Manitoba Hansard — 9 September 1986 (Sitting 84B, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-84b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGIS LATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 9 September , 1986. Time - 8:00 p.m. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - LEGISLATION MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: The Comm ittee of Supply will now consider Department of Legislation. The Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. The Department of Legislation contains the appropriations for the Assembly Expenditures, the Leader of the Official Opposition Party's Expenditures, the Independent Members' Expendit ures, the Assembly, the Provincial Audit or and Om budsman, Elections Manitoba and the Hansard Division.

Most of the detail of the Leg islation Esti mates are di scussed on an ongoing basis through an inter-party mechanism called the Legislative Assembly Management Commission an_d the expenditur es are dealt with on an all-party basis throughout the year. So, if there are any specific questions, I'd be pleased to try and answer them this evening. But most of the material is dealt with on an ongoing basis with Opposition members through the commission meetings. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could the Government House Leader indicate where we would find provision for the Executive Assistant to the Speaker? Is that in Legislation or is that in Executive Council? HON. J. COWAN: It would normally be an item that would be found in the Spe&ker's appropriation which is a part of this particular Estima tes. MR. G. MERCIER: So it is in here? HON. J. COWAN: It would normally be found in this particular area given that it is a new item, one that is initiated this year. It'll show up next year in the Estima tes in a line in the Speaker's Office which will be under this appropriation. MR. G.

MERCIER: I appreciate where it would normally be, but where would we deal with it this year? HON. J. COWAN: I'm told that it would be normally Resolution 1, Appropriation 4, but it will not show up this year. It will first show up in next year's Estimates. Resolution No. 1, Appropriation No. 4, is where is would normally show up. It does not show up this being a new position. It will show up in next year's Estim ates under that particular line. This year it will be dealt with by way of Supplementary Supply. MR. G. MERCIER: Under No. 4. Other Assembly Expenditur es? HON. J. COWAN: That's correct. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourabl e Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Are we going through it one at a time, so you want to come back to it? HON. J. COWAN: We can do it all at once. MR. G. FILMON: Well, where would it be? Would it be under Salaries or Other Expendit ures in Item 4? HON. J. COWAN: It would be under Item 4.(

c) which is listed as Assembly, Salaries. But to be clear, it does not show up in the particular Estimates that are in front of us now. It will be dealt with this year by way of Supplementary Supply - in the next year's Estima tes it will show up - because it was not a position at the time the Estimates were being developed. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Minister could give a rationale then, why this is so important that it has to be dealt with by Supplementary supply? HON. J.

COWAN: Quite often, when positions are brought on stream during the course of a year and they have not been considered in the context of the Es tima tes pr ocess, the y are de alt with th rough Supp lementary Supp ly. That's a normal procedure, so I don't think the fact that it's being dealt with through Supp lementary Supply is an ind ication of any extreme impor tance. There may be important reasons for having the position, but that is not because it shows up in Sup plementary Supply. That is a normal way to deal with additional staff that come on during the course of the year.

There are other ways that it can be dealt with, but that is one of the more commonly accepted ways. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Government House Leader - House Opposition Leader - the Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Third time right. MR. CHAIRMAN: There are too many leaders around here. MR. G. FILMON: Too many who wish they were. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, was the provision of the Executive Assistant a condition of the Member for Wolseley accept ing the position? HON. J.

COWAN: I think you'd have to - and I'm not certain of the forum in which you can do it - perhaps pr ivately. We'd have to add ress that issue dir ectly to 3719

Tuesday, 9 September, 1986 the Speaker, or perhaps, through the Legislative Assembly Management Commi ssio n and your representation there , you could address that question directly to the Speaker. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Prem ier, in his desire for openness, since he is probably involved in that whole decision, would be able to indicate the answer to that? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Ministe r. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairma n, I did indicate to the Speaker at the time I interviewed the Speaker, that the Speaker should have an Execut ive Assistant. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman , based on what precedent did the Premier indicate that it was his view that the Speaker should have an Executive Ass istant? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman , we did a number of checks and I could get the prov ince s in which there are Executive Assistants to the Speakers. There are a number I know, and it's not uncomm on . There has been a problem in the past inso far as the service in the constituency of the Spea ker, but it is not an uncommon practice and we can obtain the provinces . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Could the Premier or the Government House Leader indicate who is the Executive Assistant to the Speaker? HON. J. COWAN: I can get the full name of the individual and report back. I don 't know the full name myself at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN : The Member for St. Norbert . MR. G. MERCIER: What is the salary of the Executive Assistant to the Speaker? HON. J. COWAN: It's a salary that's equivalent to other Executive Assistants . We believe it's in the area of $32 ,000 , but we can provide the exact detail to the Opposition House Leader at a later time , but it would be in that general area. MR. G.

MERCIER: Was the appointment of the Executive Assistant an Order-in-Co uncil appointment? HON. J. COWAN: That person would be appointed under The Legis lative Assembly Act , and not through an Order-in-Council, I understand . MR. G. MERCIER: Was that position bulletined? HON. J. COWAN: No, that position would not normally be bulletined, and is not bulletined in this particular instance . MR. G. MERCIER: Is the Executive Assistan t a former member of the Civil Service, or the former occupant of an 0/C appointment? HON. J.

COWAN: I will have to find out exactly what her employment status with the prov ince was , whether it was through the regular Civil Serv ice or otherwise. I'll attempt to get that information quickly , and respond back to the Oppos itio n House Leader. I might also add th at I believe the Executive Assistant for the Leade r of the Opposition is appointed in much the similar fashion through The Legislati ve A ssem bly Act. So, that is the way in which tho se individuals are hire d and are responsible to the

partie s which hire them. MR. G. MERCIER: Was the Executive Assistant formerly in the Depa rt ment of Industry, Trade and Technology? HON. J. COWAN: Yes, I believe she was. I can get the exact detail as to dates of employment, if req uired, for the Opposition House Leade r at a later time, as soo n as possible. MR. G. MERCIER: What was her position in her former department of Industry and Trade? HON. J. COWAN: I will obtain that information as wel l. MR. G. MERCIER : Mr.

Chairman, was the person who is now employed as Executive Assist ant to the Spea ker formerly assigned or permitted to perfor m political functions for the Speaker when she was the Membe r for Wolseley in the last Session? HON. J. COWAN: I would have to find that information.

I can 't give you too much information because I'm not familiar with the Speaker's Executive Assistant to any degree, nor am I familiar with the Leade r of the Opposition 's Executiv e Assistant, and you 've asked me questions - if you asked me similar quest ions about the Leader of the Opposition's Executive Assistant, I wouldn 't be able to give you those answers either. I would have to obtain them for you and report back. I will attempt to do so.

To show you that we can provide some informa tion at present, the name is Davida , D a-v-i-d-a , Sarson, S-a-r-s-o-n , and I believe the salary - I may stand corrected on that - is in the neighbourhood of $30 ,000, just under $30,000 at present. It would probably show up as $32,000 in next year's Estimates , given the increases. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, it just disturbs me a little bit th at the Government House Leader should keep paralleling the position of the Speaker, and suppor t staff for the position of Speake r, with that of the Leader of the Opposition .

The Leader of the Opposition carries out a political role in thi s House. The Speaker of the House does not. In the same vein, I mig ht ask the Governm ent House Leade r -(Interje ctio n)- Perhaps my remarks don't always reflect things as they are, Mr. Chairma n, and reflec t as I wish they could be sometimes .

I'd like to ask the Governm ent House Leader, on that same point, and respect ing the non-political nature of the Speake r's Office and the fact that, as I understand the tradition of the office , bot h the appointment of the Speaker and other matter s r elevant to the Speaker's Office are a matt er of some consultation between the parties in a Legislat ive regime, and I wonder if - I 3720

Tuesday, 9 September , 1986 suppose I could ask my own Leader this, but I'm asking the Government House Leader - whether there was any consultation with any other parties in this House, both res pecting the appo intment of the Spea ker and respecting the appointment of the Speaker's staff. HON. J. COWAN: I'd let my leader, the Premier, indicate as to what consultation there may have been in respect to the appointment of the Speaker. In regard to staff, I don't think it would be appropriate, quite frankly .

I don't think one should suggest that because the Sp eaker is pr ovided with su pp ort staff, that is necessarily politicizing the office. A Speaker has to spend a fair amount of time - probably more time than any of us during the Session - in this building, to be on call at all times, to be dealing with the business of the House. There are duties that the Speaker must perform, as a Speaker, outside of the Session.

The assistant, which the Sp eaker is pr ovided with, I unde rstand, is to enable the Speaker to maintain contact with the constituency in much the same way as we, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, must maintain contact with our constituents. They come to us with problems; they come to us with questions; they come to us requiring help, and we have a respnsibility and a duty to respond to those requests for assistance.

We have a responsibility and a duty to respond to our constituents, and if a Speaker is not able to respond to those requests in a normal fashion, as would other members who do not hold portfolios or positions such as the Leader of the Opposition holds, then I believe that Speaker should have support staff available to him or her, whomever it may be at the time, in order to allow them to provide that sort of support service and that sort of contact with their constituents.

Now, we are elected, we have a responsibility to them and I believe that this individual who is now occupying this position provides that sort of assistance and maintains that sort of contact with the constituenc y. It does not in any way, in my opinion, reflect upon the office or politicize the office. I would hope that members opposite would not suggest that because we provide that sort of support, as do other provinces in similar circumstances provide that sort of su pp ort, that we are doing anyth ing untoward or we are doing anything to politicize the office of the Speaker, because that is not the case. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: I just make the point, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it have been better for the Fir st Minister or the Government House Leader, who makes all these points now, wouldn't it have been better to have made those points before the decision was made and to have made those points in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps with the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House? I just leave that question for the Minister to think about.

But I also remind him that cer tainly as far as I know in Manitoba's history, this is the first time that a Speaker has had this type of assistance and I remind the Minister also that, as I und erstand it, the Speaker does have a full-time secretary as it is which is something other members in this House don't have as ind ividual mem bers. 3721 I also take, I suppose, offence or I'll just remind the Minister that a lot of members are in this House a lot, all week long, those members of us who are from great distances away from the city have to be here all week long throughout the Session and I can't say that for the rest of the Session.

But I can certainly say that for the time when the House is sitting, that members like myself don't have a home to go to at night, and I'm not able to go to Brandon every night. If I need to get away for a special occas ion, it's like pulling hen's teeth, or out of respect for our Speaker, pulling rooster's teeth to get permission from my Whip to get away and I'm sure that the same thing is true of government members. So the point about the Speaker being in the House all the time really doesn't cut much ice with me, Mr. Chairman, because I have to be here all week too.

So I just say that it would have been a lot better and would have made a lot of difference to a decision if there had been prior consultation. Now it may be that members on this side and other members may still not have agreed, but at least we wouldn't be standing here tonight complaining that there had been no consultation on the matter. HON. J. COWAN: So the record is clear . I'm not certain that I agree, as a matter of fact I do not agree with the member who just spoke that there should be consultation on the appointment of that staff. I think that is a decision that government has to take.

