substantial deposit, there should be some protection involved with that. Mr.

Speak er, I say that it's also not only good for the consumer; it's also good for the retaile r. There are many instances where a retailer requ ires a fairly substantial deposit to go ahead and order in a specialty type of item. If the consumer is in any way concerned about the viability of that company, that consumer will be reluc tant to give a large deposit to that individual. So I think in that particular case, the retailer will benefit from this act, from that

section of the act which requ ires deposits, because it will put the consumer's mind at ease that should a receivers hip occur with regard to that company in the intervening time while he or she is waiting for her particular order, then, of course, they will be protected. So I think, to that extent, it allows the retailer to go ahead and get a deposit which is substantial enough to ensure that the goods will be picked up by the person that buys them; but, on the other hand, also allows him to allay any fears that the consumer might have of getting that money back should something happen to his or her company.

So, Mr. Speak er, I have no argument with that side of the act; but to tell the people of Manitoba, in a bill, what they are allo wed to put down as a deposit is the height of lunacy. I guess, coming back to what I said before, it really ind icates the total lack of understand ing of members opposite of what business is really all about. I guess tha t's something we've come to know about thi s government.

During the election, they went around and said they were going to help the small busine ss person; they were going to help the small people; they were going to look after them, because those were the people that were the backbone of this province of ours. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that they are the backbone of this province, but they do not require this type of legislation. The Minister of Highways has been involved in selling.

Surely, he must know that when a farmer comes in to buy a particular special ized piece of equipme nt and the dealer has to bring it in from Regina or has to bring it in from somewhere else, 5 percent is not enough of a deterrent; very often the transportation costs are that. So a consumer is going to come in and want a specialized piece of equip ment which the dealer doesn't stock and, Mr. Speak er, the reason dealers don't stock very much these days is that everybody is trying to run their operation as lean and as profitable as possible.

Times are tough; you can't afford those high interest rates of the combine at $110 ,000 sitting on your lot, so what's happ ening now is many dealers in the car business, in the manufacturing business, in the truck business, in all these retailing sectors are drawing on other dealers with regard to certain equi pment. Let's say somebody comes in and wants to buy a new piece of farm machin ery, this particular dealer that doesn't have it, but he finds out somebody in Lethbridge has a piece like that. What does he do? He says to the farmer, I'll bring it in for you; I will transport it in.

This is the price, but listen, there is only - let's say it's a special piece of equipme nt that he doesn't sell maybe one a year at - so he says, okay, I'll bring it in for you, but I want to be assured that you're going to take that. The government is now saying you're only allowed to take a 5 percent deposit. Mr. Speak er, that dealer will not bring that piece of equip ment in for 5 percent.

Even though that farmer wants to buy it, he wants it, he's going to have to tell the farmer, go to Al berta and buy it, buy it from that dealer and then bring it in yourself, because I am not going to take the chance for 5 percent. This is the type of legislatio n this government is bringing in.

At a time when the retail sector is already hard pressed; when the implement dealers are trying to survive; when the heavy truck indus try is trying to survive, when many of the smaller stores in this province, the retailers, are trying to survive, they're bringing in legislation which will hurt the small person and hurt the consumer. 4722

Monday, 1 August, 1983 This is not going to tackle the big corporations; this is not going to hurt the multina tionals that the members often talk about; this is going to hurt the small person. The multinationals and the large corporations and the banks, they'll look after themselves. They've got enough cash flow, they've got enough of a backing that they don't have to worry about this; but this particular piece of legislation which talks about limiting the deposits to 5 percent is going to work against every small retailer in this provinc e.

I say to members opposite, before this bill gets to committee, do yourself the political favour, do the people of Manitoba the favour of withdrawing it, because at Law Amendments you're going to see submi ssion after submi ssion on this particular piece of legislation which will show the error of your ways. If at that time you are still foolish enough to pass this, all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that from a political standpoint there is nothing better for the opposition than to ha ve a government in power that is prepared to pass this type of legislation. Because for us, Mr.

Speaker, this one issue alone will solid ify and again show the people of Manitoba what kind of an anti-business, anti-small busi ness, anti-pr ivate entrepreneur these particular members opposite are. As I' ve said before, if there's any bill that has really pointed out the fact that they don't read their legislation and that somebody is sitting in some ivory tower and just writing these things down because it looks good or sounds good, here's a classic example.

The Min ister of Economic Development should be doing her job and speak ing up for the busi ness commu ni ty of Manitoba and ge t her Minis ter of Consumer Affairs to withdraw that section, withdraw it quick ly, so that the people of Manitoba can at least ha ve some sanity with regard to this particular government.

This is ludi crous, it's an absolute asinine suggestion to have that put in, and if the members opposite persist in moving this along, I just want to say to them not only are you going to hurt the retailers in this province, but you're actually going to do the opposition a favour, because it will ind icate very clearly the type of anti-busi ness bias that you have. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to addre ss just a few remarks to this bill, and more particularly to the comments made by the Member for La Verendr ye, because I agree with much of the sentiments expressed by him and his specific concerns about one

section of this bill, although I certainly don't agree with the way in which he has ph rased those sentiments. Mr. Speaker, I think it's worth pointing out that since the first comments were formulated by the public and by members of the opposition on this bill, the Min ister has been concerned about the particular 5 percent deposit provision. I know that he is certainly willing to consider amendments to the bill at committee stage. Members on this side ha ve been ur ging th at consideration; there have been discussions of that.

Certainly , as the Member for La Verendrye suggests, in specialty indu stries, in those ind ustries where the custom manufacturer or custom ordering of any kind of retail item is requested, a 5 percent deposit limit is an unreasonable requirement, and certainly members on this side are committed to having a look at that at committee stage with a view to amending it or removing it completely.

For the member to suggest though that such a requirement on some other straight retail purchases, which are purcha ses from stock or from standard lines, that would then be un reasonable in those situations, ignor es the very citations he quoted of previous history of retail failure when he talked about a certain furnitur e plant, a certain car dealer, about travel agencies. Regardle ss of what particular retail busi ness the Member for La Verendrye wants to talk about, there have been some serious concerns over the last several years.

He was in government when some of those concerns raised their head, and I'm surprised that as a Mini ster in the previous government he was not party to bringing in some corrective legislation, but instead left that responsibility on the plate of the current Mini ster of Consumer and Corpor ate Affairs. So for him now to loudly criticize this Minister for bringing in something which is totally inadequate and an affront to the whole retail sector of the province rings just a little hollow, Mr. Speaker.

But certainly the one point of criticism he makes does have some valid ity to it, and I pledge to him, and I'm certain the Min ister if he were available today would echo that pledge that will be looked at, at committee stage. I only ask members opposite if they have these kinds of serious concerns, why they aren't raising them in the House and then immedia tely asking the Minister to get the bill into committee so the corrections can be made? That's the way the good legislative process works. Members raise their concerns. It's no use hammering it 23 times; the concern has been registered.

I don't think it will convince the Minister any more to have me tell him that provision has to be changed, or to have five more members opposite. The Member for Emerson wants to get up and say exactly the same thing. Members on this side have taken to calling it Speech No. 3. Let's let the bill go to committee, let's change that provision and let's end up both helping the reta iler s of this province and pr ote cting the consumers. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOV NATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had no intention on speaking on this bill today, but I am absolutely forced to bring out a few comments, following what was just said by the Honour able Member for Springfield. There were some comments brought to bear, I believe it was on Saturday when the House last sat, and the questions were asked of the Honourable Min ister as to whether in fact he was going to eliminate this 5 percent deposit, particularly on specialty items. It was brought to the attention of the government and the government refused to answer.

The Mini ster sat there with a blank look, and we know that he is reconsidering, particularly this one item of the 5 percent on specialty items. But he refused to give peace of mind to those people who were invo lved by advising those people 4723

Monday, 1 August, 1983 that there would be some changes made before it came to committee, or even after it came to committee, not giving them the peace of mind that is required and sitting and preparing presentations when in fact the Honourable Member for Springfield has just said that there will be some consideration and, I bel ieve, that consideration to elimi nate the 5 percent deposit on specialty items.

I have a letter here and I' ve received many many calls, probably more on this particular item than I have on almost anything else, but I would just like to read this letter which comes from a specialty manufacturer. I know that it's being considered, and I know that the government has a big heart because they are in favour of promoting small busine ss, because I heard the Honourable First Mini ster make that comment that he is in comp lete support of small busine ss. I would just like to bring this letter to the attention of the honourable members. It comes from a very good friend of mine, by the way.

This friend sent a letter to the Winnipeg Cham ber of Commerce and this is a copy of the letter, and it's dated July 25, 1983: "Winni peg Cham ber of Commerce, Attention: Mr. James Wright , Pre sident. Dear Sir : We are very concerned as to the attached

article which appeared in the July 22nd edition of the Winnipeg Free Press." There's a copy of that one too which says 'Deposit safeguard for buyers proposed.' "We ask the Cham ber to lobby the government re the withdr awal of this bill. The consumer at present has more protection than the business or the merchant he is dealing with. If the government wants to protect the purch asers' deposit, we sugge st busine sses be bonded on their volume of business." Not only are they saying that it's a bad clause in the bill, but he's coming up with an alternative.

"This, ensuring the purchasers' deposit, should the busine ss go into bankru ptcy. "We are a manufacturer of customized windo ws and door products, with the value of most orders being in the $1, 200 to $3,000 range with a 20 percent deposit applicable with deliv ery time being two to four weeks. We have received no customer complaints re this policy, and see no reason for a change. It's time busi nesses receive some help from the government, not more red tape and rules. " It's signed, "Dorwin Ind ustries Ltd., RT. Joh nson, President.

" I bring that to the attention that this is only one letter that I have received, Mr. Speaker. I have received notes from other small busi nesses that advise me that they wouldn't be out of busine ss if this clause went through, but it would certainly hin der them, and they can't un derstand why this government, who claims to be supportive of small busine ss, is doing everything that the y can to reduc e small busin esses' cha nces of surviving. They will survive in most cases, but they are shackling these people.

