Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 73B (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-73b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thur sday, 10 Ju ne, 1982 Time - 8:00 p.m. SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: This commit tee will come to order. We are conside ring the Es timates for the Executive Coun cil, Item 1. General Administra tion, 1. (

a) Premier and President of the Council 's Salary. The Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we last met I had just beg un to make a few com ments in regard to the -well, I'd like to call it debate, Mr.

Chair man -but to a certain extent it's the lack of debate or at least lack of intelligent debate that we've seen in this comm ittee because of the strange tactics the Leader of the Opp os ition has been using in the discus sion of these particula r Es timates and those strange tactics I am referring to are the rat her cheap sho ts that the Leader of the Op position has taken at the labour movement, at the NDP.

For aw hile it was El Salvado r, Chile, various other elements which were thrown in by the Leader of the Op position , but I think in each case the best way to descr ibe it was that they were cheap sh ots. Those ch eap sho ts, Mr. Chairman , were not just used by the Leader of the Op pos ition in this particular discus sion today in Es timates but were used by other members of his party. Yesterday, in discuss ion of Bill No. 40. The Act to amend The Labour Relations Act, in which they sug gested that Bill 40 was someho w a payoff to labour and various other such deviou s thing s when it was no such thing.

Ha d the Leader of the Opp os ition been here for my remarks on Bill 40 today when I pointed out that this was not in fact the case, that Bill No. 40 was suppo rted by people within the NDP, people within the labour movement, people generally, that it was discussed, that it was a cam paign promise and one that we have no bones about keeping , I would have thought perhaps he might have changed his attack but obviously he missed my earlier comme nts.

Well, knowing the Leader of the Op posi tion, he hasn 't learned too muc h even from the results of the election on Novem ber 17th, so given that I rather give up any hope of trying to bring a more reasonable attitude on his part toward discussions of these thing s. What I could say, Mr. Chairman , in response to the Leader of the Opp os ition is that: Bah! The Tories are the capti ves of the corporatio ns. I could say that they're bought and paid for, all 23 of them, by the corpo ration s. I could say that, Mr. Chairman .

It's a well-known fact that the Con servative Party receives sub stantial donation s from the corporation s; it is a well-known fact. We heard in discussion of the Crow rate. they received to the tune of $30,000 a year from the CP R. I know from Thomp son experience that they received $30.000.00. In fact, the amount may have increased. but they have received in the past $30,000 from lnco,

whereas we've received no such money from corporations, Mr. Chairman . I could say that proves that they were bought and paid for, that they are pup pets of the corporations. but I haven't said that, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues haven't said that. We have some basic level of respect for the Conse r vative Party as a political party, for those individuals as representati ves of their constitue nts, a respect that prevent s us from usi ng such ch eap tactics in debate. I haven't said that they are captive s of the corporation just because they've received sub stantial cont ribu tions in the past.

They haven't extended that same courte sy to members on this si de. No, Mr. Ch airman , they haven't done that. I could also, from Thompson experience, get up and say how members of the party oppo site have put a great deal of pressure on people in various consti tuencie s using their position s, their con nection s, with other people to try and force them to vote Co nserva tive. I could have said that, Mr.

Chairman, and in this particu lar case I would have been qui te accurate, because I can tell you from the Thompson si tuation that the stronge st political machi nery that exists there is not the machin ery that exists within Local 61 66 of the Un ited Steelworkers of America. No, Mr. Chair man, it's the machinery that exists among st I nco sta ff. I can tell you of cases I ran across during the elec tion where people who were lnco staff members had Co nservative sign s banged up on their lawn. They tore them down; they were banged up on the lawn ag ain.

They tore them down one more time and they were bange d up again . Now, they hadn't requested these sign s, Mr. Chairman . They hadn't even indi cated to anyone that they planned to vote Co nserva tive, but because they were lnco staff members the Co nserv ative wor kers naturally assu med, well, they're voting Con servative, banged up the lawn sign , when that was not in fact the case, Mr. Chairman . 3238 I can speak well of the pressure that is often put on lnco staff members because my own family, my father, is an lnco staff employee.

So I have certain rather close knowledge of the kind of pressure that is put on various people. Now that's what hap pens in Thomp son in terms of the lnco staff. There's also more sub tle press ure, using such positions that I ran across when I went campai gning in a particular apart ment block on Nickel Road in Thomp son during the election, Mr. Chairman. I ran across a poll which was very suppo rtive of the NDP with one exception, or so I though t. I came across a person that had about two or three Co nserva tive sign s in his win dow. He had about four or five stic kers on the door.

As I was going down the hallway sp eaking to various peop le, they said, well, you better skip that guy down there, he's Tory, skip him. This was a fairly strong NDP poll and they were qui te surp rised that there was such a strong Tory in that poll. So I went down there and then all of a su dden, from out of the door of this person with all these Co nservative stickers and si gn s, up popped this partic ular individual who started off in a go od nature throwin g political com ments down the hall. Well, I wanted to be polite.

I didn't want to get into a political argument with him and I replied to him and it was my intention to sp eak to him and then just con tinue on my way. But as soon as I finish ed my conver-

Thu rsday, 10 June, 1982 sation with the other person down the hall. as soon as I finished that this

part icular individu al came out of the hallway, came up to me and said quite quietly off side. look. I'm not voting Co nservative; I'm act ually voting NOP. He said, I've always been a strong NOPer and the way the Co nservative Governme nt's treated us the last four years I'm sticking to it. So I asked him. but why have you got all these stickers up on the door? Why all these sign s? He said . well.

I'm a bit behind in my rent and I figu re if I put all these sign s up. m\ landlord who is a strong P.C. maybe he won't collect on the rent too qu ickly and boot me out So that was the kind of su btle pressure that particular individu al felt. Because his landlord was a strong P.Cer and had planted this huge Co nservative sign in fron t of the apartment block. he figured, well. if I pretend to be a Conservative. maybe I'll get of! with my rent payments. I could continu e with other sim ilar examples, Mr. Chairman, of people who had sign s planted on their driveway. sign s which they didn't request.

I ran across a numb er of other people in apartment s. where people had knocked on the doors. They'd given the sign s to the particula r individual and they placed them right by the door. In fact. I remember a numb er of occass ions. I knocked on the door and I was talking to this person. They were qu ite friendly. I noticed all of a sudd en there was a Co nservative sign there. so I figu red. well. that's one lost vote. Then the particula r individu al turn ed to me and said , can I get an NOP sign to stick on my windo w. I was figuring , well. this gu y's got to be crazy.

He's already got a Co nserv ative sign and now he wa nts to put up an NOP sign. Mayb e he's unde cided; maybe there's ano ther member of the family who's voting Co nservative. So I said, well. I thought you were voti ng Con servative. The guy said to me, well. they came around. They asked me whether I wanted a sign ; I said . su re. I took it. I'm not pu tting that in my win dow; I'm not vo ting Con servative. but I took it anyway. There are a lot of ca ses like that, Mr. Chair man. This partic ular individual was actually a lot more ch aritable to the Co nservative sign than other individ uals I had seen.

The usual tactic of people in som e of these apart ment blocks that were strong NO Pers was. if they were offered a sign. they said sure. They'd get the sign; they'd rip it in two and then they'd give it to their kids to play with. I could say that there was some devious plot on the part of the Tories in Thompson; I could say there was some devious plot to coerce lnco staff members into voting for the Co nservatives; to coerce tenant s to vote Co nservative; some plot to force them to put up Co nservative sign s in their win dows. I could say that. Mr.

Chairman. and that would be totally in keeping with the spirit of debate that the Leader of the Oppo sition is start ing. But I am not sayi ng that. because that simp ly would be a totally and gross exagger ation of what happened. I recognized that; the Leader of the Opp os ition rec ogn izes that on this partic ular case. It's too bad that he wouldn 't be as objective in looking at the situation with the NOP in the Provi nce of Man itoba in regard to their relationship with the labour movement.

I think the Premier point ed out qu ite well. earlier. that we have a strong affinity with the labour movement. with the MFL. as the provincial sp okes man for the labour movement. We have a strong affinity with them. We have very many people in the MFL un ions who are members of the NOP. active members at that. and we have a strong history of a close con nection with them. We make no bones about that. Mr. Chairman. but where are the str ings? Where are the political payo ffs? Where are they, Mr. Chairman?

Well. they si mply don't exist It is exactly the same sort of thing that I said in regard to the Co nservative Party, that we are not doing , that the Leader of the Opp os ition is doing in this partic ular case and that is why he spent one hour of the Legislat ure's time or more actually, Mr. Chair man. one hour. I would say, wast ing the time of the Legis lature ta lking about the MFL. because he hopes to create this big bogeyman. the MFL and the NOP. and they're all in cah oots and oh. there is some deviou s plot going on here. Well. Mr. Chairman. that si mply doesn't wash with the people of this provi nce.

Earlier he mentioned about Thompson havin g a strong labour backg round. It doesn't wash up there. Mr. Chairman. where we do have a large numb er of people involved in the labour movement, members of labour uni ons. They voted NOP this time in large numbers. Mr. Chairman. in large numbers; not because the Manit oba Federation of Labour said, vote this way; not because members of local un ions said , vote this way. If that had happ ened. Mr. Chairman , a go od numb er of those people would have told the person telling them to do that to go -well. to go to a certain proverbial place, Mr.

Chairman -because the members of labour un ions just as anyone else in Thomp son and probably more so in Thomp son are very individual is tic. They don't take orders from anyon e; they make up their own mind. and that's that In this partic ular elec tion the vast majority of them voted NOP and in fact that's been the case over the last few years. -( Interjection)- Well. Mr. Chairman. if the members of the Co nser vative party don't think that's the case. they should talk to the average working person in Thompson at the present time.

The esta blishment in Thomp son voted en masse one way; the working people voted the other way. The establishment voted Tory; the working peo ple voted for the NOP. They talked earlier-as a matter of fact. the Leader of the Opp os ition makes reference to the fact that I won the election by 72 votes - I tried to cheat you out of 21 votes -but I won by 72 votes. Mr. Chairman . and he is trying to use that as some argu ment for the fact that workin g people up there have some great affinity for the Co nservative Party rather than the NOP.

Well in fact. that's not the case. 3239 If one was to look at the results and look at the reason why my oppo nent. Ken MacMa ster. did fairly well. it was because he did have a certa in amount of affinity with union members. with workin g people in Tho mpson going back to the years when he was an NOP cand idate. While the honou ra ble members op posite don't often refer to that fact. he was a former NOP candi date. a former Liberal. a former Co nserva tive -God knows what he is now-but he had a con nec tion with working people. I would say one of the rea sons why he came within 72 votes. Mr.

Chairman . was the very fact that he did have a certa in su pport base among st working people in Thompson. If I was Leader of the Op positi on, I'd be pretty scared of the political futu re just by looking at his

Caucus members, his 22 colleag ues, the other MLAs in this House, Mr. Chairman , because if he was to look at them, I don't think you'd find one by any stretc h of the imagina tion who could be class ified as a working perso n. Not one. -(I nterjection )- Oh well, now they laugh, Mr. Chairman. POINT OF ORDER MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rob lin Ru sse ll on a point of order. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman , on a po int of order, I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. There are no workin g people in our Caucus. I ask him to withdraw that remark. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Th e Memb er for Thompson.

MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman , on the po int of order MR. W. McKENZIE: . .. an allegation. There are no working people in this Caucus sittin g across here in the Opp os ition and I ask him to withdraw that remark. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood on the same po int of order. MR. R. DOERN: On the point of order, I don't know if my honourable friend understands the remark.

I think it is well-known that the word or expression "working people" refers to people in blue-collar occ up ations of a partic ular variety and the fact that the Honourable Member for Arthur, for example, may be a farmer doesn't mean he doesn't work. It's just that his classi ficat ion is farming . When we talk about "workin g peo ple," you're talking about certain variet ies of occ upa tion . I don't normally include lawyers in that partic ular group . Now maybe the Leader of the Official Opposi tion does, bu t "working people" I think, is well-known .

My honourable friend is perfectly correct in us ing that express ion and if the honourable member can give us an exam ple of somebody on that side of the House who's a blue-collar worker, or holds a trade union card, or is a machin ist, let him do so. It would be very interesting to know who it is. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Thomp son on the same point of order. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman , on the po int of order. The state ments I made were descriptive, they were certainly not un parliamen tary langua ge.

You know, I've heard members on the opp os ite benches go around and say , oh, there are no farmers on the other side, they're all a bun ch of preachers and teachers go ing around with the little descriptions, which have been totally inaccurate. My description for that . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. Wou ld the Member for Thomp son like to co mplete his remarks? -(l nterjection)- The Member for Thompso n. 10 June, 1982 MR. S. ASHTON: Than k you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the honourable members opp osite are sensit ive and with good reason. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order. MR. W.

McKENZIE: He is not spe akin g to a po int of order MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have not recogn ized the Member for Robli n-Russ ell. The Member for Thomp son on the po int of order. MR. S. ASHTON: Not on the po int of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Not on the point of order. MR. S. ASHTON: On the main section. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Does the Member for Rob lin-Russe ll like to speak on a po int of order? MR. W. McKENZIE: Na y, Sir. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Ayes and nays on what? MR. W. McKENZIE: On him withdrawin g that po int of order, that there are no "workin g people" in this Cau cus. -(I nterjection)- MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There's no motion on the floor. I believe there is a very wide latitude for inter preting the term "working people. " There are two

interpretations being used here and I don't think that either one is necessar ily the only

interpretation. Per haps the Member for Thomp son could be more pre cise in his wording. The Member for Thomp son. MR. S. ASHTON: Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think if one just looked at the sit uation .. . MR. W. McKENZIE: Well, Mr. Ch airman, I sti ll don't accept it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. S. ASHTON: I believe I have the floor, Mr. Chair man.

In terms of the discuss ion we've been talking about here today of MFL , of "workin g people" being the labour movement and whatnot, I would be pleased, in fact, to see those members opp osite who will clas si fy them in that ca tegory, because there are a numb er of people on this side of the House who certa inly would. 3240 I know from perso nal experience, Mr. Chairman . that working, for example, in a mine, or a smelter, or any such simi lar op eration, or in a factory does give on e a certai n kind of perspective. I know that because I have had but a brief connection with that kind of employment, Mr.

Chairman, previous to this election. My em ployment was in the mine in Thomp so n and I say that when I use the term "working peop le," that I use it out of great respect for those people who day in, day out , work their way in about the most honest way

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 possi ble, and that is, through their very sweat and their blood, Mr. Chairman, because that is indeed how most working peo ple make th eir existence in Thompson. I said , out of credit to my predecessor, that he did have a stro ng co nnection with the labour movement, with workin g people in general, because he started out that way and I said that as a credit to him and I sugge sted to the members opposite, that they should perhap s try and encourage more people to be involved in the Legislature from that

part icular employment, that particular perspective, because a large numb er of people of Mani toba are from that bac kground, Mr. Chairman. I would say the members opp osite would do well to encourage people from that occu pationa l backgr ound and experience. HON. S. LYON: Are we on the po int of order, Mr. Chairman? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, we are not. HON. S. LYON: Well, let's clear it up, Mr. Chairman , because I am spe aking on the po int of order and the Honourable Member for Thompson is puttin g MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. HON. S.

LYON: I say there is a po int of order and you, Sir, will hear me while I say there is a po int of order. I am saying to yo u, Mr. Chairman , that the term being used by the Member for Thomp so n is an offensive term unless, as you ask him to do, he clarifies it. Bu t your "workin g person" is not a term that is restricted just to his class ideology. Everybody in this province who draws a salary or who makes a living is a working perso n.

If my honourab le friend wan ts to talk accord ing to his narrow, tunn el[SF<;class vision of society about people who work for ln co and who are un io nized as being the only working people and the people who aren't un ionized as being non-working people. Well, that's fine, acco rding to his prejudice. My honourable friend, the Member for Roblin Ru ssell, is merely sayi ng, don't use offensive terms like that in this House when you've only been here a short time because you really don't know what you are talking about.

The farmer who goes out and works by the sweat of his brow, a damn si ght harder than a lot of union people that I know, is also a working person. The lawyer who works 18 hours a day in court is also a working perso n. The legislator, like the First Min ister or that pup from Thompson, is also a working person in here. So, Mr. Chairman , there are dist inctions to be made in the term, if you can ca jole the honourab le juni or member to make that disti nction, then fine, otherwise, he has to withdraw. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister of Labour on the same point of order. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, on the same po int of order and indeed on anothe r one. I think that the Leader of the Opp os ition should well know, that reference to the Member for Thompson should be 3241 withdrawn and I would hope that he would do so qu ickly. HON. S. LYON: I'll be qu ite happ y to call him the Honourable Member for Thomp son and we hope he'll act like one. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the reference to "working people," surely the Member for Thomp son was sp ecifically follow ing your instructio ns.

I believe the instructions made sense, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated when he started out. He said that you had made a ruling indicating that the Member for Thom pson should clar ify what he was sayi ng and what he was saying was, very simp ly, that he was referring to a specific seg ment of people who work for a living -(ln terjection) yes, he did. He did say that.

He did not and he said very specif ically, as I recall, that there are others who work, and probably equa lly as hard, but in a different class and the members of the Opp osit ion, in terms of ow ners hip of busine sses, have recogn ized through out since they've been on that side, that there are so me people here who don't own busin esses because that's one of the thin gs that they keep throwing over to this side. They say, where are your busi ness people? Where is this gro up? Where's that group? You're a bunch of preachers and teachers, as the Member for Thompson said.

They are the ones who are talking about some kind of a class system. They are the ones who, just yester day afternoo n, when we had the Member for Sturgeon Creek st anding up and talking about class warfare and referring to Bo eing, we remember that. Mr. Chairman, he stood up and sugge sted that Bill 40 would so mehow have created class warfare when, in fact, it did exactly the reverse.

Because of the election of the New Democratic Party, that group of workers went back to work; they didn't stay on str ike; they were getting their paychecks after that; their employer was getting work done, which wasn't happ ening before there was an un derstand ing on the part of those workers that, in fact, this legislation would be co ming in as a result of an elect ion. Now, Mr. Chairman , there has always been an indi cation from that si de, whenever we start talking about working people, that somehow we are talking class warfare.

It is in fact that group that has been talking class warfare and I would sugge st that we allow the Member for Thompson to get on with his excellent address to this Assem bly. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Rob lin Ru ssell on the same point of order. MR. W. McKENZIE: All I want is the record to be shown on Han sard that there are working people on this side of the House, and I just want that to be clear. Now if you are not go ing to make sure that it is clear, then we have no recourse. You're the Chair man of this Com mittee, Mr. Chairman . You are the only one who can make the ruling.

If you're go ing to leave the remarks on the record which the honourable member has pul there, that there is no workin g people over here, we can't help it. We don't have enough votes to vote agai nst it, and if that's what the soc ialists believe

about us, and you're not going to rule on it, let the record show, it's not correct. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I thank the Member for Roblin-Russell for his clarification of his interpreta tion of the term, "working person." As I said before the term "working person," I believe, has latitude for a wide

interpretation as well as for a narrow interpreta tion, and both sides are free to interpret the term in any manner they choose. The Member for Thompson. SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (Cont'

d) MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I would agree - as the member says they're very sensitive - but I would agree on one thing and that is, that certainly people in other occupations work damn hard as well. with one exception, and that is in terms of legislators. After seeing what is being pro duced by this particular body sometimes I somehow feel rather guilty when I look at the amount which we are paid. -(Interjection)- Well, the Leader of the Opposition says, why don't I resign?

I'm hoping to bring some sanity to this place one of these days, because to sit here for one hour, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is paid a rather handsome salary to sit here for one hour, and go on with this fetish he has about the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

You know, to compare that with some people in my constituency who are working underground, under incredible physical pressure and physical danger for far less salary, or to compare it with people who work for staff positions at I nco in Thompson who are under a great deal of mental pressure for reduced salaries, I think is a perversion of the way society works, but that is only a personal comment, Mr. Chairman.

As I was saying, before the Honourable Leader of the Opposition attempts to put himself up as some expert on working people, he mentioned how he was at MFL conventions and people came up to him and spoke to him and said how concerned they were about the briefs of the MFL and whatnot, I find that rather hard to believe. There were very few members of the MFL affiliated unions I ran across in Thompson who would have come up and been anywhere near civil to the Leader of the Opposition after the way he treated them for four years, but if he wants to talk about that, that's fine.

If he wants to talk about the fact that many working people - and I can use that in whatever sense those members opposite want - vote Conservative, he can do that, because that is indeed the case, Mr. Chairman, because a lot of people do vote Conservative. As I said earlier, people who are members of unions, members of MFL unions, or individuals, they vote whichever way they want. A good number vote NOP; a good number vote Conservative.

The fact is that the Conservatives have slipped rather considerably there recently and I would throw that out as a suggestion that they perhaps check into why, and I think if one were to listen today, Mr. Chairman, one would see one of the reasons why, because the members opposite have tried to bash the MFL setup as some great ogre, as pulling strings and political payoffs and whatnot, when that simply is not the case, Mr. Chairman.

Peo- pie of this province know that and for the Leader of the Opposition to waste the time of this Assembly with ridiculous insinuations like that, ridiculous charges, it's just beyond me, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of issues that we should be discus sing here. I would like to hear some discussion when the Leader of the Opposition talks about the North and whatnot, of Northern issues, instead of just throw ing it out and then saying, oh, well the MFL brief didn't know what it was talking about, because some of the points he mentioned are of very great concern to peo ple in Thompson, Mr.

Chairman, such as, energy costs, transportation costs, as indicated in the MFL brief. It's not just the MFL which talks about it, it's the Chamber of Commerce as well. So I would hope that he would not look at the source of these documents, and would look at the substance, and would look for the good points, look for the feedback and perhaps pay some attention to that. He didn't do it for four years as Premier of the province, he might well take his additional time now as Leader of the Opposition to look into it. 3242 Just in terms of the time, Mr.

Chairman, I believe a good part of the time was taken up with points of order. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. The member has used his 30 minutes allocation on this particular speech. 1. (a) - the Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I have a few ques tions I'd like to ask the Honourable First Minister now that the new wing of Thompson has got all the gas off his chest and has given us some idea of how a back bencher bails a Premier out - the first time I've ever seen it in my lifetime here. It gives you, Mr. Chairman, a classic example how weak this government is.

There are no Treasury Ministers bailing the First Minister out in this debate at all.

