Manitoba Hansard — 20 March 1972 (Sitting 12, 29th Legislature, 4th Session)

29-4-12

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XIX No. 12 8:00p.m., Monday, March 20th, 1972. Fourth Sess ion, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Monday, March 20, 1972 MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye . 225 MR. BARKMAN: Mr . Speaker, I intend to continue just for a little while and I am still not quite through with the hen story, so I will continue on that basis . As I tried to say just before the dinner hour, today farmers have £iven these hens or the poultry as collateral at their loaning organizations or their local banks and are afraid to kill these birds off because their loans become due immediately .

If they do right now, with the situation in poultry being as it is, they are afraid that they will not be able to meet their demands: and if they keep these birds in production, on the other hand, it is going to make them produce eggs on a non -profitable base where you perhaps spend $4 . 00 on a hen and you are only getting $2. 50 or $3.0 0 in return . So it is creating a problem because too many have to and are hanging onto their old hens and naturally this creates a loan problem, leave alone the loss factor. !'vir.

Speaker, I wish to at this time, and I 'm sure the Minister can be reading this to morrow or so, plead with the minister to make the federal people realize, to make his own government realize that there must be some plans and some action taken. What type and what kind of action is needed is hard to say but I would like to suggest as has the Egg Co uncil of Canada, they have suggested that perhaps $2.0 0 a bird should be given as a subsidy, applying in the months of l\;arch and April when the bird is slaughtered or killed.

Also, I believe that the Manitoba Egg Marketing Board has suggested that perhaps an amount of 50 cents per bird at slaughtering time in one given month of the year should be applied. As we know, the Manitoba Egg Board has just recently been formed and right now I think they are checking off a cent per dozen from the farmers' production of eggs to keep operating costs and they are keeping them within reason, but I believe the government should be willing here to take a look at this and perhaps be willing to pay some of the operational costs that are involved .

I think the Minister is aware and probably other members of this Chamber, that other provinces are doing this . I think Nova Scotia is perhaps paying an amount of exactly $200, 000 towards operational costs . I should perhaps know what amounts some of the other provinces are giving, but I don't, and again I am sure the Minister does. I wish to plead with this government, Mr . . Speaker, as I have said twice now, that some consideration be given immediately' first of all to the organization itself and then, of course' take a look at what is going to happen with our egg production in the future.

So po3sibly another point that could be brought up, in times when our grain production is also at a high level, this becomes a very important

part in agriculture and it is a very important part be cause of the serious grain conditions we have run into over the past years, not only are we feeding some of the grain that would otherwise be overproduction, we are also taking some of the production of grain off into another field, such as the poultry farmer. Mr.

Spea:{er, I guess by now, you must think that I've :Jeen doing a lot of cackling about the hens, perhaps even crowing a little bit too much about the rooster, but I'd like to say this in conclusion of that part, regardless of what we are going to call it, regardless if some of the birds have to be slaughtered off to get control, call it suicide or call it henicide or call it roostericide, but let's pluck this matter down to the bare facts and even if it takes a fowl deed about to take wing . MR . SPEAKER: Order, please . The Honourable l\Tember has five minutes . Order, please . MR . BARKMAN: Mr .

Speaker, we have pollution from many corners of this House but I don't intend to speak about that right now . I just wish to go on from here. I was rather im pressed by what the Member from Fort Garry had to say the other day about divisiveness . I am one of those that feel that part of this is being carried on in Manitoba today and I want to assure him that I agree with his thinking that we cannot really afford this kind of separation or classification of human beings in the Province of Manitoba.

I think the time has come, and for that matter, I would be willing to take this House as an example, I think that we throw a lot of gloom and doom across both ways, but I don't think that anyone feels that one is better then the other or that one is worS'-" than the other, and if they do, I think they know they are out of line, but I have not felt it in this House ;:>;-,d I think that example should be carried out side of this House . I think that example -- or perhaps we should stop calling each other names, espec ially when they are improper names . We have to realize that all we are doing is hurting

226 March 20, 1972 (MR. BARKMAN cont'd) .•... our province, hurting the attitudes, the fact that somebody is on welfare, we call him a socialist and the fact that if somebody is making an actual liveli hood, we call him a capitalist. I feel it my duty if I am guilty, to stop calling names across and I expect the same courtesy from the other side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I intended to be only a few m in ate s and I realize now that I only will be a few minutes, but I thought I'd like to conclude on this note.

Today being the first day of spring and the next season being summer and coming from one of the better constituencies of the province, I would like to say in conclusion, regardless of how weary the members on that side of the House have gotten, or how weary some of these members on this side of the House are getting, I want you all to remember that next summer when you are thinking of going on a sensational holiday, that will perhaps surpass any holiday that you have ever taken in your life, I wish to invite you to the Whiteshell or to the Falcon Lake area and see some of mother nature in its best.

I would like you to come over and enjoy one of our picnics, the boating and the golfing and as far as the . . . • . . . is concerned, phone the Member for La Verendrye on govern ment expenses and I will try to lead you to the best place, if you are a Member that is, and I do know that you will enjoy yourself . I will then try to tell you where to go and I wish you would tell the people how to vote. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR .

SPEAKER: I shall call on the first minister, but before we do I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery, where we have 22 Guides of the 13lst Middlechurch Guide Company under the leadership of Mrs. Doris Kelly. On behalf of all the honourable members I welcome you. I realize the members are anticipating me all the way, so I will say the Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I am at somewhat of a disadvantage in that I had hoped to reply to the Speech made last week by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and by the House Leader of the Liberal Paaty and by the Member for Rhineland and by remarkable co incidence neither of the three are here, although as we say in this Chamber, I am certain that they are devotedly attending to public duties elsewhere.

So therefore, it may seem during the course of my remarks that what I am saying is perhaps a little gauche only because of the absence of either one of the three gentlemen, but I can assure you, Sir, and all honourable mem bers, that what I am about to say I am quite prepared to say to them. In fact, I would prefer to say it to their face. Let me begin, Sir, by joining with all the others here that have already spoken and offered their congratulations and goodwill and obeisance to you.

It perhaps sounds a bit trite to recall once again just how important your office is to the dispatch of public business under our system of government, but it is, if I may say so, Sir, in the Legislative Assembly, a position of res ponsibility that you occupy, is simply not to be compared with that of any other single individual in this Chamber, and I wish you just as many years of occupancy of that responsible position as you would personally care to exercise in that position. I would also like to join with others in congratulating the mover and seconder of the reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I believe that both the Member for St. Vital and the Member for Ste. Rose, both having been elected in by-elections less than a year ago, have already demon strated just how able they are to grasp the mood and tempo and responsibilities of this Chamber and of their office as members of the Legislative Assembly. So I congratulate them. Well, Sir, in reading -first of all in listening to the Honourable the Leader of the Opposi tion and then in reading his speech in Hansard, I couldn't help but note that he is impressed with his new member recently elected in the by-election in Minnedosa.

That is perhaps the one single point that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition made that I can join with him in. In expressing admiration and in expressing congratulations to the Honourable the Member for Minnedosa. The Member for Minnedosa having been a former Bank Manager - I won't mention which bank, that would be putting in a plug I suppose -my colleague from Thompson says "they're really all the same." I suppose that's true. But, Mr.

Speaker, the point I wanted to make is that the Member for Minnedosa having been a former bank manager would be quite good at arithmetic and I would like him to convey to his leader the simple arithmetic fact that when a

March 20, 1972 227 (MR . SCHREYER cont'd) ..... by-election is called and the To ry Party increases its pop ular vote by . 5 of l percent, and the Liberal Party increases its vote by . 2 of 1 percent, and the New Democratic Party increases its vote by 37 .5 percent of the popular vote, then who in fact has gained ground? Well the Member for Swan River says "and lost".

