ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 83A - 2:00 p.m., TUESDA Y, 7 JUNE, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

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

Vital Party NDP NDP NOP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NOP NOP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NDP PC PC NDP PC NOP PC NOP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NOP NOP NOP PC NDP NDP NOP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NOP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 7 June, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. R EYLER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Member for St. Johns, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Manitoba Municipal Employees Benefit Fund Sixth Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 1982. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce today that the Advisory Committee of the Maternal and Child Health Directorate of my department has been directed to prepare specific recommendations for the introduction of a comprehensive counselling and information program on family planning.

This program is to be available to all Manitobans and will focus on the provision of: Education, Information, Counselling, and Medical Services. The Advisory Commitee of the Maternal and Child Health Directorate will be reviewing a family planning report shortly and will prepare recommendations for proposed action. The primary aim of the family planning program will be to promote individual responsibility regarding conception, contraception, as well as child care and development. The issue of abortion is one that will be addressed in this program.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, physicians on hospital therapeutic abortion committees make the decision to provide abortion services based on the perceived risk to the health of the mother. The government has the responsibility to ensure that safe therapeutic abortion services are in place for women who are deemed eligible for this service. I must acknowledge the need to provide for therapeutic abortions as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada. Without expanded facilities, some women will continue to seek therapeutic abortions outside the province.

I have instructed the Manitoba Health Services Commission to provide the capacity of Manitoba facilities to perform safe, therapeutic, legal abortions as required by federal law. I am convinced that the family planning program which is being developed will meet many maternal and child health needs, including the reduction in the number of women who are seeking therapeutic abortions outside the province. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister for his statement and assure him that it will be studied very carefully by my colleagues, and me, on this side of the House. I would assume that reference, in large part, to child and maternal health initiatives and family planning init iatives emanate from announcements made earlier by the Minister in that respect. He indicated at the time that he was looking at the consolidation of obstetrical units; that one of the primary objectives was to free up money to finance greater initiatives in the area of child and maternal health.

The question on the rationalization of obstetrical units still remains unresolved, of course. One follows developments in that area very keenly, in view of the anxieties that have been expressed by individual citizens and by medical staff in two of the areas of this city that would be most directly affected. Insofar as the references to expanded therapeutic abortion facilities are concerned, I would only raise the point, at this juncture, Mr. Speaker, that it must be acknowledged that whatever we do here, the law of the land must not be held up to disrepute.

The law of the land must be held high for the respect of the people of Manitoba, and the people of Canada generally, and whatever decisions are taken by the Minister and the government in the next few weeks with respect to therapeutic abortions and the availability of them in Manitoba must be made in that context.

We welcome any initiatives to expand family planning educational capability in the province, and public health in the maternal and child health and family planning fields generally, but there is an issue at hand that has to be resolved now with respect to the Criminal Code of Canada and the respect that people have for the law of the land. I don't think this initiative should be allowed in any way to detract from the government's responsibilities in that area.

While welcoming this statement, we still await some resolution by the Minister and by the government in the immediate future of a situation that is causing the law of the land at the present time to be held up to disrespect. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... 3509

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 ORAL QUESTIONS Press release - election financing MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. Yesterday he distributed a press release to members of the House with respect to the new Election Finances Act which he has introduced into this House, which will provide for public support from the taxpayers of Manitoba for candidates and registered political parties involving some 50 percent of the expenditures that the candidates and parties respectly incur. My question to the Attorney-General is this, Mr.

Speaker: Based on the records of the 1981 election, which are readily available to the Attorney-General, what is his estimate, based on those records, of the cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba if this bill were in effect for the 1981 election campaign? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I will be introducing the bill for second reading. I think it appears on the Order Paper tomorrow, in which case I'll be introducing it tomorrow, and at that time in my introductory notes I'll deal with that question. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, the Attorney-General has, despite the traditions of this House, distributed a press release to members of this House in the news media yesterday before having introduced the bill for second reading. I'm asking a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Attorney-General. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: The point being made by the Honourable Member for St. Norbert was discussed as a point of order and ruled on by yourself. I don't know why it's being raised again. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert to the same point. MR. G.

MERCIER: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has distributed a press release yesterday. On the basis of that press release, we have some questions for him. He has chosen to make this information available to everyone and we would like to ask a question on the basis of the press release that he has issued, and we shouldn't have to wait until he introduces the bill on second reading. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the Honourable Member for St. Norbert restrict his remarks to a question without making too long a statement in advance. MR. G.

MERCIER: Would the Attorney-General advise this House of the estimated costs of The Elections Financing Act, if it were in effect for the 1981 election campaign, on the basis of the records which he has readily available to him and no doubt which they, I would hope, would have looked at and would have used as a basis for the introduction of this bill? HON. R.

PENNER: As I have indicated, and I will put it more explicitly, because apparently it has to be put more explicitly, I am taking that question as notice and, in my introduction of the bill on second reading, I will deal with those kinds of questions and many others. MR. G. MERCIER: I have a supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. My question to him, Mr.

Speaker, is: Why is it considered right for the government, and the Minister of Agriculture, to do away with the compulsory checkoff for beef producers, even though they have the right to apply for a refund of their contributions and, at the same time, to impose upon the taxpayers of Manitoba a compulsory checkoff to support the New Democratic Party? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that question deserves a reply. Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member should know, since he was in government and it was his administration that did not accept the will of the producers which was made in the mid-'70s about the compulsory funding of an organization, which was subsequently brought in by his adminstration. We have had representations made to us and, as well, we oppose those provisions when the bill came into place. Manitoba Hog Income Stabilization Plan MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, as well.

Could the Minister confirm that the Manitoba Hog Commission has rejected and turned down many Manitoba hog producers that have applied under the Manitoba Hog Income Stabilization Plan? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. In fact, anyone wishing to join the plan may do so, but certainly there was a deadline, in terms of the initial application, where there would be full coverage from Day One.

There were producers who did not join the plan before the deadline that was put into place on the advice of the Hog Committee and the Producers Board, had a period of phase-in in them, and they would have to follow those rules that were established by that board. Certainly, no one is prevented from joining the plan at any point in time but, as I've indicated earlier, there are different rules for those who applied at a later date because there is a phase-in period. MR. A. DRIEDGER: To the same Minister then, I'd like to maybe put a correction in there for him.

Many small hog producers that are on a contract basis have been refused -and I'll table a letter if the Minister wants, 3510

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 to indicate exactly what has happened. Can the Minister confirm that many of these small farmers who have been rejected under the plan are people who do not have the financial resources to establish their own operations and, as a result, will have to possibly go out of business? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that approximately 75 percent of the hog production in Manitoba, or approximately 1, 000 producers, raising approximately 850,000 hogs in the province, are presently enrolled in the program.

I will take the specifics of the question as notice, but I do believe that one of the requirements that the committee in its recommendations made, which is similar to that which was in place prior -but I will check it -was that the hog production must be owned by the producer raising those hogs ; that, in fact, if hogs are owned by other than the producer, they would not be eligible for insurance under the program. Press release - election financing MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Can he advise the House whether or not the press release dated June 6th and distributed in the House yesterday entitled, "Election Finances Bill Before the House" -can he advise whether or not that was distributed publicly? SPEAKER : The Honourable First Minister. HON. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that . . The Attorney-General indicates, no. Natural Resources deficit - 1982-83 MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Natural Resources who was there a minute ago, I thought. A MEMBER: Here today, gone tomorrow. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I'll direct the question to the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the Minister of Finance advise what he now expects the approximate deficit to be for fiscal 1982-83? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: No, Mr. Speaker. Winterkill - alfalfa MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture.

I quote directly from his latest information bulletin released by the Department of Agriculture which indicates that many Manitoba livestock producers may be searching for emergency hay and pasture supplies this summer following reports of extensive winterkill to alfalfa in many areas of the province. My question to the Minister is, what is he doing about it; are he and his department considering any emergency program to put into place to offset the loss of supplies? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member should know that that question was posed by the Honourable Member for Emerson, and the Honourable Member for Arthur raised similar questions earlier, where we have indicated, initially, to producers while, at this point in time, we have not finalized our total assessment of the province, in terms of the losses . . . Mr.

Speaker, while there have been areas in the province where there has been severe damage, we have advised farmers that there is an opportunity to put in greenfeed, in terms of allowing for greenfeed availability for producers; as well, the opportunity to seed grass with the greenfeed; as well, crop insurance has insured between 400 and 500 farmers and crop insurance is in the process of adjusting.

Once we have the full report on this whole situation, we will be determining the full extent and the nature as to what kind of additional programming might be necessary; but certainly one of the encouragements and advice that we are providing producers is to, at this point in time, early enough in the spring, to make sure that greenfeed programs and additional crops are put in to supplement any shortages of feed that they may not have for their livestock. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I just indicate to the Ho nourable Minister, the last time the livestock producers faced a similar situation, in 1980, the then government and the then Minister acted in time to put a very successful Greenfeed Program in place. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is, his own department says that it is extremely important, the first thing to do is to get an annual forage crop into the ground to replace the feed lost. His department is aware of what is going on, and the time is short, the time has to be now when seed can still be put in the ground in time for an effective program.

Is the Minister considering the program? A simple answer, Mr. Speaker. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that at the time they were moved into assistance for the livestock industry, there was no support program as far as income for livestock producers.

We certainly have not ruled out that there should be a program for greenfeed at this time for feed, but certainly there's ample time now during the seeding time for farmers to make some individual decisions to supplement their feeding requirements at this point in time. ·We have not, as I've indicated before, had all the final assessments made. Because of the late spring, there are many many crops which were deemed, at least indicated at first instance would not be coming up, are now coming up in terms of the tame forage, 3511

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 and assessments are being made by individual ag reps. We expect, within the next week, that assessment will be completed and we'll be in a better position to decide whether or not an emergency program would be required. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I regret to hear that there will be likely no program in place. Fee increases in Agriculture Some time ago, a long time ago as a matter of fact, asked this Minister a question about inordinate increases in charges and fees that the department was levying for various services to fowl producers, turkey and breeding stock on chickens, egg testing, etc.

