LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle­ Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Recei ving Petitions . . . Presen ting Reports by Stan ding and Special Comm ittees. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Charl eswood): Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind members that today is the birthday of Her Majesty the Queen.

In the midst of the many other subjects that require our att ention, I know that we would want to give a moment's thought to the importance of the role of the Crown, that which the Crown has played and continues to play in the Constitution of Canada and of our province. Because the monarchal system as we have developed it, has worked so well under the Canadian Constitution and Canadian conditions, we seldom give thought to the great benefits that has bestowed up on us in gu arante eing stabil ity, continuity and legitima cy to our official institutions and to all that we do in serving the people.

Her Majesty herself exemplifies how the monarchy serves us as she carries out her largely formal duties in a quiet, serious and dig nified way, both in the United Kingdom and on her frequent trips to other count ries of the Commonwealth. This year, Mr. Speaker, we are particularly pleased to learn of the engagement of His Royal Hig hness, the Prince of Wales to the Lady Diana Spencer. The affection and respect which is felt for the Queen and for the Royal Family will undo ubtedly be displayed in the events marking the marriage ceremony in July.

To that end I will be proposing that this House consider a resolution of congratulations to Her Majesty, as well as to the Prince of Wales and his fia ncee, to express our pleasure on the ha ppy occasion. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members will wish to join in marking Her Ma jesty's birthday and in the expression of best wishes and loyalty to her on this occasion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, on this side, we of the NDP, of course, and probably all mem bers of this House join in recognition of the birthday of Her Majesty the Queen.

There is no doubt that the mona rchy being hi stori cally one of the longest constitutional monarchies in the world, that it has lasted so long and served so well. I would say since the days of the Magna Carta its strength has been that it has adapted to the evolutiona ry process which is part of the modern democratic ideals.

As has been suggested, too often people looking at the symbol of 2879 the monarchy overlook the fact that it is a terribly burdensome task for tha t person who is the monarch, and certa inly Queen Elizabeth has served for a long time in a very burdensome role, being in the public eye at all time. I am sure that we would all wish her health and continued contributions in her role, which has been carried out for so long a time already. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. GARY FILMON (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, earlier this morning there was a joint release of the final report of Reed Crowther and Associates on the hazardous waste management study that was done for the western provinces and the Territories and I would table copies of the executive summa ry for members opposite, as well as copies of the press release that was issued in conjunction with the Federal Government at that time. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: At this time, I would like to draw the honourable mem bers' attention to the gallery on my right where we have 30 students of Grade 8 standing from St. Joh n's High School, unde r the direction of Mr. George Forbeg. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for lnkster. On behalf of all the honourable mem bers, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to addr ess a question to the Min ister reporting for Hydro and ascertain from him what stage of renewal discussions there are now with the supply of power to In ternational Nickel, since I understand that the agreement expired on March 31st in relation to the supply of power? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think there was a question on that the other day from the Member for Fort Rouge.

The member is correct in that the previous contract, or the first half of the previous contract, expired at the end of March, 1981 and for the second half of the 40-year period, the next 20-year period, there are renegotiations to be spelled out in the form of a new contract. A new contract has not yet been signed or ent ered in to. I und erstand that the pro visions generally are that lnco will be receiving power in the interim period, until it's signed at least, at system ind ustrial rates, or whatever the proper category is. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 MR. CHERNIAC K: Mr .

Speaker, in view of the announ cement, the joint announcement with Alcan yesterday, wherein the government has recognized and given an undertaking relating to the granting to a priv ate ent erprise, the owne rship of power development of Hydro sources, is the government now in its negotiations with lnco, becoming involv ed in the possibility of a sale to lnco, or indeed to any other private enterprise, of land sites which make it possible for these enterprises, lnco or any others, to become owners of plants on the rivers of Manitoba for the production of hydro-electric power? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, my understan ding is that the negotiations with lnco, although not entirely completed yet, call for system rate power, the same as Hudsons Bay Mining and Smelting and other large consumers on a fiv e-year contract basis; that is, would fix it at industrial consumer rates for the next five years. MR.

CHERNIACK: lnamuch as the govern ment is about to embark on negotiations involv ed with the granting to private enterprise the right to own power production sources of a hydro-electric nature, hydro­ electric power plants in the province on the river and dr awing on th e resources of Ma ni toba, is the pro vinc e prepared to di scuss with the Cit y of Winnip eg which now owns subs tantial hydro producing sources plants in Manitoba, to negotiate with the City of Winnip eg, the granting to the city the right to own sufficient power producing plants to take care of the needs which it now buys from Manitoba Hydro?

MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any request from the City of Winnip eg to Manitoba Hydro in that regard and I would be very surprised if there was one. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital. MR. JAMES D. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Min ister reporting for Manitoba Hydro and it arises from the Letter of Intent that was tabled yesterday. I would like to ask the Min ister whether the gov ernment has decided which generating station Alcan would be given a mino rity share in? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, it's not spelled out as generally presumed that it's the Limestone Plant but it will depend on other things that occur in the meantim e such as the Western Power Grid negotiations that may enter the picture or other developments in the interim period of time between now and the final agreement being reached with Alcan. MR. WALDING: A suppl emen tary ques tion, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the Letter of Intent includes the words in 3(b) "and if the power station is not yet constructed", could we draw the inf erence from that, Mr.

Speaker, that the gove rnment ma y be 2880 considering allowing Alcan to buy into a power station that is already constructed? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I suppose you could read that into it, but in the event that the Limestone Plant were started prior to the signing of an agreement with Alcan those words would apply. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital with a final supplement ary. MR. WALDING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, then can the Min ister assure the House that there is no possibility of selling a partial in terest in a presently constructed generating station? MR. CRAIK: Mr .

Speaker, I think I missed the question, if that was a question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital may repeat. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker, the question was: Can the Minis ter then rule out the possibility of Alcan being allowed to purcha se a portion of a generating station that is already built? MR. CRAIK: No, Mr. Speaker, that can't be ruled out although it is highly unlik ely. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me m ber for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHRO EDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Min ister in charge of Hydro.

Are we correct in assuming that ownership of the Hydro Plant itself will revert back to the province after the either 35, or 50, or 65-year term on repayment possibly of the initial amount paid by the company less depreciation or on what terms do we get it back? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, the extent to which I can ind icate or answer the member's question is simply that the term has been agreed to at 35 years with renewal options of 15 year terms to follow that, and of course the spelling out between now and the time of an agreement of the exact procedures that would be followed at year 35 or at any other point in time for the renewal of that and in the case of non­ renewal of it, of course spelling out the procedures that would be followed in that case as well, and I can only ind icate in those general terms that those have received discussion to da te but are not spelled out in detail at this point.

MR. SCH ROEDER: Yes, just a supplementary on that to the Min ister. At some point in time this agreement would come to an end, either at 35 or 50 or 65 years. Is there an unde rstan ding that at that point in time there will be a buy-sell agreement as is standard in joint venture agreements under which the majority partner can purchase the assets. Has that been discussed and on what kinds of terms would we get it back, in case Alcan didn't need it or in case we needed it more for other types of endeavours? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify. The member is referring to at 35 or any other 15-year

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 term after that, and if that is the case, in general the answer is yes. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Rossmere, with a final supplementary. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just one further question with respect to the renewal terms. It would appear that there would be a water licence granted for 35 years, then 15 and then another 15 years. At the time of renewal, will the government and Alcan each have the right to re­ negotiate the formula on which the water rental is based?

That is would the government be entitled to change entirely after 35 years the basis on which the calculation for water rental is made? MR. CRAIK: Wel l, without being specific, Mr. Speaker, yes, in general terms that would be the case. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAMUEL USK IW: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the province is going to be involved in location and environmental studies along with Alcan or separate from Alcan's activities basis their $5 million feasibility study. MR. CRAIK: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the province will have an involvement in due course and soon, in fact, the House can expect that the Minister responsible for environmental matters will be outlining some of the procedures to be followed in this examination. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, since the province is indeed going to be involv ed in location and environmental studies, can the Minister assure us that it is the province that will be interfacing with local governments, wherever that may be, that is the location site that is finally chosen, so that the interests of the people of Manitoba and indeed the people in the local area are going to be protected. MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the main onus of responsibility will be on Alcan to do the preliminary site selection and to do the deal ings with the municipalities as the Letter of Intent has indicated.

The province has undertaken and they are to be of every assistance possible in providing them with the background regulations and other things that have to be followed. I would trust we don't get into the position of having to get into acting as a conciliator in their discussions with the municipalities.

I think from what I have been told by Alcan that any discussions they have had to date have been very good and very encouraging but this does not rule out the possiblity that there may have to be at some point in time some legislative action taken to bring about a special distribution in an area so that municipalities other than the one single municipality can receive benefits from such an undertaking. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet with a final supplem entary. MR. USK IW: Mr.

Sp eaker, would the Minister confirm that the site selection indeed is going to be 2881 decided between Alcan and some local government in Manitoba rather than between Alcan and the Province of Manitoba? MR. CR AIK: Yes, principally, Mr. Speaker, the responsiblity at this point in time certainly is between Alcan and the municipalities. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Inkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister to whom the Manitoba Telephone System reports.

I would like to enqu ire as to whether there has been any information that can now be made available relative to the explosion which took place in a phone booth the other da y and that was repor ted in the newspapers. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. DON ORCHARD (Pembina): No, I don't have any additional information at this point in time, Mr. Speaker. MR.

GREEN: Well, I would like to ask the Minister whether what occurred has required any caution on his part with regard to phone booths generally or can we be assured that the incident was isolated and has nothing to do with either something in the phone booths or a pattern in phone booths? MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to provide that kind of an assurance but I think along with the Member for Inkster we would hope that would be certainly an isolated incident. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister and ask him whether he would concede that the failure of the Premiers to reach agreement on a Charter or Rights has left federal leader Joe Clark out on a limb, or perhaps a more accurate metaphor would be like the giant in Jack and the Beanstock, the First Minister has chopped down the beanstock and inju red his federal leader in the process. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I can only say that the Accord that was ar rived at by the eight First Ministers of the provinces last Thursday was an Accord that I think is of historic importance and in the national interest. I am not aware of it having left anyone on a beanstalk or in other analogies that seem to attract themselves to my honourable friend's level of intelligence. I merely say that the Accord speaks for itself. It's a positive document; it's a document of conciliation. I hope that for the sake of the unity of Canada, it will be accepted. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the remarks of the Honourable Jo e Clark, who expr essed his disappointment at the outcome of the meeting and I

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 quote; he said, "I had hoped that there would have been some reference to the Cha rter of Rights," has the First Minis ter been in touch with his federal leader or vice versa? MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can un derstand my honourable friend's preoccupation with what leaders of national parties say because the leader of his national party has been thoroughly embarrassing all western Canadians, to say nothing of all socialists, for some considerable length of time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Elmwood with a final supplementary. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know if that was a statement or a question, but I would like to also ask the First Minis ter, in view of news reports that have come out of Ottawa today that, "Conservative Leader Joe Clark told reporters that his party now believes that," and as he said, "once rights are established, they should apply equally across the country," in view of that statement by the Federal Progressive Con servative Party Leader, would the Premier not admit that the rift between him and his federal leader has now widened? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, as my honourable friend will recall, if he has any powers of recall, I have said in this House on a number of occasions that there is no simila rity between the position tha t this government takes with respect to a Charter of Rights and the position that is taken by our national party; I make no apology for that at all.

