Manitoba Hansard — 5 February 1981 (Sitting 12A, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-12a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 5 February, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR. WARREN STEEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of the Montreal Trust Company and the Montreal Trust Company of Canada, praying for the passing of

an Act respecting the Montreal Trust Company and the Montreal Trust Company of Canada. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr.

Speaker, I have a number of reports which I wish to table at this time: The Annual Report of The Milk Control Board of Manitoba for the year October, 1979 to September, 1980; The Annual Report of The Manitoba Water Services Board, year ending March 31, 1980; The Annual Report of The Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation for the year ended March, 1980; the Annual Report of The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation for the year ended March, 1980; and the Report of the Manitoba Department of Agriculture for April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980. I may note, Mr.

Speaker, that this year there has been a change that the Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture is in both Metric and Imperial measure. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. J. FRANKLIN JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Department of Economic Development and Tourism, 1979-80. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. HON. DONALD ORCHARD (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the Annual Report of Manitoba Data Services for the year ending March 31, 1980. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I have a report and a statement that I'd like to make in relationship to it and copies for the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege this afternoon of tabling the report of the Building Standards Board with its recommendations on how certain apartment complexes should be upgraded to make them safer for occupants. As members of the House are aware, who asked me, a fire took a few minutes to destroy the Fairlane Meadows Building in Winnipeg.

Subsequently, I appointed a special one man inquiry to investigate the Fairlane Meadows fire. It was the third time in Manitoba's history that such action had been undertaken. That report by Hugh MacDermid was filed in the office of the Fire Commissioner in November and is available for the public to read. The Building Standards Board was then asked to review the MacDermid Report and recommend what action should be followed. I · received the Board's report Monday afternoon of this week.

On Tuesday morning my officials and I met with His Worship Mayor Bill Norrie of Winnipeg, Councillor Jim Ernst and city officials to discuss the recommendations of the Building Standards Board. After meeting with Mayor Norrie and the City of Winnipeg representatives two days ago I immediately set up a

schedule of meetings with the mayors of the other towns and cities of Manitoba where structures similar to Fairlane Meadows are located. Tuesday evening, Wednesday afternoon and Wednesday evening my staff and I travelled through rural Manitoba to discuss the situation with Mayors of Portage Ia Prairie, Brandon, Virden, Altona and The Pas. The Mayor of Selkirk and myself met in Winnipeg. Mr.

Speaker, the municipal officials appreciate our efforts to inform them personally about the Building Standards Board Report and to learn that my department will co-operate with them in having the Board's recommendations implemented. The landlords of the apartment complexes, similar to Fairlane Meadows, will be contacted shortly and inspections of their buildings will be carried out. If upgrading work is required with the structure then tenants of that building will be so informed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Without having had the opportunity to peruse the report in detail it's somewhat difficult to comment on the specifics of the report. However, we do commend the Minister and his department for the quick and positive, as well as forceful, action that he has taken in regard to what is a very serious situation. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the same department, the same Minister, have had in their possession for several months, close to a year now or perhaps even over a year, a report on mine safety in this province and have been unble to bring forward the same type of forceful and immediate action to developing policy and developing programs to deal with that very serious situation. So while we commend him on the one hand we only want to use this incident as an example and point it back to the Minister and hope 295

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 that he would exercise his authority in such a way as to deal with a very serious situation that exists in Manitoba's mining industry currently. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge on a point of order. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is an error in Hansard which I would like to have corrected. if I may. On Page 422 Hansard of the Meeting of the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders, I asked a question about people who stand on street corners and hand out tracts. I did not say and hand out trash. Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. I will listen to the tapes and if there's a correction to be made it will be made. Notices of Motion. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. STERLING R. LYON (Charleswood) introduced Bill No. 3,

An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Act (2) (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor). HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne) introduced Bill No. 8,

An Act to amend The Garnishment Act; and Bill No. 10, The Builders' Liens Act. HON. GEORGE MINAKER (St. James) introduced Bill No. 9,

an Act to amend The Social Services Administration Act and to Repeal The Blind Persons' Allowances Act and The Disabled Persons' Allowances Act. (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor). MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Bill No. 14, the Honourable Member for Inkster. (Stand) Bill No. 15, the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: I would like to have this matter stand please, Mr. Speaker. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Urban Affairs. Mr.

Speaker. in view of the decision by the City of Winnipeg Council to cancel plans, intentions pertaining to Sherbrook-McGregor crossing, in view of the fact that funds were allocated for that project, UT AP funds. a question to the Minister of Urban Affairs is can he advise whether those funds will be available for other alternative north-south corridors that may be determined as being preferable by the City of Winnipeg Council to that of the Sherbrook McGregor? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker. as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition will be aware. we allocated a significant amount of the UT AP funds to the City of Winnipeg for construction of the Sherbrook McGregor Overpass some time ago.

Because of the lack of decisions on the part of the city some time ago I advised the Mayor and the members of the official delegation in the City of Winnipeg administration that a decision had to be made relatively quickly, because if they decided not to pursue the Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass, the federal-provincial agreement provides that some $2.3 million in funds which have been allocated to the Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass will have to be reallocated in order to be expended or drawn on prior to March 31 of this year.

In meeting with the Mayor and the Board of Commissioners in the last few days they have assured me that they will be bringing to the Executive Policy Committee immediately a recommendation for reallocation of the funds, perhaps towards the purchase of buses which they do have in their capital budget, so that the $2.3 million allocated in this fiscal year to the construction of the Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass can be allocated to a new eligible project under the UT AP agreement. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister advise whether or not the same is true in respect to those funds that were to be allocated directly from the Provincial Government, the provincial allocation, whether those funds too, in addition to the federal funds, will be made available subject to the discussions to the other north-south corridors or other projects that may be determined upon in order to improve the transportation system within the city? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, unlike the previous government, we have not imposed conditions on the use of the block funding and the allocation of funds by the City of Winnipeg is completely their responsibility to handle themselves to meet the needs of the city. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the answer by the Minister or Urban Affairs simply indicates to me that the Minister of Urban Affairs is hiding something, and that he is not prepared to indicate the direction of his government in respect to urban affairs which we know has been a dismal failure in the past number of years.

Further to the Attorney-General, in view of the announcement by the Attorney-Generals of Saskatchewan and Alberta that they would not be laying charges pertaining to those driving while disqualified because of a Supreme Court decision, can the Attorney-General advise what is his position in respect to such offences in Manitoba? Is that case under review or will he be following the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, as a result of that decision all current prosecutions under

Section 238 of the Criminal Code will be withdrawn and where appropriate proceedings will be commenced under The Highway Traffic Act. We are, at this very moment, consulting with other Attorney-Generals' Departments across the country to determine and ensure that a uniform application of the results of this decision will follow across the country. There is some argument that can be made, Mr. Speaker, that the conviction should stand and that 296

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 those presently serving sentences should continue to serve them. It would appear, however, that at least the provinces of B.C., Alberta and Ontario are releasing prisoners currently held for convictions under

Section 238 and no other offences and I expect perhaps before the end of the question period to be able to indicate, as a result of further information we obtain from other provinces, how we intend to handle that situation in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that with respect to the matters that my honourable friend is now referring to, that prosecutions under the Criminal Code - and the Criminal Code's

section was meant to ameliorate a mandatory seven day jail sentence for driving while disqualified in Manitoba as it then existed - in view of the fact that that mandatory jail sentence no longer exists, wouldn't the Attorney-General agree that prosecutions for· this offence should be, under the existing

section of the Manitoba law, 201(5) which he has referred to? MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I think that it's a time-honoured tradition that questions of a legal nature should not be asked in this Chamber. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking a question of a legal nature. I am asking him whether there is any impediment for the administration of justice to do what the Attorney-General just said that he was going to do, and that is, prosecute under The Highway Traffic Act rather than under the Criminal Code. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made that clear. That is what we intend to do, to prosecute under

Section 201(1) of The Manitoba Highway Traffic Act. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in 1959 the

section of the Criminal Code, which was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday, was challenged in the Manitoba Court of Appeal on exactly the same grounds and unanimously sustained by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in a case in which Joe Bellan was for the accused and I was associate counsel. Does it not indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there are cases in law, that if we allow the court, we are moving in an area where the Manitoba Court of Appeal holds one thing, the Supreme Court of Canada holds something else altogether? MR. MERCIER: Yes, it does, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps it also indicates that the Honourable Member for Inkster should have been handling the appeal in the Supreme Court. MR. GREEN: He should counsel and you would think that we could depend on the judges. Is it also significant, Mr. Speaker, that the head of the Manitoba Court at that time, which has now been reversed after 21 years, was Mr. Justice Tritschler. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Member for Inkster would agree that Mr. Justice Tritschler is a very well qualified, intelligent man. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs and I've ask the Minister if he can confirm that he has informed the Manitoba Metis Federation that he has decided to renege on a commitment by the previous Minister to provide corps funding for the Manitoba Metis Federation and as well he has informed them that this decision is a decision of a permanent nature and that the Provincial Government will no longer be providing any corps funding through the MMF. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Mr.

Speaker, I have notified the MMF that we will be not providing corps funding to them. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the Minister. In light of the fact that the Minister has indicated in the past that any decision to continue or to discontinue such corps funding would be based in large part on the report of the so-called Manitoba Metis Advisory Committee, can the Minister table that report and direct our attention to any suggestion or any recommendation of that committe that would support or substantiate his decision to discontinue this important funding for the MMF? MR. GOURLAY: Mr.

Speaker, I have provided copies of the report to the members opposite, to their caucus room, if they wish a copy tabled in the House I can arrange to do that. The report of the Advisory Committee has been studied and has been taken into consideration with respect to the recommendations that were presented to Cabinet and subsequently passed. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well I can assure the Minister that I have read the report in full and thank him for providing it to the caucus. I think it is a report of a public nature and should therefore be tabled in the House and make that suggestion to him.

I would ask him in fact that if there was no recommendation to discontinue the corps funding, what criteria did the Minister use in coming to that decision? Was it in fact, as we had suggested last year, that it was some sort of a punishment for the MMF for having spoken to their rights on the lot of the Legislature a few years past? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, it was in no way any sense of punishment, it was just using common sense. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Honourable Minister of Health and I gave him notice of this question; I hope he received the notice. Referring to his news release of December 12, 1980, relative to Winnipeg hospital bed capacity to increase and, in particular, to the fourth paragraph 297

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 which reads: "However. a significant portion of the 817 bed total will be supplied by the opening of new or restored wings of at a number of hospitals, Mr. Sherman said. In this category are," - mentions several - "and the municipal hospitals". To what does that refer please. Mr. Speaker, specifically? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for having given me notice of the question. It refers. Mr.