It's a lonely backbencher from Thompson who had - what did he say - a 70 vote majority, who is coming to the rescue of the First Minister of this province on some of the most difficult and economic times that I've seen in my House and I've been here going on 17 years in a very few days, and I've never ever seen a backbencher trying to bail a Premier out, especially if he'd added even one sent ence in his debate that added something to help us in this most difficult time, to bail ourselves out of these most horrible times that we're facing since this gov ernment took office. Mr.

Chairman, can I ask the First Minister, has he or any of his Ministers been out to this new CSP Foods at Harrowby, a plant that was brought into this province, thanks to the Pool Elevators of Manitoba and Saskat chewan, who are now facing difficult times and have these problems at Gimli today, the problems we see all around; I'm just asking, have any of his Ministers been out to talk with CSP Foods since he took office? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I think that the member should ask the Minister of Agriculture whether or not he has been out.

We can indeed check that out, but it would seem to me to be more appropriate that

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 the member enquire of the Minister of Agriculture who would be the most intimately involved insofar as the operation in question. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Membe r for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, can I ask the First Minister if any of his Treasury Bench, or even any of his backbenchers have been in San Clara to talk witr the Mountain House Loggers in these most difficult times to see if that industry will survive? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, I must indeed inform the honourable member that the members of the Treasury Board have been quite involved in visiting various areas of the province. Although we've been in government only six short months this, indeed, and I think it's been generally recognized, is a government that has been very much involved insofar as travelling to various parts of the province, consulting with people in Manitoba.

In fact, I look about me and I believe there are to be no excep tions in regard to the extent of involvement, participa tion and effort at consultation on the part of the members of this Treasury Board. I appreciate the Honourable Member for Russell giving me the oppor tunity to point this out. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, may I then go to one that's well-known. Have any of his Ministers been at Rossburn to talk with MANCO and the dairy indus try at Rossburn? Have any of his Ministers since this House opened, or since they took government, been to Rossburn to talk to MANCO and the unemployed workers there?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I think what the honourable member should do in order to expedite matters is list all the areas that he would like to be advised as to whether or not my Ministers have been to and I will make an effort to advise him. I'm already informed by the Minister of Agriculture that yes, indeed, there have been discussions with MANCO and there have been discussions with the people from the Harrowby Plant. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, can I ask the First Minister if any of his Ministers, or any of the bureau crats, have been at the five co-ops in my constituency:- Grandview, Roblin, Russell, Gilbert Plains and Ross burn, with the difficult problems that industry is facing today? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Roblin-Russell is speaking of whether someone has been out. I should advise the honourable member that there is work presently going on in co-operation with MANCO to do a review of their entire operations and the difficulties that they have, Mr.

Chairman, and that work is being undertaken in co-operation with the Board of Directors. There are discussions under way presently. I have had, personally, at least three or four meetings with management and some of the Directors of MANCO concerning their operations, and the Minister of Co op Development has also had meetings with them with respect to some of the difficulties they're in. I should mention to the honourable member that there is a difference of opinion on the Board of Direc tors of MANCO in terms of the approaches that might be taken to assist that firm in the problems that they're having.

There is a fundamental difference of opinion on that Board of Directors with respect to how best to settle some of the difficulties that the Co-operative has; so it makes our involvement much more difficult as well, and much more delicate, in terms of whether one goes about insisting that he should impose him self on those operations or one who would want to work co-operatively with the Board of Directors and with the farmers who are involved to try and settle some of the issues - very serious issues I might add from our point of view - and we are attempting to assist them as best we can.

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be less impervious if honourable members would like to know that during the supper hour, I had the opportu nity lo meet an upcoming Progressive Conservative candidate from New Brunswick, who I see is in the gallery tonight, along with the past New Democratic Party candidate in the same Federal constituency in New Brunswick in the gallery behind you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. 3243 MR. W.

McKENZIE: I'm sure all the members of this House and the Province of Manitoba welcome these distinguished guests to our province, and we wish you well here and we hope you enjoy your visit. SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Cont'd MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, that is the problem we in the Opposition have had with this government since Day One.

We come here day after day with these serious problems in this province, economic prob lems. and I don't know anybody else that I'd sooner go to as the First Minister of this province to see if he has control of his Ministers, if in fact he knows where they're going every day, if in fact he knows what their work -(Interjection)- Well, I'm just telling you. Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a weaker government in my 17 years in this Legislature than the one that sits right across from us right now. This is by far the weakest government that I've seen in my time.

That's why I am concerned tonight and I am raising these questions. I hope that what I'm doing is prodding the First Minister of this province to get out of this place and see what's going on out there. Sure the Minister of Agriculture says somebody's

been talking to MANCO. I tell you, Mr. First Minister, go out to the heart of the problem right in that crea mery at Rossburn and talk to those unemployed peo ple. That's where the problems are, not in here, or not listening to a Minister or a bureaucrat. Go out where the action is and listen to what's going on. I know it's difficult for the First Minister to go into my constituency because it's a Tory constituency. We saw that with the centennial bash. Sure Selkirk is NOP; so is Brandon, and they're having their big cen tennial bash.

We can't get a centennial bash in Shel lmouth unless I pay for it and that's the problem we have with this government, Mr. Chairman. They've got their blinkers on, tunnel vision, and they'll sit and listen all night to the Honourable Member for Thomp son put nothing into the debate, nothing to contribute to the difficult problems we have. So before I sit down, I'll raise another question. Can I very briefly, Mr.

Chairman, ask the First Minister in the ensuing months, will he come out to my consti tuency - I'll go with him - and let's go and talk to those longstanding viable industries that have been the guts and the whole economic thrust of that constituency for decades and see if we can't, before it's too late, save them all. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, this particular debate has been going on for four days and I think there's a very interesting thing happening here.

There's some thing happening superficially, and there's something happening beneath the level of the debate itself. I think that is an explanation which I'd like to take a look at, as to why the Leader of the Official Opposition is getting so exercised in this particular debate and why he is trying so hard in all of his speeches, starting in the beginning of the Session, going through the Ses sion and particularly the last four days to demonstrate that his party didn't in fact lose the election, but in some peculiar way the New Democratic Party stole the election.

Isn't that the theory that is being put by the Conservative Party in the last few days and by the Leader of the Official Opposition? Isn't this what he's trying to argue? That it was due to a deceitful advertis ing campaign, some sharp television commercials that the New Democratic Party found itself in office. Isn't that the theory? -(Interjection)- Well, that's my theory. That's right, that's my theory based upon your theory. I see that several of your backbenchers agree. They don't believe that the government, the Lyon administration, lost the election.

They believe that the New Democratic Party stole the election. -(Inter jection)- Mr. Chairman, well we stole it fair and square perhaps. Mr. Chairman, that is what they would like to believe. It was a very interesting comment this after noon made by one of the backbenchers or made by my colleague the Minister of Cultural Affairs who, when we were talking about party colours, talked about the Tory colours which are black and blue as a result; the new Tory colours as a result of the last election campaign. Mr.

Chairman, it's very interesting to have listened to the Leader of the Official Opposition over these last few days. He's been quite worked up as to the method 10 June, 1982 of operation by the New Democratic Party during the election campaign. I have dug out the ads that were put into the newspapers by his government. You know how they read us their pamphlets, Mr. Chairman, how from the beginning they have been reading us our pamphlets as if their pamphlets and their advertising was all terrific and that there was no problem concerned. Mr.

Chairman, I think the reasoning behind this is easy to see and that is that it would take a pretty big man to admit that he lost a campaign. It is not an easy thing to do, to admit defeat or to admit mistakes, but that is the situation. What is really at stake in this Legislature in the last few days and in the last four months is the place of the Leader of the Official Oppo sition in history; that is what is at stake. He has to attempt to demonstrate that he is not there on the side of the losers because the losers in the last 30 years in this province have included Premier Weir and Premier Lyon.

Those are the two prominent losers. -(Interjection)- No. Well, sure he was prominent and sure he lost, sure Duff Roblin lost and sure Doug Campbell lost, but the people who since 1948 have stood out as the big men in this province have been Premier Campbell who was in 10 years and then lost, Premier Roblin who was in nine years I think and then lost -(Interjection)- all right, so okay he didn't lose, he retired. Then Premier Weir came in after him, oper ated for two years and then lost. I don't believe that Weir lost on his own accord; I don't believe that Weir blew the government.

I believe what happened was, he took the rap for the Roblin Government plus his own mistakes and successes as they were, but he in effect lost partly on his own and partly on behalf of the Roblin Government. Then you had Ed Schreyer who came in for eight years. 3244 So how do you measure the greatness of a Premier? How do you measure the ability of a government, the record of a government? You have to look to judge whether a government is good or not at its record, at the things that it accomplished in office, and its length of term. Those, I think, are the two criteria, Mr.

Chair man, and if we were to start listing what the accomp lishments of the Schreyer Government were, that would take a great deal of time -(Interjection)- it would take all night, as the Minister of Finance said, to list the achievements of the Schreyer administration. -(Interjection)- well, sure, I'm willing to include Saunders Aircraft and I am willing to include King Choy and I'm willing to include CFI, and I am willing to include Autopac and Pharmacare and Medicare pre miums and all of those things, Mr. Chairman. I am willing to include all of those things. Mr.

Chairman, now we get to a situation of looking at the record of the Lyon administration, and I am very hard pressed to list the accomplishments of the Lyon administration. It is not an easy thing to do, and - (Interjection)- well, Mr. Chairman, the Lyon adminis tration demonstrated a number of things. They put into practice an economic theory; they put into prac tice their beliefs on government, and what happened when they put them into practice? Did those laissez faire economic theories work? Did the cutback of the Civil Service, the cutback of spending, the restraint program stimulate the economy?

Did the money taken from the public sector stimulate the private sec-

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 tor and sti mulate the entire economy, stimulate a mixed econom y? No, it didn't do that. What happened was they followed an outdated theory; put it in to place; the public saw what was happening and threw them out of office. Mr. Chairman, I' m going to take a look at a few ads. I am going to remind you of a few ads that were put into the pap er. Now, I think one of the worst ads ever put into a pap er, and this is preceding the Lyon adminis tration, was the series in 1969 by the Weir Govern ment.

Remember the hand keeping down expend i tures which was a philosophy followed by the Leader of the Official Oppo sition? It was the restrai nt concept that by hard restrai nt on educat ional spend ing among many other thin gs, you will achieve pros perity. (In terjection)- but this is serious. That's wha t they believed at that time -(Int erjection)- well, my hon ourable friend has never seen it. But if that was a bad ad, Mr. Chairman , sure ly the worst ad ever come up with in a political campa ign in cont emporary history in this cou ntry is this particu lar ad.

It has a picture of the con stitue nts of the Honourable Member for Thompson , and what's the heading? "Man itoba is sit ting on a gold mine." You kn ow, you'd better be ca re ful who you say that to. If you say that to certain people, they may be shocked. You kno w wha t? I made a mista ke, Mr. Chairman, this wasn't the camp aign ad. No, this was a govern ment ad, a series of go vernment ads, a program that cost the taxpa yers $1 50,000, ju st ha pp ened -(In terjection)- we have to have a Special Warrant just happened to be perfectly timed with the election. Mr.

Chairman, these ads were just fortunately timed with the election cam paign. It just happened, I mean it was an accide nt that they phase in these ads, week by week, and then they called the election, and then they ran their ads. It was a fortuitous circu mstance. And how they wanted to give Manilobans a first chance at these exciting oppo rtunities ·-remember that? The Industrial Benefits Office, remember that? You set that up. Ma nitoba is sitti ng on a gold mine, not to mention nickel, copp er, zinc, potash and oil.

