Manitoba Hansard — 10 June 1982 (Sitting 73A, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-73a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 10 June, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Peti tions Reading and Receiving Petit ions ... Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm it- tees . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Que stions, may I direct the attention of honourable member s to the gallery where we have 18 students of Grade 9 stand ing from the Birch River School, un der the direction of Mr. Warkenti n.

This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Memb er for Swan River. There are 26 students from the Ethelbert Collegiate School, un der the direction of Mr. Kozer, Mrs. Hykawy and Mrs. Sud. The students are in the constituency of the Honour able Memb er for Dau phin. On behalf of all of the mem bers I welcome you here this afternoon. Also, before we reach Oral Que stions, I have a short procedural statement to make to the memb ers. PROCEDURAL STATEMENT MR.

SPEAKER: On Thu rsday, Jun e 3rd, dur ing Oral Que stion period, a disagreement occu rred between the Honou rable Mi nister of Natural Resources and the Honou rable Member for Turtle Moun tain concerning the length of an answer given by the Honou rable Min ister, and whether the qu estion had been asked at Oral Que stion period or at Com mittee of Suppl y. I took the matter un der advisement in order to check the actual words in Ha nsard and to consider the remarks of the honou rable memb ers on the issue .

I find that there was indeed a difference of opinion between the memb ers as to when the matter was raised. While it is probably irrelevant to research Hansard to find out exactly when the qu estion was first raised, the very fact that it was brought to the attention of the House does provide the opportun ity to clarify the situ ation with regard to qu estions raised during Comm ittee of Supply and at Oral Que stion period.

Firstly, with regard to que stions asked of the Minis ter at Comm ittee of Supply, there is clearly the oppor tuni ty for considerable abuse of qu estion period if Min isters should use this time for lengthy answers to qu estions asked during Commi ttee. It has been the practice of the Hous e that qu estions posed to a Minis ter at Comm ittee should be answered in written form at a sub sequent date and the answer communic ated to the Memb er ask ing the qu estion. Since this long stan ding practice has succeeded so admirably, it should be continue d.

Secondly , where qu estions have been taken as notice by a Min ister during qu estion period, it has been our practice for the Min ister to give an oral reply at a su bsequent qu estion period . This constitutes no difficulty where the answer is brief, but the same opportunit y arises for abuse if the answer should be lengthy or detailed. In such cases, the matter should be handle d in the same manner as an Order For Return with the Min ister announcing to the House that he is provid ing a written reply to the honourable memb er's qu estion.

Since it is imp ossible to define what is a reasonable length for an oral answer, Minis ters mu st use their best judgment in this regard. Any Min ister wishing to avoid the oppr obrium of the House will surely tend toward a written rather than an oral answer to a question. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my qu estion is to the Honour able Attorney -General, the Min ister responsi ble for the Man itoba Liquor Control Commi ssion. Mr.

Sp eaker, can the Attorn ey-G eneral confirm that Man itoba's liqu or prices, particul arly with respect to sp irits, are now second or third highest in the country as a result of the Bu dget that the NOP Government has brought in? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney -Gener al. 321 0 HON. R. PENNER: The Memb er for St. Norbert asked that que stion in Estima tes in Comm ittee, was in fact given a written reply by me in writing - I took the cou rtesy of doing that - and with respect, is now abus ing the privilege of the Hous e in raising as a que stion something with respect to which he's had a written reply.

If I un derstood your ruling, he's asking me to do that which I should not be doing and, in fact, rather than take up the time in qu estion period, I gave him the information within two days. Now, who's abusing the privileges of the House? If he wants the answer, he has it. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General doesn't wish to confirm what I believe is the case, that they are the second or third highest prices in Canada as a result of the NOP Bud get. My suppleme ntary qu estion, Mr. Speaker, is to the Min ister of Labour.

In view of the fact that 35 workers in Gimli at Seagram Disti llers Plant have been laid off as a result of slump ing sales due to government taxes -(I nterjection)- the information, Mr. Speaker, is sales have been slumping as a result of an increase in governm ent taxes. My qu estion is to the Min ister of Finance and Labour. Is he prepared to take any action or withd raw any portion of his Bu dget, Mr.

Speaker, which required the Liquor Control Comm ission to raise an additional $20 million over and above their increases at the beginning of May and which now are resulting in the layoff of some 35 workers in Gim li, which no doub t are also affected by the im position of his payr oll tax.

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 HON. R. PENNER: One aspect of that question, the announ cement was very clear that the shutdown has to do with changing drinkin g habits. namely, a switch in the consu mption of rye. Now for the honourable memb er to come into this House and add a bit of information which is not, in fact, official information at all, in order to make a point is, with respect, in the real sense of the word, in my view, an abuse of the privilege of the House. -( Interjection)- I just did. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my qu estion is to the Minister of Labour .

In view of the fact that a Seag ram Distillers Plant in Giml i, Manitoba, has laid off 35 pro duction workers as a result of slumping sales due to an increase in taxes, which the Min ister increased in his Bu dget this year by ask ing the Liquor Control Comm ission to raise an additional $20 million over and above their increase at the beginnin g of May, what action is the Minister of Labour going to take to ensure that these people will retain their jobs? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the mem ber is being facetious.

I'm sure not even the Memb er for St. Norbert believes the kind of nonsense that he's stating. He kn ows full well I am sure, that the particular layoff he is referring to does have something to do with the drinking habits, not only of Man itobans, but of other Canadians who are also making use of that particular product and not in as great qu antities as they did in previous years.

If, in fact, the member had a point then I would presume that the breweries and other operations in this province would also be shut ting down for the sum mer and we certainly have no indication of that What has happ ened agai n, is that there is a change in people's drinking habits. There may well be some what of a reduction in qu antities being consu med by Man itobans and, quit e frankly, I'm not sure that we would be extremely up set on this side of the House if, in fact, that was occurring. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, to the Mini ster of Agricultur e.

In view of the fact that the Bud get brought down by the Min ister of Finance with the increase of liquor taxes and a payro ll tax im posed on the people who are in the busi ness of using agricultu ral commoditi es, could the Minister of Agricultur e assure those people, who would have been delivering corn during that period of time, that they are not in any way being affected or put in jeopardy, or their incomes affected because of the imp osition of excess taxes on the com modity that is produced from the agricult ural com modity? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agricultur e. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Arthur should be, and I hope that he's well aware that the ma rket for corn in Manitoba has been depressed as the result of an oversupply of corn on the market. in 321 1 fact, there has been great difficulties suffered by a co-operative in the Carman area where they have now been forced to set up another company to refinance because of the very problem of the price of corn in Western Canada and if we were to, with respect to the specifics of the qu estion into Gimli - the corn supply to Gimli - I'm sure that the corn suppl ies in terms of the Gi mli Distillery are on a regular basis and are handled normally.

The shutdown, as I und erstand, is an overall slump in the consumption of alcohol which, Mr. Speaker, I would say for the health of our citizens of this country, is probably a very good thing. While it does affect the industry in terms of the production of alcohol but for the health of our citizens, it's probably one of the best things that we can see, is a decrease in the consu mption of alcohol products. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, to the Min ister of Ag ricultu re, I think it's a decision of each and every Manit oban whether or not they use that particular com modity which comes from the agricultu ral com munit y. For those mem bers of the government back bench that sug gest that they will be using that corn at home to use or make into alcohol, I wonder if they've cleared that with the Attorney -General, if he is now going to allow that type of process to take place legally in Man itoba. To the Min ister of Agricultur e then, how can he as the Min ister of Agric ultur e, Mr.

Speaker, justify the reimposition of a tax on the product that is being produced from grain produced commo dities in the gasohol production? Mr. Speaker, he's now add ing a tax to that particular industry which is, in fact, using it to extend the nonrenewable resources and he's now taxing that as well as the increased tax on human consu med alcohol or product that is coming from the corn industry. Mr. Speaker, how can he ju stify sup porting the reimposition of taxation on alcohol that would be used for motor power fuel in gaso hol? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the Bu dget was very clear in dealing with the matter of alcohol. If the member recalls, while the announ cements were made when the gaso hol plant was opened in Man itoba and there was assistance, in fact, clear su bsidies to that plant by the decrease of the tax on alcohol products while -(I nterjection)- well, it was a clear sub sidy, Mr. Speaker . Obviously it was a clear subsidy to the indus try when the alcohol was com ing from the Uni ted States when we were told that we were producing the alcohol in the Province of Man itoba, Mr. Speaker -(Int erjection)- Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opp osition indicates from his seat that a subsidy is when you pay someth ing. Mr. Speaker, there is a pay ment if everyone else is paying something and you don't charge someone for something, you are in fact giving them a payment. You may not be giving it directly but you're giving it indirectly, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, clearly with respect to the plant there should be no greater incentive in terms of the produc tion of alcohol than there is for other industry. There should be no greater incentive.

The use of the plant certainly should be encouraged and if it can be on a feasible basis it should be done, but the use of the feed and the grains, if they can be put to use and a price received on the world ma rket that will equal or better

that price, that's where that grain should go and not strictly for the fuel. The best use of that comm odity should be made, Mr. Speaker. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a final suppleme ntary to the Minis ter of Agr icultur e. With his own adm ission that the corn sales are lagging and that there is diffi culty within the marke ting of corn at this particular time, Mr.

Speaker, would he then confirm that un der his governm ent's policies and taxation policies that are overburden ing on the farm commun ity that there are some 400,000 bushels of lost sales of corn for those corn producers probably in excess of $1. 5 mil lion worth of corn sales, Mr. Speaker, can he confirm those figures? Is he going to sit and allow his Min ister of Finance to lay people off, to remove markets which have been traditional and built in this province un der good sound policies previous to his ad ministration, Mr. Speaker? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker , I can't confirm those figures and I'm sure the honourable memb er himself can't confirm them either. We will attempt to check them out but I can't confirm those figures. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, clearly, part of the problems that farmers do have are as a result of the laissez-faire policies and the do-no thing policies of Tory admi nis trations.

Instead of trying to bring about market opportun ities, income security to farmers, they want to throw them out to the wolves instead of allowing them some income security and that's why many of the farmers in this cou ntry are in trouble, because of the lai ssez-faire policies of former Tory ad ministra tions and his is one of them, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker , I have a que stion for the First Min ister after the lecture we've had from the Min ister of Agricultur e on how alcohol should be pro duced presu mably under the control system that he favours in other countries. Mr. Speaker, my que stion to the First Mi nister is this: News reports have it that the First Min ister has now joined his voice to that of the Premier of Alberta cal ling for a renewed Federal-Prov incial Conference on the Economy, could the First Min ister indicate to the Hou se, (

a) if that is the case because we have had no annou ncement of it in the Hous e and, (

b) if that is the case, would it be his intention to sus pend the imp osition of the payr oll tax in Mani toba, which is and will be acting as a contributor to unem ployment in Man itoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , I have called for an early meeti ng of the First Min isters of this country. Obviously, the Versailles Conference has not achieved any thing of a positive natu re. Obviously, despite the predictions at the Federal-Pro vincial Conference of February 2nd to 4th, there has been no im provement to the economy.

Indeed there has been a further dete rioration insofar as the economy is concerne d throug hout Canada. At the same time we are hearing remarks from Ottawa that there is some change in stance on their position from wha t they were indeed telling us on February 2nd to February 4th. There has also been some specu lation that the Federal Government is on the verge of bringing in some new initiatives.