He undertook at that time to look into the matter. These were extremely high increases for one year. I forget the amount; 50-60 percent increases for certain fees. I know the Honourable Minister was aware of it; he indicated that he was checking it at that time. Has the Minister looked into those fees as to whether or not they are, in fact, justified? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, that question is a fairly detailed question because what it reflects was the additional charges made by the Vet Services Lab dealing with ascensions on poultry versus livestock, and what was not reflected in the charge, or to the individuals, was the further consultation and an assessment made by the veterinarians.

I want to say to the honourable member that in terms of the costs of that program, we have reviewed the changes that were made by the Vet Services Lab and we have determined that those fees, in fact, because of the way that they were brought forward in dollar terms, they amounted to, I believe, $10 per test increase, which was approximately a 75 percent or greater increase. We have reviewed that situation and have indicated that there will be an increase as a result of changes, but not the magnitude that was originally put into place by the Vet Services Lab. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, really, this Minister who is perpetuating a 25 to 58 percent increase on Crown leases to the cattlemen, not providing any program, subjecting the poultry and turkey producers to a 75 percent increase, is the Minister . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: The Member f'>r Lakeside has launched, with wings outspread, into a flight of rhetoric and oratory that has nothing to do with question period. It doesn't purport to be and, indeed, it clearly is not a

preamble to a question, and I would ask that you rule with respect to the nature of a

preamble to a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable member has a question, would he please place it? MR. H. ENNS: I'll ask a question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Agriculture answer whether or not he is satisfied with commodity prices staying where they are in beef, in poultry, in eggs; that his imposition of charges of upwards to 50 percent to 75 percent increases are in fact justifiable as Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Manitoba? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, when the honourable member gives those kinds of percentages, what he doesn't say, that the follow-up and the hours of time spent in the work and the charges that are made are but a small portion of the costs incurred. Mr. Speak er, the honourable member should understand that . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member has a further question, he can rise in his place and I will attempt to answer it.

The honourable member well knows that in terms of the beef industry, there is a price support program which covers far beyond the costs of land in the support program, and producers certainly are open, it's open to them to join the support program. Insofar as the other commodities, they are in a nationally regulated price situation and there's no doubt that the returns of producers reflect the prices of their costs .

With respect to the services provided in the Department of Agriculture, there's no doubt that the dollar amounts charged are but a small portion of the costs incurred and we will continue to keep that relationship, but surely, in terms of the work provided and the follow-up of veterinarians and the diagnostic work provided by the lab, the costs certainly are not out of line in dollar terms, which amount to $15 per work on half a dozen birds.

As in the case of the poultry industry, the new charge is $15 for the ascensions and the like, which is certainly not out of line of any of the charges that would be paid anywhere in this country or in this province and far less than they would be, taken to any private lab. Campgrounds - Northwestern Ontario MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Has the Minister of Natural Resources made any representation to his colleague and his counterpart in Ontario concerning the restrictions that are allegedly going to be placed upon Manitobans in their use of campgrounds in Northwestern Ontario? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker. Staff cut back in campground facilities While I have an opportunity, I would also like to take that to answer a question that was put by the Member for Swan River on May 27th in respect to concerns 3512

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 about a cutback in staffing for campground facilities. I indicated that I would take the question as notice. I didn't believe that there had been any cutback per se. I thought we had been required to trim our budget very effectively, but I must admit that I am advised that there was, in fact, a cutback in services at Overflowing River Provincial Recreation Park, and I confirm that the honourable member was right in respect to that. However, the facts are that the camping facility in the park cost $11,898 to operate in 1982, while the revenue was only $3,640.00.

While the 24 camping sites are closed, the day-use area continues to be operated at a reduced service, recognizing that only 10 percent of the users in 1982 were campers. There were 8,000 vehicle entries with only 734 permits sold. There are alternative camping facilities along Highway No. 10 that are available; 90 kilometres south, there's the Birch River campground where there are 20 sites, self-registration camping.

There are alternative facilities in the Porcupine Forest of interest to local residents; including Steep Rock Lake, which is 37 kilometres northwest of Birch River, where there are eight seasonal and 18 transient campsites. At Whitefish Lake, 27 kilometres west of Bowsman, there are 25 transient campsites. In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are waysides at Mafeking, that is 50 kilometres south, and Red Deer River, 35 kilometres south, where overnight camping capability for travellers is available.

The reduction in service was the only other solution, as the option of uncontrolled camping was not proceeded with due to rowdyism and vandalism. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise two points on a point of order. One is that the Minister was asked a question and gained the floor by way of responding to that question, and then proceeded to use that opportunity to launch off into a lengthy answer which had nothing to do with the question which I placed to him.

In addition to that, Sir, which I would not normally object to if he was giving a brief response, his response has clearly been of a detailed nature, and it's been the practice of this House that detailed answers to questions asked previously should be given in writing and distributed to the House. HON. A. MACKL ING: Mr. Speaker , I'd almost completed my answer despite the noise I was hearing from opposite. It was an answer to a question that was properly made by one of the colleagues of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. It deserved an answer and I thought I would give it a full answer.

He objects apparently, Mr. Speaker, to my giving an answer to one of his colleague's questions. I had the floor and I wanted to make sure that I gave that information as quickly as I could to the House. I cannot see on what the point of order is based. It has no basis in logic or in past precedence in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I thank both members. It has been the practice in the House if an answer to a question is to be unduly long or contain a list of statistics or figures, that it be given in writing so as not to take up too much time of the question period.

Perhaps the Minister would like to complete his answer. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I was about to conclude with the observation that the reduction in service at that campground appeared to be the only solution as the option of uncontrolled camping was not proceeded with due to the expectation and the problems that we have experienced in respect to rowdyism and vandalism. Staff have been directed to investigate the leasing and operation of that facility in a subsequent year by a private operator. Manitoba Tourism Ind ustry MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. In view of the fact that the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism in Manitoba has been working with the Minister of Tourism in Ontario to help develop tourism on the western side of Ontario and the eastern side of Manitoba, has the Minister made any representation to the Ontario Minister re the fact that Manitobans will not be able to utilize the western side of Ontario according to the articles that we have read in the papers and that have been announced by the Ontario Tourism Department? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly take it as notice and acquire more information, but I think it's been a practice in both provinces to set some priorities for use of parks. There's some priorization goes on in our allocation of places too, but I will undertak.e to get a fuller report for the member and report back to the House. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in her answer mentions priorities of parks.

In view of the fact that the Provincial Government through Destination Manitoba has given a grant to a tour company to organize, I believe, naturalist-type of tours so that people could use the facilities of the eastern side of Manitoba and the western part of Ontario; in view of the fact that we have spent money supporting a tour operator to arrange tours for this area, is the Minister going to make a very strong protest because we have spent money to have tourists to go into this area? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, our first effort will be to clarify what the situation is and if we then feel a protest is the appropriate response, that will be made. 3513

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 Pelly Trail School Division MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Honourable Minister of Education. Out of which of her special sources of grant money did the Minister take the recently announced special grant of $1 00,000 for the Pelly Trail School Division? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, that money did not come out of a special grant allocation.

That money came out of the Educational Support Program that was designed by the members opposite that had a number of elements and factors in it, one of which dealt with the ability to offset the declining enrolment factor which in some cases was lost to some school divisions as of January, 1983. What you have is a recognition by us that there were deficiencies in the Educational Support Program related to declining enrolment that were compounded as the three-year program was under way, and Pelly Trail was an excellent example, Mr. Speaker.

They lost, I think it was about 222 students in a year, 79 regular students, but over 120 Native students, Mr. Speaker, and that loss was unpredicted by either the former government or this government, because the master tuition agreement was cancelled. Because it was cancelled, they lost their protection in the Educational Support Program for the Native students.

It was recognizing that there were three or four school divisio ns in the province that suffered declining enrolment factors ranging from 5 percent to 11 percent which was extraordinary since my recollection is the provincial declining enrolment factor is about .8, that we made a grant that was to offset the grant that did not continue in existence in 1983. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has me confused.

How could it come out of the Education Support Program if the Minister has just said that the Education Support Program was deficient in being able to deal with a situation such as this of a major decline in enrolment. Did it come out of the Education Support Program, in which case the program was sufficient to deal with it, or did it not? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, yes, the money that goes to school divisions that is granted to school divisions comes out of the Education Support Program.

As the member opposite knows, there is money in each year that is additional unallocated money and a yearly decision is made on which grants, where the increases will come. In this case this year, we gave additional money to transporation. We gave additional money to school divisions to increase their basic operating unit. I think the largest grant went to the basic operating unit which allows school divisions to decide where to spend the money.

It went up from I think it was $92,000 for a basic operating unit to $1 09,000, so there were a number of increases in grants that are brought in every year, that were brought in in each year of the life of the program, and this is one of them where we brought in a grant to cover ·increasing deficiencies that were causing three or four school divisions in the province serious difficulty this year. 3514 MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, then the Education Support Program was sufficiently flexible to deal with this matter because it had unallocated funds available to take care of special situations.

So my second question to the Minister then is, in view of the fact that this division has a surplus of $800,000, and did not choose this expenditure as a priority in setting its own budget, why has the Minister given the extra grant here when there are many other instances in which there are not surpluses to deal with, and the divisions are facing similar problems? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that the grant was brought in based on a criteria and a formula that was based on need, and that was not based on whether or not school divisions have, or have not, surpluses.

That has never been a question, to my knowledge, that has been asked school divisions when the government is bringing in its program and deciding what its responsibility is to provide funds to school divisions, that if they are in the numbers where the declining enrolment is the greatest then that, and that alone, was the criteria for making the decision about the funding.

To the point that the member suggested that, because there was unallocated money in there, one of the reasons that the amount of money was there is because of this government's decision to put a large amount of direct provincial support toward the cost of education that would allow us to maintain programs and services to school divisions. I did say that neither the previous government, nor this government, could have predicted the taking away or the cancelling of the master tuition agreement.