That was one ad, 'Putting food on the table and corn in your tank.' A lot of corn. -(Int erjection)- this is no laugh ing matter. These are real ads. We forgot about these. -(In terjection)- No, I' m wrong again, this is n't a Tory ad, this is a government ad. Now here's one, Mr. Chairman, on the mega pro jects. 'Manitoba's mega projects will mean $3 billion worth of oppo rtu nity,' 3 billion . Yes, Sir, they had those cont racts sewn up; they had those plants ready to roll; the piles were being driven; the plans designed; the cont ractors were given the cont racts.

All the peo ple had to do was re-elect them and , boy, those plants would be right there. We could go out there now and smell the pollution, and we could see the potash mines and so on. Mr. Chairman , the fourth ad, 'The Industrial Bene fits Program, getting the most from Manitoba 's eco no mic growth,' and here's a list of all the help wanted.

Look at this, the job s are there, where's the line up ? 'Help want ed, tool and die makers, welders, machi nists, mechanics, electricians, en gineers, technicians , com pu ter prog ram mers, sy st ems ana lys ts , researchers, accountants and manag ers,' and then it says cont inued. Mr. Chairman, where was one job? 3245 Name one job that came out of these ads in terms of the mega projects that you tried to create the impres sion that were in the works, not one. Mr. Chairman, the Weir government made the same mistake.

When the Weir government called the elec tion in '69, they had a list of things that they promised to do and then they called the election, thinking tha t the public would then vote for them to do the things that they promised. This government made the same mistake; they made exactly the identical mistake. They couldn't sign an agree ment; they couldn't get a deal; they couldn't bring about this thing into fruition; they couldn 't start a project. If you had been able to sign one con tract, as Leader of the official Op position when he was Premier, if he had produced one co ntract he might ha ve been re-elected.

He might have. The people might have -(Int erjection)- well, the Mini ster of Fina nce says maybe. That's right, it's still an iffy thing. Now let's talk about truth; let's talk about the truth in advertising. They want to talk about our promises -(Int erjection)- I remember '69 well, it was a very go od year. There's a song like that -in 1969 it was a very good year - I think Frank Sinatra sang that song. Mr. Chairman , let's look at wha t they said in their ads. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you want to see distortion this is it, this is it.

Here's an ad from Nove mber 14th, and here's a cha rt showing the 15,979 new jobs that const ruction of the mega projects will create . Mr. Ch airman, the pub lic didn't buy this stuff. The people of Man itoba didn't believe that there was anyt hing behind these ads other than flimflam and distortion. The people of Ma nitoba didn't believe that there were going to be 2, 100 ca rpenters signed as soon as they voted for the Cons ervative Party; they didn't believe that 1, 124 electricians were going to be taken on; they didn't believe there were 4,265 welders and boiler makers. We've got the exact nu mbers here.

You think I'm kidding. I'll show you this ad after, I'll show it to you. Truck drivers, and equ ipment opera tors, 1,095. Start lining up you guys, get your cha uf feur's license out there. Brick layers and co ncrete workers 7 45; operating eng ineers 1,0 1 O; general con struc tion 3, 102. Notice the nu mbers, Mr. Chairman. Who could tell that they need 3, 102 general con struc tion? You've got to be kidding, you've got to be joking. Others, we need 2,538 others. Are there any others avai lable for work on this particu lar-an exact figure of 15,979 jo bs, Mr. Chairman.

Not 16,000 -no, 15,979, that's what they said, Mr. Chairman. I talked to a lot of people during the campa ign and before because I was worried as to whether people were buyi ng the Tory line. The Tory line was vote for us, you get thousands of jobs, billions of investment, and you get pros perity ahead. You've got to be kidding. 'Don't stop us now.' Well that's what Scotty McVickar said in Co ncordia, remember him, Scotty McVickar? He was kno cked off by my col league here. He ran on the slogan 'Don't stop us now.' That was the slogan in the last campa ign. It seems like a long time ago, but that was the sloga n.

Mr. Chairman , let's see wha t they said about us. Here's the interesting thing. You kno w, I'm glad the Premier makes this point. I would like to have been at the meetings with Foster Advertising, and the other

agency down on Osbo rne, McKim -were they involved too? I would love to have been there to see the strate gists of the Cons ervative Party gathered arou nd the table, espec ially with those industrial benefits ads - 'You're sitting on a gold mine.' The Member for Stur geon Creek, I could see him there all excited about the fact that this is going to get the peop le, and all the other top stratagists there - Na te Nurgitz and the Attor ney-General and the Leader of the Official Op position and the Member for Fort Garry .

I could see them all really just chortling with glee, us ing public tax payers' funds to pay for all these ads, 'Sitting on a gold mine.' Boy, that really has a catchy ring, that has a ring to it. Now if that's what they said about themselves, what did they say about us. Now you want to talk about distortion, just listen to this; this is the best ad of all, a full page ad in both papers on November 16th, "When you vote tomorrow, cho ose Ma nitoba's mega projects and a decade of pros perity for all Ma nitobans ." Now here's wha t they're going to do, and here's wha t we were supposed to do. This is the cont rast.

Com pare what your ch oice means. First, the first one is the Tory position. Thousand s of more job s for young Man ito bans. That's wha t they would do, rig ht? Create thou sands of jobs. What would the NDP do? It would scrap the mega projects. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is a com plete distortion, a com plete distortion, a total distortion. Now this gets hotter as it goes along , it escal ates. This is wha t the Tories would do. 'The mega projects will mean a decade of un paralleled pros perity for Ma n itoba ns, and un paralleled security for the people who need our help.' Here's what the NDP would do.

Want to kno w wha t the NDP would do acc ording to the Tory propaganda? 'No new jobs, no new oppo rtuni ties, and no growth for Ma nitoba .' A com plete distortion, Mr. Chairman, complete distortion. The final point -(In terjection)- you're too cons er vative, rig ht, you were too cons ervative. The last point : 'The taxes the mega projects will pay will help keep everyone's taxes lower.' What do they say the New De mocrats would do? 'Without the mega pro jects taxes would go up , hydro rates would soa r, and the oppo rtunity to bui ld a decade of pros perity would be lost.' Okay, now here's a question.

Give n the choice, Mr. Chairman, why didn't the people of Manitoba vote Cons ervative? Come on, wha t is the an swer? Why didn't a majority of Man itobans vote Cons ervative, given those alternatives? You kno w why? Because for four years they saw wha t the Tory Party could do; they saw the record of the Con servative Party in Ma nitoba. They said, we're not going to go with these guys again, we kno w wha t they can do. We don't care what they say they can do. We don't care wha t they promise us. We don't care wha t they dangle before our very eyes.

We have been there before, we were "had" once, we have seen four years in office and we're going to have no thing to do with these peop le. So, Mr. Chairman , I conclude on that point. The Cons ervatives think or want to believe, they want to believe that the election was stolen by a series of slick ads put out by the NDP which were bought over their slick ads. Is that what they're sayi ng? -(l nterjection) They were honest, yes, they want to believe 1982 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ro blin Russe ll on a point of order. 3246 The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, the Cons ervatives don't want to believe that they lost because of four years of nona cc omplish ments. Tha t hurts. They des perately want to believe and they want to tell other people that it was because of the advertising cam paign put on by the New De mocratic Party that people were bam boozled during a five-week period to voting NOP. -(In terjection)- Mr. Chairman, call it wha t you will. The fact of the matter is that the public watched the govern ment in action, saw the resu lts, voted them out of office and the election cam paign was just the frosting on the cake. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it is un fortunate the Member for Elmwood didn't co ntinue to read the truth for a chang e because it's refreshing to hear from one of the members from the government side of the House, a former Cabinet Mini ster, because in fact we did hear the truth in wha t he just said; the fact that the truth was told by the Tory Party and the fact that we were honest with the people of Ma nitoba . We, Mr. Chairman, didn't make any pie in the sky promises. We didn't have any catchy jingles that maybe sold a few people on the New Dem ocratic Party.

But you kno w, Mr. Chairman, I have to say, and I think the Premier is one who should listen very closely to this, that Man itobans have a pretty long memory and when the Member for Elmwood tries to go over our record of accomplishm ents and tries to make fu n of the fact that we were broadeni ng the tax base for the people of Man itoba , that there were job op portuni ties being created and developed, I do not stand here and feel badly that our record was bad.

I'll go over a bit of the history as well for the Member for Elmwood because I think for some of the new members in par ticu lar, if they want to go back and com pare when they are out of the House after the next election, something to do in remembering their few short years in the Legislature, I think they shou ld compa re some of the accomplishments that have taken place in our term as opposed to what they have accomplished in their first period of office. Mr.

Chairman, the First Minister first of all, I think, will never ever be able to clear himself from the propa ganda that he put out to the people of Ma nitoba : "A Clear Choice for the Province of Ma nitoba." I wou ld ask him a question and he can ans wer it so metime duri ng his Esti mates if he wants, but it's been proven and pointed out many times over that the first thing as far as the farm commu nity is concerned is the kind of nu mbers that he used when he told the people of Ma nitoba that in the Con servative -and I will quote from the "C lear Choice" docu ment "for Ma nitoba" which was the propaganda sheet that he put out - "While the Cons ervatives sat on their han ds, almost 40 percent of Man itoba hog producers left production.

" That, Mr. Chairman, a docu ment signed by the now Premier of the Province of Ma nitoba, is an out and out unt ruth. The recent Hog Producers Marketing Report, Mr.

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 Chairman, clearly states that our hog product ion stayed relatively stable where in fact 13 percent of our hog producers either left the bu siness or started to do something else, not 40 percent as the now First Min is ter told the people of Man itoba. There is a tremendous difference between 13 percent and 40 percent. In fact, Mr.

Chairman , just so much that I think the First Mini s ter of the province who now is stan ding and making speeches and saying that he is doing his best to help the econom y, that he is putt ing everyt hing into trying to make this a better province, I think that the peopie of Manit oba are pa ying the same amo unt of attention to him now as they will after they find out what he really means and how sincere he is. Mr.

Chairman, the First Min ister, and for the Member for Elmwood's benefit, I want to just go back and look at some of the records of the acco mplishments that were ca rried out unde r the Premiership of Sterling Lyon and the leaders hip. Mr.

Chairman , the First Min ister would well be advised to read a little bit of the history and how in fact the direction of a prov ince, the direction of a governm ent and the whole system can operate and try and develop those prob lems, because it's very true that the expenses and the whole business of bookkeepi ng was so out of whack unde r the last New De mocratic Party that it did in fact take hours and hours and hours of con sorted effort by Cabi net Min is ters in the 1977 -81 period to try and bring some form of economi c or bookkeepi ng accou ntability to the people of Mani toba, because that's whose money in fact we are han dling in government.

It's not some money that come s from some un kno wn source. It's hard-earned money that comes in taxpa yers' money. Mr. Chairman, we have a health system in the prov ince that was admitted by the people, by the First Mini ster, as one of the best there is, that it didn't deteriorate even though for four years they tried to discredit the work that was being done by my col league, the Min ister of Health.

In fact, the develop ments that took place with the Can cer Research Lab, with all those major developments in health and the absence of trouble between the doctors and the govern ment, the working relationship , I think, Mr. Chairman , to give those kind of health services was a commendable effort in itself, the development and the work that was done to see that the bu si ness comm un ity had job oppo rtuni ties and employment through the development of our resourc es. Mr.

