LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 26 March, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Employment Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to table the First An nual Report of the Department of Employment Services and Economic Security for the calendar year 1984. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mini ster. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have a statement. I'm pleased to be able to announce this afternoon the successful completion of another important measure related to the government's economic development strategy. We have implemented policies to support, encourage, diversified economic activities in Manitoba. We have negotiated agreements with the Federal Government to provide infrastructure support in key industrial sectors of our economy, such as transportation, farming, mining.

We have created the Manitoba Jobs Fund for direct investment and, with the private sector, to support and encourage long-term jobs in Manitoba; and we have commenced a decade of hydro development activities starting with the construction of the Limestone Gener ating Station. Mr . Speake r, to maximi ze Mani toba benefits associated with the construction activities related to Limestone, my government has stressed the importance of en couraging and promoting manufacturing technology growth throughout the province.

To achieve this objective, I'm happy to announce that a Memorandum of Understanding has been signed with the Canadian General Electric Company, providing a comprehensive ind ustrial benefits package in connection with a contract for the purchase of turbines and gener ators for the Limestone generating plant. This agreement will provide a nucleus for the growth of new manufacturing enterprises throughout Manitoba, bringing benefits and investments for decades to come.

Through the further orderly development of our tremendous hydro resource potential, we will build Manitoba's manufacturing sector and provide a more secure economic base·for employment, for economic growth in the future. I should indicate, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time an agreement of this type has been negotiated successfully in Manitoba. Two previous governments 385 together with two previous Manitoba Hydro Boards began negotiations on an indu strial benef its arrangement related to Limestone turbines and generator contract, but they were not completed. I am very pleased, Mr.

Speaker, that this government has · succeeded. Before summa rizing the Memorandum of Under standing, it is important to point out that as a result of favourable financial support in 1977 from the Government of Canada for the construction of hydro transmission facilities for the Nelson River, Manitoba signed an agreement in undertaking to make every reasonable effort to complete negotiations directly with Canadian suppliers of turbines and generators for the Limestone Generation Station. We have been successful with CGE, Mr.

Speaker, In part because we have had the advantage of dealing with a company that is very familiar with the Manitoba Hydro system and the circumstances that surround building a generating station on the Nelson River.

Canadian General Electric and its turbine subsidiary di vision, Domini on Engineering Works, were the successful low bidders in an international tendering process for the turbines and gener ators used at the Long Spruce Gener ating Station, the last plant to be built on the Nelson River and there's a great deal of similarity in the specifications and design between the Long Spruce and the Limestone Generating Stations. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, CGE's involvement in Long Spruce has made it more familiar with Manitoba and the capabilities of Manitoba firms.

As well, the scope of CGE's many industrial activities allows it to offer a significant and diverse industrial benefits package. The Memorandum of Agreement states that Canadian General Electric will be awarded the contract to supply 10 hydraulic turbines, 10 generators for the Limestone Generating Station at a cost , in 1984 dollars, of approximately $10 0 million. Mr. Speaker, the result of this negotiated price means we will receive this equipment at a cost significantly under Manitoba Hydro's budget estimate for such a contract.

Since the contracts for Limestone turbines and generators are major contracts, second In magnititude only to the general civil contract. This is an important first step toward ensuring that the Limestone Generating Station can be built under the budget originally estimated by Manitoba Hydro officials. Mr. Speaker, as members of this House are aware, there are no turbine or generator manufacturers located in the Province of Manitoba.

Consequently, as a central focus of the industrial benefits or offset package, we have successfully negotiated with Canadian General Electric for a direct commitment that the employment to be created will be at least as much as if the turbines and generators were to be· fully manufactured In Manitoba. Taken together, this will mean the creation of a minimum of 1,000 person years of direct employment and an additional minimum of 1,300 person years of

Tuesd ay, 26 March, 1985 indire ct employm ent for a total of 2,300 per son year s of em ployment duri ng the per iod of time in which the tur bines and genera tors ar e being manu factur ed. lt is import ant to note that the original estimates on the employment gener ated by the Li mestone project assumed basically little wor k being per for med in Manitoba re lated to turb ines and genera tor s contr act.

As a re sult of this success ful negotiation, however, it is now estimated that the numbe r of per son year s of employment will incre ase over 2,000 pe r son year s, from 17,000 per son year s of employment to over 19 ,000 pe r son year s of employment fo r the dur ation of the project. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to outline for honoura ble members in more detail each of the five components of this industr ial benefits package and to elabor ate on some of the more outstanding highlights.

In the fi r st component of the inau str ial benefits package, we have been successful in negotiating a commitment by CGE to ensure a minimum investment in Manitoba of $10 million by the end of 19 91. This inv estment will be dir ected to opport unities where CGE or its affiliated companies expect viable , long-term oper ations In Manitoba. The second aspect of the Industri al benefits package, Mr. Spea ker, is the creation of a minimum of 100 new jobs in Manitoba's new high technology industrie s: for example, thr ough additional purchases by CGE of aerospace components man ufactur ed in Manitoba.

These will be full-time jobs which will be put in place over the period from now to 19 91. Third ly, Mr. Speaker, Canadian Genera l Electr ic will fund two re search projects for two yea r s beginning by 19 86 , at the level of $10 0,000 each. This re search will be in th e realm of high- voltage di r ect curr ent transmission thro ugh the Manitoba . HVDC Resea rc h Cent r e at the Unive rs ity of Manitoba. This is a field in which both Canadian Gener al Electric and Manitoba Hydr o are re cogniz ed wor ldwide as being pioneers and at the leading edge.

The other re sea rc h project will be car ried out at the Manitoba Micro -Electronics Cent r e to further provincial re sea r ch in this ar ea. Four th ly, Mr. Speaker, Canadian Gener al Elect ric will ensure that a minimum of 15 perc ent of the estimated labour content of the tu r bines and genera tors will be sou r ced in Ma nitoba as a result of in-province production of components. This will be double what was achie ved at Long Spr uce.

In connection with this undertaki ng, and in order to promote fu r ther the growth of Ma nitoba's manufacturing sector, CGE will wor k with Ma nitoba's Depa r tment of Indust ry , Trade and Technology to develop and impl ement a prog ram of technical and management assistance to Manitoba fir ms. Thro ugh capitalizing on CGE's extensive exper ience, Manitoba's manufactur ing sector will have an oppor tunity to position itself competently in the inter national ma rt ketplace as well as being in an advant a geous position to supply components to hyd r o projects in Manitoba. And finally, Mr.

Speake r, CGE will initia te a prog ram of economic development opport unit ies for Nort her n Nativ es to begin in 1985 and to be comp leted by the end of 19 84 - (Inte rj ecti on) - sorr y, 19 94. - (Inter jection) - Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted - we've now got honoura ble members to smile. I knew, Mr. Speake r, there was somet hing I could do to get honour able members to smile and to laugh. 386 This will entail total expenditur es of $2 million by CGE, aimed at support ing the establishment of Nativ e­ owned and oper ated busi nesses in Nort hern Manitoba.

These will be in ar eas of activity familia r to CGE, where their busi ness exper ience and expert ise will provide solid suppo rt to new ventu res. The package I have just announced will create a natur al ave nue of activity genera ting benefits far beyond the constr uction of Limestone.

This is a significant str ide for war d in our development of stable and steady economic growth. lt is solid substantial evidence of this government's commitment to the orde rly development of our provin ce' s abundant re newable natura l re source and of this gover nment's commitment to ensure tha t we use this dev elopment to build a di ver sified and stable economy. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague , the Honourable Wilson Pa ra siuk, and his people for their hard wor k and their success ful negotiations in bringing this contract and its industr ial benefits package to an expeditious and to a successful conclusion. I say thro ugh you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people of Manitoba, that the order ly dev elopment of Limes tone Gene r ating Station, as promised by me during the 1981 election campaign, is happening. A commitment is being fulfilled with immense, immedia te and long ter m benefits for Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker , you have the statement, you have the Memora ndum of Unders tanding, which has already been tabled for honourable mem ber s, between Manitoba and the Canadian Gener al Electr ic. Thank you ve ry much. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, orde r please. The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speake r. We, on this side ar e always pleased when there ar e announcements that involve jobs for Manitobans. Mr.

Speaker, when one consider s that since this gover nment has been elected that there are 20,000 mor e people unemployed In Mani toba, people in Manitoba ar e understandably desperate for any news that there might be jobs created. Mr. Speaker, far be it from us to be critical - obviou sly, we ar e pleased to see anything that this government does that might re sult In some jobs in the futur e. Mr. Speake r, in

part icular, it addresses an ar ea of major weakness. In the Confere nce Board 's recent announcement about Manitoba 's future prospects . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I can wait fo r the Mini ster of Finance to overcome his enthusiasm and re lax for a bit. Mr. Speake r, as all of us know, the re cent analysis of Manitoba's future prospects by the Confere nce Board show that the greatest weakness that we ar e facing is, of cour se, the problem that we have in em ployment in the manu facturi ng sector, and as I indicated last Frid ay, we now have 10 ,000 fewer people employed in man ufactu ri ng in Ma nitoba si nce . this NDP

TUesday, 26 March, 1985 administration took office. We have more than 200 firms who have gone out of business in manufacturing, and so when we are told that we are going to be adding 200 jobs on average for the next five years and 260 spinoff jobs on average for the next five years, that will go a very small distance towards making up for that 10,000 loss in manufacturing jobs in Manitoba. But nevertheless, any progress, however small, obviously has to be greeted with enthusiasm, because it's an indication, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps there is something out there that people can look towards on the positive side.

Heaven knows, there was very little positive came out of the Budget Speech last Thursday evening. Mr. Speaker, we're glad to acknowledge the Premier's announcement to say that they have entered into an agreement that will see some of the manufacturing jobs created here. We on this side, of course, were very critical in the '70s when the NDP administration contracted out the turbines to the Russians and saw the jobs not only go out of the country, but right across to another continent. Mr.

Spea ker, it's encouraging to see that this administration has learned from past mistakes, because those turbines were a problem. They were a problem in installation, they were a problem in operation, and they continue to plague Manitoba Hydro. So, Mr. Speaker, to hear that this administration has entered into an agreement that will see some of the manufacturing take place here is encouraging. lt's something that was being worked on.

In fact, I recall that CGE made a similar offer in the '70s, a similar offer that was saying that they could locate in Manitoba and create jobs if given the opportunity on those contracts, but they were rejected. They were rejected, Mr. Speaker, so it's encouraging to see, after a decade, that this administration has learned by past mistakes and there are things that we can look forward to. Mr.

Speaker , the announcement says that this was a negotiated agreement that saved considerable costs for Manitoba Hydro over its estimate, and that cost saving obviously is a tribute to CGE and the price that it was able to come forward with. We would also, obviously, like to know whether or not maybe even greater savings could have been achieved by a tender process. Obviously, those are things we won't know and the government has chosen to go this route. We commend the Premier for making that announcement.

