Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 63B (31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-63b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXVlll No. 638 - 8:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 22 MAY, 1980 Printed by W. T.Matwichyna. Q,,_,s Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY, Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Hany E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER, Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Monis McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vic SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Riel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Osborne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP PC PC PC Ind NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP NOP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 22 May, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. BUDGET DEBATE MR. SPEAKE R, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle Russell): Th e Honour able Member for St. Matthews has 20 minutes. MR. LEN DOMINO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, not much of a crowd tonight but maybe we can educate those who are here anyway. Mr. Speaker, I'm particula rly di stressed that once again the Member for Fort Rouge is not here, she may be out on the firing line, fighting a fire somewhere. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I think the honourable member knows full well that it is highly improper to comment on the absence or presence of any member in this Chamber. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. DOMINO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to break the rules, so we won't. I certainly want to withdraw that comment. Mr.

Speaker, I only mentioned the Member for Fort Rouge in passing because she has displayed a particular interest, in her short stay in this Legislative Assembly, in day care and in issues that relate to women particularly and I was astounded earlier this afternoon to have heard the Member for Fort Rouge say that there was nothing in this budget for young people and that there was nothing in this budget at all for women and children. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I was astounded, as I said, because I noticed in the budget that there's 4 million extra for Day Care and Lunch and After School Programs, that's almost doubling of the program. Now I'm one of the members in this House who has sat qu ietly and lis tened to the opposition members continually claim that we don't care about Day Care; that we don't care about working women and that we don't care about children. Well we have put the dollars of the people of Manitoba up front, we're supplying the funding.

It's going to be there, that's a lot more valuable asset to the people of Manitoba than a lot of hot air which we often hear. Now, let me explain where some of this Day Care money is going to go, or where I hope some of it's going to go. As I mentioned earlier, I teach mornings and some afternoons at Tech. Voc. High School and I particularly am a high school teacher by profession and I guess I'm a politician second.

I'm particularly concerned about a very important problem, it's not a pleasant thing to talk about, it's about teenage girls who are becoming pregnant and they're becoming pregnant in ever larger numbers in our city, in our province and in our country. Each year in Winnipeg there are about 300 young girls, who are high school students whose average age is 15 or 16, who have to drop out of the high school system because they're going to have a baby themselves. I mean they are children having children and it's not a happy state.

I am not about to blame any one person or one institution for it, it's a multifaceted problem.

But the school division I work for, without putting myself in any conflict of interest, I want to congratulate them because they've started a program, they've been running for several years at the Adult Education Centre, where if a young girl is pregnant, can't complete high school in the regular classroom situation - and we're all aware that they can't because that causes some horrendous problems within the school if the girl is allowed to continue - but in many school divisions and in many parts of this country, that young girl at 15 or 14 even would have to drop out of school.

In Division No. 1 in the city of Winnipeg, they supply to the Adult Education Centre a special school with classrooms held over at the YWCA where young girls, even though they are pregnant, can continue their education, so even if they have one strike against them, they needn't take the second or third strike. The second strike being dropping out of the educational process and then, not only becoming a very young mother but also becoming a person, that's very difficult for industry or government or anyone else to employ because they have no education.

Now I hope that some of that 4 million, and I'm sure to be exact, some of that 4 million is going to go into a program which will help these young women because right now the school division covers the cost - and I think it's probably rightly their responsibility - they cover the cost of keeping these girls in classes up until the time they have their babies.

But once the girl gives birth and if she keeps that child, and a good 50 percent of them are opting to keep those children, she is then in a double quandary because she can't continue taking these special educational classes thr ough the Adult Education Centre because there's no infant day care and in many cases these young girls are in the position they're in because they haven't got family support so there's no grandmother or mother to take care of the baby. -(lnterjection)- Sur e you people are going to end up - (I nterjection)- right, you're going to end up voting against money that I believe will go into supplying an infant day care centre.

I have no commitment from the government but I know that with extra money available, when a just, well not a just but when a very important and necessary program is brought forward, if someone makes an application, I'm sure the school division or the Y, or if needs be I'll make it myself with a group of concerned cit izens, someone will apply for money and there will be money made available for infant day care so that those girls will be able to continue getting their Grade 10 or Grade 11 or Grade 12, so that down the road they won't be bearing the double costs, one the cost in terms of society and in terms of their private lives of having had a child at a young age, which is an extra burden; and two, and this is probably a long-term problem and it's a very serious problem, they drop out of school in Grade 9 or 10, they are on the welfare rolls forever, they are virtually unemployable.

So if we can supply those girls with an infant day care to go along with that Adult 3921

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 Education Program, we're not only going to be doing a service and assisting these young people salvage something of their lives but if you want to be mean and just look at it in terms of money, we're going to be saving ourselves a lot of money down the road, because those young women will be allowed to finish their education and go on from there to get jobs and become productive members of our society and not have to live on welfare or not have to live at the expense of the state.

That's only one little specific example but that's one specific example how this budget is going to help women, it's going to help poor people. Now I don't know where the Member for Fort Rouge gets off in saying there's nothing in here for women. Day Care is an important part of our economy and of our social system, so is Lunch and After School. This government recognizes it, this government has never ever spoken out against day care.

To be exact, over and over again we have said we're in favour of day care, we have the best day care system in the country right now, we'll make it better, but the money that was flushed down the toilet on things like Saunders Ai rcraft -(I nterjection)- that kind of money that was wasted on excess staffing of the Civil Service; that kind of money that was wasted on Northern Affairs Programs that went nowhere; on housing that didn't stand up; on roads that lead to nowhere, that kind of waste of money . . . MR. SPE AKER : Order please.

I realize there's an eagerness on the part of everybody to get involved in the debate but we can only have one speaker at one time and I recognized the Honourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. DOMINO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what it is in my remarks, it may be the cutting edge of truth but something is cutting across there and you're having a difficult time controlling the masses this evening but I'm glad to see at least they'r e awake. They may not be acqui ring any knowledge but at least they're nodding their heads and pointing their fingers. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point.

It was said earlier - I don't want to mention who's here and who's not here - for the benefit of the Member for Fort Rouge, this particular budget, which has nothing in it for young people, this budget which has nothing in it for women and children, this budget is tailored exactly to that group. Mr. Speaker, I have here an

article from the Winnipeg Tribune, March 20th. It's entitled: Poor Housing Hits One Parent Families Hardest, and it is a report from the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg which was summarized in print form and put in the paper. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from this report here. -(lnterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Minis ter of Hi ghways has had his opportunity and I think he should let somebody else have the opportunity of speaking. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. DOMINO: Mr.

Speaker, Winnipeg, I'm quoting from this newspaper article, Winnipeg single parent families suffer most from poor housing, and again I quote, Good quality affordable housing is desperately needed, it says further on. The

article and the study by the Social Planning Council points out that the major problem we have with housing in this city are young single parents and the problem is not often that there's not good housing stock available - at present we have a very high vacancy rate - the problem is one of affordability. The problem is that the young women with the children, often poorly educated, can't earn enough money in the labour market because their skills aren't valuable enough; they can't earn enough money to afford decent housing. This budget faces that question; this budget answers the Social Planning Council's . . .

This budget is going to, through the extended SAFER program, through the child related income program, this budget is going to supply those people in most need, single family parents, with money, with cash, and it's not going to distort the labour market, it's not going to chase them out of their jobs. I firmly believe that this is probably one of the most intelligent well thought out budgets this province has seen.

