LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 26 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I'd like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for this year, '87-88, of the Department of Health, the Manitoba Health Services Commission and the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba.

MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . .. Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 28 students of Grade 8 from Hedges School. The students are under the direction of Mr. Rykiss and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC - list of shredded documents MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I understand from reviewing some information that presumably was provided with respect to the shredded boxes of documents from the Minister responsible for MPIC's office that there is a listing available of those documents that were contained in the boxes when they were turned over to the Archives. I wonder if the Minister can confirm whether or not there is that list available, and if so, if he can pro vide us with a copy of that list. MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Government Hou se Leader . HON. J. COWAN: Mad am Speaker , on a point of order .

As the membe r kno ws, while there is a list available, th ose are ministerial files and those ministerial files are not available for peru sal and not available for review 581 until a certain time period has expired, and this case is no different. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Minister can indicate what is the time period that must expire in order to receive a copy of that list. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture and Heritage Resources. HON. J.

WASYLYCIA-LEIS: All files from a Minister, no matter what period whether it was pre-1981 or pre­ Freedom-of-Information legislation, are covered by the 30-year regulation unless a Minister has given special instructions or directions for other usage. MR. G. FILMON: I'm wondering how it is then that a newspaper

article appears to be quoting from the list. Where would that information have been obtained? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to table the list that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to as soon as I find it. It's a list that would be available for the public because it simply lists the files that are stored in the Archives. MPIC - tabling of reports to the Board MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question to the Minister responsible for MPIC is: When will he be tabling those reports, that list of approximately 20 reports to the board, that were made pursuant to the minutes that we were given to read? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That list is currently being prepared, and I believe all that is left to be done is to thoroughly review those submissions to ensure there is no matter of corporate confidentiality that would be found within those documents.

MPIC - availability of Provincial Auditor's Report MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, just one further question to the Minister responsible for MPIC. When does he anticipate that the Provincial Auditor's investigation and report into MPIC's reinsurance activities will be available? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister o f Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The request that went to the Provincial Auditor asked him to work as quickly as possible on that report. I

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 have not receiv ed any indication from him as to when he would be in a position to provide a report. Springhill Farms Employees Union - petition MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West . MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Today the Minister will have received a copy of a petition, also received by myself, the First Minister, the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose and the Honourable Member for Gladstone, a petition from the Springhill Farms Employees Union signed by 106 of the employees at that hog killing plant at Neepawa .

I understand there are 150 employees there. The petition questions the methods used by another union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The petition claims that employees at the plant were intimidated and misled by the UFCW, and they asked the Minister to intervene and to ensure that 82 percent of the workers who favour the Springhill Farms Employees Union, they asked the Minister to intervene on their behalf to be sure that they are given the opportunity to vote on the matter of certification. Will the Minister intervene on their behalf? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I haven't seen the petition the honourable member refers to. It may have been received by my office . I have been away from the office part of the morning. It could well be it's been received by my office and I haven 't seen it. But even if I had seen it, this Minister does not believe it's the role of the Minister of Labour to intervene in the collective bargaining process unless there's a breakdown of the system. We have a collective bargaining process in Manitoba where workers are entitled to organize and apply to the Manitoba Labour Board for certification .

Providing that the workers have satisfied the requirements of the legislation, then the board will process that application and certification will follow or will be denied in accordance with The Labour Relations Act. This Minister should not interfere in that process and no member of this House should seek to interfere with that process. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, on a new question: Is it the policy of this government that in a particular plant, the wishes of 82 percent of the employees there should be ignored because of what is contained in The Manitoba Labour Relations Act?

And will the Minister refer The Manitoba Labour Relations Act to the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations of this House so that the matters contained in The Labour Relations Act may be reviewed by the members of this Legislature and by workers and by employers and by union leaders across this province so that we can get to the bottom of this and make laws that are fair to all Manitobans? 582 HON. A. MACKLING: Mad am Speaker , it is clear from wher e the honou ra ble member is coming . He believes that the best way would be to have workers at the mercy of employers.

Basically, the honourable memb er doesn't beli eve that workers should ,., be entitled to organ ize, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West on a point of order. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , I would ask that the Minister withdraw any comments that he's just made that would impugn any motives, on my part, other than motives on behalf of workers in this province. MADAM SPEAKER: A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, it is clearly my perception of the line of questions that the Honourable Member for Brandon West has been putting, that he feels that the best way in society would be to allow the workers to have to accept the dictates of employers in this province.

Madam Speaker, we have a system of law in place, a system of regulation in place that is virtually identical throughout Canada, virtually identical, that provides for free collective bargaining and a process for adjudicating the rights and issues that arise between employee groups and employers, and Legislative Assemblies are not the forum in which to take sides in that process . MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, with a final question , the Minister, in his answer, wishes to impugn my motives and to suggest that this member speaks for the employers of this province.

When I accepted the duty of Labour critic , I agreed to speak on behalf of workers of this province; unlike the Minister of Labour who tends to want to speak for his union boss friends. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable membe r have a question? MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, I have a question and I'm about to put it. The Springhill Farms Employees Union is not a wealthy and powerful union like the United Food and Commercial Worke rs of Manitoba. Will this Minister not do something to prevent workers from being manipulated and intimidated by these ric h and powerful unions in this province? HON . A.

MACKLING: Really, Madam Spe aker, I shouldn't dignify that question with an answer . However, I do want to put on record the fact that in this province we have a labour relations clim ate tha t is second to none. We have an excellent record i n respect to days lost; we have an excellent rec ord in respect to employment ; we have an e xcellen t labour relations climate, and we'll maintain that clim ate despite the efforts of the Honoura ble Membe r for Brand on West and his colleagues .

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 Flood conditions update MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Emerson . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My questi on is - I don't know which Minister would be prepared to answer this - but I wonder if we could have an update on the flood conditions in the Province of Manitoba and what time that decision was made or the statement was made. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natur al Resources . HON . L.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker , we had information released last week which indicated that there were no major concerns with respect to flooding except for some low-lying areas along the Red River, and this would not change except with some dramatic changes in the weather. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker , to the same Minister then. It is my understanding that there's been some concern expressed about serious flooding in the Red River Valley. Is the Minister saying that there is no concern at the present time? MR. A. BROWN: You're not up to date, Len . HON. L.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I was saying that on the basis of the last information that was provided to me as a Minister, there were no major concerns. I will take that question as notice and I will update the House . Child Abuse Registry - regulations MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you , Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Community Services . During the fall of 1986 she received a report regarding the Child Abuse Registry .

Will the Minister be introducing new regu lations rega rdin g this registry within the next few weeks, and will the new regulations cont ain an independent review and appeal procedure? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , the report has been circulating to groups that have indicated an interest . We have received quite a few submissions, comments . They are being compiled and with in a few weeks we will be bringing forward the final regulations .

But there is still time and I encourage members opposite to peruse that report and to submit their recommendations on it. The appeal process that was outlined in the report , I think, did outline an appeal process. It did involve the committee that, sort of provincial child abuse 583 committ ee, a multi-disciplinary committee, as to the first stag e of an appeal. But if members oppos ite have other ideas as to how that can best be done, we w oul d welcome their input . I have had some suggestion that it would be valua ble to have a lay person on that committee, and that certainly is an interesting poss ibility.

Child Abuse Registry - removal of names MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplementary question to the same Minister. Will both non -proven sexual and physical abusers' names be removed from the list? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I can only assume that the Member for River Heights has seen the report and the recommendations. Assuming that , she will know what their recommend atio n is: that physical abusers, only those who are confirmed, be retained on the list , and that only strongly suspected sexual abuse rs , strongly suspected by two-thirds of the multi­ disciplinary committee , also be retained.

Again , they give the rationale as relating to the great difficulty of achieving a courtroom decision but often we run into the situatio n where all the legal people and the professional people involved are of the same opinion , that there is a very strong probability that there was difficulty , but for technical reasons there was not a conviction . And again , we are mindful of the balance between the civil rights of the adult person and the need to protect the child.

Again , I invite all members of the Opposition to peruse that report and to submit to me their suggestions because we have not yet come to a final determination. Child Abuse Registry - release of names to employers MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a final supplementary to the same Minister, Madam Speaker . Will employers under the new regulations be given access to information only on proven abusers , thereby protecting the names of both victims and suspected but not proven abusers? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, again as I've said , there is not a determination as to the final regulation as yet.

The member knows what was recommended by the committee that studied the issue for two years . She should know that there was no suggestion of victims' names being in any way accessible to potential employers. The suggestion of access for employers , only where employment in a special trust relationship with children is involved, would have access after receiving the permission of an employee applicant. So, again, I urge the member to peruse that report and to submit to me her recommendations for how to handle the issues .

Budget - health care facilities - increased payroll tax and hydro MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina .

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is for the Min ister of Health, Madam Speaker. Many hospitals in the Province of Manitob a are experiencing substantial deficits from this current operating year that will end in about five days' time. My question to the Minister of Health is: In the Budget allocation from Estimates for the upcoming fiscal year, does that Budge t provide sufficient monies to those hospitals to provide for the .75 percent increase in the payroll tax that those hospitals will be paying? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker , that question was asked of me a few days ago and, at the time, my answer was that there was discussion taking place with individual hospitals . When a final decision is reached, an announcement will be made. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , as well in the Budget, the 4. 7 percent increase in hydro rates was announced, one-time forever. Madam Speaker, that makes the hydro rate increase 10 percent to those same hospital institutions this year.

My question to the Minister is: Does the Budget allocation allow for that increase in hydro costs to those same health care facilities, including personal care homes? HON. L. DESJARDINS : Madam Speaker, the same answer, there are discussions taking place with the hospitals and, until that is clarified, it would serve no good purpose to give a partial answer at this time. Hospital - closure of beds to control deficit MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Brandon General Hospital, when faced with budgetary constraints now being faced by a number of City of Winnipeg hospitals, is the Minister willing to accept as government policy the closure of anywhere from 8 percent to 10 percent of the active treatment beds in Winnipeg hospitals , as he accepted with Brandon General Hospital as a method of controlling their deficit faced with a 10 percent increase in hydro rates and a 50 percent increase in payroll tax by this government? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, it's obvious that the honourable member would like to start discussing my Estimates at this time . There's nothing I'd like better than this , but this is hardly the place . I do not think that we are going to restrain ourself to the kind of answer that he wants , this yes and no business . He knows absolutely why. A full explanation of where we feel we should be going will be given during my Estimates , I can assure you of that. The Manitoba Labour Relations Act - protection from intimidation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice. 584 MR. H.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour, and it's prompted by the questions from the Member for Brandon West. Mr. Minister, the labour legislation in our province, how does it pro tect anyone who is intimidated either by the employer or by the employees or union? Madam Speaker, I'm asking the Minister: What protection do the laws of this province give to any intimidation effort by a union or by an employer in an attempt for a decertification process? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speak er, The Labour Relations Act clearly provides protection for the workers and for anyone involved in the collective bargaining process . If anyone feels that their rights have been in any way interfered with, there is a process pursuant to The Labour Relations Act for which they can have their rights adjudicated. Budget - accounting practices MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS : Madam Speake r, the Minister of Finance in his Budget Address the other night indicated a year-end forecast of a deficit of $415 million, and he arrived at that number through a deduction of a $30 million figure that he called a year -end saving.