Chairman, the record spea ks for itself and the First Minis ter again wants to pay attention that we saw record mining and oil development in this province in the four years that we were in office, Mr. Chairman . Mr. Ch airman, I want the First Min ister to kn ow that the oil and those resources were there in the Cabi net of the Schreyer Govern ment. Mr. Chairman , those resources are there to be developed, worked on and job s to be provided from them and the wealth of this province. What is happeni ng, Mr. Chairman ? We have record layoffs in the provi nce, Mr. Chair man. What is the First Minis ter doing, Mr.

Chairman? He's standing there wringin g his hands and sa yin g, well, we're meet ing with the different groups, we're listening to the different groups and we're going to do certain things . What has he done, Mr. Chairman? Yes, he has taken the odd kick at Ronald Reag an. He's taken the odd kick at him saying that he's got a high interest rate policy that he doesn't support. No one likes high interest rates, Mr. Chairman. But he was elected, the First Min ister of this prov ince was elected on a promise of doing something about it. What has he done, Mr. Chairman? Wha t has he done?

Talk about sitting on his han ds, Mr. Ch air man. He has done more than sit on his hands , he's sitting on his head, Mr. Cha irman, that's what he's doing . Well, the people of Man itoba -(l nterjection) the Member for Elmwood says the Tories put food on their table. You bet we put food on their table, Mr. Chairman . We gave them jobs and we gave them the economi c op portun ities and the environme nt which they could excel and provide livings for their families. -(In terjection)- Th at's righ t, the lowest unemplo y ment rate for years. But what are we se eing unde r a New Demo cratic Pa rty, Mr. Chairman ?

We have seen in the last six months the development of the worst economic con ditions in this province since the Depress ion of the 1930s, Mr. Chair man, and what is he doing about it? He's not sitting on his han ds, Mr. Chairman , he is sitting on his head. He's tryin g to now hide from the people of Mani toba . When he's asked, Mr. Chairman - I liked the questions from the Member for Rob lin, have his Min isters gone out to see what is taking place in some of these areas where they're having economic difficulties, like the cheese plants, like the CSP plant? Yes, Mr.

Cha irman, let us talk about CSP for a min ute, because CSP Foods, which is owned by the Mani toba and Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, which was de veloped un der the leadership of Sterling Lyon and the Progr essive Con servative Party in this province, CSP is providin g some 80 to 100 jobs , some $40 million being invested in that small communit y and that, Mr. Chairman , happened un der a Progressive Conse rva tive Govern ment. But what happe ned un der his prior governm ent with the Schreyer years? Kraft Foods were going to bu ild a plant in Brandon.

The y said, no, you're not welcome in Manit oba because you're a multination al, down with multinationa ls. That, Mr. Chairman , is the kind of leadership and the kind of governm ent we have unde r the Premier we have today. That's the kind of disincentive. 3247 Let's talk about anothe r particu lar industry that the Member for Elmwood tried to make fun of -and this is really what he was trying to do was make fun of eco nomic development at Min nedosa -un der our gov ernment and un der the Min ister of Fin ance, the Min is ter of Energy, the tax laws were cha nged on road gas, on tax of gasohol , Mr.

Chairman . The distillery at Min nedosa, Mr. Chairman , was closed un der the term of the New Demo cratic Party. Un der the New Demo cratic Party the distillery at Minn edosa was closed. Mr. Chairman , un der a Conse rvative Government it was reopened and what did that do? That created 20 to 30 jobs . It created a market for some millions of bu shels of barley and, Mr. Chairman , the Member for Elmwood laughs about putt ing corn in our tank. You kno w. they're laug hing at the job creation that took place unde r our govern ment. We had record development in the area of mineral and resource development.

We saw record oil produc tion and development of the oil fields in the south west corne r, Mr. Chairman , and yes, they sit back and laugh about it because they think that all at once,

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 because there is a New Dem ocratic Party in, the payoff for some strange reason has gone the golden way. Mr. Chairman, the an swers aren't easy at this particular time but the bases were being laid for some major econom ic initiatives to take place with the Potash Development in Western Ma nitoba, with sev eral hundreds of millions of dollars being invested, with the Power Grid and the Hydro development on the Nelson River, Mr. Chairman, they didn't discover it. The New De mocratic Party think they found the Nelson River.

Under the years of Duff Roblin, that's when that whole develop ment started, Mr. Chairman. D.L . Campb ell, Mr. Chairman, gave rural electrification to the people of Ma nitoba. And wha t did the New Demo cratic Party give the people of Ma nitoba? They gave them a Hydro rate that was three times as high as it should have been in about a four-year period, Mr. Chairman, unp recedented Hydro rates when it could have been the cheapest anyw here in the world. Yes, Mr. Chairman, und er the leadership of Sterling Lyon and the Progress ive Co nservative Party, they go t a five-year frozen Hydro rate.

Un der the Progress ive Cons ervative Party, Mr. Chairman, they got a grain system that moved grain from the prairies to the coast, and how much money did that make for the farmers of Man itoba? Millions of dollars, Mr. Chairman, that the small businesses and all the people in the com munity earn. Tha t's what happened und er a Leader, Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Go vernment today, the First Min ister of this province, who should be ear ning the money that we're voting for him, should be taki ng the lead in the further development of our agricu ltural industry. But what has happened?

Let's talk about Gim li, where today we see the layoff of some 35 peo ple; the cancellation of some thousands of bushels of corn that would go in to the distillery. That, Mr. Chair man, was started again by the First Minist er -not by our First Minist er toda y, but by the Leader of the Opp osition when he was with the Ro blin Go vernment. That whole in dustry, Mr. Chairman, was developed in Gimli and that's leadership and development, Mr. Chairman. Und er a New Demo cratic Party, Mr. Chairman, what is happen ing?

We see a regress ive taxation system, a pay roll tax brought in, so that it encourages people to be laid off. Is that their whole strategy, Mr. Chairman? Is that their whole strategy? To make people depen dent upon soci al assistance, welfare, so they vote for the NO P, so that they think the government are sup posed to look after them. Is that their philosophy? The closing of two cheese plants in Ma nitoba, Mr. Chair man, und er the now Minister of Co-op Development. Mr. Chairman, he hasn't even been out to one of the cheese plants. He doesn't even kno w where they are. How does he kno w how the people feel?

Mr. Chairman, we talk about the Ministers going out to talk to the people. Tha t's exactly what we did, Mr. Chairman. In 1980, when the spring cond itions were so un tolerable by the rural people, the Premier of the Province went to Brandon to meet with every munici pal counc illor who represent the vast majority of farmers, Mr. Chairman, and laid $40 million on the table and said, there's the money, the programs are in place, go ahead and use it. Don't put the people through a bu nch of bureaucratic regulations and red tape. He was sincere about helping the people of Ma nitoba, Mr.

Chairman, and for the First Mini ster that was leadership, that was leadership, Mr. Chairman. We had four of the toughest years, Mr. Chairman, to try and correct an econom ic situ ation whic h was, first of all, not told properly, eight years not told properly to us when we got in to government. We were und er certain econom ic difficulties to try and keep the taxes down, in which we lowered the personal income tax, we removed the gift tax, succ ession duties, mineral acreage tax, and all those punit ive taxes that were put in place by a former NOP Gover nment.

Those are the kinds of positive moves that were made, Mr. Chair man, and for the Member for Elmwood to get up and say that we didn't do anythi ng, is disgust ing and dis graceful. He said that. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman , we won't sit and take it. Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on and on about the developments that took place und er our term of office. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on and on, because they were Progress ive Cons ervative moves, Mr. Chairman.

The proposed Hydro develop ment along with the development of Limestone, and having the product sold so that the rest of the people of Western Canada would help pay for the installa tion of that particu lar facility that was going to be bui lt was the proper way to go, Mr. Chairman. It was the proper way to go. You produce a product after you have a sale for it that is going to pay for the production of that particular infrastructure. But no, Mr. Chairman, wha t has the go vernment done today und er the leadership of the now First Minister? Well, Mr.

Chairman, first of all, he's committed a sin that I don't think the people of Ma nitoba are going to tolerate. He's gone out and further put us in debt, borrowed money und er false pretences, that this all is developing and taki ng place very nice ly. Yes, Mr. Chairman, he went out and bor rowed $200 million und er false pretences that we're going to have all these developments. But he comes back within his little shell on this particu lar bui lding , Mr.

Chairman, he talks to his Ministers of En ergy and says, well, we're a little afraid to carry on with what the Cons ervatives were doing because there's something wrong, we don't really trust the deal. It wasn't signed, there was no thing sign ed. There were lots signed, Mr. Chairman, and there was a lot of hard work went in by the Minister of Energy and Mines und er our term of office to put that in place so that it could be ca rried on, Mr. Chairman , so that the Hydro cou ld be sold to the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta and return revenues for this province. But first of all, Mr.

Chair man, wha t we really believed in was developing and providing jobs for those people in this province and us ing that energy right here to help broaden our tax base so we didn't have to put in payr oll taxes like the First Minister has now allowed to come in to the Prov ince of Manito ba. 3248 Mr. Chairman, I don't believe for one minute that the people of Man itoba are going to accept it. In fact, I would ch allenge him to ask his Minister of Finan ce if he's not going to recons ider the Budget that he has introduced like they're having to do in Ottawa.

When I suggested some time ago on my comm ents in this House that it's an other MacEachen Budget; that as the people see how it's going to erode the base and the

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 incomes of everyone. he's going to have to reconsider his position. I would hope that he would start to do that very shortly because. Mr. Chairman. as their term of office rolls along and let me tell you -(Int er jection)- he says. we've only been in office six months . Six months is quite a long way in to a term of gover nment. That's only 3 'h years to the next election and let me tell you. through you. Mr.

Chairman. to the Premier that if we see the same kind of economic stagnation contin ue to take place with his Minister o' Energy, with his Minis ter of Finance. with his Minister of Agriculture. I can't see anythi ng that's going to make the people of Man itoba really vote them back into office. Well. Mr. Chairman. really what has been their thrust to this point? You kn ow. they talk about rent control. Certainly, the rent controls are going to give the people the protection that I think they had un der our government; nothing's going to ch ange that much.

Nothing's going to cha ng e that much und er the rent cont rol that's being proposed. The one thing that might chang e though , is that people are going to expect their rents to stay very very low in fact. What happens if people don' t get paid to produce housi ng? Well. Mr. Chairman. there isn't hous ing to live in. You kno w. the eventuality of the whole system is a degrad ing of the living co nditions; lack of jobs in the con struct ion in dustry. Those people. as I said, Mr.

Chair man, to the First Minister. have a long memory and they will not forget the kind of economic stag nation , the kind of depression that has been created during the term of the New De mocratic Gover nment und er the Premier that's now in office. So. Mr. Chairman. I wi ll stand up any day of the week, at any time of the day, because I don't believe that we should classif y people. don't believe that the people in Thom pson are any better or any worse than those people who work on the farms or in the fisheries or in the factories.

Well. certainly the people of Mani toba are great and I have nothing against those people who felt that maybe the New De mocr atic Party with the promises that they were givi ng were going to give them a great future. But can you tell me how, Mr. Chairman. with the un precedented layoffs that are taki ng place in the mining ind ustry; that are takin g place in the factor ies; that are taki ng place in the distilleries; that are taking place in all those areas. the cheese plants ; railways; lumber; mining? Mr.