I'll go back to the Duff Roblin era, or I might think otherwise because he was a terrific politician and certainly one of my polit ical heroes, but I certainly recall a lot of New Democrat budgets and I've gone through a couple of them. I don't think they were as good a budget because they spread things everywhere.

They insisted on univ ersal programs where there is bound to be an excess of waste and where people who don't need the assistance and don't want the assistance have government assistance foisted on them and because they took that approach there was less money left over to target the people who really needed the funds, to help the people who really need it. In this case it's women, it's the poor, and it's single parents. Mr. Speaker, mention was also made earlier this afternoon by the Member for Wellington of the fact that nothing was done to improve housing.

They talked about the Critical Home Repair Program as if the Conservative government had suddenly stopped it, and we haven't. Money has continued to go out through the Critical Home Repair Program, work has continued to be done; and to be exact, I fully expect, I have no way, I can't commit the government but myself and many others have been urging the government to renew that program, to extend the Critical Home Repair Program, and I wouldn't be surprised if we do.

And I hope you're not going to be surprised, because I hope that your ideological blinkers don't prevent you from looking at the situation realistically. MR. SPEAKER: I covered most of the points that I wanted to cover earlier this afternoon. I did want to come back to one point, and that is, I wonder why we haven't heard the familiar ring: you're tied to your ideology, your ideology prevents you from looking at the world in a pragmatic way. I haven't heard the Leader of the Opposition spout that line this week. I haven't heard it since the budget.

I tell you, this government has, we have beliefs, we have a phi losophy, but we apply it in a pragmatic, commonsense matter. This government will do whatever is necessary to help the people of Manitoba and impr ove the way in which the peop le of Manitoba live. MR. SPEAKER: it's been said that this government and this budget is doing too little, too late. I hope 3922

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 the members opposite are willing to travel through my constituency, they'll have to go through their own constituency, and you tell a single parent mother, with three kids at home, working at a job near the minimum wage, who's now going to receive 1,500 or 2,000 in cash each year for th e Manitoba government, you tell her that's too little; you tell her it's too late. She just might ask you an embarrassing question like, how come you didn't supply her with that help?

Where were the great ND ers when I needed help; when I was having a hard time making it; when I was having a hard time bringing up my children; when I couldn't find day care spaces? Mr. Speaker, I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow afternoon when we vote, but I certainly hope the members opposite will bring themselves together to be big enough, as human beings, to admit that much of what they've recommended, much of what the Social Planning Council has recommended, much of what the government critics have asked for, appears in this budget.

And I'll tell you, it takes - I'll exclude myself even though I've had a

part in this thing - it takes a lot of pretty big men and women to, in the face of abuse such as this government has had to take, unfounded abuse, to then turn around and do what has to be done and ignore the fact. In some cases, we've even had to backtrack in a few cases. But we're big enough, and we're responsible enough and we put the people of Manitoba and their needs before our own partisan political needs and the people will remember that. They'll remem ber and they' ll remem ber what happens opposite. You vote against this budget, you're voting against help for the poor. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery on my right, where we have 35 students of the SA class of Swan River Junior High, under the direction of Mr. Albert Baldwin. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this evening. The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAM USKIW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to say that it's indeed a new opportunity for me to participate in the debate as the spokesman for our caucus. I want to make note of that at this point, Mr. Speaker.

I would hope that would indicate that there is not the 40 minute time limit this evening. Mr. Speaker, it is not a difficult thing for me to stand here this evening to deal with the kind of budget that we had presented before us some several days ago. First of all, I would like to say that the beginning and the opening remarks of the Minister, the commentary of his colleagues during the course of the debate over the last number of days, have done nothin g mo re but repeat the rhetoric of the last four years, Mr. Speaker, and it is rhetoric and nothing else. They have continuously, Mr.

Speaker, decided to bamboozle the people of Manitoba with illusions -(Interjection)- Yes, the Member for Kildonan says, with the shell game, and they continue to do the same thing in this budget, Mr. Chairman. A lot of uncalled for remarks with respect to the previous government, with respect to Ministers of the previous government, and with respect, in particular, to the Ministers of Finance, the two Sauls that we have with us here in this Chamber today, or still with us, Mr. Speaker.

The idea that somehow if you can keep on the momentum of innuendo that somehow will get them through another period, and another election campaign perhaps is what they have in mind. Mr. Speaker, I know that they are adept at that, I know that they have a lot of experience and qualification to make that kind of a claim, and the Minister of Finance has fully demonstrated that with the kind of verbiage he used in his address to this Assembly when he introduced his budget. Mr.

Speaker, normally there are two times in a parliament or in a session where the opposition, and indeed the people of Manitoba, get some idea of which direction the government is heading; what the policies are going to be; what the innovations are going to be, if any, or the lack of them. The Throne Speech Debate and the Budget Debate are usually those indicators, the two main events of our session. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance began his remarks this year with the connotation that he is still fighting some rear guard action with respect to mismanagement of prior years, but he's getting his ship in shape, and somehow, from here on in, things are going to look a litte better for him and for the people of Manitoba. Well, Mr. Sp eaker, he keeps talki ng about restoring financial management and reducing the deficit. You know, when they were on this side of the House some three years ago, Mr. Speaker, they were talking about reducing Manitoba's debt burden.

We've now got them graduated to talking about reducing the deficit, they have now given up on reducing the debt, Mr. Speaker, even though they still wish they could, that it would be in the cards to do so, but the Minister of Finance in this year's budget, indicated that is somewhat of a longer term objective, but for the moment we have to be satisfied with trying to have control of deficits. Well, Mr. Speaker, in his presentation to this Assembly this year, he obviously hasn't been very successful in even doing that minimal job, Mr.

Speaker, of reducing the deficit, because he has proposed to increase his deficit some 300 percent over the realized deficit of a year ago. That's really what he is proposing, Mr. Speaker, but he wants the people of Manitoba to believe that this is a deficit reduction program. Yes, that's really what he is doing, Mr. Speaker. The old con game is being perfected more and more by my friends opposite, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the Manitoba economy continues to operate at a very stagnant level and I have to admit, Mr.

Speaker, that this stagnation began in 19 77, there's no doubt about that, the downturn in the economy did begin in 19 77 and it was a problem, it was a probelm to our government at that time. And that was one of the reasons why we in that particular year were not too worried about going into a deficit position of the magnitude that we did, because we recognized that we wanted to function in a counter-cyclical manner, Mr. Speaker. And that's really the whole objective and purpose of deficit financing, Mr. Speaker, is to 3923

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 try to deal counter-cyclically with down turns in the economy. That is always the rule of thumb that governments have observed in many jurisdictions and should continue to observe but, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance would like to have the people of Manitoba believe otherwise, that somehow there is something wrong with that proposition and we've got to do something about it, even if it means at the cost of outmig ration, it means at the cost of higher unemployment and all of the reductions in services that have been imposed on the people of Manitoba over the last two or three years.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that this government wants to make every Manitoban believe that they have been living too rich. They have to convince them of that, Mr. Speaker, because they have to be prepared for the shocks that occur year after year under this kind of administration, Mr. Speaker. The shocks that occur are a reduction in services, higher costs for services, all of the negative im pact th ings that occur vis-a-vis the average individual, in order that may provide some elbow room within their budget for handouts to preferred groups in our society, Mr. Speaker.