You did not predict it, nor did we predict it; but it is a factor that happened last year that is causing a serious problem to school divisions where they have a big loss of Native students like Pelly Trail losing 122 students -finished. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this Minister and this government agreed to the cancellation of that agreement, they ought to have thought about that But my final question, Mr.

Speaker, is in view of the fact that the Minister says that having a surplus of $800,000 is not a criteria with respect to financial need, is she then going to offer extra special grants from whatever sources, whatever allocations, to other divisions, such as, the Rolling River School Division which is facing the loss of some 20 teaching positions and programs; can they expect to get similar treatment out of whatever extra special funds that she can make available? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Well I think that the member that covers the School Division of Pelly Trail would be interested in hearing that point, Mr. Speaker.

Rolling River School Division did have a declining enrolment of about 5.4 percent, but those were not Native students and they were still covered in the basic operating unit. In other words, the loss of students that Rolling River faced, they are still protected because they still get the basic operating unit. It's others, where the enrolment declined into the 10 or 11 percent increase, or where there were large numbers of Native students involved, that are the ones that are the most seriously hit.

I would also like to say that I think Pelly Trail's increase in provincial money, money they got from their province,

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 because of their loss, was only about 7 percent, and Rolling River - I am trying to remember and I'm going from memory, but was much closer to the provincial average which was about 11 percent. Rolling River got quite a bit more money from the Provincial Government to cover their programs than did Pelly Trail because of their serious decline in students. MR. G. FILMON: In view of the fact that we're getting into some very complex matters with these extra special grants that the Minister is shifting back and forth; and in view of the fact that she said that Dr.

Nicholl's Committee Report would be available in June, has she now received it and will we be able to get a copy of its recommendations shor tly? HON. M. HEM PHILL: No, Mr. Speaker , I haven't received it, as of this day, but I did indicate that I was expecting to receive the report from Dr. Nicholls in June, and I still am expecting to receive the report in June. As soon as we have received it and have had a chance to give it full consideration, I hope to be beginning public discussions about the content.

There is going to be some very serious issues addressed in that report; they are going to take a lot of thought and a lot of discussion. I would like to just say one other thing related to the points he made about the special grant. I think when we bring a program in, and the member opposite recognized this during the Estimates, it's hard to bring in a perfect program. We learn from experience; we learn what the deficiencies are. The worst thing you could do is not recognize them and not admit them and not make the changes that need to be made when you recognize serious deficiencies.

It's because of that that we were willing to make the changes this year to meet the serious deficiencies of the program. Irrigation systems - upgrading MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, regarding the recovery program that was announced by the Federal Government April 19th, I think, some $2.4 billion.

Can the Minister advise the House, or the people of this province, if he's had any meetings with the Honourable Eugene Wh elan, or any Ministers of the Federal Government, re federal participation and the upgrading of the irrigation systems in our province? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Natural Resources has been involved with PFRA dealing with water management projects and the like.

In terms of specific projects we certainly are, in our discussions with the federal people on future agreements, putting that as a high priority for the province in terms of future agreements. As the member well knows, at the present time there are not very many specific projects dealing with irrigation, but the question of irrigation, the honourable member should be aware, is one that during these periods, the difficult times, the economics of which are, at this point in time, questionable. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder can the Minister advise the House, or the people that are ir rigating this province, why the Pr ovince of Saskatchewan qualified for $4 million and Manitoba has qualified for nil? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I will take the question as notice, but the honourable member should be aware that there are no new agreements at the present time that are on stream and that the agreements that were on stream certainly did not call for any major expansion of irrigation, but as I indicate, the question of irrigation in many areas of the province during these difficult times is questionable in terms of the economics, of the feasibility. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about $2.4 billion federal dollars that's on the table.

Can I ask now a question of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, if he or any of his staff or the government have had any meetings with Wh elan before they brought in Bill No. 12? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have not; I would have to take as notice any question about staff having discussions.

In respect to the negotiations under that Act, it is I think traditional and customary that the Minister of Agriculture has the direct negotiations in respect to agricultural development and the necessary irrigation or drainage works ancillary thereto. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring a point of clarification to the House and the Minister of Agriculture.

The Minister of Agriculture indicated to the House that under the current agriculture agreement with the Federal Government, that there weren't funds made available for irrigation projects. That is not the truth, Mr. Speaker. There is funding provided through the Agro-Man Agreement, which is a Federal-Provincial agreement, and it is in place in Roblin and . . . it was expenditure by Federal-Provincial funds under a program, Mr. Speaker. Manitoba Beef Commission I have a question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture dealing with the $400,000 that some tirrte ago a member of the Beef Commission had indicated 3515

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 had been written off by the Province of Manitoba, substantiated in a press announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, that that in fact had happened. Questioned again in the House, Mr. Speaker , the Minister indicated that had not happened, but when it did happen, the Minister of Finance would table a document. During the Public Accounts, I asked the Auditor if he would provide for us the documentation MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I'm not sure whether the honourable member has reached his point of order yet or whether he has a question.

I would remind him that we are in question period and if he has a question it would be appreciated, I am sure, if it were short, concise and to the point. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Agriculture, where is the $400,000 that's owed to the province by those beef producers who were initially in the New Democratic beef program started in 1975-76? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, it appears that a point of order is no longer a point of order and never was and never will be from that member. Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member spoke about irrigation and if he calls the project, which is an innovative project in the Roblin-Russell area, would be very small in terms of what might be expected in terms of irrigation and could not be considered as a massive development that I spoke about in irrigation. Mr. Speaker, the question dealing with the dollar amounts, we have referred this matter to independent legal advice. When that advice is in, a final decision will be made. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker , who was the independent legal advice that they referred it to, and why did he not refer it to the Attorney-General? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should know, when he was Minister, that there were so many legal opinions and conflicting legal opinions on this whole matter that it became almost an impossibility to discern what one should do after the mishmash that they created in this program. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister indicated some time ago that the direction the government would be taking on this particular issue wo•Jld be tabled by the Minister of Finance.

The Provincial Auditor indicated that he would be making a report to the people of Manitoba and to the Legislature. Has he been in touch with the Provincial Auditor on this particular $400,000 repayment to Manitoba? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, when the Provincial Auditor wishes to raise any questions and advice from my department, he will know where to find me, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if I might direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery.

We have 21 students of Grade 7, 8 and 9 standing from the Hugh John MacDonald School. They are under the direction of Miss Hummelshoj. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Education. There are 42 students of Grade 5 standing from the Lavallee School under the direction of Miss Dion. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Riel. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Speaker, I have a change on the Agricultural Committee: Downey for Orchard. HANSA RD CORRECTION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a correction to make with respect to Hansard, Thursday, June 2, Page 3391. Near the bottom of the page, it indicates that I said that we will consider funding up to a maximum of $15,000.00. That should read, and what I stated at that time, was $50,000.00. COMMITTEE MEETINGS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker , first of all, two announcements.

Law Amendments, in addition to the meeting of Law Amendments for this week, will convene again on June 16th; secondly, by agreement, a meeting of the Standing Committee of Agriculture, immediately following a motion of Supply, to be convened in Room 255. Again, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Supply -I'll make the motion in a moment -by leave, because of the Rule 65(7), therefore by leave, the continuation of Estimates which began in Committee, Executive Council Estimates will be in the House, upon the motion being made. Accordingly, with those announcements, Mr.

Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Executive Council. 3516

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Executive Council, Item 1.(

a) the Premier's Salary. The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, last evening dealing with Information Services, the First Minister said he was unable to give a ballpark figure at that time on the additional cost that Information Services would be costing the government. He said on Page 3491, "We could attempt to obtain a ballpark figure but I wouldn't want to offer one this evening." I wonder if the First Minister could give us that figure now? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I suspect staff is in the committee room.

They likely went there anticipating that the Estimates would proceed in the committee room. They'll be back here shortly. I trust - (Interjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. We're on the Salary, Item 1.(a). No staff are allowed. HON. H. PAWLEY: I'll take that as notice. I'll have to check to see if we can obtain that information yet. If you recall, neither the Finance Minister nor the Finance Department or the Auditor's Department were able to give a precise figure, but we thought we could get a ballpark figure. Leave it with me as notice still to obtain. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, when we're dealing with the Information Services, I noticed one of the factors that the First Minister overlooked completely. He talked about the transfer of people out of the Information Services, and the Photo

Section I believe went to Government Services. Could the First Minister give us any information as to where the personnel that had operated the very effective Information Services in the Department of Agriculture and the Information Services there has now been decimated. Can the First Minister indicate where that staff has disappeared? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, those members of the staff will be working from the Queen's Printer, from the central communications group serving the various needs of various departments.

One of the problems that existed previously is that some departments had communications staff, had effective means of communicating with the public. In other areas of government there was a complete and total vacuum. We are attempting to ensure that the service is maintained not only in those departments that have enjoyed considerable staff, but in those areas of government such as Consumer and Corporate Affairs and other various departments that had no staff previously, that all departments of government have access to the skills and talents that are available within government. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, what the First Minister is telling me is something that is somewhat rather scary, because I know as a rural member that probably the most effective Information Service that was available was done by the Department of Agriculture. It now appears that because it was so successful and so beneficial, the government has decided it should now be decimated and spread out through other sections.

I would wonder why the First Minister would want to do that rather than when there is a good, effective operating unit, why he would not have other work sent to that unit rather than destroying the unit and spreading it around throughout government. HON. H. PAWLEY: I must simply comment that I'm a little surprised that the member did not pursue these questions during the line-by-line discussion under Information Services Branch when we were dealing with that area of consideration last evening.

It's my understanding that we're dealing with the general subject of Salary, but I will try to deal with the honourable member's specific questions in any event. Mr. Chairman, we are not decimating the services to the Department of Agriculture. We are not decimating the information function that exists. What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, rather than adding additional staff, rather than loading the existing staff with additional people in order to handle the various departments of government that have no information availability, the skills and talents are being made available to the entire government.

So the beneficial programs, those programs that are beneficial to Agriculture will be continued. As well, Mr. Chairman, the staff will be made available in order to provide needed services to other departments of government.