My question to the Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker , given the fact that for five years this government has not come anywhere close to its expenditures' forec ast; and given that within this present year expenditures have gone beyond forecast by the level of $69 million , can the Minister tell me the rationale for introducing this new type of accounting technique within his Budget? MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker . First, some of the comments behind the ques tion are incorrect.

The Government has in some years been very close, in fact , some years under its projections in terms of what the year-end deficit would be. We're certainly not as far out as what a former member of this House called the fiscally irresponsible position of the Government of Saskatchewan where the y were out some hundreds of percent, not a matter of a couple of percent .

But in terms of the specific question, we are taking a lead in that area from other governments in Canada; the Ontario Government, the Federa l Government put the same kind of assum ptio ns in their Budget documents in terms of anticipated year-end savings , and it's been in essence a pract ice that's gone on in this Province of Manitoba. In fact, I think the first time it's appeared on the books of the Provin ce was Budget documents , quarterly reports brought down by a member of the Conservative Party when it was in government. I think it was Mr.

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 Craik who was the first one who used the anticipated year-end savings in a quarterly report. They have appeared in quarter ly reports for a number of years now and we've merely incorporated them into the actual Budget presentation. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, can the Minister indicate then why tha t explanation was not given within his Addr ess and, furthermore, is he saying that there was in past years a figure, whether it was $30 million or whatsoever, that was broken out in various departments that represented the saving in other departments which was not in any way exhibited within the departmental Estimates? HON. E. KOSTYRA: This is the first time that it's appeared in the Budget at the start of the year.

It has appeared in the quarterly reports - if the member would look through them - in every one back to the quarterly reports put out by the previous government when they were in office. There is an anticipated year-end savings tha t has appeared for many years. What we've done is merely reflected that accounting practice not only in the quarterly report, but in the annual Budget that comes out. As I indicated, it's put in a way that is exactly the same actually as the Government of Ontar io in the way that they portray that in their books. It's done in a similar fashion to that done by the Federal Governme nt.

The rea son that we didn 't provide more detailed explanation in the Budget document itself is obvious. I don't know if we want to have that document go into such great detail, but it was listed in there and explained and I've pro vided the member with the additional information that he is inquiring about in regard to that item. Estimates - breakdown of revenue MR. C. MANNES$: Madam Speaker, a final supplem entary but a new question.

Given the fact that later on this afternoon we will probably be debating Interim Supply, I'm wondering if the Minister can provide the members of this House with a detailed breakdown of the other revenue figures - and I'm specifically referring to fees - through the various departments of government, so that members opposite may have an opportunity to determine how it is the government is able to increase those fees, as on an aggregate fashion, at the rate of 11.5 percent. Will the Minist er undertake to provide that information to members of the House? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: There are specific errors. We will attempt to provide that answer. As the member knows, Interim Supply is dealing with the spending of the funds on behalf of the government. It does not deal with the revenue Estimates that are also before the House. 585 First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Rights - Premier delayed MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson . MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

Yesterday many members of th is House, and I'm sure many Native people across Manitoba, were concerned over the fact that the First Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs were delayed in their departure to the Conference on Aboriginal Rights by the unnecessary delay on the vote on the Budget by the members of the Opposition. I wou ld like to ask the Deputy Premier whether the delay led to the First Minister missing the important first meeting yesterday between the Prime Minister and Premiers at this very important conference? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order , order please.

That question is not within the administrative competence of the government. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Madam Speaker, I'm asking the Deputy Premier if the Premier - and she's the delegate of the Premier in the Chamber - was able to attend a meeting which was definitely within the administrative competence of the Premier , a First Ministers ' meeting on the aboriginal rights. If you prefer me to restate it MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Could I please hear the question? MR. S.

ASHTON: Madam Speaker, my particular concern, and I'm asking the Deputy Premier on this, is whether she will make members of the Native organizations at the conference aware of why the Premier was delayed and make Native people in this province aware of the fact that it was because of the actions of members opposite that the Premier was delayed in attending a very important meeting? - (lnterjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker , it's with great regret that I have to report that the delay in the vote yesterday did mean that the Premier and his party were unable to attend the very important pre-conference meeting that took place in Ottawa last night. Since this is the most important conference affecting Native rights to have taken place probably in the history of Canada , it is most regrettable that that delay occurred, Madam Speaker. Lotteries - age restriction for entry to casinos MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Minister in charge of Lotteries.

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 A constituent of mine called to inform me that his 16-year- old son was admitted to the last operation of the casinos at the Convention Centre. He was a high­ school student, age 16, and held a part-time job. He was admitted and lost a fair amount of money. My question to the Minister is, is there an age restriction on those who can enter and play in the casinos? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Lotteries. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I'd like to thank the member opposite for that question .

We certainly do attempt to put in place procedures to ensure that under-aged young people are not allowed into casinos. I will certainly check into this particular instance and into our procedures to ensure that we are able to determine effectively those who are under age and ensure that they are not allowed into the casino. MR. C. BIRT: Madam Speaker, is there a policy now in place to either question , or at least check and prevent young people, who are under age, from entering onto the premises and participating in the gaming process? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, yes, there is a policy in place .

I will check into the exact way in which that policy is implemented and report back to the member. MR. C. BIRT: I thank the Minister . To help her check it out, one further point of information. This young individual used one piece of false identification and was admitted . I'm wondering , when the Minister is checking out to see if some procedure can be established where more than one piece, or some further way of checking on th at person 's identification, because not only did the student get into the place but also several other friends.

Apparently they all used one piece of identification and obvious ly that procedure is not sufficient to prohibit young people from getting in and gambling. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, with those comments from the member opposite , I'm not sure I understand his first two commen ts since he was perfectly aware that there was a procedure in place and that we were checking for underaged young people . Obviously, it's not going to be always possible to deal with situations where false identification is used.

We will certainly check into the situation and ensure that the most fail-safe system is put in place. Seagram's Distillery at Gimli - closure of bottling plant MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you , Madam Speaker , to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. On this side of the House, we've argued long and hard that the payroll tax is a real disincentive to 586 busin esses in Manitoba and that it will cost many, many jobs to the Province of Manitoba . The payroll tax , Madam Speaker , in this Budget was raised 50 percent.

This comes to my attention, and I hope I'm wrong, Madam Speaker , but I was told that the bottling part of the Seag ram's Distillery at Gim li was closing or is closed . Can the Minister tell us if he had discussions with this Seagram 's plant? MADAM SPEA KER: The Hono urab le Minister of Industry, Trade and Technol ogy. HON. V. SCHROEDER: No, Madam Speaker. MR. E. CONNERY: Woul d the Minister take it upon himself , Madam Speaker, to investigate why this bottling plant is closing down or has closed, and at what loss of the jobs to a small town, the Town of Gimli?

This is a very important part of their economic life and they cannot afford to lose those jobs. Would the Minister take it upon himself to investi gate the situation? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, I'm always prepared to talk with anybody about jobs in Manitoba , but there 's a lot of nonsense in the discussions we just heard from the member opposite with respect to the health and education levy; one examp le being, for instance, the CF-18 went to a city which has a similar levy - about 3.25 percent as opposed to 2.25 in Manitoba - because of a very specific decision by the Federal Government.

The Federal Government decided that, if Oerlikon moved to Montreal , they would get a major pro curement contract, regardless of the fact that in Montreal they would pay about 3.25 percent as opposed to 2.25 percent for the health and educatio n levy in Manitob a.

If you look at Toronto , where employers are now paying in the range of $644 a year for the medica l premiums of their employees and more than 70 percent of the companies there are paying that for their employees , you will find that that is a larger payment by employers in Ontario than they have to pay in Manitoba, and the fact of the matter is that they're SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Swamp fever - mandatory testing MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture .

About a week ago, I drew to the Minister 's attention the growing concern of horse owners throughout the Province of Manitoba with the very serious problem of swamp fever. More and more horses are being destroyed or having to be destroy ed because of this highly infectious disease . I asked the Mini ster at that time whether or not he would use his good offices to do what I believe most horse owners would like, that

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 is to have a mandatory testing program carried out in this province; and hopefully , with a compensation support progra m attached to that. Has he made any representations to Agriculture Canad a to attempt to get that program under way before the mosquito and insect season is really upon us? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker , it appears that honourable members on the other side , their priority in agriculture is not the incomes of farmers, and while I don't discount the difficulty that certain horse owners have in respect to the disease , I want to tell my honourable friend that I asked our veterinary services peop le immediately upon - in fact , about a week befor e the memb er raised the question, that I wanted a full report.

And on the discussions that they 've had with the federal people, I will try and have the details of those discussions for him very shortly , but I do know tha t our people have been in constant contact both with the federal people and with veterinarians in the field . MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, just briefly, on a point of order. Madam Speake r, you sometimes ask why we on this side get exercised. We don 't really need tha t kind of smart-ale cky innuendo direction made . I have a constituent who lost 12 mares, 12 pregnant mares . I have neighbours who lost two or three of their pet riding horses .

Now I know that isn't the most urgent , pressing problem in agriculture today, but it happens to be of concern to anybody who's lost a horse or is about to lose a horse . This Minister can do a little better than give me a smart-aleck y reply. I asked him politely a week ago, would he use his good offices and get off trying to score little Brownie points, politi call y, and do somethin g, in this case for, the horse owners of the Province of Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture on the point of order. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker , on the point of order, I want to indicate to my honourable friend that if they talk abo ut Brownie points , they wanted a debate on agriculture and then they adjourned this House and didn't wan t the debate on agriculture . We offered the debate . Now they're saying that they want some action . Madam Speaker , it is a federal responsibility , but not only discounting that it is a federal responsibility, our veterinarians have been involved in this situation , Madam Speaker , and I've undertaken to provide that information to my . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

Is the Honourable Minister addressing the point of order or the issue? Order please . A dispute over the facts is not a point of order, nor is it a point of order to insist on an answer from a Minister or the content of the answer . 587 Lotteries - grant cutbacks MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Member for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Thank you , Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister respon sible for the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation .

Madam Speake r, on March 17, the Minister wrote to umbrella groups under the agreement and advised them that to achieve the objective of spending surplus lottery money on maintaining essential social services , particularly in the health care field , that they would adjust the funding agreements and mechanisms with each umbrella group effect ive Apri l 1, 1987. Can the Minister advise to what extent these um brella groups are going to be cut back on April 1, 1987? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Culture and Heri tage Resources . HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Mad am Speaker.

I will refer the Member for Charleswood to pag e 16 of the Budget , since it 's obvious th at he has not read the Budget Address, where it states that in keeping with our priorities , an estimated $7 million of surplus lott ery revenue will be targeted for health care for Manitobans. In light of rapid growth in lottery revenue of over 200 percent since 1983 - 84, this will be accomplished without any reductions in support to current recipients by using surplus lottery revenu e. MR. J.

ERNST: Can the Minister then advise the House, Madam Speaker , what adjusted funding mechan isms, as of April 1, 1987, will mean to those umbrella groups , if it isn 't a cutback or a reduction or a control of their lottery revenues? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: I will be discuss ing and negot iating with each of the six umbrella groups and each of the six special agreements groups this coming Monday and Tuesday. We will be engaged in a dialogue around the current distribution system.

We will be consulting on the question of a needs assessment for the lottery distribution system and arriving at, I am sure, acceptable arrangements on all sides. Lotteries - casino experiment MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker , I have a new question to the same Minister . Several weeks ago I wrote the Minister with regard to the effects of the casino experiment that took place recently, and the effects that removal of Casino Days , normally allocated to certain umbrella groups , financial implications that it would have on their particular revenue flow.

I understand that the Minister has responded with regard to that matter and has indicated that the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation would grant a loan, as it were , to one particular umbrella group at interest , Madam Speaker , yet on the other hand has already reached a cash settlement agreement with two other umbrella groups. Can the Minister advise why one umbrella group is being treated differently from another umbrella group under this situation?

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: I'll certainly look into this matter and get the details for the Member for Charleswood , but I can indicate that, with each of the groups involved or for each of the group that was impacted by the pilot project, a mutually satisfactory arrangement was arrived at and, in all cases, it was based on an average of earnings from previous Casino Days or previous arrangements with the Lotteries Foundation . I have heard no complaints and, in fact, a great deal of satisfaction from this settleme nt. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , I'd like to begin by moving two motions which show up on the Order Paper in respect to the Rules and the appointment of the Deputy Chair of Committees . I would move, Madam Speaker , seconded by the Minister of Labour:

WHEREAS interim Rules provisions in force throughout the last Session limited speeches in Private Members' Hour to fifteen minutes and limited debate on a Private Members' Resolution to three hours; and

WHEREAS it is desirable to bring these provisions into force permanently.

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE that the Rules of the House be amended by reinstating permanently those Rules which were in effect on a trial basis during Session 1986-87, namely: (

a) that the Rules of the House be amended by adding the following new Rule immediately after Rule 22: "Time limit on debate 22. 1( 1) The total time allowed for the consideration of any Private Members' Resolution and any amendment thereto shall not exceed three hours. Termination of debate

(2) When the time allowed by sub-rule (1) has expired , the Speaker shall terminate debate on the item being considered ." (

b) That present sub-rule 33(3) be repealed and the following substituted therefor : "

(3) Notwithstanding sub-rules ( 1) and (2), speeches during the Private Members' Hour or during debate on a private members ' order called by the Government pursuant to sub-rule 20(2) shall be limited to fifteen minutes. " MOTION presented and carried. HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Madam Speaker , I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Clarence Baker , Esq., Member for the Electoral Division of Lac 588 du Bonnet, be Deputy Chair of the Committees of the Whole House. MOTION presented and carried.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 8? ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 8 - THE CITY OF WINNIPEG ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Lakeside who has 27 minutes remaining . MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker , I had concluded my comments with respect to Bill 8 on the last occasion when the adjournment hour arose. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs to close debate. HON. G.

DOER: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank all members for the deba te that took place on Bill 8. I think many of the comments that were made are very useful comments. I think the meeting that took place, also , in conjunction with discussions with members opposite , with the officials from the Department of Municipal Affairs, dealing with the whole issue of assessment and assessment reform, I believe was very useful for certa inly myself.

I've had briefings before, but, Madam Speaker , it was useful to have the concerns from all constituencies of Manitoba represented by the questions that were asked of the officials taking

part in this very, very difficult issue of getting Manitoba 's assessment and assessment reform up to current market values and implementing many of the conc epts and many of the principles that were articulated in the Weir Report and adopted by members of this House. I would just like to also say briefly, Madam Speaker, that the bills we have passed in the last period of time last year and are proposing this year are interim bills .

They are all scheduled in such a way that the principl es articulated in Weir and the Assessment Ref orm Committee of Manitoba can be implemented as soon as the computer can get all the property in the computer and we can deal on a province-wide basis with many of the issues that are contained in assessment reform, such as classification , and deal with some other issues that certainly became apparent with ou r briefing, Madam Speaker, and that is the issue of have the values of land in rural Manitoba gone down so far and the values of land gone up so high in Winnipeg that there has been an inequity there .

Madam Speaker , this bill provides an appeal process of 105 days for this 1987 year, a unique circumstance ,

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 we believe, and provides enabling legislation for phasing in . We believe it's a logi cal bill for dealing with the problems confronting us in a unique way in this reass essment process in the city, but I do appreciate all the concerns from all the members representing constituencies on this problem becaus e it is a province­ wide issue notwithstanding the fact we're dealing with a specific court order. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker . QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance . HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I move, seconded by the Minister of Agricultu re, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair . COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY BILL NO. 9 - THE INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT, 1987 MR. CHAIRMAN, C.

Santos: The Committee of Supply will come to order now to cons ider the following resolution : RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding $750,307,040 , being 20 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in the Main Estimates , be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March , 1988. Does the Minister of Fin ance have an opening statement? Does any critic from the Opposition want to say something on this resolution? The resolution has been passed . Is it the will of the committee that I report the resolution to the Speaker? (Agreed) Committee rise. Call in the Speaker .

IN SESSION The Committee of Supply adopted a certain resolution, reported same, and asked leave to sit again. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows . MR. C. SANTOS: Madam Speaker , I move , seconded by the Member for Inkster , that the report of the Commit tee be received . MOTION presented and carried. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty . MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair. 589 COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS INTERIM SUPPLY MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Ways and Mean s will now come to order to consider the followin g resolution : RESOLVED that towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenditures of the public service, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March , 1988, the sum of $750 ,307,040, being 20 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in the Main Estimates , for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1988, laid before the House at the present Session of the Legislature , be granted out of the Consolidated Fund . Does the Minister of Finance have an opening statement?

The Honourable Opposition House Leader . MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I simply , at this stage of the proceedings, and in consultation with the Government House Leader, wish to table for the record of the House a letter between the Government House Leader and myself whereby we have had some discussions with respect to the granting of Interim Supply, which as we all know must be passed before the end of the month . In view of the

schedule of the government , with respect to the Throne Speech and then the Budget Speech, we agreed that Interim Supply would be passed by tomorrow and the details are set out in this letter , but it was also agreed that the amount we are dealing with is only approximately two-and-a-half months of supply .

So that the Government House Leader has agreed to introduce the legislation required for any further Interim Supply for the present Session, previous to the end of the first week in June ; that is, June 5, 1987, and that legislation in the required accompanying mot ions thereafter will be considered until it passes , so that members of the Opposition will have from the first week in June to approximately June 15, when Interim Supply will be required, to give full discussion and debate till it passes Inter im Supply.

But we are agreeing at this stage, in view of the fact that Interim Supply has to be passed, that this resolution and the accompanying bills will be passed before the end of the Session tomorrow morning. So perhaps I could simply table this as a record of the agreement between the Government House Leader and myself, which has been discussed and agreed to by the Member for River Heights. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance.

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can confirm what has been stated by the Oppositio n House Leader and also indicate my appreciation for the assistance that he has provided on behalf of his caucus and his critic in order to ensure that the necessary bills will be passed in order to con tinue with the necessary payments of government for salaries and for other suppliers and individuals at the beg inn ing of the new fiscal year. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to just spend a few minutes in this point of the Interim Supply procedure. Mr. Chairman, altho ugh I've never spoken on this particular point before, I think it's incumbent that I rise and do so. You may remember earlier on this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister a specific question dealing with whether or not he would provide for this House a copy of all the increases in fees through all the various departments of government. You may remember also , Mr. Chairman, that the Minister said , well, really, Interim Supply is dealing with spending and really that's a revenue question .

As if to say, Mr. Chairman, that it's not important that it be considered. Mr. Chairman , if you look at your list of procedures , we are in now No. 5, which is a Committee of Ways and Means. Sometime ago, Mr. Chairman , when the people, whoever it was, our former parliamentarians who came up with a process of debat ing money matters, suggested that if you were ever to discuss the expenditures of money in any supply fashion that surely there had to be an equal opportunity or an opportu nity to discuss the raising of the ways and the means, to have in place the funds to support the expenditures in question.

So, Mr. Chairman, I rise only to point to the Minister of Finance that even though we are debating an Interim Supply Bill, that the longstanding tradition of all Houses of Parliament is to provide an opportunity, an opportunity to discuss amongst legislators how it is that we are going to tax ourselves, either in the form of fees or in taxes to raise the necessary funds to support that expenditure. So, Mr.

Chairman , that's why I rise and I suppose before I complete my opportunity to debate within this portion, I will leave the question hanging for the Minister of Finance to address and ask him again whether it is his intention to lay before the membe rs of this House a complete breakdown of all the fees through all the various departments. Mr. Chairman , lest I remind you, and I know you've gone through this revenue booklet in detail, I know you have. One would see from page 2 to page 6 - and Mr.

Chairman, there only are nine pages - but pages 2 through 6 represent all the revenues in the forms of fees, in the forms of - well , they use the word "sun dry " - in the forms of fines, in the forms of land title fees, in the forms of program costs and certificates and so on and so forth. Mr. Chairman, that represents this year an accumulated figure of $345 million, an increase of $30 million, an increase of 11.3 percent over the year previous. 590 So, Mr.

Chairman, I think it's incumbent upon the government, as quickly as possible and hopefully within the next half hour or so, to lay before us greater deta il associated with revenues brought forward in the form of fees . Again , Mr. Chairman, as people would realize a whole two-third s of the revenue forecast figures are directed towards that area of govern men t revenue collection. HON. E. KOSTYRA: As always, we will attempt to answer as many ques ti ons that members opposite will raise . But I would just point out a couple of points in response to what the Member for Morris has indicated .

