Manitoba Hansard — 9 December 1982 (Sitting 6B, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-6b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No.SB - 8:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 9 DECEMBER, 1982. Prmted by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Con,,;ordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flan Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 9 December, 1982 Time - 8:00 p.m. THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. I apologize to the House at being a few minutes late into the Chamber this evening. I was preparing a pro cedural statement having to do with the dispute in this House at 5:30 this afternoon. I wi ll read it to the House when the Mem ber for Fort Garry is present. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, I'd like to raise this matter at this point. I had hoped that the Me mber for Fort Ga rry would be present. You're making a state ment, Mr . Speaker?

I would like to just reserve the opportunity to make a statement when the Member for Fort Garry arrives. MR. SPEAKER: Fine. The Honourable Op position House Leader. MR. A. RANSOM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that during the course of the Throne Speech Debate, anyone has the right to reserve the right to speak at any time. If the Honour able First Minister has a point of order which he wishes to raise at some point, then so be it. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, the matter I wish to raise is a matter of privilege and it is my desire to make that matter of privilege when the Mem ber for Fort Garry is present.

MR. SPEAKER: It would seem to be a matter of cour tesy to the House to deal with the point when the Honourable Memb er for Fort Garry is present to hear it. I'm sure that the Honourable First Minister would not interrupt a debate to bring it up, but I would rec ognize him in the space between speakers. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: It's on that motion that you were referring to? MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mem ber for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr. Speaker, if I could jus t ask a qu estion.

Inasmuch as I feel that I understand why the First Min ister is going to be making remarks when the Honourable Memb er for Fort Garry is here, I think to counteract some of those remarks, that I was very very upset earlier on in the day with some of the remarks that were made by the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natu ral Resources.

I would hope that when the Honourable First Minister makes his remarks when the Honourable Me mber for Fort Garry is here, that the Honour able Minister of Mine s and Natu ral Resources will be here so that I can make remarks to countermand some of the remarks that are going to be made by the First Minister. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm sure that the same opportunity exists for the Honourable Member for Niakwa as applies to every other member of the House. On the matter of the proposed motion of the Honou rable Mem ber for Riel and the amendment proposed thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Op position.

The Honou rable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to take

part in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. Congratulations are in order for the Mover, the Honourable Memb er for Riel, and the Seconder, the Honourable Me mber for Thompson. Both of these members ably outlined compelling rea sons why the Speech from the Throne and the mea sures it proposes should be supported by all members of this House. I would like to take this opportunity to cong ratulate you, Mr . Speaker, for again assuming a most im por tant role in our proceedings and I wish you good health. As well, I would like to congratulate our new Deputy Speaker, the Honourable Me mber for River East.

I'm certain he wi ll serve ably in his new position. Mr. Speaker, these are serious economic times for Mani toba and for Canada. On e-and-a-half million Canadians are out of work; more than 30 percent of our nation's manufacturing capacity is idle; bankrupt cies are high; layoffs and plant closures continue, resulting in incr eased unemployment and declining production; interest rates continue to be high and appear to have levelled off for the last few weeks but, in relation to inflation, one could make the argument that inde ed they have incr eased because inflation has come down.

With one out of every eight Canadians unemployed, it is not surprising that governments across the country are finding themselves with severe financial difficulties. Taxation revenues are down due to unemployment and unused productive capacity and, at the same time, due to incr eased unemploy ment, the demand for many public services has · incr eased markedly. 136 Here in Manitoba, we have not escaped the grasp of the national recession, but our compa rative position is strong.

The Conference Board of Canada has stated that Ma nitoba and Saskatchewan wi ll realize the smal lest decline in economic growth this year. After being forced to flee this province as a result of the petty, puerile, painful, and pompous policies of the former government, large numbers of Ma nitobans are com ing back and we have an incr ease of 10,000 in the one year. They're coming back, Mr . Speaker. We have an incr ease of 10,000 Manitobans and they couldn't do that in four years in office. Retail and wholesale sales in this province have set the standard for the country.

Growth in retail sales is higher in our province than anywhere else in Canada. Our un employment, while certainly no bright spot, has maintained our stature as the province with the third lowest unemployment rate and we are the pro vince which has had the second smallest percentage decrease in employment, the second lowest decrease

Thursday, 9 December, 1982 in employment. We remember well, during the Tory years. how we used to be the province that had the lowest inc rease in number of people employed during that four years. That has tur'ned around. Inflation in Wi nnipeg is the second lowest in Canada at 7.8 per cent compared to the 10.4 percent experienced in most of Canada.

Here in Manitoba our aim in all that we have done has been twofold: first. to preserve the foundation of our economy to ensure that we can take quick and effective advantage of the national recovery when it arrives: seco nd, we have sought to protect those Manitobans hardest hit by national, fiscal and economic policies. Mr. Speaker, in Ma nitoba, we have done more than almost any other province to meet the chal lenges we face.

We introduced the first comprehensive program of interest rate relief anywhere in Canada: we in tro duced what is recognized by most observers as the best housing program in Canada - for the month of October, 1982, we have 160 percent in crease in hous ing starts over October. 1981: through freezes in the gas tax. and I would like expecia lly. Mr . Speaker, to draw to the attention of members opposite the gas tax freeze. apparently it escaped their attention when they made their reports to their constituents.

They didn't talk about the freeze on tuition fees, transit fares and maintenance for a fourth consecutive year; of the Hydro freeze. despite the fact that Hydro remains in a loss situation. Investment in hospital construction, new homes and other facilities has helped to provide some relief to our unemployed. The Throne Speech has promised that we are not content to sit back in the difficult times we are in. It outlines the measures this government wi ll undertake to help relieve the burden of recession.

In addition to the $60 milli on we have already set aside for special employment and housing measures. an additional 40 mil lion is now being allocated to provide additional employment for Manitobans looking for work. We are proposing the establishment of a Mani toba Oil and Gas Corporation. and we are proposing that close examination be given to allowing MPIC to com pete in the life ins urance field. Both of these measures should be viewed in the con text of ins uring the maxi mum rate of return to Ma nitobans.

At the same time as we are undertaking these eco nomic ini tiatives, we wi ll be working to strengthen the democratic institutions and indi vid ual liberties we cherish through freedom of information legislation. conflict of interest guidelines and other measures. I would like to spend some time discussing a topic I know tantalizes the Opp osition, the deficit. I would like, once again, to explain to the mem bers of the House how one arrives at a Budget because they appear to have forgotten very quickly. When we took office we discussed with various experts the matter of spending. Well. Mr.

Speaker. some of those experts happened to have some very conservative outlooks, Investment Dealers Association, Cham bers of Com merce. those kinds of people. We also talked with economists and with the Federal Government. We were told, as were other governments, that it appeared there might be a recovery coming in 1982 and we budgeted on that basis. just like other provinces did. You know. Mr.

Speaker. the members opposite seem to forget that we are part of a country where 137 things happen and when they happen they happen across the country, and there are some things you can do to alleviate those happenings but you can't do everything. We are not an is land unto ourselves. Brit ish Columbia had a tripling of their deficit from spring time to now. Saskatchewan moved from a statement by the Conservative Government that they were in a surplus position in the springtime of this year to a point where a few weeks ago they were several hundred millions of dollars in the red.