So somehow we've got to get the message through to the average Manitoban that they should expect a little less, a little less, so that we can hand out some wealth to some of our friends who have a little healthier appetitie, Mr. Speaker, and are not that easily convinced that they should have a little less. They are always hungry for a little more, Mr. Speaker, and that is the philo sophy of this whole business of Conservative government in Manitoba from Day One, and continues to be. Mr.

Speaker, the growth rate forecast by the Conference Board of Canada for Manitoba, some 1. 8 percent for this year, and the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, takes pride in the fact that happens to be about third place amongst Canadian provinces and he thinks that's a great thing. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the record, you will appreciate the fact that that is about a status quo position dating back to 19 77 and we have not come out of that recession, Mr. Speaker, we are still in that recession, even though a larger recession is looming, Mr.

Speaker, and which is being brought in via our relationship with the United States and wherein their recession has just begun, a major recession, Mr. Speaker. We have not got out of the 19 77 recession, Mr. Speaker. That growth rate is not a significant growth rate even though, for the time being, it may be favourably compared with a number of provinces in Canada. Mr. Speaker, when you examine beyond simplicity what is taking place, what you realize, Mr. Speaker. is that when there is a general slowdown in the economy, that the manufacturing areas tend to slow down very rapidly.

Manitoba's economy never being that buoyant, of course, doesn't follow that kind of rapidity in terms of an economic slowdown and so while the others come crashing down, we sort of hold our own for a while and consequently it catches up with us too and we find out that a year or two later we are feeling the brunt of what took place elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, that 1.8 percent is not a thing to be complacent about. It represents a serious problem in our economy and it represents the reason, or one of the main reasons, why we have so much outm igration; one of the reasons.

This is somethin g that this government has yet to fully appreciate, because so far they have not introduced one program that would reverse that trend where people, skilled people in particular, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister for Economic Development ought to be cognizant of that. It is not, Mr. Speaker, the poorest person in society, the lowest wage earner, that picks up his bag and moves to another province. Mr. Speaker, it is not that group that tends to migrate out. It is the group that has the wherewithal to pick up their heels, to pack their bags, and to look for their opportunities elsewhere.

That is the group, Mr. Speaker, that we must maintain in this province because that is the group that finances the operations of the government. That is the group that keeps the economy going. They are big wage earners and they are big spenders, Mr. Speaker.

It keeps the wheels rolling in our economic system, to the extent that an overly large pr oportion of that group migrates out of this province, we end up with sort of a snowballing effect by the fact that we have a greater percentage of low income people from which there is a greater degree of inability to collect taxes because their wages are low and to fund programs and you end up with a snowb alling economic disaster effect. Mr. Speaker, 1. 8 percent does indeed represent continued stagnation. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's fair to say that no less then a 4 percent growth rate or nothing less than 4 percent in real growth can be construed as a significant departure from recessive state of growth and I am sure that the Minister of Finance will agree with that. Privately he won't want to admit it, of course, when he wants to reply to such criticism but I know that when you talk to any economist, they will tell you that anything short of 4 percent is a problem in your economy. Mr.

Speaker, Tory policies were ill-advised in 19 77, ill-advised when they decided to contract, when they decided they were going to cut down on the public role in the economy, when they decided they were going to leave the responsibility of job creation to the private sector and that the marketplace was going to be their rule of thumb in dealing with economic questions, in dealing with unemployment problems, in dealing with income problems and so on. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have never believed, and I don't know which government in our history in Manitoba has ever truly believed that would work.

I believe that this particular government is a bit of a throwback to the last century on that score, Mr. Speaker, because most modern governments recognize that it is just foolish and certainly not in keeping with good management to allow the marketplace to determine the future of the well-being of our citizens in Canada or Manitoba or anywhere, Mr. Speaker, that government has a major role to play in our complex society. So, Mr. Speaker, the Tory policies of the last few years have in large

part created the problems from which they are now trying to extricate themselves. They are now trying to put on some sort of polish, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the Minister of Economic Development questions that statement, Mr. Speaker. If you have listened to the outpouring of words in the last ten days from members opposite, there is a desperate attempt at image building, in recognition, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that they have a very serious 3924

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 economic problem which is translating itself into a very serious political problem for the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that cannot be hidden and tha t is that the short-lived Conservative administration in Ottawa owed some of their downfall to the fact that there were Premiers like our friend the Premie r of Manito ba, who tarnished the image of the Conservative party and who helped deny the Conservative party of Canada their majority in the February election. It was their policies, Mr.

Speaker, that were introduced in the budget, in the federal House in February, very much like the policies of this government, that brought their defeat, Mr. Speaker, and resulted in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, of some seven New Democratic Party MPs being elected. Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party in Manitoba had two MPs eight months before that, subsequently they had five MPs and then seven, all within one year we moved - it was less, within eight months - we moved from two MPs in Manitoba to seven. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I am sure that regardless of what we think of the competence of the members opposite, or of their phi losoph ical leanings, regardless of our views, Mr. Speaker, in that respect, I think it's fair to say that we would not for a moment believe that they are incompetent in analyzing their political problems. And this is, of course, what they are attempting to do but Mr. Speaker, they are attempting to do it but they are also doing it through another exercise of chicanery, Mr. Speaker. That's really what this document is. Because it is designed and worded in such a way, Mr.

Speaker, that the average Manitoban doesn't really know what his or her benefits are going to be. You know, you add certain things and you subtract certain things, and there's a sort of rabbit in the hat concept here where, out of some magic, someone is supposed to realize some benefits somehow, but we have yet to determine how that is going to happen. Mr. Speaker, later on in my presentation I will attempt to demonstrate what, in fact, is really happening with respect to the propositions of my friends opposite. Mr. Speaker, the government of Manitoba must change its policy.

It must, at a time of economic slowdown, become the economic engineer to stimulate the economy in order to get us back into a reasonable position. Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba demand no less than that. They are entitled to have a government representing them that is concerned about the fact that Manitobans don't want continued out-migration as we have had in the last two years in great num bers, Mr. Speaker. They have to recognize the fact that Manitobans are prepared, ideologically prepared, Mr. Speaker, to use the instrumentality of government to deal with those kinds of problems.

I don't believe that the majority of Manitobans want a government that wants to stay out of the economy of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, perio ds of deficit are indeed necessary from time to time , and I make no apologies for that because they serve their purpose. and I have to say that I, too, believe, that from time to time we must exercise responsibility by trying to balance them off with some surpluses, and there's no question about that, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe that anybody on this side would argue that we have perpetual deficits, and I don't think that has been the history of our government, Mr. Speaker.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think that the government, being such a major part of the economy, cannot ignore that responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I happened to come across an interesting

article in Grain News which was of some interest to me in this connection because it is written by a fellow by the name of Al Chambers, and he talks about his perception, and the perception of a lot of people, that deficit financing in governments were the main cause of inflation, Mr. Speaker. Time and time again that was the culprit in the whole system. Then he admits in this

article that he has been proven so wrong and he couldn't believe that he had such a strong belief in that concept, such a strong perception, that government deficits are indeed the problem with respect to inflation. And this is the bill of goods that members opposite have been trying to sell to Manitoba citizens for the last decade, Mr. Speaker. But Mr. Speaker, a fellow by the name of Norman Cameron, who is an economist at the University of Manitoba has some comment, and it's his analysis that convinced Mr. Chambers here that his whole theory was wrong; Mr.