The government has come up with a clause in this bill that the cure is absolutely worse than the di sease. It's like cutting off your arm at the shoulde r to elimi nate a sliver in your finger; it's like hitting a mosquito - and I'm not going to use the malathion clause, but it's like hitting a mosquito with a sledgehamm er when particularly a little slap with the other hand, if it lands . on your hand, would suffice. I can't un derstand their thinking. Their thinking is all directed toward losing the next election. They are doing everything in their power to reduce their chances in winning the next election.

I'm not saying it's going to be a fait accompli because they might come up with some brilliant ideas. I don't know whether they can, but they might. By listening to the opposition and the criticisms that the opposition come up with, they might come up with some good ideas that just might turn around their chances in winning the next election. I doubt it ver'f much, Mr. Speake r, because they have done too many things in the past to allow them the chance to win the next election. I don't want to carry on too long on this, Mr.

Speaker, because it's not really my intention to criticize what other members have said or done. I think that it's up to us as opposition and government members to come up with our own ideas in what we can do to correct a problem. I have found that I have never been one to criticize what has been said by others. I'm starting to change my attitude because I have heard things in the last little while, Mr. Speake r, that have caused me such concern that I just can't sit back any longer and allow this twisting of facts to go unn oticed.

I, as a representativ e of the people of the Province of Manitoba, have to bring it to their attention that some of the things that have been stated are twisted rather than not twisted, and I'm doing everything I can not to make any reference to mistruths because I know it to be unparliamenta ry. Mr.

Speake r, before I sit down, I just want to make a couple of comments about things that were said in the House, and I know that it has something to do with this bill but very very little, where I listened to the Honourable Minis ter of Natural Resources make a comment that the opposition has refused to let a particula r bill go to comm ittee - and to make it absolutely acceptable so that I'm not leaving the part of this bill to allow it to be consis tent with what went on, the Honourable Member for Sringfield also made some remarks to allow this bill to go to committee - but I did hear that the Min ister of Natural Resources advised that a previous bill was not allowed to go to commi ttee, that the opposition is doing everything that they could not to allow it to go to committee and that the opposition was doing everything they could to keep the people of Manitoba from presenting their views to committee, and that it was a government that allowed people to come and make their presentat ions.

Mr. Speak er, I sat in a committee that was listening to presentations on seat belt legislation, on helmet legislation and on children's restra in t, and th at comm ittee absolutely refused to allow the people of Manitoba to come again and make presenta tions. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The proceedings of a committee which has not yet reported should not be the subject of either questions or debate in the House. The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr. Speake r, I am speaking on the bill, and I ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr.

Speake r, I'm just at a bit of a loss because I am prepared to listen to Mr. Speaker 4724

Monday, 1 August, 1983 on any of the comments and I know where Mr. Speaker usuall y sits, but I have a problem because I am hearing some directions from the members of the government. I really would want to direct my remarks to Mr. Speaker, but if I have to direct my remarks to the mem bers of the government, I would be happy to do so. I am just a bit confused because of some of the things that have been happening, and to speak on something that happened in commit tee, Mr.

Speak er, and I'm not discussing this to bring your remarks to the front; I accept your remarks as to whether I should speak on whether the committee that I was sitting on concerning seat belt legislation, not allowing some people to make their presentation, so I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to, before closing, and I have spoken about how this bill or this clause in this bill is absolutely not to the best in terests of the small busi nesses in the Province of Manitoba, and I think we established that. I think that the government agrees with it.

I think the only thing that has to be brought to attention is that a change has to be made now. Let's not keep these people who are so concerned dangling from a little string. I think that the government is prepared to make a change. They are not completely unscrupulous, but I think that the government is prepared to make a change. There has been some ind ication that they would. The Honourable Member for Springfield has just advi sed tha t the go vernme nt would make some considerations during committee.

I think that if they just bring it forward a little bit, not as a carrot to the opposition to try and force some things through that have to be deba ted, I think that the government would have it all added to their cred it. Before I close, Mr. Speake r, I would just wonder and I kno w that I have no other way of finding out, but I belie ve this to be a collector's item.

This Routine Business and Order Paper, dated Winnip eg, Mond ay, August 1, 1983, I bel ieve it to be a col lector's item somewhat like the Winnipeg Tribune that is no longer in existence, and I was just wondering where I would go to get some additional copie s, because I know it to be a collector's item because I belie ve that this is the first time in the hi story of the Province of Manitoba that the House has met on a holida y, August 1, 1983. Well, regardle ss of the year but on August 1st, and I would like to get some additional copies of thi s, Mr.

Speake r, because I know that sometime during the future they'll be worth something; today they're worth nothing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I think this bill is an important measure which should be understood to be a modification of the traditional doctrine of freedom of contract. We have often in the past justified inequitable negotiations and bargaining on the grounds that it is a doctrine of the freedom of contract, but the freedom of contract is meaningful only if the parties to it are of equal bargaining power.

If they are situated in more or less equal bargaining positions, then it makes sense to allow them some leeway in order to arrive at certain agreements which will be acceptable to both. But in many situations in life, we find that parties to an agreement are normally not always in the same economic position.

Usually there are people who have a strong bargaining position on the one side, bargaining and negotiating with other parties with a weaker position on the other side, and to insist that in such a situation we will uphold the freedom of contract would sometimes and often result in certain inequ ities and injustice. In this bill, I think, it makes sense to put the money that has been deposited, especially if it is a sizeable amount in the form of a trust account. In this sense it will protect the customer.

It is good public policy that the gove rnm ent should in tervene and protect the general public in matters of this kind. Where the manufacturer is a custom manufacturer, as has been indic ated by the Member for La Verendrye, it would seem that common sense ind icates that a 5 percent deposit really in certain instanc es would be unreasonable. I'm inclined to agree with that position. Perhaps the deposit should be a little bit hig her than 5 percent, especially if the product is specially to be manufactured for a customer who has a special order of the product.

It is the function of government to intervene in the economic negotiations if there are some inequities and inequa lities that are r�sulting where the parties to the negotiations are in unequal economic positions. Too often we say that we always fight for fairness because we are afraid of suffering injustice at the hands of other people, and so we always stand up and fight for justice and equality if we are on the losing side of the bargain.

I think the general in terest in this matter is that where there are unequal economic bargaining positions, it is the function of the government to intervene and to protect the weaker party of the negotiating parties. Only then can we assure that justice will be done, that no one shall suffer injustice at the hands of anot her. The weak should need the protection of the strong and the strong is the government. The stronger parties to the nego tia tion needs no help, th ey can protect themselves.

In this regard we should proceed and work this legislation out so that the necessary changes can be made and we can facilitate the work of this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak for a few moments with respect to this bill because it is obviously a bill that will severely disrupt the small busi ness sector and retail commun ity. It is a bill containing this principle with respect to a 5 percent deposit that is utterly impractical, Mr.

Speak er, and is another example of the total incomp etence of this govern ment, who have said on the one hand that they are concerned about employment in Manitoba, that is the main battle of this government. They're supposedly having a war on unemp loyment in Manito ba, Mr. Speak er, and they bring in a bill which will jeopardize business throughout the Province of Manitoba with respect to this provision of 5 percent deposits. Mr. Speake r, there are so many areas of busi ness in Manitoba at retail sales that can simply not operate with such a provision and it will throw people out of work. 4725

Monday, 1 August, 1983 It's another exam ple, Mr. Spea ker, of the total ine ffectiveness of this government. A government that has impo sed a 1. 5 percent payroll tax, that has caused unemp loyment in this province, and this is another provision like that, Mr. Speaker, which will cause further unemplo yment in this province. It is totally imp ractical, Mr. Speaker . It is an ideologi cal position for the government to take, lacks common sense comple tely, and is just mind-boggling to the small business sector of our province who are trying to operate in very difficult times. Now, Mr.

Speaker, months ago I sugges ted to the Mi nister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that there is no question there is a problem with the consumer losing depo sits in certain transactions, where the company to whom he has made the deposit has gone into bankru ptcy. There is a way to fix that, Mr. Speak er. I told him months ago, Mr.

Speaker, to commenc e discussions with the Federal Government, because what is required in this area and with respect to worker s' un paid wages are amendments to The Federal Bank ruptcy Act to imp rove the priority of consumers who lose deposits as a result of the insolv ency of companies and to workers whose wages are not paid because of bankr uptcy or insolv ency. That is what should be done, Mr.

Speaker, and I would think it would be appro priate if the Mini ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Labour together hopefully try and engage the support of their provincial counterparts would do so and would approach the Federal Government with respect to an amendment to The Federal Bank ruptcy Act in order to impr ove the prior ity of consumers who lo se depo sits when companies go bankrupt and in respect to workers whose wages are un paid to impr ove their position upon bankru ptcy or insolv ency. Now, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to this bill and all those others on the Order Paper, the Acting Government House Leader has indi cated that as of this afternoon they will not allow this bill or any other bill to stand. Now, Mr. Speaker , this is done despite an agreement between the Go vernment Ho use Leader and the Opposition House Leader that the House would not sit on Saturday and Monda y this weekend. It's done in spite of that agreement. Purusant to that agreement, of course, Mr. Speak er, the Government House Leader is not here and the Oppo sition House Leader is not here, because they made an agreement, Mr.

Speak er, and that's why they're not here. In spite of that, Mr. Speaker, the government called the House Saturday, today, Mon day, August 1st, Civic Holiday for all other residents of the Province of Manitoba, he called the House in spite of that agreement and now, in the morning of the Monday he's imposing closure on the opposition. We can't stand any more bills, the Acting Government House Leader has said. Mr. Speak er, it shows again how incompetent this government is. Mr.