We're always glad to hear of some jobs being created in the province, however small they are in comparison to the ones that have been destroyed by this administration, and we look forward to better things to come, Mr. Speaker. · MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker , I'm pleased to be able to table the financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1984 for the University of Winnipeg; the Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 1982, Brandon Uniltersity Pension Fund; Manitoba Te achers' Retirement Allowances Fund Board Annual Report, 1983; Manitoba Annual Report, 1984, Manitoba Education; and the Annual Financial Report for the year ended March 31, 1984 for the University of Manitoba. MA. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MA.

SPEAKER: Before Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members· to the gallery, where we have 10 visitors from the Glenboro Pathfinder Unit. They are under the direction of Mrs. Greenlay and they are from the constituency of the Honourable · Member for Gladstone. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon ORAL QUESTIONS Day care centres - Subsidized and non-subsidized spaces MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MA. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Honourable Minister of Community Services and Corrections. lt falls upon discussions in the question period yesterday regarding the segregation of children from fee-paying families versus those who are subsidized by the Province of Manitoba in a day care centre. I'm wondering if the Minister has intervened with officials of her department to ensure that children are not being kept apart because of ideological commitments rather than because of the best interests of the children. 387 MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker , if that's the

interpretation being taken at the centre, then I think there must be something wrong with how they're hearing. The purpose of the guidelines for day care is to have subsidized and non-subsidized children together. The separation has occurred as a deliberate policy thrust by the people who opened the second day care centre without approval for having those spaces funded. Mr. Speaker , we have a budget, we have a responsibility for the orderly development of the day care system and adequate quality.

We will meet with the parents and we will see whether there is any clarification that we can offer from our end; and they're certainly eligible to get on the waiting list for the expansion of their day care centre, along with all the other centres who are following the guidelines as we've issued them. MA. G. FILMON: Mr. Speak er, will the Minister allow for the expansion to take place if they don't require any subsidy from the Provincial Government? MA. SPEAKER: Order please . The question is hypothetical. Would the honourable member wish to rephrase the question? MA. G.

FILMON: Will the Minister allow expansion to take place for non-subsized day care spaces in the province?

Tu ... , • March, 1 ... HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the second centre has been licensed. MR. G. FILMON: Will the Min ister's department allow the children from the second centre to be able to play with the children from the first centre? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, if that's the

interpretation at the local level of our guidelines respecting keeping the books and administration of the centre separate so there's clear accountability for expenditur e of public funds, then something will have to be done about that understan ding. We will meet with them; we will clarify the situation, but I think there is a delib erate misinterpretation of what the guidelines are, what they say and what they're intended to achieve. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that Drew Perry from her department - and it's said to be a dir ect quote - said, and this is what the dir ector of the day care centre says, "We were told to act like they are five miles apart." Could the Minister then clarify that her intentio n is to allow the children to be able to play together and not act as though they were five miles apart? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have clarifie d that. I said the intention was to keep the administration of the centres separate. Regional Housing Authority - Rent payment, deceased person MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Housing and it follows upon a story that ind icates that the Regional Hou sin g Aut hority is attempting to collect a bill for a month's rent from a deceased per son's family; and I'm wondering if the Minister would intervene to tell his department not to pursue this matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was quite distressed when I saw the headline in the Winnipeg Sun and heard this news story on the radio this morning.

Certainly this is the first time that this type of matter has been brought to my attention, although I should indic ate that staff and the agency were following a policy that's existed for the past 10 years. The comments that were in the item are consistent with the requirements of The Landlord and Te narit Act. Howev er, in view of the anguish that this type of situation causes for childr en of deceased parents and because we are a humane and a compassionate gove rnment, I have asked staff to imme diately review this

section of our policy manual with a view to making changes so that this sort of situation doe sn't occur again in the future. Day care centres - Subsidized and non-subsidized spaces MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Community Services. • Could the Minister please tell us if, in the original centre that was referred to, there are subsized and non-subsized childr en in that centre and playing together? 388 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, there were when the centre was established, but the people who have started up the other centre have systematically shifted the non­ subsized childr en out, and that's part of our concern, because what we want is a day care system that does enable subsidized children and non-subsidized childr en to share the same centre. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lake side. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , I direct this question to the Min ister of Energy or to the First Minister.

I say that because the Minister of Energy was not then in the Cabinet, but I believe a senior member of the Planning Priorities Committee. At the time the decision was made to secure and purchase the generators for the Jenpeg Hydro Station and the decision was made to buy offshore generators from the USSR, can the Minister indic ate that General Electric had indicated very clearly to Manitoba that they were prepared to start up a manufacturing facility in Manitoba in the Brandon area should they be favoured with a contract? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. lt is not proper to ask questions on a subject about which historical knowledge Is available. If the honourable member wishes to ask a que stion dealing with current matters, he may do so. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. Elections Finances Act - Public monies required MR. H. ENNS: I direct a further question to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance indicate whether or not he has included in this Budget that he has just presented to us that we are debating, the necessary public monies that would be requi red under the new Elections Finances Act? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: For what election, Mr. Speaker? MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask the Min ister for what election. I simply want to know whether or not there were provisions in this Budget that we are deba ting to carry out the obligations of the new Elections Act. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader.

Tuesday, 26 March, 1985 HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate place for that question would be du ring the detailed Estimates of the Department of Legislation, under which the Chief Electoral Office falls. School of Psychiatric Nursing, Portage - Closure of MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. L. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct my question to the Min ister responsible for Community Services. First, can the Minister indicate whether a final decision has been made regarding the proposed closing of the Psychiatric Nursing School in Portage? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I expect to make an announcement about the final decision at the end of the month. MR. L. HYDE: The next question's to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister consulted with the Provincial Chief Medical Consultant to the Department of Community Services? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, if the member asking the question would be more specific - I'm not aware of just precisely who he's referring to. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question then once again. Has the Min ister discussed the strong concerns that Dr.

Glen Lowther has pointed out about the possible closure of that Portage Nursing School? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on a move, or planned move that we are looking at and evaluating, we consult with a great many people and the people in the department who are relating to that particular program are certainly being consulted. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Speaker, following that question, I must ask the Minister, can the Minister possibly explain how she can warrant the position of a Chief Medical Consultant on staff and not consider his input to such an important issue as we have before us today? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, his particular response, the responsibilities of the individual mentioned are to give medical consultations in individual cases.· What we're looking at is the system of giving service to the mentally retarded. We're also looking at the way of training psychiatric nurses, as required in the institution and in other institutions, and coming in co-operation with the Department of Health to the best arrangement for training those nurses. Commercial. Bank of Canada ­ Financial problems MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mb er for Concordia. 389 MR. P. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My qu estion is to the First Minister. Can he inform the House if he has been approached by, or informed of, any Manitobans who are at risk due to the current financial situation of the Commercial Bank of Canada that has had to call on the taxpayers of Canada to bail it out of financial troubles? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable Member for Concordia for his question of concern. Mr.

Speaker, the only person that I am aware of in Manitoba that might be affected would be the Honour able Mem ber for Charleswood who has an intimate relationship with the bank; otherwise, I don't know of any Mani tobans that would be affected, but I'm prepared to make appropriate enquir ies pertaining to same. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. School of Psychiatric Nursing, Portage - Closure of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Ministe r of Commun ity Services.

Could the Mini ster of Community Services indicate to the House today what the potential saving that has been . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Min ister of Comm unity Services. Could the Minister of Community Services indicate to the House the potential saving that her department has identified in the closing of the Portage School of Psychiatric Nursing? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, when we come to our decision and announce it, that information will be available. MR. D. ORCHARD: A supplementary to the Mi nister. The Minister indicates the decision has not been made to close the Portage School of Psychiatric Nursing and Training. Could she confirm that the $475,000 reduction in her Estimates for Salaries and Professional Training represent a saving from the closing of that school? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I do think that questions on the Estimates would be better raised dur ing Estimates Debate. The Honourable Member for Pembina.

Tueaday, 28 March, 1111 MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker. I accept your concern about when questions should be posed, but this issue is very important to a number of people in Portage la Prairie whose jobs are dependent on the School of Psychiatric Nursing and that training facility. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we may not be into Community Services Estimates for some time, I would like to pose that question in absence of the opportunity to do it during Estimates and I ask you for the ability to do that, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, I believe you were quite correct and the Minister was quite correct in her response in answer to the first question from the honourable member , and that is that detailed examination of the Estimates of her department will take place during Estimates and that question period is not the appropriate forum for the examination of Estimate's detail and the honourable member knows that. To waive that rule to accommodate the honourable member in this instance, as is his request, would set a precedent that would disrupt the whole operation of question period and Estimates.

I would urge you, Sir, not to accommodate that request. Sir, I would suggest to honourable members opposite that the Budget Debate, which allows an examination and debate of all issues affecting the Province of Manitoba, is presently before the House and we have just finished the Throne Spee ch Debate. So honourable members opposite, both the Member for Pembina and the Member for Porta ge, have had an unlimited opportunity to debate this issue and as soon as the Budget Debate is completed, we'll be going into Interim Supply during which that opportunity will again present Itself. So I submit, Mr.

Speak er, the line of questioning is out of order and the member's request should be denied. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina to the same point. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader fails to recognize the concern that is present in the community of Portage la Prairie and the school at Porta�e because of insistent rumours of the potential closing of their school and the loss of jobs and opportunities for employment at that school.

Those concerns are the ones that we are attempting to get to the bottom of in question period, since we have no opportunity to directly question a Minister at any other time, except question period, when the Estimates aren't before the House, and it is because of the concern of those jobs to people living in Portage la Prairie that we are posing these questions today and I think, Sir, they are perfectly in order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We have a rule regarding the type of questions attempted to be posed by the Honourable Member for Pembina.

That question was out of order and has been ruled out of order. lt should not be beyond the member's capability to obtain the information. perhaps some other way. 390 Red River Community College - Mental health workers' course MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the Minister of Community Services. Is her department participating in planning to develop a two-year diploma course at Red River Community College for the training of mental health workers? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M.

SMITH: I'll take that question as notice, so I can give a fuller answer. With regard to concern for jobs, though, I think it should be said again and again, as I've said before, we value the input of psychiatric nurses; we will continue to train psychiatric nurses. We may accomplish it in a somewhat different arrangement of where they get their basic training and where they get their practicum training. School of Psychiatric Nursing, Portage - Closing of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services.

Can the Minister tell us why she is contemplating closing the Psychiatric Nursing School in Portage, when this is the most comprehensive psychiatric nursing school in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the process of program evaluation and development and the building of the Estimates, we would be foolish if we didn't look at all the options for accomplishing an effective service more efficiently and seeing that the money gets to the people in need in the most effective way.