Cameron outl ined the fact that private debt was growing much faster than government debt. Let's ponder that, Mr. Speaker, because you know, what is government debt? I mean, it represents, in large measure, in fact almost completely, the purchase of physical assets that have a value, Mr. Speaker, that have to be paid for over a long period of time. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what government debt is.

It represents perhaps from time to time, when you have innovative governments that are responsive to economic conditions, you have governments, from time to time, using the vehicle of deficits as a means of stimulating the economy in order to get people workin g, as opposed to paying people welfare cheques for lack of employment, Mr. Speaker. So Mr. Speaker, this economist suggests that private debt, if debt is a problem, if that is the problem, then we're attacking it in the wrong area, Mr. Speaker. He is suggesting we should be, if it's a problem, attacking it in the private sector; that you, Mr.

Speaker, or I, should not perhaps be allowed to finance the next house or the next car, or the next refrigerator. That's really what is being suggested if you follow the theory of my friends opposite, that somehow a debt position is a mechanism that shouldn't be employed. That is absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker. There is no private sector economy anywhere that I know of that doesn't use debt in good measure, Mr. Speaker, in order to enhance their operation. Mr. Speaker, I want to read a

section of this

article because it's most revealing. It's dated April of 1980. It goes on to say that the fact is true, whether expressed in absolute terms as a percentage increase or as a percentage of GNP , for example, personal debt was up 31 billion in 197 8, in Canada, as compared to total federal government debt of 49 billion, which is accumulated over many many years. Mr. Speaker, personal debt alone went up by 31 billion. That is a phenomenal increase in personal debt, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, if overspending fuels inflation, he argues, then personal spending and bor rowing were much mor e to blame than 3925

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 government spending. And he goes on to say, A look at history can further cast doubts at the truism linking government deficits with increased inflation. If deficits add to inflation it should be easy to show that relationship, he concludes. High deficits and high inflation will come together, and vice versa. It is obvious the conclusion if that is the case. But they don't, Mr. Speaker, they don't. I would hope the Minister of Economic Development would hear me out. Between 19 30 and 1935, Mr.

Speaker, when we were in the midst of an appal ling deflation, the depression, yes, in the midst of that deflation, Mr. Speaker, the government ran constant deficits. So wherein lies the logic of deficits causing inflation when we had absolute disastrous deflation for a whole decade? For a whole decade in the 30s, Mr. Speaker, and governments kept borrowing money and pumping money into the economy, in order to keep people fed and clothed, Mr. Speaker. And that exercise didn't result in inflation whatever. During the Korean war, the

article goes on to say, 1950 to 195 3, prices soared, and budget surpluses were constant. Now there you have the opposite effect. You have government surplus es with high inflation. Now explain that. I ask members opposite to explain that phenomenon. You know, they've bamboozled the people of Manitoba long enough. In 1951, when the inflation rate was more than 11 percent, the surplus was close to one billion dollars. The government surplus was one billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, in 1951 and the inflation rate was 11 percent, double digit inflation, which is what we are experiencing now.

So, make sense of my friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, it's impossible, it is absolutely impossible. During the 1964-1974 period, the cost of living increases rose from a modest 3 percent annually to the double digit figures common today, yet every year during that time, the government sector measured on a national accounts basis was in surplus. It just doesn't add up does it, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure it's a revelation to yourself. In 1975 -76, inflation eased somewhat while deficits increased. Now there's an opposite situation again, that is to the thinking of my friends opposite. The U.S. experience has been similar.

Historian Arthur Schlessinger wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, history reveals no demonstrable relationship between government deficits and inflation. We had inflation in 19 20, when the federal budget ran a surplus. If deficits cause inflation as a general rule and are not merely reflections of another phenomenon, like wars and depressions, then West Germany with a deficit more than double that of the United States on a comparable basis should be staggering under an inflationary load. In fact, though the U.S. inflation rate is four times that of West Germany. So, Mr.

Speaker, what's all that rhetoric about? In the past few years, Mr. Speaker, the

article goes on to say, Canada has had high deficits and mounting inflation, that is why the two are joined in the conventional mind. And I suppose that is what explains the phenomena of thinking of members opposit e, along with a good numb er of people amongst the populace.

But now the two economists, we are now talking about two economists here, have published another study to shake up our thinking even further, Clarence Barber, of the University of Manitoba and John Maccallum, of Simon Fraser University in British Columbi a, in a study called Unemplo yment and Inflation - The Canadian Experience argue the main reason for the rising deficit since 19 75 is the U.S. recession spilling into Canada, and that is their

interpretation of the inflation problem, is the export of the recession in the United States into Canada. This lead to a drop in government revenue, and that drop un balanced the budget. If Barber and MacCallum are right, then slashing of gov ernment spending to bring th e budget into balance is a matter of symbolism but doesn't make sense. It's like burying an onion under a full moon to get rid of the warts, that's what they say, Mr. Speaker, and that's really typical of my friends opposite. Yes, it's like doing something on Friday the 13 th, I supp ose.

Barber and MacCallum argue politely that Canadians have swallowed a lot of bull. They state, economists have failed miserably in educating the public as to the role of government deficits in a modern economy. The two economists compare the period 19 53-78. If we look at the data in terms of expenditures and constant prices, we find that the share taken by government actually declined over the period, and that's an interesting revelation, Mr. Speaker. The share of government declined from 24.8 percent in 1953 to 21 percent in 1978.

Thus, in terms of real output measured in dolla rs of unchanged purchasing power, our governments took a smaller share in 1978 than they did in 1953. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a very interest ing revelation, they say the programs proposed to correct our current ills, slash ing spending and balancing the budget, will cause misery and more unemployment, but will not deal with the problems of inflation, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's something worth pondering for members opposite, that is something worth pondering, Mr. Speaker. - (I nterjection)- Yes, Mr.

Speaker, there are times in the private sector where you have to accept a deficit position. There are times in the private sector, Mr. Speaker, to answer my friend, the Mini ster of Economic Development, that you are forced to enter into deficits. And anyone in the business world, Mr. Speaker, would know that, any farmer would know that, they would know it in spades, that there are many many deficit years, Mr. Speaker, so that is a normal part of doing business. Now, it's obvious you have to have some good ones to catch up, otherwise you're in trouble and no one denies that, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt about that. You have to balance your budget on a cyclical basis from time to time. But, Mr.

Speaker, to argue that you have to have a balanced budget every year regardless of economic circumstances, absolute nonsense - absolute nonense. -(lnterjection) That's right, the Member for Brandon East is having fun with my statement, he says, you can carry the argument much further, you can argue that you should have a balanced budget every day or every week or every month but -(Interjection)- That's right, every quarter, the Minister of Finance prides himself with the fact that he now has a pulse on the economy with his quarterly statement, let's balance the budget every quarter, Mr. Speaker. If you did 3926

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 that you would hamstring the operation of this whole administration. It doesn't work that way. So if your economic cycle is five years or ten years, Mr. Speaker, whatever it is, th at's th e balancing factor; it's not one year or another year it's the cyclical period that you have to bring into balance. So, Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite will have to shake their thoughts of the 30s, of the 20s, and move a little forward into what we consider to be the modern period of our time where people expect a lit tle mo re, a little more from their government in dealing with probl ems, economic problems that arise from time to time. I don't believe that it is any longer acceptable, in fact I would predict, Mr.