Speak er, on Page 11 they have five bills they haven't even introduced yet; five bills they haven't even given Second Reading to; they're going to impo se closure, and they haven't even introduced these bills. Three of them stand in the name of the Attorney­ General, Mr. Speaker, who is at the lake pursuant to the agreement he made with the Opposition House Leader. Now, Mr. Speaker, why does the government want to impose closure on this bill? In fact, Mr.

Speaker, specifica lly with respect to this bill, I said to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in question period on Saturday morning, he must know how imp ractical the amendment with respect to the 5 percent deposit is. Why doesn't he say now that he's going to withdraw that section, or is he going to follow, Mr. Speaker, the bad example set by the Minister of Labour a couple of weeks ago in committee on The Payment of Wages Act?

She had citizens of the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba come down to the Legislature, 8 o'clock - the temperature must have been 95 degrees - had them all come down to the committee meeting and made a statement that she was withdrawing the bill as a result of the objections raised by the op position and the public of Manitoba. She could have announc ed that in the House that day and had the Clerk's Office telephone th ose people, so that th ey weren't inconv enienced , so that they didn't have to come out on a hot evening, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Mini ster of Labour on a point of order. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speak er, it was annou nced in committee that night, and I told the honourable member that those people were called in the afternoon; they chose to be there. MR. G. MERCIER: If that happened, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't aware that had happened. No doubt the reason they came is that they didn't trust the Minister and this government, and for good reason, Mr. Speak er. Mr.

Speak er, the public of Manitoba on this bill then, if that that was what the Mi nister of Labour did on that bil l, then the public should be told in the same way on this bill, that the Minister and the government realizes they've brought forward another piece of impra ctical legislation, one that would do great harm to business in Manitoba, and they were going to withdraw it, but so far he hasn't annou nced that. He was going to make them come out to a committee meeting, some warm hot night in August, Mr. Speaker, perhaps even to return from their vacations, to inconv enience them once again.

This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, in which the government is going to impo se closure this afternoon, another one. They say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this and other resolutions before the Legislature, they want to give the public of Manitoba an opportunity to be heard. We saw what they're up to, Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon with respect to seat-belt legislation. They cut off public hearings, Mr. Speak er. They had a list of people who wanted to be heard, and they were cut off, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, we' re not going to let that happen with respect to this bill, or with respect to any other matter before this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, we will do all within our power to stop this government from cutting off the public of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, that's why we're going to oppose passage of this bill and many other bills and resolutions which are on the Order Paper at this time, which this government is trying to ram through the Legislature of Manitoba at a time when people are away on vacation, Mr. Speaker. Acting like they did on Frid ay, 4726

Monday, 1 August, 1983 we have great concerns once again that they're going to cut off the people of Manitoba from public hearings. There's one well-known resolution on this Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, which we have argued should be heard by an int ersessional committee. The reason for that is obvious, because we have seen now, last Friday afternoon, how they want to push matters through the Legislatu re, how they want to cut off the public hearings, hoV; they want to impose closure on the opposition, Mr.

Speaker, today having given notice just some two hours, meeting on days when it was agreed last week that the Legislature shouldn't meet, and now they've even gone worse and said they're going to impose closure. What an arrogant government, Mr. Speaker! This government has lost touch with the people of Manitoba, Mr. Speak er. It doesn't even want to hear from the people of Manitoba anymore. They just want to ram everything through, force everything through, cut off public hearings, and get their legislation through the House - ill-con ceived, impractical legislation, Mr.

Speaker. - (I nterjection) - The Acting Government House Leader calls for order. That's what we would like to see, Mr . Sp eaker , is some orde r in the government's busi ness, some sembla nce of order . In stead of this, we're meeting to discuss this bill on days when it was agreed last week that the Legislature wouldn't sit and the Government House Leader they're going to impose closure on this bill and all of the other matters on the Order Paper before us, Mr. Speak er. Mr. Speaker, this is the worst government the people of Manitoba have ever had, and it becomes more evident day after day in this Legislature.

They're out of control, Mr. Speaker. They don't know what they're doing. They have no idea what they're doing. This bill is evidence of that. This is evidence of that, Mr. Speaker, to limit deposits to 5 percent of the cash price. What were they doing in Cabinet, in caucus when this bill passed? Doesn't anybody over there have any brains? Don't they have any idea of what goes on in the real world. This is evidence that they don't, Mr. Speaker, to limit deposits to not more than 5 percent. They don't have anybody over there obvious ly, Mr.

Speaker, who has any idea what goes on in the business world, in the retail world. Don't they even talk to their constituents, Mr. Speaker? Have they gone so out of touch with the people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, that they would introduce this kind of legislation? Obviously, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, they're not listening to the people of Manitoba. If they were, Mr. Speaker, they wouldn't be coming in here today to impose closure on this and all of the other bills and resolutions on the Order Paper . That's what it in effect amounts to, Mr. Speaker, when you don't allow a bill to be stood.

That's what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, it's closure. They don't like to hear it, Mr. Speaker, because this is a ·go vernm ent tha t's going to li sten, this is a government who is going to consult, this was going to be the open goverment, Mr. Speaker, this was going to be such an open government, and now they've got to the stage where they're going to impose closure to pass their ill-conceived, impractical pieces of legislation, which is going to cause unemp loyment in this provinc e, Mr. Speak er. They've already done enough of that, Mr. Speaker.

They're already nearly 20,000 more people unemp loyed under this go vernment, Mr. Speaker , already more than 20,000 more unemplo yed. We've heard, Mr. Speaker, the financial guidelines from the Min ister of Finance, 0 and 5 he supports now. He wouldn't support 6 and 5, but they handled the economy so badly, it's now 0 and 5, Mr. Speaker. What they doing at the same time as they're imposing this on the people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker? They want us to pass with closure, Bill No. 48, The Election t:inances Act. It's all right for the people to suffer.

It's all right for the people to have decreased services, to have incr eased mill rates, to have in creased user fees, but we want the taxpayers and the people of Mani toba to pay one-half of the NOP election expenses. Well, they are really concerned with the people of Manitoba, aren't they, Mr. Speaker? They're really concerned with the people. The heck with the people is their attitude. We're going to cut their services; we're going to in crease the mill rates; we're going to incr ease user fees, but the people are going to pay one-half of our election expenses. That's their concern, Mr. Speak er.

A MEMBER: Is that the bill we're talking about? MR. G. MERCIER: We're talking about The Consumer Protection Act, Mr. Sneaker . We are talking about a bill that will limit deposits to not more than 5 percent of the pu rchase price, a bill that will put people out of work in this province. That's what they've done, Mr. Speaker, ever since they got into government, they've put people out of work. Mr. Speaker, they have an anti­ business attitude that has been described by people, not in the opposition but people outside of government; anti-busi ness, anti-p rivate sector. This is just another ind ication.

They don't have any idea what goes on in the private sector. No wonder they are anti-priv ate sector, Mr. Speaker. They have no idea of what's going on in the private sector and this legislation is a further indication of it. Mr. Speaker, if they want to impose closure on this bill, I want to say to the Acting Government House Leader, we will speak on this bill until everyone has spoken and we will do everything we can to stop this legislation so that more people are not put out of work in Manitoba by this government. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing announced.

The Mini ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will not announce anything. So, Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the anti-pri vate sector attitude of this government, their lack of concern for the working people of Manitoba who they are going to put out of jobs by this legislation, and we will not in any way support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the presentation - if one would be so kind as to call it that - by the Member for St.

Norbert, to which he has just subjected us, very clearly outli nes the problems that we are having in this Legislature today and the problems we have been having in this Legislature for the past number of weeks. Throughout his - to be kind - fumbling and rambling of dissertation on this bill, he touched on a number of issues and very clearly betrayed the 4727

Monday, 1 August, 1983 fact that they have no desire to see the business of this House proceed, that they have no desire to see the work of this Legislature benefit the people of this province, that they have no desire to let this government that was duly elected govern on behalf of the people that elected it. You kno w, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that they can't bel ieve that they lost the last election.

Now, that's all right if they can't believe it, but what they want to do is deny the people of the province, the government which they voted for a numb er of months ago, the government which they put their faith in, the government which they entrusted this legisla tive process to - (I nterjection) well, the Member for Emerson says they're trying to save the people from us.

Let me tell him that the people a numb er of months ago saved the province from his incomp etent admin istration that for four years brought ruin and destruction to this province and put in place a New Democratic Party Government that is going to turn that around, that is turning that around and will continue to do so. Their bully tactics are beginning to wear thin.

Their refusal to allow the business of the House to proceed is beginning to become apparent, and the people of this province will see through the transparency of their manipula tions; the people of this province will reject that sort of obstructionist. They talk about examples of what this particular bill provides by way of a reflection on this government. They talk about examples of how it shows in their opinion that this government won't listen, that this government won't respond, when that is the farthest thing from the truth that one would want to imagine.

Certain ly, they are strangers themselves to the truth that they would have the people of the Province of Manitoba believe that by way of their speeches. I can't say it's hypocritical; I can't say that there is hypocrisy rampant throughout the ranks of that side; but what I can say, Mr . Sp eaker , is there are incons istencies over there that border on hypocrisy and if carried any further, one will be left with no choice but to call it exactly what it is.

They have, throughout the cour se of their remarks, talked about th ose examples, but their remarks themselv es onto themselves have provided examples to all the people of this province. What are those examples? One is that they have fallen prey to obstructionist tendencies of the worst sort, of the worst kind.

They take a bill which the Member for Springfield has clearly ind icated we are prepared to take to committee, to listen to the people, to respond to their needs and to make changes if necessa ry, and they use it as a plaything, a parliament ary plaything to try to point out that we won't listen to the people when, in fact, exactly the opposite was just put on the record. So either it is they cannot hear or they will not hear. By doing that, Sir , with all due respect, th ey are perpetrat ing a disservice on the people of the province that will go down in the ranks of histor y.