Of course, but it's obvious from that very remark that the Honourable the Member for Sw an River has never fought an uphill battle so he never knows when he's making ground or not; but we on this side know, and we knoW when we are making ground and an increase of --(Interjection)-- Mr . Speaker, ·I 'm quite prepared to let the Member for Swan River deliver him self of his effusion and his delusions, but the point surely, Mr.

Sp eaker, is that when a political party alone among all three political parties in creases its percentage of public support by 35 percent when the others are increasing by less than O:ne percent that it auge:r:s well for that political party, and the members opposite are fool ing themselve s if they think otherwise. But I would like to --(Interjection)-- I' ll deal with that in a few minutes.

I would like to then come now, Sir, to the substance of the remarks of the Honourable the Leader of the Oppo sition, and you will perhaps recall, Sir, that when he began to speak, he confessed that he was having great difficulty in deciding how to start. He said that he was ::oncerned as to how he would commence his address . And its obvious that he was concerned and didn't know how to commence his address because he waste d the better part of five minutes talking about some movie that was produced in Hollywood a few years ago called the "l\Tisfits" . Well I don't know what the reference was, Mr .

Speaker, just what it was on this side that he found to be a misfit . It was pretty obvious to me in reading this introduction, that his commencement of his address was a misfit in itself, but to say that the Member for Thompson reminds him of Thelma Ritter, someone else reminds him of Marilyn Munroe, and all the other members on this side remind him of horses - Mr . Speaker, what came to my mind is that the honourable members opposite perhaps more resemble asses; or if you prefer, Sir, both horses and asses at the same time, that's entirely possi ble .

Well in any case there isn't that much time -- (Interjection)-- well it is a fact, l'vTr. Speak<:!r, that the Hono<1rable Leader of the Opposi tion referred to members on this side as being the horse s and I have already expressed my opinion as to the re semblance of honourable member s opposi te; if it's analogies that my honourable friends want to play with .

The Leader of the Opposi tion went on from there very quickly to congratulate the l'vTinister of Public Works and to congratulate the new Minister without Portfolio, but couldn't help but say in passing, thathe hoped the Minister without Portfolio, the Honourable Member from The J?&s, would be able to persuade his colleagues to do something more meaningful in northern Manitoba. Mr .

Speaker, if there was ever a more facetious and nonsensical comment to come from the Leader of the C onservative Party, that Would be it; because in all the years that the Conse rvatives were responsible for the adminis tration of this ·provillce, northern Manitoba was negleCted, and proof of that fact, one of the many proofs of that fact is that the 1\ffember for Ch urchill of that day resigned simply to show demon stration,· to give demon stration of that fact.

And in addition to that, beyond the pers onal judgment of one rrian is the whole host Of statistical data and budgetary data which demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever that the amount of attention and the amount of capital input on the part of the previous government into northern Manitoba was a small fraction of what has transpired under this administration since 1969 . A small fraction in the order of 30 percent . -- (InterjeCtion)-'- No, well because there is no word to say in that respect . MR . PAULLE Y : As a matter of fact Jimmy, you haven't ,since you first entered the House . MR .

SCHREYER : I' ll come back to this, Mr . Speaker, to deal more specifically with the actual figures indicating how much is being put into the north in terms of capital investment and budgetary expenditures in the last couple of years·as compared with years prior to this govern- ment having the responsi bility of office . ·· · · The Leader of the Oppositio n went on to make a snide reference to the Minister of To urism . I won't repeat what the snide reference is, Mr. Speaker, except to say that I believe there will be occasion for the Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition to regret having made that statement. Mr .

Speaker, I want to move on quickly now to simply set the tone of what - or recall to members actually the tone with which the Honourable Leader of the Co nservative Party gave his address here on the thirteenth of this month, a week ago. He went on to make 'reference to the Minister of Health and Social Development and this year like last year made a snide comparison

228 March 20, 1972 (MR SCHREYER cont'd) . . . . . of the Minister as being comparable to an executive assistant, to the deputy, etc. I intend to show in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Ministers acting as executive assistants I intend to show just how thorough and pervasive a practice it was in the Tory years for ministers to act as executive assistants to the chairman of their Manitoba Development Fund. So much so that they didn't know what the hell was going on.

And I intend to quote some excerpts from the testimony that is being given, a transcript of the testimony at the inquiry on CFI which demonstrates byond any shadow of a doubt that former Conservative Cabinet Ministers did not know the essence of what was involved with a reported $100 million forest complex deal. I intend to show also, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition was being less than candid when he tried to insinuate a few weeks ago that there was no master finan cial contract signed prior to 1969.

Because again in the testimony that is being given at the inquiry of Churchill Forest Industries at The Pas it is repeated on a number of occasions that not only was the original agreement of intent but also the master financing agreement signed be fore the end of November of 196 6 .

The treasurer of the Manitoba Development Corporation who was appointed in January of 1969 has testified before the commission that in fact directors of the Manitoba Development Fund appointed by the previous government, as ministers of the pre vious government, were not aware of many of the important and basic decisions that had been made. And then, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Member for Lakeside has the audacity to get up in this House as he did a year ago and two years ago and say --I'm sure this is on the record, Sir, --that, well if you didn't like the contract why didn't you change it.

As though the law of contract lends itself to unilateral change on the part of one party alone. This is what he said on a number of occasions. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker .. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would suggest that all honourable members conduct themselves and wait till they're recognized before they speak. The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be content to come back to this particular subject matter later this evening if time permits.

I would just leave this particular subject by pointing out to my honourable friend the Member for Lakeside that he knows, if he were follow ing the newspapers in January of this year, he knows what is .involved when the Crown, Provin cial Government of this or any other province attempts to renege on a contract simply by acting unilaterally and not proceeding with a contract entered into -as for example in the Province of Saskatchewan.

In January of 1972 the world was told that the Province of Saskatchewan would have to pay a penalty of 6. 1 million dollars for the privilege of simply not proceeding with their commitment to lend and guarantee monies to Parsons and Whitmore for the construction of $170 million pulp and paper mill.

Six point one million dollars of public monies out the window; 6. 1 million dollars of public money up against the wall because of the stupidity of governments in this coun try who up until now have followed a policy where they have self-induced themselves into hyste ria and to a policy of growth, growth, growth at any price. Then my honourable friends oppo site get snide when discussion is commenced about the advisability and desirability of selective growth. I make no pretence to my honourable friends to where this government stands on the ques tion of economic growth.

We say candidly and without equivocation that we would sooner opt for a policy of steady and slower growth than a policy of growth at any price. And in fact my hon ourable friends opposite did follow a policy of growth at virtually any price. And in the financ ingJthis I think is quite evident. And in the nature of the pollution control and environmental protection standards that they required, some of these companies that they financed to meet, one can see there too evidence of a policy of growth at any price.

But now they pretend that they're out of office and the economy of this province is faltering; that people are leaving this province, that farmers are leaving the land, that there are more bankruptcies than ever before, that our general economic condition is bad because the Conservaties are out of office and there fore all the good hard-nosed businessmen are no longer in control. Well, Mr.

Speaker, in the first place let me make it very clear that there is a big difference between good hard-nosed businessmen and those who sit as Conservatives in a Legislature who are really the front men for those hard-nosed businessmen. --(lnterjection)-- MR . SPEAKER: Order, please.

March 20, 1972 229 MR . SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, I hear references from honourable members opposite about Schreyer Const ruction Limited.- I don't mind, in fact I'll sit down if they want to say some- - thing about Schreyer Co nstruction . A MEMBER: Co me on chirper from Wawanesa. MR . ENNS: They 're simply prepared to recognize hard-nosed relatives . MR . PAU LLEY: Rel atively speaking you don't know what your're talking about. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please . MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Sp eaker, I'm pleading with you, Sir, that if whatever time is taken on the interjections be allowed me after 9:30. MR .