Yes, we are in Ways and Means; and Ways and Means Committee is established to look at the raising of revenues in certain cases under certa in bills; revenue bills do get referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, but the specific resolution that's before us is very clear. It states that we are dealing with a resolution to providing the Supply granted to Her Majesty for certa in expenditures. We're dealing with the expenditure side of the opera tion in ter ms of the reso lution that's before us. We will be pleased if the member has specific requests for information on specific fees to attempt to answer them .

Not all of the fee decisions are available . Many of them have been decided previously, and have been reported in the normal fashion as fees are decided. The member knows that fees in many cases are determined by regulations pursuant to certain acts of this Legislature . The member will also be aware that many of the fee increases that manifest themselves in the revenue Estimates that are detailed in the bookle t on revenue have already been filed in the normal fashion. If the member has specific questi ons we can answer them.

As an example, if there are increases in here regarding the Department of Community Services for Vital Statistics , those fee increases were announced previously and gazetted, what have you , in the normal fashion. I don't have that detail here; I don't have the time to start going through and providing that information on fees previously. I can indicate that the increased revenue in that area is a result of previous fee dec isions . The same is true with respect to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There are fee increases related to the operations of the Securities and Real Estate Board .

Thos e fees are as a result of decisions that were taken previously, gazetted and announced with respect to increases in various transactions as they relate to the Public Securities Commission , fees for securities, fees for real estate. So those have already been announced and I don't have the details here. I don't know if the Minister of Consumer and Corpo rate Affairs has those details. I'm sure he will attempt to provide it if the member doesn 't have a copy of that news release or that information as it was filed at the time of those increases .

So we will attempt to answer the questions even though that is not the specific reference of this resolution or this subsequent bill that will be befo re us as we get further into our procedure . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Member for Morris.

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 MR. C. MANNESS: I accept basically everything the Minister says ; however, I point out to him that , because suc h a large port ion of revenue is starting to come forward via fees and that the government is beginning to use them as a major ta x sou rce , because indeed the rates of revenue incr eases are much higher than the rate of expenditures, I would recommend to the Minister that he put out a listing, indeed on a yearly basis , and if that should accompany the Budget , that would be fine. Mr.

Chairman, I looked in the back of one of the Deeter Reports and, of course, the re were all the fees laid out before me. A MEM BER: Pages and pages of them. MR. C. MANNESS: Pages and pages of them , that's right. So maybe it isn't necessary to put out 1,000 documents with them. It seems to me that they must be collected somewhere. In a statistical fashion, they must be collected somewhere.

I also realize that regu lations will come into place and may outdate some of those figures in a quick fashion , but I found that a very useful piece of information because , for once, I've seen where all the fees of government totalling $350 million had been collated under one cover. I see some benefit in that. I see some benefit in Manitobans knowing that there is one sou rce to which they can go and find those figures.

My strong recommendation to the Minister of Finance for his consideration is that, another year, he provide just a simple update of those series of pages, because then indeed all of us can do a better job. We can do a better job preparing for Estimates and , indeed, we can do a better job of indicating to our constituents who constantly call us, Mr. Chairman, who do not have access to the regulations as printed within the Gazette , who do not have access to other areas, but who in many cases call those of us who represent them and ask us those questions.

I think that , if members had that on file with all the other tax information that the Minister provi des, bases the taxes in place and all other provincial jurisdiction s, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a benefi cial document. HON. E. KOSTYRA: It's an excellent idea. I'll review it with staff of the department and see if we can't provide that kind of document on a timely basis . I don't know if it can actually be a document that will be filed as part of the actual Budget or something subsequent during the year, because some of those fee increases take place at various times.

But I think that we could look at what the most appropriate time in the fiscal ye ar is and have that kind of updating in one comprehensive document. I think it's an excellent idea. I'll pursue it and report back, probably not dur ing this point in time , but hopefully by the time we review the Estimates of the Department of Finance. I could probably give you a definitive answer by then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it then the will of the committee to adopt this resolution? If the committee has agreed, resolut ion is adopted. Shall the committee rise? 591 Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION The Committee of Ways and Means adopted a certain reso lution , reported same and asked leave to sit again. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Mad am Speaker , I move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet , that the report of the committee be rec eived . MOTION presented and carried. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. E. KOSTYRA introduced, by leave, Bill No. 9, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1987. SECOND READING BILL NO. 9 - THE INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT, 1987 HON. E.

KOSTYRA presented , by leave , Bill No. 9, The Interim Appropriation Act , 1987 , for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I did provide to the Opposition Finance critic a copy of my speaking notes providing for information regarding the various aspects of Bill No. 9. Basically it does do what the Oppositon House Leader indicated in terms of providing 20 percent of the amount to be voted of the main appropriation excluding statutory items to be voted to provide enough Supply to approximately the middle of June.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I've only got a couple of minutes that I want to bring something to the attention of the House under this particular aspect of the Interim Supply . On Wednesday, March 25, I had the opportunity of voting against the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance to approve, in general, the budgetary policy of the government. I just want everybody in this House to know that I was elected to represent my constituency and the people that voted for me, Mad am Speaker.

I felt that I had the opportunity of voting against that Budget. I supported the amendment that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition had proposed , and I was prepared to vote against that amendment. In so doing, the criticism , the discriminatory remarks , that were made

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 by the government because I took the opportunity to stand up and vote against this Budget, because it was the policy that I felt that my constituency wanted, the discriminatory remarks that were made, particularly by the Minister of Native Affairs who made a remark where he blasted the Tories for their insensitivity to Native issues, that is absolutely wrong, Madam Speake r. There is no insensitivity on my part towards Native affairs. No remarks, and keep your God damn mouth shut while I'm talking! SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please. Order please.

MR. A. KOVNATS: That's my business. I'm here to MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . Would the Honourable Member for Niakwa please come to order? I was listening to the remarks of the Honourabl e Member for Niakwa. In those remarks he used some profanity that I would hope he would withdraw before we continue with the other remarks that he is making . Could the honourable member please withdraw those remarks? MR. A. KOVNATS: Madam Speaker , I didn 't have on the hearing piece , and I didn 't hear what remarks you had made concerning my remarks . Would you repeat them, please. MADAM SPEAKER: Certainly.

I distinctly heard while the Honourable Member for Niakwa was making his case his useage of a couple of words of profanity. Would he please withdraw those remarks, so that we can continue hearing the case that he was making? MR. A. KOVNATS: Madam Speaker , it's an unnatural way for me to act. I guess I get a little worked up, and I must apologize for making these remarks that were unparliamentary . MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. MR. A. KOVNATS: And I do apologize . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa may continue . MR. A.

KOVNATS: Madam Speaker, I am here to represent my people , and my people wanted me to vote against the Budget of the New Democratic Party Government that was proposed by the Minister of Finance. In so doing and in following the rules, I wanted to take my place here and vote against it. To be criticized in the discriminatory manner in which I was criticized just leaves me beyond words, Madam Speaker .

In the paper , it says: ". . . a surprise vote was taken." Well I know that they're not responsible for the wordings in the paper, "a surprise vote." I think th at it's a necessary thing, and it's not a surprise vote. The vote was to take place and it did take place under the 592 Rules of the House , and to be criticized for it? I'm not trying to make any politica l points , Madam Speake r. SOM E HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER : Order please, order please. MR. A. KOVNATS: Madam Speaker, I'm not trying to make any political points.

I'm just trying to state facts because , when it comes to making political points for myself, I'm going to win my seat. I'm not worried about that. That's not what I'm here for. But I think it's got to be held in perspective , the false accusations, the feelings and the indigna tion that was shown because I took my time in voting, but all within the limits . I now know that there was some discomfort on the part of the First Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs in going to a meeting in Ottawa .

I really don 't • know the consequences, but to be accused of my insensitivity to Native issues - absolutely wrong , very frustrating , Madam Speaker. I have heard these accusations, not just from the Minister of Native Affairs and not just from the Prem ier of the Province of Manitoba, I also heard them from the Attorney-General. Madam Speaker, it's beyond belief. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Orde r please, order please. If other members of the Chamber would like to have a conversation, I'm sure they can find a mutually satisfactory place to carry that on.

The Honourable Member for Niakwa has the floor. The Honourabl e Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I heard somewhat the same accusations from the Attorney-General when I returned to the House to vote. I heard the Government House Leader making somewhat the same accusations. When they make reference to the Conservative Opposition, Madam Speaker, I happen to be one of the Conservative Opposition. So when these accusations are made, they 're levelled at me. But I'm not demanding, I'm not even asking for an apology on these discriminatory remarks, Madam Speaker.

I'm not one to carry a grudge . I'm not going to fight back in the same manner in which the government has fought. I would just like it to be on the records that I don't appreciate it. I'm not one to sit in my chair and make remarks across to the government. I don 't support that type of action in the House . I think, if you've got something to say, you get up in your place and you say it.

I remember making an ungentlemanly remark to the member who asked the question that I thought was a set-up to try and embarrass me and my group more, when the Member for Thompson got up to ask a question concerning the vote and whether the Premier was able to get to Ottawa in time for an important meeting. I did make an ungentlemanly remark from my seat , which is absolutely not normal for me. Withou t anybody even knowing what the ungentlemanly remark was, I apologize for making it from my seat. A MEMBER: He's not really a horse's ass, Abe.

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 MR. A. KOVNATS: I wasn't about to divulge it, whatever I had said. It was my business and my business only. Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of presenting my case and making my remarks. I just want the people from the government to know how I fee l. I've never been this worked up before, Madam Speaker, I've never been this worked up before , not because of the Budget. I had a chance to speak on the Budget yesterday and I spoke on it, and it was gone. You know, it's a fail accompli. I don't have that much opportunity to change things, because I am a member of the Opposition.

But one day, Madam Speaker - it's not a threat - I'm going to work to see th at the people who embarrassed me in this regard will not have the opportunity to embarrass me again. Thank you , Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris . MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Madam Speake r. We're in Second Reading of Bill No. 9, and I'd like to make a few comments too with respect to activities of last evening .

I can sense - I can share , I should say, the mood of utter frustration of the member, my colleague behind me, Madam Speaker , who rises in representation of his constituents and has to be berated, like indeed all of us were last night when we conducted our activities in the confines of the Rules of this House - within the confines of the Rules of th is House! Now, Madam Speaker, I'm not going to stand here and justify the actions that were taken last night.­ (lnt erjection)- Well, the Member for The Pas says, I can't. Madam Speaker, let me tell you one thing.