The Member for Niakwa, a good friend of mine I hope, and I hope he'll be a good friend of mine after these comments because I do not intend to attack personal ly. I think that is a tactic that they are far better at than I will ever be and, therefore, do not want to even begin down that slipp ery slope of trying to put everything into personal conno tations. In his remarks, he talked about the fact that we are putting this bill forward and we are not prepared to listen. The fact is we want to attempt to get this bill to committee so we can listen. Why do we want that?

Because we value the opinion of the people of this province, and we value the legisla tive process that is unique to this province that allows for people to come forward to committees to make their views known, and allows for our government to respond in the most honest and sincere way to the comments, to the criticisms where they are constructive and to the suggestions of the people of this province. They are the ones that are stopping that; not us. If they say they want changes, then let them allow the process to unfold to bring those changes forward.

Also, what was clear by their speeches is that they are attempting to thwart the process not only in this House but outside of this House through that committee structure. It is also clear that members opposite are suffering from some obscure form of dyslexia where they see everything backwards. Either that is the case and they are honestly telling us their concerns, or they are purposely manipulating and distorting what's been said in this House, because we did not say that we want closure. Well, the Member for St.

Norbert shakes his head, perhaps trying to get some sense back into it, but the fact is - (Int erjection) - No, but we said very clearly is that we will not allow the bill to stand, that we want debate, that we want you to put on the record what you think about these issues. Allo w them to go to committee so the people can tell us what they think and then we can perfect the legislation which we feel is necessary to protect the people of this province. Let's take a look at this bill. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, they say that's closure.

Well, then if in their minds we are guilty of closure, they are the ones who set the precedent because I can remember very clearly standing in my place across the Chamber when they said we will not allow this bill to stand, and when did they say it? They said it at 2:00 o'clock in the morning when we were tired, when we deserved a break and we had been here for many long hours, and they said we will not allo w this bill to stand, speak, speak, speak. And we spoke, we didn't obstruct, we didn't thwart, we knew they were the government.

We knew we'd be the go vernment soon, but we knew th ey were the government then, and we were prepared to let them govern by way of providing advice to them where we thought it was appropriate. They won't even allow us that, but they have done it. To members on the opposite side, I implore you, think back to those days and those Sessions when you brought forward bills and you forced speakers to speak on them and think back how we responded to it. I think we responded to it in a responsible manner.

We said we don't like it, we said we think it's foolish to have to do it in this way, but we spoke nonetheless because we recognized the will of the people of this province had put them into office. We recognized the will of the people of this province 4728

Monday, 1 August, 1983 and make certain that they had the shortest term of office in the history of this province. We were patient, we didn't run to turn the bells on every time we had a disagreement with them.

We didn't try to prevent the House from conducting its business in an orderly way because we know that when any party in the House attempts to do that, whether it be an independent party, whether it be the opposition, whether it be the govern ment, that it's not this House that suffers the most, although we sit the long hard hours in here, but it's the people of this province who suffer because government cannot provide the sorts of services which it should and that is the penalty that they are imposing.

That is the penalty that the Conservatives are imposing on the people of this province by their obstructionist tendencies. They are not allowing the government to function in the way by which all governments have been allowed to function in the past. So what we've said is we will not allow the debate to stand. Now, what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? A MEMBER: Closure. HON. J. COWAN: Well, we hear them yell again across the Chamb er, it means closure. Well, what it means to me is that they are confused about the process; closure is when we tell them they can't speak.

I'm going to try to put this into the simple st terms possible because I think they need a simple explanation of what closure means. Closure is when we say there will be no more debate, no more dialogue, no more discussion on an item. What we are saying is that members opposite have a respo nsibili ty to speak to the issue, a responsibil ity to allow that issue to proceed to the committee where the people of this province can speak an d we are going to force that responsibili ty on them if they are too irresponsible to take it on thems elves and we will do that.

Then they talk about their objection to this bill in terms of how agreements ha ve been broken. Agreements have been broken in regard to sitting here on Saturday and perhaps even sitting here today. Well, they say right again. Yet their own House Leader, whom I presume speaks on behalf of House business for them, because he is in fact the Leader of the House for their particular caucus, said, well, there may have been an agreement, there may not have been an agreement. It's one of those things where I think honest people can have two di fferent interpreta tions.

I would ask if in fact he categorically belie ves that there was an unequ ivocal agreement for him to stand and to say that in fact there was an unequivocal, categorical, unrepealable agreement not to sit on Saturd ay. We have not heard him say that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: We have not heard that statement come forward.

So all I know from where I sit, not having been privy to the private negotiations that go on over this, is that there was no agreement and that no individual in this House or outside of this House has in unequ ivocal terms said that there was an agreement. So, please, let us be a bit more honest, let us be a bit more truthful, let us be a bit more sinc ere and a little bit less inconsistent, and I say that on behalf of the members opposite because they won't say it on their own behalf and let us try to get around to conducting the business of this House.

Notwiths tanding the fact that there may have been in their own mind, di storted as the perception might be, a perception of an agreement. Even if that was the case, what do they have against coming in on a Saturday and trying to conduct business on behalf of the people of this province? What is so sacred and valuable about their Saturday that they can't come forward to put in a few extra hours so that we can get the busi ness of this House conducted in a proper way? Are they so lazy that they don't want to come in on a Saturday? Are they so lazy that they don't want to be here today? I think not, Mr.

Speaker, I don't bel ieve they're lazy, but that in my own mind leaves a question that remains unanswered because they say they wanted Speed-up. I won't say they begged for Speed-up, because that would be unkind. Well, the Member for Springfield would say that, but I wouldn't. I wouldn't say they implored for Speed-up, but I would say that they made a very strong case for Speerl-up in this House. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J.

COWAN: If I listened to them, and I did, what they said is please bring in Speed-up so that we can start to get some of these bills through, so that we can start to get the busine ss of the House finished, so that we can go back to our constituencies and talk to the people - and that's what we want to do as well - so that we can do that other part of our activities that is so important to members of the Legislative Assembly, and day after day after day until it almost became redundant they asked for Speed-up. Now, what does Speed-up mean? MR. A.

ANSTETT: That they wouldn't sit on Saturd ays until they had Speed-up. HON. J. COWAN: Well, the Member for Springfield makes a good point, perhaps it should be on the record. They did not allow us to go into committee meetings at times when committee meetings were not normally structured . They said they would not sit on Saturdays until Speed-up was brought forward and the Member for La Verendrye shakes his head in agreement and says, yes, yes. They said that Speed-up would tend to expedite the business of this House.

Now, without trying to betray my own personal feelings about Speed-up, which are very well known, what I will ind icate was I was somewhat skeptical about that. I was somewhat skeptical of their assuran ces; I was somewhat skeptical of the fact that they said this would speed up the busi ness of the House because I'd never known it to happen in the past. I had never known it to happen in the past, I had no clear indic ation that it was going to happen in the future, but I do know that if the opposition co-operates . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 4729

Monday, 1 August, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: . . . it can make things move. So what do they do? They implo re for Speed-up, they request Speed-up, they're on the record as supporting Speed-up and then th ey turn arou nd and slo w everything down. As soon as we have Speed-up, they slow everything down. Now, I talked about hypocrisy earlier, and I said I couldn't say it and I won't say it now, but it certainly is inconsistent. It certainly is hard to fathom why they would be so vehement, and they were vehement, in urging this government to bring Speed-up onto the Order Paper and to pass it.

As a matter of fact, I think we even passed it in very . HON. A. ADAM: Under duress. HON. J. COWAN: ... well, not under duress but in very speedy terms. It didn't take as long as it took in other years, because they were so anxious to get to the busine ss of the House. So they got the busine ss before them, why don't they do it now? That's the question. What do we hear from the members opposite but a chorus, a veritable chorus of stand, stand, stand, stand, and then what does that mean? That means they don' t want to speak to the bills, that's involun tary closure on their parts.

They don't want to speak to the bills, so if anybody talks about closure they're the ones that are attempting to choke off the debate on this House on matters of urgent busine ss, they're the ones who are using the mechanisms of this Chamber to invoke closure on the people of this province. The people of this province can't 90 to the committee to speak on im portant issues, because the Cons ervatives ha ve invoked closure on them by bell ringing, by standing bills, and by their general obstructionist tendencies in this House. They should be ashamed of that.

We have a bill before us now, the purpose of which is to protect the consumers of this province. Now, it's not a perfect bill and no bill is a perfect bill, but the fact is it is a bill that will provide protection that is not there now; it is a bill that perhaps can use some im provement and we're prepared to look to th at improvement; and it is a bill that is long overdue because this is nothing new to this province.

They knew there was a problem when they were in government; they knew that they should have done something about it; but they refused to do anything about it and now they refuse to let the elected government of this province do anything about it. They don't know they're opposition yet, they still think they they're government. Well, we can't have the tail wag the dog any long er. We can't have a minority in this House attempt to use wh atever means are possible to impose their will over the will of the majority of the people of this province that was duly demons trated in a provincial election.

We will not stand for that and they will not stand bills anymo re, becaus e th ey will speak becaus e - (Interjection) well, the Member for La Verendrye yells "Closure" again. I tried to explain it in the sim plest terms possible, but perhaps I failed so let me try once again, Mr. Speaker. We want these bills to go to committee so that the people of this province can speak to them, so that we can make amendments and changes whe re necessary. We want that to happen. That cannot happen as long as the members opposite stand the bills.

Therefore, they are the ones that do riot want the people of this province to have that opportunity and they are proving it by their very actions every time we call a bill of sig nificance. So, let there be no doubt in the Member for La Verendrye's mind, if that is at all possible, as to why we want these bills to proceed. We want the people of this province to be able to speak to them.