Speaker, to beds that were closed at the Municipal Hospitals last summer, at the time of the hospital service workers' strike and those that have not been reopened as yet in the wake of those closures. All but 27 of the beds that were closed at the Municipal hospitals at that time have been reopened; 27 remain closed at this point in time. The target date for reopening them is March 8th. MRS. WESTBURY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the news release was headed "Bed Capacity to Increase". The beds were closed, as I understand, because of the nursing shortage.

Is the Minister saying that the capacity is increasing when, in fact, these were beds that were closed due to a staff shortage? I wonder if he would be kind enough to explain that, because I find it hard to understand how that is increasing the capacity. MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the statement that 1 made at the time was very carefully worded, I believe, to explain precisely and very candidly what was happening and the system that we hr..ve developed, in close consultation with health facility officials in the medical community during the fall, to improve the availability and supply of beds in Manitoba generally, Winnipeg representing a large portion of that challenge.

We announced at that time, having put the various proposals together, that the capacity of Winnipeg and Manitoba health facilities to supply needed beds would increase by, I think, a total of 817 beds in the course of the next 18 months. We are on target in that project. The situation at the time, as the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge will recall, was one in which, due to a number of pressures, a number of chronic care long-stay patients were occupying acute care beds in hospitals and there was, indeed, great pressure on the acute care hospitals.

The planned reopening of beds that have been closed at the Municipals naturally was a component of any program that was designed to relieve that pressure and so the 27 beds referred to at the Municipal Hospitals were included in that overall spectrum. The 817 beds represents an increased capacity to meet patient requirements over that capacity that existed in the city and in the province last September. MRS. WESTBURY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I understand that it was very carefully worded and the wording is: "f\jew and Restored Wings".

In this category are the Municipal Hospitals and "restored" does not mean the same thing as "reopened", Mr. Speaker. I wonder. then. how many of these other beds that are described in here of the 817, are already beds or wings, portions of wings, that have been reopened due to previous reductions in staff; and if, in fact, we're seeing a new policy whereby we reduce the number of beds in order to later announce an increase in capacity? MR. SHERMAN: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, and I must challenge the honourable member's reference to the wording in that particulaqr statement.

If she reads it I think she'll have to agree that that is not what is said. What is said, that the 817 are in addition to 71 beds that were restored to the system in November through a series of measures announced by the Minister at that time. The restoration has to do with restorations of a series of wings or wards of hospitals; with the opening of special temporary personal care units, two of which have recently been opened and now are in operation; with the addition of facilities such as the McEwen facility at St.

Boniface now open, a new facility; and with the addition of new personal care homes coming on stream this year. The 27 beds at the Municipal Hospitals were in a category that was really a rather unique category within that whole spectrum because they represented beds that had been closed and were being reopened in their present form. The vast majority, 90 percent of the 817 total, are made up of beds that are either beds in new facilities or beds in wings and wards that have been renovated to meet specific needs. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transporation. It is my understanding that last September the Minister was going to have a report prepared, a White Paper, in terms of specialized transportation relating to such things as transportation for handicapped people. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether that White Paper has been prepared yet. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. HON. DON ORCHARD (Pembina): Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't recall the specific reference to a White Paper on transportation.

What has been worked on and developed over the past several months is a position paper on Special Needs Transportation. MR. McBRYDE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder then if the Minister could tell us whether that position paper has been completed and made available to the concerned parties in this province. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the concerned parties of the province were part and parcel of the Committee which provided me with recommendations for policy formulation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas with a final supplementary. MR. McBRYDE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure if the Minister wants to answer my question or not. I 298

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 assume that there is some sort of a written document came out of these meetings. Of the organizations that had some input into that document, have they now seen the completed document? MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the organizations that were part and parcel of the formulation of that document did, in fact, to the best of my knowledge, see the report that came out of the meetings over summer. MR. McBRYDE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Minister could indicate, apparently at the same time there was some commitment to meet, to have a formal meeting in October of this year to discuss this position paper, I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether or not that particular meeting will be held, or whether it will not be held, and I wonder if he could specifically check whether the Manitoba League for the Physically Handicapped, The Pas Division, has ever received a written document or written report on these specialized transportation needs. MR.

ORCHARD: If I might attempt to answer both questions, although I'm not certain to whom and to what meeting he's referring to, the liaison I've had with the Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped has been with one gentleman, with whom I have had several telephone conversations, albeit not a formal meeting in my office. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct this question to the new Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, and I welcome him to his new role.

I wonder if the new Minister is sufficiently aware of the new rate increase package that was announced and whether or not he can confirm that the increases in the deductible on comprehensive claims will shift a large burden of costs, in excess of a million dollars, on motorists who have claims after March 31st. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): It would seem to me, Mr.

Speaker, that would be a very appropriate question for my honourable friend to ask the Chairman, or the General Manager, of Autopac when the corporation appears before the Committee which, I hope, will be very soon. MR. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Possibly I should place this question to the former Minister since the new Minister isn't well aware of the impact of the rates that it will have on motorists in this province, following the 2 cent a gallon rebate that was taken away.

I ask the Minister whether or not the doubling of comprehensive claims from $25.00 to $50.00 will not impact substantially on approximately 50,000 motorists, who would roughly be the category who will have claims in the next year, the amount of money which was not included in the rate increase package at all. MR. JORGENSON: My honourable friend poses his question in such a way as to suggest that instructions for the setting of claims came from the government, and my honourable friend knows better than that.

I, again, ask him and invite him to pose his questions to the General Manager of the corporation when they appear before the Committee. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister then, since he disclaims all knowledge of what goes on in the corporation, I ask the Minister, was it not the government's direction to take away in excess of $14 million in the last two years from the corporation, thus necessitating the type of increase that we've seen this year? MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Speaker, that suggestion comes rather strange from a party that continues to bellow the length and breadth of this province that the price of gasoline should remain low and that no increases should be placed on the price of gasoline. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Wellington asked me two questions relating to discrimination by employment agencies. Mr.

Speaker, I can indicate to him that this matter has been considered by the Human Rights Commission and I have received from them a draft letter which they are sending to all employment agencies in Manitoba, advising and reminding them of the specific legislation in Manitoba,

Section 6(5) which specifically refers to employment agencies and discrimination, advising them that the intent of this

section is designed to prevent discrimination by employment agencies and should complaints be registered with the commission, they will be pursued vigorously to ensure that there is compliance with the Act, and also forwarding copy of their employment advertising in pre-employment enquiry guidelines for the review of the employment agencies. They are hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this will solve the problem that has been uncovered and are not, at this time, recommending any further action but it will be monitored very carefully. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, the 1980 Throne Speech carried the important announcement that orthopaedic shoes will now be covered under Medicare, and since there are some 400 individuals and families affected, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health whether the details of the program have been worked out and whether the program is now in place. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, obviously that's a program for 1981-82. We're working the details out and I'll be announcing them in due course in this Session. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could clarify that comment.

It was my impression that the program would be implemented almost immediately and I have had enquiries irom individuals and from members of different social agencies asking about when they can access that program. Is the Minister now telling us that it is not 1980-81 but that it is 1981-82? 299

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 MR. 51-tERMAN: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has been a member of the government of this province, the past government of this province, he knows perfectly well that the Throne Speech opening a Session lays out, at least in highlight form, some of the programs being proposed for the coming fiscal and legislative year, that they will take effect as of April 1, 1981. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister this question.

Since some people have put the question to me, there have been purchases made from the time. what appeared to be an instant announcement was made last December, in response partly, I think. to urgings from myself, I would ask the Minister whether anyone who has purchased orthopedic shoes since the first announcement in the Throne Speech, or in a period of the next few months, if they are to retain their receipts would they be eligible for reimbursement, or is it a case that they will not be covered until the Minister finally works out the details of the program and makes the announcement somewhere in 1981-82? MR.

SI-!ERMAN: Mr. Speaker, the interest in and relative pressure for coverage of orthopedic shoes, as an insured service in this province, pre-dates the assumption of office by this government by some number of years and certainly existed during the time when my honourable friend occupied one of the benches on this side of the House.

I might also say, although I hesitate to accuse him of cynicism, that I think that if he is, in his discussions with people who are enquiring about it, either avoiding meeting the issue of timing or failing to point out to them that in his knowledge; of government, having been in this Chamber for 16 years, that government programs are announced for the forthcoming legislative year, not the past legislative year, then he is misleading those callers and I would ask him to co-operate with the government, as a good member of this Legislature, in ensuring that he doesn't so mislead them.

I can't answer his question about pre-dating programs of that kind. I would think the answer would be, no. The money, that he and his colleagues and other members of this House voted the Department of Health for 1980-81, is spent. What we do in the future will be done on funds voted for 1981-82. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. A point of privilege? MR. DOERN: The Minister is suggesting that I am attempting to make misleading comment, and I would say. Mr.

Speaker. that it is the Minister who is making the misleading comment since he tried to create the impression that they were responding to a program and that that program was going to be implemented immediately. Mr. Speaker, he is the one who is misleading the general public; he is the one who is trying to create the impression of action. What he is doing is stalling this problem for another year or two. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I've listened to the honourable member. I find he did not have a point of privilege. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, further to the question that was posed only a few moments ago by the Member for St. George and the flippant response by the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, my question to the Minister is, by what realm of imagination can the Minister enjoy to suggest that the extracting of the revenues from 2 cents of gasoline tax and the transferring of that 2 cents in revenue over to the Consolidated Revenues of the Province of Manitoba, maintaining the gasoline tax as it was prior to the transfer, in what way did that reduce the price of gasoline in the Province of Manitoba? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, it did not. I did not say that it reduced the amount of tax but if we were to follow my honourable friend's suggestion, that tax, in order to continue to subsidize Autopac rates, would have had to increase and increase considerably. That's what my honourable friends are suggesting. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, we know that the Minister is rather new to his department, not very familiar with the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, but is the Minister prepared to confirm that if the 2 cents of gasoline tax had been retained by Autopac that the recent announcement of increase by Autopac would not have exceeded 10 percent? MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. May I point out to all honourable members that the question period is a time for seeking information, not for raising debatable points and I find the question raised by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to be out of order.