If my honourable friend wishes to make some private socialist capital out of it that's his business and I suggest he is only doing it as a red herring to draw attention away from the fact that his party is fundamentally split on this point because the Premier of Saskatchewan has taken a fundamentally different position, and may I say a correct position with respect to a Cha rter of Rights throughout the piece on this debate. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Elmwood on a point of order. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I believe it's in order for me to ask another question.

No one else is stand ing. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Our rules are quite distinct that a member has a question and two supplementaries. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a new question. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me m ber for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would like to know if the question period time has elapsed. If it hasn't, I believe members are entitled to ask questions and the ones who are standing, I believe, should be recognized. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the First Minis ter this.

If he thinks that there is a fundam ental rift in the Ne w Democratic Party because of an apparent or otherwise position of the provi ncial and federal parties and the Saskatchewan Prem ier, does he not also recognize that his views and his federal leaders and the views of Premiers Davis and Ha tfield would also constitut e a fundamental rift, only "in the Cons ervative Party. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Transcona MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the First Minis ter.

Is the Conservative Gove rnmen t's formal and qu ite intensive opposition to a Charter of Rig hts the position of the Cons ervative Cabinet of Manitoba or is it the position of the Leader of the Cons ervative Government of Manitoba which he is im posing upon his caucus and the Cabinet? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I can un derstand the concern and the lack of un derstan ding that my honour able friend would ha ve about how a democratic caucus works because he doesn't belong to one, but I would say, Mr.

Speaker, if the position of the First Min ister or of the government of this province was not sustained by the caucus of this gove rn ment, it would not be expr essed as the position of the government. MR. PARASIUK: A suppleme ntary to the First Min ister. In light of his statements, will the Premier explain why a member of the Cons ervative Cabinet of Manitoba has sent out a statement to his local newspaper taking a position which publ icly completely contradicts the position of the Premier?

I quote a statement in the Swan River paper, dated Ma rch 19, 19 81, head lined, "Gourla y Def ends Individuals' Rights," whereby he says, "The P.C. Party believes that the Constitution should be bro ught back to Canada with an acce ptable amending formula, then the provinces and federal government could agree on a Cha rter of Rights.

We want the Cha rter of Rights to protect Canadians' rights to own propert y." In the light of that statement, which completely contradicts the cherished longstanding notion of collective responsi bilit y in a Cabinet parliam entary system, would the Min ister then ask the Min ister of Municipal Affairs to resign? MR. LYON: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Transcona with a final supplementary. MR.

PARASIUK: Well, then, in light of the flowery statement of the Minis ter just now, can he explain why it is that one of his Cabinet will publicly send out statements directly contradicting the position of the Gover nm ent of Ma ni toba and the Premier of Manitoba with respect to a Cha rter of Rights. Is he doing so as a spokesman on behalf of the government or is he merely doing so, Mr. Speaker, in order to protect his plank in a seat which he has great possibility of losing in the next provincial election? 2882 •

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: I would like to address a question to the Minister responsible for MDC, the Minister of Energy and Mines. It relates to the ManFor company in The Pas. There is a recent Canadian Press story out of Vancouver quoting a Mr.

Adam Zimmerman of Noranda Mines to the effect, and I am quoting, "Woods Gordon and Company, management consulta nts of Toronto, was commissioned by the government to "peddle the assets." My question to the Minister: Is the Government of Manitoba, through this Minister, in the process of peddling the assets of ManFor to Noranda Mines? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I would never be found guilty of anything like that. MR.

EVANS: I wonder if the Minister could advise the House whether the government is currently in negotiations with various private companies to sell or otherwise dispose of ManFor and particularly, or namely, MacMillan Bloedel, the Forestry Division of Noranda Mines, to possibly Repap Enterprises of Montreal. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I was questioned on that two or three days ago in the House at the time that the

article appeared and answered that question, I believe. I indicated at that time that negotiations - I wasn't able to discount the story except to say that there has been contact made with quite a number of firms over a period of time. I can't indicate whether we are currently in contact with some that he has quoted here. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR.

EVANS: Could the Minister indicate to the House whether there is some deadline or proposed time objectives decided upon by the government for some decision to be made in this matter with regard to whether to expand ManFor through the public purse more or less; through public in vestment or whether to sell it to some private enterprise that may be interested in beco ming a partner with the government or perhaps may be inter ested in purchasing it outright? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, we had some discussions of this during the Commi ttee stage when ManFor appeared before the Commi ttee, and I indicated at that time that it was the Government's desire to have done whatever was going to be undertaken by sometime mid-19 81.

The principal reason for that is that there are some modifications to the existing plant which should be undertaken in 1981 if the large expansion that we would like to see take place somehow does not occur and for that reason, and the fact that you don't like keeping personnel caught in mid-air, not that they really have anything to be concerned about but anytime there is a proposal for change, personnel do get concerned and we don't want to prolong that period any longer than about mid-19 81. 2883 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether he has had an opportunity to review the matter that I brought to his attention dealing with the Crown lands issue and whether he's made a decision on that? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, the member maybe could clarify a little bit more precise the issue that he's referring to. I'm not aware of a letter. If it's the issue on the appeal mechanism, to this point I'm not aware of receiving a communique from him, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. George. MR.

URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, it looks like I'l l have to give a copy of the letter to the Minister I sent to him about a month ago. Mr. Speaker, on another matter, can the Minister indicate whether he's prepared to allow an appeal that I requested of the Minister eight months ago and wrote him three further letters asking for a response, that I haven't received a response to that yet? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I will review the issue. I know there has been some correspondence from the honourable member and will, further to checking on it, report back to him, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St.

George with a final supplementary. MR. URUSKI: Can the Minister indicate whether he's intending to bring in a procedure dealing with changes in the issuing of Crown land leases to advise the prospective or former lease holders by registered mail when a change is contemp lated rather than having the negative impacts that have occurred by changes without farmers being notified of losing their haying rights in their leases, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not aware of any changes in the allocation or the procedure within the Crown Lands Branch since we've come into office, but I'm not fully aware of the negative impact appr oach tha t the member is referring to. If a person, Mr. Speaker, does not require the land or for some reason the land is taken away from him, then there is a re-allocation takes place through the normal point system. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for the Environment and

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 follows upon the tabling of the report on the Reed Crowther Study by the Minis ter earlier before today's Question Period. In the press release, which is presented under the Min ister's name and accompanies the

summary, the Min ister said that he is looking forward to receiving public reaction to this particular report, and that he's in specific looking forward to getting the reaction of ind ividuals, corporations, muni cipal ities and other in terested groups.

I would ask the Min ister if he is prepared to send the whole three volume report to the Clean Environment Commission so that a series of hea rings can be held throughout di fferent geographical areas in the province, which are in fact affected by improper waste disposal at present, so that individuals, corporations and municipalities can come forward in their own locale and provide representation to a government body to the Clean Environment Commission in a stuctured way so as he can get the most benefit out of the public reaction to that report? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, in fact that's prec isely the sort of mechanism that was cont empla ted when I di scussed it at the press conference this morning.

I indicated that we hadn't yet decided whether the Clean Environment Commi ssion would be the official body to hold the hearings or whether a special body made up of perhaps some technical staff from the government along with mem bers from va rious parts of the communi ty at large would form the hearing body, but it was our intention in fact to set up public hearings in the various areas of the province on a formal ized basis of this nature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I ask the Min ister then, Mr.

Speaker, to be more specific and to ind icate firstly when it is he antici pates that that public body will be formed or that public body will unde rtake those hearings if in fact it is a Clean Environment Comm ission which is already in effect? Secondly, if he can ind icate if that body will be trav elling into rural and Northern Man itoba so as to provide equa l access to all citizens of the province, so that they can make their views known to that particular body in respect to what they consider to be problems and solutions in respect to hazardous waste ma nagement in the province? MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi n ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I antici pate that it'll be later this year. The logistics of time probably prevent it from occurring before the summer so it would be sometime in the latter part of the year and yes, it would be the intention that they could go into the rural and northern areas of the province to hold those hearings in those areas as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Churchill with a final supplementary. 2884 MR.

COWAN: Finally I ask the Min ister if he can respond to a statement within the press release when it's indicated that the report also recommends that a proposed waste mana gement system be operated as a Crown corporation financed by all the participating governments? I ask the Mi nis ter if he endorses that concept and if he does not endorse it, for what reason has he chosen not to? MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I can confirm that I neither endorse it nor reject that concept.

We have not had an opportunity to evaluate it from a Manitoba prospective and that's one of the areas that certai nly we'll be looking at closely from our govern ments prospective on behalf of all Manitobans. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Mi nister of Agriculture whether or not he is prepared to table the Order for Return that has been asked of him for some period of time and which has been on the Order Paper for about two years? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nis ter of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEV: Mr.

Speaker, as I ind icated, when that information is available then it will be made available to the House. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that in two years time that if there's a need for information that the Min ister would have had adequate time and staff capacity to bring that information forward. I ask the Min ister what is the problem with respect to staff within his department that is unable to bring forth that information? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEV: Mr.

Speaker, there ap peared to be some incons istencies with the appraisals of the properties done while the member opposite was the Min ister and until I'm satisfied that the proper in formation is available to this House, then, Mr. Speaker, when I'm satisfied it will be provided to the members. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, the Order -in-Council that we're dealing with has nothing to do with the system of appraisal prior to the term of this govern ment. lt has to do with the request for information that was made in Commit tee and subsequently an Order for Return was filed in order to facilitate the information being made available to this side of the House. lt seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that the Min ister is not willing to provide that information because that particular information contains information relative to the purchase of properties without more than one tender or bid rec eived, and where it involv es relatives of Minist ers of the Crown. MR. DOWNEV: Well, Mr. Speaker, as all members of this House and I'm sure the Member for Lac du

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 Bonnet is quite aware, that he refers to an Order for Return, or an Orde r-in-Council. They're all public documents and quite available to him and as I'v e ind icated when the in formation that has been requested , when I'm satisfie d that the proper information is available, then it will be made available to this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet with a new question. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I simply ask the Min ister whether he does not consider it in his inte rest and the int erest of the government that that matter be clarified since it does invo lve, you know, relationships of members of the front bench and it seems to me that if there's nothing to hide, then it would in deed im prove the im age of my friends opposite, otherwise we have to leave the question open and ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

One of the fundamental rules of the Legislature is that a statement by a Minis ter has to be accepted as being the case unle ss a mem ber has very specific information, otherwise in which case he has a matter of privilege then. The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to dispute your ruling. I simply want to point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that this is not new information. This was properly deba ted some two years ago, at which time the Minis ter agreed to bring the informat ion.