There are decisions that governments take onto themselves and they stand or fall by those decisions. This decision was taken because we believe it is in the best interests of those individuals who elect whomever it might be, that as appoi nted Speaker of this House, to have that sort of support service available to them so that they can maintain the contact with their constituency that they are required to maintain. I don't accept the analogy that the member dr aws, that because he is from out of the city and has to be here, that the duties he has to perform are the same duties as the Speaker has to perform .

The Speaker has a role unto that position that none of the rest of us have and members without portfolio s, members outside of the Leader of the Opposition, who has a role to perform as well and has an executive assistant placed in that office, other members have far more opportunity to do the type of constituency work that is required, and I think demanded by our constituents. If, from time to time we need support service because the duties of the House are such that we cannot always get to those concerns as quic kly as we would be if we didn't have those duties, then so be it.

That's a decision that the government has to make. In this instance, the government felt that the role of the Speaker is changing to the extent, and the role of this whole House is changing to the extent where more support services should be made available to that individual. We took that decision knowing that it was a change, knowing that it was without precedent, believing that it is for the betterment of the House, the betterment of the position of the Speaker, and the betterment of the constituents whom that Speaker has been elected to represent. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister has said that decisions like this of necessity in his opinion - and

Tuesday, 9 September, 1986 I respectfully disagree with him - have to be the government's decision and the government will stand or fall on them. I will ask the Minister, whose servant is the Speaker, the government's or the Legislature's? HON. J. COWAN: The Speaker is certainly a servant of the House in the respon sibilities that the Speaker plays in regard to the House, and those are very specific resp onsibilities that the rest of us don't have. The Speaker has to und ertake activities that the rest of us don't have to unde rtake.

The Speaker is elected by a group of constituents who expect service from that individual, just in the way as we are all expected to serve our constituencies. And if, by the fact that we have given that person added responsibilities, just as we have given the Leader of the Opposition added responsibilities, or the Leader of the Opposition has taken on added responsibilities in his role as a leader; we provide sup port for Cabinet Ministers, we provide suppor t to those ind ividuals to allow them to better serve their constituencies.

I will stand on every occasion that I have the opportunity to do so in this House and defend the increase in whatever it takes, whether it's staff or financial services, to the extent required, so that we can provide better service to our constituents, because while we have our battles in here back and forth, and while we have our philosophical debates and dialogues, we also have constituents whom we have to represent.

That is what that individual is helping the Speaker do, and I think that is probably one of the most honourable responsibilities and perhaps one of the most demanding requirements that we have as elected officials. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted in the way in which this discussion has gone.

I would ask the Government House Leader if the government is in fact considering the possibility of designating the Legislative Assembly as a constituen cy, and in the future electing a Speaker who would in fact not represent a physical constituency other than the House here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, that proposal has been made and I appr eciate and respect those who have made that proposal at various times in the last few years, including the former Speaker , and Mr. Knowles.

But it has been the view of members of this Chamber that the Speaker ought not to be relegated to a Civil Service type of role, but the Speaker should be chosen from the ranks of those elected. It's not been our desire to dup licate what has been the system appar ently in Westminster. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Garr y. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is to either the Government House Leader or to the First Minister. Perhaps he could advise as to whether or not the previous Speaker, the Member for St.

Vital, recommended to the government that they hire an executive assistant for the Speaker's Office. HON. J. COWAN: I know of no official rec ommendation of that sort by the previous Speaker. MR. C. BIRT : Mr .

Chairman, I've listened to the Government House Leader with great interest as to the amount of work that a Speaker must do, especially the present Speaker, and the role that an elected Speaker must perform, and I'm wondering: what is the difference of the present Speaker and her function that makes it mandatory that she has an executive assistant that is so different than the prior occupant, the Member for St. Vital, when he occupied the Chair?

Because, as I und erstand it, and seeing the functions of the former Speaker in the last Session, and the present Speaker, we have now been in Session some five months, the last Session was some four-and-a half months, and I can appreciate that there are perhaps some official functions that one is involved in, but I'm wondering what has made the dramatic difference in the inability of this occupant of the Speaker's Chair to service the constituents of Wo lseley that the prior member could not or was able to serve in St. Vital.

I would like to know what the difference is that has warranted spending some $30,000 or $32,000 to justify a new executive assistant in the Speaker's Office. HON. J. COWAN: It always amazes me how resilient the Conservative Party is to change of any sort, even when that change is in the best interest of the people whom we are elected to represent, and I believe this change is. The question that the member put forward was: what is the difference?

I think, if the member reflects back as to what the previous Speaker was saying, particularly towards the end of his tenure as Speaker, he was saying that there was difficulty for a Speaker in providing service to that constituency that is represented by a Speaker, that there were some difficulties involved in the role of Speaker and providing that sort of service to his or her constituents. Those constituents deserve all the service that we can provide to them as elected officials and as an Assembly.

If we asked one of our members to undertake special duties as a Speaker, and they are duties above and beyond what the rest of us do as MLA's, then I think it is right and proper that if that individual feels it is requir ed to provide support and assistance to that individual to be able to perform those duties that they might not be able to provide because of the service we have asked them to do on our behalf, I see nothing wrong with that.

I also know, and I'm getting the detailed information, I hope, that I can present to you either this evening or later, that many other jurisdictions at one time or another in their history took it upon themselves to make a change. That change was to provide assistance to a Speaker, because the role we all play changes from time to time, evolves. Hopefully, it evolves, and we provide better service and more service. I believe that as MLA's, the demands that the general public and particularly our constituency makes on us now, is 3722

Tuesday, 9 September, 1986 greater than the demand was 10 years ago. I believe that's because of a more informed electorate, a more informed general public and a general public that, rightfully so, expects more out of their elected officials. That change which is evolving generally places different demands on us from time to time. It's my understand ing that when the now Premier was first elected Leader of the Opposition there was no executive assistant for the Leader of the Opposition.

It's my understa nding - and I may stand corrected on this - that when the previous Leader of the Opposition, when Ed Schr eyer was Premier of the province, held the office of Leader of the Opposition, there was no executive assistant. At one point in time, someone said, the role of the Leader of the Opposition is changing to the extent where they require support personnel to help them. At that time, they said we are going to add a position. It may be over a period of time that more positions need be added . It may be over a period of time that, as individual MLA's, we need more support.

We did some of that already. Certainly, we did, and we've done it on a number of different occa sions. We've changed the system because the system makes different demands upon us. So don't try to read into the fact that the Speaker has an assistant and didn't have an assistant before that there is anything partisan in that move, that there is anything Machiavellian in that move or that there is anything sinister in that move. It is not the case.

What is the case is our role and our responsibilities and the demands upon us as elected representatives is evolving, and I believe that it is evolving to the better because the more demands that are placed on us to maintain that contact with our constituencies, the better we are at repres enting the people who elected us here to represent them . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader will admit or recog nize that we are breaking new ground by hiring assistants for Speakers in this province.

I wonder if it was felt that a full-time, year round assistant was required, and why the suggestion wasn't made or why we haven't decided to go with perhaps a part-time executive assistant during the time of the Session or whenever the time is the busiest for the Speaker. Why do we have a full time? Why not just part time? Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General seems to want to make the point from his seat that we're now getting into the really big items. There are some items in matters of government spending, Mr. Chairman, that really have a tendency to make people angry.

This is one of them, and the Attorney-General, if he was watching and listening to what goes on in his constituency, he might find out that this makes people very angry that their money is spent this way. These questions are legitimate and they should not be ridi cu led by the Attorney-General. Mind your manners. HON. J. COWAN: Certain ly, we respect the fact that the questions are legitimate.

I'm sorry that they angered the members opposite, but I do not accept the premise that they anger members outside of this House and, particu larly, I do not accept the premise that they anger the individuals in Wolseley who elected a representative who is now honour ed by the position of Speaker and who is providing service to them not only through her own work but also th roug h the assistance of an assistant. I had ind icated earlier that I would share some detail as to what is provided to Speakers by way of support staff in the other provinces.

In British Columbia, the Speaker has two secretaries - a receptionist and a secretary - and a Speaker's secretary which is classified as an executive assistant. In the constituency in British Columbia, the Speaker has one executive assistant. In Alberta, the Speaker has an executive assistant and two secretaries classified as a ministerial secretary and a ministerial stenograp her, respective ly. I hope that you don't suggest that's politicizing the office because they're classified in that way. They perform functions relating to both the Speaker's duties as a Speaker and constituency duties.

In the constitue ncy, the previous Speaker used a constituency allowance to engage a part-time helper. In Saskatchewan, at the Speaker's Office, there are two senior secre taries and the more senior one performs a role comparable to that of an executive assistant. Both of those individuals perform duties relating to the Speaker's duties and constituency duties and in the constituency that Speaker has the same arrangements which apply to all Saskatchewan MLA's which, I believe, includes an individual in the constitue ncy.

So, those are the Western Provinces which we are most similar and they have, in fact, a process in place and a staffing level in place that is very similar to what we have here. They have had it in place for some time. I imagine at one time they had to make the change and, perhaps, they were accused of politicizing the office or perhaps they were accused of misspending the public's money, but I don't think that was the case.

I don't know, but I would imagine that it was probably not the case, because it was determined that, in fact, the Speaker has an extra role to play, outside of Session as well, and that's why the Speaker is provided with an intersessional endemn ity, an extra amount between the Sessions, because they are performing work on behalf of all of us repres enting us, doing work on our behalf, the Assembly's behalf outside of the Session as well. We ackw:iwledge that fact by giving them an extra stipend. I believe it's $3,500 for intersessional work.

They're working all year round for us and they're· preparing for a Session as we move toward the Session and they're tying up a Session as we move out of a Session, so I don't accept the notion that the Speaker's job is a part-time job anymore than I accept the notion that the Leader of the Opposition 's job or any of our jobs as ML A's are part-time jobs. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr.

Chairman, in several of the Est imates we've been discus sing, I've raised the question in each one whether performance appraisals were a part of the annual operations of the various departments, and I think most of the Mi nisters responded that, yes, that was it. Are assistants like this also the su bject of performance appr aisals annually? 3723

Tuesday, 9 September , 1986 HON. J. COWAN: I imagine to the same extent that executive assistants and special assistants to Cabinet Min isters and the executive assistant and staff of the Leader of the Opposition and the staff of the caucus offices are assessed, app raised, their work and performance is appr aised on an annual basis and an ongoing basis perhaps, and probably so, in the same way. MR. CHAIRMAN: As all members are familiar with Item Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are statutory items and they are open for discussi on, but there are no votes. Item No. 4.( a)( 1) Other Ass emb ly Expend itur es, Leader of the Official Opposition Party; 4.(a)

(2) Salaries; 4.(a)

(3) Other Expendit ur es-pass - the Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: You were on Item 4.(d). MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's just 4.(a)( 1) , 4.(a)(2) and 4.(a)(3). We passed all those three items. 4.(

b) Leader of the Second Opposition Party. There is no item there, no money. 4.(

c) Salaries-pass. 4.(

d) Other Expenditures - the Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the Minister's comments that the sum of $307,200 does not includ e provision for the Sp eaker's Executive Assistant at this time? Is that correct? HON. J. COWAN: Yes, that would be essentially correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d) - the Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I think it's apparent that members of this side of the House do not wish to support provision of $30,000 or $32,000 for the appointment of an executive assistant to the Speaker, that it's felt by members on this side of the House that is not a necessary expenditure.- (Interjection)- Does the Minister of the Environment have something to say? -(Interjection)- Well, in view of the fact that money for the executive assistant is not includ ed in this item, it would appear that the only way for members of the Opposition to express their concern about this would be to move to reduce this sum by $30,000 or $32,000 as an indication of our position with respect to the • ap�bi ntment of an executive assistants.