The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Highways. Last year I had asked him whether there had been approval given for a road between Highway No. 1 and Indian Reserves Nos. 39 and 40 at Shoal Lake and he indicated that he didn't know. I'm just wondering whether that approval has now been given. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. MR. ORCHARD: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SCHROEDER: I have a question to the Minister in charge of Autopac.

Could he tell the House what the amount of gasoline tax was per gallon when that group came into power and what it is today? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister reporting for Manitoba Hydro. I'd like to know if the Minister has received a request from Alcan having to do with their aluminum 300

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 smelter requesting a firm assurance of supply of hydro-electic energy at a very reduced price for a period reported to be 50 years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, all these matters are presently under negotiation with the company. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask further of the same Minister whether the proposed feasibility study by Alcan is contingent upon receiving such an assurance of such a price and such a deal from Manitoba? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, it's subject to any number of things. MR.

WALDING: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, assuming the reports to be true that a feasibility study is contingent upon that assurance, can the Minister tell us whether the matter is still under consideration by the government and when he expects a decision to be made in this matter? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to the member's question is that he shouldn't make that assumption. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a further question for the Honourable Minister of Health.

I wonder if he would be kind enough to provide me with a copy of the statement from which he was reading earlier since it is in direct contradiction to the official news release dated December 12 from which I was obtaining my information. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: I will certainly do so, Mr. Speaker, and the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge will find that she then has a duplicate copy of that statement. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wellington. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: Mr.

Speaker, in dealing with the question, the response to which I received today from the Honourable Attorney-General relative to employment agencies, in light of that response I would ask whether it is the government's intention to take immediate action to have the Human Rights Commission press charges for contravention of The Human Rights Act against the offending employment agencies in the City of Winnipeg? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, the information that I have, through a copy of a letter from the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, is that the names of the agencies surveyed have been kept confidential and will not be released, and therefore, they are simply unknown to the Commission. MR. CORRIN: Mr.

Speaker, in light of that response, we would ask whether the Attorney- General, using his very special status station in power, will express his interest to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in this very important matter and ask for full disclosure and divulgence of that information and the identity of those agencies in order that the laws of Manitoba can be enforced. Will he, as the chief law officer of this province, take immediate steps to exercise his authority and his power to do that? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, certainly I, or the Human Rights Commission, could request that information from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, but again I say they have apparently already indicated that they intended to keep this information confidential. MR. CORRIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-prong question for the honourable member. Firstly, I would ask him whether there has been any progress with respect to the core area initiative and, in that regard, Mr.

Speaker, I note that the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs travelled with the Mayor of this city to Ottawa last weekend and I'm sure he would wish to apprise us of any new information relative to that matter. I would also ask whether the government is satisfied, in the same area, the Core Area Initiative Program and agreement, with the boundaries that have been included in the memorandum for agreement. I would ask whether in this regard they will be pressing for a revision of the boundaries, a revision of the memorandum to exclude the east yards area of the city now owned by the Canadian National Railway? MR.

MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is, yes; and the answer to the second question is, no. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wellington with a final supplementary. • MR. CORRIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the honourable member if he would divulge what took place at the meeting in Ottawa last weekend and whether there is any new information relative to the Core Area Initiative Program that should be disclosed to this House? MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think as the Member for Wellington is well aware public submissions were requested and up to 150 submissions were submitted by members of the public and/or organizations. The Mayor, Mr. Axworthy and myself held a public hearing to receive public submissions last week and we received almost 60 submissions in a day-and-a-half of sittings. I was in Ottawa on Monday at a meeting of Ministers reponsible for Human Rights Commissions and met in the evening with Mr. Axworthy and Mr.

Norrie to review the status of the submissions that were made to review the comments that were made at our public hearings and to attempt to give some general direction to the federal, civic and provincial officials involved in the drafting of a DREE agreement. I expect that that will be taking all of this month and into March before it will be completed, Mr. Speaker. We are attempting through that agreement to deal with the general objectives set out in a memorandum 301

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 of understanding between the Mayor, Mr. Axworthy and myself and that is to deal with employment opportunities, with employment training, with new physical infrastructure in the city, and the host of other matters that have been raised with respect to the Core Area Initiatives. So I can't undertake at this time. Mr. Speaker, to present to the Member for Wellington a proposed draft agreement for the Core Area Initiatives but that work is well under way and I expect that we will be in a position certainly to make it public to the City of Winnipeg Council early in March.

I hope we're not being optimistic but that it what we hope to be able to do as soon as the Mayor returns to the city, which I understand will be sometime in early March. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired we'll proceed with Orders of the Day. The Honourable Government House Leader. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call the res olution which stands in my name. Perhaps I can pro ceed with that first. MR. SPEAKER: The proposed resolution of the Honourable Attorney-General. The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources THAT during the present session of this Legislature the tabling of reports or periodical statements, which it is the duty of any officers or departments of the government or any corporate body to make to the House as ordered by any rules, orders and forms of proceeding of the House or by the Journals or Statutes of the Province of Manitoba, be extended to the 3rd day of March, 1981; and Notwithstanding Rule of the House No. 112, that the time limits respecting Private Bills under Rule of the House No. 105 for receiving Petitions for Private Bills be extended to the 3rd day of March, 1981; and that the time for presenting Private Bills to the House be extended to the 10th day of March, 1981.

MOTION presented. MR. MERCIER: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, the resolution is one that has been submitted to the Legislature before. The list of reports required by legislation indicates that many reports are required to be filed. for example within 15 days of the start of a session. With the December start of the session that we had obviously it is impossibie for many of the reports to be filed so' in order to comply with the legislation of many departments' we are simply, by this resolution. establishing a fixed date for the filing of reports. etc.

This has been done on numerous occasions before and I have discussed this with the Opposition House Leader, I believe during the December session. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question of the Minister. Would he indicate why it is that he is asking for something like 30 days intead of 15 days from the 3rd day of February. Why is it that it's necessary for him to go beyond the law as it is and, if the law is too harsh, then what can the Minister suggest in regard to changing the law? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, there is no magic in the date. This merely follows a precedent that the Legislature approved, I believe it was in 1966 when the same sort of circumstances occurred. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, would the Honourable Minister indicate whether in 1966 the request was made that the time be extended for a longer period than from 30 days, say, from the date of the commencement of that session. And the question carries with it the fact that we are already into Estimates and why is it that the House Leader has to ask for assistance to take it beyond 15 days even from the 3rd day of February? MR.

MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I don't have that precedent with me. I can indicate, for example, there's no intention - the Member for St. Johns, I suppose, always suspects some wrongdoing on the part of any motion or any action. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has just tabled, as he is well aware, all of his reports as he's presently doing his Estimates. There's no intent to attempt to use this resolution to circumvent the necessity of filing departmental reports that should be available for consideration of any departmental estimates.

As I say, these have been filed by the Minister of Agriculture ... was established as a result of a precedent of this Legislature and I believe in 1966 the Member for St. Johns was here. That's right in 1966, Mr. Speaker, the present Premier of the province, as House Leader then, I suppose extended the time then from . . . On that occasion, the House returned on the 19th day of January and the time was extended to the 15th day of February, so that it's approximately equal. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to get answers to the questions and in getting answers to the questions I received the gratuitous comment that I always suspect wrongdoing. Let me tell the Honourable the Attorney-General that I am finding sloppiness in the operations of this House by his government and by his leadership and not wrongdoing. When I suspect wrongdoing I say so, but when I find inadvertence, negligence, an obvious lack of knowledge or arrogance in the operation of this House, I draw it to his attention, and I did just the other day. So I'm not suspecting wrongdoing, Mr.

Speaker, but 1 am suggesting to you that it should not be necessary to extend the time for the filing of reports to the 3rd day of March. When the Honourable Premier was the House Leader back in 1966 he asked for an extension to February the 15th, Mr. Speaker. It's not a question of the time in which the Legislature commences that is bothersome. it's the time when the departments or the commissions are able to get their work done. If February 15 was good enough in 1966, I have to ask 302

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 the question, why isn't February 15 good enough in 1981? -(Interjection)- Mr. Speaker, I had another gratuitous statement from the Attorney-General. He said to me just now, "You dummy, they came back January 19." -(Interjection)- I will not, Mr. Speaker, lower myself to his level and the Minister of Economic Affairs, who makes speeches from his seat and doesn't even answer in his own Estimates when there are questions asked of him, I say to the Honourable the Attorney-General (Interjection)- The House Leader, who is now making a speech again ... Go ahead, say it. MR.

MERCIER: The House will be well rid of you. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, we now have the Attorney-General saying to me with the microphone closed, the House would be much better if it was rid of me, and that is a desire that he has and it is a desire that has been expressed by other members. I come back to the logic of what we're talking about. Not accusations, I said sloppiness. We had it last year, Mr. Speaker. Do you remember how we floundered around with bills and bills waiting until the Leader of the House was able to produce his work?

We were here until the end of July because of the sloppiness of the governement and of the Leader of the House in bringing in bills so late. We had it even, Mr. Speaker, -(Interjection)- now in December when the announced intention - Mr. Speaker, are you going to let him keep talking from there? Mr. Speaker, are you going to let the Attorney-General ... ? MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. Order please. I have allowed a great deal of latitude. I have allowed the Member for St. Johns to speak on more than one occasion on this resolution. However, the honourable member may continue.

I find it very strange that he should ask questions and questions should be floating back and forth when it should be debate that we're in. The honourable member may continue with his remarks. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that it has been a tradition that members may ask questions of the mover of a motion before they speak. It's a tradition which I think precedes you and me in this House and that's exactly what I was doing. I asked questions in order to be able to deal with a subject matter and I'm now trying to deal with it, Mr.

Speaker, and I only am speaking now on the only occasion on this resolution. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that when it was announced by the First Minister that a session was being called for early in December, it was a statement made publicly in a news release and through the media that the intention was to be able to deal with the Throne Speech in December and to present a number of bills which were not dealt with in the last session. You know, Mr. Speaker, very well how many bills came in before February 3rd.

