LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 18 February, 1988. Time- 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Pres enting ' Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pres enting Reports by St anding and Special Committees . . . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... MADAM SPEA KER: The Honour able Min ister of 1 Educati on. HON. A. PENNEA: Madam Speak er, I do have a ministerial statement, but it will be a few minutes late.

I would ask leave of the House to be able to intr oduce that ministerial statement, either at the end of routine proceedings or at the end of question period. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister 1 have leave? (Agreed) Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 1 MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have the former Member for the cons titu ency of St. Bonif ace, Mr . Larry Desjardins, with us. On behalf of all the mem bers, we welcome you to I the Legislature this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS MTS - proposed rate increase 1 MADAM SPEA KER: The Honourable Leader of the 1 Opposition. I 1 MA. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My i question is to the Min ister responsible for the Manitoba ; Te lephone System. 1 I wonder if he could ind icate: Will the Manitoba Te lephone System be applying to the Public Utilities Board for another rate increase this year? MADAM SPEA KER: The Honour able Min ister resp onsible for MTS. f HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to say that, for the year ending 1987, the Te lephone System does have a surplus.

We haven't completed the financial and audited statements yet for purp oses of tabling in 1 this House. 1 We are now working, Madam Speaker, on a number !Of proposals that we received from 21 meetings around Manitoba, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself, .some 21 meetings where we heard from Manitobans ·about the need for single-party lines, the need for larger 123 calling areas, and for the need of the commutershed. We are looking at a long-term plan, Madam Speaker, and as part of that long-term plan will be the costing of that long-term plan, and we haven't yet made those final decisions. MA. G.

FILMON: Ma dam Speaker, the Mini ster indic ated, I think he is Indicating that, in the last fiscal year just rec ently completed, the Te lephone System made a profit or a surplus, as he calls it. On the other hand, in the preced ing two years, the Te lephone System lost some $48 million: $28 million on the MTX fiasco; $19 million on foreign exchange losses, and Its reserves are depleted. Is the Mini ster indicating that he doesn't know whether or not the Te lephone System is increasi ng its rates, or is he instead suggesting that he wants to find a justification for increasing the rate? HON. G.

DOER: Madam Speaker, we publicly displayed numbers that would show how much it would cost to provide single-party lines for the 50,000 Manitobans who do not have them in Manitoba, how much it would cost to decrease the numb er of callin g areas in Manitoba, and how much it would cost to accelerate digita lization or modernization of the Te lephone System, some $0.5 billion in this province so we can improve services. Madam Speaker, the member opposite talks about the losses in Manitoba. He doe sn't mention that, in the Te lephone System, we have also put aside $65 million to deal with the change in pensions.

So if one is to look at apples and apples, the financial situation is equal, if not better , to when the member opposite was in government. Madam Speake r, I want to be pertectly honest - and I believe the Leader of the Opposition should be honest on this issue - you cannot spend $102 million on eliminating multi-party lines; you cannot spend $0.5 billion on modernizing the phone system without rate implications. Madam Speaker, we shouldn't try to play it both ways.

We shouldn't try to demand the improved services In one day in the communities of Manitoba and try to come back here, Madam Speaker , and state it has no implications for rate increases. That's very dishonest, Madam Speaker, and I reject it totally. MR. G. FILMON: Wel l, Madam Speaker, firstly I am shocked that the Min ister doesn't know whether or not his corporation Is going to be applying for a rate incr ease this year. Second ly, I am shocked that he should suggest to the public, who know full well about the $28 million . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FILMON: ... lost in MTX and the $19 million lost in foreign exchange, that had nothing to do with their financial situation.

Thund aJ, 18 Februai'J, 1• But my question to the Minister is: Has the strategy which he Is employing of talking about the reasons for the rate increases and the Imp rovement in the system got anything to do with the polling that was done on behalf of Manitoba's Crown corporations, in which the following questions were asked: "Would it be fair to increase telephone and hydro rates and boost Autopac fees 20 percen t"; and secondly , "Should Crown corporations be allowed to increase charges to create a surplus to cover costs and to allow moderniza tion?" Is that the basis of the strategy that he Is emp loying for Increasing the rates?