Speaker, that if the mismanagement of our economy by friends opposite and if through some misfortune their friends were elected in the House of Commons and governed for a period of time and brought this whole country to a standstill, Mr. Speaker, I would predict that our society would not tolerate, Mr.

Speaker, I would predict that they would violently oppose it, if we ever tried to go back to that period of our history where governments paid very little attention and carried very little responsibility for the status of the economy, where we had mass poverty, abject poverty, from one end of the country to another. Mr. Speaker, they would stand that kind of thing anymore. Mr. Speaker, they recognize that, this government recognizes that. But, Mr.

Speaker, the way they are dealing with it is something else again, because I don't believe in a modern society that their method of dealing with it is acceptable, that the method of 40, 50 years ago is not accepted today, Mr. Speaker. -(Int erjection)- That's right. Mr. Speaker, the people are much more alert today, much more sophist icated today, and are demanding of their governments a great deal of performance on a day to-day basis, on a week-to-week basis and certainly on a year-to-year basis. Mr.

Speaker, the Manitoba economy in 1980, as portrayed by the Conference Board , is something that is worthwhile for the mem bers oppo site to take cognizance of. The Conference Board is anticipating a sharp economic slowdown for Canada in 19 80 with an annual growth rate of some 0.6 percent in the volume of gross domestic product. I know members opposite have that statistic, it's not news. We are aware of it; they are aware of it. It says only Al berta and Saskatchewan are anticipated to escape this ordeal in 1980.

Real output is expected to grow by 3.4 percent in Saskatchewan and by 4.7 percent in Alberta. -(lnterjection)- Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development still thinks that magic 1.8 is a great thing. Mr. Speaker, let's deal with that. It says, except for Manitoba, which is expected to grow in 1980 by 1. 8 percent, all other provinces will grow at rates at a lower than 1 percent. Ontario and New Brunswick are expected to show negative growth rates.

Thus, on surface, it can be claimed that Manitoba will advance at a growth rate three times the national average and the third highest after Saskatchewan and Ab erta. Mr. Speaker, the government presumably can afford to be complacent about this in their budget speech. I can see their complacency, they think that 1. 8 percent is great. The truth of the matter, however, is that it's simply a cyclical aberration and nothing to write home about, Mr. Speaker. It's a cyclical aberration and nothing to write home about. After a sluggish growth period, Mr.

Speaker, of 2.3 percent in 1978 and 1. 4 percent in '79, this year's growth of 1. 8 is but another indication that the Manitoba economy is not yet recovered from the slowdown of 19 77. (I nterjection)- That's right. It is a continuing recession. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the data for the period of 19 77-19 80, it confirms the above observations with the average annual real growth rate of 1.9 percent for 1977-19 80, a 3-year period.

Manitoba's growth rate was the third lowest in the country after New Brunswick and Ontario of 1. 5 percent each, the thir d lowest in the country in terms of the - (I nterjection)- But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development takes pride in 1. 8 percent. He's fallen into the trap now; yes, he has fallen into the trap where now he finds that our average was 1.9 which was a decimal point greater than what we are now realizing. Over the last three years it was a shade greater, but that result, the three-year result, is the third lowest in Canada. So what is he so proud of at 1.8 in 1980, Mr.

Speaker? -(Interjection)- Mr. Speaker, this is some thing th at th e Minis ter anticipates. This is something that the Minister anticipates, Mr. Speaker. I recall, Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, yes, on April 25, 1977, this is the Debates and Proceedings in this Assembly on April 25, 197 7, when the now government, then opposition, was criticizing our budget. There was criticism made of the fact that our budget did not give recognition to the then drought in Manitoba. It said, this weakness, Mr.

Speaker, may be fur ther aggravated by th e effects on government revenue through falling farm income in what appears unfortunately to be a very serious and persisting drought condition. Accordingly, any budget this year must and ·should include allowances for the effects of drought, both on revenue and on expenditure requirements of this government. But we hear nothing in the Minister's speech about that. A serious long-term concern in Manitoba is the decline in the - well, he does into minerals now. Mr. Speaker, that is a quote - yes, who said that - well, it says here Mr. Sterling R. Lyon. Who was he, Mr.

Speaker, at that time? He was the Leader of the Opposition, wasn't he? At that time he said that no government with any management skill would bring in a budget under conditions of drought in rural Manitoba without expenditures for it and without revenue losses as a result of it. Mr. Speaker, I would like members opposite to indicate to me where I can find an item in this budge t that has some thing to do with current drought conditions which, as far as I am aware, is the worst drought condition that I have recalled in my memory. There are members here that are older than I am, Mr.

Speaker, and perhaps they have more vivid recollections of years past, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure that this drought is many fold greater in terms of a problem to Manitoba than was the drought in 19 77. I ask the members opposite where is the reference in the Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the cost of the drought, with respect to the revenue shortfalls. I mean, are we talking now 200 million in deficit? I know the projected deficit is 3927

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 13 9 million, but it hasn't taken account of the drought, Mr. Speaker. And so, what is going to be the projected deficit or the realized deficit if, indeed, this dr ought condition does result in a major catastrophe, incomewise, to the farm community of this province. I don't know how many people over there, Mr. Speaker, realize what's going on. I'm sure that some of the rural members must, but if you talk to businessmen in rural areas of Manitoba, they are terrified at what is happening. They are terrified of what is happening, Mr.

Speaker, because they know that the drought condition is compounding already serious problems in agriculture, the problems of high interest rates, -(Interjection)- yes, the problems of prices and now the problems of drought. That is a combination of difficult ies that aren't often put together in one season, Mr. Speaker, and I don't blame the farmers for resisting their normal buying habits at this time of the year.

I don't blame them whatever; I can recognize the fear of the business community that services the farm areas as to the volume of business that they may expect in 19 80 because of these major catastrophic conditions. Interest rates which this budg et has made no reference to, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing here for businessmen in this budget, or farm businessmen, if you like, they're all businessmen, with respect to what we're going to do with interest rates. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St.

George reminds me of a very innovative element in this budget, the major input that the Minister of Economic Development has put into this budget. He has decided that his major thrust in this budget to help his fellow businessmen will be that they will receive an extra 10 a month for the collection of sales taxes on behalf of the people of Manitoba. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's right, that's 12 0 in a year, Mr. Speaker. That is the single element in this budget that has some benefit to the small businessmen of this province, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Speaker, I can recognize the red face of my honourable friend, the Minister of Economic Development. I can recognize why he is embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, because it is true. If you peruse the whole document you can't find anything there but 10 for the small business people, 10 for their services in collections of Manitoba sales taxes for the province of Manitoba, and these people are supposed to be the friends of the little businessmen. -(Interjection)- Well, the Minister for Economic Development tried to indicate to me from his chair, Mr.

Speaker, that there was an increase also, or adjustment in the exemptions in the corporate capital tax. Well, he's right. From half a milli on dol lars to thr ee-quarters of a million. But Mr. Speaker, his perception of small business is perhaps a little different from mine. Mr. Speaker, thr ee quarters of a mill ion dollars is quite a sizeable operation in its capitalization. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. James with a point of order. HON. GEORGE MINAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask your judgement on Rule No. 33(2), Designation of Substitute.