I shouldn't say how many because only one did and that's another indication of the sloppiness of this government in dealing with the Business of the House and the arrogance of this government in making statements and ignoring them. I have to tell the Minister of Finance that he should take to heart the sloppiness that goes on because that prevents a proper orderly operation within the House. Mr. Speaker, the specific matter I raised is still relevant.

The date for the filing of reports in many cases, and we are all given this list at the beginning of every session, and I presume it's still in every desk, four pages long, provides that - let me just pick for an example a matter which apparently was filed today in the Agriculture Department - the annual report of the department to be tabled in Legislature, if in session, within 15 days of submission to the Lieutenant-Governor; if not in session, within 15 days of commencement of the next session. Mr. Speaker, how does that read?

It means that if the Lieutenant-Governor has received it before the session has commenced, then it must be filed within 15 days of the commencement of the next session, which could be 60 days after it was submitted to the Lieutenant-Governor. But they say if it was submitted to the Lieutenant-Governor whilst the House is in session, they have 15 more days within which to distribute. That's very clear, Mr. Speaker. That doesn't put anybody in any sort of a difficulty, unless it is interpreted that the commencement of this session was December 12, I think it was, in December in any event. If that's the

interpretation then there is default, then it would be necessary to bring a resolution to clear the default that was made and if this is the resolution, why are they asking for March 3 when all they needed was 15 days beyond the assumed date of the commencement of the session which I would accept as being February 3? Although, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill suggesting that we declare this session to have commenced on January 1, I think, of 1981. The point I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is that the House Leader has brought in a resolution asking for much more time than he can justifiably require.

I say again, that reports are dealt with during Estimates or in any other time and if they accepted the rule as it was, it means that it shall be filed within 15 days if the House is in session, within 15 days alter submission to the Lieutenant-Governor. If reports had been made prior to, say, February 1st, then they still would have 15 days within which to file it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I was asking the question as to why they needed March 3rd - and he said in his very pleasant way of addressing me - that the 1966 session resumed on January 19, so they asked to February 15.

There is no connection whatsoever the number of days between January 19 and February 15 that would relate to asking for dates from February 3 to March 3rd. The completion and printing of the reports has nothing whatsoever to do with the date that we came back to this Legislature. What they needed was the time that they may have precluded themselves from having because of that called in December.

And had I received an answer, which was logical to me, that they wanted until February 15 as they required in 1966 or they wanted 15 days after February 3 which would still be consistent, I wouldn't be standing here and discussing it. But when the Attorney-General, the House Leader, schemes and says you unfortunately I forget the appellation he used in addressing me although I'm sure it's on record. Instead of doing that he felt it necessary to attack me and insult me because of what I think is his inadequacy in the job and I don't think he was well 303

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 prepared. It we wants to rely on precedent let him have the precedent so he doesn't have to speak about routine things. The reason I mention that, Mr. Speaker, is the general arrogance that is carried on on the assumption that whatever the government decides will automatically carry. and when it doesn't he uses his own means. Was it only yesterday that I heard him make the statement that was publicly rejected by the House Leader on this side. by the Opposition Leader. He's got to watch himself, Mr.

Speaker, and do the business properly and make sure that if there is something that he needs the co-operation of the House from that he seeks co-operation and not assume it, and things would run more smoothly for him. And I say that to him, I suppose he wouldn't accept it from me but I'm suggesting to him, that I say it in the form of advice, that he would do better to be not humble but to be prepared to discuss things rather than to assume; to be prepared to ask rather than to demand; and to be prepared to respond rather than to insult.

I would suggest that he has not yet justified why they need until March 3rd when. in the normal course if the session were called by the end of January, they would have had until Febraury 15 anyway. If he had asked for 15 days from the date of the recommencement of the session. that is from February 3, there would not have been a problem. But he's not indicated what the problem is, all he's indicated is that Duff Roblin's House Leader at that time had to ask for this kind of extension to February 15 so he automatically asked for the extention to March 3rd. That's not a reason, that's not an explanation. Mr.

Speaker, and when you thought I made more than one speech you were wrong in interpreting and enquiring as to what .. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I think the honourable member has an understanding of the Rules of this Chamber and the only way that he can chastise the Speaker is by a motion. I would suggest the honourable member temper his words carefully. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to you that I haven't the slightest intention of chastising you when I said that when you interpreted my remarks as being a speech rather than a question.

When I feel I should chastise you you know I wouldn't hesitate to do so but I hadn't the slightest intention. I was just saying that I ask questions in order to get an explanation and I did not get an explanation of why all that time was needed; instead of that I got an insult and that's the point I was making, Mr Speaker. I don't doubt that you thought I was making a speech

whereas I was asking a question. I was explaining why I was asking the question and the fact that I have not received a reply yet. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I had anticipated participating in this debate right from the very start. Mr.

Speaker, because I believe that there are a number of issues that must be addressed from the perspective of a new member in this House and I will get to that during the course of my remarks. but had I not anticipated originally participating in a debate I surely would have been driven to my feet by the remarks from the members opposite in response to what appeared to be some very sensible and some very worthy questions from the Member for St. Johns. I would have been motivated, in the very least, by their antagonistic and their obviously sensitive reactions to the Member for St. Johns questions.

I must point out, Mr. Speaker, for the record, although the Member for St. Johns has already done it, that those reactions, those insults and those slurs were hurled from their seats as is obvious. as is the practise that we have become used to in this House. But the question that must be addressed is why are they so sensitive to this particular issue? Why do they feel compelled to insult and to cast aspersions, in such a way, right from the very start in response to what were, to my way of thinking, non-antagnostic questions. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please.

May I suggest to the honourable member we have a very specific subject matter before us and I wish the honourable member would confine his remarks to the subject matter of the resolution. MR. COWAN: Well I thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker, and I do intend to confine my remarks to the subject matter, in fact, thought I had because the reason that we have to debate this particular issue right now is apparent from the reaction that we had just earlier from the members opposite, that it is a sloppy government. I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that this is the necessary resolution that has to be brought forward because of their inability to bring forward those reports as they should have been brought forward in the first place. They have had enough time, as a matter of fact they've had more than the usual amount of time to put those reports on the table before this House so that we could peruse it. So when I address the issue of their sensitivity to the matter I am in fact addressing the matter in itself. Mr.

Speaker, this resolution does not appear on first reading to be one of strong conscience or one wn1cn highlights philosophical or ideological differences and it's not, it is not that type of resolution. It should be debated solely on the merit of the resolution; that debate should be without maiice and without the type of insults and the personal slurs that we have seen accompany the introduction of the resolution.

It should be done in that way because we have a responsibility, as they have a responsibility - ours is opposition and theirs is government - to debate the resolutions and the motions that are put before this House. And they have displayed what I can only call heightened sensitivity to the questions that we have asked and to the debate that we have put forward on behalf of our caucus. So we have to examine that reaction. We have to ask why are they so sensitive?

They are so sensitive because they have cause to be because this resolution points out the very weakness which they claimed, when elected, was a weakness that was solely that of the New Democratic government, and that was an inability and a weakness to be able to govern. We have seen through this resolution that they are experiencing grave difficulties in that area and have seen from the past several sessions that 304

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 they are a sloppy government, it is well documented. So when they come forward to the House to ask us, in fact, to allow that sloppiness and to condone and endorse that sloppiness by passing this resolution, then I believe that we have two responsibilities. One, to examine the resolution in detail and to examine the motivations which we think might be behind that resolution; and the other is to put our feelings on the record. So I think that their reaction in response to the Member for St.

Johns was totally uncalled for and while it is apparent that they are sensitive to the subject, I can assure them that we are asking these questions and debating these issues because we feel this specific resolution is worthy of that sort of discussion in this House. Now. I had intended to be brief from the start and 1 would have been much briefer had it not been for the interjections of the government members opposite during the beginning questions by my colleague, the Member for St. Johns.

But I do want to ask the government, by way of my participation in this debate, if they can assure us that in fact we will have a department's report placed before us, and well before the Estimates of that department are begun. And I'm not talking about one day after the Estimates are started, I'm not talking about one day before the Estimates are started, we need those types of reports in order to examine the activities of the department over the past year so that we can in fact ask the type of intelligent and comprehensive questions which are expected of us by our electorate.

We have that responsibility to the people who have elected us and as well, I believe, that they have the responsibility to provide us with the type of information which makes this a better House and makes this a more efficient House. And in fact, if we do have time to peruse those materials before we go into the Estimates, it will most likely shorten the amount of time which we have to spend in Estimates finding out answers which may have been contained in the documents before they came here. Now I ask that question, even in the light of the assurances that the Minister has just given us, for this reason.

The Minister has assured us that we will get those reports and he used as an example the fact that we had just today received the 1979-80 Annual Report of the Manitoba Department of Economic Development and Tourism. Why? I don't believe it should be necessary to remind him that we have already been into those Estimates for one day and therefore the report did not precede the Estimates but came after the Estimates had started. He also used the example of the Manitoba Agriculture Annual Reports of 1979-80 which we just received today.

We have not had an opportunity to go through and yet we will be in those Estimates very shortly. So I think that is unfair to the members of this side of the House who recognize the value of these reports. If the government does not recognize the value of these reports then I think it is incumbent upon those on this side to stand in their place and tell them that we do, that we need the reports and that we expect them before the Estimates have been proceeded with.

I only have to recall a discussion that the now Minister of Finance, and at that time he was the Minister of Natural Resources, and I had, during an Estimates debate of his a couple of years ago, and at that time, as a new member, as I do today, I was relying fairly heavily on those materials and that information which was contained in the annual report - and 1 don't want to misquote the Minister and I'm certain that he will correct me if I, in fact, give the wrong impression - but at one point in the debate, and it was late in the evening so I don't remember it exactly but I do remember the broad statement that he made, was he remarked that we were using the annual reports quite extensively as a basis for our questioning and he suggested that it might be worthwhile to look into the annual reports in that use in the future.

Now I'm not suggesting that that is what they have done in this instance. As a matter of fact, I want the record to be very clear in that regard, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is what they have done; I don't contribute any ulterior motives to that government in this specific instance; I do not contribute any ulterior motives to the Minister. But I do make the point that it is a question that has to be asked from time to time and we must examine the motives of a government when it brings forwards any piece of legislation or any resolution.