It is my view, that prior to their undertaking new initiatives, that there should be consu ltation discussion with the First Min isters of this country so that we can work together in the framework of co-operative federalism in order to resolve those very crucial, very difficult conditions that are facing all Canadians. 3212 HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sur e that the First Min ister would find little objection on this side of the House to the proposition that if Ottawa is going to fundamentally change the economic direction of the country with respect to new proposals and new pro grams, that it would be advisable for the Prime Minis ter to meet with the Premi ers before that takes place.

That being the case, would it not be equally logical and advisable for this government, which has imposed a payro ll tax upon all of the empl oyers in Manitoba, to suspend the imp osition of that tax until such time as the government is able to ascerta in the new directions that the Federal Government is intend ing to take the economy, because there can be no que stion that the imp osition of this tax will act as some thing that will increase unem ploymen t in Man itoba, and we're all tryi ng to decrease unempl oyment, except apparently the mem bers of this frontbench, who are trying to raise $13 0 million without trying to save any money for the taxpayers?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, our record of taxa tion chang es in the past two or three months com pares most favourably with that which has been com pelled up on the residents in other provinces. Mr. Speaker, I need only refer you to the Province of Ontario, the Province of Quebec, the Province of Nova Scotia, the Province of Newfoundland, ad infinitum insofar as the Provinces of Canada are concerned. Mr.

Speaker, one of the very reasons indeed, that a Federal-Pro vincial Conference is requi red is so that we can again examin e the qu estion of the financing of health and post-seco ndary educa tion; so that again we can examin e measures in order to ensure a greater payment of monies throughout Canada to ensur e greater equal ization by way of the equali zation for mul a, and I'm sure that if we can hopefully persuade the Federal Government to undo some of the mea sures that they have un dertaken by way of financial payment to the provinces over the past year, that each and every province in Canada would be re-exam ining the tax measures that they have been compelle d to imp lement because of cutbacks from Ottawa by way of grants.

HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government of Manit oba could forego the imp osi tion of the payroll tax in Manitoba merely by cut ting its Estimates of Expenditur e, which are going to be up somewhere between 14 and 20 percent this year, given that fact and given the fact, Mr. Speaker, as I've said before, that Manitoba is the only province in Can ada imp osing a new tax, a payro ll tax, does the First

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 Minister not think that it would be better for the econ omy and for the people of Manitoba to suspend the imp osition of that invidious tax until such time as he and his colleagues are able to ascertain from the Prime Minister what new directions, if any, the Federal Government intends to take our economy, in a mone tary sense and in a fiscal sense? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, it is somewhat pecul iar, some com ments coming from the Leader of the Opposition referring to expenditur e, when it is practi cally during the Estimate review of every department that we hear calls across the way for this government to participate in additional spend ing, that we're not spending adeq uately. We heard a com ment indeed from the former Min ister of Economic Development that we should open up our Interest Rate Relief Pro gram to permit more compan ies to qualify insofar as interest rate relief was concerned even yesterday, so that does strike a somewhat pecu liar note. Mr.

Speaker, the fundamen tal qu estion that we are posed with in Canada is runaway interest rates that I un derstand have been increased this morning again by one-third of one percent, again causing an addi tional crushing burden up on Canadians; that is the essential issue that is confronting Canadians. I would hope, Mr.

Speaker , that we would gain some su pport from mem bers across the way so that we could reflect to the Federal Government that Man itoba stands uni ted, regardless of party stripe, in opposition to the kind of high interest rate policies that are being pur sue d at the present time in Ottawa, copied from those that are being pursued in Washington. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, as is becoming almost a knee-jerk custom of the Prem ier, we're now hearing about the problems in Washi ngton and the problems in Ottawa.

If I may, Sir, I would like to draw the atten tion of the First Mi nister to the problems in Manitoba, and in this Leg islature, most of which reside on that side of the House. The First Min ister said that this side of the Hous e is advoca ting expenditur es all the time. Mr. Speaker, we are advocat ing that this government conduc t ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Gov ernment House Leader on a Point of Order. POINT OF ORDER HON. R. PENNER: The Leader of the Opp osition is clearly doing nothing but making a speech that does not even pu rport to be a

preamble to a qu estion. I ask that you call him to order and what the pu rpose of Que stion Period is, is to elicit information by short qu estions. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I would hope that all introductions to qu estions should be of a brief nature and Beauchesne sug gests that they can be ade qua tely provided for within one que stion, within one statement. The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition. ORAL QUESTIONS (Cont'

d) HON. S. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the problems reside on this side of the Hous e, and with respect to ill-conceived programs that !his government is bringing in, would the First Min ister not admit that if he were to re-exam ine the Estima tes of Expenditur e of this governme nt that he could put to one side - and one would hope forever - such ridiculous expenditur es as $20 million for a new govern ment oil company, ManOil, and thereby accompl ish the desire, Mr. Speaker -(I nterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Gov ernment House Leader. POINT OF ORDER HON. R.

PENNER: Beauchesne clearly states that a que stion ask ing a memb er of the Treasury Bench to make some adm ission of opinion of that kind, merely to adopt a fully stated opinion of a memb er oppo site, is out of order. I ask that you draw that to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: I would hope the Honour able Attorney-General has done just that thing in drawing it to the attention of mem bers opposite. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, thank you, Sir, for your understanding of the rule.

On the point of order which was raised by the Attorney -General, may I mak e this one com ment that you, Sir, have an equal respons ibility of which I kn ow you are fully aware that points of order should not be used as methods of harassment in a parliamen tary dem ocracy. They may be rules that can be used in other Legis latures in other countries but, Mr. Speaker, the use of a point of order as harassment in this Legis lature is not part of the trad ition of this House even though the Attorney-G eneral might like to make it so. 3213 MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government Hous e Leader to the same point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it is clearly improper to impu te motives to anyone in the Hous e. I'm not saying that ifs because I'm the Government Hous e Leader. I have raised, bona fide, a point of order.

I've referred to Beauchesne and for the Leader of the Opp osition to say that I'm rising to harass him - much as anyone in their right mind would love to do it - is improperly to impu te motives and that is cle arly out of order and clearly, when we are addres sing a que stion of order, it shows a lamentable lack of any under stan ding of the parliam entary system on the part of that man. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If there is no other memb er wishing to speak to the same point of order, may we proceed with Oral Que stion period? ORAL QUESTIONS Cont'd MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S.

LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, wou ld the First Min ister then not admit that expendi -

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 lu res of such a dub ious nature as $20 million for ManOil could be put to one side in order that this government can forestall the imp osition of the invi dious payroll tax in Manit oba and thereby contribute in some small way to an im provement in the economic outlook for Manitoba rather than preju dicing it as this tax will? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, we have indeed noticed how desperate the Leader of the Opp osition is, how frantic the Leader of the Op position is to try to find some expend iture that he can point to that ought not to be expended, though I wish indeed that we were spending $20 million this year in respect to ManOil. The fact is that we have om itted to put the $20 million into expenditu res for this forthcoming year. There are no $20 million in the expenditur es. Mr.

Speaker, I say to you this, that if the Opposition Mem bers, after bomb arding us for weeks and months to add additional expen ditur es, now make up expen ditu res that aren't in the book of expenditur es, indeed, I don't kn ow where they are. I think it's time the Opp o sition got their act together. HON. S. L VON: Mr. Speaker, I am heartened by what the First Mini ster says. Mr. Speaker, if the expendi tures are not in the cu rrent Estima tes and are not in the Suppl ementary Su pply, which we haven't yet seen, and they're not in the Capit al Su pply, which we have yet to see; well then, Mr.

Speaker, we're pleased on this side of the Hous e. Can we then have the further ass urance from the First Min ister that the minu te this House prorogues, he won't duck into the Cabine t Chamb er and pass a Special Warrant for $1 O million or whatever to fund his socialist play thing, ManOil, which this province doesn't need? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, let me assure this House, it may be difficult consid ering the hard eco nomic tim es that we're confronted with, but we'll do all that is possible to avoid the precedent that was estab lished by the Conservative Government last year in that they did duck into the Cabi net room after they concluded the Session, in an election year, to call for Special Warrants to the extent of some $80-some mil lion. We'll try to avoid that precedent, surely, Mr. Speaker. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, then can we have an answer to the original qu estion which the First Minis ter has conveniently avoided?

Put ting aside his own ideological requirements, will he not in the interests of all Manitobans susp end the imp osition of the payroll tax to help the economy in Mani toba before he goes to any conference that he is asking for with the Prime Min ister of Canada? Will he come to the negotiating table for the economy of Canada with clean hands? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would assume that Qu ebec would reduce its sales tax; that Nova Scotia would reduce its sales tax; that Newfoundland would make decreases respecting their income and incorpo ration tax increases they just im posed; that Ontario would be able again to enjoy some sanity insofar as the extension of exemp tions that they had to extend in their recent Bu dget pertaining to sales tax.

I'm sure that the Province of Manitoba wou ld look at some tax reductions if we, collectively, as provincial govern ments in this country, cou ld persuade Ottawa to return to the original level of financing re health, post secondary education and equal ization levies that. indeed were enjoyed by the four years of Conservative ad min istration in the Province of Ma nitoba, but they did n't use them very well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday I took as notice the qu estion about the boxes at the Downs and who paid for the boxes that the Comm ission member s were entitled to occu py. I wish to table a letter which gives the response. It's a letter written by Marshall Gobu ty, Executive Vice-Pres ident and General Man ager, to the Editor of the Winnip g Free Press. This letter is in regard to an

article which appeared in the Winnip eg Free Press on Wednesday . POINT OF ORDER MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition to a point of order. HON. S. LYON: I'm sure the House would love to have the information, Sir, but in the light of your recent ruling, I would think that if a letter is avai lable, and the letter not add ressed to this House, it could be distrib uted and, thereby, not abuse qu estion period. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'll give the gist of the letter. Mr. Gobu ty ... 3214 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition to a point of order. HON. S.

LYON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, ju st to reiterate the point that was made earlier in your ruling, Sir, if the Honour able First Min ister has obtained written infor mation in answer to a qu estion, that is very satisfac tory. We'd be qui te happy to have her table it rather than read in extenso and thereby take up time of the que stion period on some information that she can table and hand around. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Governm ent House Leader to the same point of order. HON. R. PENNER: On the same point of order, Mr.

Speak er, the Honour able Min ister for Economic Development took a qu estion as notice and now within one day is replying. Whether or not it is in extenso - God, how much of the debate has to take place in Latin - canno t be determi ned until you, as the Speaker who has charge of this Assem bly, has heard whether or not the Min ister is abusing the time of the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Virden to the same point of order.

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the same point of order and offering you probably some assistance. I think if you would choose to peruse Beauchesne you would find that the reading of letters to a newspaper or letters to an editor in this Chamb er is material that is clearly out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Any other members wishing to speak to the same point of order? The Honour able Minister of Fina nce on the same point of order. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the same point of order.