Is this just all a smoke screen to cover up for the losses In Saudi Arabia? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, If the member opposite can read the retained earnings account of the Manitoba Telephone System, the net surplus in the phone system, that is where the previous losses were taken. Madam Speaker, If the member opposite can read a fin ancial statement, they will also show a decrease in the unfunded liability of some $62 million on the pension side of the Manitoba Telephone System.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has not yet made a whimper about the $22 million tax grab for Michaef Wllson, hasn't even raised his voice. We have said pu blicly, Madam Speaker - (Interjection) - Madam Speaker , we have stated publicly that we would get rid of our $1.7 million tomor row If Mlchael Wilson will take away that $22 million a year grab from Manltobans for long distance calling, particularly in rural Manitoba. Where Is the Leader of the Opposition on that point? Madam Speaker, we have admitted that MTX was wrong. I have never yet heard that Project lda was wrong, Project FAST was wrong.

Last year at committee, I asked the Leader of the Opposition, where Is he at In terms of deregulation that will cause consumers 40 percent increases? Where Is he at with deregulation or competition In the commu nications area? He didn't have an answer, Madam Speaker. Maybe we could hear his answer today. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, this government is the last government to be able to complain about tax increases to Manitobans. The largest tax increase in the history of our province was perpetrated upon Manitobans last year, and Autopec increases of 44 percent to 109 percent.

MADAM SPEAK ER: Order please, order please. Order please. May I remind Honourable members that question period is not a time for debate. SOME HONOURAB LE MEMBERS: Oh. oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Long questions provoke long answers. Order please. The question should consist of one brief

preamble, and answers to questions should be brief and not provoke debate. Now if we can follow those two basic rules on both sides, then we could have question period instead of deba te. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition, with a question. 124 MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, if the Minister will refrain from the baffleg ab, will he tell us whether or not his corporation that he's responsi ble for, the Telephone System, is intending to apply to the PUB for a rate Increase this year? Cut out the bafflegab. HON. G.

DOER: Madam Speak er, again the member opposite does not have a position on deregulation which will cost all consumers 40 percent. He doesn't have a position. Ma dam Speak er, the reven ue requir ements as projected for the next five years of the Manitoba Telephone System are in and around the rate of inflation over the next five years. Madam Speaker, the revenue requi rements are offset by decreases in long-distance revenue, by potential increases in the local consumer rate. Those are fairly straightforward models: inflation, decrease in long-distance revenue and maintaining the existing telephone system.

Madam Speaker, if we were to go and modernize the system and provide individual lines, which members opp osite have been demanding - or maybe you have two different positions, one in rural Manitoba and one in urban Winnipeg. If we were to do the modernization, Madam Speaker, and if we were to do those kinds of things, it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and I've said that publicly. Secondly, Madam Speaker , the member opposite talks about a poll. We made public a poll to all Manitobans with respect to the Manitoba Telephone System. lt's public, and I . . . MADAM SPEAK ER: Order please, order please.

Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, clearly the Minister refuses to answer the question. However, he has given us some other answers. Let me ask him then: Is he. committing to the people of Manitoba that the rate in crease to be applied for by the Manitoba Telephone System this year will not be above the level of inflation? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speake r, we could very easily have a rate proposal in and around the inflation level if we did not want to accelerate and elimin ate 50,000 sing le-party lines. lt's very simple.

Madam Speaker, if we elimi nate sing le-party lines, it will cost $0.5 billion to modernize the system. We've made it public. 1t will cost $102 million for the construction and the im plementation of single-party lines. If we are to move on expanded areas - and these figur es are public - the expanded areas will cost, if we were to go for example from 160 areas in this province down to 30 areas in this province, the revenue lost would be $15 million a year. Madam Speaker, the other thing to keep in mind is that the long distance out-of-province rates are at zero and went down last year.

So when we talk about revenue, the revenue requi rements are in place. MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. I've asked the Minister three times to keep his answers short.

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 Autopac - rates - taxis and trucks MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Mini ster responsible for MPIC, affe ctionately known in the province now as, "Back­ Door Billie." MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind the honourable member that we only refer in the House to members by their proper names. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, I would like to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify the actions of his office in using blackmail tactics to silence the protest of the cabbies of this province.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mi nister of Municipal Affairs. HON. B. URUSKI: Mada m Speaker , I wish the honoura ble member would check his information instead of making. his stories from the Free Press. I would ask and I would say very clearly, Madam Speaker, that my office - neither myself nor any of my staff - in fact the staff person that was accused has been in the Civil Service for some 17 years. I feel very strongly that the member opposite should apologize to my secretary for making that kind of an allegation. Neither ever was there ever any kind of a suggestion that anyone come and meet clandestin ely.