If the bells or the rules had allowed for 10 hours to let the bells ring before we had to come to vote on this Budget, Madam Speaker, if it had taken 10 days, if it had taken 100 days , it would have taken us that long to come in and vote on the Budget. We would have taken it to the limit that the rules provided. Madam Speaker, we were voting on a Budget. Governments have fallen on Budgets, Madam Speaker. Indeed, this government was two votes away from falling on this Budget, Madam Speaker .

So let's remember the issue; the issue was the Budget of the Province of Manitoba and the main purpose , the main reason that each and every one of us are representatives of anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 Manitobans each, Madam Speaker. That's why we've been elected to this House. The tradition of Parliament, Madam Speaker, is such that our primal purpose for being here is, No. 1, to represent the taxpayer .

Madam Speaker, there can be no greater financial document before us than the Budget , the Budget that asked us to consider expenditures in the area of $4.2 billion ; that also asked us to consider, in principle , tax measures that are going to bring forward $3. 7 billion revenue, in principle two new tax measures including an attack on property . Yet, members opposite say that we're doing someth ing wrong in the confines of the Rules when we allow the bells to ring for one hour.

Well, Madam Speaker , we totally reject that, and we totally reject the slurs of racism that came across the hall last night too, came across this Chamber , well 593 heard, well in the hearing of every member of this House . Those members shou ld have been called to attention, Madam Speaker , but they weren't. Madam Speaker , last night up till two or three days ago , we were led to believe the Premier wasn 't even going to Ottawa , as of last night. He wasn 't even going to go . MADAM SPEAKER: I would remind the honourabl e member that the motion before the House is Second Reading on Bill No. 9.

Our Rule 30 says that "Speeches shall be direct to the question under consideration . The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Of course you 're right , Madam Spea ker. I accept your admonition . Madam Speaker, we're discussing Bill No. 9, Interi m Supply. Of course , a lot of that Interim Supply is directed towards the Budget , approximately 20 percent of the Estimates tha t have been laid down before us. Last night, Madam Speaker , we voted on that Budget and , also last night , members of this Hou se decided for some politica l reason - we made our views known, Madam Speaker.

We were protesting a terrible Budget , a devastating Budget , Madam Speaker. We were very open in what our reasons were for letting those bells ring for one hour. We didn 't hide it, not at all, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Mines and Energy says that we sneaked out. No, there 's no such word as " snuck ." If you look in Webster 's, you 'll never find such a word as "snuck." Anyway, Madam Speaker , we sneaked out, and we did so to give Manitobans an opportunity to do one of two things, first of all to look at their pay slips .

We asked them, through that protest last night , to look at their pay slips and/or to look at their income tax forms. Well, Madam Speaker , if we succeeded in causing 50 percent of tax-paying Manitobans , tax filers of this province to look at their personal income tax and to see what impact this new Budge t, the new principles of taxation , the new measures of taxation will have upon their disposable income, then we were successful. I don't apologize to members opposite.

I certainly don't apologize to the Premier of this provinc e who , instead of arriving in Ottawa , Madam Speaker , at roughly ten o'clock or a quarter after ten , Ottawa time, may have arrived at eleven o'clock, because nobody had shown me an agenda of the First Ministers' Conference where indeed the meeting was called to order at eight o'clock last night, or that the first item was dealt with at either ten o'clock or eleven o'clock last night, Ottawa time .

And that's what the members opposite failed to acknowledge , Madam Speaker , when they went out of cours e to try and salvage something from last night, and the fact that we were putting through , with a very small margin of two votes in this House, a most disastrous Budget. Madam Speaker, I come back specifically to Bill No. 9. As my colleague , the Member for St. Norbert, has indicated, there is agreement between both sides . The government needs monies to operate into the next fiscal year. It's not our intention, in any fashion, to hold up the passage of this Interim Supply Bill, Madam Speaker .

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 We have a number of members on this side who want to ask specific questions of various Ministers, and I believe we have a number of members who would like to make general comments specific to areas within the Budget, within the areas of Estimates. Then we also have a few members , Madam Speaker, who did not have an opportunity to be part of the Budget Address or the Throne Speech Address who would also maybe like to make a few comments.

Madam Speaker , we have deliberately requested of the government that there not be a consideration beyond 20 percent of the total expenditures of government under the Interim Supply Bill No. 9, that we deal with roughly at this time a figure of $750 million. Madam Speaker, isn't it interesting that, in the period of 10 years, we are going to pass a bill allowing the government to spend .75 billion and we're going to do so in the space of about two or three hours of debating time. Madam Speaker, this .75 billion doesn't represent 25 percent of the total expenditures forecast of the government .

Isn't it interesting that in today's realities, when we have inflation at 4 percent, isn't it interesting when today we have revenue increases being outstripped by expenditure increases. Isn't it interesting, in these days when we have a general decline in the forecast of the economy nation-wide and indeed, Madam Speaker, a decline in the Manitoba economy - not significant.

I'll say to the Minister of Finance and members opposite who, I know, are very proud of the economic statistics , the economic factors that allow the measurement of one province versus another , I acknowledge that some of those factors would allow members opposite to feel some satisfaction . But I say to you and to anyone who wants to listen that so many of those factors have been purchased through borrowings. They have been bought.

So when I say, when I indicate to the Minister of Finance and to members opposite that I am terribly concerned as to where this province is heading in a fiscal sense, I don't see how it is the Premier, the First Minister, can come forward and say that he expects that, if this happens and if something else happens, the Budget will be balanced in 1991 . I say, they're playing politics; they're playing too much politics with the fiscal future of this province.

Of course , over the next while , it'll be our goal to demand of the Minister of Finance a better accounting as to the future revenues that will be in place to allow the Premier to come forward and say that possibly the Budget will be balanced in 1991. Madam Speaker , this Interim Supply Bill covers roughly a time of two months - pardon me - two-and­ a-half months, till June 15. We fully expect to be, at that time , debating another Interim Supply Bill.

We at that time will be interested or will have had the opportunity at least to have been able to have gone through a number of the departments of government , and we'll have a better opportunity to know specifically what plans the government has in place for the expenditure of many of the funds in question. Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to say that we also notice yet another mention of the word , Manitoba Properties Inc. Although the Minister of Finance did not read his speaking notes into the record, I thank him for providing them to me at an earlier date .

I indicate to all members of the House that again we 594 recognize the fact that Manitoba Properties Inc. , that quick, slick, trick-of-hand brought forward by the former Minister of Finance, is still something that this present Minister cannot, in any way, cover over. He has to address it over and over again, as he did within his speaking notes on Bill No. 9. Madam Speake r, he says th is and I quote, and he t_alks about the additional amount of future commitment , authority.

I think he's talking about loan authority, and he says : "The amount of future commitment authority has been slightly reduced in this Inter im Supply Bill, relative to the previous year, from $200 million to $175 million for 1987-88 ." He goes on to say: "This is representative of the future commitment authority required in 1987-88 to provide for the financial obligations under the MPI Lease Agreements ." Madam Speaker, this province has sold off hundreds of millions of dolla rs of buildings - and I'm not going to move into it in great detail now - but every turn that this Minister of Finance makes, indeed every time that the Cabinet, I'm sure , wants to make another decision to spend money, they're hit face up with the fact that they made a decision a few years ago that represents a large incremental portion to the interest bill of this province.

So, Madam Speaker, with those few remarks, I look forward to moving into the Committee of the Whole when we can have a freer exchange. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Coop era tive Development. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I did not intend to enter into the debate today and for that reason, Madam Speaker, will keep my comments short and brief, because I kno w there are many members who want to speak to the issues that have been identifie d already in the debate .

But I could not sit in my seat and let go unchallenged or unanswered the comments by the Memb er for Niakwa and the Member for Morris in respect to what happened last evening. It's interesting to watch them today try to extricate themsel ves from thei r emb arras smen t, because what happened last night is an embarrassment to them; it is an embarrassm ent to all Conservatives in this province. It is an embarrassment because of their actions for the people of this province .

What they did last night, Madam Speaker - and I'm addressing the issues which you allowed them to address earlier in both remarks by the Memb er for Niakwa and the Member for Morris - was to prevent the Premier of this province from attending a historic meeting of all First Ministers to deal with issues that are of primary importance, not just to the aboriginal peop le in this province , but to all people in this province and all people in this country. They now tell us that they didn 't mean to do what it was they actually did. What do they say they intended to do?

Well, now they tell us that they did mean to do what they intended to do . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. We now have in front of us Bill No. 9. I cautioned the Honourable Member for Morris to direct his remark s to Bill No. 9.

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 The Honourable Minister of Co-op Development. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , I believe I am in the finest position of this House addressing my comments to those provisions which are provided for in Bill No. 9. Bill No. 9 is an omn ibus bill and addresses all issues of concern to this House. The issue which I am addressing right now is one of concern to all members of this House and to all Manitobans . They said last night, Madam Speaker, that all they wanted to do was stop the Budget .

That's what they told us and they 're saying right from their seats , that's all they wanted to do to stop the Budget. Well, let's look at how that argument unfolds . By the time they left this Chamber , there had already been a vote , a recorded vote , ayes and nays with members standing in their place and indicating how it was they were going to vote on the Budget which defeated their amendment. They knew they couldn't stop the Budget if they stay ed out of here an hour, two hours , four hours, four days or four months.

So, if they say they left this Chamber in order to stop the Budget - and that's what they just reconfirmed - what they are saying, Madam Speaker, rings somewhat hollow , because if they really wanted to attempt to do that, they should have left before the amendment vote was taken. They had already lost one vote five minutes before they left the Chamber. There was no reason at that time to ring the bells to stop the Budget.

They also said , Madam Speaker, by that action they wanted to highlight their opposition and their concerns and their questions - and let them stop me if I'm miscons truing anything they've said - about the Budget. The Member for Morris said there was no greater document before us, that they had to take that action. Madam Speaker, why didn't they ask one ques tion during the question period on the Budget? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh , oh! HON. J. COWAN: Why didn 't they ask one question during the question period?

The Hansard yesterday, and I'll rea d off the listing of the questions , Madam Speaker : Oral Questions ; MPIC - submissions to the Board; Archives - signature on document; Archives - records on microfiche ; MP IC - Minister 's press conference . Well, I'm sorry, the Member for River Heights asked a question on "Statutory debt payments - reduction of, " in the Budget. By the way, the Member for River Heights has very clearly indicated that she resents being lumped in with members of the Conse rvative Opposition . I can 't blame her.