SPEAKER: I would suggest to all honourable members that if we are going to get done, invitations aside, I believe you have asked me to operate the Chair for you conseq uently it still behoove s rrie to recognize members. I would again request all honourable members to contain themselves, to let the member who has the floor to continue the debate . The Honourable First Minister . MR . SCHREYER: Mr .

Speaker, I don 't mind advising my honourable friends opposite that certain members of my family are now and have for many years been entrepreneurs of a mod estly succes sful kind, and let it also be known that their involvement with the Cr own since we are in office is no greater than it was in years prior to that, and in fact it may well be less; and whatever involvement is by contract and by bid and succesful bid being the lowest bid, etc . So, Mr .

Speaker, all that really emanates from this little bit of by-play is the point that I started out to make in the first place, that my honourable friends opposite are hoping to gather some measure of support by playing the argument that they are the competent business men . Mr . Speaker, there are competent busines smen on both sides of the House, who back both sides of this House and all political parties in this province . There is really no shortage of competent busine ssmen .

Honourable friends though they must --(Interjec tion)-- well I think that the Member for Sturgeon Creek must be looking in the mirror if he says that's a laugh . Because, Mr . Speaker, there is a big difference between tho se who are competent busines smen and th-ose who sit as Torie s and who pose as competent busines smen, or who act as fronts for competent business men .

I don't want to be insulting to my honourable friends but I have always had the firm belief all my political life that the political party that was expected to act at the behest and at the bidding of those who are the hard-nosed busine ssmen is the Co nservative Party above all others - at the end of a string. But; Mr . Speaker, I really must rush on .

I note , for example, that the Leader of the Opposi tion speaking presumably on behalf of all his colleagues is somehow trying to find fault with the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce and continue s to find something amusing about the operation of the M.S. Lord Selkirk . He mentions it here in his speech again, and I quote: "His ship," meaning the Minister of Industry, "His ship although he cannot seem to make it earn money it will float regardless of how high the waters rise ." Mr .

Speaker, if it must be said for the tenth time, I will say it for the tenth time , that that statement perhaps typifies best of all the nonchalant disregard for ethics on the part of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, because he knows better than anyone else that the problems associated with the M. S.

Lord Selkirk, the fact that it lost money in 1969 and 1970 are a reflection, not of public enterprise, but are a reflection of private enterprise because it was privately operated for those two years, a�d the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition knows better than anyone else because he was Minister of Indu stry in 1968, that that boat was over-c apitalized. The project was over-capitalized , the people, I feel sorry for them, the investors were high pres sured into a nice -looking, a nice seeming kind of tourist project, the con struction of a ship to ply the waters of Lake Winnipeg .

But the design and the financing was excessive and it never did operate in the black, and is only because of the failure of a partic ular private enterprise that the Cr own had to step in, as so often has happened in the course of Canadian his tory . Those who would kneel at the altar of private enterprise conveniently forget how from time to time the public have had to agree to the use of the instrumentality of their government to rescue floundering private enterprise . Now does this mean that we should there fore be dogmatically against private enterpri se? Mr.

Speaker , I say as many times as time will permit, that there is no need to be dogmatic in our time, in the se days; that there is room and there is need for both private and pbulic enterprise . But it 's pretty obvious to me who have the dogmatic hang-up, because right in the words of the Leader of the Opposition he says, "No more Crmm corporations." No further qualification. He said we must change the government

230 March 20, 1972 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) .. .. . and then makes a list of five or six points that they will do different, and one of them is no more Crown corporations. Well, Mr. Speaker, that to me is a positive proof of dogmatism. No more Crown corporations, even though they may oftentimes be able to work for the benefit and prosperity and welfare of numbers of people in different communities in different parts of our province. -- (Interjection)- - There are in fact a number of success. stories of public enterprises but the unfortunate problem is, Mr.

Speaker, that all too often public enterprise is moved in in order to try to salvage a situation and then because there is difficulty in having public enterprise salvage a given situation it is then used by those who worship at the altar of private enterprise to smear and besmirch in an unthinking , unknow ing way the whole concept of people using their government as an instrumentality to do certain things and to operate certain things, etc. Those days one would hope would have been behind us by now except for the incredibly behind the times thinking of Conservatives in some parts of Canada.

Well the Leader of the Opposition mentions the fact that members of the Cabinet are tired and that I am tired. Mr. Speaker , it may be that my colleagues are tired, I believe they are, but they are tired because of the undue and far greater amount of personal effort they are putting into their jobs than their predecessors did. But they're not complaining , they are not complain ing, Mr. Speaker, nor am I complaining. I do not recall that I ever complained about being tired. The only tiredness I complain about, Mr. Speaker, the only tiredness that I compain of, Sir, -- (Interjection)-- Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, it's significant to note that when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking I sat here, and it's significant to note that the Acting Leader was unable -- and I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that it's significant to note the Acting Leader left the Assembly. In any case, Mr. Speaker , I was about to say that the only tiredness that we were com plaining of on this side is the tiredness we have with the continual, perpetual, unceasing dis tortion and inaccuracy with which members opposite attack this government and make public statements. And I intend to be very specific as to just how I mean that, Mr.

Speaker. When they talk about the performance of our eQonomy in this province, when they talk about the per formance of our agricultural industry , when thsy talk about the number of alleged bankruptcies, when they talk about our budget and they talk about the debt position of this province, I intend to prove, Mr. Speaker, that our performance is relative to their years, healthy, healthy, indeed. MR . SPEAKER: Order. Does the Honourable Member for Arthur have a point of order? Ord er. Order. Does the Honourable Member for Arthur have a point of order - privilege? Let him state it. MR .

WATT: Would the First Minister accept a question at this point? MR. SP EAKER: That's not a point of privilege or a point of order. Order. The Honour able First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, it may well be that the Member for Arthur has a question, which I will try at the end of my remarks, if time permits, to reply to. But the Leader of the Opposition - and I do wish the member for Arthur would stay, because I wanted to make some remarks with respect to the agricultural industry. Well , Mr.

Speaker , I can see, I can see now, exactly what the relationship will be between the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party at the next election. When we come on the hustings they will disappear. MR . SP EAKER : Order. Order. Order. Order, please. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker , after all of these preliminary remarks the Leader of the Opposition finally did get into a listing of a number of areas where his party was dissatisfied with the performance of this government, and would you believe , he started with agriculture.

He started with agriculture and the clear implication of what he was saying, Sir , was that if by some chance the Conservatives should form the provincial government of Manitoba once again, that they would move forward with bold and new policies in agriculture.

Well, Sir, that prompted me to look into the records of the Conservative government of Manitoba, to see just how the agricultural sector fared, especially after 196 5, because that's when the honour able the Member for River Heights came on the scene, he joined the Cabinet in 196 6 and so one would have thought that there would be marked improvement in agricultural sector performance. So I did some checking, Mr. Speaker, and I found the following. Oh , yes, Mr. Speaker, because not only the Leader of the Opposition but at least one other speaker on the other side, said last week words to this effect.

"That we do not believe there are any redundant farmers. There should be a place for every farmer in this province

March 20 , 1972 231 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ..... who wishes to stay on the farm. " Does anyone deny that words to that effect were spoken? Well, Sir, let me give you the exact number of farmers that were in Manitoba in 1960 and in 1965, in 1969, 1971 - that should give one a pretty fair cross sectional idea as to just how well the Tories performed when it came to farmers and redundancy. ln 1960 there were 44,000 farmers in Manitoba and after five years of bold and imaginative Conservative farm policy there were 40, 000.