Quebec went down to over $3 billion dollars in deficit. There are a number of provinces which, in terms of gross provin cial product, have a much larger deficit than we do, but they choose to ignor e that. They choose to ignor e that some of their very own Conservative friends are having the same trouble in other parts of Canada that we have here. On ce we decided on a maximum amount of course. Mr. Speaker, we then had to decide whether we wanted to spend more. which would mean raising more revenues or stayi ng at that level which would mean eliminating a certain amount of spending. Yes. Mr.

Speaker. we chose to go with an additional $70 million of spending. In order to do that we had to raise $70 million worth of taxes. and that is where the health and education levy comes in. We get the schizoph re nia on the other side coming in when this tax is raised. We hear the Memb er for Turtle Mountain saying, elim inate the tax. He doesn't say what we should do in terms of cutting back on programming to meet that $60 million or $70 million this year and $110 million next year. -(I nterjection)- We'll find it ourselves, Frank, but I think you should, in all fairness, stand up and say where it would be.

If you say. Mr . Speaker, that we should elimina te that tax and if you say that $500 million is too high a deficit, then you have to eliminate more than that tax. You have to go much beyond that in your cuts. If you want a $400 million deficit and you don't want that tax. that means you have to find $150 million but other members in that schizophrenic Op position are talking a different tune. We hear about wanting more in social services; we hear we want more in drainages for the southern part of the province; we hear we want more for highways.

We hear from the Memb er for Pembina, he wants more money spent on the Manitoba Agri culture Corpora tion. On the one hand they want a lower deficit, they don't want taxes, and on the other hand, they want more spending. They can't have it all of those ways. Of course, we have the Leader of the Opp osition saying, we should cut back more civil servants and, of course, create more unemployment. It's very hard to see how they would respond if they were a government because as a group they're afraid to tell anyone.

They have all these different solutions but as a group they don't have one position that they can stand up and enunciate for the people of Ma nit oba. They're saying, we'll spend more on highways; we'll spend more on MACC: we'll spend on commun ity colleges. I was at a meeting the other day with the Member for Tuxedo who was telling high school childr en that our spending on colleges had inc reased by 3 percent in 1982. Talk about shading, we've heard a little bit about shading today. We've heard a little bit about shading the truth. You know, Mr. Speaker, that reminds me.

Thursday, 9 December, 1982 Recently, the Leader of the Op position issued a press release when I was in Europe condemning the press release that I had issued on Saturday, October 23rd in the Free Press headline: "Lyon blasts NOP Swiss loan claims as form of fraud," and he says we should tell people about exchange rates and that sort of thin g.

It is strange indeed to hear such protestations from the former Premier of this province, who personally announced on April 21, 1978, the equiv alent borrow ing by the Man itoba Government of 100 million Swiss francs, to quote directly from the former Premier the man who talks about fraud: "We are particu larly encouraged to have such a very good rate of interest." You will note, Mr. Speaker, that in that news release Mr. Lyon made no reference to the tricky situation with exchange rates, none whatsoever.

I can refer members opposite and the pub lic to other arrangements: January 1978, the Min ister of Finance announced a $68 million bond issue from Japan; August 4, 1978, he announced a $100 million Swiss franc loan; February 9, 1979, he announced a $75 milli on Eurodollar bond issue; April 27, 1979, he announced a $50 million borrowing in Japan; June of '79, the Premier announced in the Legislature the signing of a loan agreement in Switzerland for 100 million in Swiss francs and not once did he talk about the tricky situation with respect to the exchange rate. Not once, Mr.

Speaker, did we run around accusing the Premier of this province or the Min ister of Fi nance of fraud, because we full well knew that if you borrow in francs and have to repay in francs, that there is a question of exchange rates and Man itobans know that too. Man itobans know that. Mr. Speaker, that very same former Premier, and alleged Leader of the Opp osition made a reference the other day to an answer I had given on Ma y 25th, 1982 to a qu estion asked by him where I said that the Federal Government had indic ated that they were prepared to pay the tax, the health and education levy.

As we are all aware, we've had some problems with it later on, but rather than come to me in question period and say - why did you say that? - he stands up and claim s that I am shading the truth, that I am saying something false rather than asking me on what I based my statement. Well, that was on May 25th. On May 19th, 19821 quote from the Globe and Mail, and he was quoting a newspaper report to back up his story. I quote from the Globe and Mail, James Rusk, headline Ottawa: "Although the Federal Government does not have to pay the new Man itoba payroll tax, it will still pony up the money.

Ottawa likes to be a good citizen of the provin ces," a federal official explai ned. Techni cally it does not have to pay such things as the employers' share of the On tario Health Insurance Plan premiums, the Quebec or Manit oba payroll tax or even provincial sales tax, when a federal civil servant eats a meal or stays in hotel rooms when on the road. The reci procal agreement with Quebec does not spe cifically cover the payroll tax, however, Ottawa has been paying the payroll tax when Quebec tied into health insurance, and continued to do it after Quebec separated the two.

Very clearly the Federal Government had so indi cated, and we did contact the Federal Government as we did all employers in the province with a number of maili ngs in the late summer and fall of 1982 to let them know how to go about remitting their funds. Now it is true that the Federal Government decided that they would like, in addition to the same notification other employers received, a personal letter from me, and I sent it. I do not want to fight with them. I sent the Finance Min ister a nice personal letter and asked him for it and I'm sure that he will respond with the money shortly.

In fact, he has indicated in response to me that he is taki ng the matter to Cabi net, and we expect that something will happen. Mr. Speaker, the former Premier of this province also suggested the other day in the House, that the Union of Municip alities recently had a convention where he said they almost unanimously voted in opposition to the health and education levy. Talk about shading the truth, here's a report in the Winnip eg Sun, November 26, 1982, by George Ste phenson.

"The province's battered payroll tax gai ned yet another enemy yesterday when the Union of Man itoba Mu nicip alitie s voted to ask for its withdra wal. In what appeared to be a close vote, delegates to the Union's annual meeting agreed that the tax should at least not be applied to municip alitie s." That was the near unanimous vote that your Leader saw and he's the man who talks about shading the truth and you people have to sit there and listen to that I feel sorry for you. Mr. Speaker, we've had a lot of thi ngs waved at us over the last year with respect to promises.

When I was on the other side I wasn't continuously saying to the government every time they didn 't do something that they had wanted to do, that somehow they were liars. Let's take a look at the promises that they made in 1977, ju st a few of the ones that they said they were going to do. They said they were going to study a tax credit scheme for mortgage interest payments for first time homeowners; there was no study; there was no scheme. They were going to provide low interest loans to first-time home owners to encourage pur chase of substandard core area homes; no action.

They were going to -(I nterject ion)- I'm sorry, the Mem ber for Pembina has it wrong again but he's been wrong before. They promised a tax credit system to encourage home improvement; no action, I remember that one. ·They promised to provide incentives to encourage private sector development of low rent housing: nothing happened. They promised increased career guidance in secondary schools and yet spending reductions elimi nated the counsellors who were sup posed to give the extra counseling.