Now, perhaps I can't convince him of that sin cerety and that objective, but I know I can convince the people of the province because they know and they see through the transparent obstructionist tendencies of the members opposite only too well. They see that these members opposite don't want to allow the busine ss of this House to unfold as it should. They see that the mem bers opposite don't want the people of this province to have an opportunity to speak to these bills in a recognized man ner that has served this Legislature and served their needs and their desires well over many many years.

So, no, we will not allow the bills to stand anymore. That is not closure, that is demanding debate, and if they feel responsibili ty even in an opposition, if they feel responsibili ty to the people of this province, they will allow that deba te to proceed, they will allow the bills to go to committee - this bill in specific and other bills that are on the Order Paper. A couple of other things which they said in their remarks which have to be addressed, Mr. Speak er, and one is a reference to the absence of the Attorney­ General. To them that ind icates some sort of severe problem. Well, Mr.

Speak er, it would only take a very qui ck glance around this Chamber to make the point very clealy demons trated. We're here, we're here en masse, we're here to talk about the bills, we're here to conduct the business of the House and the opposition members, not referring to any specific member because I know it's unfair to refer to the absence of a specific member, but the opposition members ranks are weak, not only in responsibility and good sense, but now are weak in num bers as well.

I don't want to refer to specific individu als, but I feel responsibility to refer to a mass exodus of the opposition members to wherever they have gone, because it's obvious that they don't want to speak to the bills, it's obvious they don't want to move the bills through the House, it's obvious that they don't want to allow the business to proceed. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J. COWAN: There's a little crossfire going on, Mr. Speak er, and it's interesting crossfire.

They're talking about how many we have out and they're about how many they have outside of the Cham ber right now, and they're saying that they have a lot of people in the building. - (Interject ion) - Well, tha t's what they said. If they do, why aren't they here speaking, because they're standing bills on behalf of people who aren't here? If they're in the building, get them in the Chamber, and let them speak. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 4730

Monday, 1 August, 1983 HON. J. COWAN: Oh, yes, now the Member for La Verend rye is saying, "Who said that?" "Who said that?" he said, after having just said it himself. Now I know what the problem is, it's not dyslexia, it's not distorted vision, they can't remember. They can't remember what they say from min ute to minute.

But the fact is they did say that, the fact is they ind icated they had members in the building somewhere and we also know that they're standing bills because members aren't here, so if I can do some imploring, if I can do some requesting, I would ask them that they have those members come through on a rotating basis if they don't want to tie their time up in the Cham ber, if they think that their time in the Chamber is not time well spent.

Let them come through on a rotating basis when their bill is being called, stand and speak and let it proceed to comm ittee, because we want to get the busine ss of the House done, we want to get it done as quickly as we can and we are going to do everything including demanding debate on their part to make certain that that happens. So, in conclusion, Sir, we have been subjected to rambling, bumbling , uncon nected discou rses on bills as part of, what I belie ve to be, a very de fi nite obstruc tionis t pol icy on the part of the mem bers opposite.

I belie ve they are attempting to obstruct the business of the House even on a bill such as this that could go to commit tee and they have clearly ind icated they are doing that because they don't want to let this government govern. They ring the bells, they use other techniques, they allow the bells to ring for hours and hours and hours, and they th reaten daily to allow them to ring for days and days and days, because they want to be the tail that wags the dog. Well, it will not happen. It will not continue.

This government feels very strongly about its responsibility to bring forward legislation that protects the consumers, that protects the worke rs, that protects the business commun ity in this provinc e, that encourages a better busi ness climate, that provides for a better standard of living for all Manitobans, that protects the pensioners, that does a whole myriad of other thing s which they did not do in four years when they had the chance and they are refusing to allow us to do now when we are the government. They say it's on principle.

Well, perhaps it is on princ ipl e, although I think the princip les are as incons istent and distor ted as is their argume nt. However, that being the case, what we are doing, we are doing on the basis of principle as well, and we belie ve that those principles have to be manda ted by way of legislation; by way of the work of this Assembly, we will get that work done. There is no closure. We have not said to them yet that they cannot debate. All we have said to them is they can no longer sit in their seats and not debate. They are the ones that are attempting to choke off and to ciose the dialogue.

They are the ones that are attempting to prevent the people of this province from speak ing. They are the ones that refuse to allow the business of the House to unfold; they are they ones that are trying to bring this Chamber to a grinding halt. We are the ones that will not let them do it, Mr. Speak er. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Speak er, I have a few words to say on this bill and it relates to the 5 percent deposit. As a consumer, Mr. Speaker, the 5 percent deposit doesn't make any sense even on behalf of a consumer.

We realize that no business is going to be able to stay in busine ss long if we want to be able to ask a retailer or anyone else in business if they would order something in specially and we have to put down just 5 percent, they're not going to do it; and as a consumer, I know that this is not going to be possible. This is one of the sections in a bill that makes it impossible for a consumer to order something in specially . Five percent is simply unrealistic, and I don't even know how that particular

section could possibly have gotten in the bill because common sense should have told anyone that looked at that, that this was a totally unrealistic part of the legislation. When you try to protect the consumer, you must think of the busine ssman as well, because if he's not going to be able to make a dollar on this , if he's going to get stuck or she's going to get stuck with that piece of merchandise with only a 5 percent deposit, which would be what, $10 on a $200 item. Mr.

Speaker, today, busine sses are having a very hard time, they are having a struggle , and this government which proposes or says that they are the . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Member for Springfield on a point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the Member for Kirkfield Park will permit a question. MRS. G. HAMMOND: No, Mr. Speaker.

I want to refer to this government and ask them to withd raw this particular section, withdraw it so that business people won't have to come down to a committee hearing and make c.11 sorts of presentations against something that they know is bad and are talking like they may withdraw it, but how do we know that they're going to withd raw it. You can't trust the word of this government; that's only proved by the fact that we're in here this weekend. You can't trust the word of this government. At least, they don't allow their House Leader to give his word to our House Leader.

They draw back on that sort of thing, Mr. Speaker. When I was young, Mr. Speaker, and lived at home, one of the things that my mother used to always tell me, when you were going to do something that was going to hurt yourself probably more than you'd hurt anyone else, and the expression still stands today, and that's what this government has done this weekend. This is a spiteful govern ment. They said you're going to be in this House no matter what, and on Saturday they fili bustered their own resolution; they spoke all day. Mr.

Speaker, if that isn't cutting off your nose to spite your face, I can't imagine what is, and this is the government that says we want to get the busi ness done. Like heck they want to get the business done! They want to get the busine ss done in their way; they don't care about the opposition. All we heard from the Min ister of Northern Affairs, he said, we won the election and, by cracky, are they showing the people of Manitoba. We won the election and no matter what the opposition says, no matter what the say, we're going to ram through our legisla tion. vve ·, ,., going to show them we won this 4731

election and, by God, that's what they're trying to do and this is the sort of government that we have in today, that is spiteful, determined and stubborn. Boy, they said, you'r e going to be in here this weekend and, by cracky, you are. Well, I tell you, when I talk to people in my constituenc y, they tell us to keep up the good work; don't let them ram through pieces of legislation that you know are not good for the people of Manitoba, don't allo w them to call that. They rant and rave about Speed-up, but we said there were going to be pieces of legislation that we were going to speak on and try to stop. Mr.

Speaker, we had all day Saturday and what happened? The government spoke and spoke all day long on a piece that they didn't allow to come to a vote; we would have allowed it to come to a vote. No, they just had to keep going. So don't tell us about obstructing the House. There's no such thing; an agreement is an agreement. They're spiteful and they're vengeful and I can't say any other word for it; and boy, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face, this is quite true. MR. DE PUTY SPEAKER: Order ple ase. The Honourable Min ister of Finance on a point of order. HON. V. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, the member should be fully aware that we were told by the opposition that if that item had come to a vote on Saturda y, they were prepared to allow the bells to ring until Tuesday afternoon. So there would have been nothing happening on Saturday afternoon, Monda y morning or Monday afternoon, and they voted for Speed-up. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I thank the Min ister of Finance. Order please. Order please. The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I feel that, in this bill, that what we have is a matter of the government again trying to int erfere in the business life of our communi ty in every way that they can. Who would ever imagine that you would ask someone to put down 5 percent in this day and age, 5 percent on an item that may be $10 0, $200, $300, and expect a business person to be able to take the chance of bringing that item in and the person thinking, well, it's only 5 percent, I can afford to let that go, I can afford to change my mind rather than pay the whole amount, and I'll cut my losses and run.

That's exactly what happens from time to time and that's the reason that the retailers, anyone in business must have a substantial down payment. Putting the amounts in trust, that will save the consumer, but I don't believe surely that this government who perceives thems elves as being a friend of the business commun ity are not in any way helping the business community at all. In fact, even just by leaving it in in this way and going into committee in this manner, if the committee is sitting in the aftern oon and if somebody wants to come down and speak to this, they may have to close their shop to do it.

If the go vernment is serious, as some said , in withdrawing this certain piece, why don't they say so? Why don't they say so right now? But they hate to because they think they've been caught and they want to do it in their own time to make it look like boy, we didn't back down on any thing. Mr. Speake r, that's what this House is all about, that we look at pieces of legislation the same as they do and point out. You send the legisla tion to busi ness peo ple, yot: send the legislation to the people concerned, and they tell you, well gosh, this is going to kill me, we can't have this.

That's the duty of an opposition is to point these things out to the governm ent. This government somehow, and maybe it's because as the Min ister of Northern Affairs states, we won the election and, by gosh, the people are going to know that and they're going to have to accept everything that we want to put through whether they object or not; we won the election, we're not going to let the tail wag the dog. They're not going to listen to anyth ing. It's been proven time and time again. That is an arrogant government, Mr. Speake r. That isn't a government that listens to the people.