So I think in this instance it is a matter of being unable to provide the reports to the House under the time limit which was provided for by the legislation, and I think that that may in fact be symptomatic of a general sloppiness which runs through their government and I think that there is probably good cause for that. I think they have so demoralized the Civil Service through the last three years of their administration that they are having difficulty running an efficient government.

As a matter of fact we know that they are having that difficulty in providing an efficient and effective government for the people of this province. But without wishing to dwell on that aspect of the argument, which I think is germane to what we are discussing today but which I do not believe to be the most important concept that is before us, I do wish to say that we recognize their sensitivity, that we recognize they are sensitive because they have cause to be sensitive and we recognize that they have run a haphazard, slipshod government for the past three years and this is just another symptom of that.

I believe that they will be able, with or without our support, to proceed with this motion and, with that belief hanging over me, I can only encourage them to _listen to the remarks that those who have already spoken have made and perhaps those who will speak will make and to take to heart our concerns that we have those reports in front of us in enough time in order to prepare ourselves for the review of the Estimates of a particular department. Now why is it necessary to say that again?

Well, the Minister gave us two examples, one of Agriculture and one of Economic Development, both of which bring out the very point I'm trying to make, is that we did not have those reports in time enough to examine them before the Estimates. But if you will recall a statement that was made by the Member for Fort Rouge on the first day of the session when she said, or perhaps it was the second day, when she said that she was apprised by the government that the Department of Labour would have its Estimates before us right away; that the Department of Labour 305

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 would be able to go into its Estimates and they had in fact anticipated the Department of Labour bringing their Estimates forward right away. Well, if that's the case then we should have the Department of Labour's Annual Report before us now. We should have that on our table because they had anticipated going into it. therefore, the report must be done and, if the report is done. why isn't it before us right now? So I'm not contributing ulterior motives to anyone but I think that is an important question that must be answered.

They tell us that the report would have been done because they had anticipated bringing it forward. We don't have the report which can only mean, if one follows the logic, that the report is available and has not been presented to us. And I find that, Sir, to be a questionable practice, if that is indeed the practice they are following.

So I want that point to be made, that we do have legitimate reasons for concerns in this regard and I hope that they can provide us with the assurance and the commitment that we will not have to go into Estimates for even one minute without having had an opportunity to review the reports which are pertinent to that particular department. And I hope that in answer to our contributions to the debate, which I think were important and are necessary, they will be able to answer those sorts of questions. I do not intend to prolong the matter, Mr. Speaker, but I want those to be on the record.

I also want to say quite explicitly that I hope the example that they have provided us with, at the beginning of the debate on this particular issue, is not one which will be continued by them because I think it does a disservice to them as a government and a disservice to the people of this province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move. seconded by the Honourable Member for Kildonan. that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killarney): Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture that the 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 of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Economic Development and Tourism and the Honourable Member for Virden in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM MR.

CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the Committee to order and the question was the speaking order. The Chair doesn't rule. I just try to go from side to side. The Member for Transcona had the floor yesterday and he has approximately 20 minutes to go, so I will start off with the Member for Transcona. Beyond that I just don't try to keep order as one side to the other. The Member for Inkster, 1 guess. is next in line, then the Member for Elmwood. Does that answer your question? A MEMBER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you.

Yesterday I was pointing out that this government has exerted no leadership on this department and has compounded that with bad management. It's inexcusable that in the time of our floundering economy and every indicator indicates that that's so. That this government has seen fit to not appoint a Deputy to replace the person who left some time ago, namely, Mr. P.ogers, nor to replace Fil Fileccia, who left some time ago as well to go to Saskatchewan. (Interjection)- That's right. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek)): He didn't go to Saskatchewan. MR.

PARASIUK: Well, he left to go to the Province of Saskatchewan. I do not think he is in Manitoba right now but if the Minister says he's ... MR. JOHNSTON: He's lived where he's always lived. MR. PARASIUK: Fine. The point is that he resigned and this government hasn't appointed a person to replace him, which shows the low priority that this government attaches to this particular portfolio. You know. possibly if there was some management by the government, we would have had a more systematic approach to economic development than has been presented to date.

This government doesn't have the capacity to develop a program of rational potash, mineral smelting and forestry expansion. To do that you have to develop a program whereby you put forward the province's interests first and you negotiate from that position rather than sending prospectuses around, as is the case with respect to the ManFor development, asking for bidders. The last time that was done, in a less subtle manner, was in 1966-65 when the Conservative Government put an ad in the paper saying, come and get it, with respect to forestry resources and we remember what happened at that time.

Instead of developing a rational approach, we have left it open to the multinationals to come in because it's giveaway time as far as this government is concerned. There are other alternatives that could have been developed as well that weren't mentioned by the Minister in his introductory comments. There is nothing substantive here regarding transportation improvement. We have railway lines in Western Canada; railway lines between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay that need improvement, that need upgrading. We, in Canada, need the construction of a great deal of rolling stock. I believe that the Province of 306

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 Manitoba, being located right in the centre of the country, is the ideal location for a steel plant with respect to providing steel for railway line upgrading. It's the ideal site for a steel plant with respect to providing the basic ingredient for the building of hopper cars, potash cars, cars rolling stock geared to carrying petroleum products. It's an insane situation that we have right there where, especially hopper cars, aren't built in western Canada. They're built in eastern Canada. That situation has to change.

Now we are at a stage where Manitoba, I think, could put forward some very positive proposals, can do so in a manner where it says we will put up some money, we will undertake to be the catalyst, to be the entrepreneur, to ensure that that type of major development, which would re-establish a position for Winnipeg and Manitoba as a type of renewed gateway to the west, that that's the type of activity that should be undertaken rather than an ad campaign, rather than the type of campaign that we have with the City of Winnipeg where some $400,000-plus is being spent developing Winnipeg and new west which hasn't resulted in very much at all.

That type of advertising hasn't been accomplishing very much. What we should be doing is, rather than spending money on that type of propaganda, we should be doing our homework and we haven't done our homework, especially in the area of transportation. The Federal Government in this last budget announced a $4 billion western economic development fund. Now Manitoba, since we are the western province that is floundering especially under this government, we should be getting a huge share of that fund for economic development.

But if we are going to get any of that money for economic development surely we will have to do our homework. We can't continue to rely on basically outside multinational thrusts with respect to how Manitoba should develop and that's what this government is relying on when it talks about mega projects. So we have an opportunity in transportation. It's a substantive point. We should have some leverage with the federal government. We have to act as the catalyst and we aren't doing that. Another area that we should be moving into very seriously is urban transportation.

We have very little, if any, provincial investment in this area. We have Flyer buses but it's interesting to note that Flyer buses aren't sold in Manitoba. Right now we have a situation where Flyer's potential is with trolley buses, selling trolley buses to San Francisco, selling buses to cities elsewhere, and here we sit in Manitoba with a surplus of hydro electric capacity and we can't use the province in a creative manner, in a catalytic manner, in order to develop an urban transportation system based on hydro electric power, which is renewable, instead of depleting hydro carbons.

This government backs away from that whole issue because it's too big for this government to deal with. It backs away from that type of question. It's a critical question for Manitoba. It's a critical question for Canada. Surely we are at a stage right now where we should be substituting renewable hydro electric energy. where we can, for depleting hydro carbons. We can do it with respect to railway transportation but again that's too big an issue for this government to tackle. It doesn't believe it has the capability. It doesn't want to build up the capability.

It has neither the capability nor the will and both feed on each other. We should be talking about electrifying railroads. We, in fact, in Manitoba again could show tremendous leadership there. The industrial impact of that would be tremendous. But we don't do that. We should be able to argue seriously with a government nationally, that there should be some national investments in this area as well, because surely from a Canadian perspective, it makes sense that wherever possible we should be saving our hydrocarbons for those areas where we can't substitute renewable hydroelectric energy.

And the area that's critical in this respect surely is farm motive power. I cannot envisage hydroelectric or battery powered farm machinery that's movable - combines, tractors, swathers - that will have to rely on diesel fuel and gasoline. So we, as a nation, should be saving that type of fuel for that type of purpose, but we should be also showing some leadership in developing alternative modes of transportation and systems which utilize hydroelectric power.

This government backs away from that; they assume that somehow that will be done by the private sector, that type of structural change within our economy, with respect to infrastructure which I say is primarily public not private, urban transit, transportation systems right across the country. That will not happen unless the public acts creatively and with ability and this government has backed away from that entire issue. I'd like the Minister to tell me what the prospects for trolley buses are in Manitoba for Flyer buses.

Very clear indications of this government missing an opportunity that it can create itself. You know, we talk about import substitution. We say that there is too much leakage in this economy, that what we spend in Manitoba leaks out of the economy because we've purchased too many things from outside Manitoba so it should be a strategy on our part to try and substitute imports. Flyer buses is an excellent case where we could be doing that and this government backs away from that area.

The same thing holds true with all the rolling stock in the CN yards right now, all the rolling stock in the CP yards, all of it purchased elsewhere, little, if none, economic spinoff here in Manitoba, tremendous possibilities. This government backs away from that area because it feels it doesn't have the competence to get into these areas. And the Minister, I forget what he is now, the Member for Lakeside, has said in the past that the reason why the Conservative Government doesn't get into these areas is that it feels it doesn't have the competence to do so.

Surely, he said in the past the government could own certain industries, sure it could get involved but we don't think government has the competence. But the point is that if the government doesn't get into the area of urban transit, if it doesn't get into the area of intercity transit then the private sector won't at all. So we need government and government isn't up to the challenge, and the industrial impact, the industrial spinoffs would be huge but this government doesn't want to undertake those types of tasks. It wants to, instead, develop a whole system 307

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 of grants many of which are given basically by DREE, not by this government but with this government putting up and recycling press release after press release. If you took DREE away from this government 11 would have no industrial program whatsoever that it could call its own. I find that quite ironic when you have the Premier always lambasting federal deficits, always lambasting federal spending and yet the Minister has said repeatedly, and this government has said repeatedly, we need DREE money, hopefully we'll s1gn a new agreement. hopefully we'll do something.

My point is that those are only marginal changes that DREE wants to do. DREE unfortunately has not dealt with the major structural changes in Canada. It hasn't tackled any of the major problems, it basic:;ally is a sop to buy off regional grievances. It will not undertake huge fundamental projects that might change the structure of the Canadian economy to provide some benefit for Manitoba.