That's the kind of commitment they had, but we didn't say they were liars, we just said no they're not able to fulfil I all of their commitments, we recognized that. They promised on day care, the Memb er for Wolseley would be inter ested, minimum standards on staff programs, health, fire safety. 138 Mr. Speaker, they promised to provide suitable facil ities to support the needs of the elderly. Specifically, they were going to build senior citi zens homes and that sort of thing. What do they do? They froze it for two years. Did they tell people that? No, they did n't.

They said they were going to increase the number of women on provincial boards: they didn't do that. They said they were going to give clerical workers increased access to promotion; they didn't do that. But you

Thursday, 9 December, 1982 know we can go through the whole li st We have admittedly not been able to fulfil I all of our commitments; we've still got three years to go. In fact, four years constitutional ly, ·and so we will see what will come along in that period of time. We do know, again, what they did when they were in office. What did they do? Well, they kept a few prom ises. They promised to elimi nate rent controls and they sure did a good job of that They also said that they would elimi nate some civil servants' jobs, and they did that. They said that they were going to decrease spending. Now, Mr .

Speaker, the other day the Leader of the Oppo siti on, the Me mber for Shady Lane, said that in the first year that they came to office there was an increase in spendin g of 3 percent. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have here the Public Acc ounts of the Pro vince of Manit oba for the year ended Mar ch 31, 1979, Volume 1,

Section 2-8: actual expenditures 1977-1978 for the Provinc e of Manit oba, $1,641 ,630,244.00; 1978- 1979 the total $1,640.857,735; indeed a drop in spend ing of $772,000.00. At that time, we were heading towards tenth place in terms of employment growth. We were the province that was losing population. We were the province where employers were not pre pared to invest anymore as opposed to other areas. It was the have-not province. We began moving up in equalization payments -( Interjectio n)-. The base, Mr. Speaker, was there well before that bunch of incompetents showed up. Oh, and one other thing, Mr.

Speaker - I see the Memb er for Sturgeon Creek is grumblin g there. One number that I thought was signif icant, while there was a reduction of almost three-quarters of a million dollars in total government spending in that year, there was an increase of more than $60 million, from $95 million to $156 million, on highway construction, so we can see the priorities. You know who was getting it in the ear.

The Mem ber for Lakeside was there and he was sayin g, "people will have to understand that we Conservatives have differ ent priorities." He was straightforward about it, no shading there, completely straightforward. -(I nter jection)- Well, Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that the members opposite have so soon forgotten their solu tion for the economic crisis, misery in heavy doses for everyone excepting highway construction contractors. Mr . Speaker, I was talkin g about the health and education levy when I was so rudely interrupted. I'd like to get bac·k to that. You know, Mr.

Speaker, we have heard a lot from that group opposite about that tax and we've also heard from the financial commun ity. As members opposite will know, each provincial Budget is analyzed by the major financial houses and I'd like to quo te from the reaction of Mc Leod Young Weir, not a group known for its left-wing tendencies. They said, "The revenue measures display a sound sense of eq uity and economic judg ment.

The new levy on employers' payrolls is a particularly astute mea sure that will directly compensate for reduced federal transfers while at the same time permitting relatively low sale s and smal l busi ness taxes to be left untouched." Mr. Speaker, I am quoting McL eod Young Weir. I wasn't quoting Mel Watkins; I wasn't quoting Cy Gonick. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Turtle 139 Mountain, on a point of order. MR. A. RANSOM: Yes, sinc e the Mini ster has quoted from a public ation, I wonder if he would iden tify the specific publication. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr .

Speaker, I will be glad to table it. I have a copy of it in my office. I have taken the quote out of it on to my paper here. It is a document that came forward shortly after the Budget and it is a document that was printed for widespread distribu tion in the financial community, just as their docu ment with respect to the Ontario and other budgets has similar circulation. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I do want to raise the matter of the reason for the larger deficit at this time, because we have heard people opposite suggest, and maybe they didn't read the Quarterly Report very carefully, that it is because our spending is out of control. Now Standard and Poors, the financial rating agency is saying, no, that's not the problem; the problem is revenue drop, just as it is in other parts of the country.

I want to assure the House that our expenditures for the year 1982-83 will not be over the amount quoted by the Legislature to anywhere near the extent that occurred in the year 1981-82 when that group had control of the paystri ngs of the money in this pro vince. Indeed, the Mem ber for Churchill says, they didn't have control and that could well be the case. One of the problems that we faced, one of the rea sons for the situation we are in right now is high international interest rates and I am looking specifi cally at the Memb er for Mor ris because he made a good speech yesterday.

I congratulate him for it. I know he believes what he was sayin g was true. He knows that I honestly disagree with his position. I want him to know and members of the House to know, Mr. Speaker, that there are others who disagree with his position, many many others. In fact, I believe they are now becoming a majority. I have here a document from Pitfield Mc Kay Ross, well-known socialist organization, and that happens to be their, I believe, November issue. "Inflation, Recession and U.S. Mo netary Policy" is the heading.

On Page 1, "The severity and persistence of this recession is attributed mainly to the restrictiveness of U.S. monetary policy in an environment of recession and moderating inflation. The sustained bout of high interest rates that prevailed through most of the recession exacerbated existing difficulti es, both domestically and internationally, and further impaired the abil ity of all debtors to redress the deteriorated state of their financial affairs. The reality is that inter est rate levels in North America remain too high to precipit ate a broad-based financial and economic recovery.

Historicall y high levels of real interest rates have emerged in the U.S., as the moderating trend in inflation to date has outfaced the decline in normal interest rates. "We believe that recovery prospects in North Amer ica are conditional upon further decline s in interest rates that will precip itate a financial and economic recovery in the months ahead." That is Pitfield Mc Kay Ross.

9 December, 1982 A MEMBER: Do you believe it? HON. V. SCHROEDER: I believe that one of the rea sons we are in the position we are in right now in North America is the fact that we have had a tight money policy in Canada itself for many years, in the United States since before Reagan. It is true. MR. C. MANNESS: Do you believe that a 5 percent in terest rate would cure our problems? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I have heard that argument. The Mem ber for Morris asks whether a 5 percent in terest rate would cure the problem.

I believe that if there was a feeling on the part of the populace that there was going to be a reasonable interest rate for the foreseeable future, that you would see people buying, investing in houses, buying, in vest ing in businesses, in farm equipment, etc. What you do with the policy that they want is to kill the economy and then they expect that somehow out of the ashes they wi ll develop something that won't have inflation, no in flation. All recognized respected economists are saying now that it doesn't work. Even your friend, David Stockman, -(Int erjection)- Is he not th eir friend?

He was certainly a backer of President Rea gan. Even David Stockman is having second thoughts. Mr. Speaker, I see the Mem ber for Fort Garry has come in. I had told him this afternoon after he finished speaking, that was the most shameful disgusting dis play I had ever seen him carry on in this House. I was embarrassed practically to be in the House when he was making those statements. Then, Mr. Speaker, when he made those statements that he was making -(Int erjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: He was doing so - just for instance, he was attacking me because of the fact that I said that -(In terjection)- I don't mind fair attack. You can attack me on qu estions where we have differ ences, but when he has sat through a Legislative Ses sion, passed

an Act dealing with the health and educa tion levy, which very clearly stated that the funds being collected would go into General Revenue, and he then goes back and suggests that somehow I was being devious when I said that we needed money for health and education. Now, Mr. Speaker, it was just a few months ago, less than a year ago, that we had a problem with respect to decreases in funding from the Federal Government. We're all aware of that; you people were involved with that. We had to work on it too. We're all on the same side of the fence on that issue.