They're saying to us in essence, by gosh, you do what we say or you're going to hear from us. In what way? We don't have to worry about the mem bers of the government. We have to worry about our own constituents. We have to worry about the business people in this province as the government should be, but they don't seem to care. All they want to do is make points on the opposition. They want to keep us in this House on a long weekend where an agreement was made. No matter how they say the agreement wasn't made, it was. We believe our House Leader; we know what agreement was made.

I just feel that this government, for a Min ister to stand up and say, we won the election, well, by God, they're sure going to show the people of Manitoba. By the time the four years, five years is up, they'll be shown; they'll be so anxious for an election, they'll be so anxious to get rid of this incom petent bunch, and that's all I can say for them. It's probably kind at the least, because it's time you paid attention to us, and it's time you lis tened to the opposition. We're not in here for the good of our health; we're here to represent our constituents. Believe me, we intend to do that.

You can call us any name, you can call us obstructionist, you can call us anything you like, but it's our duty to represent our constituents and the people of Manitoba, and if you won't listen to them, we certainly will! I have no intention, and we have no intention of being browbeaten by this incom petent bunch. So you can say what you like, it won't bother the opposition. We're here to defend the people of Manitoba even if you won't do it yourself.

In an item like this in this bill on 5 percent, when you know practically everyone that said anything and they are all indicating, oh, it's not going to happen, but I'll tell you, after this weeken d, we don't trust you. We want to hear it. We don't trust the mem bers in the government; we don't trust their word. I feel that if they are sinc ere in pulling out garbage like this 5 percent, let them do it today; let them say that it's going to be, but, of course, they can't because there is a parade so mewhere. - (I nt erjecti on) - No, someone said that, but it wasn't the Min ister that said that.

I'm not taking the word of the Member for Springfield. Who would? Believe me, this is a very fundamental issue here, and I want the members opposite, the go vernment 4732 Monday, 1 August, 1983

Monday, 1 August, 1983 opp osite to realize that we are not here to obstruct; we are here to represent, and there's a mighty big difference. To sit there in such an arrogant manner as the Mi nister of Northern Affairs who said we won the election, well, I'll tell you, I won an election too, and I represent a certain portion of this province, and so do the 23 members that sit on this side of the House.

I want you to know that we have no intention of allowing this incompetent bunch - and that's exactly what you are - that we cannot trust the word of the Government House Leader, because his own caucus probably won't back him up when he gives his word; that's more likely what's happening. We're not about to give into this government, because they choose on a Mond ay, which is a holiday in this province where everyone is away , to call (Int erjection) - yes, to call closure. I wish to state again that why won't they come up with someone because the Mi nister, of course, can't today, and I won't say why he can't ...

A MEMBER: And where's the Minister? A MEMBER: He's on holiday somewhere. MRS. G. HAMMOND: We're discussing a bill and he can't get up even if he'd like to, because he probably is in a parade. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with that; it's in his constitue ncy, but don't sit there high and mighty with us and state, we want to do the business of the House and then call a bill that the Min ister isn't even here to defend or even stand up, or have someone else stand up and say we're withdrawing it, another Min ister, who we might believe, maybe even the Premier of this province.

We might take the Premier's word on something like that. I want to tell you that this has certainly been a lesson in democracy for me as a new member. I've seen a government stand up on Saturday, just spiteful, filibuster their own bill just so that, boy, and we hear it when we go by, you're not going to get away, you're going to be here this weekend they all say and they laugh. Well, I'll tell you this isn't a laughing matter and just because you won an election is no reason to think that the opposition is going to lay down and die because we're not. Mr.

Speak er, I want you to know that on this side of the House we believe in someone's word, but now what has happened between two House Leaders, I imagine now nothing can happen that isn't signed, sealed and delivered because we can't trust you any more. The people of Manitoba won't be able to trust you anymore and that's certainly what we want What a shame that people that represent Manitoba, that we can't take each other's word, and th at's what's happened. That's what you did to your Government House Leader when you allowed him to make an agreement and then stuck it to him and stuck it to us at the same time.

We're not going to allow that to pass and for you to stand up, for the Minister of Northern Affairs to give a tirade on us not wanting to debate - absolute no nsense! That's an expression really I shouldn't use, because the Minister of Finance usually uses that, so I think I'll strike that, Mr. Speak er, if I get the chance. I do believe that on this side of the House that when our House Leader gives his word, we stand behind him 100 percent. You might learn something from that, that this government cannot work, this House cannot work, un less we have a good working relationship between both sides of the House.

There's got to be co-operation and there's got to be some trust. That has long since disappeared and it's thanks to a few members on that side of the House who will get up and say anything in any way to try and make the people of Manitoba believe that they know what is best. Mr.

Speaker, we have voted on bills, bills have passed, there is no reason in the world for the government to feel that we are obstructionists, because there is one thing that we do is we are speaking for a certain segment of Manitobans and when we find a bill that there is something wrong with we want to do something to help the government see this. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member for St. Norbert indi cated that there were five bills on second reading that the government hasn't introduced yet. Why are they not calling those bills?

Not on your life, because one, two, three of them couldn't be called because the Minister isn't here, so don't blame us. Then we've got the Minister of Finance sitting there and there's two bills sitting, I think Bill 75 and Bill 10 9. They could speak on those, but they're not doing tha t, Mr. Speaker, not on your life. They want to make out to the press, oh look, we're such great guys, here we are. Not on your life because the press has ceased to believe you right now. For this government to even pretend that they are wanting to do the business of the House, such nonsense.

It's cutting off their nose to spite their face and that's the only reason we're in here today and we're in here this weekend at all. If you think the people of Manitoba are behind you on this, you are mistaken. You may never kn ow, because you may never get to your constituency to find out. I wish to say to you that we will tell the people of Manitoba what's going on in here and they'll kno w, they'll certainly believe us, because, Mr. Speaker, they don't trust this government any further. After the actions on the seat belt legislation, there's no way they're going to trust the government. I think, Mr.

Sp eaker , th at on this bill for the government to sit there and say, well, we may have a point, without standing up and indicating that the government is not going to withdraw it, that they're going to inconvenience the sho pkeepers, the retailers, the business people in Manitoba, I feel that that's a great mistake and why wouldn't they allow the people to know that this is going to be withdrawn? What have they got against doing that? They want to show that they're doing it the mselves. They don't want to feel that the government might have been pushed a bit on this. Mr.

Speaker, we don't really care who gets the credit on this as long as the business community does not have to suffer for inadequate pieces of legislation and from time-to-time that is bound to happen. But for the Mi nister of Northern Affairs to stand up in his high and mighty role and say tha t th ey were elected the govern ment. Well, Mr. Speaker, they soon will find out that you need co-operation to be a government and if they don't gH! off the pot and start acting like a government start co-operating, I think it's time tha t the p;Jopi; of Manitoba saw what exactly is 4733

Monday, 1 August, 1983 happ ening in this govern ment, wha t kind of incom petence we have. I can't believe that after the pieces of legislation that they've tried to ram through, and are going to try and ram through, that this government thinks that any one would re-elect them in a few years. They're in truble, Mr. Speaker, and as they mentioned they wouldn't go along with 6 and 5, but now we've got O and 5. I wonder how they're going to like that now? What are they going to do to people that are bargai ning? Are they going to have to stay under the 0 and 5? We'll wait and see, I doubt very much that that's going to happen. Mr. Speaker , this

section of the bill that says "no seller may demand or accept from a purchaser a deposit with respect to a retail sale of goods that is more than 5 percent of the cash price," I can't see why the government, just in looking at it, the first person that spoke on this bill they should have stood up and said, look, we're taking that

section out or we're amending that section. But no, they haven't done that, they're not choosing to do that and yet they want us to take their word that this will be done. Not on your life! We're not taking their word for anything anymore, we can't afford the luxury of taking their word, because we've seen this weekend what happens when we take the word of this government. It means absolutely nothing, and I think that the people of Manitoba do know that, they don't trust this government.

I belie ve that the go ver nment is arrogant at best to consider an amendment in this bill and expect us to belie ve them anymore, that's not just about to happen, Mr. Spea ker. So, Mr. Speaker, I think I'v e ind icated the feelings, certai nly my feelings, on this piece of legislation. This

part isn't good and I'm sorry that the Mi nister isn't here to ind icate to someone, the Premier or someone, to stand up and tell us that they will be withdrawing it, but that's the way it is. So, in that case, we'll have to keep debating this until we do get an indication of what is happe ning. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. If no other member wishes to speak, the bill will stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Tuxedo. The Acting Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Please call two second read ings, Bills No. 75 and 10 9, Mr. Speaker. SECOND READING - GOVERN MEN T BILLS Bill NO. 75 - THE STATUTE LAW AMEND ME NT (TAXATION) ACT

(1983) HON. V. SCHROEDER presented Bill No. 75, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act (19 83), for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see the Member for Emerson shaking his head; I don't blame him. He knows that, ordinari ly, these bills are intr oduced in the presence of the opposition critic. However, this morning, we had just the previous speaker criticizing us for not introducing this bill in the absence of their House Leader, so we will introduce it.

Bill 75 provides the legisla tive authority for the tax changes annou nced in the February 24, 1983 Budget. Although the reasons for the changes were outlined in the Budget and the chan ges themselves were discussed during the Budget Debate, I would like to spend some time in explaining the proposed changes. Fi rst , the Budget proposed general change s in tobacco and fuel taxes. These changes were intended to augment provincial revenues required to provide general programming and services and to contain the deficit to what we regard as an appropria te, manageable level.

On tobacco taxation, the changes involve an in crease in the general rate of 0.3 cents per cig arette, with equivalent incr eases for fine-cut tobacco products. With regard to fuel taxation, the Budget proposed an in crease in litr eage rates of 1.1 cent on gasoline to 7.5 cents; and 1. 3 cents on di esel fuel, bringing the Manitoba rate to 8.6 cents. The 7.5 cents per litre gasoline tax is somewhat lower than the rate which would be in effect under the former government's 20 percent ad valorem system.