In the course of that careful scrutiny of the department's work, those issues are all looked at and examined carefully. MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. Can the Minister give us the assurance that the Selkirk Psychiatric Nursing School and the Brandon Psychiatric Nursing School do not have precedence over the Portage School because the Brandon and the Selkirk schools are represented by the Premier and by the Minister of Economic . . . CEDF Loans­ Beef N Reef Restaurant MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions, the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question 1s to the Minister of Northern Affairs. Is it the policy of the Provincial Governmen.t when they

Tuesday, 28 March, 1985 take over the management of a business, such as the Beef N Reef Restaurant in Lac du Bonnet, to manage it into a big financial loss and then place the business into receivership? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, no it is not our policy. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, is it the practice of the government when they place a business in receivership to leave an unpaid bill with the town of $8,500 in taxes, and according to reports, unpaid provincial taxes and unpaid employees -worst of all, unpaid employees? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr.

Speaker, I'll have to take those questions as notice. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Will the Minister assure this House that the receiver is not allowed to sell the Beef N Reef Restaurant in Lac du Bonnet -at a tremendous loss, by the way -until there is a thorough study of the effects the restaurant has had on the town and the effects that it will have on the town in the future? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A.

ANSTETT: I believe the honourable member is aware that the Receiver operates under the direction of the courts, and neither the Minister nor this House has any discretion to a matter which Is sub judice and in the hands of the Receiver operating under the court's direction. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the honourable member would like to rephrase his question to deal with the matter within the administrative competence of the government. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Then, will the Minister assure this House that he will withdraw the Receiver until there's a thorough study made of the consequences on the community regarding this restaurant? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is un der my ju risdiction to be falling back on the receivership in any case. Hydro development - Benefits to Province MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

In the welcome statement that the Premier has made this morning - (Interjection) - this afternoon, I stand corrected -he mentioned a number of areas 391 where the province would benefit. Could the Minister advise why these areas have been selected? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: I'm quite pleased to receive questions from members of this Legislature with respect to hydro development. They're coming now from people on this side of the House because the Conservative. opposition is much too deflated to ask questions about it.

When they do agree on questio.ns about this, Mr. Speaker, as usual they get their facts completely wrong. When in doubt, the Conservatives stoop to red-baiting, and the facts of the matter are that it was Brown Boveri and Canadian General Electric that were involved in discussions with the Manitoba Government in the latter part of the 1970s regarding possible contracts and possible benefits at that time, not the type of garbage that the Member for Lakeside was alluding to, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the question, Mr.

Speaker, legitimately and sincerely put, the Government of Manitoba has operated from three principles: We want to build on Manitoba's existing strengths and requirements; we want investments in areas in which CGE has experience and kno w-how; we want to secure long-term employment in manufacturing industries. So what we did, Mr. Speaker, we built on certain strengths, like the aerospace Industry because ·we believe that there are· these types of spinoffs from Limestone that can extend far beyond the construction of the hydro dam. We have said consistently, Mr.

Speaker, that Limestone means more than concrete, that Limestone means more than just a dam up North. 1t means a lot more for the overall development of Manitoba. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we wanted to draw on CGE's experience. They are involved in a lot of activities, not just turbines and generators, and we are pleased� Mr. Speaker, that we are able to tap that experience and know-how and bring it into the Province of Manitoba to do more than turbines and generators, and we believe that is a tremendous spinoff for the people of Manitoba. We also want to create secure, long-term employment.

What we are talking about, unlike what the Conservative Leader of the Opposition said that this is only a few jobs over a five-year period, what we're talking about are 2,000 net jobs ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. Members should be aware that questions should not be a speech, however short. I think it is only fair that answers to a question should also not be a speech. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Yes, thank you.

I thank the Minister for his response and would like to direct a supplementary to him and ask if he could advise if Canadian General Electric's investment in Manitoba, the cost of the turbines and the generators, will equal the investment in the province -the cost of the generators and the turbines?

Tuesday, 28 March, 1985 HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, obviously the members of the opposition are at a loss today and all they can do is quip about the agreement from their seats without raising sincere legitimate questions , which I'd be delighted to answer. I look forward to the opportu nity. In this respe ct, Mr. Speaker, we haven't quantified whether the exact amount of these investments will equal what the hydro contract with Canadian General Electric is in direct dollar terms over an eight-year period.

If you're having a company make a $10 million investment which is going to be a permanent long-term investm ent, if they are also making investments in the aerospace industr y, which again will be long- term permanent investments, when you have CGE bringing its expertise working with Native groups in Northern Ma nitoba spending $2 millio n on economic development, Mr. Speaker, I fully predict that the long­ term consequences of what we have arranged today and what we have announced today will far exceed $10 0 million to the people of Manitoba in the long­ term future.

Federal Farm Credit Corporation - Increase in interest rate MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Ye s, my last supplementa ry, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to - (I nterjection) - Mr. Speaker, I ·usually only ask no more than three questi ons, not like members opposite that'll ask sev en. My last supplementary I'd like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him, in regard to the recent incr ease by the Federal Farm Credit Corporation in interest rates to 3.5 percent, if he can advise what impact that will have on Manitoba farmers. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Min ister of Agriculture.

HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, not only will the increase be very hard felt by Manitoba farmers, but by all Canadian farmers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that farm groups, including the CFA, have attacked the federal monetary policy in support of the position that we have taken over the number of years when we were in opposition and now when we are in government that it will continue to do very severe damage, not only to our farm community but to the rest of the economy, Sir. ManOil-l nter-City Gas pipeline MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. I know his preoccupation with answering the que stions of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, but could he please answer the questions that I asked him over a week ago regarding his activities in ManOil for the Manitoba Pipeline Limited? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. 392 HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I had no activities in that matter. I did take the question as notice. I expect to be tabling the Annual Report of the Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation in the next few days.

I certainly have not had the opportunity to get the answer to that questi on , and I apologize for that. Mr. Speaker, we have indeed been involved with some very major and immediate matters of concern, namely, the NEB decision which came down in Manitoba's favour and this annou ncement regarding the offsets package which again is tre-mendously in Manitoba's favour. But I certainly will get the type of information the member asked for. Treaty land entitlement claims - Settlement of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. Can the Minister advise the House whether or not the government has established a formula for the settlement of the outstanding treaty land entitlement claims? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing negotiations with treaty land entitlement and the staff is meeting at this time and there should be some announc ements coming very shortly. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a suppl ementary to the Minister.

Has the government established a position, a baseline position with respect to a formula that they can make known to the public? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, when all the details are known of the entire package there will be an announcement made with respect to the formula as well. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling the House that he simply will announce settlements after they are made?

Can the House not have some information in terms of the dir ection these negotiations are taking and the kinds of arrangements that the government might make, in terms of the resources that belong to the province and that may be, in fact, turned over in these settlements? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing negotiat ions now with the different levels of government and also with the treaty land entitlement people and there will be opportunity for people to comment before the anno unc ements are made. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise how those comments can be made and up.on what are

Tuesday, 26 March, 1985 they to be made, if the Minister is not giving any indication of what kind of direction the negotiations are taking, or what kind of formula the government is using? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker , an agreement in principle has been reached and if the Member for Turtle Mountain would like some further details of it, I would gladly give him all the details that he would like. South Point Tourist Lodge - road MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D.

GOURLAY: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and ask him if the Department of Northern Affairs contemplates building a road into the South Point Tourist Lodge this coming season. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, our department's Estimates will be coming up shortly and I think questions of that sort should be raised during the Estimates process. Swan River Northern Affairs Office - Closure of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River . MR. D. GOURLAY: A further question to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

I wonder if the Minister can confirm that the Northern Affairs Office in Swan River is now closed and, if it is, whether it will it be of a permanent or a temporary nature. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, there have been some changes within the Department of Northe rn Affairs. We are moving to a greater degree toward block funding and a person who was employed at Swan River has been promoted to a position in Thompson. Therefore, there's going to be less and less need for as many co-ordinators in the field, and that position is going to be looked after by the Dauphin office.

Health, Department of - planners and evaluators MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health took a great amount of pride in indicating that he has in his department a group of planners and evaluators to plan and evaluate direction in the Department of Health: My question to the Minister of Health is, is he offering to the Premier to laterally move a couple of those planners and evaluators that he has on staff so that they can fill the positions that the Premier announced or spoke about yesterday and save the taxpayers some $100,000.00? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, there's no need for that.

I can assure you that the First- Minister is kept apprised and informed of all the good work we do in the Department of Health. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the action of the Premier makes the statement by the Minister of Health open to question. If the Premier is so aware of the activities in the Department of Health, why does he need to bring in extra staff at a cost of $260,000 to monitor and co­ ordinate health programs in the Province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The question is argumentative. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health indicated in his last answer to me that there is a very close liaison between the Premier's office and his department, in terms of planning and evaluation, etc. , etc. My question to the Minister of Health is, why does the Premier have to hire, at a cost of $260,000, people to monitor and co-ordinate health programs if there Is such a good amount of co-operation between himself and the Premier? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. 393 That is the same question and it's also out of order. Grasshopper infestation - proposed control program MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture will be aware that there was a very serious problem in southwestern Manitoba with grasshoppers last summer and that he has had a significant number of requests, especially from municipal authorities, to undertake a special control program for this upcoming season. Can the Minister of Agriculture advise the House what sort of plan, if any, that he will have In place? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON . B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member, I'm sure if he is not aware, I will advise him that the Province of Manitoba is the only province in Western Canada that has a policy whereby we provide the cost of the chemicals to municipalities and to other public lands where the province actually pays for the cost of those chemicals. There is no program that we have had or at the present time are contemplating, to deal with any financial assistance directly to individuals in the area.

Tuesday, 28 March, 1985 Our staff have been monitoring the situation and as well are in the process of meeting with municipal officials across this province in the areas where the outbreaks may be the severest, depending on weather conditions, and we're hopeful that the weather will be such as to curtail the infestation or lessen it.

Nevertheless, we have provided and will continue to provide co-ord inating, technical expertise to the municipalities in order that, if municip alities wish to have a co-ordina ted program, the way to put it together and the authority will be provided to them so that they can accomplish this. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same Min ister . The Min ister received a re co mmenda tion from the Keystone Agricultur al Produc ers with respect to this problem, that involved the possible hiring of perhaps two students to serve as a monitoring function and an advisory function.