Chairman , the Premier of the province who's showed me the great future Manit oba and the NOP. great future. great, yes here it is. the choice for Ma ni toba . "A Clear Choice for Man ito ba," great people. great future, Ma nitoba and the NOP. Mr. Chairman, it is he that has to back all this up and he can stand up and say that und er his first term in office that he saw hundreds of people being laid off in the service indus try; that he's seeing hundreds of people being laid off in the processi ng industry. Is that the kind of a record, Mr. Chairman. that this First Minister wan ts?

Is that the kind of a record that he want s? Is that the kind of great thing he thinks the people of Ma nitoba should have? Mr. Chairman. I think the First Minister of this prov ince has dug himself in so deep. has allowed his Min is ter of Finan ce to throw some dirt in on top of him. as well. with the kind of economic policies and the kinds of tax po licies brought in that has helped enco urage layoffs. Mr.

Chairman. the fact that we have seen the lack of any real clear direction that this governm ent is going other than this. the only thing the First Minis ter has done is taken the odd kick at Ronald Reagan. taken a sw ing at him when he's in Canada but when he's in the States, when he really could get the mes sage to the President, doesn't say a word, doesn't say a word ab out Reaganom ics. Very nice. you know, it's un fortunate that he didn't stand up and say I don't believe wha t the President of the Un ited States is doing is proper. He could have got the message directly to him, but he didn't, Mr. Chairman.

So. Mr. Chairman , the First Minister I believe, first of all. got elected on a lot of false promises. He's now in office and he's truly demonstrat ing his inability to deal with what I call econom ic depression in this r'ovince to put forward any posit ive leadership, Mr. Chairman. For the Member for Elmwood to stan d and say nothing happened during our term of office is totally disgust ing , Mr. Chairman , and that's why I was comp elled to rise and put on the record some of the positive devel opme nts that took place and don't anyone think that there were easy econo mic times in our four years in office.

One other comm ent I want to make. because he's in the Com mittee and I think our Attorney-General dur ing our term of office spent a lot of time through his work with const itutional efforts and the family law, I think it should be noted that the work and effort in an hour spent by him, Mr. Chairman , probably helped keep the Prime Minister somewhat und er control in the ki nds of thing s he wanted to do with our cou ntry. That, Mr. Chairman, too, often goes un recognized or unn oticed. That kind of long-term effort and work, I think. will help Mani toba be a better place to live. So, Mr.

Chairman, I would hope that the First Minis ter would, first of all, talk to the Member for Thom pson who tried to put on the record something that I think would make the people of Tho mpson somewhat ashamed of wha t he said tonight in the First Minister's com ments. I' m pleased to have been able to correct the Member for Elmwood in some of the things that he tried to mislead this House with. 3249 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finan ce. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . I believe that the remarks made by the member who just sat down, the Member for Arthur. have to be addressed.

They remind me of his remarks that he made on Sat urday evening on CBC television. They have just as much relationship to the truth as the remarks he made Saturday evening on CBC television. He had the unm itiga ted gall to say twice, Mr. Chair man, that the Minister of Communit y Services and Corrections had fired a civil servant in order to replace him with someone else and we all kno w in this Chamb er that the Minister of Communit y Services and Corrections has not fired a civil servant. but that member doesn't ca re about that. He couldn 't ca re two hoots about the truth.

He didn't care Saturday night and he didn't care tonight. Tonight he stood up and said, the First Minister has done nothin g, in six months he's done nothing except blame Reagan. Well. I don't happen to have any speaki ng notes

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 here and I' m just going to have to speak from memory about what has been happ ening in the last six months in this government and I suppose one of the ways of seeing what we have done is just try to remember the amoun ts of money that we have had to come up with in order to keep the economy going , at least at a certain level, while we are in a period of national and international recession . What has that achieved?

It has ach ieved first of all, an un em ployment rate which, although una cce ptably high, is for the first time in the last four years more than 2.5 percentage points below the national average . Tha t has something to do with the po licies of this government in terms of the many programs that we are introduc ing for this econo my. Tha t's not somethin g that the Member for Arthur, who is a stran ger to the truth, that's not something that the Member for Arthur would have told you. He's not talkin g about the assistan ce to farmers that we have provided.

He's not talkin g about the assis tance to credit union s, and if we hadn't prov ided that assist ance, he full well kno ws that there would have been serious problems for a lot of people in this provi nce, a lot of people in his area and other areas represented by both NDP and Cons ervative members. He kno ws that we have commit ted millions of dol lars to interest rate relief for small bu sin ess; for a Beef Income Stabil ization Program for his constit uents and constit uents of ours; a Hog Income Assurance Pro gram, a program that was in place, Mr.

Chairman, which they didn't fund, which we had to come along and fu nd. We were prepared to do it, they weren't, not even for their own constit uents, they weren't. Then, Mr. Ch airman, we have provided a program of interest rate relief for homeow ners. Tha t is something that these people say is nothing. They pretend that nothing that we have done has happened. It's as though it didn't exist. We have come up with improvements to the Cr itical Home Repair Program.

We have gotten out there into the pu blic with respect to that program and let people know that it is there and we have a sign ificant up take, an up take that the Minis ter of Natural Resources indi cates is more than what was expected and that's the kind of program one would expect from a progressive sensit ive government at a time when we are in reces sion. Do we hear any thing about that from those peo ple? Of course not. They don't stand up and say wha t is helping their constit uents. All they do is complain all the time -the biggest belly achers I've ever seen in my life.

Half the time they're sa ying , we're doing nothing; the other half the time, they're crying abo ut the election which they lost, and so deservedly. So, Mr. Chairman , to repeat, the Member for Arthur comp letely, just absolutely and com pletely and delib erately -I'm sure deliberately because he would kno w that civil servant was not fired -made a misstat ement on television the other nig ht, and he com pletely igno red the truth ton ight when he was talking about the record of this government.

Now we could talk about many other areas that this government has moved into to attempt to retain some semblance of an ec onomy so that we will be able to take advantage of a recovery when it comes , and hopefully that will come soon, but it wo n't come until we have a cha nge in monetary policies in Ottawa, it won't cha nge until we have a cha ng e in Wa shin gton.

All of the leaders in the western industrialized world, the Leader of the Oppositi on, of course, is one person who doesn't agree with all of the leaders of the indus trialized wor ld, the western indust rialized world - Prime Min ister Thatcher, Helmut Sc hmidt, Mitterand, Tru deau, the whole works of them. -(lnt erjection) Yes, you would believe that Brezhnev is in that group. You seem to think that Prime Min ister Thatcher and Brezhnev are toget her. Well, you go ahead and think that, I think you're probably foolish enough to believe that. Now, Mr.

Chairman , all of those people got toget her at Versailles just recently, they agree with us, they agree with the First Min ister of Man itoba. All of those people are sa ying that everybody else is out of step in this march; they're the only ones who are in step; they and Reagan are the only ones who are in step in the march.

Everybody else in the western indust rialized world is out of step in this march and if they are out of step, then of course, they are related to Brezhnev and that is suc h preposterous no nsens e that even an idiot fr om Cha rleswood sho uld und ers tand th at. -(In terjection)- No, I'm not. I am sa ying , Mr.

Chair man, that people who make those kinds of accusa tions are idiots and that is someth ing that I think is a matter of record. 3250 Now, just to conclude again , the Member for Arthur came no closer to the truth tonight than he did on Saturday evenin g and I would hope that sometime he would attempt to restrai n himself and think about what the truth is before he stands up and speaks. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Lead er of the Opposition . HON. S. LYON : Mr.

Chairman , before we had the brief interlude in Kiddieland cont ributed to by the Min ister of Finance and the Member for Thomp son, I was asking some questions of the First Mini ster. I think there were two that he hadn't had an oppo rtu nity to respond to. One was with respect to the view of himself and the government conce rning the recomm enda tion of the Manit oba Federation of La bour for a development tax which the government would then use to fund those industries that government thought should be funded in Man itoba.

The second was for him to give his view on the recommenda tion of the Man itoba Federation of Labour conce rnin g the legislative restruct uring of the Civil Service Comm ission which I described as a scary proposal.

The third one I would like to put to him because I have had the opport uni ty over the dinner hour to refresh my memory on the 1980 brief to the then gov ernment by the Man itoba Federation of Labo ur where on page 37 the Federation of La bour suggested to the government of 1980 that, "We should repeal the 2 percent reduction in corpo rate tax rates and the increased exemp tion in corporate capital tax; that we should reimpose the succ ession duties, gift taxes and mineral acreages taxes; that we should repeal the spec ial deep drilling tax ince ntives, and repeal the oil and gas royalty tax deductions .

These polic ies," I am qu oting , "have not proven to increase investment growth and as a resu lt are a un necessary drain on the

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 Public Treasury." Continuing the quote from that brief on page 37 of the 1980 brief, Mr. Chairman, "Furt her more, the taxation of resource corporat ions must be in creased. As we mentioned ear lier, Ma nito ba's resource taxes curre ntly make up only 2.2 percent of total tax revenues. In contr ast, Saskatchewan's resource taxes make up roug hly 20 percent of tax revenues." I would like to have the First Minist er's views on those three recom mendations of the Federation ol La bour, one of whic h admittedly is two years old now. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Deputy Chairman , during the cam paign and prior to the campa ign , the New De mo cratic Party in Oppo sition, and certainly it is the posi tion of the New De mocratic Party in government, sup ports a maximization of retur ns to the public in regard to resource development. I am satisfied, Mr.

Deputy Chairman, that if indeed we are to reach a situation by which we can minimize the tax burden inso far as the average Ma nitoban, we must ens ure a greater return from the natural resources in Ma nitoba for the benefit of all Ma nitobans, and in that respect I think the Prov ince of Saskatchewan deserves credit und er the Blakeney Gover nment for the progres sive efforts that were und ertaken on their part to en sure a greater return to the people of Saskatchewan from resources in that province. The best exa mple, of course, over the years has been the increasi ng return to Saskatchewan.

This year will be an exception because of the decline re potash market but has been an increasi ng return to the people of Saskatchewan from potash and from other sodium su lphate and other areas of mineral development. Mr. Chairman , it is my view that it is better to pro ceed by way of joint venture than by way of tax ch an ges in order to en sure that greater maximum retur n; a joint venture by which the Crown and the private sector can work toget her in order to realize that greater return. A questi on was raised about suc cession duty, gift tax, some other taxes.

We have no intention of in tro ducing any of those taxes -the gift tax and succe ssion duty, I'm afraid I didn't catch some of the other taxes that the -(In terjection)- HON. S. LYON: The mineral acreage, the corporate capital tax, the 2 percent reduction in corpo rate tax rates, all of which were recom mended by the MFL for repeal; that is, they wanted those taxes reins tated. HON. H. PAWLEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, we just com pleted a reduction of the corporate tax rate, re small businesses in this past Budget, and that has really received very very little notice so far from members acr oss the way.

I would have thought that we would have heard some cong ratulations from members acr oss the way for the fact that there had been some modest, not great, but some modest decrease inso far as the corporation tax for small business is con cerned. So I think in that res pect, Mr.