The qu estion of whether there's a conflict of in terest was debated at that time, so it's not something that I'm injecting as being new today. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho no urable Mem ber for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Yes, I'd like to address a question to the Min ister of Government Services, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the mo ve of the Agricult ure Department employees to the City of Brandon as of July.

Can the Minis ter now advise whether a decision has been made to utilize any particular building in the Cit y of Bran don for these offices and in particular, can he advise whether the former co-op retail store on Princess Avenue would be. in that decision? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): No, Mr. Speaker, a final decision has not been made.

As I indicated to my honourable friend earlier, a number of locations had been looked at and the location that will be decided upon is one that requir es certain facilities in order to ensure that the location is one that is acceptable by the client department and the department are now in the process of examining the various facilities that have been suggested and as soon as the proper one has been decided upon and arrangements are made, I will advise my honourable friend. MR. EVANS: I thank the Min ister for that information.

Just by way of supplementary, could he 2885 briefly indicate what kind of facilities does he refer to? There is, I gather, certain type of arrangement of a building, certain perhaps water facilities, or traffic facilities or whatever. What criteria are you looking at in making this decision? MR. JORGENSON: As you may be aware, the Water Services Board do require warehouse space as well as fenced in outside spa ce for some of the equipme nt that they use, so that's part of the complex that I was advising my honourable friend about earlier. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me m ber for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I thank the Min ister for the information because there is a great deal of in terest in the city at this time. The last answer, it would seem to me perhaps in effect, rules out a downtown Brandon location? MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to suggest that any particular location is ruled out. My honourable friend can draw his own conclusions. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Minis ter of Finance and it refers to a government news release dated April 3rd of this year, ind icating that the City of Winnip eg will receive $2,050,000 as a grant to cover in creased Winnip eg Hydro costs for water power rental. lt indica tes that this amount is as of June 1st, 1980 until the end of 1981. Can the Min ister confirm that this amount will come out of this fiscal year and where will this amount appear in the Estim ates? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minis ter of Finance. HON.

BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killarney): The amount was paid out of the 1980-81 fiscal year, Mr. Speaker. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer to a Janua ry 30th news release ind icating a Special Warrant issued by the government out of which $2.1 million is indicated to be paid to Winnip eg for lost revenues to Winnip eg Hydro due to in creased power rentals and hydro rate freeze. I'd like to ask the Min ister whether this is a different amount, since the amount is indicated to be not the same and why is there this apparent duplication? MR. RANSOM: it's the same item, Mr.

Speaker, but it's an estim ated amount and the final figure was slightly lower than the Supplementary Supply. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me m ber for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Min ister of Min es. Last even ing in his contribution to the Budget Debate, the Min ister of Labour ind icated that the Roper Comm ittee which has been examining the Wright Comm ittee Reports

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 on saf�ttv and health conditions in the mining industry in Manitoba, has made their report and that the government is acting, is already working on six or seven of the major recomm enda ticmll of that report. As this Comm ittee was financed by the Minis ter of Mi nes and as the re spon sibilit y for Workplace Sa fety and Health is sti ll that of the Min istry of Mi nes, can the Min ister indicate which six or sev!'ln ma jor recom menda tions are being implemented as a result of the review of the Wright Commit tee Report by the Roper Commit tee? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I'll take the question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Question Period having expired, the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: A ma tter of pr ivilege, Mr. Speaker. I listened to and then reflected on the comments made by the Mi n ister of Agricu lture dealing with an Order for Return which he accepted on May 16 th, 19 79, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if a review is made of the comments he made today and made in response to questions I asked within the last number of days that he has no in tention whatsoever to comply with the Order . of the Legislature because, Mr.

Speaker, he has ind icated that he will not file it until he is satisfied that he has appraisals which were made some - it must be more than three-and-a-half years ago. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it is an afront to the House especially since the Order has nothing whatsoever to do with appraisals made at any time as far as I know, but certainly not prior to sales made by the government. I would ind icate, Mr.

Speaker, that in my opinion it is a matter of a privilege of the House and one which would result in a motion of censure of the Min ister or at least an exhaustive review of his salary when it comes up again under the Main Supply Bill. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minis ter ought to give a definite undertaking to file an Order be it ina dequa te in his opinion or not but yet a response to the Order which this House ordered and I believe l!nanimo usly. I\I!R. SPEAKER: Order please. On the matter raised by the honourable member, I listened carefully to the points M has raised.

I have heard no ind ication whatsoever from the Min ister of Agricult ure that he will not file the Order for Return, therefore the honour able mem ber does not ha ve a point of privilege. ORDERS OF THE DA V AI)JOURNED DEBATE - BUDGET MR. SPEAKER: On the Propo sed Motion of the Honourable Min ister of Finance and the amendment and the subamendment thereto - The Honourable Mem ber for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, we have, as I indicated last night, peen presented with a Budget based on faulty <�nalysis of the performance of the Manitoba economy iri the past three years under this particular govern ment.

They have made a fruitless attempt, Mr. 2886 Speaker, to try to prove that their economic policies have been effective in developing the economy of this province, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, their actions to date have resulted in a relative decline in the Manitoba economy. Mr. Speaker the data shows, an in dependent appraisal of the data shows. and this is somethin g that should worry mem bers opposite and meml:ler:> on this side - it does worry members on this side - that there has been a serious structural decline take place in the economy in the past three years; a serious structural decline.

Mem bers opposite and particularly the Min ister of Finance made glowing statements about turning the economy around and about how progress has been made and of course they for ever and ever point to the employment growth record. They point to the record of job creation. Mr. Speaker, job creation under this government has been no better, in fact worse than it was under the New Democratic Party. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. There are a great number of private conversations going on. I find it very difficult to hear the remarks of the Honourable Member for Brandon East.

The Honol!rable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If we look at the statistics on job creation in Manitoba and relate our situation here to what has been going on in the national economy as the Minis ter of Finance is inclined to do usually, the facts are, the figures show that the job creation performance of this government in relative terms, in relation to what's going on in Canada, is no better than what happened under the NDP , in fact it is slightly poorer than what happened under the New Democratic admin istration. Take a look at the facts.

In 1980 Manitoba had the worst job creation record of any of the ten provinces; in 1980 it was the worst. In 1979 we had the worst job creation performance of any of the 10 provinces, and in 19 78, we weren't the worst, we were the third worst, we were the third poorest. So, Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to brag about in terms of job creation in this province.

My colleague the Member for Churchill will be going into this matter in more detail so I don't propose to discuss this particular matter any further, but I just point out that the Minis ter of Finance and others opposite are always inclined to hang their hat about economic development on this one particular statistic, which incidently, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last night is really a function of the value of the Canadian dollar. The fact that the Canadian dollar has been devalued and began to be devalued very seriously in 1977 has indeed created jobs across the country. The problem we have of course, Mr.

Speaker, because job creation has in creased across Canada

whereas economic growth has not kept pace, what has happened is that productivity per worker has been declining across the nation and this is something all Canadians should be concerned with. The Minis ter refers to ma nufac turing, forever talking in current dollar terms, forever talking in the value of shipments, never wishing to look at value added, never wishing to look at constant dollar terms which most economists look at in terms of what is actually happening to a particular ind ustry. The facts are that if you look at the real growth in Manitoba's

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 manufacturing industry in the years 1978 to 1980, the rate of growth is 1.2 percent, Mr. Speaker, which compa res rather poorly with what happened under the NDP years. At that time the average rate of growth was 5.4 percent, just about almost five to one. But again we should relate it to what happened in the Canadian context because I don't think it is fair to ju st look and see wha t we're doing in Manitoba in isolation. If you look at the NDP years in government you will see that the real output in manu facturing grew at about one-and-a-half times the rate in Canada as a whole.

Under the present government the rate of growth of real output in manufacturing has been only one-half of the national average. So in terms of manufacturing, Mr . Speaker, our performance has been worse. If we look in mining, if you look at the real output in the mining industry, again, it's quite clear that we have done more poorly the past thr ee years, 1978, 1979, 19 80, than we did in the years when the New Democratic Party was in office. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, any year, you could look at any of the years in which we happened to be in office and you will see that in no year did the mining output fall below $10 0 million using constant dollars based on 197 1. In no year did it fall below $10 0 million. Since 1977 we have been constantly under $10 0 million; 1978 the real output in mining was $88 million; 1979 it was $83 million; in 19 80 it was $93 million. In effect, if you combine what has happened under the past few years of Conser vative government with what happened during the NDP years, there has been an overall decline of 25 percent in real output.

If you don't believe those figures, you can look at what has happened in terms of mi ning empl oyment, what happ ened in terms of employing people, and the average man hours worked in the past couple of years has declined also from the period of time in which we were in office. Mr. Speaker, one could go on and talk about other aspects of the economy and, in effect, demonstrate very easily that the economic analysis in this Budget Address simply will not hold water.

Let me speak for a moment about the problem of popula tion growth or popul ation decline in the province. it's interesting that the Budget document generally tries to gloss over the problem, generally tries to make the problem less than it really is. As a matter of fact, I notice on Page 10 of Appendix B, wherein the Mi nister reviews the Manitoba economy, he lumps foreign immi gration in with interprovincial migration and talks about mi gration in total. I suppose you can do that, Mr . Speaker, you can lump them together because foreign imm igration is a factor, but the point is, Mr.

Speaker, you gloss over the problem that way because foreign immi gration, as the Minister kno ws, is not a function today of the economic situation in the province. lt tends to be more a function of federal government policy and the last two years or so have been primarily government policy with regard to refugees and there is no question that there has been an increase in foreign immi gration into this province and that is what has helped to sustain the population in the year 1980, the large increase in foreign immi gration into this province.

But by lumping it in with interprovincial migration, as the Min ister has done in his report, you cannot 2887 see what has been ha ppening to the flow of Canadians into and out of Manitoba. I say it is important to look at that in isolation because it is a function of the extent to which the level of economic activity in Manitoba is either above or below levels of economic activity in other provinces.