Madam Speaker, we have met with seniors, we have met with the truckers. We are going to meet with the taxicab owners; we are meeting with all Manitobans, and we will continue to meet and speak about this issue, notwithst anding what honourable members may want to say that they want to privatize this corporation. We want to communic ate with Manitobans in the broadest sense. I'm pleased now, Madam Speaker , that the critic has now agreed to debate this issue publicly with me. At least we will get the issues on the table, Madam Speak er.

But I ask the honourable member to apologize to my secretary for that kind of innuendo. MR. G. CUMMINGS: My question to the Mini ster then is: Is he considering making retroactive changes to : the Autopac rates for cab drivers In this province and , for cabs themselves? I ! HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speake r, the honourable 1 member should be aware that the changes and the 1 increases that we've put in for cab drivers in Manitoba ; which move their rates in Brandon to approximately from $714 to $840 and in Winnipeg from $2,0 00 to .$2,700.00. The increase was half of what in fact the loss ratio . calls for.

In fact, Madam Speaker, the loss ratio for .taxicabs is, basically, we're paying out $2 for every $1 " that we take In. Madam Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that in any rate comparison anywhere In the pountry that rates for taxicabs go anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000 to $5,000 for a city comparable to the size 125 of Winnipeg. The honourable member should know that. There will be a meeting with cab cab drivers, Madam Speaker, and I intend to meet with them, but I ask the honou rable member to withdraw the insinuation that he's made about my secretary. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, the comments of the member opposite should have been withdra wn yesterday. My question to the same Mini ster will be, the rate inc rease that is presently being imposed on interprovincial truckers registered in this province, does he have any idea how many trucks that is driving out of this province, with their 1988 registration? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I said that we have, and will continue to be meeting with the truckers of Manitoba, both the in-provincial and extra-provincial trucking ind ustry, and we expect to have ongoing meetings to look at the rate structure and make sure that the policies that we have within the corporation do In fact maintain the trucking industry in a competitive basis in Manitoba, Madam Speaker. We are meeting not only with the truckers, we are meeting with seniors, with all kind of groups, and we intend to continue meeting and speaking about this issue, Madam Speaker.

I ask the honourable member again to either make that apology in this House or go outside this Chamber and make the accusation that he just made in this Chamber, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Ste. Rose, with a final supplementary. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said before, the Mini ster did not withd raw his comments yesterd ay. Madam Speaker, the question I would like him to answer, is he considering a retroactive reduction of insurance rates to the interprovincial truckers? In other words, is he considering the reinstatement of fleet discounts? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I have nothing to withdraw about my statement yesterday. I want the honourable member to know that his own leader in this House said, and I quote from yesterday's Hansard, "I said we would introduce competition into auto insu rance. " Madam Speake r, what is the hidden agenda? Either the Leader of the Opposition is very stupid on this issue, or he is very smart in terms of how he intends to lead the public down the path to get rid of that corporation, Madam Speaker. That's the hidden agenda .

And we will continue to meet with Manitobans to improve the system , to improve insurance, whether it's with the truckers or any segment of the indus try to make sure that the automobile insu rance system in this province Is the best in the cou ntry, Madam Speaker. That's our task.

Psychiatry - future status MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you. Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. I believe that many Manitobans, certainly those with knowledge in the health care field, were delighted with the announ cement yesterday of the reinstatement of the residency in cardiol ogy, ther eby guaranteeing cardiologists for the province for some years to come.

Can the Minis ter tell the House what plans he has to ensure that senior psychiatrists are brought into our hospitals, into our teaching hospitals primarily, in order that we do not lose, through accreditation problems, the residency in psychiatry? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Ye s, Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that question. We indeed recognize that there is a problem with respect to a shortage of psychiatrists right across Canada. We have a fee structure that is set by the MMA in terms of how much specialists are paid for, and we want to work on that aspect.