So that's why Manitoba will have to take the lead, and in some instances. in many instances possibly, will have to act independent from DREE, will have to take on the challenge of the railways, will have to take on the challenge of urban transportation, but it doesn't. This government, as I said, doesn't have that capacity, doesn't have that inclination and nothing illustrates that more than the fact that after - what is it, nine months now, no Deputy appointed, I'm certain that Mr. Rogers must have given some notice when he was leaving.

I cannot envisage a major private corporation operating in this manner without appointing a chief operating officer for ten months. That is most unbusinesslike, but it shows up an incompetent government. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I'm almost, and I say that advisedly, almost feeling sorry for the Minister, because obviously what's going to happen during the next meetings of this committee, and I don't know how many meetings there are going to be, is that members of the Opposition, quite rightly, are going to be tearing strips off the Minister by degree and by the time the committee members are through, I'm quite sure that emotionally and physically the Minister will be unrecognizable. (lnterjection) Unrecognizable. He may even have a forced smile. Mr.

Chairman, I say I'm almost feeling sorry for the Minister. because I believe that everybody around this table knows that by and large, and I'm not saying totally - but certainly there could have been changes - but that by and large the difficulties that the Province of Manitoba find themselves in at the, present time are not the sole doing of this Minister. Mr. Chairman, I'll go further. They're not the major doings of this Minister. They are not, I may even say the major doings of this government. Manitoba has some demographic and economic problems now that nobody could escape.

The fact that nobody could escape them doesn't mean that something cannot be done about them. but I think that nobody could escape them. I would drop the word "almost" feeling sorry for the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister himself - well. for two major reasons, that the Minister himself. when he was in Opposition, resorted in the worst way to this type of unfair criticism, some of which is going to be heaped on him in the worst way. Mr. Chairman. I think that you will remember that the former Premier of the Province of Manitoba, Mr.

Schreyer, used to say almost regularly that we stand about in the middle, that we are fourth from the top, that we are fifth from the bottom, and who was the worst offender, Mr. Chairman, with regard to chastising the former Premier for using that kind of argument? When we said, Mr. Chairman, that the deficit of the Province of Manitoba is $50 million or $100 million, but the deficit of the Province of Ontario is 1 billion, 2 hundred million more than the entire budget of the Province of Ontario. Who was it, Mr. Chairman, who said, why are you talking about Ontario, why don't we discuss Manitoba? Mr.

Chairman, you will find it in Hansard, time after time after time, that this Minister, who now has given us a speech loaded with comparitive statistics, used to say that comparitive statistics should not be quoted to the House; that we should look at Manitoba and Manitoba alone and see what is happening in this province. So, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is stewing in his own garlic sauce. It is not a question of unfair criticism. It is the fairest type of criticism because, Mr. Chairman, he is being judged by his own standards and, Mr. Chairman, he has picked it up.

He really still is using those standards but can't publicly express them. He says, Mr. Chairman, that Manitoba is on the offensive but he acts more like Manitoba is offensive, because he, Mr. Chairman, has contributed more to the offensive looking picture of Manitoba than any other Minister in this government and in any other previous government and I say, Mr.

Chairman, he has done that by using $62,000 - in money matters it is now considered small, it never used to be considered small - $62,000, to tell the people of Manitoba that what they see in front of their eyes is not true and that he, by spending $62,000 is going to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear and you can't do it, Mr. Chairman. You cannot make a silk purse out of a pig's ear by spending $62,000; you can't do it by spending $620,000. That's why, Mr. Chairman, I don't feel sorry for the Minister; two reasons.

One, because by his own standards he stands condemned, not because he has created the problems that we are in, but because he chose to use that kind of criticism as being a fair standard for the Opposition. And secondly, Mr. Chairman, for this obnoxious, offensive, practice of spending the people's own money to further the interests of the Conservative Party of the Province of Manitoba. There can be no greater condemnation. 1 wonder, Mr.

Chairman, why the Minister hasn't answered my letter. 1 sent him a letter with regard to this program; not I sent it, I delivered it to him, a handwritten letter approximately six weeks ago when he announced that he was going to do this thing and, Mr. Chairman, I tried to do it in a co-operative spirit and I will read the letter just to show you how co-operative I was, but I never got an answer. The Premier always says, why doesn't the Opposition help us a little bit? Well, Mr. Speaker, I offered my help. I said, "Dear Mr.

Minister: I note that your government has now in its ultimate desperation resorted to using the taxpayers' money to exhort Manitobans to stay in Manitoba by conducting an advertising campaign. Apparently those leaving 308

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 Manitoba are not impressed with the fact that if they die here there will be no taxes on their estate. They evidently have come to the conclusion that if they live here they will have no estate. While this conduct on the part of the government, no doubt provides considerable political ammunition to the Opposition, I believe that it is also our duty to try to help you to keep our citizens here." I offered help as I'm always trying to do; I did try to offer help. As the only Independent New Democrat in the Legislature I would like to do my part, my small part; I'm only one member.

I offered the following suggestions for slogans to be used in the ad campaign. "Don't go, Julie, await the ides of October." Now there is some argument about the month. According to some of the New Democrats you could say, "Await the ides of March," but I think that October would be proper advertising. Then, Mr. Chairman, if that is not satisfactory, "Wait for a change." Why don't you put that in your ads? I mean, keep people in Manitoba.

"Wait for a change, a new government is coming." I haven't seen those slogans in the $62,000-ads, but they would do more to keep people in the Province of Manitoba than the advertisements that the Minister is using. The first suggestion may be a bit too subtle and perhaps erroneously predicts the date of the next election. The last suggestion is much more direct. I hope you will find my suggestions useful. Well, apparently, Mr. Chairman, I received no reply. I've been watching the ads very carefully.

I wonder if any of my colleagues have seen an ad, "Wait for a change; Stay in Manitoba; Don't leave, better things are going to happen". I think that the Minister is missing a bet because he could have had the assistance and a much more meaningful advertisement, Mr. Chairman, with respect to people staying in the province of Manitoba than the advertisements that he is using. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that I as a member of a government are not entirely vulnerable on this point. because every government, Mr. Chairman, sits around in a circle and they say, we're doing good things. we are wonderful.

How is it that the people don't understand this? Obviously the message isn't coming out. I heard that kind of thing when I was a member of a government and I saw it in the Roblin administration, in the Weir administration and in the present Conservative administration, never quite so blatant as in the present Conservative administration. But I do think, Mr. Chairman, that I am entitled to somewhat dilute my own responsibility in that I can safely say without contradiction on the part of any of my colleagues and by demonstrable action that I never approved of it and never used it myself.

That I never used information services; that I never had them churning out these ridiculous press releases; and I never used public moneys for the advertising of a political program or for the advertising of a political party. That, Mr. Chairman, is probably greater in condemnation than I can make because on the first runs I only condemned the Minister because of his double standard and I suppose that can be attributed to human frailty but on the second ground it's more serious.

On the second ground it is a malicious, despicable use of public moneys and it is intended to make up for the shortcoming of the administration and on that particular area, Mr. Chairman, has far more to with me not feeling sorry for the Minister than the fact that we have difficult economic circumstances in the Province of Manitoba because I happen to think that we would have difficult economic circumstances in the Province of Manitoba no matter who was the government. I have not yet heard other than the critiques as to concrete programs for dealing with those circumstances.

The Minister does not make a great change from this particular area, Mr. Chairman, when he starts referring to what has been done; when he starts referring to what is happening in the mining industry. He referred to some developments, Mr. Chairman.

Would the Minister believe that in the eight years that he talked about when the New Democratic Party was in government and when he and his party were saying that nothing was happening, that the Falconbridge Mine was opened up, that the Centennial Mine at Hudson Bay was opened up, that the Tantalum Mine was opened up, that the Leaf Rapids Mine was opened up, that all of those mines were built during the period of the New Democratic Party administration. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, during that period we did more than build mines, we found the mine.

The Trout Lake Mine was found during the period of the New Democratic Party administration and that's probably the biggest misrepresentation that has been made by the Conservative administration that there was somehow a diminution of mining activity and that there has now been an increase in mining activity. The mining production figures that the Minister of Mines presents have to do with the price of mineral products. There was no lack of mining production during those years. The exploration figures went somewhat up and down.

But in the last year of our administration we had the highest mineral exploration that had yet been experienced in the Province of Manitoba and I notice that today the Conservatives are singing the same tune - the highest figures since the Province of Manitoba. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that criticism is legitimate. I particularly feel that it's legitimate in the two areas that I've discussed, but eventually any government has got to get down to talking about what it's going to do. The Province of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman, has some particular disadvantages.

They talk about the west advancing and the east declining. We have the worst of both worlds. We have to pay our western brothers in Saskatchewan and Alberta for the increased price of oil and gas and we don't have what Ontario has, is the industrial base which is also suffering but which at least gives them some industrial advantage. So at the present time Ontario and Quebec have the industrial advantage and the population and the market; the provinces to the west of us have the resource advantages and we are paying both sides.

We are paying the west for the resources and the east for the manufactured product and we are struggling with our limited agricultural, forestry and mining base and the manufacturing industry that we have. But as to the advantages. we happen to be, and the next government when it comes to power will find immediately that it has exactly the same problems. We happen to be in that condition. Now I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, that if we are to deal with these problems as deal with them we must, and I'm going to propose a five-point 309

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 program for dealing with them which can apply to the present government or a future government, and I'm not certain as to which one will be more willing and have the fortitude and the courage, because it will requ;re some courage to proceed with them. First of all. Mr. Speaker.

I think we should stop talking about the great advantages on the part of the Province of Manitoba in the hope that saying then is going to attract people who are far more hard-nosed and are not sold by an advertising campaign and accept the fact that there are some severe problems that we have by virtue of the coincidence of not bemg the center of population and manufacturing and also not having the resource base which is to the immediate west of us.

We cannot pretend that we're going to do what Alberta is doing, and we cannot pretend that we're going to do what Saskatchewan is doing and we cannot pretend that we're going to be able to do what Ontario does, No. 1. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I say that we have to accept these disadvantages and try to see what we can do about them. So we have to accept the fact that we have problems and not say that the economy is the fifth highest from the top.

We have to accept the fact that these problems stem not merely from the existence of one government or another government but they stem from disadvantages, that's No. 2; we have problems, No. 1, we have disadvantages, No. 2. Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, and believe the Conservatives accept this although they try to hide it, we have to accept the fact that in Manitoba because of our problem, because of our disadvantages, there is a need for public investment.