I believe the honourable member has spoken longer than 40 minutes in this debate, and I would like to ask your ruling on the fact that the rules says, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of recognized opposition parties may each, in advance, designate some member of his party to speak inanysuchdebate, you're now dealing with the budget debate, for such time as he desires, but in the case, the leader if he speaks in the debate, shall be allowed to speak for 40 minutes only. I would suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, in this debate, the Budget Debate, has spoken longer than 40 minutes, and I would ask your ruling on this matter, because the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet has spoken longer than 40 minutes at this point. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kildonan on the same point of order. MR. PETER FOX: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm certain that you are well aware that we are now into a sub-amendment. The Leader of the Opposition spoke on the original motion and made an amendment.

Since then it has been amended, and we are into a totally new resolution in respect to this floor. Let me also indicate that the Member for Lac du Bonnet indicated, at the beginning of his remarks, that he had been designated by his leader and by caucus to take that particular position, and there was no protest at that particular time, so I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet has ample time to carry on. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for lnkster on the same point of order. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister has indicated, on a point of order, that the Member for Lac du Bonnet has spoken longer than 40 minutes. The Member for Lac du Bonnet got up and indicated that he was designated by his leader to speak for his leader on this particular motion, the motion, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. GREEN: . . you people know everything. The motion, Mr. Speaker, is a sub-amendment to the Budget Speech, and Mr.

Speaker, if you need, other than the fact that the leader of a party, on any motion, may speak mor e than 40 min utes, or designate a member, I will refer you to the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for River Heights, on the Budget Speech, on his Wabowden speech, spoke two hours on a sub-amendment. I, in the past four years, Mr.

Speaker, have been designated by my leader to speak on the sub-amendment, on the amendment, either on the Throne Speech or on the Budget Speech, and have spoken for more than 40 minutes, and it is a precedent which is so common in this House that I am surprised that it would be raised by any honourable member. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Go vernment House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, let me first of all, refer to Beauchesne Fourth Edition, 195 8, Citation 12 0, which defines debate as the proceedi ngs between the rising of a member to move a motion and the ascertainment by the Chair 3928

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 of the decision of the House, constitute a debate. The debate is referred to in Rule 33, to speak in any such debate, I think it's clearly contemplating, Mr. Speaker, in Rule 23, Budget Speech Debate. Budget Speech Debate refers to the whole debate that takes place for the eight days, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that where the Leader of the Opposition has spoken for more than 40 min utes on one occasion during that debate, that he has no right to designate any other member of his party to speak for more than 40 minutes during the balance of the Budget Speech Debate. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the Member for Lac du Bonnet has already exceeded his time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Winnipeg Centre on the point of order. MR. J. R. (Bud) BOYCE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would caution the members to interpret the rule as is being suggested by the Minister of Community Services, and somewhat su bstantiated by the House Leader, because if what he says is accepted, then it will preclude the address by the Premier tomorrow, because the Minister of Finance has spoken over 40 minu tes on the introduction of the debate. So if this

interpretation is given to the rules, then any member on that side of the House is also limited to 40 minutes. But Mr. Speaker, I think if you wanted to take it under advisement - I hav en't got my Beauchesne here in my desk, but each motion is a motion unto itself and the debate is relative to each motion which is substantive, and the rules apply to each and every one as separate. So what is being argued in my judgement as lu dicrous, but I'm sorry, I can't substantiate it by

chapter and verse. But it is my opinion, and I think I can su bstantiate that in argument, that if what is being asked be applied in this debate now is applied, then it will preclude the Premier speaking more than 40 minutes tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for lnkster on a point of order. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll make one short point. If the Leader of the Opposition was now speaking, he'd have the right to speak. He has not spoken on the amended motion. He had the right to speak, he has the right to speak for as long as he likes.

If he has the right to speak for as long as he likes, he has the right to designate another member to do so. That has always been the case, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Highways. HON. DONALD OR CHARD (Pembin a): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre, according to Rule 33 -(Interjection)- on the point raised by the Member for Winnip eg Centre, it specifically states in Rule 33 that su bject to sub-rule 2, no member except the leader of the government, (

b) the Leader of the Opposition, (

c) leaders of recognized opposition parties, or (

d) a Minister mo ving a government order. I suggest with due respect, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance was moving a government order and that th e leader of the government is entitled to unlimited debate as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Kildonan on a point of order. MR. FOX: I'll try and make this as simple as possible, and I would hope that it would be for the edification of our Ho use Leader. If what he is suggesting should take place, then that would mean that we would only vote once on this particular question. That's where he makes his error.

If we have an amendment and a sub-amendment, we vote on each particular issue because they are separate motions, and therefore th e rule in respect to unlimited debate by the leader or by a designated person applies to an amendment and also to a sub amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. -(Interjection)- That's right, that's common sense. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance on the point of order. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr.

Speaker, I don't recall the practice that has occurred in every case, but I do think in reading the rules that we have, and I'm no expert on Beauchesne by any stretch of the imagination, but according to the rule book we do use it refers to the debate and the debate is the Budget Debate, and the debate as defined by the House Leader is the debate of the budget. As a result, if we read our rule book, the Blue Book, it's pretty clear. Mr. Speaker, I realize the problem that's occurring and I have to take at face value the comments of the Member for lnkster when he says that he cites at least two occasions.

I can't bear it out. But, Mr. Speaker, two wrongs don't make a right necessarily. It refers here pretty clearly to the debate and I think, as a result, what we would find ourselves in is if we don't adhere to the rule here, we could find ourselves in the position of having not one, but two and possibly three unlimited debates. It isn't a case of th e member being denied his opportunity necessarily to speak. There are others who also want to speak and the Leader of the Opposition had his full go for an unlimited time in the debate, Mr. Speaker.

We've never had an occasion that I can recall where this has been requested. Now, if it has, then we're into a different ballgame. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to try and cause, by these remarks, the House to adopt a practice that is going to thwart anyone from their traditional rights. But on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, in getting into this at this stage of the game, what is occurring is that others that want speak in this debate are going to be th warted from speaking. So that is th e dilemma we're faced with and as you read the Blue Book I think it's fairly clear - the debate is the debate.

It's the Budget Debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Member for lnkster on a point of order. MR. GREEN: I think we're going to use up the member's time in any event. That is what's going to 3929

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 happen. But, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member was right, if the Honourable Minister of Finance was right, a person can only speak once in a debate. Once. Is he suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition could not be speaking on this motion? Because that is absolutely stupid. Mr. Speaker, if the Leader -(Interjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. MR. GREEN: If the Leader of the Opposition could speak on this motion, he can ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

I would hope that members in this Chamber would accord the dignity and the courtesy to those members who are speaking on points of order and those that are recognized by the Chair. The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: The Rule 46, no member may speak twice to a ques tion except in explanation of a material part of his speech. So no member may speak twice to a question in a debate. That is a well known rule, except the person may close debate, the person who introduces the motion. If there is an amendment, it is a new debate, the Leader of the Opposition would be able to get up.