It seems to me that afterthe Opposition has wasted practically a whole qu estion period on this matter yesterday they can surely wait several min utes to hear the response this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: May I sug gest to the Honour able Min ister of Economic Developmen t that she make the annou ncement that she is supplyi ng the answer to the qu estion and perhaps send a written copy across to mem bers on the other side to satisfy their cu riosity on the matter. The Honourable Memb er lor Elmwood. MR. R. OOERN: I'd like to ask a que stion of the Mi nis ter of Economic Development . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, can we jus t dispose of the previous point before that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Developm ent. HON. M. SMITH: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, I'm unclear at this point whether you wish me to send the letter without giving the contents or whether I may read the very short few paragraphs that give a suc cinct answer to yesterday's qu estion or whether I can summa rize it and give it on my behalf. I wish some guid ance, please. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, if the letter itself is self expl anatory, may I request that the Honour able Minis ter send it across to memb ers on the other side. ORAL QUESTIONS Cont'd MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Elmwood. MR. R. OOERN: Mr. Speaker , I'd like to ask a qu estion of the Mi nister of Economic Developme nt. Yesterday there were some charges made that were critical of the Comm issioner of Horse Racing in Man itoba and his condu ct. Can the Min ister shed any light on the matter? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm happ y to answer that qu estion. I did speak both to Mr.

Keenberg and to people at the track. I foun d that the qu estion of the box was that the prior practice was for the Downs to mak e available two courtesy boxes to the Commi ssion. The Comm ission itself voluntarily agreed to one box which has a value of $1 ,500 but for which no money was paid, plus the access to a table in the dinin g room, not the corner on it but the right to use it if they chose. I also found out from the operators at the Downs that the qu estion of the jeans was not, in their eyes, an im portant qu estion.

In fact, it was a new rule put in for the Turf Club and many hun dreds of patrons had made the same error, that they didn't consider the interchange as reported in the paper at all accurate and I am happy to table a letter to the Free Press. A copy was sent to us by Marshall Gobut y, by which I assume he wanted me to share this information with the Hous e, and I am happy to table it for the mem bers of the House. MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Stu r geon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker , I'll try to ask this qu estion without the silly interruptions from the Prem ier. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minis ter of Economic Developme nt why the hearings that are being held yesterday and today, which the Min is ter herself said were being held - yesterday she referred to them in the Hous e and she referred to them outside the Hous e and has said it on television inter views - why those hearings are not open to the publi c, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Developm ent. 3215 HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to respond on that.

The Comm ission does have auth ority to hold such hearings and under The Manitoba Evidence Act they're not requir ed to be open but they are required, if requested, to give reason for holding them in camera. Mr. Speaker, the reason for them being held in camera was at the request of the witnesses who felt they would be divulging private busi ness information and they preferred it to be dealt with in a private manner. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister yes terday made some statements regarding the articles in the paper that I had referred to, and I'm referring to the one of April 22nd in the Winn ipeg Free Press and it's in qu otes, Mr. Speaker, "Mr . Keenberg said the Comm ission was given pertinent information as to what to expect in the year end audit." And in quo tes again, "We do not have any concern that racing will be other than normal at Assi niboia Downs." Mr.

Speaker , after the qu estion period yesterday, the Min ister was in the hall making an announ cement and I would like to ask the Min ister regard ing her comm ents that the track would operate possibly from day -to-day but may not be viable in the long term; could I ask the Min ister why she has to make that statement at the present time after her Com missioner stated to the people of Manitoba and to the creditors of the Assiniboia Downs, who sell products to them, had gone ahead and done busine ss for two months and now we find that it migh t not be viable for the long term? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, to set the record right I wasn't making statements or annou ncements in the

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 hall I was responding to qu estions in the Press in as open and candid a manner as I felt I could. I was incorrectly qu oted in the Press as indicating that one choice we were looking at was the closing of the track this year. Mr. Speaker, I elimi nated that as one of the options. I said that the government are com mitted to protecting and developing the racing industry as a valuable industry; that we are satisfying ourselves on the day-to-day operation; we're comm itted to mini mal disrup tion in the track operation if there has to be some change. I at no time, Mr.

Speaker, said that the racing season for this season would not continue. Mr. Speaker, I did say that we were acq uiring the information we needed in order to make the best choice if we found it neces sary to take action to ensur e the long-term security of the track. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Min ister of Economic Development and Tourism if she has been in contact with the Red River Exhibition who were one of the two people that made proposals to purchase the track last year. The owner of the track made his choice as to who to sell it to.

I'm wondering, with the Min ister giving us the possibility that the governme nt might operate the track, if they have gone to the nonprofit organization Red River Exhibition, who were interested in the ownership and operation of the track, if she has consulted with them at this time. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I thank the memb er opposite for recom mending to us one line of action. It's prematur e at this point for us to initiate that kind of discus sion, but I can assure the memb er opposite that we're willing to look at any possible option and weigh it in good time. But before we can make an assess ment, Mr.

Speaker, we have to have access to the basic information and that was the reason why the hearings were called. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Does the Min ister not believe that the hearings held about the race track causes concern with the public and in the long haul and in the short term, as a matter of fact, creates a great hole in the betting and attendance in the race track? Does the Min ister not believe that the hearings, if they were pu blic, people would have more confidence that everyt hing is going to be all right at the track? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, it would be naive of us if we thought that having hearings was not going to have some im pact on confidence in the track. Mr. Speaker, that is an un fortunate aspect of the situa tion. Bu t, the un derly ing problem, Mr. Speaker, was the problem we inherited from the previous government where there was no thorough record of the kind of information that, in our opinion, is requir ed to run the track, to carry out the work of the Comm ission in a respons ible and thorough way. Mr.

Speaker, we're moving as qui ckly and as responsibly as we can to make up for that defect but we cannot force the speed undul y. We have given every assurance within our power to the people involved in the track that we are comm itted to the indust ry; that we do value it and that we do intend to take responsible action to ensur e that indus try con- tinue here in Man itoba. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister would express to the House whether she read the extensive report that was done on the racing comm is sioned by the previous government.

I would like the Mi nister to explain to the Hous e, or tell the Hous e, if she was really dissatisfied with the long, hard work that Mr. Sid Halter, as Comm issioner, did for racing in this province? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, we had been operating on the basis of recomme ndations that came from the previous Comm ission and from the report but, Mr. Speaker, as we've moved closer into the industry and particularly as we've had to see the effect of the gen eral difficulty that the track is encountering - I pre sume because of the general economic conditions - we've had new situations to deal with. Mr.

Speaker, I have no desire to evaluate at this time the work done by the previous Com missioner or Comm ission. What I do know is that there are serious gaps in the information that we have available on which to make sound judgme nts. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite I think, kn ows as well as I do what some of the un derlying difficulties have been. At a later time it migh t be more appropria te to discuss those, but I think at this point in time our efforts should be devoted to trying to maintain the track and make the kind of wise choices to keep it on a safe and secure footing. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I would be pleased to debate that at any time, anywhere with the Minister as to whether she had all the information she requi red or not.

I wou ld only ask the Minis ter then and by final que s tion, if she felt there were sincere problems at the track, why didn't the First Mi nister who had corres pondence pleading with him to put experienced peo ple on the Racing Commi ssion, why wasn't that done and why didn't the Min ister take into consideration the advice that she received, which strongly recomm ended that they would be in problems if they put inexpe rienced people on the Racing Comm ission and yet the government went ahead and did so? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the problems we are encou ntering are due to following the recomm enda tions of the previous group and not to the personnel on the new Com mission. 3216 I've been extremely pleased with the extensive time put in and the careful analysis being given by the new Commi ssion. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Que s tion Period has expired. COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to make some chan ges on the Statutory Regu lations and Orders Comm ittee. I'd like

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 to substitute the Memb er for Tuxedo for the Memb er for Virden; The Memb er for Kirkfield Park for the Mem ber for Roblin-Russ ell; and the Memb er for Stur geon Creek for the Memb er for Gladstone. MR. SPEAKER: Agreed? (Agr eed). The Honour able Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to as well annou nce some Comm ittee changes in Statutory Regu lations and Orders.

The Honourable Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will substitute for the Honour able Memb er for Gim li; the Member for Ellice sub stituti ng for the Memb er for Rupertsland; but ju st for Mon day morning, the Memb er for River East subs tituti ng for the Memb er for Brandon West. In addition, -(I nterjection)- I'm giving advance notice but I'll do it again Monday afternoon. A further change for Tuesday for Industrial Rela tions, the Member for River East for the Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agr eed). The Honourable Government House Leader.

ORDERS OF THE DAY ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker , would you please call the adjourned debate on Bill No. 21? MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Min ister of Communi ty Services and Correc tions, the adjo urned debate of Bill No. 21 stan ding in the name of the Honourable Memb erfor La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. The Honou rable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, would you please call the adjourned debate on Bill No. 30? MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable the Attorney -General, Bill No. 30, stand ing in the name of the Honourable Memb er for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. The Honour able Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Would you ple ase call the adjourned debate on Bill No. 40? BILL 40 -AN ACT TO AMEND THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Minis ter of Labour, Bill No. 40, standing in the name of the Honour able Memb er for Tuxedo. Stand. MR. R. BANMAN: Stand. MR.

SPEAKER: Does the Honour able Memb er for Thompson wish to speak to the motion? MR. S. ASHTON: On Bill No. 40, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat strange today that Mem bers of the Opposi tion are not taking up this opportun ity to again debate this bill. Perhaps the comments from the Attorney General smartened them up somewhat. I would hop e they would read his com ments, Mr.

Speaker, because I think he pointed out the fallacies in a numb er of the argum ents that mem bers opposite made; fallacies in regard to the source of this kind of legislation, because as the Attorney -Gen eral pointed out it has also been introduced in such provinces as Quebec and British Columbia and a good source of this particular legislation was Ontario, that great Tory province. But of course, I supp ose mem bers opposite there seem to have blinker vision when it comes to various pieces of legislation.

If we introduce it, it's bad; if their colleagues introduc e it, the Tory col league s in other provinces, well then that's okay. I wish they would try and attach some standard of consistency. I think I would like to add a few com ments of my own, too, at this particu lar time, Mr. Speaker, in regard to some of the argum ents put forward by Mem bers of the Opposition, particu larly in regard to their sug ges tion that we somehow not pass this particular piece of legislation. This is something of a first, Mr. Speaker.

They have been arguin g in this Legisla ture for the last couple of months that we haven't been keep ing our prom ises and when we have kept them, they've said we haven't been keep ing them fast enough. Bu t in this particu lar case, they want us to break those prom ises. They want us to break a promise that was made not jus t dur ing the election, Mr. Speaker, but several months prior to it, that we wou ld introduce what is presently in the form of Bill No. 40.

There's something of an inconsis tency there and I think I find it rather interesting that if one looks at the major prom ises we made, the major prom ises that we've kept, that they haven't really objected to too many of them; the Interest Rate Relief Plan or the Rent Control Plan - I don't think I'll name all 12 of them, Mr.

Speak er- but I find it rather interesting that the one they have objected to, the one promise that we've kept rather quick ly, is this particular prom ise, the one relating to labour legislation. 3217 I think that's a sad com ment on the state of the members opposite that when it comes to prom ises, they only want prom ises kept which don't affect the working people of this province; when one does affect it, they don't want us to keep it. We made no bones, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that we would introduce this. As said, we annou nced it well in advance of the election.

We made no bones about the im pact we saw com ing from this legislation. We felt that it would help not just working people, but generally the whole labour relations climate here, but it would specifically help work ing people in this province because it would help stablilize the collective bargai ning process in

what is one of the most difficult stages, that being in the stage of the first contract. I wou ld say, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't much objec tion to that in this province and I find it strange that they are objecting to it, because if they would speak to the average person on the street, I think they would find that they really don't have too much concern about this particular legislation. That's not what we heard from the mem bers opposite yesterday. To them, it was as if the sky was falling, Mr.