We had a drop in revenues; we had to have an in crease in revenues. The Mem ber for Fort Garry was not a member of this House when the sales tax was brought in but the man sitti ng beside him, the Memb er for Shady Lane, knows full well that when they brought in the sales tax in 1966 they were using that for education tax. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please. It is accepted as a courtesy in this House, I believe, that members should be addressed or referred to by 140 their proper constituency or by their ministerial title, if the Honourable Mi nister would bear that in mind. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: I withdraw that and refer to the Member for Charleswood. MR. SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privi lege, the Minister of Finance has ju st stated that his particular tax that he introd uced, the 1.5 percent payroll tax, was going to go to provincial revenues; in other words, general funds. In the addendum att ached to his Budget Speech he in dicates and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "Any major revenue in creases on this new tax have the effect of inc reasing the costs facing Mani tobans.

However, the funds raised through the levy for health and post-secondary education will be fully extended to these priority areas, thereby contri buting directly to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of life in Manitoba." Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster of Finance has misled the House by his statements just right now. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. In order for a member to have a proper point of privilege he must move a substantive motion at the end of his remarks to that end. Since the member did not, he did not have a point of privilege. The Honourable Mi nister of Finan ce. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I trust that you won't deduct that gibberish from my time. Mr. Speaker, this government appreciates the criti cism of members opposite; they provide the opportun ity to demonstrate the remarkable change in Mani toba since November 17, 1981. A new spirit of cooperation exists between business, labour and government. The government is now open to public input. Those peo ple don't like it, but people out there understand it.

We are working hard to get the province free of the eco nomic qua gmire that was left to us by the neo conservative adventurists who sit across the way; a ·quagmi re that has been worsened by disastrous eco nomic policies. The job before us in this government is to show clearly to those outside Man itoba that the acri monious, tyrannical rule of the members opposite is over; that rule is over. Ma nitoba is again ready to grow and to prosper. This Throne Speech and the many important initiatives already undertaken by this government point us clearly down the road to a better Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I have a short procedu ral statement to read to the House. Just before the 5:30 p.m. dinner break, there was a dispute between members of the House. The Mem ber for Fort Garry referred to the subject matter of a privi lege motion dealt with on Decem ber 7 and the Minis ter of Community Services and Corrections and of Natural Resources rose on a point of order. Although I ruled on the matter without the benefit of perusal of Hansard, it is possib le that my remarks were not suffi ciently clear.

9 December, 1982 I ruled. "The matter was brought up as a matter of privilege in this House within the last two days. That should have concluded the matter. In order to clarify the matter, I've had the opportunity to check Hansard and Beauche sne, and have a written statement.

On Tuesday, December 7, the Honourable Memb er for Fort Garry rose in his place on a matter of privilege and moved, "THAT this House do censure the Minis ter of Community Services and Corrections for a serious breach of its privileges of its members by misleading its members in the matter of establishment of an enquir y into conditions at Headingley Jail." This motion was debated and resolved by a vote of the House.

Shortly before 5:30 p.m., the Honourable Memb er for Fort Garry made reference to the subject matter of that privilege motion." Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states, in Citation 313, "A member may not speak against or reflect upon at any determination of the House, unless he intends to conclude with a motion for rescinding it." Further in the Citation 315, Sub. 2, "It is irregular to reflect upon, argue against, or in any manner call in qu estion, intimate in debate. the past actual proceed ings of the House on the obvious ground that, besides tending to revive discussion upon qu estions which have once been decided, any reflections are uncour teous to the House and irreg ular in principle, inas much as the member is himself included in and bound by a vote agreed to by a majority," and it seems that reflecting upon or questioning the acts of the majority is equivalent to reflecting upon the House." The refer ence there is also given as Ma y, Page 4, 24.

The remarks of the Honour able Member for Fort Garry, although in the full flight of his oratory and at the climax of his remarks were clearly out of order and the two Mini sters were correct in their objections to a matter already decided by the House. Therefore, the Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry should reflect on his remarks and act accordingly to parliamentary practice by withdrawing them. The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: We'll wait. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Lead er of the Op position. HON. S. LYON: On a point of order, Mr . Speaker.

I'm sorry I didn't hear all of your remarks, but I was here this afternoon when you purported to deal with the objection of the statement by the Memb er for Brandon East. The matter was dealt with; you made a ruling; it's finished; the ruling is finished. There is no ground in precedent or practice for you to go back and say, I've had second thoughts. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster for Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Rising on the point of order, you wi ll recall that objection was taken by the Honou rable Mini ster for Co rrections and Social Services and there was no ru ling made. You, Mr .

Speaker, in dicated that the debate would proceed. I rose and indi cated that there was a point of order and addressed you on that point of order. It was then that the member con- 141 tinued to be allowed to speak without any withdrawal. There was no ruling by the Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. RANSOM: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would wish to draw to your attention Citation 235, in the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne which says, "Any member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's im mediate notice any instance of what he considers to be a breach of order. He may interrupt and lay the point in question concisely before the Speaker. He should do so as soon as he perceives an irregularity in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House.

The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely the moment it occurred." Sir, I sug gest that the question was raised this afternoon on a point of order and dealt with and disposed of. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: On the same point of order. I have before me an informal transcript of the proceedings this afternoon. I note that the Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources raised the point of order but that point of order was never formally ruled on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L.

SHERMAN: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with respect, Sir, I wish to suggest to you in the House that I was not reflecting on a point of privilege or on a ruling on a point of privilege. The motion of privilege was moved on Tuesday afternoon and it had to do with "answers" given to me by the Honourable Minister of Community Services and Cor rections on Monda y afternoon. Since Tuesday, a great many further developments have occurred. News reports have in dicated precisely what I said this afternoon at 5:20.

My comment this afternoon had to do with what happened on Wednesday and Thursday, with reports that appeared in yesterday's Free Press and with reports that appear in today's Free Press and do not reflect on the point of privilege or the vote of the time at all. They reflect on what has happened in the last 48 hours. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: I again refer, and I will refer at this point, Mr. Speaker, more fully to the informal trans cript.

The Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources clearly directed the attention of the Speaker to the rule to which you have referred in your ruling, namely, that when the particular matter - indeed I' ll read the trans cript. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is the Mini ster for Natural Resources. "It has been a Rule in this House that where another member says that another member has said certain facts and alleged that he has misled this House, that when those facts have been clarified and the matter has been cleared, then the House is bound

9 December, 1982 to accept the word of the member and no further continued reference to that should take place." That is the Rule in this House and that matter was clear. That's a very clear presentation of the issue by the Min ister for Natural Resources. Shortly thereafter, Mr . Speaker, I thanked the Honourable Minis ter for his support regarding the point that the matter has been concluded; that is that the matter that which had been concluded. -(Inter jection)- No, the matter of the privi lege that had been raised had been concluded.