If the Leader of the Opposition was able to get up, he could speak for three hours, he could designate somebody to do it. It's been done, Mr. Speaker, I will, if you wish me to - I'm sorry that the Clerk is not here, the regular Clerk is not here, he would get it in a minute - but I will cite at least four occasions on which it was done. It was done by the Member for River Heights, the Leader of the Opposition on the Wabowden motion, when he spoke for maybe thr ee hours after an amendment was introduced. Yes. And if the leader can do it, he can designate a member to do it. I have done it, Mr.

Speaker, at least twice while I was in government and at least once while I was in opposition. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Finance on the point of order. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, there was a suggestion MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I would hope that all members would be a little bit concerned with the problem at hand and try and address their thoughts to a problem that is a concern of this Assembly, and I recognized the Honourable Minister of Finance on the point of order. -(lnterjection) Order please. Order please.

I would hope that the Honour able Member for Minnedosa and th e Honourable Member for Bu rrows, if they have a disagreement, that they would remove themselves from the Chamber in order to solve it. The Ho nour able Minister of Fina nce. (Interjection)- Order please. Order please. If the Honourable Member for Portage has something to say, I wish he would sit in his own seat. The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, it's been suggested to you that you take it un der consideration.

Unfortunately, that real opportunity is not afforded you, and I think in the circumstances that there is an element of doubt. -(Interjection)- Mr. Speaker, there's maybe no element of doubt in the minds of some. There is an element of doubt if one reads the rule book, or whether one cites immediate past practice, which some are prone to cite, and I don't deny the fact that they are perhaps correct in it. So Mr. Speaker, I think under the circumstances, that being the case, that we ought to proceed with an element of doubt, as far as we're concerned, on this side. I would further suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the normal practice is in the Budget speech that the Fir st Minis ter has his opportun ity to close the debate. Mr. Speaker, I've never known it, other than when the First Minister himself was the Minister of Finance when he did not have an opportunity to close debate, and I am going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes 10 :00 o'clock, the government side of the House is going to be willing to waive the rules to let the member go as far as he wants to. But, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to deny the First Minister the opportunity, as tradition has provided, for him to enter the debate.

And if it's the intention of the opposition to talk it through, if it's the intention of the opposition to deny the First Minister; if it's the intention, Mr. Speaker, of the opposition to deny the First Minister his opportunity to enter the debate . MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. Would th e Honourable Member for Burrows wait until he is recognized by the Chair before he interrupts in debate. The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, then I gather it is the intention of the opposition to deny the First Minister to enter the debate. That seems now to be perfectly clear. As a result, Mr.

Speaker, ii there is not that sort of acquiescence to the fact that come 10:00 o'clock we're prepared to let it go indefinitely until the Member for Lac du Bonnet has a chance to complete his remarks, then ii ther e's not that agreement, Mr. Speaker, then we'll read the Blue Book as it stands. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I appreciate the advice that every member of this Chamber is willing to give me, but I hope that they would wait until they were recognized by the Chair before they offer it. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could I seek your guidance and ask you what motion we are debating at the present time? MR. SPEAKER: At the present time, the motion before the House is the motion of the Honourable Minis ter of Fin ance, with the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, and the sub-amendment as proposed by the Honourable Member for lnkster. That is the motion that is presently before the House. The Honourable Member for St. George. 3930

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, just to further clarify that. Which motion shall we be voting on first that comes up for a vote when the debate is concluded? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I find it rather difficult because some of the rules that we do have in this Chamber are that direct questions should not be asked of the Speaker of the House, although I realize that in this particular case the member is seeking information and I am trying to seek information from the members of the Chamber at the same time, so we must have some form of dialogue going on here. The Honourable Member for St. George.

MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point that I was going to make, Sir, in seeking clarification from yourself, was that, and you alluded to it, is that there are, in effect, three motions before us. The original motion as presented by the Minister of Finance which was spoken on by our leader and delivered his speech with an amendment thereto. Then there was the following several speeches, and then there was a further amendment to that speech, Mr. Speaker.

No one on this side has responded to the further amendment, and the leader his designated the Member for Lac du Bonnet to speak on his behalf to this motion, which we will vote on tomorrow; and subsequent to that vote, we will vote on the amendment and we will vote on the main motion. So there will be three separate votes, Mr. Speaker.

If there are three separate votes, there are then three separate motions before the House, and the Leader of the Opposition has designated, and it was brought forward at the beginning of his speech, that the Member for Lac du Bonnet will be, and shall be, the designated speaker on this motion that he is speaking to now. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital on the point of order. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the same point of order.

In listening to the points put forward chiefly by the Government House Leader and remarks from this side, it would seem that the matter of dispute would boil down to the meaning that is being attributed to the words the debate. It's been suggested by the government House Leader that it refers to the debate on the Budget speech; it's been suggested by members on this side that the term refers to the debate on the sub-amendment. Mr. Speaker, can I quote to you, in support of our contention, the official record of the House, which is Votes and Proceedings, and it appears above your signature, Mr. Speaker.

It says on Page 183, And the debate co ntinuing on the sub-amendment , Honourable Mr. Enns continuing his address and Messrs. Doern, McGregor, Adam and Brown having spoken, the debate was, on the motion of Mr. Parasiuk, adjourned. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that on your authority in the official record of this House that the words the debate refers to the sub-amendment. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Go vernment House Leader on the point of order. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, if I may say this simply so that the leader of the members opposite understands, if that's the way he wishes to address me through you, Mr.

Speaker, he'll get the same in return. Mr. Speaker, if you look at Orders of the Day, it refers to Adjourned Debate, seventh sitting day. That's what it is, Adjourned Debate, Mr. Speaker. It's different from the Throne Speech debate where you have a vote on the fifth day and a member could speak for a second time on the amendment after the fifth day. Here we clearly refer, on our own Order Paper, to Adjourned Debate, Mr.

Speaker, and I suggest to you that the rules are clear that where the Leader of the Opposition has already used unlimited time and spoken for 40 minutes, he has no authority to designate another speaker to speak during the Budget Speech Debate for more than 40 minutes. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster on the point of order. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, it's regrettable that kind of statement would be made by the House Leader.

The reason for listing it as sixth and seventh days is that some years ago it was decided that no matter how many motions or amendments were made the Budget Speech Debate would last eight days, or seven days, and the Throne Speech Debate would last eight or seven, whatever it was.

Prior to that rule having been made, any numb er of amendments could have been made to that debate and it wouldn't have been listed on the Order Paper as seven days; but in the rule s itself, it says you can make amendments and sub-amendments, but no matter how many there are, they will be voted on the seventh day, and that's why it appears that way on the Order Paper. It isn't intended, was never intended, Mr. Speaker, has never been used to change the fact that on any motion before the House each speaker can speak.

And if each speaker can speak the leaders can speak; and when a leader speaks in a debate he can speak for any length of time, or designate somebody to do so. If the House Leader was right it would mean that on this motion a person who has spoken on the first amendment wouldn't be able to speak on this motion. That is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that anybody would raise that kind of position. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance on the point of order. MR. CRAIK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. Again, there was an element of logic raised by the Member for St.

George with regard to the sequence of the amendments to debate. The difficulty in this case is that there is no opportunity to debate the amendment the way the rules exist. The sub-amendment, technically, is the only one that is now being discussed. We were precluded at the start by the fact that there was a sub-amendment moved. We were precluded at the end by the fact that all th ree motions are put without any discussion in between. Mr.