Speaker ; this was the end of the earth; this was going to inhibit new busi ness coming to the pro vince; it was going to create ind ustrial instability. That is not true what soever. This particu lar bill will do nothing of the sort and the mem bers opposite kn ow it. This particular bill would help stab lilize labour rela tions in this province. It would help prevent strikes; it would not help start strikes. And if that is going to stop new busine sses from com ing to this province. Mr.

Speaker, I really don't kn ow what logic they're attri buting to potential new busi nesses because that argument is totally illogical. They also sug gested yesterday, Mr. Speaker. that this was someho w a payoff for labour support in the election. The New Dem ocratic Pa rty has a close asso ciation with the labour movement; we've had a close association with them for many years; we make no bones about it. In my particu lar constituenc y, many memb ers of the NDP are also active in the Jabour movement and vice versa. though I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker. if you speak to them, if you speak to mem bers of Local 616 6 of the Un ited Steelworkers in Thom pson, the largest un ion there, if you talk to them and ask them about their relationsh ip to the party, they will say that they view it as a two-stage process. If you talk to executive officers they will say their com mitm ent, first and foremost, is to represent their memb ers, to be part of the labour movement and that their connection with the NDP is because there is a certain affinity between the labour movement and the NDP.

It's not because there's any di rect connection, because this uni on is not affiliated with the NDP , Mr. Speaker. In fact, of the voting delegates at NDP con ventions, only 13 percent are direct affiliates. Most mem bers of the labour movement. who are also mem bers of the NDP . are mem bers as any other me mbers of a political party are; they are individuals first and foremost. They join a particular political party because they see a certain affinity with the goals that they propose. So to sug gest. Mr.

Speaker. that someho w the NDP and the labour movement are in cahoots or any thing of the sort I think is an insult not jus t to the ND P. which I would take perhap s in a partisan spir it of exchange, but it's an insult to the entire labour movement and it shows a complete and utter misu nderstand ing of what the labour movement seeks to obtain here in Canada. The fact is, Mr.

Speaker, if one looked at the brief of the MFL , for exampl e, we have disagreements at times in terms of the speed in which we enact things and in terms of particular things that we enact - disag ree ments between the ND P, disagr eements between the labour movem ent - as indeed we have with other such group s in our society; as indeed I would hope that mem bers opposite wou ld have with their more tradi tional supp orters in the corporate busi ness com mun - 10 June, 1982 ity. We are not tak ing our directions from any one particular group , Mr.

Speaker, and to sug gest this in debate on this particula r resolution that somehow Bill No. 40 is here only because labour backed the NDP in the election and we somehow owe it to them as a payoff is absolutely ridiculous. The principles behind this particular bill were dis cussed by the NDP at an open convention. The partic ular principles in this were sup ported and are sup ported by the vast majority of New Dem ocrats and as I said, there was very little objection to these principles in the election; so it's as dem ocratic as you can get, Mr. Speaker.

There are no hidden strings , there are no hidden agendas. It's something we've discussed openly in public and something the public has no great objec tion to. As I said, Mr. Speaker, to sugge st otherwise is, I think. to show a comple te and utter misu nderstand ing of the NDP as a party which I can expect from the mem bers opposite, but also of the labour movement which I would expect they would have at least some kn owledge about. I had not intended to speak at great length on this particular bill, Mr.

Speaker, but only to reply to some of the com ments yesterday and to sugge st that some of the memb ers talk to people in the labour movement someti me about politics, about their involvement in politics. I think if those honourable memb ers opposite did speak to them they wou ld find that this sinister hidden agenda , these strings, this payoff talk is com plete and utter nonsense. I mu st say, Mr. Speaker, if they did have a better und erstanding, they might do well or much better at least in certain constituen cies in which there are a large numb er of working people who are active in the Jabour movement.

I mu st say personal ly , Mr. Speaker. that being in one of those constituencie s where this is the case, I'm perhaps thankful that the honourable mem bers opposite are so ignorant of the facts of the Jabour movement, the way they operate and the way the NDP operates. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this particular legisla tion is a cam paign promise, another one that is going to be fulfilled. Pretty soon I think we are going to be running out of them.

It's a campaign promise that was made public during the cam paign on a numb er of occasions, made public well before that; it's been dis cussed by the NDP ; it's been discus sed by the labour movement; it's been discus sed by the people of Mani toba. So to sug gest now that there's all this hidden agenda going on. there's all these terri ble things behind this, is an insult, Mr. Speaker, to the intelli gence of the people of this province. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honour able Min ister of Labour wish to speak to the motion? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. and that would close debate. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. 3218 It is my un derstanding that the adjou rnment will stand in the name of the the Honour able Member for Tuxedo and that the Mem ber for Thom pson spoke during that time. It is our practice to permit a bill to remain un der the name of the memb er who takes the adjourn ment on the prior day.

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 The Honour able Government Hous e Leader on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government Hous e Leader on a point of order? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, on a point of order. That, however, is not the situa tion. The situation is that the Mem ber for Tuxedo had begun his speech. It wasn't a que stion that he had adjour ned. It was not standing in his name. He had begun his speech and he was in the House today and if he chose not to be here to finish his speech, he has lost his right to speak un der the Rules. -( Interjection)- No, no, that is right. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Memb er for St. Norbert on the same point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Attorney-General is well aware, the Memb er forTuxedo rose at about 5:28 p.m. yesterday, because I recollect that you indicated at the end of yesterday's Session that the Memb er for Tuxedo had 38 minu tes left to speak. He merely offered a few comments in order to spin out the few minutes remain ing in yesterday's time. The bill is stan ding in his name. Yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, I remind the Attorney General, that we cleared eight or nine bills off the Order Paper. We waived Private Mem bers' Hour in order to allow the government to proceed with its busine ss. Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney-General is sug gesting now that he doesn't have the cou rtesy to allow this bill to stand today in the name of the Memb er for Tuxedo, then I am shocked, Mr. Speaker, at his behaviour. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Fort Garry to the same point of order. MR. L. SHERMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Could I add one word on the same point of order?

I don't kn ow what Hans ard will say or what it will show, and un fortunately because of the point at which we've arrived in the Session and the heavy worklo ad it's und erstandably running two or three days late, but it was my very clear understand ing that the Prog res sive Conservative Party Whip, the Honourable Memb er for La Verendrye said, "Stand," at the time Bill 40 was called and I heard him distinctly, Mr. Speaker. I will not gu arantee that was picked up by the microphones and heard by Hans ard.

At that point the Memb er for Thompson stood up and it was certainly our clear und erstanding that he was being accomm odated with an opportun ity to speak while the bill was stan ding in the Memb er for Tuxedo's name . MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order. The Honourable Attorney -General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, the Memb er for Fort Garry misun derstands. The Memb er for La Verendrye said, "Stan d," when I called Bill No. 21 and it was al ready standing in his name and there was no objection taken to that.

Secondly, with the point which I've just made with respect to the Rules, in my under standing it is not a discretionary qu estion. It's not as if it's up to me as to what should happ en. The Ru les are qui te clear as I understand them; namely, that the Member forT uxedo, having already begun his speech, it was not standing in his name, standing in a mem ber's name and he did not adjourn and therefore, he has had his speech. That is the Ru les. It's not as if I am attempting or have a discretion to ope rate, I do not have a discretion to operate. The Rules, I think, are man datory in this respect. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry to the same point of order. MR. L. SHERMAN: Yes, the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Honourable Attorney-General is abso lutely correct that when he called Bill 21 , the Memb er for La Verendrye, the official Opposition Whip said, "Stand"; and when he called Bill 23, the Honour able Member for St. Norbert.

Deputy House Leader of the Opp osition, said, "Stand"; and when he called Bill 30, the Honour able Memb er for Min nedosa, the Chair man of the Opposition, said, "Stand"; and when he called Bill 40, the Whip again said, "St and," and it certainly was our impression that the bill was standing and that accom modation was being accorded the Mem ber for Thompson. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Agricul ture to the same point of order. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, as I un derstand it, yesterday when the Honour able Memb er for Tuxedo rose to speak - I was here in the Hous e - to speak just before the adjourn ment hour, it was sug gested to him in fact by, I believe, the Honou rable Memb er for Spring field for him to call it 5:30 and adjourn debate in his name. 321 9 He chose not to do so, to adjourn the bill, but he started to speak. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the Rules that once you start speak ing when the bill next appe ars on the Order Paper, it is your turn to speak.

If another memb er rises in his place to speak to the bill, then you have in fact spoken and I believe mem bers on this side counselled the Memb er for Tuxedo to call it 5:30 and adjourn debate in his name. He decided and began to speak on the motion yesterday. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Roblin Russell to the same point of order. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, to sort of solve the problem, I move, seconded by the rhe Honou rable Memb er for Kirkfield Park, that debate be adjo urned. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, there is a matter of order before the House which has not yet been resolved.

The Honourable Memb er for St. Norbert to the same point of order.

MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate that when we on this side indicated the bill should stand - stand in the name of the Memb er for Tuxedo -t he Memb er for Thompson rose and I believe you clearly indicated to him that deba te was open and he could speak. There was no su ggestion that the Memb er for Tuxedo was losing his right to continue to debate the subject. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my earlier com ments. We allowed the government to pro ceed through Private Mem bers' Hour yesterday, once again in order to conduc t government busine ss.

We allowed eight or nine bills to go to Comm ittee yester day and, Mr. Speaker, there's some other busine ss that the governme nt could attend to if they have the courage to. I sug gest that they use the same courtesy that we extended to them yesterday in allowing gov ernment busi ness to proceed through Question Period and that they allow the bill to stand in the name of the Memb er for Tuxedo. I think that would be clearly, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the practices and proce dures of this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Radis son to the same point of order.

The Honour able Mi nister of Finan ce to the same point of order. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Speaker, last night as memb ers have indicated to you, the Memb er for Tuxedo rose, spoke for several minu tes and then it was 5:30 p.m . This afternoon, I indicated to the Memb er for St. Norbert, I asked him where the Memb er for Tuxedo was. He knew full well and I'm sure that everyone on that side kn ew full well the bill was going to be called. The mem bers of the Opposition kn ow full well that we wish to have this matter proceeded with this com ing Tuesday morning or Monday morning.

We have already announc ed the deba te of the Indu strial Rela tions Comm ittee. When this bill was annou nced, I do not recall you, Mr. Speaker, recognizing anyone from that side. The first thing that you said as I recall, Mr. Speaker, was that you recognized the Member for Thomp son and then the speaking went on. If that isn't what happened then I would sug gest that possibly there's some way of determ ining from the Hans ard tapes exactly what was said. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Spring field to the same point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the rules provide that when a memb er is speaking at the appoint ed hour of adjourn ment that a bill will stand in that mem ber"s name, and that memb er will then continue to speak the next time the bill is called. If the memb er does not speak - there's no discretion on this matter - and other mem bers wish to speak - I think tha t's the key - and another memb er rose to speak in this instance, then that mem ber is considered to have concluded his remarks. That's what the rules have provided. That is the precedent under which we have operated.

Now I realize that in this situation the Memb er for Tuxedo, who may have stepped out briefly because he had been here for que stion period, may have unfortu nately lost his right to continue his address. Mr. Speaker, that could have been accom modated by mem bers on the other side recognizing that problem.