And after another five years of bold and imagina tive Conservative farm policy there were 37, 000. So it seems to me, Sir, that the Conserva tives really know whereof they speak when they say that there is no need for any farmer to leave the land. I agree wi th them, but then they should explain to us why 7, 000 left the farm during their administration. Well there were 7, 000 left during the Tory years, there are 1, 000 less during our tenure, but the point was, that it was you gentlemen that were making the argument that there was no such thing as redundancy in agriculture, there should be room for everyone.

We can heartily agree , but what was your answer? Your answer was in effect, to wit, 7, oo'o had to leave the farm. So don't pretend that you've got the answer. But then the Leader of the Opposition says that they will start, they would start their new administration with new and bold farm policies. So as I say, I looked to the years 1966, 7, 8, 9 and so on when the Leader of the Opposi tion was a Minister of the government and I see that in 1966, total farm cash receipts in Manitoba totalled $377 million.

After one year with my friend, the Member for River Heights in the Cabinet, these bold polici es, total cash income went from $377 million to $372 million. And the next year, 1968, it went from $372 million up to $364 million -'--is that up? In 1969 total farm cash income in Manitoba $351 million. So in four years of Conservative administra tion, farm cash income went down every one of four successive years while they were in the government. And they talk of bold and new and innovative farm policy. Well, Mr.

Speaker, my honourable friend the Member for Lakeside can check the record all he likes, he will find that I have never said anything other than that the position that western farmers were in was serious, has been serious for many years and cannot really be coped with effectively until and unless there is a comprehensive federal farm commodity price support program. Now whether - (Interjection)-- no, no, no I don't blame you at all, not at all.

One thing that my friend the Member for Morris will have to agree with if he checks the record is that in all the y!3ars that I have been in public office I haye never pretended whether on this side, or on that side, that the basic problem of farm income could be dealt with or grappled with effectively by provincial government alone, or in any significant way, but required a massive and substantial involvement and intervention of 'the government of the country as a whole.

The only reason I am quoting these figures is to counteract the pretension, because that's all it is, the pretension of my honourable friend the Leader of the opposition, that a new Con servative provincial government would somehow turn the tide miraculously with respect to the problem of farm income. It's been a long lasting problem, which in my experience I suggest to you, Sir, starts from 1951, that's when this genesis , or the origin of inadequate farm in come, that was the origin of that problem, Mr.

Speaker, 1951, as long ago as that, and any number of two or three years of relative good times have been the exception, rather than the rule. That little bit of a boonlet that western farmers had between 1963 and 1967 - 196 6, the exception rather than the rule. , , In 1970, my honourabJe friend asks about 1970, the fact is there was a continuation of the downward movement of farm cash income, down to $342 million, but in 1971 , this last year, it has bounced back up by $30 million so that it is now back on the level that it was in 1966. That's far from being good enough, Mr.

Speaker, but at least it is a move away from the des perate years on the farm of 1969, 1970, 1968, 1967, because all four of those years , my hon ourable friends will have to admit, all four of those years were pretty desperate years and if it weren't for the fact that livestock production went up so dramatically in the last couple of years, we would have been in one very, very poor position indeed. Well in any case, Mr. Speaker , so much for the pretension that Conservative government means, ipso facto- some dramatic, magical, solution tci farm income problems. What would they do?

Well I think they made it clear, the member for Morris, I'm not so sure about �he Member for Lake side but the Member for Morris made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that if they were the government they would abolish the Hog Marketing Board. That's one of their brave new ventures into Conservative farm policy. They may not believe that hog prices have improved since Christmas but they have -- and as I look over at my honourable friends, I can't help but remember, every time I look at them, that hog prices have improved in this province. And

232 March 20, 1972 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) .. ... they have improved, Mr. Speaker, whether by coincidence or by whatever; hog prices in this province last year were desperately low, this year they are moving up to a more reasonable level. And to the extent that this happens, Mr. Speaker, I think it does bear some proof, does bear some proof that -- because after all, Mr. Speaker, what is agricultural commodity marketing boards, what are they all about? They are simply the option of marketing farm products in a systematic and co-ordinated fashion, rather than depending on laissez faire . . Mr.

Speaker, one of the reasons why those old neighbours, old neighbours of my family, going back years, one reason they have supported this political party is because of their belief, after the experience of the thirties, their experience with farm commodity marketing where everybody was on his own, no systematic co-ordinated bargaining instrument, nothing of that kind, they made up their mind there and then that farmers, like any other group in society, if they wanted to be treated fairly, they have to do it on the basis of countervailing power in the market place.

It takes no great genius to discover the importance of that, Mr. Speaker. Doctors do it, lawyers do it, girls in show business do it, too; everybody with any sense does it, except certain Conservatives who still pine away for the good old days of the 1930's when everybody sold his product his own way and wheat was 30 cents a bushel. Well I must go on, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition weaved throughout his speech a certain refrain, a certain recurring theme, that is that the government is on the point of collapse, government is collapsing and so on. I notice that even in his criticisms, Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition cannot manage to be original since it's obvious that he is stealing Mr. Stanfield's lines. It seems to me I heard this expression, government being on the verge of collapse, I heard those words from the mouth of the national leader of the Conservative Party in referring to the Federal Government. But he is saying that we are collapsing and that we no longer have that idealism. Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable Leader of the Opposition can't be original in the words of criticism he uses, at least he is giving us the credit for having, at least at one time had, an idealism.

This is something that I don't believe eve;r really permeated the Conservative party, they were never known as the idealists in politics, so therefore I don't know that it's their right to talk with sadness about the passing of any idealism. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that we have lost our idealism. We have had perhaps to temper it with reality -- and I think a good example of what I mean comes from the incident of last week --, we talk about idealism.

When we formed the government, Sir, one of the first speeches I made was to the effect that we had to, as a society, as a government, we had to do much better in terms of giving the people of native descent in this province, more meaningful access to jobs and to resources in the north. The Member for Thompson, then Minister of Highways, in his sense of idealism did work out an umber of arrangements and agreements with different groups of native people in the north. I believe this was motivated by idealism, certainly well within the context of the desire of this government. So what happens?

Well after the passing of a year, despite the fact that quite a number of clearing projects were carried out last year and this winter that seemed to be pretty well to the satisfaction of those who up until then did not have job opportunities, all of a sudden a controversy erupts in the press and the Leader of the Liberal Party flies up north to Ilfo:r;-d and Gillam to have a personal inspection of the bush camps. Mr. Speaker, I have here a clipping from the Thompson Citizen of December 10, 1970, over a year ago.

Nobody is hiding anything; here are pictures, .Photographs and a story of how men from Cross Lake and other communities are for the first time able to find jobs working in the north, and judging by the account, it's a very candid account, some men were complain ing of the accommodation, the accommodation in one case arranged for by a private contractor, A . . . . Construction, the owner of which was of native descent himself, and the other camp, arranged for by one of the departments of government itself. But a realistic account, Mr. Speaker, over a year ago.

But now the big actors get into the game and they fly up north with television cameras, etc. and make out what was started as an earnest attempt to try and pro vide jobs where before the easy way out was taken and ends up as an attempted effort -- an effort to give a black eye to the efforts of a former minister and of this government. Mr.

Speaker, without dwelling on the subject matter too long, the point I 'm trying to establish is that like every other question of public policy, like every question having to do with budgets and debts of governments and spending and size of civil service, etc. , the only honest, the only rational, the only fair way to discuss matters is on the basis of comparison, on a basis

March 20, 1972 233 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) .. ... of comparison with what is going on elsewhere and on the basis of comparison with what had gone on in the past. Now I must say, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague the Member for Thompson when he had responsibility for this matter could have like successive ministers before him and governments before him taken the easy way out, say wh y do I need that headache.