When we do that, it is unfortunate as an oversight on our part and we will certainly try to correct that situation. A question on "Treaty Land Entitlement" from the Member for Arthur . Finally, we got around to farmers and agriculture. It seems that we're always gett ing around late in the question period to farmers and agri culture , but finally the Member for Virden got up and asked a question on deficiency payments.- (Interjection)- The Minister of Agriculture tells me that he suggested that farmers are 595 very pleased with the federal contributions to incomes for 1987 , Madam Speaker .

That comment should be put in every rural newspaper in Manitob a and Saskatchewan, so that the people of those two province s know full well what Conservative members believe in respect to those d efic ienc y payments. They 're sufferi ng and they 're suggesting ove r there that farmers should be pleased with what's happening to them. Then there was a question on the "Yellowhead Route - federal funds ." Then there was a question on " Highway s - reduction in services." Then there was a question on " Anishinabe." Then there was a question on " Child Abuse Review Committee Report.

" Well, we came close to the Budget bec ause someone asked about the payment for that report but it didn't reference a Budget. Then there was a question " The Manitoba Labour Relations Act - legislation ." Then ther e was a question on "MLA's - int imidation of. " You know , they're embarrassed today because of what they did last night , and I would suggest they did what they did last night because they were embarrassed because they hadn 't asked any questions in the question period on the Budget.

If they had directed their attention to the Budget during the question period, they wouldn 't have been so embarrassed that they had to pull that stunt last night which is so embarrassing them today. So let's accept that they intended that they were attempt ing to draw attention to the Budget that they had failed to draw attention to for the last number of days. They blew it, Madam Speaker. They became so obsessed with what they believe to be scandal, and so obsessed with what they believe to be the foremost issue in Manitoba, that they put aside the concerns of farmers.

They put aside the concerns of Manitobans over the Budget and they focused only on MPIC. Now , that's their right. That's their prerog ative , that's their choice, and it's a choice they obviously made. I believe it was a wrong choice . I believe the public would believe it was a wrong choice.

But having made that choice and having had to suffer the embarrassment of making that choice, please don't have them then by some trick, some cute stunt - for whatever purpose it was intended - had the effect of not allowing Manitoba to be represented at a very historic meeting, because -(Interjection)- Well, the Memb er for Emerson says that, I believe he used the word " fiddlesticks " - I don 't believe that's unparliamentary - and he said he knew he couldn't make it anyway.

Let me tell you what happened and let me ask the Member for Emerson to correct the record if I'm at all wrong in explaining the chronology of what happ ened.

As soon as the bells started ringing , the Premier of this province went out of this Chamber to talk to the Leader of the Opposition who was just across the hall giving a press conference to tell him how important it was that he be at that meeting last evening where the First Ministers of this country were attempting to work out a consensus which would provide for a successful First Ministers ' Conference , and he did that, Madam Speaker . -(Interjectio n)- Well , I think the Member for Charleswood said it started this morning - I want to get to that point - but let me finish.

I then followed, probably within 10 minutes of the bells ringing and talked to the Whip , the Member for Emerson directly, and I said we are concerned because

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 there is a plane waiting for the First Minister to get him to the meeting on time. The Whip told me every thing was under control and not to be concerned . He agree s from his seat that's right. At that time, I had no indication that we were going to have to wait the hour nor did any members on this side have any indication. I'm not certain that the Member for Emerson knew. I don 't know. But, what he told me was not to be concerned , everything was under control. Then we waited and we waited and we waited and we waited . That inconvenience, Madam Speaker, did not bother us personally.

It was not the matter that we waited in this Chamber for an hour for them to return . Those are the rules and we understand that. What agitated and bothered us on this side, and I bel ieve what is now embarrassing members on that side, is that they made the people of Manitoba and the people of this country and the aboriginal people wait, wait , wait, wait , so that they could try to extricate themselves from their embarrassment of not having focused on the Budget during the Budget Debate. That's what is so agitating .

I remembe r the Minister of Northern Affairs , the Minister responsible for Native Affairs, the only, to my knowledge Treaty Indian Cabinet Minister in this country stand out in the hall last night and say to the press, we have waited for centuries for this meeting , and now because of the parliamentary games they're playing, we are losing our opportunity to be a part of that. That was in fact the effect. They say the meeting wasn't that important. -(Interjection)- Okay, I'm sorry. They're saying they didn't say that. I thought I heard them say -(Interjection)- they said the meeting just started today.

Well, the Member for Sturgeon Creek says that's true, well then why did the Prime Minister, his leader , send a Challenger Jet to this province so that the First Minister of this province, our leader, and a man who has been very instrumental in the entire First Ministers' Conferences on Aboriginal Rights trying to bring justice to a situation that for far too long injustice has prevailed, why did they send that jet here?

They sent the jet here because the Prime Minister of this country thought that the meeting was so important and the presence of Manitoba was so important that they would send a Challenger Jet here so that the very minute the vote was over, they could get on a plane and at least make the last hour of the meeting. Because we had to sit and wait for 55 minutes while members opposite caucused or did whatever they did and then another five minutes while the Member for Emerson, the Whip, had a cigar ette outside the Chamber -(lnterjection)- MR. A. DRIEDGER: I take exception to that. HON. J.

COWAN: Well, perhaps he didn't have a cigarette , but I will tell you , Madam Speaker, that the Member for Emerson when everyone else in t his Chamber was in their seats was outside in that room right over there . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The honourable member well knows he is not to make reference to the absence or presence of members. HON. J. COWAN: Well they yell over, Madam Speaker, that I'm a desperate man; if ever we saw a desperate 596 group of desperadoes who were caught in their own embarras smen t. I retract that, Madam Speaker.

I'm not certain whether it's parlia mentary or unparliamentary but it's not even true . If ever we saw a group of desperate men and women though, we saw them last night when they played the stunt they felt they had to play. Madam Speaker, the Premier did not make the meeting. I don't know what was said at that meeting, but I do know that Manitoba , who has been play ing a key role in the aboriginal conferences, was not represented.

It's not a matter of the Premier not being there; it's not a matter of the Minister of Native Affairs not being there ; it's not a matter of the Member for Arthur not being there; it's a matter of the people of Manitoba were not represented in that room because they felt they had to let the bells ring the full hour to draw attention to a Budget that they had failed to draw attention to because they had been so obsessed with other matters for the last week that they had forgotten all about the fact that the Budget was before this House and an important issue to all Manitobans .

So, they say what they intended to do was draw attention to the Budget. I suggest there were better ways to do that. They say what they had intended to do was to stop the Budget if they could. I say that after the first vote they knew that was not possible so there must have been other reasons. They say, Madam Speaker, that they did not intend to stop the Premier of the province attending that meeting, but the fact is all they did - I don 't believe they drew atte ntion to the public; we know they didn't stop the Budget - all they did was prevent the Premier from attending the meeting.

They knew that would happen. They cannot now stand and say it wasn 't an important meeting , because if it wasn 't an important meeting , their leader, the Prime Minister would not have sent that jet to rush the Premi er of this province to that meeting so he could attend at least a part of it. That is regrettabl e. I do not know if the First Minis ters' Conference is going to succeed or fail. I hope it succee ds. But I do know the chances of that success have been significantly lessened because of the stunt they played last night. They will say it was just a supper meeting.

As a matter of fact one of them from his seat earlier said it was just "di n-din".

That's how much they respected the process that was taking place, but the fact is when you have all the First Minis ters around the table with the Prime Minister, at the request of the Prime Minister, without the glare of the cameras on, without reporters being there, so that they can attempt to work out a consensus that is in the best interests of not only the aboriginal people of this country but all people of this country and that conference takes place with one - and a key First Minister - being absent because of their actions, I sugges t to you , Madam Speaker , that they have don e a disservice to all Manitoba , to all Canada, and that is why they stand up in such embarrassment today.

Maybe it will not have all been for naught if a lesson is learned from it. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No way. HON. J. COWAN: Well, they say "no way." They say they won't learn a lesson from it. So perhaps it's not

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 even important that I share my thoughts with them but for others who are listening . Madam Speaker, these opportunities, these historic occasions, these meetings of this significance come about so rarely that we have a responsibility , a ll of us have a responsibility, to ensure that the work that has tak en place through those meetings is the most productive and pos itive work possible.

That responsi bility was failed last evening by the members opposite when they so blatantly - and I won't use words that they were insensitive , I don't know that to be the case - prevented the vote from taking pla ce . If they didn't know, they should have known full well the effect that would have on the First Minister s' Conference, Madam Speaker . It was shameful; it was unnecessary. I thi nk that is why today we see the situation we have. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I shouted from my seat at the Government House Leader that he was a desperate man and I want to justify my statemen ts in that. One of the reasons obviously why the House Leader's been standing here lecturing us is because he has faulted in his operation in running of the business of this House, and that is where the problem stems from. That is where the problem stems from the day that we started coming into Session. He's goofed and he's goofed time and tim e again, Madam Speaker. I'll illustrate exactly what has happened.

From the time that you called the House back into Session. we had our Throne Speech; we had to have the Budget Debate; we had two days where basically there was very little going on. Their own members had to speak to bills because there was no business to do. But , Mada m Speaker, what is most interesting , when he tries to lecture us about the shameful deed we did, well, that is our responsibility here in this House. The Member for Morris indicated exactly the reason we did that. But let's get down to the basics. As Whip for the Opposition , I want to indic ate a few points here , Madam Speaker .

Whenever I've had a reques t, and this has been our working guidelines , and the government Whip knows whenever there's a federal­ provincial arrangement and a request is made for a pair, they've always got a pair. Madam Speaker, why was there no request for pai ring for the Premier , for the Minister responsible for Native Affairs , why was there no request? I would've granted it. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, there we are, poor timing and planning on the House Leader's part.

That is where the whole problem stems from , and that's why he gets up in this House and tries to lecture us. It's his own stupidity in this degree in terms of running the business of this House that it's happened. Why, Madam Speaker, was there no request for pairing? I've honoured every one; I've never crossed anybody up and I would've done it again. Why? Why would the Premier not take and ask for a pair? 597 Madam Speaker, when he talks of being ashamed , he should be the one that's ashamed because of the way he' s run the affairs here .

Madam Speaker, initially it appeared that the Premier would not even go, or that he'd go on a commercial flight and he would have arrive d late last night. The Federal Government said they would like to have the Prem ier there , so th e Federal Government flies in a plane - to wai t on the tarmac. whe never th e Premier is ready - to fly him dow n. But at the best of times, Madam Speaker , because there was no request for pairing, if he had left at quarter­ after-six, he would not have made that meeting in time.

He would not have made the meeting in time, when you consider the time it takes to driv e from here to the airport. Even if you speeded, whatever the case may be , it takes a certain amount of time till it gets off, the time it flies , by the time he lands and takes a cab. Madam Speaker, just so we get the record straight , it takes you approximately close to 40-45 minutes to take a cab from the airport down to the -(lnterjection)- 15 minutes. So, Madam Speaker, what the House Leader has been doing is distorting the facts here.