I can recall man y instances in this House where a sim ilar situation has prevailed and the mem bers on the side of the memb er who was about to lose his right to speak have asked the indulg ence of the House for a few brief momen ts while they found the memb er who was to speak, recognizing - and that's why they did it that if they did not find the mem ber and have that mem ber come in, he would lose his right to speak. So, Mr.

Speaker, I don't think there's any qu estion here that since the Mem ber for Thomp son has add ressed the motion that there can be neither an adjourn ment nor a continua tion of a speech which has been interrupted by another memb er. Certainly, the motion of the Member for Roblin-Russell would be in order and the adj ournment would stand in his name if he wishes to move that motion again but certainly, Mr. Speaker, to leave the Order Paper notation on Bill 40 in the name of the Memb er for Tuxedo would be out of order. 3220 I have a sug gestion though, Mr.

Speaker, that if the Opposition feels and I certainly would be opp osed to us doing it any other way because of the precedent it would set, but if the Opp osition feels there is some real concern about the mem ber - I think it was 38 min utes which certainly represents a substantial por tion of his speech - being allowed to speak, it takes only a substantive motion on their part with regard to the bill to obt ain for him speaking rights a second time . Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for St. Nor bert to the same point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: To the same point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I beg to differ with the Memb er for Spring field. My clear un derstanding of what was happ ening when the Memb er for Thom pson rose is that the bill was standing in the name of the Mem ber forT uxedo, it was open for deba te and the Member for Thomp son was leaving it standing in the name of the Memb er for Tuxedo. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Spring field to the same point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. A bill which has been adjourned may stand in the name of the memb er who has adjourned it.

A bill which is in the name of a mem ber who was continuing a speech may not be stood. Such bills, if called, mus t be spoken to. MR. SPEAKER: One momen t please. Order please. It was my un derstanding when this bill was called this afternoon that it was adjourned and standing in the name of the Honou rable Memb er for Tuxedo and it is our usual practice for the Hous e to exercise sufficient reasonableness as to enable a memb er to comple te his remarks; especially since in this case the particular memb er had spoken for only two minutes. It was my impression he was just speaking until the time of adjournme nt.

However, the points raised by honourable mem bers

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 as to the strict legality of this issue are qu ite correct. The bill was called and it was up to the memb er who was interrupted to either continue to make his remarks or to lose his right to speak on it. It would then seem that it is up to the Hous e if they so wish to grant leave to have this matter stand in the name of the Honou r able Memb er for Tuxedo, which would seem a rea sonable way of continui ng; otherwise, I will recognize the motion of the Honourable Memb er for Roblin Russell and put the vote on the adjournment. Order please.

Is it the will of the memb ers to have the matter stand in the name of the Honourable Memb er for Tuxedo? The Honourable Memb er for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly pre pared to grant leave on the und erstanding this is why I rise to speak on it- this does not set a precedent for this to occur in the future and that memb ers when speaking are expected to speak the next time the bill is called. We're more than happ y to grant leave to allow the Member for Tuxedo to finish his remarks. MR.

SPEAKER: By leave, Bill No. 40 will stand adjourned in the name of the Honourable Memb er for Tuxedo and he will be expe cted to speak on it next time the motion is called to the House. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: I move, seconded by the Minis ter for Health, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the Hous e resolve itself into a Commit tee to con sider of the Sup ply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion and I had intended to do so prior to the last little debate that went on, but that has certainly further encou raged me. The Honourable Attorney -General, the Government House Leader at one stage during the proceedings today when he ind icated to one of our member s who stood debate did not prepare to debate, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to him as I jus t did in speak ing to the point of order that we, on this side, yesterday cleared some eight or nine bills off the Order Paper. I think we were qui te co-operative in the man ner in which those bills were handled.

Once again -(I nterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Since the matter of order has been dealt with, it would not really be proper for the honourable memb er to discus s the matter agai n. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'm sim ply pointing out and I'm not speak ing again to the point of order; I'm speaking to the manner in which the House Leader has handled the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Government House Leader to a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. the honourable memb er has not stated that he rises to speak on a grievance.

If he is 3221 doing that, then let him say so and then, of course, he has the right to do so for 40 min utes if he wishes; but if he's addres sing the point of order once the situation was cleared and we established the point and said that we didn 't want it to set a precedent and made the point. We ag reed that Bill No. 40 may stand in the name of the Memb er for Tux edo. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The manner of order has been dealt with; there is nothing proper for any mem ber to bring before the Hous e at this stage other than a grievance. The Honour able Member for St. Norbert on a Matter of Grievance.

MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak at this particular time, perhaps not for 40 min utes, but for some time with respect to - on my single occasion that a member is allowed to speak - on a matter of grie vance. Mr.

Speaker, I was encou raged to do so when I heard the Attorney -General, during qu estion period from his seat, in response to a qu estion from the Memb er for Arth ur who was asking about and expressing his concern about the fact that some 400,000 bushels of grain would now not be sold to the Seagram Distillers Plant in Gimli as a result of the layoffs which have taken place at that particular pla nt. The Attorney -Gene ral's response was, "Let them use the corn at home." Well, Mr.

Speaker, that's indicative I'm afraid of the reaction and the concern that this government is showing for many people in our society in Man itoba today. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I read a report about the Premier who said he was am azed that his govern ment had done so well in their first six months in office. I find it sim ply inconceivable that the Premier could make a state ment like that, Mr. Speaker. We have a situa tion and I've spoken on a numb er of occa sions before, but it doesn't seem to penetrate the mind s and actions of this government.

But people throughout this city, particu larly at this time of year as the July 1 st deadline for payment of their real property taxes appr oaches, are sick over the increases that they've been required to pay in this mun icipal fiscal year, Mr. Speaker. I pointed out before the fact that an average home assessed at $7,0 00 in the City of Win nipeg over the four years under our Prog ressive Con servative Government, Mr. Speaker, the net taxes on that particular home were increased by only $78, and this year the taxes on that same home have been increased by $1 80-and-som e-cents. Well over double, Mr.

Speaker, the increase that took place over four years and at a time in our economi c life when people are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. Mean while, the Premier says, "I find it ama zing how well our government has done." Mr.

Speaker, an inconceivable, unbelievable statement for him to make, he mu st be living in another world, because he's not talking to the homeowners in the City of Winnip eg and throug hout the province who are being required to pay these fantastic increases in mun icipal taxes that are tak ing place un der this New Dem ocratic Party Government in the first year of their operation when he prom ised to ease the property tax burden in the

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 province. Mr. Speaker, he has been tested on that particular promise and he's been found wanting. In fact, if he wants to comp are to what took place over the last four years, Mr. Speaker, if he wants to live up to that prom ise, there should be no more increases in real property taxation for the next three years during the term of their governm ent if he wants to do as well as our governm ent did while in office. Mr.

Speaker, he makes these statements when we see layoffs occurring in this province in mining, in the railways and elsewhere, in all industries of this prov ince to an extent that has been unseen since the years of the Depression and he finds that his government is doing amazingly well in their first six months in office. We see layoffs every day in the newspaper, and I raised one today and mem bers opposite laugh. Mr. Speaker, the Min ister of Finance raises the price of spirits, wine and beer to a level second or third highest in the country.

Nobody these days expects those pri ces not to increase, but why should prices in Manitoba in this partic ular area be the second or third highest in the cou ntry? Mr. Speaker, they laugh at these 35 people who were laid off. The report clearly says that sales are lagg ing as a result of the recession and government taxes. They ask, Mr. Speaker, the Man itoba Liquor Control Comm ission to raise an additional $20 million after the price increase in the beg inning of Ma y and this, no doubt, is contributing to this lack of sales, to this layoff of 35 workers. Mr.

Speaker, they've im posed a payro ll tax not only on the Liquor Control Comm ission, they've im posed it on this plant in Man itoba; a plant which was, I believe, attracted to the Province of Man itoba in Gimli in the late 19 60s by former Progressive Conservative Government; a plant which is a definite asset for this particular area of the province. It has created in that area some very good jobs for the people of that partic ular area but what has this government done, Mr. Speaker? It has increased taxes to an un com petitive level and we're seeing some effect.

I don't su ggest it's responsible for the layoff of all 35 workers because this plant produces for other than Manitoba. We are fortunate to have the plant in Mani toba but, no dou bt, the layoff of the 35 workers has been affected by the taxation policies of this par ticular government. The Attorney -Gene ral's response to the farmers who, last year, I believe, suppli ed 10 0 percent of the corn for this plant for the first or second year, Mr. Speaker, for the first time farmers in Man itoba suppl ied all of the corn for this particular plant.

We kn ow now that farmers will not be able to sell some 400,000 bushels, they will be affected by that reduction in demand and, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney -General's response is words to the effect of "le t them use their corn at home." Well, Mr. Speaker , that's not satisfactory. We see in Mani toba an economy that is in a disastrous situation and mea nwhile the Premier of the province says, ''I'm ama zed at how well our government is doing." Mr. Speaker, he talks a lot about going out and speaking to people.

Well, I have to wonder who he is speaking to, because he's not speak ing to the people who are express ing concerns every day and the y're everywhere throughout this province express ing concerns about the state of the economy. What is the government's response? It's been to introduce the 1. 5 payroll tax, Mr. Speaker, at a time when bankrup tcies are occu rring in record num bers; when layoffs are occu rring in record num bers; when unem ploymen t is up to the Depression year levels.

They im pose an additional 1. 5 payr oll tax which can only affect the emp loyees in the redu ction of jobs or in the reduction of salaries or wages or in the increase of prices to the consu mers making Ma nitoba less com petitive with other provinces and other parts of this world. That's what he cites, Mr. Speaker, to demo nstrate how well this government is doing. They introduce first contract legislation at a time when all of these things are occu rring, when what Man itoba really requi res, Mr. Speaker, is an increase in em ploym ent opportun ities. Mr.

Speaker, they talk about their Career Related Emplo yment Program which is not, in any way, going to create the same numb er of jobs as our program created. They are creating 1, 500 jobs; for the same am ount, we created 5,000 jobs. They are spending double the amount of money. They won't create any more than 3,000 jobs at double the expe ndit u res that we were involved in. Mr. Speaker, meanwhi le, there are more and more people being laid off or unempl oyed than will ever be emp loyed through their Student Emp loyment Pro gram.

They cling to their criteria un der this particular program at a time when not only young people, but people of all ages would be happy to find emp loymen t opportuni ties of any kind. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this prov ince says he's ama zed at how well his government is doing. Mr. Speaker, again it is sim ply inconceivable that he would make such a statement, but perhap s it's not inconceivable when we consider statements that he's made in the past. The promis es that he has made, Mr.

Speaker, that have been referred to in this House, I kn ow have been cited by a numb er of memb ers of this House, but they simply mus t be empha sized time and time and time again in order to remind the people of Man itoba as to how this First Min ister has betrayed the people of Man itoba. He talks about keep ing faith with the people of Man itoba when he said, Mr.

Speaker, "We can turn arou nd the harsh economic circu mstances of the past four years." Since then, since his election, we have heard nothing from him other than complaining, making excuses, blaming the Federal Gove rnment, blaming President Reagan and blaming the world-wide economy. He never said any thing about that, Mr. Speaker, when he made this statement that "we can turn around the harsh eco nomic circumstanc es of the past year." 3222 "No Man itobans will lose their home s or farms due to high interest rates," Mr. Speaker.