The rule is that, thereafter no further reference to it may be made and you have cited the appropria te Cit ation from Beauchesne on that Now, you asked the Member for Fort Garry to pro ceed with his remarks with no further reference to the matter which has been concluded, but you did not rule on the particular point of order. No, and no amount of obfuscations or pettifogging chic anery can obscure the fact MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, if I may respectfully draw it to your attention, Sir, that in the first ruling you conclu ded your ruling by saying that he has four min utes remainin g, clearly, clearly in your mind having disposed of the issue at the time. Subseq uently, the Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources made ref erence to a point of order which he was rais ing. Sir, I refer you to

Section 235, Citation 235 of Beauc hesne which says that a point of order must be dealt with immediately. Sir, you dealt with that. The House adjourned at 5:30. We are here now at 8:00 in the evening. The point of order was dealt with this after noon and canno t be raised again accord ing to the Rules of Parliament and the Rules of this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if the Memb er for Turtle Mount ain would, instead of substituting words for those actually used in Beau chesne, refer to Beauchesne.

It is true and I would readily admit that the point of order must be raised immediately. Nowhere does it say that the Speaker must rule imm edia tely. Th ere are precedents -(Inter jec tion)- there is precedent after precedent for the Speaker considering the matter which has been raised and then ruling and any suggestion. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. HON. R.

PENNER: Any suggestion that the Speaker is not entitled to consider arguments, may take the matter under advisement and then rule is foreign to the Rules of this House, foreign to parliamentary pro ceedure, foreign to the way in which the matter is dealt with and made. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Member for Turtle Mou ntain. MR. A. RANSOM: The Honourable Government House Leader is indeed correct that on many occas ions in the past, the Speaker has taken questions under advisement and has said that he would rule later. I see no evidence of that in the transcript. Sir, that that was the case here.

I do not recall that as having been the case, Sir. This matter was raised, dealt with. disposed of and just because the government is sensit ive doesn't mean that they have the right to breach the Rules of Parliament and bring it back now. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honou rable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, we are sensit ive to the decorum in this House and one of the essential pivotal points around which that decorum rests, is that the rulings of the Speaker must be followed and observed. You made a ruling with respect to the ques tion of privilege.

You have now made a ruling that is being challenged, which is appropriate for the Opp o sition to do. You have now made a ruling, citing cit ations, that it was in error for the Member for Fort Garry, once that matter had been disposed of. to refer to it agai n. If the Me mber for Fort Ga rry does not wish to withdraw, then your duty is clear. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition. HON.

S. l YON: I wonder if I might, Sir, as one who came in after these proceedings started, you were on your feet, ask if I may, Sir, on whose ini tia tion does this matter now arise again before the House, because if there was no communication while the House was sitting - and I can only suggest, Sir, that it would be highly improper for anyone to have had any commun ication with you over the dinner hour - that would be improper and you, Sir, would be the first to object to it Then on whose initiation, Sir, does the matter rise, because the matter was dealt with this afternoon?

The Min ister of Natural Resources raised the poi nt of order which has been read back to us tonight. He was in the unusual position this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, you having made a ruling, that if he wished to oppose your ruling, he then had to challenge the Chair. He chose not to do that. So you, qui te properly then, Sir, told the Mem ber for Fort Garry to carry on, not to deal with the topic again, which he did n't, and the matter is finished. You, Sir, as the lawyers would say, are func tus officio on that issue. It cannot be raised again, with the greatest of respect, by anyone. 142 MR.

SPEAKER: If there is no one else wish ing to advise the Chair , it was my clear impression that I had made the point clear when it was raised this afternoon. On the adjournment hour, it seemed that there was still some dispute as to what had happened. I had the opportunity to read the first draft of Hans ard over the supper hour and it was on my decision to write this procedural statement, to come to the con clusi on that the Member for Fort Garry had in fact revived the debate on the matter of privi lege simply by referring to it.

It was further my finding that havi ng looked at Beauchesne, that the proper course of action would be for the Member for Fort Ga rry to withdraw those remarks. The ruling stands and I would ask the Me mber for

Fort Garry. therefore. to withdraw the remarks. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker. with the greatest of respect. Sir. on the point of ·order. a football referee can't go back, a hockey referee can't go back, and you, Sir. can't go bac k. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please. Would the honourable member take his seat? Order please. Order please. Order please. Order please. One of the most fundamental rules of this Chamb er is that members do not reflect upon the Speaker and the Hono urable Leader of the Op position knows that as well as anyone in here. The ruling stands.

I will again ask the Member for Fort Garry to with draw his remarks. HON. S. LYON: I have not reflected on your conduct yet but if this procedure is carried through, your con duct will be reflected upon, I can assure you. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please. The Honourable Me mber for Fort Garry. Order please Order please. The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker.

I have the greatest respect for you, Sir, and I say that sincerely and I truly believe that you believe that I must say though, Sir, that I think that I am being put in an insupportable and unjustifiable position with respect to this dispute. I must say that I suspect.

Sir, that leading members of the Treasury Benches have taken some exception to some things I said this afternoon and as a conse quence taken some admin istrative action and I feel, Sir, that has to be destructive of the processes in this Chamber. where one is not presumably under the advocacy of the Speaker who represents all of us, and we are all equal in this Chamb er, to speak the truth. When I spoke this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the incredibilit y, the non-cred ibil ity of this government and I cited a dozen examples and if I'd had a half an hour longer I would have cited 50 more.

One of them was an example arising out of a situation earlier this week, which was closed. -( lnterject ion) lt was closed on Tuesday afternoon. Subsequent to that in the past 48 hours, Sir, the Mi nis ter of Commun ity Serv ic es and Corr ectio ns has seen fit to -(I nterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please. The matter is not debatable. I have asked the Honourable Me mber for Fort Garry twice now to with draw his remarks. I tell him again that he should with draw his remarks this afternoon. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the Mi nis ter of Community Services and Corrections went on com menting on it to the press, in the public. in total oppo sition to what he had said in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect. Sir, I must tell you that I shall not withdraw the 143 truth under the order of any man . -(In terjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. MR. L. SHERMAN: The record of non-cred ib ility stands .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Me mber for Fort Garry leaves me no option but to name the Honourable Mr.

Sherman, for disregarding the authority of the Chair. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: I move, seconded by the Mi n ister of Health, that the Mem ber for Fort Garry be asked to withdraw, be suspended from the service of this House until the closing of this Session today. Mr. Speaker, in making that motion, I do so with regret. I also regret that I have had to witness the Leader of the Opp osit ion, with all of his fulsome rhe toric about parliamentary democracy, threatening the Speaker. MOTION presented and carried. MR. A. RANSOM: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Call in the members. The motion before the House, it is moved by the Hono urable Attorney-General, seconded by the Honourable Mi nister of Health, that the Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the Session today. A STANDING VOTE was taken. the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs. Adam, Buck laschuk, Carroll, Cowan. Des jardi ns, Mrs. Dod ick, Messr. Doern, Ms. Dolin, Me ssrs. Evans, Eyler, Fox, Harper, Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mac kling, Mal inowsk i, Pawley, Penner, Mrs. Phill ips, Messrs. Santos, Schroeder, Scott, Mrs. Smith, Messrs.