Surely the outflow, the net outflow, or if you want, the net inflow of people, if that should ever occur again, the net flow of people is surely a function of the relationship between the economic performance of Manitoba versus the economic performance in other provinces.

You know, the Mini ster goes on, on Page 23 of his Budget Address, to imply that the population loss that we have experienced in great numbers in the past couple of years has somehow arisen in the past few years because of what has happened in Alberta and I quote one sentence on Page 23: "What is new is the impact of the rapid expansion of Alberta's economy on mi gra tion patterns th roughout the country." In other words, the suggestion is that Alberta started to grow only during the past th ree years.

Well, the Mini ster knows or should know that the very rapid rate of growth in Alberta has been with us for many years. When we were in government, the average rate of growth in Alberta was 7.95 per year. The past th ree years, it has been 7 .23. (I nterject ion)- The real domestic product rate of growth, according to the latest figures that we have from the Conference Board, and I can quote the numbers: In 1969 it was 6.685 million; in 1977 it was 10.9 39 million. That figures out at an average rate of growth of 7.95 percent per year. Since 1977, the Alberta rate of growth has been 7.23.

What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we have had this phenomenon of rapid growth of the Alberta economy for many years, so the Mini ster can't hide behind tha t as the reason for the Mani toba exod us. (Int erjection)- I di dn 't hear the Mini ster. What should we know? What should I know? What I know and what the Mini ster wants to pretend he doesn't know, and that is that Alberta has for many years been a magnet attracting people out of this province.

To the extent to which we can provide job opportu nities here, attractive opportuni ties, we can help maintain our population basis, but the fact is tha t we have failed in the past few years and ther efore this incr eased exodus from the province. I would only close, Mr. Speaker, because I believe I only have one or two minutes left, three minutes left. I would only close by pointing out to the members opposite that in no year of our government did the population of the province drop. Every year tha t we were in government, the pro vince's population expanded year-by-year.

The only other time that I can see any significant decline was during World War 11 and the years 1942 and 19 43, when men and women left the province, were sent out of the province to fight World War 11. The other time was 19 66, when there was a drop of 1, 900 in the total level of popula tion during the Roblin admini stration. There was no decline of this magnitude in the Seventies when we were in office. it occurred in the past couple of years and we can see it ma inly because of the rapid incr ease in interprovincial loss. lt skyrocketed; it just about doubled in 19 78 over 19 77.

We lost 5,685 people in the year 19 77 and this jum ped to 10 ,493 in 1978; it

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 jumped again in 19 79 to 15,457; and in 1980 it was still relatively high, 13 ,533 people. Mr . Speaker, the government is perpetrating a myth that it has begun the process of recovery and rebuilding the Province of Manitoba. On Page 16 , there are references to restoring a healthy economy and that step has been taken and elsewhere he says, "We have encouraged private expansion and we have made progress ... " and so forth and so on. Mr. Speaker, if this is progress, God help us if the Min ister says we have had stagnation.

If this is progress, when there has been less priv ate capital investment under the Tories than under the NDP; when last year in 1980, when the figures come out next week we'll have more than 2 percent decline last year; if that is progress, God help us if we are ever presented with the statement by the Min ister that the economy is stagnant. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, it is once again a pleasure to rise to speak to this particular document, which I consider most positive and significant. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to compliment the new Min ister of Finance, my colleague, on acquitting hi mself so well in this first Budget. I take some confidence and pleasure in knowing that a man of his abil ities and talents has now assumed this position. I think it bodes well for the responsibilities of the Finance portfolio. I know that he will carry on that tradition that has been set by his predecessor and carry it on admirably well. Mr. Speaker, we've had four Budge ts and I would suggest that not one of those Budgets has contained an in crease in personal or sales taxes.

The most significant particular aspect, Mr. Speaker, of all of these Budgets, no more taxes on the people of Manitoba of a personal or sales tax nature, and, Mr. Speaker, if there is no other point that comes out of these Budgets, no other point than that one, I have to suggest that it is significant. Now, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and his comments on the Budget and I found it was the same old tired diatribe of rather pallid insipid stuff that preach doom and gloom and offered no hope for the province, condemned ever ything that we have done, in fact couldn't see any thing that we had done, Mr.

Speaker, and that of course, can only suggest a lack of perception. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition said there's no election coming, because no one would go to the people on the basis of a Budget like that. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, in the few min utes that I have allotted to me, I would like to touch on some of those very positive things that are contained in that Budget and are contained in the services in the programs, that that Budget provides for, for the coming year.

Now the Leader of the Pr ogressive Socialist Party had some things to say about the Budget, but I was really more int erested in what he had to say about the Prog ressive Social is t poli cies, Mr . Speaker, because this is the first time we've had an opportunity to really hear what those policies were and all 1 can gather from listening to his remarks was that the Progressive Socialist Party is the NDP Party in a hurry. In other words, he believes in the same things, state control, the socialist state, but he would move to them a little more qui ckly than our friends in the NDP Party would.

So we have that contrast between the doom and gloom party and the PS party who will move very quickly to the socialist state and that is the choice that the people of Manitoba will have, Mr. Speaker, in that regard. I thought I would try something a little different this year, Mr.

Speaker, because there's a real danger in this Chamber that we are so close to the forest that we don't see the trees, so I took this Budg et do cume nt and I ga ve it to a couple of my constituents, who I consider reasonably objective people, asked them to read through it and tell me what they thought was of greatest sign ificance, and I was ama zed. One of them was a businessperson, the other one is a professional person, and they came back and they said, pages 58 and 59 are the two pages that to us are most significant, Mr . Speaker.

I'd just like to turn to them for a min ute because they are part of that overview that the Min ister of Finance provided for us in his remarks, and that overview, Mr. Speaker, I think is highly signi ficant and significant to the people of this province. I was interested, Mr. Speaker, that two reasonably neutral, non-political people would look at this document and suggest that pages 58 and 59 were perhaps two of the most significant pages in the Budget. Wha t do they contain, Mr . Speaker?

Well they refer first of all to the fact that as soon as we took office, that we reduced the general personal income tax rate from 56 to 54 percent and we phased out that tem porary sur tax on personal in come on schedule, at the end of 1978. Mr. Speaker, this was one of the things that they thought was most significant. The abolishment of the succession duties and the gi ft taxes was another that they felt was most significant. A third was the reduction in the corporate income tax for small business in this province, from 13 percent to 11 percent, Mr.

Speaker, and isn't it interesting that our friends on the other side as they get closer to an election, all of a sudden have been transformed into great friends of small business. They had eight years to prove that friendship, and small businessmen during those eight years didn't seem to sense any warmth at all, any friendship, any support from their government, and I' ll tell you the y'll have a hard time convincing small business people in this province that the leopard has changed its spots, that they're prepared to go out and help small business in this province, because they had their chance. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that was three of the particular items that my friends poi nted out, that they thought were significant. The fourth, of course, was the corporation capital tax exemption for small business, from $1 00,000 - $10 0,000 that's where it was under gentlemen opposite - to $500,000 in 19 78 and $750,000 in 1980. We have to remember of course, that it was $10 0,000 at the time we came in to government, Mr. Speaker.

Of course there are a numb er of others: the reforms in the Manitoba mining tax structure that took place in 1979, another very positive move that this government took and, of course, what have the effects been, and we're seeing the effects in this province. 2888 I

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 A number of other nuis ance taxes, Mr. Speaker, that we abolished including the min eral acreage tax and the mining royalty and The Tax Act levies for qua rry operators, and we're seeing the benefits of that increased, mineral exploration in this country, in this province particularly.

Those are the effects, if the honourable gentlemen opposite want to see the effects of those things and, of course, we also provided new and extended sales tax exemptions for chil drens' clothing, restaurant meals, safety equipment and so on, and, of course, The Gasoline Tax incentiv es for the production and distribution of gasohol have resulted, I would suggest, in the esta blishment of a plant in Mi nnedosa that will be utilizing some of the agricultural production of this province. In ter est ing points, Mr.

Sp eaker, and I think significant in that two people, who are not political, who are not involved in this process, would look at this Budget and say, those two pages in the Budget that show all the tax cuts that were undertaken by the Progressive Conservative Government are two of the most significant pages in the whole Budget. Mr. Speaker, I thought I should touch on that because I found it rather interesting. We can expect certain slants, certain directions from people in this particular House, but it is interesting to get the reaction of people outside the House to some of these things.

Now the other thing, Mr. Speaker, that we have heard a great deal about in the last two or three years is the fact that this Progressive Conservative Governmenf is only in terested in big business. Not inte rested in people, you know we went through that, what I think was a disgraceful situation, where we talked about the bedsheets and two slices of bacon and so on, and the Minis ter of Health was besieged by these tremendous stories from mem bers opposite and they kept this particular cha rade up, Mr . Speaker, to the point that it became absolutely ridiculous and the people out there were laughing at them.

Then what happened? We had a study by Justice Hall that looked at Health in this province and, of course, destroyed that myth that they were trying to perpetrate in this province, saying that this is one of the finest health systems that we have in Canada. And you know, we haven't heard too much about bed sheets from the gentlemen opposite since then, they've more or less had to back off from that particular myth because they can't sell it anymore. Mr. Speaker, they can't sell any of those myths that they are trying to perpetrate about us not being a gove rnment concerned about the people of this province.

Look at the increase in this particular Budget, some $303.9 million, and 83 percent of it, Mr. Speaker, is ma de up of budg ets in He alth , Education, and Communit y Services. Where is the emphasis there, Mr. Speaker, if it isn't on people? Right in the area where it counts most, in services that are going directly to people; Health, Education, and Community Services. Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to touch on an area that is very close to me of course in Education, because I know that my colleague the Min ister of Health will have his op portu nit y to talk about wha t new programs and supports have been provided by this Budget to the Health Department. I would like to 2889 spend some time on looking at jus t what this particular Budget will do for the Department of Education and the services that we provide across this province. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important that I mention the most outstanding in itiative that has been taken in educational financing in this province for many years, certainly not taken during the eight years that gentlemen opposite were in govern ment, the new Educational Support Program where this government, after two-and-a-half years of careful study and input from individuals and organizations in this province, has come forth with an education support program where the government and this Budget place $70 million in the financing of public school education in this province; $70 million, Mr.

Speaker, that will not come from property taxation. In fact the total amount of money out of this Budget that comes out of provincial coffers that goes towards the financing of the schools of this province in 1981 will be some $288.1 million in direct grants to the schools of this province. That's $288.1 in direct grants, Mr. Speaker, that does not account for the $146 million in ind irect grants through property tax rebates. If we add those two figures together we find that in total the government in 1981-82 will be suppo rting edu cation costs through di rect and ind irect grants at an 81 percent level.