This would appear to me to be a better method than continuing to permit the various departments of government where there are no communication services to continue without Information Services of any basic kind while other departments enjoy maximum benefit from staff, a fair distribution of the skills and talents that exist within a few departments so that those skills and talents are made available to the totality of government and all the departments of government. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, the First Minister may think that probably that is what is happening, but the reality is that right today, when agriculture is facing a major crisis; when the forage industry has been largely destroyed by winterkill; when much of the early seeded crop has been destroyed by frosts in the last few days, the Agriculture Department doesn't have the information staff left anymore to be telling farmers what to do in the problems that are very crucial to their very existence, and it could cost the agriculture industry of Manitoba millions of dollars this year.

This government has destroyed that Information Service that was available to farmers and has been available to farmers for many years under many administrations. We now find a member of this Assembly just a couple of hours ago found out how crucial the situation is in his own area, because farmers there cannot get the information from the Department of Agriculture because of rapeseed crops being frozen in the last two or three days. You've heard the Member for Lakeside asking questions about the forage 3517

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 program , a greenfeed program , you've heard the Member for Emerson asking for information, and that Information Service that was there in Agriculture has now been destroyed and farmers are not getting the information that is very vital to their very existence. So I would ask the First Minister to consider that, and if he deems it advisable to reunite that Information Service that was in the Department of Agriculture to assist farmers in the very trying times that they're facing today. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, the member is wrong when he suggests the service has be destroyed or curtailed. If the member had been listening last evening, he would have noted that there has been a redistribution insofar as the functions of Information Services, to the extent that there will now be communicators communicating on behalf of departments of government. Those communicators on behalf of departments, unlike communicators on behalf of Ministers, unlike the political staff that were working on behalf of Ministers previously, these are communicators working for departments hired through the Civil Service Commission.

They'll be responsible for the initiation of news releases and then those news releases will be forwarded to the Information Services Branch that would do the editing of those news releases and then will arrange for the distribution of the news releases in the same manner, in the same style, as has been the case traditionally. The news release will be prepared, in this case in the Department of Agriculture, and then forwarded to Information Services for final editing, and then for distribution. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Well, I may be wrong, but I would ask the First Minister if he would call the Information Services in Agriculture, as I have, and talk to the head man there. He says, my hands are tied; I have no staff; the staff has been stripped from me; I cannot put a program together that you could put on TV, or on the media, because his staff has been stripped and it takes time because they have to check everything and doublecheck everything. If you're providing professional advice to farmers it has to be factual and correct. To find out that he hasn't got the staff to do it, Mr. Premier, that bothers me.

As a farmer, it bothers me, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, and it bothers me as a Manitoban, to see that this government is destroying a service that farmers in Manitoba have had for years. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would doubt very much that the staff member that the member has referred to has indicated that his ability to provide programs in respect to the Department of Agriculture have been destroyed. I would doubt very much that the member is correctly quoting the responsible member in that branch. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I have a question to the First Minister. In view of the letter which Mr. Martin of the Manitoba Federation wrote to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Economic Development on February 23rd, 1983, in which he indicated that he wished to bring to their attention his concern that very little short, medium or long-term economic planning is being done by the government; he hasn't seen any evidence. There appears to be many more closures or layoffs about to happen.

In view of the fact that the President of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce said that the government is anti-business, the government is out of step, and they offered him their regular publications, some comments from members, does the First Minister plan on having another Economic Summit? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I do want to spend a few moments, in fact, discussing the success of the Economic Summit Conference, and I believe I can say, without hesitation, that this New Democratic Party Government is probably the only Provincial Government in the country that could successfully bring together labour and business and government to an Economic Summit Conference. Mr. Chairman, though honourable members may be sensitive to this point that has, in fact, been spoken well of by the Chamber of Commerce, by the Manufacturers Association, by the Manitoba Federation of Labour, and other µarticipants. Mr.

Chairman, there has been, as I would encourage under all circumstances, a healthy discussion insofar as the policies and objectives of government, of labour, and of business.

I know that honourable members across the way would be very very sensitive and very very defensive, as they are inclined to be, insofar as criticism that may be directed of a constructive way toward them and, indeed, that were very very defensive toward the Manitoba Federation of Labour during their term in government, to the extent that, if I recall, the situation reached such a bad level that the Manitoba Federation of Labour said there wasn't even any point in meeting with honourable members because of the reception that they received from honourable members across the way.

So unlike honourable members across the way, we encouraged the Summit Conference, we encourage . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Mr. Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, we indeed encourage constructive criticism and I am not at all sensitive to concerns as to whether or not this government, or any other particular government, has yet adequately outlined medium and long-term objectives, insofar as the economy is concerned. We are working in connection with that. Mr.

Chairman, I had a letter from the business side not so long ago which encouraged the continuation of this process and the effectiveness of the Steering Committee process, recognizing at the same time that there are problems that must be ironed out in order to improve and to better communications, government, labour and business. But , Mr. Chairman, unli ke honourable members across the way that are sensitive, I am not sensitive to good constructive criticism, whether that be from the business community or from the labour community. 3518

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 No being sensitive, of course, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't mean that I agree with the particular lines of criticism, but it is legitimate constructive criticism that the government must be prepared to look at and examine, and to develop alternative policies from time to time arising from those lines of criticism. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the First Minister terms a success, terms the Economic Summit a success, when within a matter of a few months, after that meeting, the President of the Federation of Labour condemns the government for not having any short term, medium term or long-range planning, and the Chamber of Commerce refers to the government as being anti­ business and out of touch with the times, Mr. Chairman. If he terms that a success then I want to see what the failures of this government are going to be. That's incredible that the First Minister would make that kind of a response. I have a question to him, Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the brief presented to the First Minister, and his Cabinet, by the Manitoba Federation of Labour, a copy of which I do not have. Could the First Minister advise what comments the Federation of Labour made with respect to unemployment in this province? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, first, I would like the honourable member, for his benefit, to have the full context of the discussion that he makes reference to by the President of the Chamber of Commerce, because we're kind of inclined to - I suppose we all are guilty of this as politicians and I am no exception to the rule -take only that which we want to take from a particular individual's comments and to ignore the other aspects of an individual's comments. I'd like the honourable member to know that I was present and participated in that very panel. We had a very good exchange, and Mr.

McGuinness' comments were related to certain taxation policies he disagreed with. But I want the honourable member across the way to know that Mr. McGuinness, the President of the Chamber of Commerce in Winnipeg, also said that he was impressed and pleased and related to the fact that this was the government that is the most accessible government, this is the government with the most open-door policy of any government he had dealings with in the Province of Manitoba. Some honou rable members were present, Mr.

Chairman, after last summer when the president or one of the officials of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce also pointed out in public meeting, in front of some of the honourable members across the way, that this indeed was the most accessible, open government. Not that we agree with each other on every given point, that is not expected. There is no family in which members of the family do not have disagreements from time to time, but there is mutual respect. There's an openness.

I made reference to the Federation of Labour being unable even to present their brief to honourable members across the way because of their defensiveness. In 1980 and 1981, there were also comments from officials of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce that reflect very dimly on the inaccessibility that developed during a very short period of time during the previous administration in the Province of Manitoba. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, this government may have what they call an open-door policy, but they've got a back-door policy too, because you come in the front door and you're just whisked out the back door, and then the government goes ahead and does what it wanted to do ideologically in the first place. That's the only explanation, Mr. Chairman, for the kind of comments that have been made within two or three months after the Economic Summit, judging the government on the basis of their budget and on the basis of their action, Mr. Chairman.

So the First Minister can gloat all he wants about this accessibility and discussion and consultation, but when it comes down to action, we've seen the action of this government and their Budget and their policies and they're rejected not only by business, by the Chamber of Commerce, but in a private letter supposedly by the Federation of Labour and by Mr. Martin. My question to the First Minister though, Mr. Chairman, was -and he hasn't answered it -with respect to unemployment in this province. Mr. Chairman, there are some 52,000 unemployed people in this province.

That number has grown by almost 30,000 since this government took office. I can say to the First Minister, if we were in government and this had happened, the Federation of Labour would be picketing this building every day of the week, Mr. Chairman. They'd be picketing every day of this week. It happens, Mr. Chairman, that the Federation of Labour is tied politically to the NOP. At least the leadership of the union is, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the workers of Manitoba are -if they ever were -now tied to the NOP. Mr.

Chairman, because they've seen the results of the policies of this government, the 52,000 unemployed people in the Province of Manitoba, and the bankruptcies and all of the other tragic economic statistics that one can cite at this particular time, Mr. Chairman. I want to know from him, Mr. Chairman, what did the Federation of Labour say to the First Minister and their Cabinet about the unemployment situation in this province which has grown so dramatically since they have been in office? Did they speak out strongly on that particular subject, Mr. Chairman, and the actions of this government? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I'm pleased to have a further opportunity, in case there remains any doubt in the mind of The Honourable Member for St. Norbert, as to the accepted success of the Economic Summit Conference. I'd like to read and place again on the record the comments from the President of lnco on Page 2405, May 4, 1983 of Hansard, to Mr. Cowan: "The Manitoba Economic Summit Conference was useful. I hope it will prove to be a productive experience.

Our general economic problems and open dialogue at the conference again made it clear that the various groups represented have very much in common." I'd like to underline those words, "very much in common," because honourable members across the way believe in a form of class conflict; that there is no commonality between the interests of working people and the interests of a business community and the interests of government. Continued dialogue and co­ operation will provide the quickest path to economic recovery. 3519

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 So, Mr. Chairman, there are many many testimonies, in case the honourable member is doubtful as to the success of the Economic Summit Conference and what is incumbent upon us. It will not be easy. There will be many trials and tribulations in the process for government and for labour and business to ensure that the continuing process of consultation will continue and there'll be concrete benefits. I'm sure that honourable members across the way will hope that there'll be success from this kind of dialogue. Just one reminder though, Mr.