Is the Minister acting in a positive way with respect to that recommendation from the Keystone Agricultur al Producers? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the honou rable member that we are perusing those recommendations. They came as part of a package to my office and we're certainly looking at them. The final outcome, specifically as to whether we will put students in the field in terms of monitoring and the like, we have not made that decision to this point. MTX -projected losses MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. Could the Mini ster responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System indi cate the amount of loss that MTX is expected to incur this year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Sorr y, Mr. Speaker. lt sounded to me like the kind of question that I'll be delighted to have officials of the Manitoba Telephone System and MTX answer during the Estimates period, but I couldn't hear the last part of the member's question. Perhaps he could rephrase it or give it to me again. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, my question is, how much money is MTX expected to lose this year? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I shouldn't indu lge in that kind of hypothetical guess. I'm sure that the honourable member knows the answer to his question because I'm sure that he would like to confirm that he has received full answers to letters that he's addressed to the chairman of the board and that information has been provided to him. I think that when the corporation is before the committee, we'll be happy to go into all of the details in connection with the report of the Manitoba Telephone System and MTX.

A MEMBER: That's big of you. 394 HON. A. MACKLING: Yes it is. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to mak e a Non-Political Statement. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honou rable member have leave? (Ag reed) The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last weekend in Saskatoon at the National Wrestling Championships, two Manitobans won gold medals. Chris Wilson, a 17-year-old resident of St.

Boniface in my constituency of Nlakwa won the junior 19- to 20- year-old, 62-kilogram weight class. Chris is still eligible to compete in the juvenile class which is 17- and 18- year-olds. In addition, Chris was chosen most outstanding wrestler out of 150 competitors. The other Manitoban who won a gold medal was Oavid Hohl who li ves in Fort Richmond in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. Oavid took the gold medal in the 74-kilogram class. Man itobans won two medals of National Juni or Championships in the sport of wrestling, never before done by Manitobans. Mr.

Speaker, Chris and David will represent Canada at the International World Championships to be held at Colorado Springs the first week in July. I would ask members of the House to join me in wishing them good luck in their next endeavour. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MR. SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance and the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Member for La Verendrye has 28 minu tes remaining. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night, in the few minutes I had allotted to me, I dealt with one of the problems which is now surfacing, Mr. Speaker, and that has to do with the government's policy with regard to the dair y farmers of my constituency and I guess to all the dairy producers in the Province of Manitoba and that is, namely, the inability for them now to transfer quota. Mr. Speaker, today I want to very briefly just outline some of the problems and show exactly how wrong­ headed this government is in their approach to many of their regulatory aspects of government.

I will deal with this issue first of all because it is one that Is very topical and of great concern to my constituents right now. We have young farmers, Mr. Speaker, in my riding who five years ago, got into the dairy business, one in

Tuesday, 26 March, 1985 particular who is working in the Town of Steinbach. His wife is working on the farm. His dream was to have about 100-cow opera tion, milk about 100 cows. He started off with 50 cows because that's where he thought he could make the payments and do the necessary work that would lead him eventually to be able to expand his farming opera tion. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman is now in the position of having one of the things that he has worked for in the last number of years really, really jeopardized.

By the government not explaining this, by not having consultation with these dairy farmers, you now have a situation where this farmer is trapped or locked into his operation with no hope of expansion, because the Mini ster has said you cannot transfer quota off the dairy farm. it's got to be sold with the farm. The Minister seems to show a total lack of understanding of what has happ ened in the dairy ind ustry over the years.

If you have a farmer who had about 100 milk cows and was ret iring, there would usually be three or four other farmers that would pick up that extra quota to expand their operations, and what we've seen now is that that type of transfer has been curtailed. I think, Mr. Spea ker, that the Min ister of Agriculture, when he finds out the type of pressure that's going to be put on him by some thousand dairy producers in this province, is going to back off his position.

I think this is one of these situations where the First Minister doesn't realize what his Minister of Agriculture has done and the kind of jackpot he's got him into. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, you are playing with the lives and the livelihood and the well-being of a thousand people in this province, who are the backbone of this communi ty, the backbone of this province, because everybody that knows anything about dairy farming knows that it is a seven-day-a-w eek, 18-hour-a-day job.

When the Minister moves with one fell swoop and reduces the equity that a farmer has in his operation that many have paid good hard-earned dollars for, Mr. Spea ker, I want to say to you that he is in big trouble on this issue. I would urge him to repent and go back into that Cabinet room and pass an Order-in-Council rescinding what he has done. Mr. Speak er, I say to you that the move by the Natural Products Marketing Council is one which this Minister is responsible for. He appointed the board and he's going to have to deal with it.

This is a problem that's facing my constituents in particularly large numbers, because I have a fairly large number of dairy producers in my area. But it's this type of wrong-headed approach, this type of regulation, without consultation that is going to be the downfall of this government. I'll tell you that this issue alone, along with the 99-chicken issue and a few others that I will relate to today, will do more damage to this government than over three-quarters of a million dollars worth of advertising can do them any benefit. So, Mr.

Speak er, I say to you, it's these little things that are affect ing the people of the Province of Manitoba and they will recognize that when it comes election time. I want to deal with some of the things that have been raised in the last number of days with regard to some other regulations. I have over the last number of years and I think all members on both sides of the House 395 have become concerned about increased costs with regard to personal care ho mes ; with regard to education; with regard to the functioning and running of hospitals.

But let's take a look at what regulations have done in increasing costs to the operation of these homes. I take, for example, the personal care homes that used to be run by church groups, Mr. Speaker, without any government involvement. There was maybe, at the most, a lower interest loan which was put forward by either. the Federal Government along with the help of the province, to get these institutions established. But then what would happen is that volunteers would come in, help out in the cooking.

For instance, in my constituenc y, we would have people come in who would mend and darn the laundr y and do the necessary repair work to bed sheets and that type of thing. Mr. Speaker, they would bring In canned goods. I know some farmers would donate chickens. You would have a system where people were working together voluntarily to help their fellow person that was in either a less fortunate position or could not look after themselves, and this was happening throughout the province. Granted, Mr.

Speaker, there weren't enough of these facilities and there was need for some government involvement, but what did we do? We said you can't give a pers onal care home any more canned goods because of food and drug . . . You can't do that because the standards aren't quite right. You're not allowed to donate poultry and that type of thing unless it's government inspected and government graded. So the little farmer who had raised an extra 50 chickens which he would give to the Rest Haven Home in Stein bach was suddenly cut off and he couldn't give that anymore. · Mr.

Speaker, we even so far - and this was the height of ridiculous ness and I think we see it happening now in the day care field. In 1978, when the tornado went through, touched part of St. Pierre, came through Ste. Anne, and went through a little community called Greenland, Aubigny is the other community that was very badly hit at that time, we had a personal care home which was demolished in Greenland. The church group that was running that par ticular facility then came to me.

They said they had approached the government and the officials in the department indicated that if they wanted to build a personal care home, even if they didn't want any government subsidy or government money to build it and didn't want any subsidization or any money to continue the operation of it - in other words, they were ready to build a facility, a personal care home which would not require any government funds in any shape or form - but the government said, no, you can't build that, you can't do that, we're not allowing people to do that. So, Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to say that after - and it took quite some doing - the Minister of Health at that time, my colleague the Honourable Bud Sherman along with his department, made some changes which allowed a group of individuals to do for themselves what they normally should be doing, and that is looking after thems elves without taxpayers' dollars. We have the unb elievable situation developing in day care now where when a group of people want to open a day care and don't want any government subsidy,

Tuesday , 26 March, 1985 they can't open it. They have to have subsid ized spaces. However, the Catch 22 in this one is that the gover nment has no money for extra su bsidized spaces. So, here you have a regulation - we talk about day care, we need more day care spaces - which really says to the ind ividual who does not· want any go ve rnment assistance, who does not want any government help, you can't do it unless you get some subsid ized spaces, and we don't have any money for subsid ized spaces; therefore, no day care.

That's what is at the root of this problem where the government doesn't want non­ subsidiz ed children in th ose centres playing with children in subsid ized centres. We are, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of proper regulation, for the bureaucratic buildup that we've all been entrapped in, we are in a situation where we're not even allowing people, taxpayers, people who want to do something for thems elves, they can't do it. That's a pretty sad commentary on our society today. Mr. Spe aker, this gove rnment, this Min ister of Agriculture keeps talking about the family farm.

We realize in this province that the thing that is happen ing, and the last couple of moves that the Minister of Agriculture has made, flies directly in the face of that type of announcement. You know the beautiful thing about that is that it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys across the way.

What we've seen happen is that they have totally lost confidence - my colleague, the Member for Virden who spoke on that yesterday - they have lost the confidence, not only of the farming commu nity, but I think of the average Manitoban who expected a lot more from this government and finds out now they are receiving very very little. Their dollar is not producing the type of return that they want to see.

I come to the other part of this Budget which I want to talk about for awhile, because I sense out in the community as you travel through the province, there is a growing concern about the deficit in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the people In Manitoba realize that you cannot overnight do away with the deficit because it would mean some pretty tough Budget cuts. There is a concern out there that there is no attempt being made by this government to at least start us on a path of biting into that deficit. How can you do that, Mr. Speaker? How can you start biting into that deficit?

Well, there's three ways that you can tackle the deficit problem. One of them is, of course, the simple one, which is a kneejerk react ion for all governments and that is to raise taxes. The second one is to trim your spe nding, and the third one is to try and stimula te economic development and growth within the province so that you can create more wealth, which will pay for the increased amount of services or just maintain the services that we require. I would suggest , Mr. Speaker, that an approach should be taken on all three levels in order to do a meaningful job in tackling the problem of the deficit.

The biggest condemnation of this Minister of Finance in his· last Budget, after having brought three down, the biggest condemnation will be the fact that he did not do anything to try and come to grips with that massive debt that we have. He didn't even offer the people of Manitoba a shred of hope of how he is going to pay back the $1. 8 billion that he has strapped on to their backs, that debt.

People are beginning to worry about that. 396 As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that the majority of people expect a dramatic turnaround in trying to get rid of it overnight, but there has to be a policy developed where we can start reducing the deficits which we have been incurring in the last number of years.

The lack of the will of this government to tackle that problem is also going to cause them a major problem and add to the defeat at the next election at the polls for the members opposite, because the people are not irresponsible In this province and they are concerned about the future and future development of this province. When we talk about borrowing, when we talk about $1. 8 billion being borrowed by this gover nment, just to cover deficit, that means - what is the figure? - about $200 million annually now has to be raised in taxes jus t to cover that deficit. If we hadn't had that deficit, Mr.

Speaker, we wouldn't have to have the payroll tax and we could drop several percentage points on the sales tax, or we could do some of the things which Saskatchewan has done and reduce maybe the gasoline tax. We're going the other way. We're not only Increasing taxes, Mr. Speaker, but the members opposite are in a position where they're increasing the taxes and increasing the deficit.