Storie, Uruski, Uskiw NAYS Messrs. Banman, Blake, Dri edger, Enns, Filmon, Gourlay, Mrs. Hammond, Messrs. Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Lyon, Ma nness. McKenz ie, Nordman, Mrs. Ol eson, Messrs. Orchard, Ransom MR. ACTING CLERK, G. Macintosh: Yeas 26: Nays 17 MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried. On the motion of the Honourable First Mi nister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, l, at 8:00 o'clock, indi cated I had a matter which I wanted to raise. It was a matter on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. involving statements that were made by the Mem ber for Fort Garry at approximatey 5:20. It's a matter of privilege, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. A. RANSOM: Yes, if the Honourable First Mini s ter is raising a point of order with respect to an item that occurred at 5:20, he is clearly in violation of the Rules because he did not raise it at the earliest opportunity. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mini ster. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker. if I could pursue that matter further. I obtained a transcript of the proceed ings , Mr.

Speaker, involving certain remarks that were made in order to ascertain whether or not there was an irregul arity and upon the reading of that transcript, it is quite clear that there was an irregularity I would like to bring to your attention. In so saying, Mr. Speaker, I intend to bring it to your attention and sim ply indicate our views in respect to the continued use of certain terminology. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the First Mi nis ter confirm whether he is risi ng on a point of order or a matter of privilege? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I was risi ng on a point of order regarding privileges of the House involving myself. Mr. Speaker, if the honourable members would just contain themselves for a moment, we would have opportunity to deal MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, prior to the 5:30 adjourn ment, the Honourable Me mber for Fort Garry indi cated that I, myself had lied, patently untrue.

I si mply want to leave this matter very clearly with honourable members across the way that when we indeed do confirm that such statements have been made, honourable members across the way can be sure that members across on the government side will raise this matter every time until, Mr. Speaker, there is some respect insofar as the House Rules are con cerned and referring to honourable members as liars. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain to the same point. MR. A. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, may I enquire, Sir, did the Hono urable First Mini ster have a point of order?

If so, would you please cite the rule that covers the point of order as our Rules require? MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the First Mini ster would like to make it clear to the House whether it was a matter of privi lege or a point of order that he was risi ng on. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the item I raised was a matter of privi lege. I am not intending to introduce any motion, but simply to point out, Mr. Speaker, and if necessary I'll read the transcript -(In terjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please.

Since there was no substantive motion moved at the end of the honourable Mi nister's remarks, he did not have a matter of privilege. However, the matter that he raises appears to be dealt with on Page 108 of Beauchene's Fifth Edition, where it lists some 30 or 40 instances where the word 'lie' was ruled as an unparli amentary term according to debates in Ottawa. Can we proceed with the matter before the House? It is the proposed motion of the Honourable Mem ber for Riel, the proposed motion amendment thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Op position. The Honourable Mem ber for Minne dosa. MR. D.

Blake: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please . The Ho noura ble Mem ber for Minnedo sa has the same right to speak in' this Chamb er as does any other member. The Honourable Mem ber for Minn edosa: MR. David R. Blake: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wel come this opportunity to share in this Throne Speech Debate. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will bear with me if my notes are not expertly prepared and a bit dis jointed because really no matter how bad my speech is tonight, it will equal anything we've heard from the other side of the House so far on the Throne Speech Debate. Mr.

Speaker, I traditionally congratulate you for occupying the Chair again, and I suppose, hopefully, trust that your health wi ll remain in good condition and wil l im prove continually, because after what we've just heard in here the last few hours in this Session, I feel that we are maybe going to put a bit of a strain on it; the mood that seems to have inflicted the members opposite. The Mover and Seconder. Mr.

Speaker, to the Throne Speech made their contributions in an ade quate manner, and I congratulate them for being nom in ated by their First Mini ster to perform that task which they carried out admirably. I would also con gratulate the four new Mini sters that have been appointed since we last met, and wish them well in their portfolios and hopefully that they will be able to survive the Session without too many bruises and brick bats that may come from this side, but I am sure · they've been in here long enough now to understand that that's the way the game is played.

The perfor mance of the front bench certainly doesn't leave them much confidence and support. 144 Mr. Speaker, I would also congratulate the Me mber for Rupertsland, as many others in this House have done, for laying before us the expectations of his people and their right to jobs and the way of life that they feel that they should have and I also, Mr. Speaker, have those expectations for my constituents; the peo ple in my area whether they be from the Rolling River Reserve or whether they be farmers or business peo ple in my constituency.

They have expectations too, and I think that they were expecting a little more in the Throne Speech than we received this year. The per formance of the front bench has been dismal , Mr. Speaker, and I can only reflect what's happened here in the last little while when credibility was mentioned so often. ft has been lacking and I won't try to name the Mini sters where it is so evident , but the shading of the truth and near to misleading statements, things of

9 December, 1982 that nature we have become used to because we ran into them all through the election, Mr . Speaker, and everyone has a copy of this famous docu ment, so I won't go into it too much just now. Mr . Speaker. I'm sure the members opposite have expected some leadership from the First Min ister of this provi nce of ours. It certainly wasn't evident in the Throne Speech Debate.

It wasn't evident in the last few days in this House when he failed to rise to defend one of his Minis ters who was under somewhat of a bit of fire, tried to bring in some fuzzy issue tonight that God knows where he got the idea from over the supper hour, but felt that it was important to bring it up. That type of leadership is not going to stand this government in good stead with the people of Man it oba, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the members of the back bench are very cognizant of that, as it's been so obvious. Mr.

Speaker. this is the Throne Speech Deba te and I will try to touch on that somewhat although it hasn't been referred to too often in the speech so far. In this particula r document, Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of prattle about the economic reces sion underway when my government assumed office one year ago has deepened and persisted. Home owners, small busi nessmen and farmers are strug gling for their economic survival in this current diffi cult situation. That was nothing new, Mr. Speaker: we all knew that was happenin g and was rampant many, many months before the election.

But there's no steps that they have taken to date that are going to rectify that particular situation. They go on to say well, the ruinous policy of tight money and high interest is now discredited. My Minis ters are concerned that positive alternatives have not been pursued at the national international level. We heard a great deal of talk from over there, Mr. Speaker, on how we were in favour of high interest and tight money. Mr .

Speaker, there is no possible way and they know it as well as we do that the Provin cial Government can change the direction of the Fed eral Government in Ottawa; that was their policy. They felt it was the way to go at that particular time and there may be some small indications now that they're changing their mind -(I nterjection)- that's right, they supported them and put them back into office when there was some chance fort h is country to come out of the. economic slump we were in, and there was good indications of it. Mr .

Speaker, we hear them say on the other side, well, you vote with the Liberals more than we do. But God, when there's a chance of you losing your butts in Western Canada. you sure kept the Lib erals back in there because that's the only hope of a voice in Ottawa that you've got. If you had have supported the Con servative Government on that election, you'd have been wi ped out in Western Canada as you're going to be wiped out, Mr . Speaker. when the next election's called, and it's getting closer day by day.