Chairman, it goes without sayi ng that we would not reduce net increase simultaneously. �� The questi on of succe ssion and gift tax, it is my view that this is an area that ought to be dealt within Can ada itself, that there is no place for a ju ngle of different systems pertaining to succe ssion and gift tax, prov ince to province. So we have no intention to intro duce those taxes. I in dicated, in fact, prior to the election as such.

Mineral acreage tax, the sa me; there is no intention certai nly at this point to introduce a mineral acreage tax, certai nly not in the form that the Leader of the Oppos ition would have in mind. -( lnterjection)- Re the question of Civil Service Commission, I would want to look at the proposal before I would respond. I think in courtesy to the Ma nitoba Federa tion of La bour dealing with that specific proposal, I ought to look at that.

I want to say to the Leader of the Oppos i'don, I'd certainly favour the examin ation of some system by which we can en sure worker representation on the Boards of Directors of some of our Crown corpo ra tions. I want to examine that over the next spa ce of time in order to ens ure that there is some represent a tion.

It is my view indeed that we ou ght to enco urage greater participation by worki ng people within the corpor ate entities that they work for, and in principle, I support an examin ation of wha t steps could be un der taken in order to increase that kind of partici pation involvement by worki ng people in , particu larly, Crown corporat ions. I think for ins tan ce, the Minister of En ergy and Mines is beside me, but I think that should be looked at very carefully inso far as Ma nfor, Western Flyer and some of our other Crown corporat ions.

I think indeed some problems could have been headed off in the past if there had been some expression to the workers that work in the Crown corporat ions that yes, there is a place for the workers, and working along with the Board of Directors indeed as part of the Board of Directors, because both parties have a common inter est. Tha t doesn't deal specifically with the question of the Civil Service Commission, and I would want to further examine the brief as to the ration ale for that.

There is no intention on our part to do what is requested, but I would not want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that un equivocally I would not respond to that till I had a chance to further examine the ratio nale that is proposed for that. The development tax, there is no intention to intro duce a development tax. Again I must ackno wledge to the Leader of the Op position, I have not examined that kind of tax at all in any detail, and certai nly there is no in tention at this point or any studies geared toward that direction. 3251 HON. S. LYON: I thank the First Minister for those ans wers, Mr.

Chairman. I'm heartened by his com ments about the Civil Service Com mission because he will app reciate as much as I that any tinkering with the Civil Service Com mission, by way of statute, to make out of its membership something the equiv alent of the Ma nitoba La bour Board would not be in the public interest. The Civil Service Com mission is something more than arbiter of labour mana gement disputes. The Civil Service Com mission is there, as we all ap preciate in this House, to preserve the integrity of the Civil Service, to preserve the integrity of the

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 merit system and to do many things that go beyond, well, well beyond the workada y problems of resolving or arbitrati ng disputes as between employer and emp loyee. So I take heart from the comments made by the First Minister and hope that in his commu nication to the Federation of La bour, he will get them off that particular hobby horse which would be extremely dang erous to the future of the Civil Service and could cause, I would think, a great deal of suspicion and disru ption within the Civil Service.

I remind the First Minist er that it took us the better part of two years to get the Civil Service Commission back in shape after the harassment that had occurred to it duri ng the Sc hreyer years, and the different tech niques that were used to circu mvent the Civil Service to put political friends into cont ract jobs and so on, with the result that the restoration of the integrity of the Civil Service did take a fair amount of time from '77 to about '79 with two different Chairmen coming in. I've already co ngratulated the First Mini ster on the appo in tment of Mr.

Poyser as the part-time Chairman of this Civil Service Commiss ion; I think that is a step in the right direction . The avoidanc e, I would suggest, of any tinkering as recommended by the Federation of Labo ur would be a further pile to be driven in to the ground to ass ure the cont inuity and the cont inuation of the integrity of the Civil Service Commission. One final question, and it arises, Mr. Chairman, out of a question that was put some days ago to the First Mini ster relative to his view on opting out und er the curre nt Charter of Rights and so on.

He or his staff were good enough to send me a statement that was made by the First Minister as Leader of the Op posi tion, dated September 5, 19 80. I really do believe that I have no other questions after this one is asked, which should act as a source of encouragement to the First Mini ster and a source of warning to those sitting behind him, Mr. Chairman. He will know wha t I mean even if the less erudite don't.

Und er the Charter of Rig hts, the Minister, as Leader of the Opp osition made this statement and I would like a clarification from him about it, because he obviously intended this statement of Septem ber 5, 19 80 to be the continuum of the position of the NDP on the Charter and if I' m wrong in that supposition why, of course, he can correct me. But I read from the statement dated September 5, 19 80: "The NDP has been committed, since its found ing, to a con stitutional Bill of Rights. I support entrenching rights at this time.

Prime Minister Trudeau has explained this concept poorly and only in the Que bec referendum cam paign was the issue given wide pub lic debate. "Basic rights should be entrenched, except where this would hinder the kind of laws and programs to which Canad ians are accu stomed. Those who wish the ability to in terfere with a basic right must defend their position. Canadians are not willing to live with an outdated divine right of Legislatures." The first paragraph I can und erstand as being a statement of a viewpoint of the First Minister to which he and his party are, of course, entitled.

The second paragr aph that I've just read out, really, I' m lost when I read that because it says, "B asic rights should be entrenched except where this would hinder the kind of laws and programs to whic h Canadians are accus tomed." That, of course, was the argu ment of the eight provinces who were oppo sed to the entrenc hment of the Charter, mainly that the rights that Mr.

Trudeau is attempting to entrench and put beyond the reach of Parliament and the Legislatures would ca rve into stone for all time rights that the Legislatures could from time to time chang e to keep them in consonan ce by st atutory law with the communit y standa rds, with the desires of people and so on. So I'm not able to und erstand the meaning of that sentence. Then the second sentence, "Those who wish the abi lity to interfere with a basic right must defend their position." It seems to me that is really putti ng the whole situ ation upside down.

The basic proposition that was being argued with respect to the Charter of Rights was those who wish to propose and to en force a Charter of Rights upon Cana da, which is a new co ncept, are the ones upon whom the onus resides to prove that a Charter of Rights would enhan ce or improve the individual rights and freedoms of Cana dians , not the op posite. My honourable friend in his state ment seems to pause at the oppo site.

Then the final statement, of course, "Cana dians are not willing to live with an outdated divine right of Legislatures." Well, it's a matter of opinion, of course, as to whether Parliament is an outdated in stitut ion. I rather hold to the view that Parliament isn 't an out dated ins titution, that the parliamentar y traditions that we have been fortu nate enough to in herit in this count ry and then bui ld upon in our own un ique way in this count ry are amon gst the best in the world; they're not perfect.

I have never run acr oss any substantial body of opinion or certai nly any persuas ive body of opin ion that led me to believe that the people of Can ada are pu lling at the traces because there's some outdated to use the quote "outdated divine right of Legislatures" in place -quite the op posite. So if the First Mini ster could shed some light of clarification upon those statements, I would be happy in deed. 3252 HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Dep uty Chairman, I think the Leader of the Op position recognizes that there are certain basic righ ts and that those basic rights we feel should be entrenched within the Charter; obviously, freedom of religion; equal access to the law; freedom of assembly. I wish I had the Con stitution in front of me, but basically it's my view that the basic rights as ensh rined in the existing Cons titution are pretty well in line with the kind of basic rights that I feel comf or table with being included within a Charter of Rights within the Con stitution.

There are obviously going to be some situ ations where there can be conflict between various rights. One example of that is the kind of example that the Leader of the Op position presented to us the other evening and if indeed there was an untra mpled right to freedom of religion regardless of the effect that this might have in regard to criminal law, then that indeed would be carryi ng a particular right too far.

The Leader of the Op position gave us the example of parents of a young ster that prevented that youngs ter from receiving a blood transfus ion on the basis that in so doing it would be cont rary to religious belief. I believe that over and above that, there are certain rights that have to be respected that even go beyond the basic freedom of religion and that is, of course, the

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 right for a youngster to live. The protection un der the Criminal Code provisions in sofar as a parent that would neg lect one's child in that way as to permit the child to die because of some religious co nviction, even though that religious conviction may be very sincerely held, obviously, there is a conflicting right. That can also be the case, Mr. Chairman, with affirma tive action and we will see whether or not there be a con flict in the future with the existing Con stitu tion in that respect.

I indicated earlier that there ou ght to be a northern preference clause in respect to agreement in regard to constr ucti on that will take place in No rthern Manitoba in Man itoba Hydro. Now it's my und ersta nding that is covered, but indeed if there was a straightforward affirmative action clause that would prevent that kind of preference -I'm sorry -if there was a clause which indicated that there could be no preference in this respect, but one had the right to work anywhere and everywhere in Canada, regardless of any preferential clause, then I believe that would be carrying basic rights too far.

I think Newfoundland, with its high unemplo yment rate, is most interested in giving to the residents of Newfoundland a first preference in regard to hiring in Newfoundland. So an unlimited freedom in sofar as Canadians being able to work anywhere within Can ada and prevention of any government in a give n cir cu mstan ce from preventing workers from other parts of Canada to work in a pa rticular province in my view would be a con flict of a right which would not be acce ptable.

I think that in our society, and I respect the views of those that indeed do believe that parliament ou ght to be ultimate, and there are members in my own party that ind eed felt very strongly that there ought to be no en trenchment of a Charter of Rights, some within the Ma nitoba party, some within their own ca ucu s, just as indeed I believe was the princi pal view of the New Democrats in the Province of Sas ka tchewan; just as we found that there was difference within the Conser vative Party where the Con servative Pa rty federally su ppor ted the en trenchment of a Charter of Rights and certainly the Leader ol the Op position and his colleagues op posed the entrenchment.

So it appears to cross party lines, differing points of view, and I respect those differing points of view in regard to the entrenchment of a Charter of Right s. I think it does add some check and balan ce to a given situat ion.

I think that the Ja pan ese Canadians though, deported in the Un ited States, it's my und erstandi ng they were deported after much greater delay because of provi sions in the American Charter of Rights and indeed with the situati on with the Japan ese Canadians in Canada , so there was some check and bal ance in sofar as the impin ging of freedoms and rights of certain individu als because of that extra safeguard.

As I say, I respect the views of those that hold oth erwise and I suppose only time will demons trate whether or not the new Charter of Rights becomes a dog's breakfast for lawyers, as some might claim, to benefit greatly therefrom, or whether indeed it does with the passage of time clearly and firmly signify an adva nce for all Canadians. Only time will tell. Our preference has been toward some check and balan ce and I und erstand certainly the disagreements that exist not only within my own party, but elsewhere to this basic concept. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Oppo sition. HON. S. LYO N: Mr.

Chairman, I wish to thank the First Minister for his respons e to that quest ion and for his reflections on the earlier examples that I gave him the other evening with respect to the Charter. I think that's helpful in terms of future directions of legisla tion that we might ant icipate; and having the confir mation from him, as I und ersta nd it also from the Attorney-Gene ral, that the benefits of the override are begi nn ing to be seen in certain ci rcumstances where I think it's obvious they wi ll have to be used by both parliament and by the Legislatures.

Now one of my colleagues has two quest ions, he says. I have no further quest ions. My honour able friend has a couple. MR. DEPUTY CHAI RMAN: The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNE SS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I prom ise not to be too long. I would like to ask a couple of questions though of the First Minister if I could. - (I nterjection)- No, I don't think I could last 30 minutes.