The average person is starting to sense that while there wasn't a big preoccupation with deficits when they were arou nd, the figur e of the capital amounts that the governments were spending for road construction and everyt hing, they are now realizing, Mr. Speaker , that this government really doesn't have a plan for the future and is not going to take us into the 19 90s on a path that the majority of people in Manitoba want. Therefore, they will not be returned to office.

What's happening is that there are so many issues out there right now that the government is trying with the one advertising blitz on Li mestone to try and cover up all those problems with that one ad. Just the First Minister getting up here and hiring people for the Department of Health - Mr. Speaker, I was interested to see the reply to my colleague from Pembina's question to the Minister of Health.

Really, what the First Mi nister said yesterday is that the planners in the Health Department really don't know very much and I'm going to spend another $250,000 to hire another five people at $50,000 a person to give me better advice than the Mini ster of Health has. Mr. Speaker, really what it is, it's a blatant move to try and put a few more friends on the payroll at 50,000 apiece. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I predict will happen.

We're going to see over the next little while a few more political friends hired to cover off and help out in the next election and that's really what we're doing. lt's election posturing and the people of Manitoba just won't buy it. What I find really interesting is that they are taking the same advice that the previous adminis tration did from their handlers.

I want to tell members opposite that there are always these people in the backroom of every political party, I believe, that say, you know, you aren't getting your message out, you aren't getting your message out. lt doesn't matter if you're in opposition or government you've got all these people that say, you're not getting your message out so what you've got to do is, you've got to advertise and you've got to get some high profile things to advertise; so, Mr.

Tuesday , 26 March, 1985 Speaker , what happens is, we have now seen this type of mentality brought to a situation where, in Manitoba, we have never seen the likes of this. We 've got $1 25,000, I understand, for creative work, paid to an outside advertising agency to do creative work for the Limestone development - $1 25,000 of taxpayers' mone y. Mr.

Speak er, they're spen ding $600,000 on advertising telling us how good they are and then this winter we were watching the papers and watching TV and there were headlines in the paper, "Shivering Tots Need Your Help." In the core area there were 6,000 kids who wer en't properly clothed because they didn't have the right parkas and here this government is out there advert ising and telling us how good they are. Mr. Speaker, where are their priorities? And the people of Manitoba know where their priorities are and their priority is only one - to look after themselves and get re-elec ted. Mr.

Speaker, the people of Manitoba will not buy that type of misus e of government taxpayers' money to prop up their sagging image, on image building, on hiring political hacks and running thousands of dollars worth of ads in the newspapers trying to promote their well being. That is the type of thing that is going to destroy members opposite because they're not being hone st with the public. We 're spen ding hundr eds and thousands of dollats on advertising when we've got kids in the core area that need winter jackets.

This is a socialistic government who prides itself on putting forward programs which are supposed to help the average and the underpr ivileged; but what do they do? They hire political hacks at $50,000 apiece and then they can't even afford to come up with any funds to clothe children in the core area. We have to go to the Salvation Army, which then puts on a fund raising drive to get clothes for the children. Now isn't that the height of rid iculousness and it shows the folly of this government and why they will not be re-elec ted. Mr.

Speaker, I want to spend just a few minutes on Limestone and Manitoba Hydro because I think - and I think the majority of Manitobans - are becoming suspicious of this government because of the type of advert ising that they're doing.

If it was ·really good, really as good as they say it is, they wouldn't have to advertise it; but there is that feeling across the way, I think, that the New Democrats feel that the average person really isn't smart enough to comprehend this so we're going to bombard them with about three­ quar ters of a million dollars worth of adver tising on this and this is where they have mi sread and misunder stood the people of Manitoba. Mr . Spea ker, I'll tell the Minister of Economic Development it was a mistake and you guys should have had the sense to realize that it was. We lost that election, Mr. Speaker .

We didn't win it, and you know why? Because one of the big reasons was that they made such an issue of the advertising of the mega projects that it really did hurt us; but instead of learning from our mistakes, they'r e going headlong into the situation. Mr. Speaker, here is something that the average person understands. According to the annual report tabled this week by the Min ister in charge of Manitoba Hydro, the annual report indicates that the total long­ term debt load of Manitoba Hydro is some $2.4 billion.

That's for the whole system; that includes all the dams on the Winnipeg River system; that includes the Nelson River system; that includes Jenpeg; that includes all the asset s that Manitoba Hydro has. Hydro today owes $2.4 billion. In one fell swoop this government is going to more than double the debt of Manitoba Hydro. Three billion dollars are going to be added on to the backs of the ratepayers of this province; and let it not be misunder stood that the ratepayers of this province are the ones that are responsible.

They're res ponsible. · What happens if NSP suddenly folds up because of some corporate problem or something? Mr. Speaker, we are liable; we are signing the note and we are going to more than double the total debt load of Manitoba Hydro, so when members opposite wonder why some of us are cautious with this deal, there is a reason for it - because the ratepayers out there realize what happened last time. Mr. Speaker, we now have $1.8 billion in deficit, which we have to look after. The government is now going to borrow another $3 billion for Limestone.

In a short four years, when you add up the $1. 8 billion deficit and the $3 billion they're asking for Limestone, they are committing us to roughly $5,000 per man woman and child of debt. Mr. Speaker, that's what they'r e doing and there are questions that the ratepayers want answered . I ask the Minister of Energy to get up and tell us - and we will be asking these questions during the committee hearings when Hydro will be appea r'lng before us - I want to know what effect this is going to have on our rate structure because that is the question.

They'v e done a beautiful job of skating back and forth and saying it will be at the Canadian average; but I want to tell the members opposite that isn't good �nough. · 397 Mr. Speaker, PEI doesn't have the Nelson River system and I don't want my rates to be the same as PEI. There is a heritage here. I don't want the same type of rate structure as New Brunswick has because of atomic reactors. I don't want the same rate structure.

We in Manitoba have a few benefits and one of them has been Hydro; and I don't want to see the members opposite tinker with Hydro, either from pulling out funds or making the debt loads in such a way that our rates have to increase so that we're compared with PEI.

There's a natural advantage to living in Man itoba and I want to maintain that and my ratepayers want that maintained; so when you are going out and doubling the debt of Hydro by building one generating station and the people out there know that the whole down side of it is theirs, if NSP had come up with half of the cost of the dam, because they want half of the power, and you would have sold it to them for 10 years, it would be a different story because they would then be locked in and the ratepayer of Manitoba wouldn't have to put their signature at the bottom of the line.

Many people know that a contingent liability can come home to haunt you. There are people who have eo­ signed for friends, for relatives and then when something goes wrong they are asked to then finally come up and make the payment on it; so the average person on the street knows what a contingent liability is and if you put your name to a loan, if something goes wrong, you could be left holding the bag and that's what the ratepayers of Manitoba are concerned

l'uesdaJ, 28 March, 1985 about. No. 1, they don't want to get left holding the bag and No. 2, they don't want to see huge increases in their Hydro rates, as we did during the '70s. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a government here who, very systematical ly, has made moves within almost every department, which either are in total contradiction of their philo sophical beliefs, but have done so because they sensed the mood of the public changing and they want to be back in office, so they are right now forsaking a lot of the princi ples that they got elected on and tha t their party was built on.

What is happening is that the people of Manitoba have their number and come the next election, Mr. Speaker, there will be a few of them on this side and there will be lots of us on the other side. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, C. Santoa: The Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I might be a bit short of breath for a few mi nutes as I ran from the press conference to make sure that I could partake in the debate. I'm pleased that th e Memb er for La Verendrye talked as long as he did. - (Interjection) - That's right.

I was told he didn't say anything but I guess he was talking off the top. I'm pleased to rise in support of this Budget which deals with all aspects of Ma nit oba society in a reasonable, respo nsible man ner. lt deals with providing social services in a compassionate way. lt deals with viable short- and long-term economic thrusts, and it deals with emergency situations. Last Thurs day, when the Budget was brought down on Budget day, I attended a sod-turning ceremony in Transcona for a 60-bed senior citizens' home built beside a personal care home. it's a superb deve lopment.

There was even a Federal Conservative M.P. there. There was the head of the Seventh Day Adventists that runs the personal care home, and also will be sponsoring the non-profit senior citizens' home there, saying that this was going to be a magnificent development, really meeting a need because they had done the analysis to show that there has been a need in Transcona for some years. lt had been acknowledged by the Federal Government that there was a need in Transcona, a bona fide need for senior citizens' housing.

I was very pleased that a New Democratic Government had been part of the process of meeting a legitima te need for a community in Transcona. As the MLA, I felt very good to be part of that process. But there was a tragedy inv olved with that. In 19 78, the Conservative Government of the Day, in a savage way, cut back a proposed senior citizens' home for that community of Transcona. The Member for Sturgeon Creek was the Minister resp onsible for Housing and he publicly said there's no need in Transcona for senior citizens' housing. That was a terribly fraudulent statement, Mr.

Speaker, one lacking completely in integrity because as the people did their homework, they found out that the need was there. The Conservative Government which didn't meet social needs in this province cut it out, just like the Conservative Government cutback on health care facilities through the lnterlake and other parts of the province. 398 Now you have people like the Member for Lakeside or the Leader of the Opposition having the gall to get up and say, you people aren't doing enough for health care, you people aren't doing enough for senior citizens. Mr.

Speaker, we are running like mad to catch up for their four years of neglect in this province, social services, health care, educa tion. The people know that and the people remember that and we're doing catch­ up even though we've gone through a worldwide recession that's been the worst since the Thir ties. So, this Budget reinforces that. it's providing social services. In terms of economic development, we're continuing the Jobs Fund and the Jobs Fund did an excellent job in the past. lt did it with respect to public sector investment primari ly.

We said we would make the shif t to long-term development, working in partnership with the private sect or - and tha t is happening. I am proud that this Budget continues the thrust of the Jobs Fund, Mr. Speaker. With that type of thrust, we will continue to have, if not the lowest, then the second lowest unemployment rate, a performance that never, ever was achieved when the Conservatives were in office. We, of course, have other developments happening with respect to long-term development. The Li mestone Generating Station, Mr.

Speaker, the indus trial offsets package that was announced by the Premier today providing tremendous benefits. I will speak on that later and I'll speak on tha t at length. MR. F. JOHNSTON: You couldn't speak on any1hlng because you're a sleaze. HON. W. PARASIUK: Now, isn't that the type of statement from the Member for Sturgeon Creek, who always says . . . A MEMBER: Put it on the record. HON. W. PARASIUK: . . . that we shouldn't talk about personalities, but that we should talk about issues. What does he whisper from his seat, Mr. Speaker? The type of nonsense tha t that man always does, unfortunately.