Does the Government House Leader agree with that? HON. J. COWAN: The Opposition has to do what the Opposition has to do and if they feel that makes their point and if they feel that point is important enough to make in that way, then that is a decision that they have to take. The record is clear from what they've had to say. If they want to, or believe that they can make it more clear by an action of that sort, then let them take that action. On the other hand, this matter has been discussed in the Legislative Assembly Management Commission where Mem bers of the Opp osition mad e simi lar comment s.

It has been discus sed here where members have made similar comments and I don't think there can be any doubt in any individual's mind who is aware of the record that members oppo site don't want the Speaker to have an assistant.

At the same time, I don't think there should be any doubt in anyone's mind that the members of the government believe that the role we play as elected officials and the duties and services we perform for our constituents is an important role, and that when we ask one of us to take on a respo nsibility that takes some of their flexibility away from them to be able to acco mplish that role, we believe that in order to serve those constituents - nothing more, nothing less - but to give them a similar level of service, it is important to provide support services like this.

So, when you make that motion, don't think for one moment you're getting at the Speaker or the Speaker's Office or the government, because what you are doing is you are getting at the members of a constituen cy, that elected representative here that has been asked by all of us to perform a duty that the others don't have to perform. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Min ister explain the reason for the inc rease in expenditures here of some $80,000 over last year? HON. J. COWAN: There are incr eases here required for salary incr eases and for Other Expenditures.

The salary incr eases - there is $24,300 for the interns, which by the Way is a new program; which by the way helps us serve our constituents better.- (lnterjection) Well, now we know that it is not the newness of the program, it is not the fact that there is change that - (Interjection) - yhe Member for Brandon West suggests that we shouldn't put words in their mouths. I don't think there's any necessity in this debate to put words in the mouths of members opposite; they've said it all very well and they're on the record. I think they're wrong.

I think they'll be proven wrong, but that is a matter for time to tell. The fact is that $24,000 is for an increase for the in tern sys tem, which helps us better serve our constituents through our work in here, as well as better perform our work as legislators, as caucus members. There's an amount in there which is for the MGE A cont ract agr eement costs, incr eases, and an incremental allowance provision, because individual staff get incremental incr eases on an ongoing basis until they reach the maximum of a certain classification .

Those amount s are $26,900 for the MGE A contract agreement costs and $1 ,500 for the incr emental allowance provisions for a total in Salaries area, which is 01- 4C of $52,700.00.

There is an additional amount in Other Expenditures, an increase of $77,500 in total, made up of $30,000 increase in each caucus office for $1 5,000 for telephone costs, $29,600 for additional allowance for purchase of more word proces sing equi pment, $10, 000 for the travel provision for the Clerk's Office to the United Kingd om for the conference that's taking place in the near future, the Commo nwealth Parliament ary Association Conference.

There is a $10,000 allowance for the Speaker's Office to host the 198 6-87 Presiding Officers Conference; there's an $11, 000 increase which is comprised of different items for statutes and the Speaker's apparel, and there's a minus 13,000 which 3724

Tuesday, 9 September, 1986 is a removal of a non-recurring word processing cost from the'85-86 budget, for a total net increase of $77,500. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, on this line, Other Expenditures.

It just strikes me funny that this problem in the Speaker's Office with the lack of assistance, lack of an executive assistant has been such a long-standing problem and if it's been needed for so long, and if it's government policy, that that position should be there and Speakers have been hard done by I take it for many, many years, why is it the government didn't see fit to includ e that in the Estim ates for this year? HON. J. COWAN: There are times that are more opportune for change than other times, but for those who resist change at any time I know that's a quaint notion.

But the fact is that we are a new term, there is a new Speaker, and that in every logical way provid es an opportunit y for that sort of change to take place, nothing untoward about it at all. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't see when these Estim ates were being prepared, that should have been known. These Estimat es have been und er preparation, as he well knows from his tenure in government, for quite some time. I would suggest that they were probably finalized previous to the House beginning its sitting, and the Speaker being appoint ed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr.

Chairman, two things. One, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I do not oppose the Speaker having an executive assistant. A MEMBER: How about the consultation; do you think there should be consultation with the other parties? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Yes, I believe there should be consultation, however, I think that ind eed there needs to be a special assistant for the Speaker. But I would like a clarification. As you were reading off figur es I thought you said there was $24,000 for the interns; now that is in addition or is that all the interns are paid? HON. J.

COWAN: The first year this intern program ran, it ran for only seven months because of the timing of the program. The second year it ran for 10 months, and the difference between the 7 months and the 10 months is a difference of $24,300 with some holid ay pay, I believe, in there, 4 percent vacation pay as well. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader attempted to tie in the political lnternship Program as a similar program, which tends to give members of the Assembly greater ability to serve their constituents, tie that in with the appointment of an executive assistant to the Speaker.

In respect to that matter, we're all aware, Mr. Chairman, that there was absolut ely no consult ation with mem bers of the Opposition on the appointment of an executive assistant for the Speaker, unlike virtually every other expenditure that takes place und er this whole item dealing with the Legislative Assembly. 3725 Mr. Chairman, we would therefore, as an indication of our concern over that issue, perhaps even more the lack of consultation in development of a consensus on an item like that.

In the appointment of an executive assistant for the Speaker, which is totally unprecedented in this Legislature, and Speakers I can cite - the previous Speaker didn't require it; the Speaker prior to that, Mr. Graham, served a rural constituency hundreds of miles from this Legisl atur e, Mr . Chairman, without an executive assistant. This item was obviously not contemplated, it's not in the Estimates. We all are aware, too, Mr.

Chairman, that this government dealt with the Es timates for a number of weeks and months after the election before they called this Session, because there are items elsewhere in the Legislature that reflect the decisions and the deliberations that were taken by this government after the election. The government cannot use the excuse that these Estimates were prepared prior to the election and that's why this item is not in. This expenditure and approval of the appointment of an executive assistant for the Speaker was something that occurred subsequent to the election, Mr.

Chairman, something that was part of an arrangement deal with the Speaker. I won 't say, Mr. Chairman, whether the numbers in the House reflect it in part the arrangement that was made with the Speaker, but it was in an unprecedented way made without consultation with members of the Opposition. I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that this item be reduced by the sum of $30,000 being the necessary funds required to appoint the executive assistant to the Speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have the motion in writing please. The motion before the commi ttee is: It is moved by the Opposition House Leader that Item 4.(

d) be reduced by the sum of $30,000 being funds necessary to employ an executive assistant in the Speaker's Office - the Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: So that the record is clear, these Estimat es that we have before us were Estimates that were consid ered and app roved by the pr evious Leg isla tive Ass embly Ma nagement Commis sion, previous to the election, and members opposite should well know that, so let them not say that these Estimates were developed after the election.

They were approved and developed by the previous LAMC -(lnterjection) Well, the Leader of the Opposition, wrong again, from his seat says that if we were contemplating adding this, we could have added it in. The fact is there was no LAMC after the election until the time that the Speaker was appointed to the position. This matter was brought to the LAMC on the first occasion possible at the first opportunit y, and it was discussed and debated at that time. But even further to that . . . SOME HONOUR ABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J.

COWAN: . . . but even further to that the Estimates, as the Leader of the Opposition should know and members who were members of Treasury Bench previously should know, are sent to print long before

Tuesday, 9 Septem ber, 1986 they come lhto this House, long before the Speaker was appoint ed. It takes appr oxim ately a month - (Interjection)- Well, perhaps even longer, but at least a month, to err on the Cons ervative side, if to err at all - and that's where most of the errors are made - but it takes at least a month. So, in fact, there was not an opp ortun ity to inc orpora te these into the Estimat es that you have before us. That does not in any way take away from the motion that was made.

I believe that the motion that was made very clearly indicates a number of things: 1) a resistance to change on the part of the Con servatives which is historical; secondly , I believe it reflects upon their many reflections upon the Speaker. That has got to stop. MR. G. FILMON: Is he imputing motives? HON. J. COWAN: I am not imputing motives at all. The record is very cle ar.

If you listen to your comments on CJOB, if you listen to your comments in the House, if you listen to the Member for Pembina's comments from his seat all of the time regarding the Speaker, you will know full well - and the record is very clear - what you think of the Speaker, and this is another way for you to get at the Speaker and we will not let that sort of an attack on that institution in this House go unchal lenged. MR. D. ORCHARD: Every step of the way he is covering Mackling and every other . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorne y-General. HON. R. PENNER: Let the record show, Mr.

Chairman, that the Member for Pembina from his seat said that the Speaker was covering Mackling every step of the way. I want that on the record, and I want to assure the Member for Pembina it will be raised in this House tomor row. I want to assure you. Now, Mr. Chairman, to the motion. You know, there's a time when there must be a sense of decency brought to bear. The sheer hypocrisy of the comments of the members of the Opposition - just listen for a moment. First, they said that they're opposed to the idea.

Okay well, we could have had a decent discussion on that, on the role of the Speaker, but what happened, of course, was that our House Leader made a reasoned but impassioned plea for service to the members of 'the constit uency, which they could not rebut, so then they distended one step down the sinkhole. They then said that there was a lack of consultation. Now, they've changed their ground. It's no longer the principle, but it's the lack of consultations. Now, you can't have it both ways. If you'r e opp osed to the idea now, you were opposed to the idea before, what would consultation have changed? Nothing.

Then, you went one step further , and that was the worst of all, and that I hope will show on the record when the Member for St. Norbert in his remarks reflected on the Speaker by saying that he - these weren't his exact words - but he said, look at the numbers, was there a political deal? That was so shameful that it could only have been worsened by the Member for Pembina, as most things are. It's time I say that there should be a sense of decency.

You don't like the idea, then debate the idea, but when our Government House Leader got up and showed you in jurisdiction after jurisdiction that there is legitimate precedent for this, you had no rebuttal, so you stooped - as you always do - to innuendo; you stooped - as you always do - to character assassination; you stooped - as you always do - to the lowest of the low, and that again accou nts once more for the reason why you'r e in the Opposition; you will be in the Opposition four years from now; you will be in the Opposition eight years from now, unless you get your act in order.

Maybe people like the Member for Fort Gar ry, the Member for Morris - even in his better moments the Member for St. Norbert will finally turn around and say to their Leader of the Opposition, look, stop being influenced by the Member for Pembina; stand up, be a man, give a sense of decency to your leadership role. You know, a lot of us have been observing what has been going on, and I want to tell you the last 10 minutes is just about the worst.

The Office of the Speaker in a parliamentary system is so important that even if you may have reservations about the Speaker, even if from time to time you may doubt the wisdom of a particular decision - and on balance if you'll look we've been the loser as much as you've been the loser on decisions - even then you're talking about the Office of the Speaker, and you have no right - particularly in her absence - to reflect, as the Member for St. Norbert did, as the Member for Pembina did, on the Office of the Speaker. That is the lowest of the low. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Opposition House Leader. MR. G.

MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me say, through you, Sir, to the Honourable Attorney-General, I in no way intended to reflect upon the Speaker. My comments intended, Mr. Chairman, to reflect upon the government. That's what they do, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a point of order being raised. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I can't hear the Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, the in tention of my rem arks are to reflect upon the government, not upon the Speaker. Mr.

Chairman, we have a government here that made a unilateral decision with respect to an office of the Legislature, and those kinds of decisions have always been developed by cons ensus, by discussi on, by consulation between all members of the House. This was not done in any way, shape or form by the government. It was announced, Mr. Chairman, by the Premier in the appointment of the Speaker without any consultation or discussion with memb ers of the Opposition. The Attorney-General is right.

If we had been consulted, if the idea had been proposed to us, we would have been very reluctant to approve it, because 3726

Tuesday, 9 September , 1986 we have an expenditure of $30,000; perhaps $30,000 in terms of the whole budget of this government is not that much, but it's an in dication of where this government 's pr iorities are. They're prepared to spend every nickel they feel is necessary to so -ailed serve the constituents of Wolseley in this case - one of the seats they hold - rather than deal with the real prior ities of the people. The Minister of Finance will talk about fiscal integrity and concern over the deficit, but when it comes down to it, Mr.

Chairman, this government will spend every cent they feel on pol itical matters; matters that affect them in holding their constituencies. Mr. Chairman, for that reason, for many reasons, we oppose the expenditure in this instance. It has not been required in the last century of this Legislature. There are Speakers who have served that office, who have represented rural constituenci es and, if anything, there's more justification for a rural member to have an executive assistant than there is for an urban member who' s a block away from her cons tituenc y, Mr . Chairman, and we oppose this.

We hope that this motion will succeed, because we feel that it's been done without consultation, it's not necessary in any event, and it hasn't been necessary for over 10 0 years. Thi s government doesn't have the money and the taxpayers of this province don 't have the money to continue to support the spending of taxpayers' money for political purpo ses. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm astonished by the Member for St.

Nor bert's new found interest and concern about the deficit and he's focusing in on the position of executive assistant, of someone to serve the constituents of the Speaker of this House. Where was his concern when he was dealing with additional staff for his own caucus office? Where was his concern when he was dealing with additional remune ration for MLA's in this area? He didn't have that same kind of concern.

But when we're dealing with the Speaker of this House and her ability to serve her constituents, suddenly he's focusing in and he's concerned about deficits, but he wasn't concerned when it affected himself or his own caucus office, you know, no concern at all, but when it's dealing with the Speaker. We've gone through it and we've gone through other Sp eakers in this coun try and other pr ovincial jurisdictions that have the same kind.

In fact, the Government House Leader went through and showed where there's additional staff far beyond what exists here in the Province of Manitoba, where there's staff in the Speaker's Office and the constituency office. But there was no rebuttal to that, saying that's not right, that's not needed in those provinces. If that's the case in those provinces, why isn't it legitimate here? MADAM SPEAKER: The Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: This new-found concern, as the Mini ster of Finance sugg ested, goes beyond the examples that he gave.

I think it should be known, because the question wasn't asked when we were talking about the Leader of the Op position's expend itures, but there's a new expenditure und er the Leader of the Opp osition's line as well, a $25,500 increase in word processing equipment and office furniture for the Leader's office. I think that is money well spent, because I think it provides him with better service. the ability to better service the broader con stituency he has to serve. As Leader of the Op position, he has to do things that the rest of us don't have to do.

He has responsibil ities that go beyond that of an MLA, and his constituenc y, while maybe not a walk away, is not that far away. So if you want to suggest that the proxim ity of a member's constituency to the Legislature is a criteria that should be used to determine whether or not they are provi ded with extra service, whether it be through staff or the acqui sition of word processing equipment, then I think you're using the wrong criteria.

The criteria is the role that individual has been asked to play, either by the Premier as a member of the Cabinet, by his party as the Leader of the Op position, or by this Assembly, as the Speaker. Does that role, in fact, require us to provide assistance to the individual that is above and beyond what other individuals get, notwithstanding where their geographical constituency may be?

So, for the Leader of the Opposi tion to stand up and couch his talk, his speech, in terms of an extra $30,000 and the impact on the deficit, I think, does not in any way reflect the situation we have with his own leader, who is having a $25,500 increase in his appropr iation so that he can provide better service. What they are mad about is the fact that the Speaker has an assistant. They do not believe the Speaker should have an assistant, and that appears to be a philosophical position that they, as a caucus, are taking. Let them have that philosophical position.

We have a philosoph ical position in respect to where we believe we should be providing extra service. We happen to think ours is right. They happen to think theirs is right and ours is wrong.

They have moved a motion and we have spoken to the motion, but let them not suggest and bring in the deficit, in the way in which the Op position House Leader did, to suggest that because we have provided for this position, we have done something that we wouldn't do for other members of the House, including the Member for River Heights in her role, who has additional staff that independent members didn't have previously because there's a role that they are asked to play. In this particular instance and probably this instance only, it was suggested that role required additional staff, and we agreed to that.

So, if we can agree to it in respect to the Member for River Heights and if we can agree to it in respect to the Leader of the Opposition's Office and we can't agree with it in respect to the Speaker, that shows to me an attitude, clearly demonstrates to the public an attitude on the part of the Oppo sition in respect to the role the Speaker plays in this House. I think they're wrong, and that is why their motion will be defeated, because the government thinks they're wrong.

But, please, don't let them try to muddy the waters by suggesting that this is an inordinat e amount of money to provide for additional services when we are providing almost exactly the same amount to the Leader of the Opp osition so he can provide better service. 3727

Tuesday, 9 September , 1986 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I'm interested to find that the Government House Leader is bringing the analogy that, because $24,000 worth of word processing equipm ent is being installed in my office, that somehow makes everything equal, and that ind eed my role is equivalent to that of the Speaker, whereby she has all these resp onsibilities that ought to be performed that aren't being performed without an executive assistant.

I just remind the Government House Leader, because he said earlier that we as Cons ervatives are simply doing this because we're opposed to change. I remind him that when we were in government, we gave the then Leader of the Opposition, his leader, his Prem ier, an executive assistant, the fir st time that had ever been done. So, it wasn't a question, Mr. Chairman, that we're opposed to change. It was a question of justification. We saw that as a necessary role. I remind him that, for the last couple of years, his Premier has been saying sarcastically to me across the House that I need more research staff.

Now, he hasn't said that in the past Session. I think that the research that's been done by our one researcher working on behalf of all of our caucus with respect to the MTX issue, I think, has closed his mouth on that particular criticism very, very well. I think that particular research that's been done by the collective members of caucus and one researcher has dug up things that four previous Ministers responsible for the Telephone System, that this Prem ier, that an entire Cabinet were not able to uncover or unearth, were not able at all to look into whatsoever.

Despite the fact that they have staff coming out of their ears and coming out of the walls of their offices, they haven 't been able to unc over any information whatsoever with respect to the operations of MTX. He has been saying that for two years, but has not necessa rily been willing to provide any additional staff for research to the Leader of the Opposition's office. So let him not show himself to be so generous as to have provided for us equipment, the word processing equipment, and that now is equivalent to the decision that's been made on behalf of the Speaker.

Very clearly , the Government House Leader put on the record that he saw it as a matter of justification. If indeed it could be justified that the Speaker needed this support staff, indeed that was the justification for it and they were satisfied of it.

We are not satisfied that there has been any proper justification for a Speaker getting a political assistant to, in fact, do political work, because at the time that this assistant was appoint ed, it was said in the media that this was to look after the political affairs of her constituency so that she could remain neutral and non-partisan in her role, but she needed a political assistant. That's what was said at that time.

I suggest to you, that is the matter we do not believe has ever been justified, nor has it been justified by all of the fine-sounding words that have been put forward by the Government House Leader today or any of the spurious allegations that have been made by other members on his side as they entered into the political side of the debate.

We do not believe that there has been justification shown for the need because, to begin with, there used to be only a part-time secretary in the Speaker's Office, there is now a full-time secretary; and in addition to that there is an executive assistant to do political work and constituency work on behalf of the Speaker. That is the principal part of the issue.

That is the crux of the concern that we have raised, and he is totally glossing that over and suggesting that, in fact, it's very similar to word processing equipment having been installed in the Leader of the Opposition's Office; and I suggest to him that the comparison is not at all valid, and the comparison doesn't make sense whatsoever.

For him to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition's Office, that is to serve 57 constituencies, is able to get the equipment and that's similar to the Speaker's Office that has to have an E.A. to serve one constitu ency, I don't see any comparison whatsoever and I think he does a disservice to this House by putting forward that argument. HON. H. PAWLEY: I wondered when the Opposition would succeed again in getting on to their single-focus issue, their single-interest issue and, of course, it's just been revealed to us in the last two or three minutes.

Behind every issue lies MTX, and we heard that from the Leader of the Opposition. The issue is not really the issue of the executive assistant to the Speaker; it's again MTX. Mr. Chairman, I have certa inly over a period of years SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: I take it there is interference with the proceedings of the comm ittee. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: . . . realiz ed the incr easing importance with MLA's being able to perform their functions within their constituencies.

Also, that those who hold particular offices in addition to those of MLA's are able to serve their constituents, so that we do not have an MLA simply because they assume additional responsibility, whether it is the Leader of the Opposition, whether it is a Minister of the Crown, whether it is the Speaker, result in the jeopardizing of the work that they must do in serving his or her constituents. I know that, in fact, previous Speakers from time to time have felt that their constituents were not as weli served, there being the Speaker, as they would have been if they had held other office.

And insofar as the present Sp eaker , Mr . Chairman, the service of constituents is extremely important. the representation on behalf of constituents is extremely important; the presentation to members of Cabinet, just as it is necessary on the part of members of the Opposition in respect to particular concerns that lie within that constitue ncy, very important.

Therefore, to suggest that for some reason or other, probably not written as clearly as it ought to be here by honourable members across the way, that the constituents in the constituency of Wolseley should be punished because for 10 0 years we have failed to do that which we ought to have done in this Chamber, and that is provide an executive assistant to the constituency of the Speaker, isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman. 3728

Tuesday, 9 September, 1986 Just as I commend the former Lyon administration as providing additional services to the Leader of the Opposition by way of an executive assistant, just as this government incr eased the size of the office of the Leader of the Opposition, provided a secretary to the executive assistant to the Leader of the Opposition in order to ensure the Leader of the Opposition better carry out his responsibilities, in the same way, Mr. Chairman, it's important that we not denig rate the opportunit y of the Speaker in order to properly serve the constituent s of the Sp eak er.

I believe that is extremely important. It's a principle that we are dealing with here, not a partisan question as such, but a matter of serving the constituents' caseload, dealing with the issues that arise within the constituen cy, making representations insofar as go vern ment is conc erne d on behalf of the constituents. The responsibilities of the Speaker have increased in between Sessions substantially in the last number of years, the Legislative Assembly Management Comm ittee and other services that are provided insofar as constituency service is concerned. So, Mr .