There is no way that the Federal Leader of the NOP Party is going to escape the actions that he took in supporting the Liberals to throw the Clark Govern ment out of office. That is going to live with them. I'll make you a promise right now that he'll be long gone from that party after the next election because they will be deci mated and there will be a new leadership 145 contest held within the year in the NOP Party. What do they want instead of tight money and high interest, Mr. Speaker? We hear them crying on the other side. Do they want a 65-cent dollar?

You know what that would have cost to pay back your foreign borrowings if that happened, if our dollar slipped down to 70 cents or wherever it might have levelled off if it hadn't have been propped up. You've got to get some real good solid advice over there on financial matters, Mr. Speaker. or this country is going to be in more trouble than we ever dreamed of. In the coming year -(I nterjection)- I'll tell you if you listen to the banks a little bit, you might be, Mr . Speaker. The Memb er for lnkster says, did I get that from the banks - if they'd listen to some of the bankers a little bit.

There was a Royal Commission appoi nted awhile ago headed by a well-known banker. f'vlr. Lam bert, of the Toronto Dom inion Bank. that did a study on government finances and government operation. How many of his recommendations have they imple mented? None. They spent millions on a Royal Com mission and have implemented nothing. He told them where they were wasting millions of dollars. Look at the bank statements. They're making money; they're not showing a $500 million deficit in a matter of months. That's good managment and maybe you should listen to some of those people that have some expertise.

That's what my Leader, Mr. Speaker, was referring to when he mentioned the abi lity of those over there to run this country and run this provinc e because they haven't got the abi lity. They're fiddling and diddling around. Not one of them has made a success of his own job unless he was on a salary. There's none of them have been in busi ness. They have no idea how busi ness operates. The Member for Ste. Rose will verify that. "In the comi ng year, Mr.

Speaker," he says, "my Min isters are committed to action that will develop and deliver programs that address the crisis of unem ployment," - I'm sure the 52,000 or whatever it is now, the latest figures that are unemployed are jus t wait ing for those programs that are going to address their problem. Are they going to have them all out cutting scrub or some little bandaid make-work project up North when they could have had thousands working on the Grid?

They could have had thousands work ing on the Alcan Project and, goodness knows, how many we could have had sti ll on the Potash if that project had got under way. There could have been thousands of lasting, meaningful jo bs, not little wee make-work projects that are trying to keep a few miners going in Lynn Lake or Thompson digging foundations around the church or whatever. That's going to last for a little whi le, Mr . Speaker, but it's nothin g. We're going to "strengthen democratic institutions and individual liberties, while work ing at consulting with Man ito bans. .

"W e know how they work and consu lt with Manit obans, Mr . Speaker. We've seen a lot of that. They've had a lot of consultation with very very little action. "You will be asked to provide a $20 million loan authority for an improved and expanded home insula tion program." That would create a few jobs. We wel come that, but I don't know how many home insula tion programs we've got in place now, Mr. Speaker.

9 December, 1982 They're not going to provide the money. It's going to be a loan authority; you're going to have to borrow it. It looks good on print and on paper, but I don't know how many homes in Man itoba are left to insulate yet The Mi nister of Housing, maybe later on when we get into his Estimates, we might find out. The venture capital will address the shortage of equity capital. Wel l, if they would go about restoring confidence of the investors of this province to invest in Man itoba, they wouldn't have to worry about venture capital.

Venture capital will come because we know how much venture capital we're going to drum up in our provinc e. "Buy Man itoba program, sure, that's a good program. We'd all like to buy Man itoba products, but how many are we making here? Busi nesses have pretty well all gone broke or moved out My Mi nisters are encouraged by the rapid pace of expansion in the petroleum industry.

A 300 percent incr ease and you will be asked to create a Man itoba Oil and Gas Corpor ation." ManOil has sort of gone by the board because they kind of flipped that out Then they realized they were a little late, that it had been inc orporated under another name, and they weren't able to incorporate under that name. So now it's Man itoba Oil and Gas Corporation. I won't read on what they're going to do with that, but we all know about how the Coop Or ganization is being seduced into an oil operation by the Federal Government with a grant of $100 million. Mr.

Speaker, on the Man itoba Oil and Gas Com pany, the people of Manit oba are going to be gam bling $20 million of our tax money; that's what they're going to do. These people call it investing. If we do something like that, they call it giveaway, but they're putting it into a high-risk exploration venture which there's only a remote chanc e of it being successful, so that's gambling. We know what some of their other gambles have been like, Mr . Speaker. We've had the Will iam Clare Publishin g and the Saunders with no planes and Morden Fine Foods with no customers.

The research in oil, as we all know, is a very very risky busine ss, Mr . Speaker, and we know how many dry holes the Man itoba Min eral Resources drilled last year, some 56 holes that produced $1,000 the past year. It's less than $100 a month. If you'd put that in the bank at 15 or 20 percent interest, you'd have had a couple of hundred thousand dollars anyway. Whose money are they going to use, Mr. Speaker? There are two alternatives. They're going to increase taxes or divest tax money to give this $20 milli on. Are they going to take it out of Health and Social Services? Where are they going to get it?

There are no Man ito bans that want to pay higher taxes, to give up a com mitment for schools and homes for the aged, for wild cat oil ventures. Oil exploration was down in this province, Mr . Speaker, under the eight years of former NOP admin istration. Min eral exploration was down. Ask the Memb er for Flin Flon or the members from the North. The last four years, when the Conservatives were in power, saw a surge in exploration activities the North hadn't seen for years.

That was because they were unshackled from this joint venture operation that the odd people opposite dreamed up to try and gain some wealth for the people of Man itoba. Pr ohibitive taxes kept that exploration down, Mr. Speaker, there's no question about it That situation was changed and oil exploration is way up now. There are more wells being drilled in Man itoba than there has been si nce the 60s and the revenues are coming in at a record level, Mr. Speaker. So we don't want to gamble with the taxpay ers' money; we want to invest taxpayers' money.

They've got ample opportunity to invest if there's a thriving climate, Mr . Speaker, and a reason for them to invest in Man itoba. Min eral resources, it goes on with a bunch of other minor remarks about the Garrison and whatever. But agriculture, Mr . Speaker, gets about four or five lines; legislative measures to control absentee ownership. These discussions with my government will introduce The Farmlands Ownersh ip Act. That's about the only play that agricu lture got in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker. It's about all they got Reduce us to 10 acres and you have to live in Ma nitoba.

You're a foreigner if you don't live in Man itoba. Well, I certainly can't sup port that kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Further down, "To increase the potential for such beneficial activitie s, the Man itoba Public Insurance Corporation will be empowered to enter into the com petitive market in life insurance and pension man agement services." Well, isn't that lovely? The best examples of development you've got is right across the street from you with the life insurance company that's putting up a multi-million dollar office structure there.

It's about the only construction you've had going on here in the past year and you'll drive those people to Denver if you carry on the way you're going. So, there are few more pages here, Mr. Speaker, but I couldn't see anything else wor thwhile underlinin g, unless I've got something at the end. They're going to amend The Liquor Control Act. That sounds like an earth-shattering movement. The marshalling yards, they should move them. Well, I'd like to know where you're going to move them? Are you going to move them out to Selkirk or where are you going to move them? Mr.