Speaker, the three motions are the debate, with the moving of the sub-amendment all discussion on the amendment was precluded at the start and the rules, as we see them, preclude the discussion on the amendment at the end. So Mr. Speaker, this 3931

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 reinforces the fact that debate, as defined in the Blue Book, is the Budget debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for lnkster on the point of order. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to now give you at least one of the references that I referrred to. Throne Speech Debate, Mr. Speaker, 1978, Friday, March 23 ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We are dealing with the Budget Debate, not the Throne Speech. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the rule is exactly the same. MR. SPEAKER: I don't believe they are. The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I submit, with the greatest of respect, that we are dealing with an amendment to a motion. We are now dealing with an amendment to a motion. A time limit is set for the Throne Speech Debate, a time limit is set for the Budget Speech Debate, and I will find you one on the budget if you want to. But if you are now making a distinguishing feature between a motion and an amendment on the Throne Speech and a motion and an amendment on the Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, you are making a distinction that I wouldn't believe could have been made by anybody, and I sincerely regret having to say this, Mr. Speaker.

But I am now going to read what was said in Hansard, Friday, March 23, 19 78, without objection and dealt with, Mr. Green in speaking, I spoke four paragraphs, Mr. Speaker. I then said, I also want to advise the Speaker that my leader has designated me on this motion, which was an amendment, which was his amendment by the way, - excuse me, it was, I believe, a Li beral amendment - has designated me on this motion to speak on his behalf and therefore I will probably be going somewhat beyond the time limit that is ordinarily allowed, and did, Mr.

Speaker, and did it on two other occasions, and the Member for River Heights, when he was Leader of the Opposition, did it as well. Mr. Speaker, the honourable members are now making a distinction between the leader and his designate. Two minutes ago they were saying, it's one debate and you can only speak once. Now they are quibbling and weaseling, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member on the same point of order. The Honourable Member for St. George on the point of order. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the Rules of our House, and the Minister of Finance mentioned, and you mentio ned, Sir, that there is some difference between the debate on the budget and any other debate. Mr. Speaker, in our rules 23 (5) on Page 15 of our Rule Book, it says, on the eighth day of the eight days, at 30 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, unless debate has previously been concluded, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every qu estion necessary to dispose of the main motion, and any amendments thereto. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance alleged, in his comments, that it would preclude any member from speaking on any motion except the sub-amendment or the last motion. There is nothing precluding this House from voting, if they so desire, on the motion that is presently before us, and still allowing the debate to continue the full eight days on whatever motion is left, should it be the sub-amendment that shall be voted on at any time or the amendment, but the main motion that shall be left will be voted on the eighth day, regardless of what happens, Mr. Speaker. That is the limitation of time.

If none of the amendments are dealt with before that time they, of course, will be dealt with before the main motion, in that order, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank the Honourable Member for St. George, I think he has raised a very valid point. I have some difficulty. I have read very carefully Rule 33, Sub 2, which seems to indicate that every recognized political party, the Leader of that party has the right to designate a person to speak in his place. It is also one of the rules of our debate, to allow a maximum opportunity for debate.

And in our Throne Speech debate I think we have done that when we have allowed a vote on various different days. In this particular case we have all three votes at the same time, which does, in my opinion, preclude to some extent debate on the various motions before you. However, I would seek, I would ask the House for the opportunity to investigate further, particularly with other jurisdictions, where I can get expert advice, to find out what has occurred in other jurisdictions. And if I can get that agreement from the House I would, request that at this time.

Failing that, I may very well make a ruling which may not, on further investigation, prove to be correct, and I would ask the advice of the House on that particular matter. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to suggest that the Member for Lac du Bonnet be allowed, without prejudice, to continue speaking until 10 :00 o'clock, if he wishes to go that long, subject to a ruling with respect to this matter to be made before Orders of the Day tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Mr.

Speaker, if we have the right to speak and there is no time limit, I am not prepared to negotiate with the House Leader on a rule which is clear. I think the rule is perfectly clear, I think we are totally aware that we have three motions before us. If one of these motions was voted on now, or even if a second motion was voted on now, we could bring in further amendments, that is clear. So therefore we could be voting on a numb er of amendm ents between now and the eight days that we are entitled to, so therefore there is no question in respect to what we have before us.

We have right now a particular sub-amendment; on that particular sub amendment there has been a designation in respect 3932

Thursday, 22 May, 1980 to speaking time. And if you wish you are entitled to make that, Mr. Speaker, make it ruling that you do not consider that rule as th e way it is being interpreted at the present time. But I would suggest that you should not be taken in by the House Leader that we can negotiate and have a cut-off at 10:00 o'clock or at any other time. Either we have the perfect right to carry on on this motion as if it is a regular motion, or else you make a ruling and we'll have to challenge that particular ruling. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet on the point of order. MR. USK IW: Mr.

Sp eaker, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, but in your contribution you have assumed that this vote will not come up before 1: 00 o'clock tomorrow. It could come up tonight, Mr. Speaker; it could come up the first thing in the morning or midway durin g the morning. The three votes do not necessarily come together, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER : The Ho nourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I've attempted to be as agreeable as possi ble with respect to th e quandary in which you find yourself.

I do point out, as I'm sure you are well aware, that you may reserve a decision and subsequently state the reasons which could be done tomorrow, if you wish to take this matter under consideration. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Kildonan on a point of order. MR. FOX: I have one further point to make, Mr. Speaker.

If you are going to consider what the House Leader has requested, we are prepared to look at that, but that means that the eighth day doesn't end tomorrow, it ends the period of time that we have between now and the time that expires to the eighth day after you have made your decision, not before. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm sure I can find in Beauchesne that it is highly impr oper for any member to issue threats to the Chair, that I would consider the remarks that the Honourable Member for Kildonan has made as being conditional in that respect, and I would hope that he would reconsider them.

The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were conditional to the House Leader's remarks. I said, if we are to consider that you take this un der advisement, then I would suggest, if the House Leader wants it that way, that the time does not expire until after your decision has been made in respect to the time that we have between now and expiry time.

Because we have 20 minutes to the hour now and we have three-and-a-half hours tomorrow, and ii we are going to take a couple of days to make that decision and the vote has to be taken tomorrow, then we have lost all that debating time and that may be debating time that the First Minister may have had , we don 't know that. So th erefore I say conditionally, to the House Leader, not to you, Sir, but to the House Leader, that the time then has to be extended. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Go vernment House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I disagree entirely with the Opposition House Leader.

The rules clearly refer to eight sitting days and a vote to take place at 30 minutes before the time of adjournment on the eighth day. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet on the point of order. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, perhaps a number of members were not in the House when I rose to my feet, Mr. Speaker, and that may be the problem. Mr. Speaker, at the time I ind icated th at I was representing the Leader and the Caucus and that should imply in my mind that the 40 minute time limit would not hold. Mr. Speaker, that statement of mine was not challenged by you or by anyone on that side.

At that time that was not challenged. Mr. Speaker, it is too late to challenge it now, because the attempt here is to deny me my full rights to debate. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I have listened to the comments of all members. I had hoped there would be consent that we could carry on until I was able to find expert advice on this particular matter. Failing that, the House is. accordingly adjourned and stands adjour ned until 10 :00 o'clock tomorr ow morning (Friday). 3933

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-63b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 63b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	24623484e399382365fa170c7218ac80b17e75dc

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