Chairman, I believe there is comple te justification for ensuring that the Speaker of the House enjoy the services of an executive assistant so that Speaker's constituents can be properly served. INTRODUCTION OF GUEST MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Member for Arthur , I'd like to announce the presence in the Chamber of the former Member for Virden, who himself was a Speaker of the House. The Member for Arthur. SUPPLY - LEGIS LATION Cont'd MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one brief comment.

As the Premier used as an example of not giving the Speaker of the Chamber an executive assistant would be punishment to the constituents of Wolseley, Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate the Premier did not have the same feeling towards the constituents of St. Vital under his former Speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairp erson. It's not my intent to comment extensively on this matter, but I would like to reflect on one theme, I think, which mem bers should pull out of some of the unfortunate aspects of this debate of the last half-hour.

That is of the particularly difficult role of the Speaker, both in this House and in other Houses across this count ry. I've only been here a short five years but in that time I've seen the present Speaker and the previous Speaker go through some difficult times. In fact, I thought it was particularly appropriate that a former Speaker was sitting through these proce edings, because I know he faced some difficulties, some particular pressures. I look now, Mr .

Ch airp erson, at the Ho use of Commons in Ottawa where the Speaker of the House of Commons has just resigned amid some of the gr eatest pressure on a Speaker that has ever been 3729 seen in parliamentary history. I reflect, Mr. Chairperson, on the dual pressures that are facing the Speaker, pressures which face some MLA's, in fact most MLA's to some extent, but particularly pressure on the Speaker; and that is the pressure of the increasing demands on politicians, particularly members of the Legislature or members of Parliament, for constituency casework.

I have certainly rec ogn ized that in my own consti tuency, and I'm sure many other members have recognized that as well; and to that, we have seen in the past few years increasing respo nsibilities for the Speaker. In this House, those incr easing responsibilities have already been recog nized, not just in terms of the current parameters of the debate, but in terms of the responsibilities of the Speaker, the particular allocations given to the Speaker's Office. In fact, there's been a general recog nition, even in terms of the salary given to the Speaker.

At the present time, the salary is equivalent to that given to a Minister without portfolio. So what I see is the Speaker placed in a particularly difficult position. What I see is this debate contributin g to that difficult y. You know, I've sat here and heard some pretty horrend ous insinua tions against the Speaker's Office in general and the cu rrent Speaker in par ticu lar, and I'm conc erned about that. I'm particularly concerned that members opposite are not recog nizing the increasing pressure on the Speaker.

It's getting to the point where it's going to become increasingly difficult for members to accede to what surely should be one of the highest honours of this House, the Speaker's Office. I think some of the requir ements for having potential Speakers accepting the responsibilities of that office are the recog nition of the role they face, the adminis trative role which I think requires that they be given the proper resources in their office, but also their political role as members of a constituency to serve the needs of their constituents.

I, qu ite frank ly, am very concerned about this debate of the last half-hour. I think it's totally unnecessary. The concern was expr essed in the Legislative Assembly Management Commission. I was at the meeting. The mem bers who were concerned about that matter exp ressed it rather clearly .

I think that was the appr opri ate place to make that concern known, but I don't think in this arena - in the legislative arena - we should be involving ours elves in - as was the case of one member of this House - a dir ect attack on the Speaker or even an ind irect attack, not just in terms of the present Speaker but the Office of the Speaker. I qu ite frank ly, Mr.

Chairperson, consider this debate of the last half-hour one of the low points of this Session, because I think it shows just how much out of touch and inappropriate this House can be at times when we spend half-an-hour debating what I consider to be a self-evident need of the Speaker for assistance in dealing with constituency matters. Instead of debating real matters of public concern, we sit here and we cover the spectrum from concerns about the specific issue to personal attacks on the Speaker. This, Mr.

Chairperson, has got to be one of the low points, although there are certainly a number of other unfortuna te incident s which can compete with it in that sense, and I, quite frankly, think we should get rid of this frivolous and vexatious resolution that is before this House and get on to some matters that are of

Tuesday, 9 Septem ber, 1986 serious concern to this province and matters which do not have the same lack of coherent concern that the members have exp ressed on this matter throughout this debate. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I find it ... , Mr. Chairman, on the exercise that we're going through here tod ay. First of all, the members opposite including the Premier have just run out of the Chambers here to phone the Member for St. Vital so that he'll come and vote. HON. J. COWAN: On a point of order . On a point of order . Impr oper . MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order being raised. HON. J.

COWAN: Firstly, it is not appropria te, and the Member for Emerson knows it, not parliamentary to refer to the presence or the absence of any member in the House. Secondly , I can assure him that his supposition as to what the Premier is doing or not doing is inaccurate. In fact, we on this side are confident that the issue that's before us is such that we will enjoy the confidence of the House, even if they don't always show confidence in the Speaker. MR. CH AIRMAN: Every memb er kn ows tha t the reference to presence or absence of a member is inappr opriate under Citation 316 ( c ). MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Chairman, there's a certain major concern on the other side of the House, on the government side of the House, of the comment I made, you know, I want to apologize to some degree. It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is my personal opinion tha t the Pr emier and the leader of the government is trying to make some kind of a negotiation with the previous Speaker, who felt aggrieved already when he was Speaker of the House. I doubt whether the Member for St. Vital wants to come back and vote on this issue, because he was the one who already got a major incr ease over previous Speakers.

There's been major cha nge s financially to the Speakers of the House since this government took office in 1981. They did that, Mr. Chairman, because you know the incr ease that was allotted to the Speaker of the House in the last Session, because that was not his desire to be the Speaker but they just sort of coaxed him into it financiall y, I supp ose - I do - and , Mr. Chairman, tongue in cheek, everybody sort of accepted that. That is one of the big gest concerns that the Government of the Day has right now. The Premier's here right now, and I suppose he's had discussion with the Member for St.

Vital, and then we'll fix you up somewhere along the line. We just want to look after you to some degree, because that is why the scuttling and the concern is taking place since the motion was put. The Premier is smiling. Ob viously, he must have had a positive conversation with the Member for St. Vital. But, Mr. Chairman, when we consider just a few moments ago, you introduced the previous Speaker from 19 77-8 1, the Mem ber for Virden at that time ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You just introd uced the Member for Virden, who was Speaker from 19 77-8 1, who served in that capacity and he lived a long way from this building. He did his job to the best of his ability. When there was a change of government in 19 81, we had the rules and he wanted to be Speaker, so they had to make it more appealing to the individual, who was disappointed - and we know, it's common knowledge - Mr. Chairman, it's been in the pape rs. Ther e's been specu lation about the performance of the Member for St.

Vital because, from the time that he was Speaker in the last term and this time where he got virtually nothing, there's been dissatisfac tion. That's why the Premier had to rush out of here and make some kind of conference with the Member for St. Vital -(Interjection)- that's my opinion, yes, and that's the opinion of many people because everybody feels that the Member for St. Vital is loosey goosey, so there's got to be some push. The Premier has to rush out of here and make contact with him to say, hey, we'll look after you. That is the part, Mr.

Chairman, that bothers me, because the Office of the Speaker has lost some credibility from '81 till the last election, and it's lost more credibility because you have to enrich the office of the Speaker's Office. Simply, nobody on that side is qualified or wants that position. That is what we're faced with, Mr. Chairman, and I feel that these are the problems that this government is facing. They've had great difficulties with everything they've done. They've had to use patronage. You know, patronage has been the name of the game for a long time. It's also been illustrated in the Speaker's Office. Mr.

Chairman, that is the problem that the Government of the Day has, and that's the problem that the Premier has. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is being put that Item 4.(

d) be reduced by the sum of $30,000, being funds necessary to employ an executive assistant in the Speaker's Office. As many as are in favour of the motion, say aye. As many as are opposed to the motion, say nay. The nays have it. MOTION presented and defeated MR. G. MERCIER: I request a formal vote. MR. CHAIRMAN: A formal vote is being requested. Call in the members. The question before this committee is as follows: that Item 4.(

d) be reduced by the sum of $30,000, being the funds necessary to employ an executive assistant in the Speaker's Office. All those in favour of the motion, please rise. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 25; Nays, 28. 3730

Tuesday, 9 Septem ber, 1986 MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion lost. Item No. 4.(

d) Other Expenditures- pass. Item No. 4.(e)( 1) Hansard: Salaries-p ass; 4.(e)

(2) Hansard: Other Expenditures-pass. Item 4.(

f) Legislative Printing and Binding - the Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just simply like to know why (

f) has gone up by 32 percent. HON. J. COWAN: There's a $25,000 incr ease due to the printing requirements for both official languages. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(f)- pass. 5.(

a) Provincial Auditor's Office: Salaries- pass; 5.(

b) Other Expenditures- pass. Resolution No. 1: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 ,646,000 for Legislation, Other Assembly Expenditures, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 19 87- pass. Resolution No. 2: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,386,900 for Legislation, Provincial Auditor's Office, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 87- pass. Item No. 6.(

a) Ombudsman: Salaries - the Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been a considerable increase in the Ombudsman's Office which I think is dir ectly related to the load the Ombudsman's Office is carr ying . The incr ease in the number of salaries, how many add itional staff years has that provided to the Ombudsman? HON. J. COWAN: There's an increase of $1 05,600 in total, which provides for three additional staff years, and the MGE A co ntr act agreement incr eases, a reclassification cost and the merit allowance provisions.

In Other Expenditures, there's an incr ease of $10,000, which reflects increased travel and activity by the Ombudsman's Office. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Will the additional three staff years be able to clear up the backlog that has been hounding the Omb udsman's Office simply because there's been insufficient staff in the past? HON. J.

COWAN: The backlog in the case work, I und erstand, is being cleared up and probably should be totally cleared up over a period of time with the additional staff -(Interjection)- well, the Member for Arthur suggests perhaps I was trying to clarify that too much, and perhaps I was trying to clarify too much. What I'm attempting to say is that a not inordin ate amount of time will be spent in clearing up that backlog. We believe or I'm informed the office believes that it's under control basically and it's a matter now of time rather than it slipping further backward.

So the three staff have appeared to perform the function for which they were intended. In regard to support service, I understand there is still some difficulty in that area, but the cases themselves are being dealt with. 3731 MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Can the Government House Leader ind icate if the government is in fact looking at the reco mmendation which would depoliticize members of the Civil Service staff of the Ombudsman's Office, and will legislation of that nature be introduc ed in the near future? HON. J. COWAN: I think the suggestions which have been put forward are ones that should be discussed.

Beyond that, there is no commitment for any specific action at this time, but that does not in fact preclude any specific action. That would have to be determined on the basis of those discussions. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go on the record as sayi ng that I believe tha t the rec ommendations of the Om budsman in this area happen to be absolutely correct and that if we are going to leave the Ombudsman and his office in a position where they can provide the necessary service to citizens of Manitoba, they must be in fact totally free of political obligations. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(b)- pass.

Resolution No. 3: Resolved that there be gr anted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $43 1, 800 for Legislation, Ombudsman, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 87-p ass. Item No. 7.(

a) Elections Manitoba: Salaries - the Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we could perhaps ju st deal with all of the expenditur es here, I wonder if the Government House Leader could ind icate the expenditur es incurred in running the last election and the amount either paid or to be paid out to political parties under The Elections Financing Act for expenses incu rred in the election. HON. J. COWAN: Well, the figur es are not final ized as of yet. The election cost itself, without the rebates, I understand is - and this probably is a fairly final figure - $2.3 14 8 million.