In fact, at the time when the 7 .5 cent per litre rate was introduced, the differential was close to a half a cent per litre. The rate is also third lowest among provinces levying fuel taxes in terms of cents per litre, and lowest in percentage terms among provinc es with fuel tax levies. The proposed 8.6 cent litreage rate on diesel fuel maintains the historical di fferential in the tax rates applied to these fuels, with diesel being taxed at 11 5 percent of the gasoline rate. As members know, this differential reflects the higher energey content of diesel fuel.

Members will also be pleased to know that the new Manitoba rate is third lowest among the diesel fuel tax in provinces, an important factor for our trucking ind ustry. Comparable incr eases are applicable to off­ hi gh way uses of these fuels. Of course, that doesn't apply to farm uses, as farmers in the Legislature kn ow. Two other chan ges should be mentioned at this point. The preference for gasohol under gasoline taxation will be reduced from 4 cents per litre to 3 cents per litre as of June 1, 1983. With that change, Manitoba remains the only province to provide a preferential tax rate for ga sohol.

This change is in accordanc e with recommendations made by officials of the Department of Energy and Mines to the effect that maintaining the preference until the 1984 Budget will provide gasohol producers in Mani toba with a sufficient preference to ensure the continued viability of their operations. Last year, follo wing th e pro vincia l Bud get and Saskatchew an's elimin ation of gasoline and diesel fuel taxation, our government responded quickly with a program of competition assistance grants designed to protect the competiti ve position of Manitoba retailers close to the Saskatchewan border.

This program, I am ple ased to report, app ears to ha ve ach ieved its objectiv es. As annou nced earlier this year , our government has modified the competition assistance grants to make them more effective and sensitive to the needs of retailers in the area. Our government could have confined its revenue adjustments to those measures and proceeded largely 4734

Monday, 1 August, 1983 with a housekeeping budget. However, we belie ve, and continue to believe, that the province has an obligation to take measures to create and protect jobs in this province. According ly, we included the Jobs Fund in our Budget; recognizing that when we did so, further tax inc reases would be necessary to finance part of the costs of th ose emplo yment sus tai ning and protect ing init iatives. Three tax measures were proposed to meet the jobs imperative.

First, we incr eased the sales tax rate from 5 to 6 percent, with a similar incr ease in the rate of taxation on liqu or, other than domestic beer, from 10 to 12 percent. This change leaves Manitoba with the second lowest sales tax rate among the nine provinces with sales taxes. The general sales tax rate in Manitoba compares favourably with the 7 percent in Ontario and B.C.; 9 percent in Quebec; 10 percent in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island; and 12 percent in Newfoundland. Then, of course, there's Saskatchewan at 5 percent and Alberta at 0.

Much as we would have liked to avoid the sales tax in crease, our government concluded that having the in crease, along with the su bstantial job creation initia tives facilitated by such an inc rease, was preferable to maintaining the sales tax at 5 percent and having no major emplo yment creation initia tives.

The decision was made somewhat easier because major exemptions for necessities are provided under the sales tax; food, chi ldren's clo thing, hous ing, farm machi nery and equipment and other items, and in light of the fact that tax credits introduced by the Schr eyer Government, particularly the cost of li ving tax cred it, provide signif icant help as well. In this context, members may recall that when the cost of living tax credit was introduced in 1974 by the then Min ister of Finance, Mr.

Chernia ck stated, "We want our new credit plan to help reduce the impact of provincial sales taxes in an equitable way, consistent with the principle of ability to pay." The success of that program is ill ustrated in Appendix C of the Budget, which notes that the combined impact of the 6 percent sales tax and the cost of living tax credit program results in a prog ressive application of taxation for moderate and low income groups.

I might add that, in our view, increasing the rate and thereby facilitating the maintenance of major exemptions was preferable to the Ontario Con servative approach of abolishing exemptions. The second tax change proposed to help finance the Jobs Fund was an increase in the large business income tax rate from 15 to 16 percent and aligning the Manitoba tax treatment of personal service corporations with that of the six other provinces within the corporation income tax collection agreement.

I have heard some muted criticism of our proposal to in crease the nominal corporation income tax rate on large business; however, the action is quite similar to the action taken by Ontario in increasing its large busi ness tax rate as announc ed in its May Budget. In our view, since income tax applies only to corporations in a profitable position, only to those which generate a taxable income, it was viewed as being preferable to measures which would have affected non-profitable busi nesses.

In this context, while the Manitoba large business income tax rate remains one point higher than Ontario's, Manitoba's capital tax rate remains at two- thirds of the Ontario level. Moreover, even with the moder ate in crease propo sed for large bus in ess corporations, income tax payments to the province from the corporate sector are estimated at $1 06.9 mil lion for '83-84, and that is some $8 mil lion lower than the corpor ate sec tor's contribution in 1981- 82. The Mani toba income tax rate on small business corporations will remain at the reduced 10 percent level introduc ed by our go vernment last year.

We ha d dropped it from 11 to 10 in that year. The final change to help finance the Jobs Fund Initi ative involves the proposed extension of the special 2 percent capital tax rate on banks. The bill proposes a number of technical amendments to The Min ing Tax Act. The restrict ion on the capitalization of certain development costs by an operator under The Mining Tax Act has been removed where the operators claim of a rate of capital cost allowance under The Income Tax Act is in excess of 50 percent of those development costs.

The bill also propo ses to clarify the previous intent of limiting the 5 percent in vestment tax credit to expenditur es that are classified in the records of the operator as long- term capital assets. The bill provides for a numb er of housekeeping changes to various other statutes. For example, it will provide for payment of inter est by the government on successful appeals at the same rate of inter est as is charged by the government.

Simi larly, the bill will provide for standardization of the period of necessary record retention which will, as far as possible, coincide with the present practices of the federal income tax authorities. I'll be listening closely during the course of debate on this bill to the comments of all members. I belie ve this deba te represents a real oppor tun ity for the opposition to ind icate whether they support the tax measures necessary to finance our vital job creation efforts and to maintain ess ential program ming.

I emphasize that because just a few weeks ago we had the opposition voting in favour of the Jobs Fund; voting in favour of the Jobs Fund entitles spending money. In order to spend money, people have to raise money. We are proposing that we will have to raise the money and we're proposing these tax changes for that purpose. And, Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time when a person can say you can't have it both ways, it is at a time like this.

When you vote to spend money, then one would also expect that people will be prepared to vote to raise that money in a fair and equitable way from the members of the public in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is of the view that makes certain presumptions with respect to this side voting for the Jobs Fund. Mr. Speaker, we voted for the Jobs Fund because that is the only program this government has to attempt to create any jobs in the Province of Manitoba.

The short­ term, make-work projects is the only way in which this government has proceeded to provide employment opportunities in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, to oppose that program, even though pr�,:;iram - a very very cynical program - 4735

that the government has in the Province of Manitoba and that's why we voted for the Jobs Fund. That ind icates, Mr. Speaker, the mindset of this government. They seem to think that's the only way that you can create employment opportunities in the Province of Manitoba through govern ment-funded, short-term, make-work projects. I grant, Mr. Speaker, that some of the facilities will be long lasting facilities and I don't object to that.

What the government does is ig nored completely the priv ate sector which all other gov ernments in Canada, in cluding the Federal Government, has recogn ized as the only way of creating lon g-term em plo yment opp ortun it ies not only for Manitobans but for all Canadians, Mr. Speaker. They have acted in such a man ner, Mr. Speak er, that is negating the creation of emplo yment opportunities in the Province of Manitoba. There was a great deal of dis cussion on a bill earlier this morning, Mr.

Speaker, The Consumer Protection Act amendments; amendments which, if enacted by this government, will throw a lot of people out of work in this province. They've already, as of this date, in some 18 or 19 months in office, allo wed some 20,000 more people to be unemp loyed in the Province of Manitoba and this is a period of time, Mr. Speaker, in .the summer months, when emplo yment levels, as we all know, decline. Mr.

Sp eaker , th ere is no recog nition in the govern ment's or the Min ister's actions to date that employment can be created through the priv ate sector, but we have day after day seen policies int roduced and legislation passed that has a very negative effect on bus in ess in Man itoba and on the crea tion of I emplo yment opportunities in Manitoba. We have seen,for example, the incr eases in the Consumer Price Index since last year, Mr.

Speak er, showing that the City of Winn ipeg has the second highest incr ease of any major Canadian city, when previously, in 1981, under our government, and even into 1982 under this government, before they had a chance to change policies, the City of Wi nnip eg had the lowest Consumer Price Index incr ease of any major Canadian city . Under this government, Mr. Speaker, it's the second hi ghest of any major Canadian city and that affects the cost of doing busi ness. Of course, the Min ister of Finance, will no doubt refer to his comparis on that he did last fall. What he ig nored, Mr.

Sp eaker , was the cost of tr ansp ortation for Manitoba. There are very high transportation costs from this province which he did not take into considera tion. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains the incr eases in taxes that the Min ister of Finance introduced in his Budget. We all remember, Mr. Speaker, the great deba te one year ago on the introduction of the sales tax and how it couldn't be proceeded with and what hardships it would create is what the Min ister said in 1981. Then, in 1982, he incr eased the sales tax from 5 percent to 6 percent.

That is a tax, as was ind icated in the Budget of 1981, that would affect most harshly the unemployed, the low income, and middle income people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, because they're the ones that will pay the bulk of this in crease in the sale s tax. It's this government, Mr. Speaker, contrary to all of the rationale that they developed in 1981, brought in the incr ease in the sales tax this year on the consumers of Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, at a time when many people in Manitoba are having great difficulties in making ends meet. 4736 This is the government that at the same time as the y'r e in troducing and enforc ing these sales tax incr eases have taken off the freeze on Manitoba Hydro rates, Mr. Speaker. The consumer of Manitoba was fortuna te over a period of four years in having a Hydro­ rate freeze, Mr. Sp eak er. We ha ve un der this government, in the month of May or June, a 9.5 percent in crease in hydro rates, Mr. Speaker. We have a payroll tax, Mr.