Chairman, dialogue does not mean that in every given case there will not be disagreement from time to time with labour or with business on any given subject. Mr. Chairman, we have had our share of disagreement with business and with labour on various items from time to time, because we are responsible for representing the public interest as a whole and not sectional interest, not regional interest but the public interest. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to be given the opportunity to deal with the brief that was submitted by Mr.

Martin of the MFL, because he did deal quite extensively with the question of joblessness. He did not deal with the issue of joblessness in any narrow sense as the Honourable Member for St. Norbert is inclined to do. He did not deal with the jobless situation as though it was only a Manitoba phenomenon. He dealt with the jobless situation with the general state of the economy. I would read - (Interjection) - to the honourable member words from Mr. Martin on Page 6 of his brief to the Cabinet. "In a national context the economy of Manitoba is in a relatively favourable, though precarious position.

Economic indicators such as employment growth, unemployment, price inflation suggest that Manitoba is performing well relative to the national average. However there are signs of weakness which indicate a potential for mounting economic problems in the future." Mr. Chairman, I share those concerns, though I have mentioned on different occasions the fact that, first, we have been able to reduce the level of unemployment in Manitoba from a traditional third spot to a second­ lowest spot. Mr. Chairman, it is cold consolation. Mr. Chairman, the cause of unemployment is one that we ought to be prepared to address.

We ought not to address the problem of unemployment in any parochial or insular mann er, but we ought to examine the problem unemployment as to the root causes of unemployment that exist. Tight money, high interest rate policies have caused unemployment, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, during the present period, there are too many governments in the world that would prepare themselves to turn the clock back to the 1930s to the policies that were pursued by R.B. Bennett. I know honourable members don't like to hear this because they are the true followers of R.B. Bennett.

They are the true followers of Hoover in the United States. Mr. Chairman, what is regrettable is rather than leadership being demonstrated in the Western World context, there is too much of a reverting back in too many countries in the world to the kinds of restrictive conservative forms of policies that have emphasized tight money, high interest rates, and the result of that has been severe damage to western economies; to Third World countries with all the human cost and economic costs that exist. Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has touched on the most serious problem that confronts us in this day and age.

We must address those problems; we are prepared to address them. Mr.

Chairman, that is why we proposed at the Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers in which my colleague, the Minister of Finance, presented Manitoba's position in a very articulate fashion, that what is required is a federal­ provincial initiative in which the Provincial and Federal Governments of this country co-ordinate their efforts; that they match funds; that they move ahead basic, public works projects, so that we can stimulate the economy; so that we can create jobs; so that we can restore consumer confidence in Canada again , and in restoring consumer confidence, then people will again be prepared to purchase homes, to buy appliances, to purchase cars, and then again we can increase the amount of empl oyment, the amount of business investment.

I fear, Mr. Chairman, that short of that, we may very well be left with continued high unemployment levels until the end of this decade. I would appreciate any comments from honourable members across the way that deal in a general way pertaining to approaches and methods, but if they simply are talking in terms of reverting back to the 1930s and the approaches of the 1930s that were so disastrous, created such chaos, created so much human destructiveness, then I can tell honourable members that we do not share those views.

We do not share the views of the Peter Pocklingtons, the Peter Gambles and some of the other leading spokesmen of the Conservative Party. I know that honourable members are preparing for an important convention, but if honourable members are looking to this side for any support for any of their chosen friends seeking leadership at the forthcoming convention, I would warn honourable members to look in another direction than to members on this side of the Chamber. MR. CHAlnMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, as some of my colleagues have noted while the First Minister was speaking, the First Minister had promised to turn the economy around in the election campaign of 1981. I have a question though for the First Minister, Mr. Chairman. The First Minister has acknowledged the proposals of the Finance Minister as being the strategy of their government.

I think in every document in every submission in every representation in every speech of the First Minister and members of this government and of the NOP, they have talked in terms of improving the economy by greater public expenditures, Capital expenditures and new programs, as being necesssary to improve the economy.

I may have missed something, but I don't think I've once heard the First Minister talk about the private sector when almost every leader nowadays, even the Prime Minister of this country in past months has acknowledged that the economy and long-term employment have to be generated through the private sector. My question to the First Minister - (Interjection) - The Finance Minister has said what the Prime Minister 3520

Tuesday, 1 June, 1983 is saying is probably wrong, that it's not the private sector who will generate long-term employment. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the First Minister then would offer his . . . of how does he see the importance of the private sector in Manitoba and what is he doing to encourage it. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the honourable member was not listening too closely a few moments ago when I did indeed make reference to the need to restore consumer confidence, so that again we could ensure an expansion by way of investment by the private sector. Mr.

Chairman, rather than the private sector and the public sector being two opposing poles as honourable members across the way would have this appear in their picture of some class enemy-like situation, we see the private sector and the public sector joining together and working together. Mr. Chairman, for what other reason did we implement an Interest Rate Relief Program, the Minister of Economic Development, that resulted in the saving of some 800 small businesses in the Province of Manitoba? Mr.

Chairman, for what other reason did the Minister of Economic Development proceed with a joint venture capital program that is geared toward assisting the private sector? For what other reason, Mr. Chairman, did we initiate a Homes in Manitoba Program that has meant that builders, the house-building industry in the Province of Manitoba were able to resume house construction and with the very excellent federal program, were able to result in significant increase insofar as housing construction in the Province of Manitoba? For what other reason, Mr.

Chairman, did the Minister of Finance reduce the corporate tax rate insofar as small business enterprise in the Province of Manitoba? Mr. Chairman, the Minister responsible for Tourism, the Destination Manitoba Program. So, Mr. Chairman, rather than us dealing with two opposing forces, there is a role for the public, a role for the private, and during times that are difficult, there is need, Mr. Chairman, for increased activity insofar as encouraging economic activity pertaining to the private sector through increased public sector activity. Mr.

Chairman, the Honourable Member for Virden asked some questions re Communications expenditures and these are the major areas of expenditures; the Department of Finance and the Provincial Auditor's Office have commented that in many departments it is impossible to segregate such expenditures. There are fewer Communications staff than there were one year ago. Information Services, $553,000; Agriculture, $807,000; Education, $315,000; Natural Resources, $502,000.00. I would like to also, just before we lose track of another comment that - (Interjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, just on that point, not to interrupt the First Minister's line of thought, I wonder if he'd mind tabling those figures for us. HON. H. PAWLEY: Yes. As I mentioned, these may not be precise figures because Finance and Auditors can't . . . The Honourable Member for St.

Norbert might be interested, in view of his earlier remarks, re the Martin letter, in a comment on Page 2 of the Annual Legislative Presentation to the Cabinet of the Government of Manitoba, in which the Manitoba Federation of Labour state, and I quote, "This government is to be congratulated for its ongoing commitment to open dialogue with all groups in our society. It is to be congratulated for its initiatives that have to date been undertaken.

We urge you to neither slow down nor stop, but instead show even more leadership and to demonstrate to the rest of the country that boldness and initiative can go a long way toward curing many of our urgent problems." MR. G. MERCIER: That boldness and initiative over the past few months has led the credit people to, first of all, impose a credit watch on the province, and then to reduce the credit rating of the province with the suggestion that it may be lowered even more in the future. It is also that boldness and initiative, Mr.

Chairman, that has caused the City of Winnipeg over the past two or three months, to have the highest consumer price index of all major cities in Canada, Mr. Chairman, all as a result of government-caused tax increases in the area of sales tax, gasoline tax, payroll tax, corporate tax, etc. In addition, this past month, the hydro consumers will have had imposed upon them a 9.5 percent increase in their hydro rates, an essential service. Mr.

Chairman, my question to the First Minister is what leadership is he giving to his Cabinet, in terms of the credit rating of the province and in terms of government actions that have led to the consumer price index increase in Winnipeg being the highest in Canada for the past two or three months? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. would just like to deal briefly with the matter of the credit rating.

The more detailed write-up on Manitoba which had been released by Standard and Poor's as a background to its decision to assign the province a AA-minus credit rating does present some extremely interesting reading and I'm sure that members opposite have read it, although I'm sort of curious to know why, in a number of weeks, they haven't raised it. It's probably because of some very salient points raised in that report.

It states, quote, "The recession caused much of last year's deficit," and it also stated, quote, "The deficit was 45 percent greater than budgeted, largely because of a $120 million revenue shortfall, caused by the recession." That is something which members of the opposition have refused to acknowledge, but they may do so now that Standard and Poor's have reached the same conclusion, and of course there will be other numbers coming within the next few weeks. We will have the official numbers and we can discuss it again then, but there is no question that they are right on that issue.

That report notes as well, quote, "The province's budgeted deficit for fiscal '83 amounts to $579 million, again equivalent to 20 percent of revenues." This, of course, suggests that the province has succeeded in containing the deficit, in relative terms, for '83-84, 3521

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 contrary to the impression one may have from listening to the oppositon. The report notes - (Int erjection) - MR. B. RANSOM: The report contains $579 million? HON. V. SCHROEDER: I'll read it again. The Member for Turtle Mountain doesn't seem to understand, quote, "The province's budgeted deficit for fiscal 1983 amounts to $579 million, again equivalent to 20 percent of revenues." That is, the year before that it was at about 20 percent and it remained at 20 percent. It remained at 20 percent and they recognized that.

Again, that suggests that the province has succeeded in containing the deficit, in relative terms, contrary to the impression that people on the other side are attempting to leave.

The report also states, quote, "P rovincial purpose debt remains moderate because until recently, the province borrowed primarily for Manitoba Hydro, not to finance its own budgetary deficits." The report notes, quote, "The prov ince's revenues are becoming increasingly volatile as the federal share of total revenues decreases." That's an issue that we've been talking about since December of 1981, the fact of our volatile revenues because of problems with respect to transfers from the Federal Government.

The Member for Turtle Mountain, if he's suggesting for one second that revenues weren't improving during his term, is totally erroneous again, because what was happening was that federal revenues were increasing significantly under the Tories. They also, Mr. Chairman, commented on the province's economic performance. We've heard the Member for St. Norbert suggesting that somehow our economic performance during the NDP years wasn't so good, during the last year and a half. They say, Standard and Poor's, quote, "M anitoba's recent economic performance has been above the Canadian average.