The rebates, and they are not final yet, would be in the area of under $2 million. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Min ister ind icate how that $2 million would be broken down, approximately how much to each political party? HON. J. COWAN: I understand that 161 candi dates qu alified, 3 politi cal pa rties qualif ied . The exact breakdown as requested by political party by the Opposition House Leader is not available at this time.

Again, the figu res aren 't entirely final, although I understand that they should be available between now and the start of the next Session, and that material can be forwarded then dir ectly by the electoral office and, of course, it will be included in the annual report when that annual report becomes available to the Assembly after the beginning of the next Session. MR. G. MERCIE R: Could the Gov ernme nt House Leader ind icate when those figures will be finalized and when those amounts will be paid out to the candi dates and parties?

Tuesday, 9 September , 1986 HON. J. COWAN: So that the record is clear , there were 21 9 candida tes in total, 161 qualified. Of the 161, approximately 121, I'm told, have been finalized of the candida tes' expenses, and they will be sent out in the mail within the next couple of weeks. The others, additional information is required of one sort or another, and they will be sent out in the mail at a later date, but as of present, 121 have been finalized. The rebates to the political parties themselves should be completed and finalized within a month or so and will be sent out accord ingly afterwards. MR. G.

MERCIER: Mr . Chairman, I believe the Go vernment Ho use Leader indi cated that this information would all be included in the Annual Report of the Chief Election Officer, which we would not receive until some time, I would expect, in mid- 19 87. I wonder if I could ask, perhaps through him the Chief Election Officer, if it would be possible to provide to all members of the Assembly, perhaps even to all candi dates who ran in the last election, a

summary of the amounts paid out to the political parties and candida tes when those matter have been finalized, which would be some time before the end of this calendar year. HON. J. COWAN: I thought I'd ind icate that we could send the information dir ectly to the Opposition House Leader, but his suggestion of extending that mailing list is a good one. I'm informed by the Electoral Office that can be acco mmodated. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I'm wondering if the Chief Elect ion Officer can ind icate, through the Government House Leader, if in his annual report they will be considering making re commendations to changes in The Election Financ es Act, because I think it's fair to say that candida tes for all political parties, I'm sure, had a gr eat deal of difficulty in dealing with the act and its in terp ret ation and the ardu ous requirements.

I'm not suggesting that the reporting requir ements be lessened in any serious way, but perhaps will he be recom mending improvements to expedite and impr ove the whole process and the number of reports, etc.? HON. J. COWAN: It's my unde rstanding that the Chief Electoral Officer will be reviewing that which we have learned through the past election, and will be dialoguing in a consultative matter with the Advisory Comm ittee, which is made up of representatives of all the registered political parties.

I understand that discussion will take into consideration what ideas and suggestions he brings forward, as well as ideas and suggestions that are brought forward by the particular parties to that commi ttee meeting. Then that will be incorpora ted into the report that will follow. MR. G. MERCIER: One last question, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chief Election Officer can ind icate through the Government House Leader whether any prosecutions under The Elections Finances Act are being considered as a result of non-compliance with the provisions of that act. HON. J.

COWAN: It's my und erstand ing that there are returns that are still being reviewed where there is outstanding information or clarification that is required, but there are no prosecutions at this particular time contemplated. However, if in the review of those returns, it is determined that there are improprieties, then appropria te action would have to be taken, but at this particular time there is not information that would require a prose cution. MR. G. MERCIER: Wou ld the Chief Elections Officer recommend winter elections in the future? MR. CH AIRMAN: 7.(a)- pass; 7.(

b) Other Expenditur es- pass. Resolution No. 4: Resolved that there be grant ed to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $3,554,400 for Legislation, Election Manitoba, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 87- pass. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader is indicating they require the Minister of Agricultur e to deal with Emergency Interest Rate Relief. I think we would require one of the critics in the Agriculture Committee to deal with Flood Control and Emergency Expenditures, so perhaps we could move to Executive Council. HON. J. COWAN: That's agreeable.

They need a critic from the other committee. SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: We are proceed ing to consider the Estimates for the Executive Council. 1. (

a) General Admini stration, Premier and President of the Council's Salary - the Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the area to make some opening remarks. Insofar as the Estimates are concerned, they basically stand pat with the exception of the Native Affairs Secretariat, which we'll be dealing with during the process of the Estima tes. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to present the Estimates for the Executive Council.

Members are certainly familiar insofar as the program tha t has been pr esented during this Legisl ativ e Assembly through the Throne Speech, through the Budget and through various pieces of legislation during the Session, first and foremost, of course, The Farm Lands Protection Act which is being dealt with this morning in committee and this evening in committee, legislation tha t I believe will be funda mental and important to the agricultural producers of the province; The Trade Practices Inqu iry Act, which deals with ensuring that consumers are given a fair opportunity for protection insofar as price gouging; the legislation that has been presented by the Attorney-General dealing with the victims of crime and compensation thereto; the further prog ress in respect to pay equity in order to ensure that there is fairness insofar as equality is concerned between women and men within the public service and the progr ess that has been made in respect to that; the 55-Plus Program, which I think certainly gives Manitobans a sense of a government giving further security insofar as the seniors of Manitoba are concerned. 3732

Tuesday, 9 September, 1986 As well, of course, Mr.

Chairman, we're not only dealing with the legislation, the program within the Province of Manitoba, but the responsibility insofar as interpr ovi ncial, in tergove rnm ental services and positions are concerned; and the position that has been worked out with the cooperation of Governor Perpich and Governor Sinner vis-a-vis the attempt to locate hazardous waste sites near the Red River; the position in respect to deficiency payments that has been taken strongly at Western Premiers' Conference and the Premiers' Conference in Edmonton a few weeks ago in sup port of ensuring that just as the Federal Government appears to have been able to obtain additional monies insofar as assist the oil ind ustry of the Province of Alberta, that same sort of recog nition be applied insofar as the farmers of Western Canada; positions that we have taken consistently in respect to the removal of regional economic disparities, whether those regional economic disparities be in Western Canada, whether they be in the Maritimes.

That has been a main focal point insofar as presentations that we have made at all the federal-prov incial meetings that we have participated in. The issue of Quebec and seeing if Quebec can be brought home within the Constitution has been an issue that certainly we have expressed, along with nine other Premiers, our support for talks and for discussions to see if we can find a way of bringing Quebec into the Constitution. We're certainly prepared to cooperate in that process. I'd be prepared to answer questions as we pro ceed in regard to that particular issue.

The free trade negotiations and our concern, quite candid ly, Mr.

Chairman, in respect to the timing of those di scussions at the present time in view of the atmosphere that has been built up in the Un ited States in the pre-Congressional election period, the potential negative impact of the continuation of those discussions during this particular period of time and the possi bility of different negative retaliatory actions that we have noticed that the United States has proposed, American politicans have proposed, but our preparedne ss at the same time to ensure that we have a trade representative and that we continue insofar as the meetings are concerned to ensure the protect ion of the interests of the Province of Manitoba.

I should mention to honourable members that we will be attending the meeting of the Prime Minister and 10 Premiers on September 17 for further discussions in respect to the negotiations under way between Mr. Eastman and Mr. Murphy. The need for proceed ing with national tax reform - two years ago, in February of 19 85, it was the Manitoba Government, Mr. Chairman, that first raised the issue of tax reform. At that conference, we had no support.

Th ere was no expr essed supp ort around that conference table, 11 First Ministers and the gradual addition of support by different First Ministers in respect to the crying need to proceed with national tax refo rm, compr ehensive tax reform in this countr y. I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that we were able, I believe, to lead the way by way of developing public sentiment in Canada until now we have announcements by the Finance Minister at the federal level that he too is intending to proceed by way of national tax reform .

What started out to be an issue where we were all alone appears now to be an issue in which we have a great deal of compa ny. 3733 These are the wide spectrum of areas of interest, I believe, to Manitobans: the Aboriginal Conference which is coming in March or April, issues pertaining to the development of self-government insofar as the Native communit ies. The evolution of the institutions of self-government will also be an area of importance during the next few months insofar as the development of a Manitoba position.

I am pleased again at the first aboriginal people's conference involving the aboriginal peoples, the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments, Manitoba stood practically alone. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are reaching a point - and the Minister responsible for Native Affairs will be discussing this further if questions are posed - it appears we are reach ing a point by which we are close to seven provinc es giving support to the proposals of aboriginal self-gover nment.

The opportunity to oversee, as a gove rnment, prog ress in respect to the last five years by way of capital investment, which has been the highest rate of increase of any province; private investment rate of incr ease amon gst the hig hest of any pr ovince; employment growth during the past year which has been amongst the best in Canada; housing starts numbering some 3,200 and some during the first half of this year, an increase of some 33 percent, the highest rate of increase by way of housing starts in a year since 19 78 under this administration; the development of the hydro-electric potential of the Province of Manitoba under the stewardship of the Minister of Energy and Mines; the successful commencement of Limestone.

The fact that Limestone is now coming in under bid with a large Ma nitob a content demons trates the competency and the efficiency of this government insofar as its proceed ing with Limestone when it pro ceeded with it, the returns that will be realized for the people of the Province of Manitoba because, Mr. Chairman, we did not fear, we did not hesitate to proceed with this challenge during the 19 80's for the benefit of all Manitobans.

The continued low unemployment rate in the Province of Manitoba, and I believe that the latest report in respect to unemployment ind icates that Manitoba's youth unemployment has shrunk more rapidly than any other province in Canada in that group, 18 to 25, which concerns all members of this Chamber. So, Mr.

Chairman, we have come into this Session with an agenda in respect to jobs; in regard to the improvement of health care services and social services; a program to strengthen the agricultural sector of this province; the improvement of the quality of life for all Manitobans; to constantly present a Manitoba position, the inte rests of Manitobans at federal-pr ovincial conferences in order to contribute to the better well being of Canada as a whole. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, I note from a review of last year's Hansard that the Premier at that time didn't feel it was necessary to make an opening statement on his Estimates. I note today the sense of desperation that leads him to have to try and put a good face on what has been an absolutely disastrous Session under his stewardship. Everywhere you look,

Tuesday, 9 September, 1986 there is a sense of a government in shambles, a government totally out of control, and a Premier who doesn't kno w what's happening. As things crumble around him, all he can do is try and point to some things that he perceives to be in some way positive about what's happening here in Manitoba. He begin s almo st laugh ably, Mr . Chairman, by speaking of, and I'll quo te, he said: "The Farm Lands Protection Act." I don't know what that is, because if he's talking about Bill 4, it's The Family Farm Protection Act.

Even that act has been so soundly crit icized in each of the sessions of the Agriculture Committee, both yesterday and tod ay, by speaker after speaker , by presenter after presenter , rep rese nting literally thousands of people in the farm commun ity, it has been totally repudiated, critic ized as being absolutely wrong headed and the wrong answer for the problems that farmers are facing tod ay. Yet, he has the audacity to cite tha t as the No. 1 accompli shment of this ad mini stration this Session -(I nterjection)- As the Member for St.