Speaker , intr oduc ed last year, con tinu ed through, a tax on unemployed, a tax that has to effect the rate of remuneration or the number of jobs existing in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, this government seems to believe that there is no other alternativ e but to go lo the well too often, to make the taxpayer pay for what they're doing. They're going to the taxpayer on The Election Finances Act to pay one-half of their NDP election expenses. They've incr eased the sales tax. They incr eased the tobacco and gasoline taxes. They introduced the payroll tax. They incr eased the Manitoba Hydro rate incr ease. Mr.

Speaker, all of this results in the incr eases in the Consumer Price Ind ex, putting the City of Winnipeg second hig hest among all major Canadian cities. Mr. Speaker, for what? They're are 20,000 more un emp loyed people in Manitoba than when they took office. Mr.

Speaker, this government is an absolute failur e to the people of Manitoba, and they are saying to us in the Legislature this morning they want to impose closure to burden the taxpayer further, to make it more difficult for the citizens of Manitoba with respect to buying goods and making deposits, which will put people out of work in busi nesses where they custom order, and they simply can't on the basis of a 5 percent deposit or less put through that custom order. There'd be a loss of jobs there. Mr.

Speaker, the members of the government wonder why we on this side have so much concern with what their government is doing. They want us to pass everything in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the public int erest in Manitoba will be served by every day this government is not allo wed to pass what they want to pass and to impose these burdens upon the taxpayer and the workers of Manitoba. That will be our position this morning, this afternoon, this evening, and every day that this Legislature sits, Mr. Speak er. This government ha s been a dis aster for the consumer in Manitoba.

It's been a disaster for the worker in Manitoba, and now we have the evidence of the further tax incr eases that are imposed upon this gover nment, Mr. Speak er, sale tax incr eases which will make it that much more difficult for the ordina ry worker and the ordinary citizen of this province to make ends meet, and a tax that will make it much more difficult for people to get by. Somewhere along the line, this government should be recognizing, particularly when they see the Consumer Price Index increase, what effect they are having on the average consumer and the average citizen in Manitoba.

This is what has caused that Consumer Price Index incr ease, Mr. Speaker. It's all go ver nment act ions, go ver nment polic ies, go vern ment legislation, gov ernment incr eases in taxation, which has now put the City of Winn ipeg in the unenviable position of having the second hig hest in crease among all major Canadian cities, one which they will resent, because under our government, Mr. Monday, 1 August, 1983

Monday, 1 August, 1983 Speaker, we were the lowest of all major Canadian cities. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOUR LAY: I'd like to move, seconded by the Member for Niakwa, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 109 -THE LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y ACT HON. V. SCHROEDER presented Bill No. 10 9,

An act to amend The Legisla tive Assembly Act (2), for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter. HON. V. SCHROEDER: This bill provides that the annual cost of living adju stment for ML A in demn ity and expenses, as provided for in

Section 59(3) of The Legisla tive Assembly Act shall not be effective in the '83-84 fiscal year until June 18 th. It is the same effective date as was nego tiated with the MGE A for imple mentation of the '8 3-84 civil service salary increases, and that effective the delay in implementation of the '83-84 cost of living adjustment for each MLA indemn ity and expense allowance from April 1st to June 18 th will be to reduce the adjustment from $2,5 13 .0 1 to $1 ,908.03, a reduction of $604.98. On a percentage basis, the revised adjustment amounts to an increase of 6.38 percent.

The total annual indemni ty and expense allowance for each MLA will be in creased. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert on a point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: On a point of order. I wonder if the Mi nister of Finance could speak a little more clearly. I can't hear him. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter. HON. V. SCHROEDER: On a percentage basis, the revised adjustment amounts to an in crease of 6.38 percent.

The total annual indemnity expense allowance for each MLA will be inc reased from the existing 29,9 16.13 by the adjusted cost of living allowance of 1, 908.03, to revise the total of 21 ,824. 16. It is intended to reduce all minis terial salaries by a corresponding amount of $1 ,908.03, effective June 18, 1983, as evide nce of this govern ments con ti nu ed commitment to care in terms of spend ing, in terms of those people who are in the higher income brackets. There was some reference previously to 6 and 5.

We've never said that 6 percent, or 5 percent, or any specific numb er is some thing that's too low for everybody or too high; we've said that it depends on where you're at. If you're at the $4 an hour minimum wage, then 6 percent means very little. If you're earning $50,000 a year, then at a time like this maybe 6 percent is too much. That's why for us it will be 0 for next year; for senior civil servants it will be 2 percent and less for next year; for some other people it will be more than the 6 percent, or wh atever, and I think that it's being done on a more fair and equitable basis.

The Cabi net portion, of course, does not come to the Legislature and will be authoriz ed by an Order-in­ Council after the passage of Bill 10 9. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Swan River, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill 23, Mr. Speaker, standing in the name of the Honour able Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. MR.

SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Attorney -General, Bill No. 23 - the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. (Stand) The Honourable Minis ter of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Speaker, we'll call Bill No. 18. I see the Honourable Member for Emerson is here. ADJOURNED DE BATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 18 -THE LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Attorney-G eneral, Bill No. 18. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no difficulty in debating Bill 18.

In my opening remarks, I'd just like to ind icate again, as we have been ind icating for the la st li ttle while, the in com petence of the government in being able to run the affairs of the House properly. We have just had a good ill ustration again just this morning when the Acting House Leader, who has been the reason for much of the problems that have been developing in this House, gets up and ind icated that there would be no more bills allo wed to stand starting this afte rnoon.

At the same tim e, to pr ove the incompetence of the ind ividual Min ister, to prove exactly what I'm saying, is there are five bills that have not received second read ing this morn ing yet; final ly, through a little bit of badgering, two of them have been introduced for second reading, and the fact that there are three in the Attorney-General's name that wiil not even be ::econd reading here or introd uced in second re:·, dim:: this afternoon . . . 4737

Monday, 1 August, 1983 A MEMBER: He's at the lake. MR. A. DRIEDGER: He's at the lake. Then the Acting House Leader, as I ind icated before, the problem-maker in this House to some degree, is ind icating that no bills will be allowed to stand; start talking of closure on us. That's interesting enough. I wond er, Mr. Speaker, if they called Bill 34 or the other ones that the Attorney-General is bringing in, how they'll force closure on those, because they haven't even been introduced. It's going to be very interes ting.

Or do they want to hunt and pick and choose which ones they're going to put the hammer on, which obviously seems to be the deal. In speaking to the conflict of int erest bill that has been brought in, I had occasion to speak to Bill 47, which is conflict of interest for muni cipal people; and it is our un de rstan ding that when the Mun icipal Committee met to deal with Bill 47, which was conflict of int erest for municipal people, that they were not prepared to have that dealt with at that time, obviously, because there's problems in it. The same thing happens with this bill, but that is not unusual.

Most of the controversial legislation that has been presented to this House to date has been very poorly thought out. I wonder , is it the Min isters that are responsible for the kind of incomp etent legislation that's coming forward, or what is the problem? Is nobody on their side, does the back bench not check these bills when they're being introduced? It creates a lot of doubts in our minds.

This conflict of interest for the Legislative Assembly, I expect the same thing will have to happen there; that there will have to be amendments made, substantial amendments, because things that they didn't realize about this kind of legislation are becoming apparent now. The fact that spouses will have to declare, that could be a conflict with human rights. The thing with having adult children at home, what it does is create a problem, and I think everybody's been aware of that. It's going to create a problem.

For example, where there isn't harmony with a man and wife, the wife or husband, whoever it may be, could create a problem, could deny a member the right to run, because if the spouse does not want to declare, it handicaps the other indi vidual from running because if you do not declare, you're not valid to have office. 1 I'm sure there are situations. The next mile that we can go is what if you have a live-in friend? Is that included as well?

I don't have that problem at this time and I hope I never do have that problem, but presumably we can foresee the time and place where this can happen, where this can develop. Again, that kind of indi vidual could say, no, I'm not disclosing my assets. It further leads me to think about the conflict aspect of it. We have an Attorney-General who's introduc ed somewhat in the neighbourhood of 40 some-odd bills of various nature, some controversial, some not; but each time we pass a bill, it sort of opens the door for the legal people to again have more trade develop from this.

In my mind, with the kind of legislation that is being introduced, when we look at bills like 23 and 24, these are manna for the lawyers. If a lawyer like the Attorney-General would introduce this kind of legislation which creates work for the legal people, does that put him in conflict for doing it? The other question I have is, for example, if we have farm bills - we're talking of the conflict aspect of it - is it then illegal for a member represen ting a rural area who is a farmer to vote on farm bills? If it could be, let's say, gain for every farmer, should he be entitled to it too?

Should he be entitled to vote on it or not? Well, that's interesting enough, because then every time we bring in a bill that deals with the teachers' situation, then all teachers should not vote on it in this House. Is that what you're trying to establish here? Where do we stop with the conflict aspect of it?

The other day in committee in dealing with Bill 90, the Mini ster of Transportation was sitting there and accusing each one of the people that made a brief that they were in conflict because they were appointed to the board or elected to the board and here they were making a presentation to the committee, and he accused them all of being in conflict. Now, how far do we carry this thing? Because any bill, for example, on Bill 90, I would not be in a position to vote on it then. Being a farmer, being a beef produ cer, I would not have been allowed to vote on it. These are things that I would like to kn ow.

Where does this finally stop? That's what leads me to think and again illus trate the fact that this government does not know what they're doing in many of the cases. When we were in government at that time when the Mini sters came up with bills, and ther e are ti mes when thi ngs get overlooked and there are mistakes than can be made and they should be corrected, I recall when this government, the beginning of this Session said, give us ideas, t