The practice in every year up until 1970 was with perhaps only one or two exceptions in many years, the practice was whenever there was a clearing contract for hydro or for highways, to simply contract it out on a simple way to some private construction company, let them do it, they moved in their heavy equipment, they might hire two or three men locally, that was it. No jobs. My honourable friend seems to have a tremendous preoccupation with Schreyer Construc tion. I'd suggest to him that if he would like -- (Interjection)-- Well I won't say that, Mr. Speaker, not now anyway. The point is, Mr.

Speaker, like so many other efforts of this government where we have deliberately decided not to take the easy way but to take, as Robert Frost would say, to take the path less travelled by; and the path less travelled by is usually a harder path. Well this government has knowingly and deliberately taken the harder course of action, the harder path on a number of occasions and this is one example. We didn't take the easy way out, we contracted with local residents, they had jobs for the first time where pre viously no reasonable expectation of jobs.

Then we have as I say people coming in with no previous experience or knowledge or understanding of bush camp conditions, no basis upon which to make a comparison, so when they look naturally they're shocked, surprised, they report things to the United Nations Human Rights Commiss-ion. Perhaps it will come before the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Mr.

Speaker, the people who built this country, the people who pushed back the frontiers of this country lived in conditions like that without much exception, and while no one is pretend ing that, you know, that this is ideal, that this is something we should deliberately want to foist on someone, the fact remains that these arrangements, these conditions were discussed prior to them being entered into, and if there is a persistent request or demand that certain ameliorations be made they can be made, but we want to hear them from the people directly involved not from somebody who leaves a penthouse apartment and flies out to look at a bush camp for the first time in his life.

Mr. �peaker, here I feel if I may be allowed a personal note, I would inject a personal note. That I come from a family, the father of which and the brothers of which spent up to 18 years in the bush camps of this province. I would sooner get advice from someone like them, I would sooner get advice from someone who has lived there themselves at one time or another, rather than from someone who wants to draw a comparison between the bush camp and the fact that others in the bigger cities while they watch coloured television and they drink martinis and they have long-stemmed wine glasses.

What's that got to do with it, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to table for the edification of honourable mem bers this clipping from the Thompson Citizen of over a year ago which is a candid, wide open publicized photographed account of a northern temporary bush camp, making the distinction between a temporary camp and a permanent one. --(Interjection)-- No, but I felt that it was important enough to be given mention.

Now Conservatives through their leader they then go on to try to make some big point about the fact that the number of boards and commissions in this province - presumably their argument would be that the number of boards and commis sions in this province is far too large and that the people on these boards and commissions were appointed by the government of the day therefore it must be partisan in its composition and make-up and that this is pork barreling. Well, Mr.

Speaker, if one were to draw a list of all the boards and commissions that. exist under the aegis of the Government of Manitoba one would find that by far the greater number of them were established in the days when the Conservatives had the responsibility of office, and that every board and commission that we have established since then we have established by way of getting the consent of this Legis lature.

The Human Rights Commission, the Law Reform Commission, the Legal Aid Society group, I can name you a few more, but they were all of the kind that I'm sure members opposite would rush to embrace if they knew their constituents. were watching. --(Interjec tion)-- Yes they voted for it. Then they try to suggest that we have been very partisan, much more partisan than they in the --(Interjection)-- Fine. That's precisely my point, Mr. Speaker, precisely my point; exactly what point was the Leader of the Opposition trying to make when he mentions the number of boards and commissions? He's trying to create the

234 March 20, 1972 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) .... . impression that the Conservatives would operate a smaller, leaner, harder government and therefore there would be less expenditure. "I just hope, Sir, that time will permit me this evening to go into the question of expenditure, taxation and debt comparisons. I'll press forward so that I will have the time to do so, Sir. But back to this business of boards and commissions. They are suggesting that our appointments have been partisan. Mr.

Speaker, whether it's any comfort to my honourable friends or not I will advise them that it's the considered opinion of many of our supporters that we are making appointments with far less consideration of them than the Conservatives had of their supporters when they were in office. Whether that be human nature or not I don't know, except that I can swear to you that there is a pretty widespead feeling that we are making appointments with insufficient consideration in comparison to years gone by with insufficient consideration of party support and loyalty. You know, Mr.

Speaker, I went through Public Accounts a few days ago just to see how the Conservatives handled their hiring of lawyers for the Manitoba Development Fund, how they went about hiring their advertising agencies and I found a rather interesting thing. I found that the Conservative Government was in the practice of giving almost all of their advertising busi ness for all the departments and agencies to two or three .advertising firms. And the others - Tough.

And when it came to hiring legal service for the Manitoba Development Fund that one law firm in this city had the lion's share of all the legal work and the legal fees of all the trans actions entered into by the Manitoba Development Fund. Other legal firms in this city - Tough. And then they talk about pork barrel and patronage I say to them that the Conservative Govern ment of this province that they set a record in letting sows at the trough. They talk about the pork barrel" Mr.

Speaker, the policy of this government has been to try to follow a course of the middle way, follow a course of fair practice with respect to the hiring of advertising agencies and law firms. As an example, Mr. Speaker, all of the advertising business of the provincial Crown has been divided among seven if not eight advertising agencies operating in this city. And, M:t. Speake r, that kind of more broadly based distribution is to be compared to two, at most three, wheh the Conservaties were in office. In fact they found that -- guess who one of the biggest advertising agencies was for the Conservatives?

Dalton Camp and Associates. Dalton Camp and Associates. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, if you should decide to become interested in looking at old Public Accounts you will find, Sir, that it is the same Dalton Camp that conspired with other Conservatives from River Heights and south end of Winnipeg to try and do away with Johh Diefenbaker in 1966. I thought you'd like that, --(Interjection)-'- Well I say to my honourable friend from Swan River that obviously my so licitude for Johh Diefenbaker is greater than some of the Conservatives from the south end of Winnipeg.

That's the "only point. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): I want to assure the First Minister I don't take second place to him with Johh Diefenbaker. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at this time it would be important and necessary to go into an analysis of some of the basic economic indices, some of the basic budgetary in dices, "sonie of the basic 'debt comparisons of this province because it has been suggested over and over again by members opposite that the economy of this province is functioning in a manner that is not good enough for them.

I know the Member for Assiniboia', for example, suggested the other day that we had some abnormal rate of bankruptcies in Manitoba, you know, far in excess of - - 1 apologize to my honourable friend, some gentleman opposite was suggesting --( Interjection)�- oh the Member for Portage la Prairie. -- (Interjection)-- Well it just maywell.be, Mr. Speaker, that the speech that was given by the Member for Portage la Prairie was at least in part pre pared or helped with by Mr. Asper. There was mention about the rate of bankruptcies. Mr.

Speaker, it r s important to set the record straight here as with all other economic arguments made by my friends opposite, that in fact the number of bankruptcies in Manitoba was approxi mately 2.1 percent of the Cimadian total last year and representing approximately L 8 percent of the total liabilities of bankruptcies in all of Canada. Now just renieniber those two index, numbers: 2. 1 percent of the Canadian total. What was it -- let's take a random year, Well in fact let's take the last three years of the Conservative administration.

The number of bankruptcies in Manitoba in 1968, 'not 2. 1 percent but 2. 5 percent of the Canadian total of

March 20, 1972 235 (MR . SCHREYER cont'd) ... .. bankruptcies, representing a percentage of total liability for the country of 3. 7 percent not 1. 8. And for 1967 -- supposed to be the good old Tory years -- number of bankruptcies in Manitoba, 2. 2 percent of the Canadian total representing in terms of liability 7.6 percent of the Canadian total.