Would he put that to the people of Manitoba who have indeed lost their homes and farms due to high interest rates? "Together we can build a great future; that's a prom ise we can guar antee." We kn ow now what the clear choice is for Man itobans, Mr. Speaker. It's to have your real prop erty taxes, Mr. Speaker, doubled in one year over what they were for four years; it's to have the second or third highest liquor price increases in Cana da, result ing in a loss of em ployment in Man itoba at one of the major distillers that a former Progressive Conserva tive Government was able to attract to Manitoba.

"A Clear Choice for Ma nitobans," Mr. Speaker, means a 1. 5 payroll tax which is going to re sult in

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 decreased em ploym ent opportun ities, more bank ruptcies, increased costs to consu mers and will affect virtually everyt hing that is exemp t under a retail sales Act and is affecting the churches, the nonprofit agen cies throughout this country. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, although they exempt the public schools - perhaps rightfully during this year - at least make it not effective until the 1s t of this year, they tax the independent schools in this province. I'd like, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier of this province to indi cate to me and to mem bers of the Hous e what the difference is in consideration of those two edu ca tional systems, when the indepen dent schools follow the criteria and the guideli nes imposed by the public educational syst em. They continu ally talk and will not admit to exemp t mun icipalities and school divisions. They're going to make it effective up on them, beginning Januar y 1s t of 19 83 and then they're going to give them a grant.

They're going to cause them to go through the ad mi nistrative machi nations and work that will be neces sary to collect it, to pay it over, to receive it back, which is entirely un necessary and ju st an added bur den to municip alit ies in schools divisio ns througho ut this province. But that's what "A Clear Choice for Man itobans" means, Mr. Speaker, although the First Mi nister didn' t indicate that in his promis es which he made in his election. He was going to take action to get Manitoba's trouble d economy moving again and he was going to restore vitality to the provincial economy. Mr.

Speaker, the electorate in Manitoba now kn ows what faith they can have in the statements of this First Min ister, par ticula rly when they look at what is really happen ing and he says that he's amazed at how well his govern ment is doing. Mr. Speaker, he talke d about housing and we see the lowest numb er of housing starts that have ever probably been recorded in Man itoba's history. We saw yesterday a long-time bui lder, Raymond Massey Bui lders, an experienced, long-time builder in the City of Winn ipeg particularly, who is in great difficulty.

He may have thought that the Premier was going to do something about this, because they were going to take steps to relieve the interest burden facing fami lies buying a home, because that's what he said, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, he may have counted on that prom ise from the First Minister. We've seen nothing on that, Mr. Speaker. He probably also saw that the Premier said that the burden of educa tion taxes which often fall un fairly on low income homeowners would be shifted away from property taxes.

We did that over four years, but in one year that low income homeowner, living in a home assessed at $7,0 00 in the Winnip eg School Division, has had his taxes more than doubled than what it was over four years under a Progressive Conservative Governm ent. The numb er of prom ises, Mr. Speaker, go on and on. The Man itoba NOP believe work ing people deserve job security in a workp lace. Mr. Speaker, we went through the Estima tes with the Mi nister of Labour. He said that wasn't a priority and that he hadn't even looked at it yet. Manitoba New Democr ats would pro vide securit y from layoffs.

We've seen the largest numb er of layoffs, Mr. Speaker, that have ever been experie nced in this province and what have they done about it? Mr. Speaker, we see the great concern however of the Mi nister responsible for the Workers Com pensa tion Board who, on March 25 of this year in Estima tes, said within two weeks he would file on this table in this Legislature his summa ry of the private investigation into the Workers Com pensation Board, March 25, Mr. Speaker, some 9 or 1Oo r11 weeks ago, whatever the exact numb er is.

We have heard the Om budsman's com ments up on the kind of report that the Min ister responsible for the Workers Com pensation Board und ertook. The Omb udsman clearly wanted a public inqu iry at which the allegations made agai nst the Board could be publicly heard. Those allegations were made publ icly, Mr. Speaker, agai nst the Worker s Com pensa tion. All of the emplo yees of the Board had to receive public criti cism, Mr. Speaker, yet the Min ister ordered a private inquir y and now he's going to give us some day, prob ably not before this Legisla ture ends, Mr.

Speaker, he's going to probably keep that docu ment, his amende d version, his censored version, in his drawer desk until some time after the Legislative Session ends and then he's going to bring it out one day when he's not sub ject to qu estions during que stion period from mem bers on this side; that's when we'll probably receive his ame nded version, Mr. Speaker.

But that's the kind of concern that they have demons trated while in government as opposed to what they said when they were on this side and we could all imagine the great concern the Min ister would have had while he was on this side of the House over allegations agains t the Workers Compensa tion Board and wha t he would have said had a Min ister in our government cancelled a publi c inqu iry and then under took to file a sum mary of that report within two weeks in the Legislature and then some 9 or 10 weeks later that sum mary hadn't even been filed yet in the Legislature. 3223 Mr.

Speaker, we have seen the statements that the city was raising the prices of essential services, such as ambu lances. Well, what did they do about that? The amb u lance fees were increased 25 percent this year. Did they do anyth ing about that? No they didn' t, Mr. Speaker. In fact, on another matter, I asked the Min ister of Natural Resources the other day, he raised park fees 25 or 30 percent. I did n't ask him to reduce it for everybody. I ju st said to him, Mr. Speaker, would he provide some supp ort or some relief for senior citi zens using camp park grounds and fees.

He said, no, this increase is going to be appl ied to everyone equal ly. Not even the low-in come senior citizens of this province will get any relief from the 25 to 35 percent increase in park fees and campgr ound fees from the Min ister of Natur al Resources. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on, the prom ises made and the prom ises broken, that's the clear choice for Man itobans un der an NOP governme nt, Mr. Speaker.

We have seen the actions of the Minister of Com mu nity Services and I want to say now, a couple of weeks ago there were news reports requoting the Executive Director of the Children's Aid Society say ing some 57 children in this province where adoptions were being held up because of the moratorium placed by the Minister of Communi ty Services and this gov ernment on their adoptions. I asked him at that time in

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 this Hous e if he would lift that moratorium and he refused. Mr. Speaker. The Executive Director has said, you can't take these 57 children and put them up on a bookshelf like a piece of jewellery and expect them to just exist until the moratorium is resolved. Mr. Speaker, I would once again, through this Legislature, ask the Mi nister of Communi ty Services to give that matter some serious, thoughtful, com passi onate consideration.

There are some 57 children, at least as of the time the Executive Director of the Children's Aid Society was speak ing whose opportu nities to live, as one of the delegations had put it, in a loving family home rather than being mo ved from one institution to another, whose opportun ity for development as a child and a memb er of a fami ly is being jeopardized wholly, Mr. Speaker, and I can't condone or excuse the actions of the Mi nister with the position he has taken.

It may very well be that in the long term the Indian popu lation of this province, the Native popula tion, will be able to develop procedures and homes for children of Native descent and if they can, well and good. But that's someth ing that they have said in their briefs to Ju dge Kimelman's Comm ittee, it can't be done in the short-term, they need time to do that. In the meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I don't think the children who are being affected by this moratorium should have their lives jeopardized in that manner. Mr. Dep uty Speaker , we do now have a clear choice for Manitobans.

At least Manitobans know what that clear choice for Manitobans is. The Premi er, Mr. Speaker , when he says he can't un derstand how well his government has done in their first six months of office has made one of the most unb elievable state ments, I think, in the history of politics in this province when one consid ers the disastrous economy that has resulted and the effects on the economy that have resulted from this government's action in raising taxes and in their anti-dev elopme nt, anti-p rivate sector phi losophy. The workers of this province, Mr.

Speaker, will rue the day they ever voted this government in. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, J. Storie: If there are no further com ments. QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the Hous e resolved itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honour able Memb er for Flin Flon in the Chair. SU PPL V -EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MR. CHAIRMAN, J. Storie: Comm ittee will come to order. We are continuing with the Estima tes of the Executive Council, continuing with the Min ister's Salary - the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. L VON: Mr.

Chairman. as I said at the conclu sion of the last Commit tee meeting when we were discus sing the Executive Council Estima tes, in par ticular the salary of the First Minister, I wasn't attempt ing to make a big thing of it, but there were a numb er of weeks went by after the government came into office when very little if any thing occu rred and one of the first annou ncem ents we heard from this govern ment was the changing of the colour of the license plates from red, white and blue to red, white and black. I renew the que stion.

Could the First Min ister give me the rationale for making that weig hty decision which cost the taxpayers a bit of money? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would su ggest that the Leader of the Opp osition pose the different que stions that he has in mind and I'll bank them as has been the normal case in past years and respond to them at one time. HON. S. L VON: I would be qui te happ y to wait for the answer for that. Then we'll go onto another topic. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (a) -pass; HON. S. L VON: No , we're waiti ng for answers, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition obviously didn 't hear clearly. I am going to carry the practice that indeed the Leader of the Op position did last year when he was Prem ier. I rememb er the Min ister responsible for Mi nes in bank ing some of these qu estions rather than getting up and down each time. So, if the Leader of the Opp osi tion would like to proceed through his qu estions and I'll deal with them in the way that has been done in the past. HON. S. LYON: The qu estion is very simp ly, Mr.

Chairman, what was the rationale for changing the colour on the licence plates in Manitoba and the cost? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Dep uty Chairman, as I indi cated, I will answer that along with other que stions the Leader of the Opp osition will have for me as we pro ceed, at one tim e. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, I am qui te happ y to give my honourable friend a few more que stions that he can't answer because that's the post ure that he adopted the other night with respect to the whole resource que stion when it was demons trated in this Hou se, in a way in which I have never seen a First Min ister of this Hous e have to backtrac k, that the statements that he made about resource giveaways were a bunch of electoral claptrap which he can't sus tain by any scintilla of evidence that he can call whatsoever.

So, if the First Min ister feels more com fortable in banking qu estions, we'll let him bank the qu estions. 3224 Our concern, Mr. Chairman, is hearing the First Min ister answer a qu estion because he's done very little of that during the course of the Estimates. It doesn't matter if he wants to change the procedure; that's imma terial to me. What we want, what the peo ple of Man itoba want, are some answers to que stions. If the First Min ister, if he has to wait for his advisers to trundle in or for the Mi nister of Mi nes to bend his ear and give him misinformation, that's his problem, not our problem.

But , we're qui te happ y to give him a few

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 qu estions and see how he can attempt to answer them. Let me call his mi nd, Mr. Chairman, to the brief of the Annu al Legisla tive Presentation to the First Minis ter and the government on the 1s t of Jun e, 19 82 and let me ask him some qu estions. based up on Page 24 of that agreement. HON. H. PAWLEY: Which brief? HON. S. LYON: MF L, Manitoba Federation of Labour. Som ebody across the way said, a good brief. There will be varying opin ions on that.

I've got in front of me some of the previous briefs that they gave which were laced with misi nformation, laced with a lot of rhetori cal, ideological nonsense. I mu st say that, by com par ison, this one is slightly more sensible than some that I have read in the past, but still they do have their wild mom ents. On Page 24, talking about Northern Developme nt, this statement is made and I read from the brief, "A reduction in Hydro rates for Northern residents which are un der Provincial Government control would be a good starting point.