That was a promise that we made to the people in 1977 that we would approach that level of educational funding, and, Mr. Speaker, we have done it. I take some satisfaction in that fact and of course wha t did the program contai n? Not only tha t particular relief for the vast majority of property taxpayers in this province, but let's look at the educational side of it, Mr. Speaker. lt in creased incentives for vocational education and programs for children with special needs, and I will expand on that later, Mr. Speaker. lt brought in a three-year plan for the first time in Canada, Mr.

Speaker, where there's an educational financing program in place in one of the provinces that allows school boards to plan ahead for three years. Never before have we had that situation and it certainly has been well received by school boards in Manitoba. We have retained local autonomy. We believe that those locally elected officials, elected by the people in their own school divisions should have responsibility and should have some say in how their schools are run and operated, and this retention of local autonomy through the raising of a percentage of the school taxes through local levy has been retai ned.

We realize of course, Mr. Speaker, that when you retain local autonomy you must accept that local autonomy may man ifest itself in spending beyond guidelines that the province would like in some instances, but we accept that that is a part of local autonomy. We have seen a significant shift, Mr. Speaker, from the real property taxation to the general revenues of the province, long overdue I would suggest, and of course we have had to take into consideration that this year there will be a $54 million in crease in the cost of operating the schools of this province which is about 11 percent. So the $70 million, Mr.

Speaker, is an amount of money that not only took into consideration that $54 million increase in the costs of operation for 1981-82, but also has enabled most school divisions to hold their mill rates at a level the

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 same as last year or less than last year, Mr. Speaker. In fact I have here the latest information on that. We now find that in the 60 to 70 mill range in those school divisions that have mill rates in that particular range, this year will be 32 in total, and in 1980 before the new Education Support Program came into being it was some 18, Mr. Speaker. We can see one of the very positive effects of the new plan right there. A 60 to 70 mill rate, Mr .

Speaker, if we compute that on a $6,000 assessment certa inly doesn't leave the property taxpa yer with much to pay after their particular rebate. And of course perhaps a more global figure as to the effect of the program to this date, Mr. Speaker, some 46 school divisions have had less than a one mill in crease in their school property tax. Forty-six school divisions have had less than a one mill in crease, most of them with a decrease, Mr. Speaker, but certainly 46 with one mill or less out of some 54, Mr. Speaker.

While I mentioned that part of this new program, and I don't want to emphasize the fact that it is just a program that provides taxpa yers with relief. Let's look at some of the positive aspects fro m an educational point of view. Back in 1977, Mr . Speaker, when we came into government, gentlemen opposite were very quick to criticize that Minis ter of Education, myself, and they said you've only got th ree-quarters of a million dollars in this budget for Special Needs. You are not doing any better than we did, because we had that amount of money in our Budget. Well that was some four years ago, Mr.

Speaker, and let's look at what the picture is today, what we have developed in this area of Special Needs over four years, what has evolved, what kind of programming and what kind of supports are now in place in this province. Remember it was four years ago when they were criticizing me for the fact that I hadn't increased the three-quarter million dollars that they had in place for some Special Needs program. Let's look at what it is this year and what it was last year and see the comparison.

Last year the province provided some $13.9 million out of a total Special Needs funding in the province of $27.3 million. In other words the province last year, Mr. Speaker, was providing about 51 percent of the total Special Needs support in the province. This year un der the new Education Supp ort Program the province will be funding $29.1 million of a total expenditur e for Special Needs of $34.7 million. This year, Mr. Speaker, the province will be funding 84 percent of the costs of Special Needs education in this province in our schools. I take some pride in that, Mr.

Speaker, I consider it a progressive step and one that gives me some satisfac tion. In other words, an increase over 1980 in Special Needs funding of some $15.1 million. Rather significant, Mr. Speaker, when we think back four years to when gentlemen opposite were quibbling about three-quarters of a million dollars, and why we hadn't increased it by $100,000 or so. And you know, Mr . Speaker, in this $15 million, in this in crease this year is contained some $6 million dollars for educational supports, for low incidence one and low incidence two handicaps.

Those are children with the severest handicaps in our syste m. Some $6 million, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you in the past, under their gove rnment, it was a matter of a few thousand. In four years, Mr. Speaker, and they say that there is nothing positive in this Budget, that we haven't done anything with those dollars, that we aren 't conc erned about people, that we aren 't putting programs in place to help people? Well, that's a little bit ironical, Mr. Speaker, when you look at facts such as those that I have just placed before this House in the area of Special Needs.

In 1977-78, when we came into this government, a previous government had provided some consultants for the hearing im paired in this province. They had a grand total of two. This year, Mr. Speaker, we will have eight consultants for the hearing im paired in this province. We have increased rather drastically over the last four years. And of course we have heard a great deal of rhetoric about what they would do and what they were going to do about Special Needs children and screening, but, Mr. Speaker, it was all rhetoric; there was no action. We saw nothing in place.

We have put in place a screening pilot program, this fall it will be starting, that will identify children in the very earliest stages of their schooling who have learning disabiliti es, Mr. Speaker. This will be the first time that there will be a provincial program in place in the province and from that pilot we will develop a screening program that will apply to all of the province and identify children who have special needs much much earlier in their career. To this point, Mr.

Speaker, too often they'v e been al lowed to drift through the system and not be identified, not be treated until much later in the school lives. Well, we are setting a program in place that will identify them and help them out at a much earlier stage in their development. And of course we have also initia ted programming for mult i-sensory handicap students who are both deaf and blind, Mr. Speaker, and we now have consultants and int ervenors and teachers in place to help th ose par ticu lar students. Perh aps most im portant of all, Mr.

Speaker, as part of this Special Needs funding and support, we have put in place, and it will become operative this fall, a diagnostic support centre that will be operational at the School for the Deaf that will take those students from our schools who have not responded to the progr amming that they have, who have learning disabiliti es of such an extent, such extreme learning disabilities that they need special remediation, special diagnostic services, and this centre, Mr.

Speaker, will be staffed by people well trained with a great deal of expertise in dealing with children who have these problems and we will certai nly be able to ident ify and help that type of student who has that particular problem. lt is something tha t ha s no t been in pla ce in this province. Other provinces have established centres such as this. I am very pleased to be able to announce that we will have a dia gnostic support centre in this province. Ano ther progra m, Mr. Speaker, geared to people, aimed at helping those in our society who have problems and who need that type of support.

And certainly it will cost dollars, Mr. Speaker, certainly it will take dollars out of this Budget but, Mr. Speaker, we feel they are dollars well spent. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, we might suggest that the dollars going to this area are what are causing the deficit but that would be unfair because, Mr. Speaker, these are dollars that any government should be spending. I wanted to spend some time on that particular area, Mr . Sp eaker, because I think it is mo st 2890

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 signif cant and certainly an im portant part of this present Budget that we have under consideration. I also wanted to look at another area that falls within my department and of course accounts for some of the money that this Budget covers and that is the area of un iversities and colleges. As you know we have provided some 13.8 percent incr ease in funding for the operating expe ndit ur es of our universities this year, an increase, Mr . Speaker, that will be one of the highest in Canada.

I believe B.C. has come in at 13.9, so they may exceed us by point one-tenth of a percent but certainly an increase that has been heralded by the universities across Canada as rather outsta nding. Our capital and operating grants if you include those with the operating funding that we've provided, we would then have an increase of some 17 .3 perc ent, Mr . Sp eaker, rather significant, a positive aspect, and part of this Budget Of course, I don't have to say that we feel this is money well spent, well invested.

The people who gr adua te from our univ ersities ma ke a gr eat contribution to our economy, our way of life, and I don't have to say, Mr . Speaker, that we are proud of the fact that the University of Manitoba is one of the foremost research univ ersities in Western Canada and we are anxious to see it maintain that status and not only, of course, do they receive the usual research moneys from the Federal Government and other agencies, but the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Economic Development make a very worthwh ile contribution to the research activities at the Un iversity of Manitoba.

The Leader of the Progressive Socialist group said in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, that a Budget should tell what is happening to student enrolment Do we ha ve more or do we ha ve less and why? He wan ted to know just what was happening there. Well, I can tell him that at the universities, our enrolments are up; they have increased. The enrolments at the universities in Manitoba have increased and this is contrary to what was expected across the country; it's contrary to what was expected.

Everyone had predicted a rather drastic drop because the number of people coming through the school system has declin ed as bir th rates decline, so that gr eat reservoir of people from whence the univ ersities and other post-se condary in stitutions dr aw their enrolment is becoming smaller. But, Mr . Speaker, this year we saw an in crease in our un iversity enrolment and what was most encouraging, we saw an increase in the participation rate of high school students. In other words, the continuing students, those who go from Grade 12 on to university, that percentage increased this year.

I am pleased to see that the Leader of the Progressive Socialist group appla uds that because I think that we all applaud that particular fact. Some 35,9 13 enrolments, part­ time and full-time at our un iversities in Manitoba, Mr . Speaker. The commun ity college enrolments have shown the same particular trend and we have had the hig hest enrolment for several years in 1980, Mr. Speaker, some 32,6 52; aga in, ful l-ti me and part-time enrolments.

In fact, in the fall of 19 80, there were more students on course at Red River Communit y College than at any previous time in its history, a rather domi nant and significant -(l nterjection)­ Certainly, well, we predict that next year there will be 2891 another in crease, Mr . Speaker, and we see that increase continuing and I think it is one of the most heartening and increasing signs that we have in the educational community because it means not that we have more students in total , but we have more students going on into post-secondary training. Mr.

Speaker, I would like also to touch on another aspect of the whole educational scene and the post­ secondary educational scene because mem bers opposite have often try to imply, or some have, that the problem of finding a job in Manitoba after graduation is ind eed a difficult problem. lt is part of the doom-and-gloom symdrome that they expound and keep expounding. Well, the facts put the lie to that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in comparison with other provinces, we are not doing badly at all.

There are a couple of surveys that I can refer to that honourable members might be in terested in; one, of course, carried out by the Department of Manp ower and Labour of this government with community college gradua tes in 1979, showing a participation rate of 95 percent among those grad ua tes. Of course, that doesn't surprise me, Mr. Speaker. If we have 30,000 more jobs in Manitoba over the last three years, then I am not surpr ised that our communi ty college grad uates are finding jobs.

The reports we are getting from employers is that they are well-trained and that they are very pleased to employ this type of person. But if we are going to talk about the job opportunities for university people, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is significant, then I refer to this Job Market Reality for Post-Secondary Gradua te Survey that was carried out by the Department of Statistics, Statistics Can ., and released a few months ago, because I think it's significant Here is what it had to say.