We also, Mr. Speaker, in this Budget deal with questions of emergencies. I want to see whether the Conservatives will support - what is it, the $20 million program we have for the MACC? - that program to lower interest rates for farmers. I want to see whether the Conservatives are going . to get up next Monday when we're voting on this Budget and say, yes, we agree with that program; we support this Budget. That is a challenge that's out there to them. Mr. Speaker, their amendments don't deal with that. No, their amendments don't deal with that at all.

They do not say that they are against the Budget because they don't want that $20 million program. Had they put that in as an amendment, it might have made some sense, but Mr. Speaker, they're going to get up and say no to the Budget, they're saying no to that $20 million program. They're saying no to a program designed to provide some assistance within a provincial area of responsibility for hard-pressed farmers.

This Is in di rect contrast to the approach being taken by the Federal Conser·1ative Government when they increased fees by someth ,ng in the order of $33 million, where they increased interest rates through the farm Credit

Tueed •y, 28 March, 1985 Corporation from 12.5 to 13 .25 or 12.7 5 to 13 .5 - (Int erjection) - That is what they are doing. They're taking more than a point in the sales tax from the Manitoba farmers. They are squeezing them, Mr. Speak er. lt is this government that is trying to deal with the emergency in a very reas onable, reasoned way. it's going to be interesting to see whether this opposition, who are negative about every thing, literally every thing, will get up and say, I support this Budget if only for the fact that I'm from a rural area and I believe that this is a very good thing for farmers.

We, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, believe that that program is a very good program for farmers and that's one of the reasons why we're proud to support this Budget. I'm going to spend a bit of time talking about the hydro development, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to do that because we haven't heard much about this from people on the other side. You know, we get statements made from them every once in awhile when they thought that they couldn't be held accou ntable for these statements.

I have a monitor of who is saying what about what aspects of hydro, because it's imp ortant tor the public to be correctly informed about hydro deve lopment, especially when people on the opposition side try and misinform the public about it. This is what the Conservative Hydro critic said on CBC TV telecast on November 24, 19 84. "Today the present NDP Government is close to making a decision that could prove to be the biggest economic blunder in the history of our province.

I'm talking about the proposed sale of energy to the United States and the premature construction of a $3.2 billion Limestone Generating Station on the Nelson River." If ever I heard a statement against the NSP deal and against Limestone development, it came out very clearly at that time, Mr. Speak er. Then he said at the end of his statement in November, "Surely, you would expect that on an issue of such impor tance the people you elect to represent and safeg uard your interests would be debating this matter in the Legislature. We can't. The Legislature has been in recess since last June.

I take this occasion to call Howard Pawley and the New Democratic Party Government to call us back to work. Let us debate and reconsider before we embark on a course that could place a tremendous financial burden on Manitoba Hydro, on the government, and increase taxes and hydro rates for all Manitobans. Good night." That is from the Member for Lakeside. So I sat here yesterday; it's the Budget Debate - a great opportunity to talk about Hydro just after the NEB Report came down - waiting to debate Hydro and where they stood on the other side. So what do we have? We have them debating 99 chickens.

A MEMBER: Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall. HON. W. PARASIUK: Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, saying that that is the major issue facing the hydro freeze. A MEMBER: For that he wanted to come back? HON. W. PARASIUK: And then they get upset when we say these are the Chicken Littles? For that he wanted 399 to come back? For that I waited eight days in the House to get a question about Hydro, and even then the first question came from a New Democratic Party back bencher, and then the Conservatives thought that they might ask one or two questions.

Did you notice the broad range of questions they asked about Hydro today and the indus trial offsets package and their rigorous analysis and their detailed research and their homework? Because this groups likes to go out and ask questions, Mr. Speaker; they want to go out there;­ they want to get the truth. One itty little question that ultima tely was ruled out of order . . . A MEMBER: Dealing with 10 years ago. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Dealing with something that supposedly happened 10 or 12 years ago; dealing with something that factually was incorrect, because usually what happens - and this is a sad characteristic about many, not all, but many of the Conservative members opposite - is that when they do get involved in a debate and if the going gets a bit tough - and sometimes debates in this House get tough on both sides - they start screa ming "sleaze;" or secondly, they start redbaiting. There have been members on the other side that I never expected to stoop that low.

Just like a person who runs out of things to call someone, isn't winning the argument, and then says, oh, of course you're a Commie.

That's the type of approach that those people on the other side stoop to, while at the same time going out to· the general public and saying, we want to get Involved in reasonable debate about Hydro. it's totall y unbec oming and it's totally unwarranted, but it's an approach of fear mongering, an approach of tear mongering by people who ""!ant to raise the most false imp ression, a whole set of red herrings and never want to deal with the truth and never want to deal with the answers. We have the Leader of the Opposition - I know there now appear to be three.

I' ve noticed that we have the Memb er for Charleswood, who still basically tells the present Leader when to stand up or sit down. I have noticed a pretty strong role being played very quickly by the new Member for Fort Garry, who is down trying to coach the present Leader of the Opposition, almost on every question or every ministerial statement.

I find that a bit surprising, seeing as how the Memb er for Tuxedo has been in the House for some time longer than the Member for Fort Garry, and I would expect that after the next election, when the Conservatives fall flat on their face - because they're falling pretty quickly - that he will indeed be one of the serious candida tes for the leadership within the Conservative Party. A MEMBER: I don't know. I think Harry's got a good chance next time. HON. W. PARASIUK: I think they might have made a mistake by not going with him in the first place, but I don't think he could derive enough support.

But let's take a substanti ve look for a few moments. We'll take a substantive look at the general Conservative position with respect to the NSP sale and the Limestone development, and then we'll go into some of the

Tuesday, 26 March, 1985 specifics of what the NEB said. Then we'll deal with this industrial offsets agreem ent, because it is an excellent agreement for Manitoba and it a bre akthrough in terms of economic development in this province, a breaththrough that we intend to build on from, some thing that they never came close to achieving, Mr. Speaker. Now the basic thesis of the Conservatives is that they are against the NSP sale and if they had the oppor tunity they would stop the sale and stop the development from going ahead.

They now say that it's not true, having consistently said that this is not a good sale; having consistently said that the analysis that was done was wrong; that if it wasn't a sensitivity analysis, there would be no profit; this is a tremendous gamble. That was said over and over and over again by the Conservative Party, both In this House and outside this House and, Mr. Speak er, at least when we have an opportunity with transcripts of radio broadcasts to find out what they said or didn't say, at least we can deal with that; but, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what the Leader of the Opposition says to bad-mouth Manitoba when he goes to Montreal or Toronto or Calgary. Luckily, occasionally we have the press pointing out that he wants to sell Mc Kenzie Seeds, Mr. Speaker. We ll, if he says those types of things behind closed doors in other provinces, bad-mouthing this province, heaven knows what he says about somet hing like Limestone. Heaven knows what he says about some thing like the NSP sale.

They criticize the economics of the NSP sale and the impact on Limestone development and they made up fictitious figures and fairy tales which they called facts. They intervened in the NEB Hearing and the Leader of the Opposition said, "Our purpose in appearing here is to ensure that we have an opportunity to cross­ examine and request further clarification on items presented ." Fine, we had all the experts there, a range of experts that had been used by the previous Conservative administration when they were doing some of their calculations for the Western Grid.

They were there on panels and the Conservative's opportunity arose to ask questions and get their supposed questions answered or to go further because at that NEB hearing - just like at the Public Utilities Committe e meetings and there were four of them - staff from the Manitoba Energy Authority and Manitoba Hydro presented all the information over and over and over again. We thought that maybe they had thick skulls on the other side, so what you had to do was repeat, repeat, repeat. I still think that there may be an element of that, but at the same time, Mr.

Speaker, I've come to the conclusion that they did not want to hear the answers, because if they heard the answers they would have to agree with us. They would have to say yes, the NSP sale is an excellent sale; yes, Limestome is a go; yes, this is an excellent development for the people of Manitoba.

But they didn't ask any questions, and then they went further and stated - and this was quite cute because they did it before the NEB came down in their amendment to the Throne Speech Debate - their motion stated that both the government has abandoned the orderly financial development of our hydro-electric resources for the benefit of all Manitobans in favour of a wilful rush into an election-mot ivated development time schedule.

I mean the nonsense of that position was graphically illu strated when the NEB report came down with 400 conclusio ns based on analysis that the board did, showing that a two-year advancement by Manitoba Hydro of the Limestone Generating Station could be expected to derive net benefits of about $385 million from the two-year advancement case." That's from the NEB Report.

They further say that their analysis of a one-year advancement of Limestone, " ... showed that Manitoba Hydro could be expected to derive net revenues of some $365 million." So the NEB says that Manitoba Hydro, the people of Manitoba will derive an extra $20 million with a two-year advancement, an extra $20 million. And what do the Conservatives say? The Conservatives say that we've abandoned the orderly financial development of our hydro-electric resources. A MEMBER: They're wrong again. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Wrong again, but worse than that, they then want to publicly say that they're not against the NSP sale and that they're not against the Limestone development. MR. H. ENNS: Of course not. HON. W. PARASIUK: Of course not, he says. You can't have it both ways. I mean, your leader's legs are so stretched over those fences that he's going to crack right up the middle, Mr. Speaker. MR. H. ENNS: lt would have just been being finished right now. HON. W. PARASIUK: That is another interjection which I don't mind receiving at this time.

That's an interjection from the Member for Lakeside who said that, if the Conservatives were in power, they would just be in the process of finishing up Limestone and that is as big a piece of nonsense as the nonsense of their position with respect to the NSP sale. The Wes tern Grid was predicated on an overheated Alberta economy, on a $17 billion tar sands plant, on a $9 billion heavy oil plant and on about a $20 billion pipeline from the Arctic. None of that came through.

Their load growth projections have plummeted to the point where they have two thermal generating stations in and around the Edmonton area that are being mothballed, that have been mothbafled because there's no demand for electricity in Alberta the way they had planned it. Furthermore, the demand or the need for those two thermal genera ting stations was, in fact, ahead of any requirement for power from the We stern Grid. They planned to build those two stations first and possibly get power from the Grid, Mr. Speaker.

Those are mothballed and you have the audacity of the Member for Lakeside getting up and saying that if we were in, we'd be like King Canute; we'd hold back the waves, Mr. Speaker. lt would all be happening. That's patently untrue, and when people get up and say that and misinform the public about that over and over, the public realizes that it is untrue. They see all the Albertans leaving. They read of situations where you have 2,000 homes in Calgary that are em pty, a new subdivision. They see that Edmonton has 15 .5 percent unemp loyment rate. Can Y,OU imagine

l'UesdaJ, 211 March, 1185 the situation that exists in a city when you have 15 .5 percent unemployment? And these Conservatives say, that was the option that should have been pursued; that was our only option. Thank God the New Democratic Party Government was elected. Can you imagine where we'd be? No Grid, no demand for the power and they had turned their backs previously on opportunities to deal with the Western Area Power Admini stration.