This is surely the point, Mr. ·Speaker, that al most every time that members opposite get up to make some reference to our province's economy they do so deliberately and willfully ignoring performance in the rest of our country, and Manitoba's ecoi:J.Omy cannot be looked at in isolation from the rest of our country. And neither should it be looked at in isolation from the performance during the good old Tory years . I want to deal with that as well. For example, Mr.

Speaker , what was the total attention given to northern development in 1968 taking both current and capital expenditures for the last year that the Conservatives were in office - $20 million into all of the area north of 53 . And then, Mr .

Speaker , that was increased the next year to $26 million; in 1970-71 to $39 million; in 1971-72 to $53 million, and this year we propose to submit estimates for the consideration of this House that will in crease it even further, because -- and this is no secret -- we have said, and we mean , that we believe in the future potential of the frontier of our province which is in the north. Members opposite have been hammering away incessantly for months and months that the rate of taxation in Manitoba is now higher than anywhere else in the country, much higher than when they were the government and so on.

What they conveniently forget is that with the movement of budgets and budget levels and expenditures and revenues in this Province there is also movement in other provinces and so let me -- (Interjection) -- I'm glad the Member for Birtle-Russell said who raised the tax, because you know , Mr . Speaker, anyone who has I would say Grade VI knowledge of arithmetic would be able to calculate that taxes were raised more often, to a greater extent more often, more times, during the Conservative years than they have been during our tenure in office.

And that one of the large-st increases in taxes - no increase in tax that we are responsible for can compare in magnitude to the increase in tax that was carried out in 1965 - you know what tax I 'm referring to - and also to the adoption of the poll tax on Medicare in April of 1969 . Mr . Speaker , what is Manitoba's position in relation to the rest of the provinces with respect to total taxes? I mean all taxes. Let's not take our party's word for it, let's not take Tory stories, let's take the Dominion Bureau of Statistics . And it indicates -- we run a record here, Mr.

Speaker , going back the entire last decade. The position of Manitoba with respect to all provincial taxes levied is that we are No. 4, we are No. 4 among the ten provinces of Canada. What was Manitoba in 1968? You run a check , you see Manitoba was No. 4. And in 1967 what position was Manitoba with respect to total taxes· levied of all the provinces ? Mani toba was No . 4. For the entire past five years the relative position of Manitoba in terms of total taxes levied has remained constant at No. 4 among the ten provinces.

So let not there be such a continuation of this monstrosity of intellectual dishonesty, of pretending that taxes in Manitoba have been buried in a way that is out of keeping with the changes in other provinces . Mr. Speaker, to give an example of what I mean, Sir. In 1962 the amount of total taxes levied by all ten provinces, in per capita terms, national average was $11 2 per capita - 1962. Well today the average for all provinces is $388; so you see the movement there in terms of the whole broad spectrum movement in our nation.

The Conservatives here in Manitoba would like to simply look at tax movements in our province in isolation. Well you know -- (Inter jection) -- yes I wil l,. I will be glad to. And while the Member for Churchill has interjected it gave me a chance to note one other significant point, Mr. Speaker , and this is a comparison that is valid. In 196 7, under the Conservative Government here, per capita taxes in Manitoba were $39 per capita less than the national average of per capita tax. Have you got that? Thirty nine dollars per capita less in Manitoba than the national average.

One hundred ninety-five dollars , $39 per capita less than the national average . Today, this year, the per capital taxes in Manitoba of all provincial taxes is $58 per capita less than the national average of per capita taxes. I have no illusions , Mr. Speaker, that this particular piece of factual information will register with my honourable friends opposite, simply because they won·'t want it to register, but in relative terms, no one can say in any honesty that taxes in our province have increased out of proportion to tax changes in the rest of our country unless they wish to be dishonest about it.

I will never forget as long as I live, Mr. Speaker , that when we did make certain tax changes, when we reduced Medicare premium taxes and increased income taxes that every

236 March 20 , 1972 (MR . SCHREYER cont'd) ..•.. person opposite practically to a last man got on the band wagon crying and warning of the dire prospects of industry leaving this provinc e. And then I noticed that some member opposite had this sess ion the audacity to file a reso lution saying that taxes in this provinc e should be based more on the ability to pay . We 'll give him an opportunity to vote for that sentiment, because we intend to introduce measures this ses sion which will increase even further taxation based more on the concept and principle of ability to pay, and we 'll see how he votes.

We 'll see how he vote s. - The Leader of the Opposition has said on many occasio ns, in fact it 's one of his themes - in fact it 's in the no confidence motion itself -- that this government has demonstrated its failure to contain spending, to reduce spending, and to decrease taxes. And again if one looks at the performance of all of the ten provinces of our country, one sees that per capita spending by government in Manitoba -- put it another way, Sir -- that government of Manitoba spending in the last fiscal year , taken in per capita terms is the second lowest in Canada .

I would ask my honourable friend, the Member for Rhineland to take note of that fact; that only British Co lumbia has a better record in terms of government spending per capita of all ten provinc es in this country . You know, to me it is not a particularly clear -cut argument to be able to show that gov ern ment spending per capita is lower or higher, because it could well be you know that government spending per capita in , let us say Nicaragua, is lower than it is in Ontario but I don 't know that there would be any valid comparison beyond that. But, JV'r.

Speaker, it is interesting to note that of the ten provinc es of our country , per capita income of which doesn't vary all that much as between Quebec , Ontario , Manitoba, Saskatchewan , Alberta and B. C., that British Columbia has per capita spending of $633, total government budget spending, Manitoba $653 . This is again all DES figures . Saskatchewan $6 73; Ontario $730 and so on . It climbs sharply. - Alberta $794 , No . 7 of the ten provinc es. The point here again , Mr.

Speaker, is simply to demonstrate that the Leader of the Opposition can find many arguments, some of them of validit y , but one argument that simply doesn 't hold up is to argue that Manitoba government spending per person for man, woman and child is higher, the most sloppier and heavier and higher than in any other provinc e. In fact, if that 's your criteria, then we stack up as No. 2 and eight provi nces would have aw orse record . I want to go on to deal with other indic es of economic performance.

You know, again , they talk about deficits, they talk about careless spendin g, they talk about budgetary mis managemen t. Let us look again at the record of the last ten years. What was the record of Manitoba in the 19 60's, all the way from 1960 onward with respect to government expenditure as. a percentage of Provincial Government revenue . Well it 's true that this last year , if one takes a combination of current and capital spendin g, then we would have incurred a deficit, there 's no question about that . But, Mr .

Speaker, in all of the years of the 196 0's, the Conserv ative government ran heavier deficits than we have . In 196 1-62, for example, spend ing: wa s. 112 percent of revenue ; 196 2-63. spending was 109 percent of revenue ; 1�63-64 spend ing was 11 4 percent of reven ue; 1964-65 110 percent of reven ue; and it wasn 't until 196 7 that revenue. exceeded expenditure .

This was something they accomplished only in the last two year s of their decade, and we were able to sustain that kind of comparison in the first two years that we were in office and the amount of deficit that we are incurring now will be less in compariso n to what was incurred by my honourable friends when they were in control of the budget . ,--(Interjection) -- Well now , I know my honourable friends like to talk about what had to be done .

Well you know, like my honourable friend, I grew up in this provin ce and I know what the roads were like and what the schools were like and I say to my honourable friends - and I' ve said this publicly many times - that the Conser vative government did succeed in arranging for the build ing of schools, the improving of roads , iss ues which, you know, were quite popular , and they also succeeded in building two floodways, one of them good, the other one inexcusable . They succeeded in not too much else , Mr.