I believe that the Conservatives now recognize that there is a need for public investment, that they have in their view put the private sector on trial and it has been found wanting.

In my view it's the Lyon administration that has been put on trial and it has been found wanting and that any notion that we are going to be able to deal with our problem simply by saying that if we reduce government spending and remove restrictions or impediments to the free play of private forces, that suddenly. despite the fact that our resource base is such that we pay for the main part of our energy to the west; that our population base makes us a difficult area for manufactured goods in terms of a market and that many of our manufactured goods therefore have to be imported - if we say that in spite of that that the private sector is going to come running to the Province of Manitoba, if only there is a government that says we are not going to interfere with you. surely, Mr.

Chairman, the third part of the program should be to bury that concept as deep as you can bury it. I believe that the Conservatives while not saying so, have done so. Because I noticed in the Throne Speech they have said we are not going to sit back, and they've done something far more interesting. They have made the Minister of the Manitoba Development Corporation and the Minister of the mega - what do they call them. mega projects? Mega projects. He is the same Minister. Mr. Chairman. and that's not an accident.

That's because the mega projects are going to be related to the use of the Manitoba Development Corporation m the long run or else, Mr. Chairman, some other form of infusion of moneys, incentives, privileges, preferences or other such attractions to the private sector. That's the reason for it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the third part of this program, and I believe that it is realized now by the Conservative Party, is that Manitoba is going to have to use its public strength, its public economy, for investment purposes. It's not a new thought. Who were the authors of the Manitoba Development Corporation?

Was it Karl Marx? Was it Ed Schreyer? Was it Tommy Douglas? No. It was Duff Roblin, a Progressive Conservative. And Duff Roblin - not that I would go for it, Mr. Chairman, we'll come to that in a moment. Simplot Chemical was built with public money. And I can name, as I have named, in this House, I think I named 200 corporations that were put on their feet by the public, and eventually you're going to be back to it. And that, Mr. Chairman, is the fourth part of my program. It can go two ways.

You can use public moneys to provide social assistance to needy industrialists like Simplot, CFI, or Sprague - what's the name of it, Columbia Forest Products, Dent's Foods, Family Farm. You know I haven't named a New Democratic Party project yet. Damascus Steel, I haven't named a New Democratic Party project yet. This was recognition by the Progressive Conservative government, that public investment was necessary. And you can do that, Mr.

Chairman, and that is something which regrettably I say is tolerated, not only by Conservatives and Liberals but that New Democrats flirt with those ideas, and caused themselves a great deal of trouble between 1969 and 1973 for those flirtations. Or, Mr. Chairman, you can do what business does and say yes, we're going to marshall public investment, and we're going to use public investment in the same way as businesses use public investment.

Which, by the way, is the story, except for administrative failures, in connection with one of the biggest manufacturing industries in the Province of Manitoba, Versatile Manufacturing. That industry was saved by the public. My impression when we did it is that we would get one-third of it because I don't like to use the public moneys and have somebody else own it, I've never felt that way, I don't do that privately. When I put up money, I'm silly enough to think that I should be the owner. Unless I'm secured and get an interest rate which I'm investing in for that purpose, but that's the other alternative, Mr.

Chairman. And in that regard I think, Mr. Chairman, that I should refer to you an

article by Jack McArthur. This is in the Winnipeg Free Press, " Chrysler Massey bail-out, taxpayers should be owners." Now this guy's not a communist. All he's saying is what every businessman says, and that's what he says. It's in the Winnipeg Free Press syndicated column. He says, if the public puts up money for Chrysler, they should be the owners of Chrysler. And they are putting up money for Chrysler now in such amounts as makes Saunders Aircraft look like a peanut factory. $400 million loan guarantee, and Massey Harris, that great bastion of free enterprise, the same thing, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, the last point, and the most difficult point, and it's going to take some recognition, is that public investment will cost money. In the long run, 310

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 one would hope that the investments will be successful and that there will be a return. But that can't be guaranteed, it can't be guaranteed by the private sector who run around and get share capital, nor can it be guaranteed with the public sector. And I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this government is on the road to bankruptcy, that within three months, if a budget is delivered there will be a deficit of $250 million or an increase in taxes. And a deficit of $250 million is not merely a deficit, it is carrying charges of $25 million a year minimum, for which you get nothing.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am closing my remarks by saying that whatever party does this, either way, and I have of course, the public way rather than the private way, but of the five points, there is only one that is a divergence. One will use the public money to help the private sector. the other will use the public money as businessmen would use it for the public. But which one, Mr.

Chairman, will go to the taxpayers and say that every cent we spent, we're going to ask all of the people of the province of Manitoba to contribute to it and we're going to charge a tax for it, which is what Tommy Douglas had the courage to say in Saskatchewan and which some government should have the courage to say in the Province of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, we're trying to deal with a department here which is supposed to look at the realities of the economic situation in Manitoba and come up with some solutions.

So what we're trying to do is look at the direction and the thrust of the government and the department and try to determine what practical programs they have to counter a very serious economic situation and I was trying to determine, by listening to the Minister the other day, what the government saw as the problem facing it today. And my conclusion, Mr. Chairman, was that the Minister himself is becoming paranoid about the situation in Manitoba. He said, for example, that there are negative influences in the economy in the province.

I was looking for him to point out where the problem areas were, he sees some sort of plot. He sees the press and the Opposition as being two groups that are fanning the fires of discontent in the Province of Manitoba. I find that very peculiar. I find that a very unusual thesis, namely that everything is fine in the province, but it's the media and the NDP which is spreading doom and gloom. I have never considered the media as an adjunct of the New Democratic Party.

Many times in my life, I suppose like many other politicians, I have thought that the media was critical of the government in power and they certainly took shots at our government and they continue to do the same and that is one of their functions. It is certainly the function of the official Opposition to criticize the government. I don't know how many times I listened to the Opposition say to us when we were in power that they are not there to applaud the actions of the government.

I don't know how many times I heard that said and I agreed, and it sunk in, that they were not there to cheer our programs, and no matter how good our programs were there were criticisms made, and the same holds true today and the same will hold true when our positions are reversed. The fundamental question that we are dealing with I find rather peculiar. Instead of looking at the problems, we are listening to a Minister say that it is the Opposition that is creating the problems in the economy and it is the media which is creating the problems in the economy.

His response to that problem, as he perceives it, is an advertising campaign to cheer everybody up and to put the lie to the Opposition and the media for what they are trying to foster. I say to the Minister that he is all wet, and I tell him that if he looks at the problems facing Manitoba today these are not creatures of the media's imagination or these are not falsehoods being perpetrated by the Opposition. Now I am going to quote from the media, so I guess that's really a kind of a circular argument, because the Minister doesn't trust the media.

I tell him that I have before me a whole bunch of clippings which come from a variety of sources; one of the most interesting in the Free Press on January 24th saying that Manitoba's economy slips below zero growth mark for the first time in 20 years and perhaps since the depression. One of the people quoted here is Ruben Bellan, who is I believe an independent Manitoba economist. Also quoted is my colleague from Brandon East, who made his remarks. He speaks as an economist, another independently-minded economist. MR. STEEN: Under the direction of Cy Gonick? MR. DOERN: No, Mr.

Chairman, the Member for Brandon East certainly is not in tune with the former member from - where was he from? A MEMBER: Crescentwood. MR. DOERN: Crescentwood. Your illustrious predecessor, he was a bit further to the left. Mr. Chairman, I look at another heading, Housing Starts in Manitoba Worst In Years, that's from a Canadian Press story from Canada Mortgage and Housing. I mean, is the Minister telling us that this is a figment of the imagination of the media or of the Manitoba New Democratic Party? Is he going to question these housing starts?

Bleak Future for Tradesman, 4,000 construction workers are jobless, 30 percent of all unionized construction tradesmen in Manitoba are unemployed, and according to a spokesman from the construction labourers' union, he says some of his men are on welfare; some have left the province, and some are on unemployment insurance. Is the Minister going to question that? Is he going to say that those figures aren't true, or that these people are lying?

Headlines, Manitoba Builders Cautious - this comes from someone named Guy Hobman, the newly elected president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Manitoba, and Housing Starts Hit 20 Year Low In The City, and Building Permits Drop. You look at the building permits in the City of Winnipeg as indicated in the paper a couple of days ago. They are off $42 million, and the only category to record an increase was demolitions. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Public buildings and theatres, which presumably is the government sector, is 21 percent down, so we have a province in which demolitions are up and construction is down. If you push that far enough I suppose it means the city is going backwards. 311

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 Mr. Chairman. that is the situation in Manitoba today. It's a sorry economic picture and the Minister's response is that he's going to have a series of ads to counter the doom and gloom. I am gomg to ask him later about on what basis he determined the need for that survey.

I suppose one day he got up and looked in the mirror and said there is a lot of doom and gloom around and that it's time to do something about it, or was it that he determined from an examination of the political fortunes of the Progressive Conservative Party that they were sinking in the public mind and in the public eye and that it was not in response to a sorry economic picture because he says that isn't true. He says that it is the false rumours and the false statements of the media and the Opposition parties which is the problem. He will correct that with advertising.

I say if he was a good Minister and a good government he would be trying to counter the poor economic situation. What he is really trying to counter, Mr. Chairman. is the poor image of the Conservative Party of Manitoba. We know what the polls say about that, and we know what people think, and we know that the public of Manitoba blames the present administration for the sorry picture in the Province of Manitoba today. Mr. Chairman, we also know what the Premier said about this kind of advertising. We have listened to him in the House time and time and time again go on about federal advertising.

We know that the First Minister has said that the kind of money spent on the kind of advertising put out by the Federal Government on the Constitution is a complete waste of taxpayers' funds and it's an abuse of governr.1ent. He doesn't like image advertising. He doesn't think that the Federal Government should do this sort of thing and yet within months or weeks of his statement. this Minister announces that he is going to do some image advertising; he is going to cheer people up. They are going to take impartial testimonies from people.

Of course what the Minister didn't tell us was that all the people in the ads were real. We know they are all real. We know that what we see on TV is people saying that they think Manitoba is a nice place. but I wonder if he had gone into a supermarket or into Polo Park or somewhere like that and taken a cross-section of opinion.