I'd like to ask a questi on specifically to the payroll tax, not so much about any fine workings or dealings on it, or anythi ng specific to it, but I'd like to attempt to get a better feel for the concept of this type of tax as maybe the First Minister himself might have. I find this tax, as I have indicated previously, some wha t devious, although I see it certain ly as a good political tax.

It's certainly hidden from proba bly 80 percent of the people, but I'm wondering if the First Minister at all would share my concern as to the extent that a tax like this can be abused by government and I' m sure his first reaction is, well, all taxes can be abus ed by government.

But I say that in fact, direct provincial taxes by way of our personal tax forms or sales tax or those that are right up front, certainly liquor and gasoline taxes are more in direct, but I think people kn ow when they buy those goods that in fact major taxation rates are included in them. 3253 I am, however, quite concerned about the potential for government abuse by something like a payroll tax where it indeed is probably, in my view, the most hidden type of tax that's been introduced today and I' m wond ering if the First Minister could give me his comments on this. MR. DEPUTY CHAI RMAN: Mr. Premier. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I would have proba bly preferred if the member would just clarify what he means by potential abuse. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Mo rris. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, fine, Mr. Chairman, I'll gladly expand on that. I say it's a 1. 5 percent tax today during these times of in flation which really the vast majority of the people wi ll no t see. I am say ing it could be doubled to 3 percent and the vast majority of the

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 people will not recogniz e the tax. I'd even go on to say it could be pu t to 5 or 6 percent and the vast majority of the people would not recogniz e. To me that is a tax, an indirect tax that in fact the vast majority of the people do no t see coming their way, which they pay by way of increased price of goods. To me, that is an abus e. It is a tax that can be abus ed, and I am wondering if the First Minis ter could again give me his feelings on it? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I want to jus t advise the Member for Morris that this was not an easy deci sion to make.

As the Member for Morris indicated, something to the effect that there was political advan tages, I'm not sure whether there are political advan tages or no t to this tax as agains t any other kind of tax. I say that because, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I have an impression that the imposition of any tax is not very popula r. I kno w right now that the additional tax that we had to impose in regard to liquor and beer is not popula r with a sizable numb er of Mani tobans. Ciga rettes, I kno w that my wife is not very happ y with the imposition of the ciga rette tax. It doesn't affect the First Minister.

So, we were confronted with a hard cho ice in hard times, but I want to also say to the Member for Morris that for qu ite a sizable period of time, I though t there was no alterna tive but an increase in the sales tax.

It was only a relatively short time prior to Bu dget date that we did find out information rega rding the possi bility of imposing a tax of this nature, and when we weighed the two, the sales tax that we had thought we had no alterna tive but to introduce because we didn't see any other form of tax under the circu mstan ces that have been suit ably av ailable for the revenue that was requ ired and this tax, we decided on this tax.

The advantages were twofold: one is a further imposition of sales tax from 5 to 7 percent which would have hit a small sector of the busin ess commun ity, and hit that small sector very, very severely. Here I am referring to retailers, hardware merchants, shoe store owners and others that depend upon the reta il market. On the other hand, those in my profession , the legal profession and accou ntants and others would not be affected by way of an increase in regard to the sales tax. So, this tax can be distributed in a more even fashion amon gst all busi nesses in the province. Secondly , Mr.

Chairman, and this was very impor tant and I sup pose was the clincher ins ofar as deter mining to proceed in this route rather than by some other route, is that we were able to reta in some approxi mate $30 million in the Provi nce of Man itoba that would otherwise be extracted from the Provi nce of Manit oba for the Canada wide situa tion. Now I am not imposed to the Canadian Gover nment enjoying more funds , but during our difficult period in time, I think it's important that we try to reta in as much capi tal as we can in the Provi nce of Manit oba. We would have lost $30 million.

We were able to keep in this provi nce $30 million that we would otherwise not have if we had proceeded by way of the sales tax. The question is, can it be abus ed? I sup pose any kind of tax can be increas ed. In the final analysis , the government will be accou ntable to the pu blic at large. We will have to satisfy the public at large that any increases by way of tax or any reductions in tax are, indeed, justifiable in any given circum stances.

I don't mean to drag in President Reagan again but I want to jus t simp ly say that I think the cut by way of taxation in the Un ited States of America has been inopp ortune durin g the past year to the extent that the debt has been massively lifted to record heights, and the result is the Un ited States is now having to enter into the world markets for money to an extent that Un ited States has never before had to en ter into the world market. Tha t is pressing up interest rates, by the pressure that they are having to bring to bear upon other jurisdictions, both private and public.

They would have been better to exercise some bet ter fiscal res pons ibility than to do that. I'm not happy about the introduction of any tax,

part icu larly at this time, and basically I think we could have gotten away without any tax increase if it had not been for fiscal transf er cut backs. I think we could have, with some difficulty, lived with the present situation if it had not been for the fact that over the next five years we will be losing some $700 million that we would have had under the earlier federal-provincial fiscal arrange ment cont ract from Ottawa. 3254 MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say to the First Minis ter, I don't kn ow if this is the time or the hour to have all that come back again; we've heard it before.

I would appreciate it the first time he had given it to me. I gu ess I would like to ask one more question in this

part icular area. Has he in his own mind set a maximum to the extent that he could see this tax rise, to what level, becaus e I su bmit that, in fact, with the present rate of inflation a 3 or 4 percent tax would be bringin g in close to half-a-billion dollars in a coupl e of years? I'm wondering if within his own mind , would he be prepared to put a maximum level on this tax, or has he even given it any consid eration? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I hope my Minis ter of Fin ance is present.

I haven't had an oppor tuni ty to consult with my Minis ter of Fin ance in regard to the su bject matter and the question that has been posed. Bu t I say this sincere ly to the Member for Morris, I hope that we have reached a maximum in regard to all levels of taxation in the province. I would hope that I would not have to be First Minis ter during any increase in any tax next year or the year thereaf ter.

So as far as I am concerned at this point, I hope that we are at a maximum, but I want to warn, in all fairness and honesty to the Member for Morris and to Man itobans, that if the economy is not turned around, and if we continu e to head cr ushin gly downward in a tailspin , and I am not sure - I don't want to be a prophet of doom -where the economy is turnin g.

If there isn' t some clearer direction given, I think what the Presi dent of MacMillan-Bloedel yesterday that warned that within 90 days we would be on the verge of a - I don't want to misq uote his words -but I believe he said that Canada was on the verge of a collapse. Tha t is frightenin g and, if indeed that be correct, government will be placed into a situa tion next year ag ain of determining (

a) how much further deficit we go? (

b) do we cut health programs and educa tion programs very drastically? Do we go with some other tax route? I hope we are not in that posi tion; I hope the econom y will have turned around next year by this time, but if it has not and if the President of MacMillan-

Thursday, 10 June, 1982 Bloedel is correct and the economy has gone for a tailspin, it's going to be difficult decisio n-making for the government and, I gue ss, for all Manit obans in the process. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, hope that in fact that particular tax has reached its maxi mum because I, again, submit that, to me, the potential to move into that area and increase it must be always faci ng the gov ernment.

I wou ld tend to say that wo uld have to be one of the first taxes, from a political standpoint, that any government would want to increase now that, in fact, it's been introduced. Hop efully, the government may repeal. I move not into one other area. I have heard the First Minis ter allude to deficit financing on many occas ions and I've also heard him mention the word "sincerity" and how sincere he is in certain areas. I would like to tie the two com ments together, if I could. I have heard him say on occasions that there is a time for govern ment to save and a time for them to deficit financ e.

I would like to get a better feeling for the sincerity of the First Minis ter when he makes those comments. I would like to kno w whether in fact that is jus t an ideal or whether in fact he could put some parameters to it in terms of this year's Bu dget. What type of revenue would he need in terms of a $2.9 billion estimate of spending? What type of revenue would he need before he could see this province sav ing money un der the circumstances that we're in?

I'd hope he wouldn't tell me that he would begin to save money at $2.9 billion, because in fact I think he's indicated on many occas ions that, were there more revenu e, he would gladly spend more. Bu t, I'd like to get a feel for what he means when he says that there's a time for govern ment to save. How much revenue would you need this year before this provinc e could save? HON. H. PAWLEY: You 're talking about the 19 82-83 fiscal year? Mr.

Chairman, I would be satisfied that indeed we would be within a manageable situation if we do end up the year on the basis of the projection that was given in the Budg et as to what the year-end deficit would be. I'm not happ y with that but � think, given the economic circu mstances, that it would be un wise to be thinking in terms of tr ying to bala nce the Bu dget or even come closer to balanc ing the Budg et dur ing the present difficult economic times. I think less that can be drawn from the public at large during difficult economic times, the better.

I think any monies that we can find by way of a surplus during this time, and that is not a great deal because of the un certain ties, ought to be directed towards economic st imula tion. Tha t is why $50 million has been addressed toward a housing progr am, for examp le, to simula te the economy, not so much as housi ng, though needed, greater is the need for st imulation. So, I say to you that the revenues that I would hope we would realize would be sufficient in order to ensur e that our deficit not be greater than that which was projected.

I also though have to say to the member, as I said a few moments ago, that if the economic situa tion worsened rather than improved then, of cou rse the flow of all revenu es to the provi nce decreases and that wou ld be reflected in any year-end statement. MR. C. MANN ESS: I realize what the First Minis ter is sa ying. What I'm trying to do here is hypothesize a little bit; I gu ess I learned that as an economi st.

I know the First Minis ter was part of a govern ment for eight years when, I think, times were much better than this and I know obviously that circumst ances aren't going to evolve this year that is going to allow a surpl us, I fully realize that, but I am trying to un derstand and get a better feeling for what he means. What year, what specific set of circu mstances has he seen in the past or will he have to see in the futur e before he is part of a government that will allow itself to save money, nothing more than that? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Clearly, where there is economic recovery and the econ omy is back in full stride. There were certainly times in the past when that could be easily obtained, but no govern ment today in Cana da can experience that kind of situa tion, nor will they for the next while un less there's a very su bstantial and a very radical improvement in the economy. I hope, at some point, we will be in that kind of situation in the Province of Man itoba in the not too distant futur e.

I am certa inly no t going to forecast, but there must be a su bstantial improvement in regard to the economy of the Province of Mani toba before we will have reached that point. I don' t kno w whether that ans wers the member's qu estion because we are dealing very hypothetically, but certainly we have talked, as a party, in terms of surplus es and of deficits depen ding upon the eco nomic circu mstances in any given year. A good year, I would hope that we would be in a position to enjoy some surplus.

It may be that surplus will be reduced because that will be the time that one would want to look at new social programs. I think that we don't have major social programs that are press ing upon us until such time as the economy is turned arou nd but, at that given time, I think a gov ernment would have to deter mine, does the public want additional social program that will cost X amount of money that will reduce the surpl us? Tha t will be a political decision that will have to be arrived at, at that time; or should we build up surplus in order to pay that surplus toward payment of deficit?

I think that is a political decision that has to be made at a given time in which a govern ment has to democratic ally gauge the pulse of the pub lic as to what the public at that time sup port. 3255 MR. DEPUTY CHAI RM AN: 1. (a)-p ass. Res olution No. 5, Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum no t exceeding $1 ,426,300 for the Executive Council, General Admin istration, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of Ma rch, 19 83. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Tha t conclude s the Esti mates on the Executive Council. Committee rise.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-73b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 73b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	15d0fa2071904000e198f34a0f049ca6a6c04720

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