Speaker ; the fact is that no controversial issue of any significance were they prepared to grapple with . · MR . SPEAKER: Order, please . MR. SCHREY ER: I will tell my honourable friend, if he wants to mention the floodway and Birds Hill Park -- the Member for Lakeside brought up Birds Hill Park the other day , and the floodway -- that I in a sense , you know , symp�thize with his efforts, because they had to expropriate over 533 farmers along the Red River Floodway route. Mr. Speaker, it's signifi cant to note that it took six years before some of these people finally got paid for the land that

March 20 , 1972 237 (MR . SCHREYER cont'd) ..... was expropriated -- six years. It couldn ' t pos sibly have taken us longer , Mr . Speaker , since we haven 't been in half as long as it took you to pay some of those people along the Birds Hill Park area. Time is running short, Mr . Speaker , and I know the Member for Rhine land, his evening wouldn 't be complete without some reference to the debt situation of the Province of Manitob a.

And the debt situation I must admit, of our provinc e, doesn 't compare favourably with that of British Columbia and Alberta, but the member should be inter ested to note that with those two exceptions , the debt position of this province is better than any other province in this country; with those two exceptions .

What the Member for Rhineland and others I am sure would be interested to note as well, is that when my very busine sslike and careful and prudent budget manager s, the Conservatives were in office, they succeeded in taking the net debt -- I' m talking now about dead weight net debt, not talking about guaranteed liability where ass ets are created, at least that can be under stood -- I 'm talking about net dead weight debt.

Our Cons ervative prudent budget managers succeeded in taking the net dead weig ht debt of Manitoba from a point below $1 00 per man, woman and child to $1 95 per man , woman and child in a period of five year s. At no time in the history of this province has the net dead weight debt been as high as it was during the middle of the Tory years 1965 -66 . The net dead weight debt of the Province of Manitoba to- day is about one-third of what it was in 1964- 65 . If my honourable friend would like, I will give him the catalogue reference of the Dominion Bureau of Statistic s, he can check it for him self.

The Honourable Member for Arthur will excuse me if I will tell him that those of us on this side say thank you very much but no thanks . We really don 't find anything us eful in the way of budget and debt management advice from our friends opposite because they spent money like drunken sailors for quite a few of their years in office. --( Interjectio n) -- No, when I 'm finished . So, Mr . Speaker, it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about the level of spen ding and isolation of the level of revenue.

It makes no sense to talk about the level of net debt in Manitoba in 1972 without looking back to see what it was in 19 65, and to relate all that to per capita terms, and to relate that in turn to per capita incom e, all of which my honourable friends are too careless and inexact to want to do . But, Mr . Speaker , may I say in conclusion that despite all that 's been said about this provi nc e's budget and economic condition , that I say in

summary that the economy of this prov ince is basically heal thy, the budgetary management of this provinc e's finances is bas ically sound, the debt position of this province compares favourably with any of the years that the Conservatives were in office - every single one of the eleven years - our debt position today compares favourably with that . And our population - may I just make this, Mr . Speaker, my last point . It is suggested that people are leaving Manitoba. Mr .

Speaker , the population of Manitoba today is higher than it ever was, the ec onomic production of Manitoba today is over $4 , 20 0, 000, 000, higher than it's ever been . Manitoba has never lost population in any year, with the exception of 1965 when the Conservatives were in office. So for all of these reaso ns, Mr . Speaker, I have no hesi tation whatsoever in asking this House to treat the motion of non confidence with the contempt it deserves for the inaccuracies that are found in it . . . . . . continued on next page

238 IIIarch 20 , 1972 MR . SPE AKER: The hour be ing 9:30 , this being the se venth day of the debate on the Throne Speech, I am compelled ·by our rules to put all the amendments to the main motion. The first one being the sub-amendment by the Honourable Member for Rhineland. Are you ready for the qu es tion.? MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote dec lared the amendment lost. MR . FROE SE : Yeas and Nays , Mr. Speaker. MR . SPE AKER: Does the Honourable Member have support ? Ca ll in the Members. Order, please . Do .the members wish to have the motion read out ?

A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Barkman , Bilton, Blake , Einarso n , En ns , Ferguson , Froes e, Girard, Graham, Hend erson, F. Johr.ston, Jorgenson, McGill, McGregor , McKellar, McKenzie , Moug , Patrick , Sh erman, Watt and Mrs. Trueman. NAYS: Messr s. Allard, Barrow, Beard , Borowski , Boyce , Cherniack, Desjardins , Gonick, Gottfried, Green , Hanuschak, Jenkins , Johann son , McBryde, Mackling , Malinowski, Miller , Paulley, Pawley, Petursso n, Schreyer, Shafransky, Toupin, Turnbull, Us kiw, Uruski and Walding. MR . CL ERK: Yeas 21; Nays 27. MR .

SPEAKER: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the sub- amendment lost. Are you re ady for the question on the amendment to the main motion ? The Honourable Minister of Industry .and Commerce. HON . LEO NARD s. EV ANS (Minister of Industry and Co mmerce) (Br andon East): I did not vote because the Member for R iel was paired with me. If I had of voted I would have voted with the governm ent and against the motion. MR . SPEAKER : Are you ready for the amendment to the main motion ? MR . SPEA KER put the que stion and after a voice vote declared the amendment lost. MR .

SPEA KER : The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR . J. B. FERGUSON (Gladston e): Mr. Speaker , we would be agreeable if the opposite side would be to go'on the last vote . MR . SPEA KER: Same divis ion ? Is there any objec tion to having the same divisi on ? The Honourable Minister of Recrea tion an d Tourism objects , the Honourable Minister of Labour objects. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker , then in that case it \vould require another recorded vote . MR . SPEA KER: Cal-l in the members. Order , please. All those in favour of the motion please rise.

A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result be ing as follows: YE AS: Mess rs. Barkman, Bilton , Blake , Einar son, Enn s, Ferguson,. Froese , Girard, Graham, Hend er son , F. Johnst on, Jorgenson, McGill , McGregor , McKellar, McKenzie , Moug; Patrick, Sherman, Watt and Mrs. Trueman. NAYS: Messr s. Allard, Barrow, Beard , Borowski , Boyce , Cherniack, ])e sjardins , Gonick, Gottfried, Green , Hanuschak , Jenkins , Johannson , McBryde , Mackling, Malinowski, Miller, Paulley, Pawley, Petur sson, Schreyer, Shafransky, Toupin, Turnbull , Uski w, Uruski and Walding. MR . CLERK: Yeas 21; Nays 27 . MR .

SPEA KER: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost. The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR , EV ANS: Mr. Speaker , I beg to inform you that I did not vote because the Member for Ri el was paired with me. If I had voted I would have voted with the gover nment and against the motion. MR , SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Lake side . MR . ENNS: Thank you , Mr. Speaker . J'vlr.

Speaker , it is with some regret, Sir , that I have to begin my few comments that I would choose to make at this time on the main motion before us , that the First Minister of our prov ince has chosen tonight to set a general tenor and leve l of debate that I consider beneath the dignity of his office, and one , Sir , that makes it very difficult and you, Sir , -- I will let the braying of the me mbers opposite continue but you , Sir , who hav e some responsibility in mainta ining a degree of decorum in this Ch amber and all of us from time to time give you cause for concern in that respe ct, but I would want to point out to you , Sir , Mr.

Speaker, that it is very difficult that when the First Minister of this prov ince condescends to calling the members of the Opposition a collectiv e groups of asses it is ve ry difficult, Sir , for us to then attempt to pick up the level and tenor of the debate from

March 20, 1972 239 (MR. ENNS cont'd) .. ... that point forward. Mr. Speaker, while I would want to apologize, because I am the first one to acknowledge that I add up ... MR. SPEAK ER: Order, please. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I won't refer to them what the First Minister referred to us but they are making simllar braying noises at this particular time. But I want to indicate to you that that was disappointment number one in the Fi rst Mini ster's otherwise lengthy effort.