He's distor ing the facts because he himself is trying to absolve himse lf of the blame of the way he's conducting the business of this House. I want to give you another illustration, Madam Speaker, of how poorly he runs this House. A bill was introduced, Bill No. 2, having to do with Daylight Saving Time, a government bill. Madam Speaker, through this malfunction of this House Leader, that bill can't be processed. It can't be processed. Again, a House Leader who has got his head in the sand, and then tries to get up, Madam Speaker , and tries to say that we don't know ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. J. COWAN: I wonder if the Member for Emerson would entertain a question. MR. A. DRIEDGER: No, Madam Speaker. He had his chance to make his points. and I'm going to take this chance to make mine. Never mind this business of questions . Yes, for the first time, Madam Speaker, I always felt the Member for Churchill, as House Leader , has been pretty good in manipulating things in terms of the house business. He's managed to work that well in conjunction with our House Leader. They've done well.

But he screwed up the business of the House from the day it opened, Madam Speaker , and that is why we have this problem. Then to try and justify it, he gets up and lectures this whole House because we let the bells ring for an hour, rules that he made. Madam Speaker, if we had wanted to, we could have rung the bells for an hour on the amendment and rung them for another hour on the Main Motion , so don't give us this business of stalling. We knew the timetable as well as you did. What you're trying to do is take away from the impact that that

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 ringing of the bells had for one hour yesterday. Because it's hurt you people, it's drawn the attention lik e we intended it to do of a stupid Budget, a Budget that's going to hurt the people in Manitoba dramatically, and we've illustrated that by ringing the bells. Then for that House Leader to get up and berate us here , and comes up with all kinds of marginal statements in terms of how we've been acting on the whole thing. It's your fault, Mr. House Leader, and you take the credit for it. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour ab le Minister of Energy and Mines on Bill No. 9. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I join to speak on this bill, which pays for the Premier's attendance at the First Min isters' Conference, and I assume pays for the attendance of the Attorney-General, and pays for the attendance of the Minister of Native Affairs as part of a legitimate effort on the part of the Governm ent, and I would believe possibly will pay some of the expenses involved by the Member for Arthur. The interesting thing is that we started debate on this bill with the Opposition getting up and acting very sensitive. They were being terribly defensive.

I could appreciate some aspects of the Member for Niakawa's comments, but when he went so far as to say that somehow we on this side had no reason to be very concerned, many of us were disgusted at what we considered to be the insensitivity of the Conservative caucus when they knew full well what was taking place . Some of the people on the other side have been Cabinet Ministers; some of them have attended First Ministers' Conferences ; they know what takes place at these First Ministers' Conferences .

They know that the dinner preceding the conference is very critical to the conference.- (Interjection)- The Member for Portage la Prairie knows nothing of this, he usually gets up, pipes up from his seat occasionally, not to clarify things . I would just ask him to take a little bit of time . If he wants to get up afterwards and speak on it, fine. But there have been instances, and I've attended these things. He should go back and peddle his onions , I say, Madam Speaker .- (Interjection)- That's right, because we want to talk about the issue.

I would appreciate talking about the issue because we have a grumpy person sitting there again, trying to interject as he usually does . MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's right, we usually get rotten remarks from you , that's why . HON. W. PARASIUK: Pardon . MR. F. JOHNSTON: We usually get rotten remarks from you. HON. W. PARASIUK: Oh, well, that's ... MR. F. JOHNSTON: Low-down, sleazy . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , I've been speaking and we have this case of arrested adolescence on the other side, treating this like a sandbox . . . 598 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

Could honourable members , if they have any remarks to make, please rise to their feet and address their remarks through the Chai r. The Honourable Minis ter has the flo or on Bill No. 9. HON. W. PARASIUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point about it is that these meetings before the conference are critical. You start out by having a dinner and it is after the dinner that you have the real discussion' and the Prime Minister understood that.

That's why he sent a plane here , waiting to pick up the Premier at about one-quarter to six to get the Premier there, so that they could all still meet for some period of time, because they knew that the Premier could have caught a plane at 7: 15, but they wanted to give that extra hour, extra hour-and-one-quarter . I think that was a good move on the part of the Prime Mini ster. It was a statesmanlike move .

There 's an attempt on the part of all Canadians to be statesmanlike on this particular issue, and the one group that wasn't statesmanlike last night was the Cons erva tive caucus of the Province of Manitoba. They were the group in this entire country that were not statesmanlike on this . A tim e when the country called for statesmanship , they were lacking, terribly lacking in that quality, and today they get up and wonder why we were sensitive about their terrible lack of sensitivity , their lack of statemanship with respect to an issue that is an important issue.

This is the last constitutional conference mandated by the last constitutional changes, and that's why people believe that this one can be a make or break conference. Manitoba's been in the leading position, has taken a leading position in these discussions . And now we have all the defensive comments coming from the other side - didn't ask for a pair . . . A MEMBER: Didn't need one. HON. W. PARASIUK: Didn 't need a pair, everything was all arranged . The Premier could have had his voice heard last night.

It probably could have been very critical - very critical to coming to a national consensus with respect to aboriginal self-government within the context of Canadian federation . This could have been a great moment for Canadian history . I hope it still is, but it certainly hasn 't been added to or aided by the tactics of people on the other side. And the timing of the dinne r meeting was established by the Prime Minister. He knew that this was going to be cutting corners very fine, and as a consequence, sent out a plane. A courteous matter, he did it courteously .

We assumed - possibly too much to assume - that Conservatives might have in fact acted - well, we won 't assume that anymore ; I wouldn't assume that. I would not assume that it would take a Conse rvativ e caucus one hour, having voted on this amendment, to go out and decide whether in fact they would vote against it or not. Not one new member attended between the first vote and the second vote. The normal purpose of bells is to allow people to come in for the vote or to go off in caucus to determ ine whether in fact they will vote in one directio n of another. They didn't need that. They didn 't need that time.

They

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 knew full well that they were pulling a cute stunt. A cute stunt that may be too clever by half and was too clever by more than half. It's one that has embarrassed them, as the House Leader has indicated. It is one that I think will embarrass Man ito bans as a whole, because they assume if peop le come here , they will debate the issues and if the Conservatives had such a grave concern about the Budget, why did they spend a whole week guttersniping on MPIC when they didn't spend the time focusing on the Budget ?

I believe that a lot of their own constituents are wondering where the prior ities of the Conservative Opposition lie. Do they lie with guttersniping or do they lie with the matters of agriculture? Do they lie with the matter of job crea tio n? Tha t's an interesting thing that you have to discuss with your own constituents and with your own backers. Because so much of what takes place in the House, Madam Speaker , both in the sho rt Session we've had to date and last year 's Session , has been geared to try to protect the backside of the Leader of the Opposition.

That leadership review is taking place on April 18, and hopefully we might have some sanity after that; we may have some sanity. But what's happened is that there's been precious little discussion of major issues , and as a consequence, they found themselves terribly embarrassed . They have made their position clear. They were not acting in protest .- (Interjection)- Fine . I might be mistaken on the date, if it's 11th, fine, but if that is the major difference that makes the Member for Sturgeon Creek happy, I'll say it's not the 18th, it's the 11th . Frankly, that doesn't change the line of argument.

But I want to come back to the Member of Niakwa. His words of protest, unfortunately in th is particular instance, given the magnitude of the mat ter, given its severity, our scene is ringing somewhat hollow , even though I know that the Memb er for Niakwa is a sincere and honourable man. That's why we have that type of difference with respect to perception, but we, on this side , we're very disappointed and very disgusted at what took place last night because it was completely and totally unnecessary. As I conclude, last night called for stat esmanship and the Conserva tive s failed miserably.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member fo r Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you , Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker , the previous speaker stood up and he, in a roundabout way and in his usual manner, when he even dealt with you, just so that he could talk on what he wanted to speak about and we've been speaking it all day, he used some phony excuse about who was paying for the trip and who wasn't. That is the basic, sneaky, roundabout way that he usually does things when he presents himself to people. I noticed that "Chip and Dale " are both laughing over there now. I can accept that.

The only thing that I didn't know was that " Chip and Dale" had become rodents, but it's one of those things . A MEMBER: Stay on the statesmanlike . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well, I was trying to , Madam Speaker, I was going to, but I also heard the sarcastic 599 remarks started by the Member for Transcona to the Member for Portage la Prairie. What he doesn't realize is that I can give and take it - I can take it too - but it usually starts from him and it has been that way for years in the House .

Madam Speaker, the only thing I would say is that when the House Leader got up and said th at this was the most important meeting of the century, an'd then the Member for Transcona talk ed about the process of ministerial meetings or First Ministers ' meetings, I would venture to say to those members on the side who are Ministers know full well that First Ministers' Conferences are set months ahead of time and the Prem ier of this province knew the date he had to attend that long before.

A couple of days ago , when he made the indic ation to Ottawa that he might not want to attend because he was in the Budget Debate and may not vote, so the Ottawa made it appropriate and sent an airplane to take him . The earliest he could have arrived in Ottawa is at least 9: 15 to 9:30, even by Winnipeg time . In fact , he woul d be very fortunate to arrive there by that time, even flying on a government jet. Madam Speaker, if it was the most impo rtant meeting of the century, I can assure you that he would have asked for a pair, if he thought it was more important than his Budget.

If he'd have thought it was - of all of the things that we've heard this afternoon, I'm sure that a pair could have been arra nged. In fact, it would have been arranged because we have not turned down any pairs to Ministers on government business on this side. A MEMBER: That's not true. MR. F. JOHNSTON: I said we have not turned down any pairs to government Ministers who are going to Ministers' Conferences, if you wanted to have it clarified . Madam Speaker, I think there was one last year. Quite frankly, we happen to be in 1987, and that's what I was referring to.

Madam Speaker, I'd also like to say that if the member who was speaking for an hour yesterda y, the Minister of Finance , who was quite concerned when my colleague got up to speak , because there had been some arrangement because he wanted to speak for an hour, the Minister of Finance. When a person stands up or a Minister stands up to close debate on his bill, nobody else can speak after that. He could have sat down any time -(Interjection) - and then the House Leader would stand up and say: " By leave , we have a vote ." We would have a vote.

He could have sat down -(Interjection)- Oh, Madam Speaker , now it comes , now it comes; now we hear them. You see, they're cornered. They realize that it was in thei r hands and not in ours. It was in their hands; it was in their House Leader's hands to do anything he could to see that the First Minister got there. The First Minister did not get there, basically because this House Leader got himself so confused yesterday that it wasn't even funny.