Norbert says, it could well be because, when you look at the dis asters that have befallen his administration, that act may well be the best thing that they've put forward, despite the fact that the people who ar e repr esenting the majo rity of the farm community have said that it's an absolute dis aster for them and they're very upset with it. Mr. Chairman, he cites such things as pay equity as being an acc omplishment of this Session. Mr. Chairman, I know that you know because you were here in the last Session, that was passed in the last Session of the Legislature.

The ongoing implementation is an admin istrative function of the comm ittees that have been set up to deal with that and to implement it. It has very little, if anything, to do with this Premier's actions, certainly in this Session. There is absolutely no way that he could be taking credit for that as being a major acc omplishment of this Session, because it has not been a matter that has come up here for debate in this Session of the Legislature. Mr. Chairman, he talks about Manitoba having taken a lead role in terms of tax reform countr y-wide.

He, most of all, has to hang his head in shame that, while he was preaching one thing about tax reform and about fairness in the tax system, two of his Ministers were knowingly investing in SRTC's which he and his Minister of Finance characterized as legalized theft, as bilking the system. Mr.

Chairman, I can't believe he would suggest that somehow he has been a leader and his government has been a leader in terms of tax reform when the Federal Government has been moving towards tax reform to implement a minimum tax system, to implement the removal of the SRTC's, to implement other measu res of tax reform , when even the Government of Saskatchewan proceeded to change its own form of taxation to try and amend and create, in their view, some new fairness in the system. They have moved towards it, and he has done nothing but talk.

While he's been talking, his own speech has been undermined by the very actions of two of his Min isters. Do as I say, but not as I do, has been the impression that he has created to the people of this coun try. In every way, shape and form, it's been, do as I say, but not as I do, the poorest example that he could give to the people of Manitoba or indeed anywhere in this country as to what fairness is and what reasonableness is in the tax system. He speaks, in terms of accomplishments, that he spoke out and took a position with respect to the nuclear waste di spo sal site in Min nesota.

None of what happened was as a result of his action. The Government of the United States acted, and acted properly, to ensure that there would be no downstream effects with respect to the Red River drainage system as a result of the location of a facility there. He takes that as being an acco mplishment of his government in this Session. It's absolute nonsense, Mr. Chairman, and the people of Manitoba know and understand that he has done nothing to in any way bring credit to himself on those issues. Mr .

Chairman, with respect to the tree tr ade negotiations, he is the only Premier in this country who is taking a negative position with respect to that whole issue, suggesting that the way to get into a better position with the United States, the way to get ourselves in a position to have better bargaining with the United States, where there is a growing protectionist movement developing , the way to counte ract that is to walk away from the table and to cut off all the negotiations. That's been his major th rust with respect to free trade negotiation.

The reason, of course, is that his strings are being pulled by Shirley Carr and the Canadian Federation of Labour and all of those people who have been against it from Day One. Only he has been looking for a way to try and change his position ever since the day that he, at a Western Premiers' Conference, agreed in principle to freer trade as an objective for Canada, he has been looking to try and back out of that position for more than a year now and he has finally found the way; and that is to suggest that the protect ionist movement must be count eracted by us walking away from the table.

That will only inflame the protect ionist movement. That will only make the Americans look for ways to retali ate agai nst us and we will have no way of di scussing it with them, no opportunity for open commun ication to get them to the table, to get them into the discussion with respect to free trade in the interests of all the people of this province and this count ry.

He wants to walk away from the table and let the American protectionist movement harm the interests of Canada, as it indeed will, and that is absolutely the wrong approach and I'm glad that he stands alone in terms of the Premiers of this country in that matter because it is absolutely wrong headed. Mr . Chairman, he talks about all of th ese acco mplishments and, as I've pointed out, there are few, if any, positive things that he can take credit for in this Session. But what about all of the other areas? Who is going to take credit?

Who is going to stand up and take credit for the fire sale of Flyer Ind ustries and the massive loss to the taxpayer of Manitoba as a result of the management and the admin istration of that company by this NOP adminis tration? Who is going to take credit for the $30 million loss in Manfor in only the past 15 months of operation? Who is going to take credit for the massive incr ease in the deficit last year over what was originally projected?

Who's going to take credit for all of the fiascos that have befallen this adminis tration, that began with his promis es to control and reduce gasoline prices, which he could not keep, which he did not keep, and all we 3734

Tuesday, 9 Septem ber, 1986 have now is a report that gives certain advice on the matter but doesn't do anything to keep his promise? Who is he going to blame for the fact that during the election campaign he announced sales to the United States of hydro-electric energy worth over $4 billion and all we had was one signed agreement for $46 million? Who is going to take credit for that breach of promise on his part?

Who is going to take credit for all of the various things that have been listed by writer after writer, by people in the newspapers, by people throughout this province about the settlement with President Perkins at Brandon University, the lawsuit for wrongful dismissal that has cost us up to $1 million as a result of the actions of the board of Brandon University, appointed by this admini stra tion, re sponsi ble to this ad min istra tion, who is now re sponsible, and this go vernment is, of course, having to take the responsibility for a $1 million loss as a result of that decision which was made by that board.

Who's going to take respo nsibility for all of the various problems that we've had in Crown corporations? The firing, after an auditor's report, of the chief executive officer of MP IC? Who is going to take responsibility for all of those matters, including the dis aster that's befalling us in terms of child welfare, in terms of the public inquir y th at we'r e having to have by the Com missioner to look at all the matters of childr en being returned to homes in which they've been abused not once but twice and up to seven times? Who's going to take responsibility for that action on the part of his government?

Who's going to take responsibil ity, and I can get into this in much greater detail, for the whole affair of MTX and his neglig ence and the negligen ce of every successive Min ister responsible for the Telephone System in ignoring that issue? Mr. Chairman, I don't need to add and embellish upon these. They're all on the record, and all I say is that this Premier has a great audacity to try and put a happy face on the di sasters of this Session and to try and say in some way that he is the one who has accomplished so much for Manitobans.

I say to him, go out and listen to the people of Manitoba because the things that you've acc omplished, they don't want. In fact, they are absolutely abhorred at the things that have happened in this Session of the Legislature as a result of this admin istration and its maladministration and its dis astrous activities and the fiascos that have befallen it. I say to this Premier, go out and listen to the people and see what they think about the accomplishments that you've put forward and come back and tell us whether you can still put a happy face on this last five months of acc omplishment of your administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, what we've heard is the kind of hyperbole that we've come to be accustomed insofar as honourable members across the way. The honourable members have been attempting desperately since the election, because of bitterness on the part of honourable members as a result of their defeat March 18 th, they have not yet forgiven the people of the Provinc e of Manitoba for rejecting them on March 18 th. Mr.

Chairman, that is obvious from the faces of each and every one of the honourable members across the way day by day as they conduct a campaign in this Legislature, with the exception of the Hono urable Member for River Heights, as they respond not with a rational kind of alternative approach, not as they deal with the issues before this Chamber in a way that is straig htforward, but rather by way of innuendo and mud slinging rather than deal with the basic issues that confront Manitobans. Mr.

Chairman, the reason for that is because of their anger, their frustration and their bitterness because the people of the Province of Manitoba rejected them even though one year before the March 18 th election they had a 30 percent edge in the polls.

I remember the Honourable Member for Emerson screaming in the Session in 19 85, "Call the election; we're going to wipe you clean ." I remember the Leader of the Opposition: "We're going to have you down to just a few seats." Thirty percent ahead they were and the people of the Province of Manitoba demonstrated what they thought of the Conservative Party of the Province of Manitoba and the Opposition by soundly rejecting them on March 18 th of this year. And with just a few more votes, we would have had two more seats in this Chamber as well, Mr. Chairman.

They can juggle with numbers all they want but those are the plain, clear facts that honourable members across the way, in their frustration, in their bitterness, would like to ignore. The Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about Flyer Ind ustries. Mr. Chairman, it was this government that arranged for a sale of Flyer Ind ustries. Where were honourable members across the way from 19 77-1981? Where were they, the great champio ns of private enterprise, those who were going to privatize the Crown corporations of the Province of Manitoba?

I heard the Honourable Member for La Verendrye on TV say, "We would have gotten rid of Flyer Industries except for the NOP Oppositi on." He expressed his government's weakness in dealing with Flyer Industries. It was this government, the present Minister of Finance who negotiated a successfu l! sale of Flyer Ind ustries so that there will be a continued opportunity for a bus manufacturer in the Province of Manitoba. Rather than tha t being a strike against this gov ern ment, this government was able to acc omplish what they were unable to acc omplish, despite their professions, during four years, 19 77-19 81.

The Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about the price of gas. We advised the gasoline indu stry that if the price of gasoline was not down by 9.5 cents a litre by April 2nd of this year, we would take the appropriate action. Honourable members like to laugh because honourable members are nervous about the fact that they took no position whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, it dropped, closed by the 9.5 percent. Let me tell honourable members the gasoline ind ustry wou ldn't have been afraid one bit of honourable mem bers across the way because they have the Co nservative Party in their hip pockets.

We've seen that today on the part of the Ottawa Government. So are honourable members trying to suggest there would have been a decrease if they had have been in power? 3735

Tuesday, 9 September , 1986 And besides that, Mr. Chairman, we are pr oceeding with changes to The Training Practices Inq uiry Act to give us stronger measures in order to deal with price gouging in the future including the gas indu stry in the Province of Manitoba. Yes, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that is an acc om plishment of this government and we take pride in that accom plishment. In sofar as the Perkins, we've heard the misrepresentations before on the Brandon settlement. Wasn't it a billion dollars?

That's been straightened out a number of times by the Minister of Education in this Chamber, but it doesn't matter, Mr. Chairman; even if he clarified that 19 times, the Leader of the Opposition would still continue to talk in terms of a billion-dollar settlement without accuracy . Truth is only irrelevant insofar as honourable members across the way are concerned. The MP IC manager, Mr . Chairman, it was this government tha t ordered the audit that fired the manager as a result of that audit. I make no apologies for that.

The Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation, because of the decisiveness by the Minister responsible for the Autopac . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. H. PAWLEY: He changed his appearance. Let's give him a hand. I think there's been a walking across the aisle ... So I say to honourable members: we are proud of the record of this admin istration during its five years in office. We certainly have accom plished, I believe, even in the past six months, a number of important achievements.

As much as honou rable mem bers continue with innuendo, with their house of cards that will collapse, they will lose because they're not playing with a full deck. Since 1976, I've advised honourable members across the way that the perpetuation of allegations of innuendo, of smear didn't elect any par ty. Deal with policies and policy issues and philosophies and programs. The people of the Province of Manitoba are not interested in smears and innuendo es. I'm glad that honourable members have rejected my advice, because if they had accepted that advice, they might still be in government.

I believe, as was said just an hour or two ago, that honourable members will lose the next election and the election after that because their whole approach, their tactics, are to perpetuate a campaign of fear and smear and innuendo. Manitobans are not the kind of people who are won over to tha t kind of tactic. Manitobans want to discuss the important issues. That's why we won the last election; that's why we won the'81 elect ion.