Manitoba's inflation adjusted economic output fell by 3.3 percent last year, well below the average Canadian decline of 4.8 percent. Similarly, the province's 8.5 percent unemployment rate was the third lowest in Canada, following Saskatchewan and Alberta." Since then, of course, we've improved, with respect to Alberta. We haven't really improved; they've gone worse than we are, but we are now second-lowest. Very interesting; here we get to some interesting information. The report talks about Manitoba's longer term going backward, longer term economic performance, rather than the short term.

Now again, in the short term they indicated we'd done better than the national average, but then they deal specifically with t'1e 1976 to 1981 period. That's a period for which some of the members opposite occasionally take some pride. They suggest that somehow things were well here in Manitoba between '76 and '81. What does Standard and Poor's say about it? What does Standard and Poor's say in terms of their relative position nationally? During the NDP years we were doing better than the national average. What do they say about 1976 to 1981? This is what they say in '76 to '81.

"The province's long­ term economic performance however has not been above the Canadian average. The table below shows that real GPP employment investments have grown less quickly in Manitoba than in other provinces with rated debt." Of course that's what we were saying to the people of Manitoba in 1981. They knew that. They were comparing what was happening here to other parts of the country. They could see we were falling behind under the Tories. Under the NDP we've come back in a position where we are above the national average and Standard and Poor's says so in their report. HON. S.

LYON: You sent them the figures, why shouldn't they? HON. V. SCHROEDER: It may be useful to remind critics that Standard and Poor's background analysis referred specifica lly to the relatively favourable economic performance again last year as compared to what had been happening during the Tory years. I think that's interesting information and for them to be suggesting somehow that things are worse under us, is simply totally inaccurate.

The report also refers to Manitoba Hydro and says, "last year a rate freeze and low water flow conditions caused a $24.2 million operating loss." A rate freeze and low water flow caused $24.2 million operating loss. "This year the province has approved a 9.5 percent rate increase for Manitoba Hydro which will reduce the forecast deficit. W&ter flow conditions have also improved so higher export sales will be possible once extra provincial demand for power recovers." So in

summary then, the factors cited by Standard and Poor's in assigning a AA minus included in an '82- '83 deficit largely caused by the recession; a similar deficit in relation to revenues for '83-'84, the decline in federal transfers in relation to total revenues; the poor economic performance over the 1976 -81 period relative to other provinces, notwithstanding the relatively favourable performance in 1982; and the Hydro deficit caused by the rate freeze and low water conditions. I think even having said all of that, it is important to note that Manitoba's revised credit rating is still favourable.

In fact, in terms of provincial ratings, Manitoba ranking is exceeded by only four provinces in this country. The same is true under the Moody's current credit rating with Manitoba's AA rating obtained in 1975 under the Schreyer administration being exceeded by only four provinces. I think that is something that members should keep in mind. There are a few other comments I'd like to make though, as one of the Ministers who is on the Steering Committee of the Summit Group. There was some allegation that somehow we had had a one-shot conference and nothing was happening since.

Nothing indeed could be further from the truth. We had a further meeting of a number of people involved in that organization in February and we've had several other meetings at which we are proceeding to work out development strategy. When Dick Martin says that we don't have sufficient short-term or long-term economic planning in place in this province, I couldn't agree with him more. We were left with a pretty rotten rickety planning machine by the Tories when we came into office. They don't believe in economic planning. We are moving ahead. We will be developing an economic strategy that will work for Manitoba.

We're developing it in co-operation with other groups. Now the Member for Lakeside was saying, no, we didn't meet with the MFL, they're NDP. We didn't meet 3522

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 with the National Farmers Union because they're NOP. - (In terjection) - That's not what the Member for Lakeside said. He just finished saying, the National Farmers Union are NOP so we didn't meet with them. Mr. Chairman, we have no doubt that the CMA's general persuasion is P.C. The Premier just read off a statement from the President of lnco. lnco sent you people a cheque for $30,000 during the election campaign. That didn't mean that we wouldn't talk to lnco. We're prepared to talk to lnco. We're prepared to talk to the business community that supports the Progressive Conservative Party.

We expect criticism from our friends. We expect criticism from people who criticize us at other times but we expect that all of us will work together for a stronger Manitoba. Not like the Tories do, just working with their friends and ignoring those who tend to vote against them. I think that that's not a way to run a government and I think that's one of the reasons they're on that side after just one term. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: I am ashamed to have this member be Minister of Finance in the province.

To hear that kind of drivel, of bombast from the Min ister of Finance which is totally incorrect. What happened was that the Federation of Lab our refused to meet with the government because of two things:

(1) Dick Martin had publicly stated that his primary objective was to defeat the government;

(2) They couldn't stand the light of day on their brief because their brief was so shot full of irrationalities and errors that it couldn't stand to be examined carefully and so they then refused to meet with the government. For this Minister of Finance to stand up and say that we refused to meet with the Manitoba Federation of Labour is absolutely incorrect. Go back and review the record, you'll find out. The Minister of Finance is trying to tell us that his government is in some kind of difficulty today because of federal cutbacks that weren't in place before.

Isn't the Minister of Finance aware that the total federal transfers only increased by less than $5 million between fiscal '80-81 and fiscal '81-82; $5 million. The Minister of Finance since that time has had increases that have been running over $50 million for the fiscal year ending 1983 and they're now estimated to be up close to $100 million in fiscal '84 over fiscal '83. The Minister of Finance tells us that we didn't have problems with federal transfers when we were in government? Tha t's nons ense. Wh y doesn't this Minister of Finance find out what's going on.

I can't believe some of the things that I hear from this Min ister. I just can't believe it, Mr. Chairman, and we keep on hearing it. We find a government here that's got their spending completely out of control compared to every other Provincial Government in Canada. The First Minister stands up and makes statements about they can't afford to put the Budgets together, in splendid isolation.

What we have here is with their own figures which the Globe and Mail reports and the figures provided by the Minister of Finance understate the spending increase, they show 15.8 percent and the average of the eight other governments -eight other governments -that are presented in the same

article by the Globe and Mail, the average is 7.2 percent. Here, we have a government that has a rate of spending that is over twice as high as the average of those eight other governments, and that figure of 15.8 is low. The real spending increase is up in the range of over 19 percent, and the Minister of Finance is going to stand up and make announcements about containing the deficit and containing the expenditures. Do you know why the deficit is contained, Mr. Chairman, so­ called, relative to the amount of revenue? The reason is because the Minister of Finance has been slapping on taxes every year.

He's raising the revenues and as the deficit continues to go up, perhaps he is able to maintain some kind of position relative to revenues. But what he did last year was put $11 0 million tax on labour. He put a sales tax on labour, that's what he did, if you can imagine, when the economy is facing the problems it is and you've got the unemployment problem you have, that you put a sales tax on labour, and that's what the Minister of Finance did last year.

This year he comes along and puts up the sale tax on the other items to which it applies and then proudly proclaims that he has contained the deficit when his spending rate is running double, more than double what the average of the other provinces is. Things are out of control with this government. Mr. Chairman, they don't want to acknowledge it and it's becoming frightening that the Minister of Finance doesn't seem to even understand the seriousness of the figures that he faces.

He might be well advised, having passed through his own Estimates, to sit down and keep quiet and let the First Minister try and answer the questions that are being put to him. HON. V. SCHROEDER: There we have the Member for Turtle Mountain, again, just completely distorting the numbers for Manitoba. In quoting the increases in government spending, what he doesn't talk about is, for instance, the bottom line, which would be spending per capita. And I would challenge him, in all fairness, to tell the people of Manitoba.

The member knows very well that he cannot tell the people of Manitoba that we're No. 1 in spending; that we're No. 2 in spending; that we're No. 3 in spending; that we're No. 4 in spending; that we're No. 5 in spending. Indeed, per capita surely is the sensible way of talking about Provincial Government spending. We were saying for four years that one of the reasons we were falling behind economically in this province was the acute protracted restraint of the Sterling Lyon Tory Government. That was why we were falling behind, and we were.

Nobody on this side would argue that you people weren't cutting back on spending when you were in power. Every poor person in this province knew that, and a lot of people who had to leave this province knew all about that. They had to leave because of the terrible conditions that they were setting up in this province, and it is true that percentagewise we have increased spending over the last two years. For that we don't apologize; we had to do that; we had to do that.

But to suggest that we are the biggest spending government in Canada is an absolute out-and-out lie; it is a pure lie; it is the big lie that the Tories are attempting to lay on us in this province. People know 3523

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 full well that we spend less money per capita than the average government in this country. Now, surely that is something that people should be taking into account when they are talking about the spending of the Government of Manitoba. They can say, as they have, that our spending rate is up, yes; but compared to what? The year before last the Alberta Government spending rate went up by something like 25 to 27 percent. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, Oh! HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, people on the opposite side have talked, the Member for St.

Norbert has talked about the fact that we were saying we wanted to turn the economy around, and certainly we wanted to. We said we would, yes, and we have indicated to you that it has comparatively improved from the Tory days - (Interjection) - The Leader of the Opposition keeps yapping away. I would remind him of some of the statements that he made back in 1977. Now we have two and a half, three years to go in our term in office and we will do what we can for the people of Manitoba.

When we made our election promises, we believed that we would be able to carry them out, we still hope we can carry them out, and we do have time to do precisely that. The Leader of the Opposition was saying, in a speech in Rossmere in 1977, when he was asking the people of Manitoba for the right to become Premier. He said, "M ore and more of our young people will have to leave Manitoba if they are to find the opportunities they will need to build their own prosperous and independent lives." That's what he was saying, that's why we were talking about population when we were on that side; and what happened?

He was right. When the Tories came into office more and more young people did have to leave the province; that was the kind of thing he was saying. And then he said, "Today in Winnipeg alone there are more than 1,300 senior citizens on the waiting lists for nursing homes, 1,300 people who cannot get the care they need because we have not built enough nursing homes ." You know, Mr. Chairman, what's the first thing they did? They froze construction on nursing homes; they froze construction. So they didn't have a line-up because there was no point in being in a line­ up when there are no new homes coming up.