We just heard the other day from Ontario Hydro that if they had had an opportunity to talk about this six or seven years ago they'd have been very interested in purchasing power in Manitoba six or seven years ago, but they had been told by Manitoba that they would only talk to Ontario after the Western Grid was done. What nonsense, putting all their eggs in one basket, laid one big egg, Mr. Speaker, a goose egg, and that's all their position is; it's an indefensible position, but they even go, worse than that, they come along and say, oh yes, but the Western Grid was a good deal.

We 'll sell power at cost for 25 years to Alberta and Saskatchewan, take all the risk. They wouldn't associate all the costs of advancement of other generating stations, Mr. Speaker. They would n't take In the costs of advancing Conawapa, of advancing Wuskwatim and frankly there's a lot more costs in that, because if you commit power for 25 years from ttie entire generating station, you'r e putting Manitoba at some great risk and making them quite vulnerable. You know, Mr. Speaker, they were prepared to sell MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Lakeslde had an opportunity yesterday to talk about Hydro. I didn't interrupt him; I found it amusing that he would spend all of that time talking about chickens and then when I get up to debate Hydro, find that he wants to interrupt my speech and talk about Hydro. He didn't even take his entire 40 min utes. it's not as if he ran out of time so that he couldn't speak about Hydro. He's deflated, Mr. Speaker.

The Conservative Opposition, on the whole issue of Hydro, is deflated; but let the people of Manitoba remem ber that despite the flat-tire Conservatives, despite their flat-tire approach on Hydro -let's not talk about it now, let's just sort of sweep it under the carpet because there are so many good things happening with Hydro • but the people of Manitoba kn ow. The people in Brandon are saying, Limestone end orsed -right on!

The editorial in the Thompson Citizen is interest ing, not a Conservative by any stretch of the imagination. says that this government is right and correct in proc eeding with Limestone. certainly not a traditional New Democratic Party paper; but. Mr. Speaker, their intransi gence against the NSP sale, their intransigence against the Limestone development is pushing people into our camp. In contrast with a situation where you sell power at cost for 25 years and you can't make a profit, you have the NEB saying, in connection with the NSP sale.

"The board is satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case. the export price Is the best price that could be negotiated by the applicant in its particular United States market." The 401 best price. Did they say that about the Saskatchewan price, at cost, all the risk on Manitoba's side, no options?

No, they didn't, and then we have people like the Member for Lakeslde from his seat saying we're selling power at a subsid ized price and they say, and I quote the NEB, "However, the board is aware that the export price would be substantially greater than the rates paid by the applicant's large Industrial customers." And we still have the Member for Lakeside going out saying they're somehow selling it at a fire . sale price, Mr. Speaker. What patent nons ense.

We'r e going to go out and take this around to the different parts; we will take this around to the people of Manitoba and we will say, yes, there is a profit. There is a profit in 1984 terms of $385 million to $400 million; there's a profit in as received terms of $1 .64 billion to $1.7 billion and isn't that good for Manitoba. We will also say that If you had a Conservative In office, they wouldn't have any profits. Mr. Speaker, I think they're having some type of communi cable disease occur on the other side. They're being involved with non-profitable ventures.

They're against profits right now; they want to give away Hydro. We had the President of Manitoba Hydro quite clearly state, In the Public Utilities Committee, that the ratepayers of Manitoba would receive substantial benefit from an NSP sale, which is far greater than they would receive if there was no NSP sale, and that is what the person said. This group, on the opposite side, wants to somehow impugn the integrity of . the Hydro staff; they've done that consistently and deliberately, they keep saying, all of these are manu factur ed num bers.

Hydro just manufactures all these numb ers, we can't trust them any more, Mr. Speaker, haven't we heard that type of statement before? That's the type of statement they make, we can't trust them, they haven't done their homework. The board says, and I quote, "The board accepts that the sensitivity analysis add resses risks and demonstrates that under conditions of lower and higher interest rates and lower and different load growth rates, benefits to the applicant remain substant ial." Substantial.

"Based on these considerations, the board is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to show that the risks associated with the proposed export have been adequately examined and are within acceptable bounds." End of quote. End of Conservative position. End of Conservative position.

Their so-called experts failed the test when they had the opportunity to ask questions with the Public Utilities Committee; they failed the test when they had the opportunity to ask questions with the NEB, and they're failing the tests in this House by ducking the whole Hydro issue and ducking the whole industrial offsets issue, Mr. Speaker. Then they say, why does the Leader of the New Democratic Party Gove rnment, the Premier of Manitoba, call us a bunch of Chicken Littles? Mr.

Speaker, I know of no more appropriate name than Chicken Little, who ran around saying, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Isn't that what the Leader of the Conservative Party has been saying consistently? Isn't that what he has been saying consistently about Hydro development, "The sky is falling, the sky Is falling." The sky isn't falling. Development is taking place, and I might note that this type of development of Hydro has indeed gone

Tueaday, 26 March, 1985 beyond partisan boundaries. Douglas Campbell and the Liberal Go ver nment were involv ed in Hy dr o development; Duff Roblin and the Conservative Government, the Red Tory government at that time, were involv ed in Hydro development; Howard Pawley and the New Democratic Party Government are involved in Hydro development. I'm proud to be associated with this government.

The glaring exception in this, in terms of Hydro development never being achieved, was the Weir Government, a Conservative Government, and of course, the Lyon Government, which for four years was an utter abject failure in the eyes of Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, - (I nterject ion) - that's right, a footnote in history, both Weir and Lyon will get the · same footnotes in history, a passing footnote. Mr. Speaker, we have many more statements here from the NEB that the opposition doesn't want to hear. Again, they wouldn't want to hear the truth.

I look forward to the opportunity of going on different forums and talking about this and asking, why would the board state, "The board noted however that its assessment of the export licence application had not revealed anything wrong with the Manitoba Hydro generat ing expansion plan." That's what the National Energy Board said about this. We said consistently that it's Manitoba that determines when Hydro proceeds. We were seeking an export licence from the National Energy Board, which is not a group that doesn't deal with this type of analysis.

They deal with export licence after export licence after export licence, so the y'r e well versed in -all the economics of export sales with respect to electricity. They did their homework; they said it's not for us to comment on the expansi on schedule, th at's for someone else to decide. But in our analysis, we find nothing wrong with the analysis of Hydro.

They go further and say, "In our analysis, we find that the num bers projected by Hydro of a profit of $385 million in 1984 terms for this type of development are correct, a $20 million benefit to Manitoba from a one year advancement." That is what we will take to the people of Manitoba, a net benefit.

This group on the opposite side, then want to try and make believe. again, with the worst type of research and the worst type of arithmetic than one can imagine, they come along stating that If you start Hydro a couple of years early, that you will inde ed have to pay $300 million in inte rest charges right off the bat. That shows a complete lack of knowledge as to how Hydro has been costed under people like Douglas Campbell, Duff Roblin, Ed Schreyer and Howard Pawley.

Manitoba Hydro and the board. both the management and the board, ind icated that the 1990 date is the most economic in-service date due to the NSP sale. That's because when you bring the dam on, when it comes in service only two turbin es and generators come in service in 1990, in November of 1990, so your costs for that year amount to something in the order of $20 million. Not the $300 million that the Member for Lakeside says; not the $300 to $360 million that the Member for Turtle Mountain or the Member for Tuxedo say; those are completely and totally ina ccurate. False.

Going around spreading falsehoods about the Hydro project, Mr. Speaker, and I call that fear mongering, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Manitoba will not accept that fear mongering. They then go further and they say that we should change our whole hydro system. turn it upside down, 402 Mr. Speaker, to meet their political ends. They say we shouldn't be concerned about reserve capacity . The Tories even suggested that Manitoba Hydro change its reserve capacity policy in order to delay Limestone construction, and that was raised by the Member for Tuxedo, the Leader of the Conservative Party.

John Arnason, the President of Manitoba Hydro, at the Public Utilit ies Committee said, "I don't want to take that risk." He said, "I don't want to take that risk ." "As an example, Mr. Chairman, in the last peak period when we had a peak of 2,889 last December, we had some 389 megawatts out of service or derated. That was over 12 percent of the peak that occurred in December and our reserve policy is 12 percent. it's for two pu rposes, one for taking care of emergencies such as unit outages, and the second component, about 4 percent of that 12, is for variations in load forecast.

So it's there for a good purpose, and I don't think you should use that for the purpose you just mentioned. it's too great a risk." That's what the professionals at Manitoba Hydro said, and that flies completely in the face of the position put forward by the Conservatives, who would do anything, anything, Mr. Speaker, to stall the development of Limestone, do everything to put the people of Manitoba at risk for crass political ends, for crass political ends, Mr. Speaker. When judgment day comes around, Mr.

Speaker, the people of Manitoba will look out and say that there is one party and one government that brings about development in Manitoba, both short-term development and long-term development, and that is the New Democratic Party Government. And there is one party and one government that fails, Mr. Speaker. the Lyon Government failed between 1977 and 19 81, and surely they would fail if they were ever elected, so on jud gment day we can rest assured tha t the Conservatives will not win the next election. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity to make a few comments on the Budget, particularly after the Minister of Energy and Mi nes, whom I consider to be a good friend and an old fraternity brother from our university days. I wish, however, Mr. Speaker, to take a different approach than the .Mini ster of Energy and Mines did. I would prefer, rather than to discuss the Budget in a very political way, to approach and discuss it in a non­ partisan way, hopefully, because I think we're all elected here as individuals and no matter what our political affiliation.

Sir, we truly want to see happen in Manitoba what is in the best public interest of Manitobans. Therefore, I would like, firstly, to look at some tables that are included in the Budget, particularly on Page A- 17 . the Province of Manitoba Direct and Guaranteed Debt. These are the facts that are set forth in the Minis ter of Finance's Budget. I note, Mr.

Speaker, that the general purpose debt - forgetting about the debt of Manitoba Hydro or other self-sustaining debt - has increased from $1.3 45 billion when the government took office, to $2.8 79 billion in 1984, and we must add to that the $496. 2 million deficit of the Province of Manitoba this year, so that we conclu�e that the

1\le�y, 28 March, 1985 increased general purpose debt of Manitoba during the four-year term of the present government has increased over $2 billion. I note also, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure the Member for Turtle Mountain will want to comment on this when he speaks to this Budget, that from 1981 to'82, the general purpose debt in creased from $985 million to $1 .345 billion, even though the deficit that we budgeted for was only $250 million. The general purpose debt increased by $360 million, even though we ran a deficit of $250 million.