Secondly, the second disappointment of course would have to be considered that throughout the First Minister's response tonight he concentrated on a rebuttal attempt, rebuttaled sections to the speech given by our Leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition. Not once, Sir, did he give us any indication, did he il luminate that otherwise negative, nothing document that he had His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor deliver in this Chamber last Thursday and indi cate to us, which we have every right to believe, what some of those meaningless phrases meant in a finely A-Okay worded language of that document.

No, Sir, Mr. Speaker, he was satisfied to simply -- and I have to say this -- smite at the asses in the opposition and be content with that kind of a performance. Then, Mr. Speaker, let me proceed with a few re marks. Sir, we have accused the members opposite of being tired, of being near collapse, of being totally incompetent, but, Mr. Speaker, let me make it very plain thay have shone and they have stood upright in the supreme arrogance that they've shown si nce the first day that they assumed office. Mr.

Speaker, the Fi rst Minister has the audacity, the utter and complete audacity of suggesting that his and his Cabinet alone is the first Cabinet that did a day's work for the people of Manitoba. That was after all, Mr. Speaker, the reason why the First Minister indicated there was reason for some tiredness, tiredness on the part of his ministers. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can give you two more reasons why perhaps they should be tired. They should be tired, Mr.

Speaker, for travel fatigue, the trips to Madagascar, to Israel, to Acapulco leading a trade mission in Mexico, to Rome to Sw eden, God knows where they've travelled. They have a right to be tired. They have a right to be tired. And if they hadn't been travelling, and if they hadn't been travelling around the world, around the globe at the taxpayers ' expense they would have been fighting with each other, and that's another reason why they'd be tired, that's another reason why they've been tired. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you can't suggest-- and the Fi rst Minister isn't suggesting to us .. . MR.

SPEAK ER: Order, please. Order, please. As long as I'm Chairman of this Assem bly a point of privi lege will be recognized. The Honourable First Mi nister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, my point of privil ege is ... MR. WATT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what's a point of privil ege ? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, my point of priv ilege is that the Member for Lakeside insinuates that a trip that I took to Israel was somehow at public expense, when in fact it was not, no more so than, Mr.

Speaker, the point of privil ege being that the former Fi rst Minister of this Pro vince took regular visits to the Caribbean, no one made much of it in this House. That's my point of privil ege. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Let me give the First Mi nister the benefit of a little bit of history. I am that kind of a person that a certain Mr. Malone was, who said at a great political gathering in Ottawa that when Mr. Diefe nbaker walks in the room Harry Malone stands up, and quite fr ankly, Mr.

Speaker, any time the Fi rst Mi nister chooses to rise in his chair I am prepared to sit down and listen to his point of privil ege or his point of order. I will not extend that privil ege for the Minister of Labour necessarily , unless he has a legitimate point of priv ilege. I accept the point of privi lege, Mr. Speaker, I accept the point of privil ege that the Minister raises, I exempt, Mr. Speaker, the Fi rst Minister's trip .•. as I know that .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. The Mi nister of Labour on a point of order, or privi lege. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, may I, Sir, despite the rambling and the verbiage of my honourable fr iend -- yes, Mr. Speaker, some insignificant member opposite said "let's get this show on the road" and I want to do precisely that. And I don't have to listen ... MR. SPEAKER : Order. I would like to hear the point of order. Order . Would all members keep quiet so I may hear the point of order. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise, I merely rise, Sir, to suggest to you as the presiding officer of this Assembly, that a point of privil ege was raised by the Honourable

240 March 20, 1972 (MR . PAULLEY cont'd) ..... the Premier of the Province of Manitoba on a point of pri vi lege and look -- Mr. Speaker, may I say to my honourable friend from Fort Garry, despite the fact that he was at one time ... MR. SPEAK ER : Ord er, please. Ord er. MR . SPEA KER : The point the Honourable Minister of Labour is making, I am well aware of , and I suggest that we pass on to the next item. The Honourable Member for Lake side. Th e Honourable Member for Lake side. MR . EN NS: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker , I will tone down the pitch and the le vel of the speech -- which policy was I supposed to make? I think I made it very clearly, --( Interjecti on) -- okay, that's fine. At the behest of the Attorney- General, let me tell you that the trips that the Honourable Member, the Minister for Health and Social Deve lopment took to Sweden in the company of a large gathering of social development officers and other s, was indeed at the cost of the Canadian and Manitoba taxpayer.

Th e trip of the Honourable Member for To urism and Re creation, the Minister of To urism and Rec reation to Paris and to the deep , dark jungles - I think I made a speech about that on another occasion, to Africa, was ... - MR, SPE AKER: Or der, please. The Honourable Minister of To ur ism and Recreation on a point of order. MR. DESJARDINS: Manitoba never paid for any trips that I made in Paris or anywhere els e. Well just a minute , there 's a point of order , Mr. Speaker , a po int of privilege. Fi rst of all I wasn't a Minister , and when I made that trip it wasn't the Province of Manitoba that paid for it.

MR. SPEA KER: Ord er , please. Ord er . I would suggest the honourable member who is debating not impute motives to other members of this As sembly. Secondly, there was a matter of privilege raised and I gave him back the floor . I thought he was going to offer an explanation, he just carried on in the same vein. I would suggest to the honourable member that his re marks in regard to the First Minister on the matter of privilege should be recon sidered, should be explained by him. He has two minutes before the hour is up. The Member for Lakeside. MR . ENNS: Mr.

Speaker , let me make it \·ery plain that I was in the arduous process of making exactly that apology, of being very careful about who went to Acapulco, Mexico; who went to Sweden; who went to Ro me; who went to Paris, and to make an exception that when the First Minister went to Israel that that meet was not at the taxpayer's expense , that's all I was trying to do and I was trying to accommodate the Attorney- General in saying so. Now the Member for St.

Boniface has some difficulty recognizing that when the Canadian Govern ment pays his way to Africa or to Paris , that somehow or other that isn't part of Manitoba's tax dollars. What utter nonsense. He has trouble identifying himse lf with the rest of Canada. MR . SPEAK ER: The Honour able Minister of To urism and Recreation. MR . DESJA R DINS: ... because my trip for your own information was paid by the Re public of France. Would you withdraw? MR . SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for Lakes ide . MR , ENNS: We ll, Mr.

Speaker , I have to recognize that the Rep ublic of Fr ance is not part of C anada, and as such I withdraw the statement. Now, Mr. Speaker, having tried to begin to have some understanding why the government is tired; you know , all that luggage , all that travelling, all that fighting , you know -- surely not for what they have accomplis hed. Well , Mr. Speaker , ... lVill . SPEAK ER: Ord er. MR. EN NS: Thanks , Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER : I am well able to recognize ten o'cl ock. I can re:;td a clock too . The Honourable Member for Lakeside. lVill . ENNS: We ll, Mr.

Speaker , it's my intention, of course , to carry on for some time. If it is the intention of the· members opposite to sugge st for the House Leader to call it ten o' clock then I'd be agreeable, but I would have some more comments to make when next we meet. lVill . SPEA KER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. l\ill , PAULL EY: ... prepared to recognize ten o' clock until it: is ten o'cl ock, and if my honourable friend wants to continue until that time with his rambling let him go ahead.

March 20, 1972 24 1 MR 0 EN NS: Firstly, then let me deal point by point, of the voluminous note s that I made during the First Minister 's address with respect to the Re ply to the Speech from the Thr one. Firstly, I would again, and re ally I hav e to repeat this because I think it's a question of some concern , it's a question concer ning leadersh ip ... MR 0 SPEAKER: Order, please. The hour is ten o' clock, The House is accordi ngly adjourned, stands adjourned until 2:30 tomorrow (Tues day) afternoon.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-4-12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 4th hansardpdf 12.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	32aea2f044ec7c9ea306168de542b7256d8ede27

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