A study of Northern prices and how they relate to transportation costs should be undertaken." I wonder if the First Minister could tell the House, in view of the statements that his Min ister of Mines and Energy has been making about taking off the Hydr o rate freeze which he then deci ded to keep on for one more year, whether the reduction in Hydro rates for Northern residents which is being touted by the Mani toba Federation of Labour in its brief and the study of Northern prices and how they relate to transportation costs, whether these two matters are seriously under consideration by the government, mi ldly under con sideration by the government, or being rejected by the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Memb er for Thomp son. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman, it sounds here this is the Leader of the Opposition's final qu estion. HON. S. LYON: No, it isn't, Mr. Chairman, we're wait ing for the First Min ister to answer. MR. S. ASHTON: I have some com ments I want to make, but if the Leader of the Opp osition has more qu estions, I'll be glad to save my commen ts. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, maybe I should aga in explain that, rather than jump ing up and down, I am taking careful notes of the qu estions. We'll answer at some appropria te point before 4:3 0 as to the que s tions posed.

HON. S. LYON: Fine, Mr. Chairman, as long as the First Mi nister is now gu arantee ing that he's going to give answers and not shilly-s hally all over the place as he has done heretofore. Referring to the same page of that brief, Page 24, the title of the paragraph is, "Resum ption of Hydro devel opment" and I quo te from the Man itoba Federation of Labour Brief, "Man itoba is rich in Hydro power which 3225 we could be using to create our own energy resource boom.

A previous government ceased construction of all planne d Man itoba Hydro projects, thereby cutting off our prospects of building up a large scale generat ing capacity in a world running short of energy." To carry on, "We urge the Provincial Governm ent to com mence construction of power generating facili ties on the Bur ntwood, Chur chill and Nelson River systems without delay, beginning with the much awa ited Limestone Generating Pla nt.

At the same time, we should emb ark on an aggr essive marke ting program to export our surplus electrical energy and to indu ce Hydro using industries to locate in our province. Con struction of roads and other infrastructure into the areas could be un dertaken imme diately." Mr. Chairman, a series of qu estions arising out of that: Has the government made a commitmer .t to the Man itoba Federation of Labour, as it did to the people of Man itoba, that it was going to resume Hydr o con struction im mediately as a priority item of its policy and if so, when can we expect the announc ement of that to take place?

No. 2, if that is not the plan of the government, can the First Min ister tell us what response he made to the Man itoba Federation of Labour when they said, first of all, that (

a) a previous government ceased construc tion of all plan ned Man itoba projects? Did he say, Mr. Chairman, to the member s of the Federation of Labour that it wasn't a previous government, it was the previous government of which he was a memb er, even though he and his colleagues have been misleading the people of Man itoba for a good numb er of years by tryi ng to imply that it was the Conservative Govern ment elected in 19 77 that had stopped construc tion. It was the Schreyer Government when the First Min ister was a memb er of it that stopped construction.

Did the Minister interrupt the reading of the brief of the Mani toba Federation of Lab our and say - well now chaps, you kn ow, the game's over; we've been calle d on it because in the prospectus we finally had to admit that it was the previous Schreyer Government that stopped construction on Lime stone, so we can't use that one anymor e - did the Premier stop the Man itoba Federation of Labour in the midst of their brief and tell them that? Then secondly, if he is in agreement, Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the im media te construction of Hydro plants at Lime stone and so on, is he then discarding the advice that was given to the comm ittee and to the Hous e by the Man itoba Hydro officials when they appeared just a matter of a few weeks ago in which they said it would requir e an agreement on the West ern Inter-Tie to be un dertaken before any new capital construction could take place at Limestone.

Now, is the First Min ister saying now that he's going to abandon his election prom ise which was to start immedia tely; is he saying he's going to agree with the Man itoba Federation which is to start imme diately? Which of the two choices is he going to follow or is he going to follow the sensible choice which is to get on with the negotiations for the Inter-Tie with Saskatch ewan and Alberta, thereby providing the market in place for the resump tion of construction of Limes tone? Is the First Min ister, Mr.

Chairman, aware of the existence of the capital construction graph that was provided by Manitoba Hydro to all memb ers of the

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 Comm ittee on Publi c Utilit ies showing that un less the Western Inter-Tie was com pleted, the agreement was comp leted and Limestone given a go-ahead, that the probable date of any new construction in Man itoba would be 19 88? Is the Premier aware of that fact and if so, Mr. Chairman, what was his answer and what will his answer be to the Mani toba Federation of Labour with respect to those matters? Now again, Mr.

Chairman, continuin g on the same brief on page 19 of that brief, the Mani toba Federation of Labour made this statement - they were talking about industrial strategy: "The thir d step is to deter mine which planning instrume nts could be used most effectively to implement the actions necessary to impr ove our performance. Usu ally if an industrial stra tegy gets this far at all it flounders at this point. The reason is that most governm ents are blindly comm it ted to a private enterpr ise economy and their concep tion is limited to bribing private firms to do the job.

Unfortunately, private enterprise can be counted on to pur sue its own interests first and foremost and to structure the economy accordingly. Conseq uently, industrial strategy becomes limited to making margi nal adjustments in the patterns of industry which suit the private sector." I would like to kn ow what the Premie r's recent reac tion was to that piece of nonsense that ap peared in the Manit oba Federation brief.

Did he, as Premier Roblin once did, stop the person who was read ing the brief and say, "Do you really believe that nonsense?" Did he have the gump tion to do that, or was it because of the people that he and his government are enthralled to, that he jus t let all of that nonsense move through the air like a piece of ectoplasm and nod knowingly and nicely as though that really made sense? Does he feel that his governm ent, when they are trying to stim ulate industry in Ma nitoba, are bribing firms to do the job; does he really feel that? If so, does he not have an obligation, Mr.

Chairman, to the people of Manitoba to say I reject that kind of statement from the Man itoba Federation of Labour; my government, predecessor governments and I hope successor governm ents are not in the busi ness of bribing private firms to do the job and that kind of left-wing rhetoric has no place in civilized discussion in terms of im proving the eco nomic futur e of the Province of Man itoba. We would be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, what the First Minister's reaction was when that piece of errant non sense was read to him. Mr.

Chairman, on page 20 of the same brief another piece of interesting information and sug gestion was made by the Manitoba Federation of Labour to the NOP Governm ent of Manitoba un der the heading of "Planning," and I'm reading in part from the para grapah and I quo te: "In other cases, funds can be provided to help peo ple launch independent co-operative enterprises. A developme nt tax could make funds available to enter prises which conform to industrial development plans. In some cases, publi c enterprise is the most approp riate vehicle for getting things done.

It often provides the only effective means for coping with our distorted patterns of investment and making available the capi tal needed to build our economy. Other options might include a government financial institution to make money ava ilable for projects which conform to gov- ernment developm ent goals. Of cou rse, infrastruc ture, research and marketi ng supp ort can be a very effective way to influence patterns of development in the provinces." Mr.

Chai rman, I'd like to know from the First Min is ter what reaction he and his colleague s gave to the Federation of Labour when they were recomm ending a new tax, a development tax, agai nst presumab ly busi ness in Man itoba and all of the citizens in Mani toba.

Did he tell them that he though t that was fool hardy, that the people of Man itoba were already taxed almost to the margin now because of the Bud get that his colleague brought in just a few weeks ago, or did he tell them that he concu rred in these rather pie-i n the-sky utop ian sug gestions that were obviously writ ten by some of the app aratchiks or left-wing hirelings that they have at the Manitoba Federation of Labour, who do want to change the makeu p and order of society in our country, want to change the free enter prise society to God knows what, but to some thing different from the system that they advocate. 3226 What was his reaction - I hear the Min ister of Agri cultur e wants to say something -(I nterjection)- The Min ister of Ag riculture wants to know, Mr.

Chairman, if our private economy syste m, mix ed economy that we have in Man itoba and in Canada has worked so well, why are we in this problem? Well, I would say that if a man who is a memb er of an Executive Counci l, as a allegedly responsible Min ister of Government, has to ask that qu estion, then he should resign, not only his portfolio, I think he should resign his seat because he has obviously come into this Hous e bereft of funda mental information that -(I nterjection)- Mr. Chair man, he's saying that the private mix ed economy sys tem doesn't work.

Well, I have invited him on previous occasions when he was talking about the land system he would like to see in this land, which is on the Russian syste m; he doesn't think the private ownership system works. He now says he doesn't think the private mixed economy doesn't work. There are other places in the world, Mr.

Chairman, where his kind of system is in place and I think we could take up a collection arou nd the Hous e here, buy him a one-way ticket to one of those places and see how long he would last there un der the kind of controlled economy where governme nt makes all the decisions and government collects all the develop ment taxes; government says there will be this indus try built; government says there will be a gum store here at which Mr. Uruski can shop as and when we've got some goods in it and so on.

If he wants that kind of a society I think that's fine for him, but don't try to will that onto the people of Mani toba using the alleged social demo cratic alternative that he belongs to, Mr. Chairman, as the vehicle for imp osing that kind of tyra nny up on us. If my honour able friend wants to interject some more we'll be happy to hear him talk about Russia and some of his other favourite economic systems, some of the other economic and land holding systems that he seems to favour so much. Mr.

Chairman, I'm not here defending Argentina, Chile or any thing else, and unl ike the Memb er for Thomp son, I've got no pre-occu pation with El Salva dor and so on. I think we've got qui te enough to do in this Hous e looking after the responsibi lities of the

people of Mani toba and if my honourable friends opposite, and the First Minis ter has been one of them , he wants to trundle down to Chile and weep over the bones of Allende, that's his problem. If the Member for Thompson is all concerned about El Salvador and what's happening to the left-wingers there, that's his problem. If the Min ister of Agricultur e wants to get up set because we haven't got the same land holding system as they have in Russia, that's his problem but, Mr.

Chai rman, we're here to look after the people of Man itoba, not to try to inflict some kind of left-wing nonsense upon otherwise free citizens who would lose their freedom if people such as the Minister of Agricultur e ever really had the power to imp lement some of the funny ideas that they hold. I want to kn ow from the First Min ister, Mr.

Chair man, what his response was when this kind of non sense was spoken to him about a development tax, which would then be in the hands of government so that government cou ld take the tax and the Minister of Economi c Development, with her su perior wisdom of busine ss in this province, cou ld then say, "We're not going to have a plant in Steinbach or Morden; we're going to have a plant in the Interlake, even though that's un economic for the province." That's the kind of use that I would imagine from statements of hers I've read in Hansard that she would probably like to have.

She would like to have that kind of power. What I wou ld like the First Min ister to reflect up on at the same time, Mr. Chairman, when he's giving us a response to this rather interesting brief that he received from his mentors of the Man itoba Federation of Labour, the people who, along with the Canadian Labour Congress, suppl ied 500 full-ti me workers and then tur ned out a brag piece about it and sent it all over Canada and everybody has seen copies of that; so we know that the First Min ister has a numb er of debts to pay to the Canadian Labour Congress and the Mani toba Federation of Labour.

That is why when they mak e even stupid statements and nonsensical statements - and I'm going to deal with a few more - about Hydr o and about their revisionist version of when Hydro construction was cut off and so on, that we have to pay more attention to this nonsense because the First Min ister does: he is enthralled to them. That's why when they make a suggestion about some thing that they want to see happen in Man itoba across the way you can almost hear the heels click - and say, "Yes master, that's what we think is a good idea.

" If that isn't the case, then will the First Min ister be telling us that he related to the mem bers of the Federation of Labour , or will in a written response to them, tha t it's imp ossible to start Hydro construction at Limestone now because of the reasons that all of us are aware of, because we have to have the Western Inter-Tie and that it's imp ossible to do some of the things that they asked for because they are nonsensi cal and they would not be in the publi c interest of the people of Manitoba.