I can recall the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain questioning the Min ister of Finance and the government about borrowings by the government prior to the end of the fiscal year in 1982 and whether or not they were necessa ry. Obvious ly, in retrospect, what the government was trying to do at that time was to borrow money so that it appeared that the debt was in creased under our government when, in fact, there was unne cessary borrowing taking place at that time which increased that debt figure by some $65 million more than the deficit that we had budgeted for. But, even forgetting about that, Mr.

Speaker, the facts are that the debt of the province, the general purpose debt - not the debt of Manitoba Hydro or other self­ sustaining debt - has been Increased by over $2 billion in four short years under this government.

I raise that in a completely non-p artisan way, because I think the average Manitoban - let's forget about those who are Conservatives, those who are card-carrying New Democratic Party members - that group of people in the middle who are politically unaffiliated and who actually determine the results of elections whenever they are held, are going to have to took at tho se figures and ask the question, who is going to pay off this debt? Who is going to pay off that debt? Mr.

Speaker, we're in an era and a time in society when there is great concern over whether or not the diminis hing younger population can support a rapidly aging population and the Canada Pension Plan, and there is great concern over whether that pension plan itself will go bankrupt because of the lack of ability of a diminishing population to support it. In the meanwhile, this government has increased that debt by over $2 billion.

I'm sur e that that group of people who are politically unaffiliated would say that that is extremely irresponsible, because they're going to say, as so many Manitobans are, they're attempting to raise families, they're attempting to do as much as they can for their children to give them the best possible opportunity to work and get a job and have as good a life as they can. Meanwhile, these young people are going to have to be responsible for paying over $2 billion in .debt , incurred in that short period of time. When you look back, Mr.

Speaker. up until the end of fiscal year 1982, over 112 years of government, only $1 .345 billion in dir ect debt had been incurred. In four years, that has been much more than doubled. lt's absolutely aston ishing. No one in their private life and their home life and their business life would dare to incur that kind of debt. Ifs absolutely irresponsible for a government to do that and to cast the burden on the young people of this province to pay off that debt . We're going to find. Mr.

Speaker, that services will have to be reduced because the debt charges are going to have to be paid; those are going to increase - they're 403 $273 million this year. Can you imagine what amount of services could be provided for $273 million? Somewhere in the Budget there's a reference to the fact that total revenue of the government has in creased $161 million. And there's a good sign - revenue increases by $161 million, debt charges are $273 million this year. We're going down. Our financial situation is rapidly deteriorating under those circumstances.

The increase in revenue can't keep up with the increase in the debt charges. So there's no question we're going . to have a deteriora ting quality of life under this sort of financial planning, if that's what it can be called. - (I nterjection) - Well, they've gone Into it deli berately, Mr. Speaker, so I guess we have to say that it's financial planning. Now the other interesting area that I looked at, Mr. Speaker , was the in crease in revenue th at this government has received during their four years. In 19 81- 82, the revenue of the government was $2. 161 billion.

When one does a calculation of the additional amounts of revenue that this government has extracted from the taxpayers, I find that during four years, this government has extracted from the taxpayers of Manitoba $2.689 billion In additional revenue from the base in 1982. Despite that figure, we are still looking at this increase in general purpose debt of over $2 billion. So we're looking right there at $2 billion plus $2.6 billion or $2.7 billion in additional revenue they've taken, and Manitobans have to ask themselves if they are any better off. The obvious answer, Mr.

Speaker, is that they are not better off anywhere. Mr. Speaker , I believe that the average Manitoban will be greatly concerned with the increase in debt under this government and the responsibilities for paying off and discharging that debt that will be Imposed on those that follow, and the effect that it's going to have, frankly, on services that can be provided by the government in the very near future because the debt charge are going to decrease those services. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like also to examine for a moment the details of estimated revenue because I certainly have some questions about these figures as to whether revenues are overstated or are representative of substantial increases in fees and charges on the public of Manitoba. One gets the feeling, and it's just certainly a suspicion at this moment - we'll have to wait to see whether or not it proves to be true - with the Budget coming in with a deficit of $496.2 million, that there were some th ings done just to try to get unde r, supposedly to them at least, the magic figure of a $500 million deficit.

I look at the payroll tax which Is supposed to increase from $10 8 million to $1 16 million. I think, Mr. Speaker, that implies a growth in employment that is simply not there. I look at the in crease in revenue under the sales tax which is supposed to go from $385 million to $417 million and I don't think that kind of in crease will take place. I look at the increase in revenue from the Land Titles Office un der the Attorney-General which Is supp osed to go from $7.8 million to $10 million. That is a very significant increase. Now, Mr.

Speaker, there was a substantial increase in charges in fees im posed by the Land Titles Office system · a year from last February, but I don't believe that there will be an increase in the type of transactions done by the Land Titles Office that is going to increase their revenue and their profit by more than 20 percent.

Tuesday, 26 March, 1985 There's also, Mr. Speaker, an increase in the Personal Property Security Registry from $1. 3 million to $1 .98 million. That's nearly a 50 percent increase in revenue from the Personal Property Security Registry. Now, the Registry has in the past been operated very efficiently and revenue has virtually equalled the cost of operations. I don't know whether this indicates a substantial increase in fees for the users of that system, or whether these revenues are simply overestimated. The most astonishing one, Mr.

Speaker, is the Liquor Control Commission in which the government estimates revenue is going to go from $130 million to $141 million. Now. there has been. during the past number of years and partly as a result certainly of the increases that this government has imp osed , a drop-off in consumption of alcohol in the Province of Manitoba, and that's all to the good.

But in view of that, to suggest that there will an increase of $11 million in profit from the Liquor Control Commission in this forthcoming year, I think is incorrect, unless the government is planning on imposing or increasing a tax which has already caused, for example, the prices of spirits to be the second highest in Canada. Now, this figure of $141 million, Mr. Speaker, is also up from $90 million when our government took office.

Again, this is an astonishing figure because they have in four years raised prices to such an extent that there has been a 50 percent increa se in revenue from the Liquor Cont rol Commission. Under Community Services, Mr. Speaker, revenue is expected to go for Vital Statistics certificates from $625,000 to $1 million. Again, that is by, I suspect, their imposing a drastic increase in charges to the people of Manitob a for the operation of Vital Statistics certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, birth certificates, etc. That is, as they said in opposition, Mr.

Speaker, passing the burden on to the individual rather than facing up to the financial position they find themselves in. Under Culture and Heritage, the revenue is to go for the Film Classificat ion Board from $84, 500 to $419 ,000.00. Now, they're getting into classification of videos which is something I support in principle, Mr. Speaker, but it would ind icate that there's a very significant increase in revenue and/or charges. There is, Mr. Speaker, under Finance, a category that's called Refund of Prior Years' Expenditures. I'm not sure what it is but it goes from $1 million to $33.5 million.

Perhaps the Minister of Finance could explain that at some time. Under Health, we have $1.9 million in Sundry Revenue going to $3 million. Obviously, Mr. Speaker. that's another burden of charges that is being passed on to the taxpayer. There's an in crease under Drivers' Licences in revenue of some $400,000 - again, Mr. Speaker, obviously an increase in licence fees that has been passed on to the consumer. Under Sundry and Highways, Mr.

Speaker, there's an increase of over $1.1 million; from $1 .8 million to $2.95 million, again indicative of further fees and increases in charges being passed on to the consumers of that service. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. We have a Minister of Finance that says in the Budget there'll be no increase in taxes, except for th ree 404 particular items that he referred to in the Budget. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are substantial increases in taxes and user fees on the public of Manitoba in this Budget on the basis of fees and charges.

The people, whether they're using the Land Titles Office system, if the y'r e buying a marria ge certifi cate or a bir th certificate, if they're using the parks and whatever, if they're buying a driving licence, this government has imp osed very significant increases in those fees and in those charges to indi vidual Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments made in the Budget by the Minister of Finance that are worthwhile commenting on. The Minister of Finance said on Page 2 of his Budget that we have made saving and creating jobs our No. 1 commitment.

They may very well have made it their No. 1 commitment, but they have failed in that commitment. There are now, as you are well aware, 20,000 more unemployed persons in the Province of Manitoba. What is most disturbing is that in December of this year in the monthly labour market statistics, this province was last in the job creation statistics. In January, we moved up to eighth. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board has predicted that this province will have the lowest unemployment growth in 1985. There are serious -pardon me, lowest emp loyment growth in 1985. Most serious ly, Mr.

Speaker, in the manufacturing area, unemployment down sign ificantly , whi lst other provinces have recovered from the recession in that particular area of job activity. So, Mr. Speaker, those are the simple and pure facts and what they indicate is a failure of this government and its policies in creating jobs in this province. They talk, Mr. Speaker, further on in that page about growth in population and they refer to a decline in population of some 600 people under the last Progressive Conservative Government from 1977 to 1981. But most significantl y, Mr.

Speaker, if one looks at the growth in the employment force that took place from 1977 to 1981, there was a 35,000 increase in the employment force, and in three years to date under this government, there has been only an increase of some 25,000 persons in the employment force and that is contained and referred and attached as one of the appendices, the actual statistics from the Labour Market Bulletin. So while the government attempts to refer to a drop in population under the Progressive Conservatives, Mr.

Speaker, in fact the employment force grew so far by more than 10,000 people than it has under the New Democratic Party Government. Mr. Speaker, during those Conservative years, four of 35,000 people who joined the labour force, there were some 33,000 jobs created for them. For those 25 ,000 people who've joined the labour force under the New Democratic Party there have only been 11, 000 jobs created for them in the first three years of this government, Mr.

Speaker, and again the Conference Board predicts in this coming year, the last year of this government, the employment growth in this province will be the lowest in Canada. They refer, Mr. Speaker, to the best investment outlook in Manitoba and they conveniently refer to the years starting in 1983, while omitting the first year in office in 1982, which was an utter and complete disaster and then they base their position on the percentage increase that takes place from 1982, and that simply does not reveal the true and accurat� position of

investment in this province because the percentage of Canadian private investment that is taking place in this province has declined very considerably and that is the true statistics, but the government does not choose to use 19 82 statistics and thereby fudges the real position of this province with respect to investment. Mr. Speaker, the Min ister of Finance goes on to talk about the fact th at they wish to concentrate on proposals which will support long-term employment opportunities, and they say that and they mouth those words contin ually.

But the fact of the matter is that through their actions such as the payroll tax, labour legislation, the anti-business tax, they have discouraged those long-term employment opportunities in Manitoba and discour aged the creation of permanent jobs in Manitoba. We have many many examples that occur too often, Mr. Speaker. The most interesting one recently, of course, is the Vicon purchase of Co-op Implements and whether or not, Mr.

Speaker, that company is going to relocate outside of the Province of Manitoba because, in fact, of the labour legislation of this province, which requires it to assume a collective agreement with the union, with a company that virtually failed. The q