And then he said, "We are saying that we must keep the good health care programs, Pharmacare." Pharmacare he referred to - (In terjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: And what did he do? He changed the rule so people wouldn't collect en0ugh Pharmacare. Well, the Leader of the Opposition talks about the deficit. I would remind him that we were caught with a pretty big surprise when we took office. Then he goes on and he says, "There is today in Manitoba a need for clear and helpful government action to permit people to own their own homes ." What did they do?

They did nothing, absolutely nothing. And then he talked about preser ving the older neighbourhoods . . . MR. CH AIRMAN: Order please. The Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: I appreciate that's his attitude in dealing with the Salary item of the person involved, but I do remind you, Mr. Chairman, we are on the Premier's Salary. Regrettably, the Minister of Finance has his salary; I am sure with the benefit of hindsight, and his present performance, we would want to withdraw that and retroactively reduce his salary. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance to the same point. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that as a member of this Chamber I have the right to speak like any other member does. The Leader of the Opposition was referr ing to repairing, digging up older neighbourhoods in this city. He talked about filling in the gaps that existed in the health care system; he talked about including such services as ambulances in Medicare. You know, Mr.

Chairman, for that group to be suggesting that because we haven't fulfilled all of our election platform in a year and a half, that somehow we are doing something wrong, when in that year and a half we've been hit with the worst recession since the '30s, I think that's just astounding. Just one last comment. The Member for Lakeside did indeed say that they did not meet with the National Farmers Union because the National Farmers Union said they were members or they were supporters of the New Democratic Party. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I do want to get back, for a few minutes, to the issue at hand, that is the First Minister's Salary. What I was referring to with respect to the NFU or indeed the MFL was the dangerous course that are there for any organization that ties itself so exclusively to a political organization and that surely is the case that the New Democratic Party itself must be asking itself in reverse, as to what their future lies in that close marriage that is publicly being proclaimed, whether nation ally, by one Dennis McDermott, or provinc ially, by Mr. Dick Martin.

I would suspect that we will have further proof of that on Thursday, within two days, when Margaret Thatcher wins a resounding victory in Britain and that once powerful Labour Party will be reduced to a shambles of its past influence and power, Mr. Chairman. Thinking journalists are advising the honou rable members of that; thinking New Democrats are concerned about what is the problem of the New Democratic Party in Canada.

It's because of this total commitment to each other that has made them virtually a single interest group, in that respect, and therefore, when we have people like Dick Martin, the President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour proclaiming publicly and in print, not once, but on several occasions, and acknowledged by your own material after the election, about the powerful help and support of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, how sweet it was, then, Mr.

Chairman, that same group then cannot walk into a Conservative or different political party's conference table and expect to be listened to, expect to be treated in a manner that one should be able to trnat with a 3524

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 responsible organization representing the true interests of whatever group that organization is supposed to represent; in this case, the organized working people of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to specifically come back to the Premier's Salary and ask the Premier about his future plans. Mr. Chairman, it's been my privilege, my experience to have worked with several, three Premiers, to be exact. So, Mr.

Chairman, I have some first-hand knowledge about how important the First Minister's office can be in initiating, in bringing about the kind of major thrusts, particularly in any area, but we are talking specifically, and it's a major concern, not just in Manitoba but in Canada, about bringing along some long-term economic development to the province that can provide some hope, some relief for the current 55,000 that are unemployed.

Just in passing, any disillusioning that the Honourable Minister of Finance wants to take place, wants to partake in as to what that does in terms of our standing with other provinces, the fact of the matter is that there are 55,000-56,000 Manitobans unemployed and the fine argument as to whether that puts us second or third or fourth or fifth isn't going to wash because when we left office there were some 22,0 00 or 23 ,000 unemployed, which was bad enough, or 18,0 00 or 19,000. Mr.

Chairman, my specific question to the First Minister is, I recall very clearly, because of very direct and personal interest, that within months, the first Session, coming into office, I remind honourable members that's now some 14-15 months ago, and just laterally again, in this Chamb er, his Minister, the Minister of Energy and Mines, about three or four weeks ago, again responded in a particular way on the questions that I want to raise, what specifically is the First Minister's plans to bring about some specific eccnomic development in this province. Mr.

Chairman, it's nice to talk about opposing forces of the private sector and the public sector, class problems that he perceives and what have you, and that's their terminology; that's not our terminology, but I want to know what specific trips has he got in mind; what specific Executive Officer of a major company or what fellow Premier is he planning to meet in the next week, weeks or the next month? He's had 16-17 months to do it, but to specifically generate the kind of things that Manitobans hope for and indeed were so close to accomplishing back in 1981 , Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, his words are on record.

He said, "Well, of course, Alcan isn't the only aluminum company, for instance. We are talking with other aluminum companies; we're talking with Kaiser; we're talking with Reynolds and we're talking with all other kinds of opportunities in that particular field." The same statements were put on Hansard, on the public record, if not by the First Minister, then by his colleague, the Minister of Energy and Mines, that IMC is not the only potash company to deal with and we can strike up a better deal with Sask. Potash or somebody else. Well, Mr.

Chairman, that's fine; they're government, and let me be very clear, this First Minister is worth every cent of his salary and more if he can use the weight of his office and if he can use the influence of the Premier of Manitoba to bring about at least some signs of something happening, Mr. Chairman. In the three areas that I've mentioned, he had very specific things to say about the immediate start-up of Hydro, of Limestone, during the election promise.

He didn't just say it to us; he flaid it to those people that are waiting for it in the North and he spoke to them at Gillam, and he put that in his literature; he promised. He put his signature to it. Mr. Chairman, I want to know what kind of meetings.

So his Minister of Energy and Mines flubbed the ball, but what is the First Minister doing now about it, because I want to tell you I was privileged to serve under a First Minister that made it his business to pick up and go out and seek and initiate these kind of negotiations, and then to see that his Ministers carried out those negotiations, so I want to know who is he going to be meeting in the next little while, if I want to be charitable. Wh at trips has he planned to regenerate, to revitalize the hope for an aluminum industry in the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman?

My constituents want to know about that. Now if he doesn't want to deal with IMC, that's fine. Has he been talking to Saskatchewan? Has he been talking to Premier Grant Devine about seeing what can be done, whether in co-operation with their provincial Sask. Potash Corporation or with some other private corporation? They didn't like our deal, fine, or are you talking about building your own potash mine? Mr.

Chairman, what I'm trying to say is that the First Minister is wringing his hands and making these kind of global nonsense statements, but we're talking about his salary at this moment, and I'm suggesting to you, Mr.

Chairman, that First Ministers, one of the fundamental responsibilities of his is -and it's equally as important as just keeping the ship going around the Cabinet table or keeping his government running, although I know that with that group that's probably more than a full-time job -but it is the First Minister and the weight of the First Minister's Office that can often create that climate and create that contact to initiate these kinds of important discussions.

I would like to hear from the First Minister -we're going to be gone for a few days, tending to other affairs -can the First Minister tell me that upon our return that he has contacted these and these corporation heads, that he has reopened the channels of communications with our Prairie Provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan and said, okay, somewhere along the line we flubbed the deal; we flubbed the deal on the Western Power Grid. He might have to make his own apologies for saying, look, I'm not here now to campaign against you, Mr.

Lougheed, I'm here to see whether or not anything can be salvaged from the Western Power Grid. His counterpart, Mr. Notley in Alberta, thinks there ought to be and thinks there should be and is asking some very interesting questions in the Alberta Legislature right now. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister if he can do us that courtesy to answer specifically to these questions? Is he and his office, or is he planning to with the Salary that we're now going to vote him, prepared to give us an undertaking?

Can he tell us that the office has arranged for the kind of contacts, the kind of reopening of negotiations with Premier Lougheed, with Premier Devine having to do with Western Power Grid, or having to do with a future potential potash developer that could help, in conjunction with us? As I remind the Honourable 3525

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 First Minister, that was also a program that we had entertained where some equity might well be maintained in that particular venture. Has he talked, has his secretary planned him a trip to visit the President of Reynolds or of Kaiser or has he got it on the top of his calendar to go back to Alcan and talk about what can be salvaged out of that agreement that was so close to fruition? Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some answers to that. If the First Minister is not looking after those affairs then I suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, he's failing in one of the major responsibilities as Premier of this Province and not fulfilling and not earning the Salary that we're about to vote him. Mr.

Chairman, as I said before, any First Minister is worth far more than the Salary that's indicated here that we pay our First Ministers, ii he is prepared to put that kind of a dedication and have that priority in his own min d-set, to understand what could set this province towards a long-term future and towards a long-term plans and provide some relief for the 50,000 to 55,000 unemployed and, more important, for those youngsters that are coming out of our schools, out of our training schools and out of our universities. Mr. Chairman, I earnestly ask the First Minister to use his office for those purposes.

I would like to hear from him, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he has instructed his staff, instructed his Ministers, arranged for me the kind of meetings that I am now speaking about. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, it was only through that kind of effort on the part of my First Minister when I was privileged to serve in government during the years of '77-81, that we came so close to the fruition of some of these major projects, any one of which you would be very happy to have right now, despite the disclaimer of Limestone only creating 40 jobs. That has to be really the height of gobbledygook talk.

Wh en you listen to your own speeches that you made in the North, you know how important a 5 to 6 year construction, $2 billion construction job is to Manitoba. You know what that did because you were Minister during the Schreyer years when the economy was fed upwards at the rate of $150 million to $200 million a year on construction, some of the construction not necessary but nonetheless that went an awful long way in providing the stats that you now like to quote when you refer to those times. So, Mr.

Chairman, surely the First Minister is not going to parrot that kind of nonsense that his Minister's felt obligated to come up with, that Limestone, the development of the Western Power Grid was never really a worthwhile project. I think the First Minister will again chastise those Mini sters as he did on one other occasion, and say that that is expressing, showing naivety and poor judgment, because the peoole of Manitoba know what cranking up the development wheels on the Nelson River is all about. I know the First Minister knows that too.