Talking about our Manitoba un iversity grad uates compared to Canada as a whole, comparing them to other university grad uates across this country, it said they were doing as well in the labour force as gradua tes from other pr ovi nces in terms of participation rate and employment rate; it said they were more likely to have jobs related to their field of study - these are Manitoba grad uates - that they were less likely to be under-employed; that they were as satisfied with their jobs as other grad uates in Canada; that they were earning salaries comparable to gradua tes in Canada as a whole; and that they were less likely to regret their choice of field of study - comparing Manitoba univ ersity grad uates, Mr.

Speaker, with grad uates across Canada. If we look at the commun ity college grad uates, this is what the survey had to say about them. They were doing much better in the labour market than other commun ity college grad uates across Canada, took less time to find a job. This is not my department saying this, Mr. Speaker, this is Statistics Canada that said this in their report.

They took less time to find a job; they were more likely to be employed in jobs related to their training; less likely to be under­ employed; less likely to be dissatisfied wit h their job; less likely to regret their field of study choice. Mr. Speaker, here is the in terest ing thing, the final comment in this particular survey said, and I think this is the most significant comment of all, gradua tes in Manitoba did better than average in every way. Gr adua tes in Manitoba did better than average in every way, and they had one more sentence in that

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 comment - the percentage with full-time jobs topped the list. The percentage with full-time jobs topped the list. But, Mr. Speaker, in spite of those very positive comments, there was an

article in the Free Press on March 25th that said, and here was the headline: "Uni versity Gradua tes Quit Province." That was the headline. Now, Mr. Speaker, whoever picked that particular headline hadn't read the survey, I would suggest, because the surv ey did not support the type of slant that

article received. lt is not supported by the facts in the survey. Certainly we have a number of gradua tes who leave Manitoba and I think, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Un iversity of Manitoba in speaking to this particular

article said certainly we have a numb er of grad uates who leave, mainl y because of the excellence of many of our faculties in that we attract students from other provinces who return to their home province upon graduation. The articl e sa id, "Ma ni toba loses a gr eater percentage of its university gradu ates than any other province in English Canada except Nova Scoti a." Well, Mr. Speaker, the survey disputes that and gives the lie to that statement because it shows that Manit oba is right in the middle in that reg ard .

Ontario, Newfoundland, British Columbia and Alberta retain more of their gradua tes - perhaps they don't have as many coming to their province from other provinces. Manitoba is right in fifth place and below Manitoba, those that lose more, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. But that isn't what the

article said. However, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was interesting and rather pertinent and really does refute some of the gloom and doom that gentlemen opposite would sometimes like to spread about the opportunities for the young people graduating from our secondary institutions. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is something else that we hear quite often in connection with university funding and particularly, again, funding by this gov ernme nt. We have heard , we ll, th ere were cutbacks at the universities, real cutbacks at the universities and, Mr. Speaker, qual ity has suffered.

I don't know gentlemen opposite measure quality and I don't know how they measure cutbacks but, Mr . Speaker, let's compare the year 1976-77 with 1979- 80 and see what these cutbacks were. There was one cutback - there were less students att ending in 19 79-80, some 2,700 less than there were atten ding in 19 76-77 and that's been the pattern across this "country. A cutback in students, yes, but let's look at the academic staff because after all that is funded in large part by the grants that are provided by this government. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): Order please.

The Honourable Min ister has five minutes. MR. CO SENS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The academic staff in 19 76-77 num bered 1, 493. Now, let's take a look at the cutbacks because this is where they will be, won't it, there will be severe cutbacks here. In 1979-80, with 2, 700 students less enrolled, the teac hing or instructional staff in our universities totalled 1,5 61, Mr . Speaker, or 68 more. Well, where is the cutback, Mr. Speaker? Where has the qua lit y been affecte d? Not in a cutback in teaching staff.

We see that there are 68 more now than when honourable gentlemen opposite were in government and when there were more students there - I am talking about academic staff at this point. Mr. Speaker, just one more point. lfi 19 76-77, there were 344 full professors in our uni versities in Manitoba, 344, and honourable members opposite kn ow th at th ere are full professors, assot:iate, assistant, and lecturers, and the full professor, of course, being at the hig hest level in the academic ladder. That was in 1976-77, some 344. Mr.

Speaker, let's look at the cutback that has affected quality - in 19 79-80, 43 1, 87 more full professors in the un iversities of this province, and that's a cutback? That has affected quality, Mr. Speaker? That has affected quality? If we are going to judge quality by the status of the people who are teaching in our un iversities and the quali fications of our teaching staff, I would suggest this is an ind icator that the status of the teaching staff, the quality of that staff, has increased over the last four years. Of course, if we are talking about quality, Mr .

Speaker, there are a number of other areas where we can look as well. Certainly students in many of our faculties that compete in national exams are showing that they are rating right at the very top. I draw your attention to students in Pharma cy from the Un iversity of Manitoba, who have almost annually for the last two or th ree years, to my knowledge, placed in the top groupings in the national exams in Pharmacy and I think that the universities and that particular faculty can certainly take some pride in that fact. Of course, we have heard this other point, Mr.

Speaker, from gentlemen opposite, tha t at the un iversities, because of the Conservatives' funding, that professors are leaving; they are leaving in great droves. Well, look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. In 19 75- 76, 68 professors resigned from the universities of our province. In 1976-77, 58 resigned; in 1980-8 1, Mr. Speaker, some 35, the lowest number that we have had for a great number of years. Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to touch on a number of other topics as well but there was just one other that I would like to mention and that is the area of student aid because, again, I think that there is some misun derstan ding among a number of people about what this government has done in that particular area. I point out to yourself, Mr. Speaker, and honourable members opposite that in 1976-77, the Budget that was provided for bursaries and support to the young people in our post-secondary education was some $4 million. This year, in this Budget, we are providing some $6 million, Mr. Speaker. Where is the cutback?

Wher e is this tremendous acute, protracted restraint that is affect ing students, Mr. Speaker? I have trouble seeing it; I have trouble basing it on these statistics that I have just given to you. Of course, I found, Mr . Speaker, when I came into government that those fellows opposite had seen fit to provide a bursary level that was $400 below the loan level and we imm ediately add ressed that in 1978 and increased it to the same level as the loan level and I can say, Mr.

Speaker, that this year, in summa ry, we are increasing those maximums and we are providing for those students who have needs beyond the requir ed maximum. Mr. Speaker, I have 2892

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 no problem sup porting a Budge t that provides programs and init iatives that will benefit the people of Manitoba. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Sp eaker, in or der to fully appr eciate the real sign ificance of this year's Budget or, I think, it would be more accurate to say at this point this year's mini-Bud get because that is in fact what it was. lt is necessary to look beyond the torture performance of the Min ister of Finance a humble if not a humili ated Mini ster of Finance of the other evening and to look beyond the tortured contributions of memb ers of the gover nm ent in respect to atte mpting to support what is in fact a Budget which is not worthy of their support.

For more is learned about the budgetary policies of the Government of Manitoba by what this document doesn't say than rather by what it does say. What we know is that the Tories are on the ropes. The Budget points that out very clearly. They are tired; they are bedraggled; they are intellectually bankrupt and they have been able to produce in this year's Budget little more than a series of apologi zes for their fiscal failings of the last three years. In fact, this is a loser's Budget. One could see the losers' looks on their faces, the other evening when the Budget was first presented.

A tired group of people who had given their best, who have tried, who had anticipa ted doing better, but who in fact had failed. A loser's Budget. After th ree long years of suffering, after three long years of unfulfilled expectations and after three long years of puffery by a government, unable to escape its partisan history and its dog matic ideology and consequently unable to deal with many of the complex problems of a modern day industrial society. We and the people of Manitoba are treated to this, a loser's Budget. The Go ve rn ment had gambl ed it all.

We heard them when they first came to power. lt was the private sector that was going to fuel the economy. That was the eng ine of the economy, so they gambl ed it all on the pr ivate sector. They put their blind faith in the private sector alone. They placed their bets with the private sector and they lost. So after th ree years of Tory misma nagement of the economy, we' re given a Budget of no significance. In fact, it is a bended knee Budget, Mr .

Speaker. lt is a bended knee Budget by a government driven to its knees by their own blind, stubborn dependency on the transnati onal, on the mu ltinational and on big business. There is nothing in this Budget, nothing at all to provide the catalyst for needed job creation in the province.

We will addr ess that issue because in fact job creation is needed desperately in this province, but before doing that it's important to note that ther e is very li ttle in this Bu dget to protect Manitobans from the worse ravages of spiralling inflation and a spiralling cost of living that accompanies it and the result of course is a reduced st andard of living for Mani tobans.

At best, the Government offers a series of apologi es for their inablility to cope with this serious erosion of every working Manitoban's future. lt must as well be said that there is nothing in this Budget designed to provide the programs and the 2893 poli cies which are necessary to get No rthern Manitoba moving again. lt is obvious that a more realistic approach to the north of this province must await the election of a more realistic government, a government with a proven history of caring, concern and com mi tment to the northern parts of this province.

Of course, we're tal king about a New Democratic government. My colleague, the critic for the Department of Northern Affairs, I'm certain will provide more details and mor e insights into the Tory government's complete and total failure to deal in any sort of a systematic and posi tive way with the serious structural problems that comfront northerners living in Northern Manitoba. However, as labour critic, I would like to use this oppor tunity to address some of the concerns if working people in the province.

To begin with, it is necessary to examine just what has been happening over the past three-and-one-half years of Prog ressive Conservath ·-� government.

As well, later on in my contribution to the Budget Debate, I believe the time has come to begin to talk about some of the ways in which a good government would respond to the challenges of the 19 80s, some of the ways in which a good government would meet the growing demands for safer and healthier workpla ces, some of the ways in which a good government would deal with the mounting pressures for greater job security in the face of plant closures and production shut-downs.

In this respect, from the perspective of the working person of this province, this Budget was not only extremely disappointing, it was a total disaster, for it did nothing at all for the working person in the Province of Manitoba. Now even a Tory government has to admi t or at least should admit that any government has a certain respon sibi lity to att empt to build the type of economic clima te which will in fact provide employment opportun ities for its citizens.

There can be no denial of that very basic simple truism, but if one is to listen to the Mini ster of Finance and at the same time to ignore all the facts and figures which have been laid on the table during the course of this Debate, one would have to believe that nothing is right anywhere else in the world but in Manitoba everything is right because of his government's budgetary policies. He says that as if there weren 't tens of thousands of unem ployed Ma ni tobans listening to his very words. What did he say in the Budget Speech?