That's why they lost it; that's why they'll lose the next election and the election after that because there seems to be some thing very basic, very fundamental to the Conservative Party of the Province of Manitoba that they just can't afford to discuss polici es and issues. They have to deal with that big fear, the monster innuendo, the smear, and Manitobans are not that kind of people and they don't buy that kind of campaign. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, I find it interesting that the Premier should talk about misrepresentation and exaggeration when he makes the statement that Manitobans soundly rejected our party in this last election; soundly rejected us when we got the same percentage of the popular vote as he did, when we gained three seats and he lost four seats, but we were soundly rejected and he was roundly brought in with an overwhelming mandate. Mr. Chairman, the Premier talks in terms of bitterness, but I say to him we accept the decision, we accept our role ... A MEMBER: You haven't demons trated it. MR. G. FILMON: We haven't?

We have been doing the role of an Opposition: probing, ques tioning, examining, making the government accou ntable. The problem is that the Premier doesn't accept his role. He won't take any responsibility for anything that happened to the government. He doesn't realize that he's in government. He says: I close my eyes to all this and then I don't see what's going on; I close my ears and I don't hear what's going on.

He says that, in his view, he doesn't have to accept respons iblity for anything that's going on because he called in the Auditor and they fired the president of MPIC, his hands are clear; that's it, it's finished with, no responsibility on the part of the government. He says that no matter what's happening in MTX, no responsibility of the government. He says that no matter what was done wrong in firing the president of Brandon University, he takes no responsibility even though he appointed the majority of the board, he controlled the board of Brandon University, but he takes no re sponsi bility, absolutely none.

He takes no res ponsibil ity for the board's actions at MTS, no re sponsi bili ty for the board 's actions at MP IC. Everywhere along the line, he is not willing to take any responsibility. He doesn't accept his role as government for heaven's sake. That's the whole point that we have to deal with. We've go t a Pr emier who wants to talk about everything except government responsibility.

When we raised matters to public attention that, in fact, are doing a service to the people of Manitoba, that are telling them about the corruption, about the dis honesty and about the wrongful actions of this admin istration, he says that we're doing a disservice. He says that we're bitter; he says that we aren't appreciating our role in government. Because we lost, we should say nothing, we should do nothing; we should sit back here and let him do whatever he wants.

Regardl ess of how dishonest, regardless of how corrupt, regardless of what it does to harm the interests of the people of Manitoba, we should do nothing because he's the government. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, we are being constructive. You have to begin first by showing people what's wrong before you can tell them how to make it right, and in this particular case it's this administration and everything they've done since they've been in government that has caused the problems.

It is all these probl ems that we've been pointing out that ar e absolutely in the worst interests of the people of Manitoba and we have to get rid of that and we have to at least show some recog nition, but this Premier will show no recog nition and will take no responsibility. So that, Mr. Chairman, is the problem. 3736

Tuesday, 9 Septem ber, 1986 It is this Premier and this administration that won't accept the decision of the people of Manitoba in the elec tion. They won't take the res ponsibil ity to do anything that will be in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. And that's our problem: they don't understand their responsibil ity. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the Premier to give us a list of the staff who are included in Management and Admini stration, Item 1. MR. CHA IRMAN: I will call 1. (b)

(1) Ma nagement Admi nistration: Salaries; 1. (b)

(2) Other Expenditures. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I forwarded to the honourable members the list of the staff members of the Executive Council MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Premier could ind icate whether or not Joanne McNiven is still on contract to the government or working for the government in any capacity. HON. H. PAWLEY: Yes, she's work in g for the government, the Jobs Fund. MR. G. FILMON: With the Jobs Fund, what is her responsi bility? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I can give the Leader of the Opposition the various respo nsibilities that she has.

In working for the Jobs Fund, there are administrative responsibilities insofar as her activities for the Jobs Fund. MR. G. FILMON: Unless there are any further questions, I am prepared to pass (b)(1) and (b)(2). MR. CH AIRMAN: 1. (b )( 1) Ma nagement and Admi ni stra tion: Sa laries- pass; 1. (b )

(2) Other Expen ditur es- pass; 1. (c)( 1) Fed eral-Provincial Relations Secr etariat: Salari es: 1. (c)

(2) Other Expenditur es. MR. G. FILMON: Yes, I wonder if the Premier could provide a list of the staff who are included in item 1. (c)( 1). HON. H. PAWLEY: The Federal Relations Secretariat include s Mr. Jim Eldridge, who's Deputy Secreta ry, Federal-Provincial; Robert B. Oleson; Chris Pochinko, P-O-C-H-1-N-K -O, Secretary; and Paul Vogt, V-0-G -T. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: I do have a question to the Premier on this area. In his opening remarks he referred to one aspect of a number of matters of discussions to include Quebec into The Confederation Act.

He's talked about negotiations and discussions. I wonder if he could ind icate any specifics of the Province of Manitoba's position with respect to this matter. What is the Province of Manitoba prepared to do or agree to? HON. H. PAWLEY: At the Edmonton First Ministers' Co nference, all Pr emiers agr eed to enter into 3737 dis cussions with the Premier of Qu ebec, Premier Bourassa, on the basis of the points that were submitted by Quebec insofar as those discussions. There is one area, of course, that we have serious difficulty with, as do other provinces, and that is with respect to the proposal for a veto.

Despite that particular proposal on the part of Quebec, we are prepared to carry on the discussions and hoping that there is a way of obtaining a compromise that would not, in fact, result in the treatment of other parts of Canada in a way that would be secondary to Quebec. That is certainly the point that is of contention on our part. The second area that is of contention at this time is the one dealing with controls in sofar as federal spending.

We have concerns, for instance, that some of the major social programs of Canada would not have been launched if it had been possible for Quebec to have prevented the development of spending programs of that particular nature. So we have concerns in regard to that. The third provision deals with the recog nition of Quebec as a distinctive society. We are prepared to certainly dis cuss with Bourassa and the other Premiers appropriate wording that could be accepted. What we did do, Mr. Chairman, is agree to commence the discussions, to participate in those discussions.

I believe that Premier Bourassa received a message from many of the Premiers that although we're prepared to discuss the points that have been raised by Quebec, and also by representatives of the Quebec Government insofar as their visits to the different provincial capitals, that there are reservat ions in respect to those proposals as they now stand. But we at the same time do recognize the importance of attempting to ensure, to the good of Canada as a whole, that we try to find some acc ommodation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: I wonder where we would find it, because I understand that he use to be under the Native Affairs Secretariat - I wonder where we would find Terry Sargeant. He's not listed in this. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Sargeant is Director of Research and Planning, Department of Northern Affairs. MR. G. FILMON: Ma rger y Beer , she used to be assigned, I believe, to the Executive Council, as well. HON. H. PAWLEY: Commun ication Officer, the Minister of Finance - Dir ector of Commu nications. MR. G. FILMON: Again, I thought this person was in Executive Council, Virginia Devine. HON. H.

PAWLEY: No, she is with the Department of Health and her precise position is - she is in our Esti mates, pr esently seconded, ho wever, to th e Department of Health. She is par tici pating in the preparation of the Health reform package that the Minister has made reference to. MR. G. FILMON: So, the Premier says she is in his Estima tes but seconded. Is her position still that of Executive Council employee?

Tuesday, 9 September , 1986 HON. H. PAWLEY: Yes, she is seconded to the Minister of Health. MR. D. ORCHARD: And paid for over there? HON. H. PAWLEY: We will be billing the Minister of Health insofar as the costs of Ginny Devine. MR. G. FILMON: What is the role and res ponsibility then of Roger Turenne? HON. H. PAWLEY: Roger Turenne is the Secretary of the French Language Service Secretariat. MR. G. FILMON: Sorry? HON. H. PAWLEY: Director of the French Language. MR. G. FILMON: Yes, ok ay. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if perhaps we can get down to that and pass (

c) and go through (

d) and I'll ask my questions under the French Language Services Secretariat if that's the appropriate place. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (c )

(1) Federal-Provi ncial Relations Secret ariat: Sala ries- pass; 1. (c)

(2) Othe r Expenditures-pass; 1. (

d) Government Hospitality pass; 1. (

e) International Development Program -pass; 1. (f)

(1) French Language Services Secretariat: Salaries; 1. (f)

(2) Other Expendit ur es - the Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if now the Premier can indicate what the resp onsibilities in that role of Director of the French Language Services Secretariat, what the responsibilities of Mr. Turenne are. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Respo nsi bili ties inclu des rec ommending policy; coordinating policy in respect to the implementation of French Language Services; prov iding service to the Advisory Comm ittee on French Language Services; maintain liaison with the Franco Manitoban communi ty; and maintaining liaison with governments both at the national, international level on French language matters. His responsibilities have, I believe I can say safely to the Leader of the Opposition, maintained in a constant way over, I believe, since the commencement in the French Language Secretariat. MR. G.

FILMON: What additional French language services have been implemented during the past year in Manitoba? HON. H. PAWLEY: The activities have been during the past year, to identify those areas in which there is a lack of French language service in which a need ought to be provided, and in the process to identify those civil servants within the provincial public service that could be provi ding tha t service. That process of identification of civil servants and identifying the needs has been taking place. MR. G. FILMON: Has it been completed? HON. H. PAWLEY: It hasn't been completed, it's near completion. MR. G.

FILMON: At this point in time are there any additional services that are contem plated being offered by the government to fulfill needs that have been identified? HON. H. PAWLEY: The areas that we would like to improve are deficiencies in service in those areas where there is a significant French language population, where there's services not now being provided in the French language in those areas that do have a significant Francophone population. MR. G. FILMON: Can the Premier indicate which ones? HON. H.

PAWLEY: The areas where there is particular concern that we provide this service would be in the areas of Commu nity Servic es and Health, in Francophone areas in the province, areas of recr eational services, the services to people in those areas that could be accommodated by the reorganization of government services. MR. G. FILMON: Can the Premier ind icate which areas of Francophone population have been identified as areas that there should now be developed? HON. H. PAWLEY: They would be the same areas as spe cified in the 19 82 pol icy , St. Bon iface, the Francophone areas along the Red River particula rly.

MR. G. FILMON: Along the Red River? HON. H. PAWLEY: Yes. St. Malo, St. Pierre, Ste. Anne. MR. G. FILMON: I note that these are admin istrative costs, or at least I assume they are. I wonder where the costs of translation would be placed in the Estimates. HON. H. PAWLEY: They'r e in two departments, Attorney-General and the Ministry of Culture. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Premier could ind icate ho w much has been budgeted this year for the translation. HON. H. PAWLEY: I believe that could be identified in the Estimates and I think the honourable member can identify those areas.

If not, I can get the information. MR. G. FILMON: '1 noted from a news report that the most current estimate of the total cost of the translation departments, according to an

article yesterday, was $10 million. Am I correct about that? HON. H. PAWLEY: That was an estimate that the Attorney-General has given, yes. MR. G. FILMON: What is the Premier expecting in the way of support from Ottawa? Is there any ind ication of whether or not there'll be any federal support for those costs, the $10 million figure? HON. H. PAWLEY: We received supp ort last year in the area of $400,000, and we anticipate a similar amount 3738

Tuesday, 9 Septem ber, 1986 this year, and the support for other aspects of the plan is being disc

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-84b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 84b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1cc39ad597253354eab12c726616f1cd7e81ea5b

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