We recognize that it's important to beef up the program at the University of Manitoba, and we also recognize that it's important to ensure that we have more psychiatrists providing service in the hospitals. We have a new Chief Psychiatrist, who has been apprised of those issues and has brought some of them to my attention hims elf, and we want to work with the various providers of health care to ensure that we improve the situation. We won't be able to do it quickly . I believe it will require work over a six-month to one­ year period to put it in place.

Hopefully , that would happen sooner rather than later , but we recognize that ther e is a big task ahead of us in this respect. Psychiatry - McEwen Centre emergency plans MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Ma dam Speaker , with a supplem entary quest ion to the same Minister , the McEwen Centre of Psychiatry at St. Bonif ace has announc ed that it will be closed for three months this summer to undergo repair. What emergency plans does the Minister have to find 55 replacement beds in acute hospitals for psychiatry in that, unlike elective surgery, psychiatry cannot be postponed? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, there is a commit tee consisting of the Chief Psychiatrist and the head of the psy chiatric units of the various institutions who are wor king together, re cognizing th at this modificat ion to the McEwen Centre will be taking place. They are working on contingency plans. They will probably be using some other beds in hospitals. I don't have th ose plans at my fingertips, but I can bring that information back to the House. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: With a final question to the same Min ister , when the McEwen Centre reopens, it is forecast 126 that it will actually open with fewer than the 55 beds it presently has. What expanded services in our acute bed hospitals will be mad e available this year in psychiatry? HON. W. PARASIUK: When the McEwen Centre opens, it will be open with beds that are actually in a better milieu in terms of air ventilation and in terms of the quality of the patients who will be in those beds.

There will have to be work done to ensure that the number of beds available for psychiatric care is increased in other facilities, and that is one of the challenges that this group is working on. Again, I will bring back that specific information to the memb er. Research re Roundup replacement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Last year, some prelimi nary work was begun into the investigation of research into the generic drug known as Glyphosate, better known to Manitoba farmers as Roundup.

I'm just wondering if the Mini ster could bring this House up to date on what is being done insofar as the replacement of that chemical, on which 1 believe the patent runs out in 1990. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm pleased to ind icate to th e Ho use that the Government of Manito ba will be providing funding of $35,000 through an agreement entered into by the Department of Agriculture and Indust ry, Trade and Tec hnology to research the question of a generic Roundup, if you like, Glyphosate being the active ingredient in that particular chemical which is used extensively in the farming commun ity. We feel that this is a very significant move and that it will result in significant cost savings. There have been expressions on both sides of the House of concern for the cost of farm inputs.

This could see a reduction of anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent in the cost of that particular chemical for the farming com muni ty. So we are very pleased and we will continue on this project and others to reduce the cost of farm inputs for the farmers of Manitoba. MR. C. BAKER: Madam Speaker, a supplement ary, if I may? Will there be work done to the tes ting of the replacement chemical? I understand it takes three years of test ing before the chem ical is allowed by the Canadian Agriculture Depart ment. HON. L.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, we have entered into a contract, as I said, with a firm, UMA Engineering, and they will be working on all aspects of that project. That will include all the technical requirements, the legal requirements, the patent requirements, and I'm sure· the consideration of testing will be add ressed by them as well.

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 Hydro - Limestone shortfall MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I direct a question to the Minister resp onsible for Manitoba Hydro. I ask this question, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the already shell -shocked Ma nitob ans who have suffered one rate increase after another , whether or not the Vice-President of Finance, Mr.

Bob Brennan, from Manitoba Hydro, was ind eed preparing, softening up and conditioning Manitobans for what probably will be the greatest rate shock in their history, if that is believable, namely in Mani toba Hydro, when he ind icated a few days ago that it will cost likely in the neigh bourhood of $40 million the first two years of the operation of Limestone. That shortfall will likely have to be picked up by Manitoba ratepayers. Can the Minis ter confirm that? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mines. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In reference to the member's ques tion, I believe first of all it should a matter of record that Manitoba Hydro had indi cated on previous occasions that, whenever you're starting a project th ·e size of Limestone when you're bringing on the new electrical capacity in a staged man ner, the potential for losses in the initial yea r has always been there. That was referenced, Ma dam Speaker, in the commi ttee some years back.