I wonder whether the people would have said the same, or did they get bunch of people, get a whole series of comments and then select advertisements and statements which they thought would cheer people up, because I can tell you a lot of people are unhappy about the economic situation in Manitoba and I can tell you that the majority of Manitobans puts the finger of blame onto the Conservative Party of Manitoba, because the Conservative Party of Manitoba is not a fatalistic thing. It is not just helpless in the face of national or international conditions.

There are certain things that this government can do; there are certain things that any administration can do; there is a certain amount of room in which to maneuver; and what we're getting is we're getting paranoid responses and we·re getting advertising campaigns. We've heard this sort of thing before, Mr. Chairman. For the first three years of the Lyon administration. the word was "monitor". That's all we heard in the House.

Whenever we said anything, they said we are monitoring that situation and they sat back and watched the economy go down the drain, and they saw people leaving and they saw things going down the tube. So now they finally come up with a response after three years of careful monitoring and studying, and the response is image advertising. Mr. Chairman, I say that the problem is real. We are in an economic slump and the Conservative solution is to substitute advertising for monitoring which is a complete failure of being able to recognize the problem.

They don't recognize what the problem is and so they are responding in a false way. They don't know what the problem is, so they don't know what the solution is. They think the problem is the Opposition talking. Is the Minister serious? Would he really want to argue that if the Opposition said nothing that the problems would go away? Is that his position? That the problems are in the mind of the Opposition, that the problems are not in the economy or in society today? The Minister made a prediction last June.

I'm looking at a headline here from the Tribune in June, 1980, "Building slump may end soon." The Minister predicted that the construction slump should ease this year as the oversupply of office and commercial space begins to decline. Then he said at the end that, "The slow growth in the construction sector is largely attributable to the general economic slowdown both in Canada and the U.S., the record high level of interest rates, a decline in housing construction and deferral of projects related to Hydro developments." Was the Minister saying that he can't do anything about any of these things?

Is he saying that that's it? I mean isn't it partly the result of a government policy as to whether housing starts will be high or low? MR. DAVID BLAKE (Minnedosa): We saw what they were when you had them high. MR. DOERN: Yes, and isn't it also a fact that the decision to proceed with Hydro is a provincial government decision? Isn't that also something within the hands of the provincial government?

That the Minister just can't sit back and sort of cry out against his fate; that there is room for maneuver there; that the government's response shouldn't be that Manitoba has serious economic problems and we will advertise them away. We will simply start talking in a positive manner. Cheerful Charlie advertising will do it. We'll have smiles on our faces and everything will be all right. That is not a program, Mr. Chairman, that is the absence of a program that this government has. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour of 4:30 p.m. having arrived, I move that committee rise for Private Members' Hour. Committee rise.

SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): This committee will come to order. I would direct the honourable members' attention to Page 9 of the Main Estimates, Department of Agriculture, Resolution No. 7. Item under discussion is Clause 1(

b) Planning and Management,

(1) Salaries. 312

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday when we left off we had made some opening remarks and we were discussing the whole area dealing with the Planning and Management. I would like to now turn to some more specific questions and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for bringing forward his Annual Reports from the department with respect to the year ending March 30, 1980. You will note, Mr.

Chairman, in the Annual Report that you have, the department went to some length and the Minister went to some length to deal with statistics, farm cash, income and expense statistics dealing with the years '78 and '79, Mr. Chairman, and those statistics were as given, as shown in the Annual Report, the source of the statistics were given as Statistics Canada. although the '79 figures reportedly so are preliminary estimates. You will recall as well, Mr. Chairman, that yesterday during my opening remarks I dealt with statistics of farm income and the like and this

section in the Annual Report deals in the general administration area and general administration area is the Minister's office, Management Services and Computer Services and Analysis. I want to get more specific, Mr. Chairman, with respect to statistics. Last December, Mr. Chairman, I rose in this House and I asked the Minister the source of his statistics with respect to the income figures that he released in October. The Minister indicated that the statistics he quoted were from Statistics Canada. Mr.

Chairman, I want the minister to tell me where are the statistics that he has quoted from when he quoted the 1980 Farm Cash Income Report of October 16 and 1980 net farm income to set new records of October 31. Where can one locate the figures that he quoted of $410 million as being the best ever farmers earnings expected to reach $410 million, Agriculture, Jim Downey announced, and also the earlier figure of October 16 where he said that realized net income in Manitoba after all operating costs are deducted will be higher this year than in '79.

Stats Canada agricultural statistics show the 1980 estimate is $348 million and that $348 million on October 16 was increased to $410 million on October 31. I want to ask the Minister specifically where those figures come from, which document? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be more appropriate if I were to deal with the more general questions in summing up my estimates following on the Minister's Salary because if we look at the Estimate Book we're dealing with salaries under Planning and Management, not statistics.

I would to help clear the member's mind if that is a major concern to him; the first release he is referring to was released by the Information Services of the government not directly from my office, the first release that he's referring to. Any discrepancy from the . . . there are two things basically happened. One is that the . . and I have to also reiterate that they were projected figures which came from Slats Canada. they used a different formula than the year prior.

The reason for the change from what Slats Canada put forward in figures as compared to what ours were is the fact that Stats Canada did not add the projected payout of crop insurance or a provincial program such as that and that increased the amount, so that was the discrepancy which the member referred to. So I would hope that would clear it up.

I do not think that to sit here and to debate projected figures which I don't think at this particular time when we're debating the specifics of Planning and Management salaries, that they're relevant to this particular case, and so I would let the member know that I would be prepared to fully respond in my summation of the comments that I will be making following the Estimates and I think he should understand that's a reasonable approach, that we are dealing with specifics at this particular time.

The more general statements of projected incomes which he has referred to will in fact be dealt with following in my closing remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is now indicating that it is not right to discuss these statistics. It appears that the Minister does not want to discuss these figures and he talks about this is a bad area to discuss because if we are dealing with Planning and Management, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Chairman, those figures that he released led to some very, what one could say, very mistaken decisions made by industry officials who wanted to plan on the basis of what they expected agricultural incomes to be in Manitoba in the forthcoming year. Yet this minister, Mr. Chairman, now ... What did he say, Mr. Chairman? He said No. 1, those figures were not released by his office; they were released by Information Services, Mr. Chairman. Does the Minister now say that he did not approve the release of those figures? It is quoted as he giving those figures.

I want to ask the Minister specifically, did you or did you not approve the release that was issued in your name? You are quoted as giving those statistics. I want to know whether you released them or not. You're now trying to fudge. Mr. Chairman, not only that. Last December this Minister got up in this House and said if there is any difference in the numbers that were released they're the fault of Statistics Canada, Mr. Chairman. What is he saying today? He's saying something different, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Minister should explain how did he arrive at those figures and should tell us, how did he arrive at those income figures? And I think in terms of Planning and Management, it is very clear, Mr. Chairman, that farmers, that agri-business, that industry officials want some kind of guidance from this government and this Minister which they really haven't received as to what the projections, what the state of farm economy is in Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister owes an explanation. He's trying to pass it off as some innocuous statement, Mr. Chairman.

If he would have made one statement, one could have taken it for granted but he didn't; he did it two times in a period of two weeks and he increased those figures twice. I want to know where those figures come from, Mr. Chairman. I want some answers to the questions and the comments that he raised. He can't slough it off now. MR. CHAIRMAN: I acknowledge the Honourable Member for St. George. Might I just point out that 313

Thursday, 5 February, 1981 the 1tem under discussion is Planning and Management and I would believe that the Planning and Management is for the Department of Agnculture under whose Estimates we're on and really the planning of other industries, other than the Department of Agriculture, would not really be the topic for discussion. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman. I want to appeal to you. S1r. to listen to the argument I have to put.

Are you suggesting that industry, the farm chemical industry. the farm fertilizer industry, the farm machinery industry. rural businesses. do not depend on the incomes of farmers? Are you suggesting that those industries are not intent on planning what they should be purchasing, what kind of machinery they should be building for the coming year as to what kind of an economy the state of agriculture will be in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister on a point of order. MR. DOWNEY: I think so, Mr.

Chairman, I think the member has every right to challenge me as a Minister and as a member of government, but I do not think it's in the best interest of the committee for him to challenge your

interpretation and I think it is not in good taste for this committee to stand for that kind of criticism of your judgment. MR. CHAIRMAN: on the point of order, I really didn't accept the words from the Honourable Member for St. George as a point of criticism. I think it was just as a matter of explanation on my remarks and I accepted him in that regard. But again I would repeat that it is Planning and Management under the Department of Agriculture. I had allowed the previous discussion because I thought that there would be some

preamble that was part of a

preamble in this questioning. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely right. I am not challenging your remarks at all, Sir. Who I am challenging is the Minister of Agriculture. He puts out. Mr. Chairman, you have received a copy, you should take a look at that Annual Report, Mr. Chairman. the Manitoba Agriculture Annual Report, Year '79-80. What is the first area that we are dealing with? We're dealing with farm incomes, Mr. Chairman - reorganization, first the reorganization, the Executive Directors of the department, the Executive

Section - this is the area of the department which deals with the Executive Branch of the Department of Agriculture, Management Services and the like. Mr. Chairman, those figures, I want to ask the Minister and he has not replied. He can stall all he likes. I want to know first of all whether he approved the release of those two press releases that he now says came from Information Services quoting James Downey, Minister of Agriculture, announcing them. Did he approve those releases? MR. CHAIRMAN: (1) - pass - the Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman. it appears that the Minister of Agriculture does not wish to answer. He's afraid to stand up to his responsibility of the release of those figures. Either he did or he didn't. It's a very simple question, Mr. Chairman. It isn't a very hard question to answer whether he ... -(lnterjection) Mr. Chairman. the fact of the matter is the Minister can answer; we are dealing with the administration of his department, Mr. Chairman. If the Minister can't even come up with some answers do you expect him to answer when he replies on his salary? He's not prepared to reply.

If he's not prepared to reply now I venture to say that he will not reply then, Mr. Chairman. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, where did he receive those figures from Statistics Canada. I want this Minister to produce the catalogue, the page or whatever documents he's got to show me that those came from Statistics Canada, because he made those statements, and farmers and industry officials took those statements verbat

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-12a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 12a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3c88161068dd1dbebfbe2ca2cd0780a15d4a85ba

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