All I want him to do is to tell us that he made those statements or statements to that effect, so that we will be freed from the suspicion that when we read in the Manitoba Federation of Labour brief certain su gges tions, that those sug gestions can almost be gu aran teed within a year to become matters of government policy as we are seeing now with first contract legisla- 10 June, 1982 lion and some of the other matters that my honourable friends have great contortions and ide ological prob lems with that really don't affect the public interest of Man itoba, but they are matters that are of concern to them with the hang-ups that they have in this life.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the First Min ister to dilate up on that particular qu ote from the brief, as well, and whether or not -t he bribing qu ote in particular- I'd like to hear his comment about that. -(l nterjection) Pardon? The bribing comment at the bottom of page 19 : "The reason is that most governm ents are blindly comm itted to a private enterprise economy and their conception is limited to bribing private firms to do the job." Mr. Chairman, those are all the qu estions I have in mind at the present moment.

I won't guar antee that they're all the qu estions I have, but they are all I have in mind at the present mome nt. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I ap preciate the qu estions that have been raised and it gives me an opportun ity to deal at some length with the points that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Chairman, I don't really care much whether the licence plates are red, white and blue or black, white and red or any other particular colour. The informa tion we have is that indeed the change did not involve additional expenditu re.

In fact, the Min ister of Trans portation informed me last night that a little money was saved because apparently there was some paint that had been avai lable that would not otherwise have been so, if anyth ing, there was some deg ree of saving. 3227 Personally I like the new colours, black, white and red. I mu st say that maybe we made a mistake in not requ iring orange to be part and parcel of the new licence plate, Mr. Chairman. If the Leader of the Op position is su gg esting that there was some sort of political motivation then maybe we ought to have had orange.

I'm not aware of black, white and red being the Ne w Demo cratic Party colou rs. I'm qu ite satisfied with the colours of the plates and I believe I can say honestly to the Leader of the Opp osition if I've received more than one or two letters of complaint in connection with the li cence plates in my office, I would be su rprised, so I don't sense that it is an issue of tremendous anxie ty on the part of Man itobans. -(Int erjection)- ! could ask the same qu estion why the previous government was going to proceed with red, white and blue.

They like red, whitd and blue and obviously we liked the nature of the colours that we're proceeding with. If a poll was taken of Man itobans I doub t that there would be much difference as to their choice of colours. I'm just a little disappoint ed, Mr. Chairman, at the tone of the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition. The Manit oba Federation of Labour represents 7 4,000 workers and that reflects many many households in the Province of Man itoba from every length and breadth of the province.

I think that a brief from the Man itoba Federation of Laoour should be treated with the same respect as indeed a brief from other organi zations such as the Chamb er of Comm erce or the Man itoba Farmers Bureau. Labour, farm, busine ss, all are important partners within the development of the Province of Man itoba. So I was somewhat taken aback

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 by some of the language that the Leader of the Oppo sition used ; "a brief, in their wild mome nts, written by left wing hirelings." Mr. Chairman, that does reflect very much on the President of the Manitoba Federa tion of Labou r, the executive mem bers of the Mani toba Federation of Labour and indeed the entir e memb ership of the Ma nitoba Federation of Labou r, if it's being sug gested that left wing hirelings are put ting together the policy of the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

It may be that the Leader of the Opposition, not following matters pertaining to Labour, is not aware that Labou r discuss policy thrusts by way of demo cratic convention. Indeed, there can often be some very heated debates pertaining to policy develop ment, in fact, I am pleased that Labou r is one of the demo cratic organ izations, as is the Chamb er of Com merce at their conventions, democratically work ing out policy, policy indeed that they present to governments regardless of the party stripe. I do not believe, Mr.

Chairman, and I would warn all my Min is ters to avoid that kind of langua ge in referring to briefs that are subm itted by dem ocratic organizations within the Province of Manit oba. Groups, whether or not we agree with those groups, are tryi ng to make thei r con tribution toward ass isting government in the devel opme nt of policies and programs that will ensure this is a better province. That doesn't say that you have to agree with every line in any given brief, but I do believe that briefs of this nature demand respect and serious consideration.

I may have had some disagreements with the Mani toba Cha mber of Commerce brief, or the Canadian Manufacturers' brief, or the Canadia n Independent Business men's Association brief that was subm itted not so long ago, or indeed with the Manitoba Federa tion of Labou r brief, but I'm not going to treat those briefs with disrespect; I am not going to accuse those organ izations of having had their briefs written by some sort of hirelings, whether they be right wing hirelings or left wing hirelings.

No, I want to treat those briefs as earnest and sincere attem pts; whether it be the farm commu nity, whether it be the busi ness commu nity, whether it be the labour commu nity or any other com muni ty in Man itoba as an earnest effort to assist government in what is, adm ittedly, a very difficult time. I want to make it very clear to the Leader of the Opposition I do not pretend to have all the answers in work ing out the solutions to the very tough times that we're confronted with now in Man itoba.

I know it and I'm sure the Leader of the Op position recognizes that; I would hope the Leader of the Op position would also recognize that he doesn't have all the answers. So that I do look to organizations, and to people from whence they come, to mak e contributions to a goverment, whether it be indeed a government of the stripe of the former Leader of the Opp osition while he was Premier or this government. I am going to encou rage those briefs to be pres ented and I'm going to also encourage, Mr.

Chairman, for those briefs to be listened to with some respect because it is my un dersta nding, and I was not present so I say this only on the basis of reports, that there was such a hassle and such a tangle between the Manitoba Federation of Labour and the former First Minis ter of this province and his Cabi net colleag ues that the Man itoba Federation of Labour did not feel comforta ble in com ing forth and having an exchange last year.

Instead of an exchange, they were forced to mail their brief to mem bers of the other Cabi net, rather than coming forward and saying, look, would you listen; rather than coming to the former government and saying, look, we have a brief; we have some ideas. You may or may not agree with us, but would you listen at least for an hour, hour-and-a-half while we read to you our views.

If indeed the Leader of the Opposition would have had me interrupting to hassle and to argue on the scores of points that he has raised dur ing my Estimates with the Man itoba Federation of Labour, it would have just been a state of anarchy. I'm assu ming, therefore, when the Leader of the Opposition is criticizing me for not having jump ed up a score or a score-and-a-half - how many times it is already, I don't kn ow - and to have argued with the Ma nitoba Chamber of Commer ce between 10 :30 and 12 :00 o'clock, in fact we would n't have gotten past page 3 of their brief.

I can und erstand, therefore, why last year the Man itoba Federation of Labour would have chosen not to have come forward because what is the point ? If you've got a brief and you've got some ideas and you're not going to be able to proceed for hassle, then why would you come forward? So, Mr. Chairman, there is a very distinctive differ ence, I sup pose, in approach as we've witnessed by way of the sug gested tactics that the Leader of the Opposition has proposed for us this afternoon. I think, from time to time, we do want to take exception when we have the time when people are presenting their briefs.

We do want to pose qu estions for clarification, but to get involved in a dogfight, whether it be the Cham ber of Commer ce, the National Farmers' Uni on, the Farm Bureau of Man itoba, the Canadian Man ufac tu rers' Association or the Man itoba Federation of Labour every time they present a brief, I don't know why I would want to enga ge in that kind of un neces sary confrontation. 3228 We will advise the Man itoba Federation of Labour, advise other grou ps, where we share views and where we differ view-wise and there will be areas of differen ces.

Obviously, one we're dealing with right now on Labour leg islation where the Man itoba Federation of Labour is un happ y that we are not proceed ing vis-a vis anti-scab legislation. That is under standable ; they're representing the point of view of the Man itoba Federation of Lab our. We've explai ned to the Mani toba Federation of Labour it was our view that we ought not to proceed. So there will be differences from time to time as there is with other groups. The Leader of the Opp osition asked me whether or not we were considering a reduction for northern rates for Northerners.

This matter has come up from time to time. We are not presently reviewing the rates pertaining to Northern Manitoba on Hydr o. It is my und erstanding that we are reviewing, through the Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs though, the very high rates pertaining to gas in Northern commun ities, but as at the present time, there is no review un der way pertaining to northern Hydr o rates. I would like to read to the Leader of the Opp osition comme nts that were made by myself during the cam paign regarding Hydro policy. I think, Mr. Chairman,

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 we are proceed ing in line and consistent with the policy that we annou nced during the campaign and we annou nced to Man itobans, just in case there's any sugge stion across the way that we're proceeding in a way that is inconsistent. "The New Democr atic Party Government will proceed with imme diate orderly developme nt of the Limestone Power Station. The first phase of developmen t will be Northern develop ment and training programs to ensur e maxi mum ben efits for the North and Northerners from Hydro devel opm ent"; that is the first stage.

"We will pursue all mar ket possibilities, not merely those offered by the east-west Grid arrangement. " Further on, I had said, "The New Demo cratic Party will not underm ine Manitoba's long-term Hydro prospects through hasty, election-oriented negotiations. We will expl ore all ma rkets and not ju st two. As a resource owned by the people of Man itoba, Hydr o power should not be sold for a period of decades at its cost of production or cost of production plus a modest sum; it should be marke ted at its value in an energy short world.

The pricing formula to be pursue d by New Demo cratic Party Government, with regard to sale of Hydro, would include the ass urance of a profit to the people of Manitoba from out-of-province sales"; con sistent with what is tak ing place at the present time. My Min ister responsible for Northern Affairs is in the process of comple ting arrangements in respect to the extension of the Northlands Ag reement. A com ponent of that Nor thlands Agreement would involve training and skill development in regard to Northern peoples so that they could participate in future Hydro construction in regard to Lime stone.

It is very, very im portant that we not proceed with the Hydr o construction in a way that is at variance with my statement of October 27, 19 81 until such time as we ensure ma ximum Northern participation in the employm ent. In fact, there is way above average, as the Memb er for Thomp son knows, unem ployment factor in Northern Manitoba. There is a lack of skills because of un fortuna te neglect in training. I am not blam ing this on the previous Conservative administra tion; it goes back many, many years.

I would hope that we could make some dent in training, in skill devel opment, so that Northerners could ma ximi ze their involvement in regard to the resump tion of Lime stone when it takes place. Numb er two, I indicated that we will pur sue all mar ket pos sibilit ies, not merely those offered by east west Grid developme nt. That's exactly, Mr. Chairman, what we are doing at the present time . I would like to re-assu re the Leader of the Op position, we are pro ceeding with the negotiations to insure an agreement of satisfactory terms to Manitobans in regard to the east-west Inter-Tie.

Those discussions are continu ing; they've been interrupted briefly because of the Saskatchewan election and, properly, the new Pre mier of Saskatchewan has asked for time to review the file so he can be acquai nted with the issues. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we are looking at other markets, not ju st west but east and south.

There is an interest south of Man itoba insofar as developing market potential and obtaining supply from Manitoba and that has been expressed, from imme diately south of here all the way to California, that's expr essing su bstantial interest because of their very difficult supply situa tion that they are confronted with in the State of California. So that, Mr. Chairman, ju st so there isn't any dou bt, what we are doing is qu ite con sistent with our statement during the campaign dated October 27, 19 81 .

The Leader of the Opp osition felt I should have interjected to have pointed out to the Man itoba Feder ation of Labour

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-73a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 73a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0ee2f3403e0a2fc46e6b6cb9dbb1fdc7c7ce6452

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).