I quote the Mi nister of Finance: "By comparison with most other parts of Canada, our unemp loyment situation is enviable and our record of job creation should be a source of pride for all Manitobans." As if by the very voicing of those words alone, history would reverse itself and the past three -and- one-half years would be but a bitter memory for the tens of thousands of unemp loyed Manitobans, and, for the tens and thousands of Manitobans who have had to leave their homes and their famili es in search of employment; in s·earch of a basic job.

The sad fact is that during the last number of years under a Tory Government the job creation record in this pro vince, mo stly as a resu lt of government policies, is worthy more of shame than of pride. And, it is a shame that the government has to bear, it's not the shame of the people who want nothing more than a job, who want nothing more

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 than to work. They have proven consistently, the people of the province have proven consistently that they do desire work and all they ask for is a productive and a fulfilling job and when work is not available to them here, they in fact are forced to travel outside the province in order to find that work. They are forced to tear up their roots, to leave behind their family and friends in search of the simple basic necessity of life. A job by which one can earn a day's wage and by which one can raise a family. So, such is the Tory's shame. The ma ssiv e population loss.

We have been suffering; the people of this province have been suffering during their term in government is solemn testimony to their inability, their compl ete and utter inabil ity to create an economic environment which provides the needed job opportunities for all Manitobans. And it must be remem bered that we are the only province out of all ten over that period of time which has in a number years suffered a decline in population. it's not a Canadian phenomena. They would like to blame the Canadian economy for their problems. it's not a world-wide phenomena.

They would like to blame world-wide pressures for their problems, but it is a purely Manitoba phenomena brought about in large part by the policies of the present Conser vative Government. That out migr ation is a serious concern and there are some very substantial reasons for the forced mi gration of thousands of Manitobans. Plain and simple, as we said, the re are not enough jobs to go around, because people will stay a long time in one place if they antici pate being able to get a job.

Beyond the fact that there are no jobs, there is very little anticipation that there will be jobs; there's very little hope left. Through their budgetary policies, through their government policies of three years not only have they stripped people of their jobs but they have stripped people of their hope and they are forced in desperation to leave looking for other work. So notwi thstand ing the opti mis tic words of the Min ister of Finance, I would suggest to you that there is very little cause for pride in either their record or their budgetary policies.

And the Mini ster says you have to compare our record against the Canadian record. That's what we've been saying all along. They don't want to do that when they participate in the Debate. They want to compare the Conser vative . Government's first three years in office record against not the first th ree years of the New Democratic Party government but against the last thr ee years of the New Democratic Party government. A period time when even they will admit there were pressures outside of the local economy which were having strong in fluenc e on wha t happened in the provincial economy.

So let's make the com parisons that we have said all along consis tently should be ma de. Let's ma ke the comparisons that they appear to have come to the realization must be made. Let's compa re what is happening in the Province of Manitoba, not with what happened 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or th ree or two years ago. Let's compare it with wha t's happening over the past three-and-one-half years with what's been happening outside the province and the rest of the Canadian experience over the past three-and-one-half years.

Manit oba has had the third lowest percentage increase in new jobs over that period of time. That is a fact. We are at the bottom of the pack. Their job creation record is a percentage and that's a fair way to an alyze it, has not been able to keep pace with the national average. Mat ter of fact, I think, if you take the full thr ee-a nd -one-half years into consid erati on, it's been running at somewher e around 55 to 60 percent of the incr eases on a national average. And the situation is worst ening; it's not getting better.

Last year's job creation record, if you take the year-end average for the Province of Manitoba, was the worst of all the provinces. We had the worst job creation record. What is there to be proud about in that sort of a record? And in fact, la st year it gr ew at less than one-half of the Canadian national average. So we have slipped behind for three-and-one-half years and we are slipping further behind. If job creation suffers such as it has under that government's budgetary policies, then unemplo yment is bound to in crease. Exactly what has happened.

Today, if you take the latest figures, only two provinces in Canada have a higher unemp loyment rate than they did of October 1977, and October, 1977, of course, is the month in which they took power. Only two provinces have a higher percentage unemp loyment rate today than at that time; Prince Edward Island and Manitoba.

During that period of time if you compa re it, and you can't make a strai ght line compa rison, you have to compare now and then, but if you compare that, you will find that Ma nitoba's unemployment rate has increased by several tenths of a percentage point while the national unemp loyment rate has decreased by nearly one full percentage point, so the difference is substantial. I can tell the Mini ster of Finance that the 35,000 unemp loyed Manit obans find very little envy or very little to envy in the Tory's Government job creation record.

And it must be noted that never in eight years of New Democratic Party government were there 35,000 workers on the unemployment roles. The Minis ter of Labour the other day, last night I believe, made much ado about the fact that we have more workers in July of last year; we had more workers in the province than we'd ever had before, that the labour force was at its hig hest peak than it had ever been. One would imagine that to happen. That's not a situation that is hard to imagin e. The labour force grows as new people come into the labour force and barring certain circumstances it's going to continue to grow.

But the fact is that he neglected to mention that last month we'd had one of the high est lev els of unemplo yment in this province in decades. And neither can one ignore the other wa rnings that were contained in the most recent unemp loyment statistics. Since January of this year, 6,000 Ma nitobans have entered the labour force, comparing March figur es as against January figures. How many of them were able to find work? Well, if we listen to them, we ignore the facts. We would expect that jobs went begging for all of them.

But the fact is only 2,000 of those 6,000 were able to find productive and fulfulling employment. Two-thirds were forced in to unemplo yment or out of the province. As well, for the first time in years, Manit oba's unemp loyment rate increased from the second lowest and that was for the month previous 2894

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 to the fourth lowest in the country. And it has to be noted, in all fairness, that it normally and during an NDP term ran about third lowest; it is now the fourth lowest. So we see a deterioration of the situation in Manitoba in respect to the other provinces. And all of this has taken place under a Tory government and the Minister of Finance tells us that we should be proud of his government's record.

Why, that would either have to be foolish pride or false pride, and the Member for Point Douglas has told me many many times that one should not fall prey to either foolish pride or false pride. However, the numb er of jobs is only part of the equation. It is necessary as well to look at the quality as well as the quantity of jobs. It's no secret that wages have failed to keep pace with spiralling inflation in the Province of Manitoba and throughout Canada during the Tory years.

Almost any worker witnesses firsthand, their own personal erosion, in their own personal earning power, every time they take out a pay envelope and have to put it to the bills. Every time they have to take their pay cheque and make it meet the inflationary pressures of the bills that they have before them, they know that their standard of living is being eroded. But what isn't as obvious is that Manitoba workers are suffering one of the largest drops in their standard of living of any of the provinces.

Only Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland workers have fared more poorly over the past three years in respect to the purchasing power of their wages. Now I won't dwell on the money too long, we all know that m oney is not everything. The quality of work goes beyond the size of the pay envelope and as far as I'm concerned, one of the most important requirements for any job is a safe and healthy working environment.

It is an attitude that I can tell you, is shared by any worker who has witnessed the tragedy that accompanies a workplace accident or a workplace illness and not withstanding the breast­ beating of the Minister of Labour last night, this has been one of the areas of greatest failing of the Conservative Government. The greatest failing because they have wasted the unique opportunity which greeted them at the time at their election victory.

Only one month previous the new Workpla ce, Safety and Health legislation had been proclaimed by the then New Democratic Party Government, and the Minister was right, it was only one month earlier that it had been proclaimed. But the fact is that it had been passed the year before and the fact is that that legislation was the result of many long hard years of work on the part of many of the Minister's own emp loyees, if he would ask them he wo4ld find out, in developing what came to be accepted and came to be known as one of the best occupational health and safety laws on this continent.

Their efforts over many years resulted in a piece of legislation which has been held up for a motto for other ju risdictions and until most recently was considered to be one of the most progressive pieces of occupational health and safety legislation in the country. We no longer can claim that what I believe to be a very important distinction because of the fact that they have refused to deal in any sort of a positive way with the opportunity that that legislation represented. But back in October of 19 77, when they 2895 came to power, the Act was new.

It needed the support of a sympathetic government in order to meet its full expectations. What did it receive? Well, it's plain what it received instead was the cold hand of the Tory government which starved its staffing, star ved its funds and which ignored and even violated and is even in violation today, of the provisions of that legislation, so the Tory record as their record in job crea tion, in the field of occupational health and safety, is one for which there can be very little pride. I would suggest it goes beyond that.

It is one of the back door erosion of the powers and rights that the original Workp lace Safety and Health Act was designed to provide to Manitoba workers. Let's take a quick look at their actions as the government in respect to that Act. They have accused their own inspectors of harassing employers, when all they were doing was trying to accomplish their normal inspection routines. We all know that that happened. It's a matter of the public record. The Minister, the previous Minister of Labour has said, yes, that is the case. So they've done that.

The Minister now has refused to appoint a Chief Medical Occupational Officer, even although he is required to do so by the law itself and for three-and-one-half years, we've asked him, when are you going to appoint that officer and what the Minister said in return to us was: yes, we know the value of the officer; yes, we know that the officer is needed; yes, we are going to appoint that officer very shortly, it's just a technical matter.

For three years he said that and then a couple months ago, he finally had the courage to come out and say, no, we don't intend to appoint that officer, not to change the Act, but just to say that they intend to continue violating that Act and they have refused the advice of their own Advisory Council and denied consequently, hundreds of Manitoban workers, of the advantages and protections of ma ndatory Safety and He alth Commi ttees.

The Advisory council called for a broader, more systematic implementation of designated work sites for Comm ittees, that would have covered hundreds of thousands of Manitoba workers and given them the benefits of those Comm ittees, and they have rejected that advice, after a year or two years of telling us they were awaiting a recommendations from the Advisory Council and when they got them, they turned them aside and went about on their own course of action, which has resulted in that denial of tha t very important mechanism to hundreds of thousands of Manitoba workers.

They give lip service to regulations, yet we see no regulations. They say they're needed, yet we don't see them come forward and they set up committees. The Minister of Labour is famous for setting up committees. He set up the Asbestos Committee. Anything come from it? Not that I know of, no regulations, no positive programs. They set up the Lead Comm ittee - anything come from that, can you tell me the result of that? Very very little. They set up the Right Com mittee. That's a cl assic example. They set up a committee to look into the mining safety and health conditions in Manitoba's metallic mining industry.

The committee comes back with some very su bstantiv e, very power ful recommendations, and they send these

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 recommendations to another commit tee, and that committee came back with some very substantive and very powerful recommendations and yet we hear nothing; we hear nothing. Maybe they're hoping for the best three out of five, I don't know, but the fact is, that while we wait, the conditions don't get any better in the mining industry and we know, we can read the record, the conditions in workplace, safety and health in the mining ind ustry according to the lost-time frequency and the severity rates, are not getting any better, not getting better, no matter what the Min ister says.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the whole area of occupational health and safety, the statistics betray that govern ment's lack of commitment and that govern ment's lack of action. Last year 46,627 accidents were reported to Workers Compensation. Now how does that compa re with 1977? Well in 1977, 43,256 accidents were reported in a similar way and a difference, as you can quickly note, is 3,371 mo re accidents reported to Worker s Compensation in 19 80 than in 19 77.