Speaker, that's about all there is in the Throne Speech and really I don't know how we can carry on for another three or four days discussing it because there's just not that much there. I didn't want to pass up the opportunity, Mr . Speaker, ·t o talk about some of the things in my constituenc y, although that's a wee bit ahead of my remarks, but Main Street Man itoba, I don't think was mentioned in the Throne Speech, but it was mentioned before. We are certainly happy to see some of the Main Street Man itoba money coming into my constituency. But, Mr.

Speaker, there's another program that's been announced about 14 times with great fanfare and we finally picked one town out that had a little bit of dedic ation, a little bit of ac tion on the part of the Chamber of Commerce to get the merchants together, to put a plan in. God knows, the Min ister had only had about two by then and he grabbed on the best one. I think Mor den was a little late in coming in with theirs. I think they'll probably be the second one, because I think he's only had a couple.

We're happy to get that $200-and-some thousand to fix up the Main Street and I hope the Min ister doesn't rush in to having them reassessed so that they're going to be payi ng the taxes on them. Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech, I think, was over- 146

9 December, 1982 shadowed by the Finance Minister when he came in a few days late, of course - we thought that it might have been tabled earlier - with his statement to, I think , shock all Man itobans. If they aren't shocked they should be - announcing that the deficit is now going to be $498 milli on. Mr . Speaker, we felt from the rumours we were getting and the way they were throwing $100,000 here, a million dollare there and a million dollars here, that it was going to be maybe around $400 million, but that even shocked the members on this side, Mr . Speaker.

That really shook us to find out that, in a year, they could fritter away that much money. "In every case, the national recession has undercut revenue growth and the drop in revenues has led to substantial deficit increases." That's nothin g new, Mr . Speaker. Anyone over on that si de, if they'd have been studying the situation, could have foreseen that when businesses are down and people are losing money they're not going to be paying the taxes, so the revenues are going to go down. They closed their eyes to that and blindly went on with their predictions.

"The largest single adjustment we have faced is a reduction of about $81 million in the forecast of corporate income tax revenues." Nothing new in that, Mr . Speaker, and what the Min ister of Fina nce fai ls to recognize or fails to acknowledge and he's been told, goodness knows, by members of the business com munity that for every corporation that has to pay $500,000 or $600,000 - whatever it might be - in the wage tax that he's levied upon thei r employees, the payroll tax, they're going to come up with the money. There's no question about it.

The capital tax that they increased is going to cost a lot of corporations another pile of money. They're going to come up with the money; they can find it. But you know what they're doing, Mr . Speaker, they're not spend ing money in Man itoba developing their operations. They're cutting back on staff and that's somethin g where the govern ment could take a small lesson; they could start cut ting back on staff. They don't have to go into wholesale firings, as they'll cry that we want to slash the Civil Service. Just look ar ound a little bit. Busi ness is doing it.

Busi ness is taking a real hard look at middle management, some of the senior positions and they're finding they can get along with a lot less, and I'll tell you, there's millions of dollars can be saved there. Mr. First Min ister, if you haven't been listening, there's millions of dollars you can save. Instead of hiring another 500 or 600 civil servants and, God knows how many more you've got on contract, just take a hard look around and find out where you can save money. You tell us you want us to spend more. We're sayi ng, save more. Take a look and cut some fat out of your operation. Mr .

Speaker, we all know that businesses are cut ting back to get the money to give this government for the wage tax and the revenues, naturally, have fallen down; the revenues are not there.

They go on to say that, "We believe most Man itobans recognize this fact that there's an increase in the deficit and that the government is concerned about it but we're taking appropria te and desirable activity to sustain and stim ulate economic activity." I'd like to know what action has been taken right now to stimulate economic acfr1·· ity; a few programs to dress up the Main Street, a few 147 programs to cut some scrub , fix up a few build ings up North, temporary jobs until the miners get back to work.

Then, of course, we go into the Economic Summit at Portage la Prairie that we're going to hear from time immemorial about how they're holding hands with the business community and how much they're out to help them and turn around and kick them in the teeth right after the meeting and say they're going to go into the life insurance and pension management business. I suppose they've been pushed into that by the union leaders that are running the place anyway. Professor Clarence Barber has been appointed to sort that all out, so he'll fit in well there. The thing that disturbs me most, Mr. Speaker, is an

article in here where they're going to cut expenses. They're only going to take one official with thc;m now when they go on a trip, but no further additions to the government's vehicle fleet will be permitted. Vehicle requir ements must be provided from within the exist ing fleet. I can't see anything wrong with that.

But Treasury Board must approve any new road construc tion projects, land acq uisition and drainage projects." Now, I know that says 'new,' and I know they're going to say that it's going to cost us mor e money but if you're going to continue to support the agricu ltural community as you've said so often - you have gone all over this provinc e in the last couple of months, the Premier has written letters to all the papers saying how wonderful the rural people are, they welcomed him with open arms. Well, certainly, they're good, kind ly, generous, neighb ourly people out there.

Regardless of who the Premier was, they'd give him a welcome because that's the way they feel. That posi tion deserves a welcome, but they're not going to be happy when they find out the way they've been kicked around. There's going to be nothing for agricu lture. There's nothing in there for agricu ltural research. They say they are going to develop the industry that's going to see more processing of agricultural pro ducts. There's nothing in here at all, Mr. Speaker. Final ly, they say you don't have to spend more; find it somewhere else, get rid of another 50 civil ser vants .

If you gave me a list, I could probably name them pretty qui ck, Red Bill for one and Weiss for another one; I could name a whole bunch. "Final ly, we intend to limit new hirings to all but the essential positions." We're going to re member that little phrase because we're going to be watching the new faces that appear around here and we're going to be wonderi ng what they're doing. "We have, in fact, implemented a number of polici es to secure our eco nomic base and to protect Man itobans agai nst the worst effects of national policies and national condi tions." What a bunch of balderdash, Mr. Speaker.

I'll tell you -(I nterjection)- Pete, those in the rural areas know exactly what balderdash is. Mr. Speaker, I haven't got into some of the items that I've got in my notes here. I know the time is gettin g on but I wanted to just touch on one or two of them before I know that I can finish off tomorrow, but we had a great foofaraw here a day or two ago because the Mi nister said he couldn't announce the little study on the Correctional Institute at Headingley because he couldn't get the money approved through Treasury Board. It didn't take him long to get $50,000 approved

9 December, 1982 or whatever this little unnecessary attachment out here cost us. It might have been necessary to come in time. That wasn't a pressing prio rity, to bring dual translations into this House. He could've used that for a study on the correctional institute. Where are your priorities? What are you putting up ahead? What are you putting up front? MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, order please. Order please. The time of 10:00 o'clock having arrived, when we next reach this motion the honourable member will have 12 minutes remaini ng. The House is accor dingly adjou rned and will stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. 148

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-6b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 6b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2a79e78d8c60eeed96d0c39c0cd39c3eac7247f8

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