Madam Speaker, there is no - (Interject ion) - Madam Speak er, the mem bers don't want to confuse, I hope, the fact that over the term, the life expectancy of the hydro-generat ing station, it will not only contribute massively to the export profits that we anticipate from that generat ing station, but of course will also allow us to meet the demands in Manitoba. We're talking about and I believe the member's ques tion, Madam Speaker, was only in refe rence to the first couple of years. Of course, whether in fact there are any losses as we bring on new generat ing capacity will depend (

a) on the water levels. lt will depend on whether there are any firm contract sales for that particular power, whether in fact it is in excess of Manitoba's need, and indeed whether there are any interruptible power sales that can offset tha t pot ential. Ma dam Speak er, theoretically that is possible, but there is no certainty at this point. Besides, Madam Speaker, it was known that was a possibility. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, I would recommend reading on the part of the present Minister statements put on record in this House and in committee by the chairman of Manitoba Hydro, Mr.

Marc Eliesen, by the former Min ister , the then Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, who told us exactly the opposite about that the reason for advancing the construction of Limestone by two years was to take advantage of the profits to be earned by short-term interrupt ible contracts. That is on the record . . . 127 MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. H.

ENNS: My second question to the Min ister, Madam Speaker, is the same vice-president goes on to say that these losses could however be reduced or elimin ated if Hydro signs enough short-term contracts with other utilities, either in Canada or the United States. That is acknowledged, because that is the only reason for the advancemen t, Madam Speaker. My question to the Minister is: Did the former Min ister leave this Minister any contr acts to be signed, short term or otherwise in Canada or the United States, to cover some of the se losses?

In other words, can we sign any contracts to help offset these losses as predicted by Manitoba Hydro? HON. J. STORIE: The short answer to that is, of course, it is possible to offset those potential losses. Madam Speaker, that assumes, first of all, that Man itobans aren't going to require some or all of that power. I should point out to the member opposite right now that, in Janua ry of this year, Manitoba was importing power , Ma dam Speaker . The mem bers opposite conveniently want to forget the fact that the Limes tone Generating Station was going to be and will be required for Manitoba's own use.

That doesn't negate the fact, Madam Speaker, that the advancement of Limestone was in the best interests of the project. Madam Speaker, the Member for Lakeside knows as well as anyone in this House that the National Energy Board has reviewed that matter and concluded that, yes, it was in the best interests of the province, that it will make mone y. MR. G. FILMON: You told him it would make mone y. HON. J. STORIE: To ans wer the Leader of the Opposition's chirp from his seat , Madam Speaker, it will make money. lt will make hundr eds of millions of doll ars.

The question of the first two years, Madam Speaker, will be addressed as we move into 19 91- 92, define our own needs, and whether in fact interruptible sales on the stock market which cannot be predicted in advance - in all likelihood, we'll be able to meet any of the speculated potential losses which might occur in the first two years of a 12 -year deal to Northern States Power, Madam Speaker, another sale to Ontario Hydro and other sales which will be annou nced in this House. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, "might have," "speculative profits," this government passed

an act called The Manitoba Energy Foundation. lt's supposed to be our Heritage Fund. They were talking about putting profits into that fund by the year 19 90-92. Madam Speaker, we'll continue that question another time. Hydro - 12-month projection MR. H. ENNS: Ma dam Speak er, one fina l suppleme ntary question. I note that Manitoba Hydro diverted from its usual form and issued an interim report for the first time in my living memory. I don't complain about it. Any

information that we get is always helpful. But it ind icated a loss in the last six operating months for the six months ended September 30, 1987 of some $32.5 million. I wonder if the government has a projec tion for the entire 12 months operating from that date forward? HON. J. STORIE: Ye s, Madam Speaker, I will take the specifics as notice. Madam Speaker, I want to ind icate in reference to his question that the circumstances surrounding that were, I think, known by memb ers opposite.

The fact is that two related matters that were raised by the mem ber opposite - first of all, there will be no rate shock as a result of the coming on stream of the power of Limestone, Madam Speaker. We have made certain of that. MR. G. FILMON: Who's going to pay the $40-million­ a-year losses? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes reference to who's going to pay the $30-million loss. MR. G. FILMON: $40 million. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, the Member for Tuxedo conveniently forgets that there are reserves for that purpose. He was going to give them away . .

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I would hope that Honourable Ministers would answer only the questions from the pe "rson who asks the que stion recognized, not ones from the floor. Travel Manitoba Grants MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Min ister responsible for Small Business and Tourism.