If you take those and make a qu ick comparison to the job creation record, you will find that the percentage in crease in the number of accidents reported to Workers Compensation over that period of time, has out-pa ced the percentage in crease in the Tory job creation record. Accidents have grown at a faster rate than employement in this province and yet they tell us that they are dealing with the matter. They tell us they are putting forward positive programs. Hog­ wash. They are not.

They are not and in fact the statistics betray their lack of action and it must be noted, that when they came to power, the statistics were going down. There were fewer accidents in 1976 than there were in 19 75; there were fewer accidents in 1977 than there were in 1976; and yes there were fewer accidents in 1978 than there were in 19 77; but in 1979 a nd 1980, we see the climb again and that climb was entirely predictable, given their attitude toward workplace, safety and health in this province and the monetary costs of that in crease in accidents is staggering.

The Manitoba economy last year lost $27 million in compensation pay-outs alone and experts calculate that for every dollar paid out in compensation pay­ cuts, the loss to the gross provincial product is between $5.00 and $1 5.00, so let's ma ke the extrapolation, because of related costs; re-t raining costs; replacement and ma chi nery costs; down production time; replacement of workers' wages; the figures amount to a five to fifteen factor for every dollar paid out in compensation costs.

And what that means is that last year, the Manitoba economy lost anywhere from $13 6 million to $4 10 million, because of occupational accidents and injur ies and those figures grossly underestim ate the real impact, but they're the best figur es we have available to us. So that is a deficit in financial and human terms, that no government can long afford to ignor e. lt goes beyond dollars and cents. 1t robs young workers of their youth and it robs old workers of their retirement years. lt is a senseless slaughter which must be stopped.

Another area in which the government has failed the workers of this province, is in their reaction or again better said, in their lack of reaction to the gr owing phenomenon of plant closu res and production slow-downs and it must be said, in all fairness to them, this is not a Manitoba phenomenon alone. lt is part and parcel of changes which are ongoing throughout the industrial world. No province is im mune, but what differentiates Manitoba from most of the other provinces, is their lack of response to either the closures or to the problems which they create for Manitoba workers and communi ties alike.

They shrug their shoulders, they th row up their arms in mock concern and yet they do nothing. Now there is no doubt that given the best efforts of any government, there will be a certain number of plant closures and pr oduction cut-backs, as econom ies con tract and expand and scarce resources are reallocated. Only a foolish government would attempt to prevent each and every closure. At the same time, only a callous and an uncaring government would allow such closures to take place unh indered, and that is in fact, what we have had over the past numb er of years under a Tory government.

The general statistics are both illuminating and staggering. Over half of unem ployed Ma nitobans today are the victims of lay-offs because of plant closures, bankru ptcies and foreclosures and other production cut-backs, and those statistics only reflect part of the problem.

Communi ties as well are affected, as John Condra the Chairperson of the Swift's Comm ittee, said it had a tremendous impact on the community, as well as upon the individual workers, but they believe tha t somehow Adam Smith 's invisible hand will guide the unemp loyed Maple Leaf Mills workers, the unem ployed Swift's workers, the unemp loyed workers from other closur es and bankruptc ies and pr oduction slow downs to job employment and opportunities that were not av ailabl e to them before. Well it just doesn't happen. The government has to play a role in tha t.

So it is obvious that governments have a dual responsibility in the event of unavoidable closures. The first is to affected employees, the second is to the general community and those are responsibili ties which any government should take seriously. I could go on and on with the list of problems, but I do want to use the time that is left to me, Mr.

Speaker, to talk about some of the ways by which a good government should addr ess some very serious issues which confront all working people, and firstly let it be said that I believe and I think most New Democrats believe, in their heritage, that they are proud of their linka ges with all working people in this province.

Just as we take pride of the roots that were built in the coalition party of farmer, of working person, of professionals and other individuals and that pride is especially warranted - I want to pay special tribute to the previous government, in regard to the previous New Democratic Gove rnment's labour legislation. That legislation was violently attacked by those mem bers, by the government opposite at the time of its introduction. I read the record.

Every one of them to a person voted against that legislation on third reading and yet they have failed to introduce any significant changes to that legislation since they came into power in October of 1977. Their silence and their lack of reaction to that legislation is strong tribute to the public support and the respect which New Democratic Government's 2896

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 labour relations legislation has earned in the past and I believe that government has a responsibility to review the past and as well, to build upon the foundation of existing legislation. lt should refine in fine tune where necessary, that legislation, because challenges change, times change and legislation must in fact be changed. Attitudes must in fact be changed in order to meet the challenges and the unfor eseen demands of the new day. it's no secret that many people in this province are concerned about the problems which many times accompany the negotiations of a first contract.

All of us have witnessed too often, over the past few months, the results of in transigence in bargaining that can result in unne cessary strikes and lockouts, all of us want to avoid that long drawn-out and sometimes confrontational situation, such as we have seen at the Winnip eg Clinic and such as we've seen at St. Adolphe Nur sing Ho me. Recog nizing the problem, I belie ve tha t government has a responsibility to assist negotiators through unusually difficult times.

There is precedent for that; there are conciliation services, so it must be said that without going into the fine details, that fi rst cont ract legislation is meant to be that form of assistance. lt is not intended to replace the normal process in negotiat ing, neither has it repla ced the normal process in negotiating in other jurisdictions where it has been successfully im plemented. What is has done is allowed for and encouraged more realistic attempts to reach a settlement during first contr act negotiations.

Also experiences in other jurisidictions have shown us that there is a role for the Labour Board to play, in that the powers of that Labour Board should be strengthened so that they can have more influence in respect to when parties refuse to bargain in good faith and we need only look to the province of Ontario, to see what is happening there and the benefits in providing for a stronger and more active and more comprehensive Labour Board. So I believe that those two measures will, and this is a preventive appr oach, will result in a mor e harmonious labour relations climate in this province.

I'd also like to talk a bit about workplace, safety and health. Just as an NDP government brought that legislation to life in the first place, so will it be an NDP government that will breathe life back into the legislation. Government's must act decisively and quickly to make certain that legislation is once again put to work. Go vernments mu st provide both direction and support for the Workpla ce and Safety and Health Divisions so that they can finally begin to fulfil their manda te.

As well, I believe, a good government should not the follow the course of action of the Tory government and try to restrict access to Workpla ce Safety and Health Committees for all the workers but should attempt to broaden and strengthen the system of Health and Safety Comm ittees so that the majority of Manitoba workers can benefit from the advantages and the protections of those committees. As well, I think it is time again to look at that legislation and to refine it and fine tune it so that it meet the challenges of today. lt is good legislation but it does need a number of changes.

One is to strengthen and clarify a worker's right to refuse un safe work, to refuse to work under unsafe or 2897 unh ealthy conditions. The other, I believe, is to ensure gr eater access for workers to information about workpla ce hazards, hazards which they have to confront on a day-by-day basis. I believe if you provide those two powers to the workers in the workplace, and I believe they are responsible, and will use the powers responsibly, that you will enable workers to build the type of workp laces for which we all yearn. I can tell you that you can't im pose upon an industry a good safety and health record.

You can't build a safe and healthy workplace for workers, but workers can build a safe and healthy workpla ce if they are given the tools and the mechanisms by which they can do that. So I believe that a responsible government, that a good government must in fact provide th ree essential rights to workers in respect to workpla ce and safety and health conditions. The first is the right to have full information as to the hazards which confront them as workers.

The second right is a right to refuse to work under conditions which they believe to be unsafe or unhealthy; and the third right, the most impor tant and essential right, is a right to participa te freely and fully in work pla ce safety and health activities. Those three rights are fundamental to the creation of safe and health working environ ments. Another area of grave concern to all New Democratics and I believe to all Manitobans is the economic and social destruction being generated by unhind ered plant closu res and pr oductions shutdowns.

There must be some protective devices put in place to provide that protection to affected workers and communi ties in the event of una voidable - and I stress that word unavoidable - plant closures and shutdowns. Now I think first a government has a responsibility to create the type of economic environment in which those shutdowns take place on only a very limited basis, and there will always be some as we said.

The economy is fluid, it is moveable, but an economy that is strong and healthy will minimi ze the effect of plant closures on workers and on communities as other ind ustries come in to take up the slack that is created by a closure or a production shutdown. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member has 5 minutes. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will try to - I assure you I will in fact finish within that time.

As I mentioned earlier, only a foolish government, - I say that because I don't think they would giv e me leave to go on, although I wouldn't be adverse to asking if in fact it was to be suggested that was possible, but let's assume it's not. Only a foolish government would attempt to force a mai ntenance of production in all ins tances of antici pated closures. Ho wever, cer tainly a government on behalf of the people who elected it, on behalf of the general citizenry who it is supposed to represent, has a responsi bility to ensure that closures are exami ned as to their economic justification.

The fact is that not all closures are as a result of an unprofitable opera tion. There are many closures which take place because of reasons other than economic considerations. So governments have a positive role to play in ensuring that closures are reviewed, so that in fact if an operation can be kept functional, it will be kept functional, and in the event

Tuesday, 21 April, 1981 of a closur e I believe th at gov ernment has a responsibility to provide some protective devices for workers, a responsiblity to ensure that older workers, who are the most stressed and the most affected by these closures, are not forced into poverty because they are too old to get new jobs, and their early retirement benefits are cut so much because of the closure that they cannot live in what we would consider to be an adequate standard of living. So I think government has a role to play there.

Older workers have a right to a decent retirement, in dign ity, with pride, and they have that right because of the contribution they have made and are making to this country and this province; and younger workers have a right to product ive employment and a responsibility to better their skills, if at all possible, through training and on the job experience.

So, it must be said that governments should build the type of economic clima te which prevents closures, if possible; the type of economic clima te which provides for the taking up of the slack if possible, and at the same time, realizing full well that there ma y be some closu res, put in place general mechanisms to ensure that workers and communi ties are protected. As I said before, Mr.

Speaker, this is not an encouraging Budget. lt is not the type of Budget that one would have anticipa ted after having listened to th ree previous Budgets of the government. lt is an admission of their failure to bring forward the types of programs and policies and to build the type of society which they sincerely wished to see built. I don't deny them their motivation, I just believe that they have put in fact their chips in the wrong basket; they have placed their bets on the wrong people; th