Madam Speaker, when I made the comment about the House Leader being confused and he tried to say that I called Beauchesne a socialist document one day, what I was referring to, what he was doing in the House

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 was at least

chapter 2 of his socialist document. The way it goes is the first thing he does is he usually stands up and says: "I appreciate the question, I'm glad you asked, and I'm certainly happy that the honourable members have an interest." Then he moves quite slowly and casually and very, very smoothly into always blaming the other person. He moves the blame around to the other person 's side and then, Madam Speaker, when that fails, he then starts to go direct blame . He doesn't do it smoothly any more . Yesterday at noon in the question period, he tried to create confusion , because that hadn't been working any more.

Last night, he did the final th ing in the instructions , was to get mad , etc., and tha t is when he lost his cool. He's regained it today to try and throw the blame on this side again and, quite frankly, I've been aware of the phony tactics he uses for a long time. Anyway, Madam Speaker , the members on this side of the House do not apologize for the fact that this government, over the past few years or six years anyway, took the money out of the people's pockets of the Province of Manitoba, like walking to a bridge and just dumping it all in the water.

They absolutely had no regard for the people's money in this province whatsoever , and then we have a Minister of Finance who stands up and says, "I am going to take the biggest tax bite this province has ever seen or any other province, percentage -wise, has ever seen in peacetime. I am going to take that much money out of your pockets ." -(Interjection)- The sales tax did not take this $368 million out . You, by the way, have raised the sales tax twice. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . Remarks will be addressed through the Chair . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Speaker , I'm sorry .

They have taken a tax bite out of the people 's pockets to pay for their mistakes. In other words, they said , "We'll blow your money." As the First Minister was speaking the other day, he said, " When we had lots of money to throw around ... ," and that's exactly what the Member for Rossmere did, throw it around. Now we have a situation where they say to the people of Manitoba, we're going to dig in your pockets because of our terrible spending habits, and we're going to pay for the debts that we put you into by taking your money . Madam Speaker, that's why the bells rang for an hour.

We thought that was important. Quite frankly , the mechanic who I talked to this morning at the service station thought it was important too. I mention this, Madam Speaker . The Member for Rossmere , the Minister of Industry, keeps laughing all the time, and he does that now to just cover up for the fact that he doesn't know how to apologize or he doesn 't know how to answer for his mistakes . That's basically the reason for his so-called laughing humour all the time. I suggest that he should see a psychiatrist.

Anyway, Madam Speaker , we held those bells last night to let the people know, and I believe - and I wasn 't in the House, but I heard it when I was just in the caucus room - that the Member for Morris said that those bells would have rung for a week on that Budget had the rules never changed . We would have done the 600 same thing on this Budge t as we did one other time , when we would have brought the people 's attention to the fact that this government has taken more money out of the pockets of the people of Manitoba than you would ever believe . I have one other thing to say, Madam Speaker.

I'm not apologizing for the bells ring ing . As I said, they'd have rung for a week and, if the First Minister didn't want to go, he could have stayed here for a week as far as I'm concerned. He thought it was so unimportant that he didn't get a pair. Madam Speaker , one of the speakers on the other side of the House in the Budget Debate - and I might say to the honourable gentlemen opposite that there were speakers every day on the Budget and, oth er than one day, there were questions on the Budg et put forward, usually by the Member for Morris .

One of the honourable members on the other side , in his speech, didn't like the fact that I said they were immoral. Quite frankly, I don't retract that. I think anybody who does not tell the truth to the people of the Province of Manitoba, anybody, is wrong. I think anybody who represents himself wrongl y is doing something that is immoral. I think also, Madam Speake r, that when I used the word " immoral, " I said that gambling casinos in Winnip eg are immora l because it' s on the backs of the poor, and I believe that. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

I hope the honourable member is not implying th at honourable members in this House are not telling the truth. The actual phrase "not telling the truth " is listed as one of the unparliamentary phrases in Beauchesne. MR. F. JOHNSTON: If I have said, Mad am Speaker , that they didn 't tell the truth, I'll retract that, but I will say to them that there wasn't anything in their literature that they put out that was factual that they' ve done so far. And I will say that nobody was told during the election campaign that the deficit was what it is.

Nobody was told all these facts that we're having come out about Manitoba Telephones and the Insurance Corporation. Nobody was told those things , so anyb ody can draw whatever conclusion they like . But let's get back to - I believe that you don 't hurt the rich with gambling . I've said this before, you never will. I say that buying tickets is one thing but, to run this province on the backs of the poor and gambling casinos on the basis that you 're going to use the money to build libraries or something else, is immoral, and I won 't retract that.

You can all go home and look at your conscience and, if you all want to go over to the Convention Centre in the next couple of nights and take a look at what 's happening over there, go over and take a look. We have a Minister today who doesn 't even know the age limit. She hesitated to tell us what the age limit is, because she didn't know. Madam Speaker, I can only say this also, that the young people of this province pres ently today have a 9,200 debt ; everybody has.

Madam Speaker, you know our family was blessed with having another grandchild just about four days ago, and he came into the world in Manitoba owing $9,8 00 just because of this government. Every chi ld will come into the world in Manitoba owing that much money. They think it's funny.

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 Every one of the chi ldren who come into the world with this government will have a bill on their back like you wouldn't believe , and they will have to grow up and they'll have to pay it off, and they don 't care. The deficit is still a drastic deficit , especially after yq.u've raised all of the money you have . You've raised all of the fees and everything, as was pointed out by my colleague from Pemb ina yesterday , and they sit and laugh.

So I, like the Membe r for Morris and my colleagues , if that bell could have rung for a month , it would have rung on this Budge t and, if the Premier didn't think it was impo rta nt enough to be there on time, that's his fault not ours . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Thompson . MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, from time to time as a member of Legislature , I'm asked to explain what goes on in this Chamber . Some of my constituents have asked me that question.

I know probably members of the public in the gallery today are probably asking that same question, the members of the press even. I received a note , in fact, indicating there were four journalism students from Red River who were listening in on the proceedings and want to talk to me about it. I'm sure they would ask me what the debate and the discussion is all about. You know , normally I can answer the questions , even on some of our more difficult -to-explain procedures, because there is a logic to our rules, Madam Speaker.

There's a great parliamentary tradition of rules which have been established over centuries for particular purposes . But if there's one thing I could not do as a member of the Legis lature , it's explain to someone what happened yesterday and why the members opposite chose to do what they did , because I feel there is no logical and legitimate explanation. I want to take you through just very briefly what I can explain to members of the public. I can explain that there was a Budget Address on Monday, and then we had eight days of debate where all members had the opportunity to express their views on the Budget.

I'm sure they would agree that is logical on an item as important as the Budge t that there should be that debate. I could then explain that we have a rule which establishes that a vote will be held at a particular time - in this case 5:30 yesterday . That's quite logical. I could explai n that members of the House were present for that vote. In fact , all members of the House were present, which only makes sense. I can explain that we had one vote on an amendment put by members oppos ite, and that all members of the House voted and that then there was a vote on the main motion to adopt the budget ary policy.

I can explain that too . Now comes the tough part . Vote was called, we had ayes and nays. The Opposition House Leader rose in his place and said, ayes and nays , Madam Speaker. Now what did Madam Speaker say? " Call in the members." So what happened? Every single mem ber of the Opposition left the Chamber . How can I explain that to my constituents? They stayed out of the Chamber for 10 minutes, for 20 minutes, for 30 minutes, 601 for 40 minutes . They came back in approximately 55 minutes later and then one member, whom I can 't mention by name, stood at the doorway and we waited another five minut es.

Finally, the vote was called, bang on the hou r, and we finally got to vote on the Budget Mot ions. How can I expla in that to my constituents? "Ca ll in the members ," and all the Opposition members leave. It's not logical. It's also, Madam Speaker , in my opinion an abuse of the rules , because the whole purpose of having the bells rung is to call in the members . It's for the purpose of alerting membe rs who don't happen to be in the Chamber at that particular time of the fact there will be a vote.

In fact yesterday , since all members of the House were in the Chamber when the vote was called , as proven by the previous vote on the Opposition 's amendment , it is obv ious , Madam Speaker , for the Member for Sturgeon Creek, who obviously does not understand the purpose of the rules , that they then decided to grandstand . Well, I suppose I could explain that to my contituents too . That was the real reason, and that's come through in their comments today. They'v e said that the real reason they wanted to extend it for the hour is because they wanted to grandstand on the Budget.

After eight days of debate, after having the opportunity to vote on their amendment , they still felt the need to grandstand . Do you know what I can 't absolutely explain to my constituents is why they did that when the y were fully aware of the fact that the First Minister and the Minster of Native Affairs had to go to Ottawa for what , I believe, is one of the most significant conferences we've ever had, certainly probably the most significant conference on aboriginal rights.

I say that, Mada m Speaker, because in my constituency there are many Native peop le, and many Native people are concerned about aboriginal rights . Now how can I defend what the members of the Opposition did, when they knew full well the consequences of their action , something that was not prescribed by rules - don 't let them suggest that, Madam Speaker - but something that was intended only to grandstand on the Budget. Now how I can explain that to Native people in this province anywhere , and certainly in Thompson.

How can I say to them , well the members opposite really do care about aboriginal rights , when they refused to allow the Premier and the Minister of Native Affairs to attend a very important meeting on the first day of the conference? As I said , Madam Speaker, I can't exp lain that. In fact , I express ed my concern today in question period about this particular issue. I really do believe that, whatever the intention of the members oppos ite was yesterday , it was a slap in the face for the Native people of Manitoba .

I can take the consequences for this government and the embarrassment, quite frankly, for this province of the fact that our delegation was not there . I can take that , Madam Speaker , but I cannot take it on beha lf of the Native people of this province . I th ink the Minister of Native Affairs expressed it appropriately. I'm sure, if you were to talk to him today, Madam Speaker, he would say that Native people have been waiting for centuries for justice , for recognition of their aboriginal rights.

Perhaps in that context, one meeting , Madam Speaker, while frustrating, will not historically make a huge amount of difference.

Thursday, 26 March, 1987 There are two things , Madam Speaker, that I've always found in my discussions with Native people, and those are two things: ( 1) that they do have a respect for tradition, but tradition which is appropriate and has a reason; and (2) that Native people have a sense of fair play, a good sense of priorities. I think, if they were to look at this objectively, they would have come to the same conclusion that the Government House Leader did , that I've come to, that many members in this House have. That is that, in the Opposition's scheme of priorities, the rules are there not to be used for their original purpose but to be used for grandstanding. More importantly that, o