But I want to know, can he set aside whatever bruised feelings he had because he was not successful in defeating Peter Lougheed the last time he went out there campaigning against the Premier? One wonders about the judgment, the naivety being shown under those kind of circumstances. But more important to the people of Manitoba . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Honourable Premier on a point of order. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, just on a matter of privi lege, I would not want to leave an incorrect statement by the honourable member on the record.

I was not out during the Alberta election campaign, campaigning in the Province of Alberta. MR. H. ENNS: I have no difficulty in accepting that correction from the First Minister.

My understanding then -I'll revise it -is that he accepted as a guest speaker, the invitation of the New Democratic Party in Alberta for which there is nothing wrong, but took that occasion to leave on the public record some remarks that were hardly conducive to putting together the kind of co-operation that was so close to being there, that could have created thousands of jobs in this province; could have brought about a $2 billion development program on the Nelson River that could have trickled right through our economy. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be diverted from my initial question to the First Minister.

Has the First Minister on his calendar, specific trips? Has he allocated time to visit with different influential peop le, Premiers and the public sector, executive officers in the private sector, to bring about some economic development in this province? You name it; it's yours; anything. I am not suggesting that they have to pick up what we had just about accomp lished. But, Mr. Chair man, the people of Manitoba are going to be lookin g for some accomplishment to at least come close to this promises that honourable members opposite gave to the people of Manitoba in November of 1981. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I'm delighted that the honourable member has given me an opportunity to deal in detail with the economic thrust and direction of the present government. I want to certainly compliment the honourable member for giving me this opportunity to deal in some detail pertaining to the present policies and directions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: It's only because of my genorosity and good nature, not wanting to see the First Minister in any way be in error. I wasn't asking for his general policy thrust.

I was asking specific questions like, are you going to see the President of Alcan next Thursday? Are you going to see Premier Lougheed next Friday? I was asking for specific dates on the Premier's calendar as to what he was going to be occupying his time with. MR. CH AIRMAN: Order please. The Honourable Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, what the Member for Lakeside is indeed doing is demonstrating a different approach between the approach of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. The Conservative Party, Mr.

Chairman, went for the big bang, the two or three large projects which did not come to fruition during our term and would not have come to fruition if indeed the honourable members for some unfortunate reason ha.J been re-elected on November 17th, did 3526

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 not come to fruition because of the recession. Mr. Chairman, I can recall vividly in 1981 clearly warning honourable members that all one's eggs ought not to be placed in one basket; that there are many components to the economy, and certainly insofar as the Province of Manitoba is concerned, ours is a diversified economy. What indeed was wrong with the approach that honourable members across the way -and I want to deal with the positive in the main - I don't want the honourable member to think I'm only going to relate back to the '77-81 period.

I must indeed demonstrate to the honourable member that when you do put all your bets on the big trip; on the big junket; on the trip to Taiwan, or the trip to Hong Kong, or the trip to Pittsburgh, or to some other capital, or Switzerland, that, Mr. Chairman, is the big bang approach that failed insofar as Manitoba is concerned, and even more drastically failed when that was a policy adopted by the cousins of the Conservative Party in Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr.

Chairman, shortly after our election in April 1982, we attended an economic summit conference which the Prime Minister had called, at which all Provincial Governments were present. What did we hear, Mr. Chairman, from the Prime Minister of this country? The Minister of Finance was there, he can verify. If honourable members want to ensure there's verification from other Premiers, I welcome them to check with other Premiers. What was the Prime Minister's recipe; big mega projects; $50 billion. We're going to generate the economy of Canada.

I turned to the Minister of Finance and I turned to my Minister of Energy and Resources that were also present, and I said the Prime Minister is talking about $50 billion of mega projects. Wh ere have we heard about mega projects before? We heard about mega projects from honoJrable members across the way. We heard about mega projects from the Prime Minister of this country, and because of the international recession, Mr. Chairman, those mega projects that the Prime Minister of this country had planned upon went down the drain.

The Prime Minister went for the big bang; the Conservative Party in the Province of Manitoba went for the big bang rather than dealing with the fundamentals. - (Interjection) - ! want to now deal with some of the fundamentals. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost what is essential in the Manitoba community is the strengthening and the improvement of the small business community. The small business community is the largest single employer of Manitobans. Mr. Chairman, there is a comment from the Member for Sturgeon Creek why don't you do it?

I have a report which I would like to acquaint members with from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business People dealing with registrations. This report was recently issued by the Federation and they're certainly not socialists in case honourable members think. Maybe in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition this is a socialist, Marxist group, I don't know. But I think on the part of most observers, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business People would not be recognized as socialists.

Their report demonstrates that in respect to incorporations -I'm talking here about small and medium sized business basic and essential to the economy, and the importance of developing policies and programs to assist the small and medium-sized businesses, Manitoba's the leading province - (Interjection) - by way of - (Interjection) - if the honourable member would just listen for a moment, he might digest some of these words that might do his mind some good. Manitoba's the leading province increasing from 2,921 to 3,037 incorporations representing an increase of 4 percent compared to a national decrease of 17.6.

With respect to registrations of proprietorships and partnerships, Manitoba's increase was from 3,292 to 3,557, representing an increase of 8 percent compared to a national decrease of .01 percent. I would point out to the honourable members that might be interested that insofar as some of those Conservative Governments that honourable members love to embrace to the west of us, the Province of British Columbia new incorporations forecast a decline 34 percent; the Albert dropped 47 percent from the 198 1 level; and other jurisdictions showing smaller decreases. Mr.

Chairman, the reason that small business and middle business incorporations increased in Manitoba was not an accident. I don't claim, Mr. Chairman, unlike members across the way, that it's all because of New Democratic Party Government. It's due to the diversification of our economy and secondly progressive acute restraint-minded policies of the Provincial Government of the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Chairman, is the Member for Sturgeon Creek, is the Leader of the Opposition, is the Member for Lakeside prepared to swear an oath that if acute protracted restraint policies had been pursued in the Province of Manitoba in 1982 - (Interjection) - that the number of incorporations and the registration of proprietorships in the Province of Manitoba would increase as they indeed did under New Democratic Party Government? Is there one member that would be so foolhardy as to declare and to affirm or to swear that would have been the case. So No. 1, Mr. Chairman, - (Interjection) - MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Sturgeon Creek, in shouting from his seat, has said that the same happened while they were there. Mr. Chairman, what we do know while they were there, the economy of Canada, the economy of the Western world was in a period of growth; was in a period of increase by way of business activity, and that Manitoba despite that was going downhill, not to the same extent as - (In terjection) - pardon? - (Interjection) - Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is shouting about manufacturing shipments. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Not the same place you're going fortunately. I would not want to go to the - (Interjection) - though I might enjoy it, Mr. Chairman. It might be a very enjoyable and interesting experience to follow the Honourable Member for Lakeside in listening to some of the chat from the Peters and the - (In terjection)- 3527

Tuesday, 7 June, 1983 So, No. 1, Mr. Chairman, what we have is a need for the strengthening and I would be delighted to proceed into more detail, if the honourable member would like, re the small and medium-sized business community. No. 2, Mr.

Speaker, this government has ensured by its policies and its programs, and I believe, considerable credit must be paid to the Minister of Energy and Mines here for an increase by way of oil activity in the Province of Mani toba , by the increase by way of exploration, by the increase - (Interjection) - honourable members don't appear to enjoy hearing that there has been - (Interjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. V. SCHROEDER: What are you smoking, Harry? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMB ERS: Oh, oh! HON. H. PAWLEY: I'm a little disappointed.

I made sure that I listened closely to the comments by the Honourable Member for Lakeside, comments by honourable members across the way and I guess I'm not surprised; I'm a little disappointed that honourable members would not have granted me the same courtesies I attempted to grant them. HON. S. LYON: Oh, stop whining and bellyaching. What are you bellyaching about? Act like a leader, for God's sake. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The hour is 4:30, time for Private Members' Hour. Committee will reconvene at 8.00 p.m. IN SESSION PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please.

The time being 4:30, Private Members' Hour. The first item on the agenda for Tuesday afternoon is the adjourned debates on second readings of Public Bills. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St Norbert, Bill 41, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Concordia. MR. P. Fox: Stand. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Brandon West, Bill 56, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Stand. RES. NO. 10 - RECOGNITION OF MACKENZIE-P API NEAU BATTALION VETERANS MR.

SPEAKER: On the ·p roposed resolution of the Honourable Member for lnkster, Resolution No. 10, the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources has five minutes remaining. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, when I was last speaking on this resolution, I had indicated that the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion members were subjected to the imposition of an amendment to The Imperial Foreign Enlistment Act which made it unlawful for people concerned about the development of Nazi and Fascist movements and their participation in Spain. It made it unlawful for Canadians to go and resist that movement. Mr.

Speaker, laterally, the Federal Government finally rectified part of that mistake; they took away the penalty that would otherwise have been available by rescinding the effect of that law against the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, so that they were not considered to be criminals for having broken that law -great effort on the part of the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government, then in Ottawa, governments everywhere turned their back on what was happening in the Old Country. That same Federal Government denied refuge to Jewish people who were fleeing the holocaust in Germany. Mr.

Speaker, this resolution now calls upon a Federal Government to finally rectify the mistake that was made many years ago and to give recognition to this valiant group who were prepared, and many of them gave of their lives, to resist the development of Nazism and Fascism in the world. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition says, "Oh come on." These are facts of history. The Leader of the Opposition wants to turn his back on histo ry. We know, Mr.

Speaker, that Governments of the Day, in the '30s knew about the development of the Nazi war machine; they chose to turn their backs on it Charles Lindbergh, the great American hero was shown, by Hitler, the development of his great Luftwaffe. He went back to the United States and he said, "There's a great war machine being developed there. We should be alarmed, we should be concerned." Forget about it; just forget about it. You know, Mr. Speaker, people knew, people in th