Can the Mini ster inform the House and the people of Manitoba that, as ind icated in Order-in-Council No. 1019 of 1985, the Travel Manitoba Program, the Travel Manitoba Grants are to approved rural economic development organizations and agencies? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourabl e Mi nister of Business Dev elopment and Tourism. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I'm happy at long last that I have a question from the Opposition dealing with the very successful efforts of my department to develop small business in Manitoba and promote tourism in this province.

During the course of this Session, I will be able to demons trate how effective has been the department in encouraging Americans, some of them in uniform hopeful ly, who are coming in inc reasing numbers to enjoy the splendour of Manitoba. I want to assure the Honourable Mem ber for Arthur that our department has effective programs dealing with small business right throughout this province. 128 MR. J. DOWNEY: That being the case, Madam Speaker, and as ind icated in the Order-in-Council that I referred to, I would expect that the Mini ster would be agreeing with it.

I ask the Mini ster the question, Madam Speaker: In view of the fact that it's for organizations and agencies throughout Manitoba, how did one Mr. Waiter Zarecki and R. Kost qualify for a $10,000 grant in 1986, the only individuals to qualify over the last three years? Was it because, Madam Speaker, he's the second vice­ president of the New Democratic Party in Lac du Bonnet?

Was it because he's the NDP appointment to the Hig hway Traffic Board at $9,800 a year, or was it because, in 19 86, he contributed $360 to the New 'a'a aa.06apbp ycgvxl5y"aD'Paaa .aay' 'a'a aaaCa'e the fact that almost one out of every two people in Manitoba are either New Democrats or want to be New Democrats at one time or anothe r. And, Ma dam Speaker, we're not defensive about the fact that we have many talented, eager people who want to be New Democrats, who assume responsibility in various community efforts.

The honourable member refers to a couple of citizens who are very prominent and effective in their community, who are spearheading initiatives to try and encourage further development in their com munit y. If he is questioning their integr ity, I'm sorry for the honourable member. We will seek and use people of integrity in every community across this province to further the interests of regional development in this province. MR. J. DOWNEY : Madam Spea ker, I'm sure the taxpayers of this province are very interested to know what has happened to the $10,000.00.

Madam Speaker, I ask the Premier of this province: Will he find out what Mr. Zarecki has done with the $10,000.00? Will he be paying it back, and will he fire his inc ompetent, corrup t Minister who's responsible for the taxpayers' mone y, or not responsible for the taxpayers' money? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Can the Hon ourable Member for Ar thur ple ase withdraw the word "corrupt"? That is not a proper parliamentary word to call another honourable member in this House. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I withdraw any unparliamentary langua ge.

I ask the Premier: Will he do the resp onsible thing for the taxpayers of Manitoba, who work hour after hour to earn the money that he fritters away? Will he have the Min ister, who has frittered away millions of dollars of taxpayers ' money, will he remove him from his Cabinet so it can stop the hemorrhage, Madam Speaker? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, considering the kind of questions that the honourable member asks in this House, one questions whether one needs to reply.

However, he has questioned the integrity of a couple of people in Manitoba who need no defence in this House: Waiter Zarecki, the Reeve of the R.M. of Lac

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 du Bonnet; Mr. Kost, a well-known artist recognized nation-wide for the excellence of his artistry. Madam Speaker, these two people have devoted a great deal of time to determine the feasibility of enhancing the tourism potential in the Lac du Bonnet area. They have a dream, and it is a good dream of further recreational potential in that area. Honourable members can appreciate that, under the Canada-Manitoba Tourism Development Agreement, we are commit ted to seeking out and enhancing the opportunity for further tourism potential in this province.

We will fulfill that mandate regardless of the sniping and the dirty talk of the Honourable Member for Arthur. Civil Service - senior position reductions MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for ln kster. MR. D. SC OT T: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Comm ission. Madam Speaker, in the last couple of weeks, I've had the opportunity to talk to a couple of individuals who were affected and are losing their jobs due to the elimination of some 21 senior Civil Service positions.

I'm wondering if the Min ister could indicate to the House what activities and what the province has und ertaken to assist these individuals during this difficult period of readjustment. MADAM SPE AKER : The Honourable Mi ni ster responsible for the Civil Service Commission. HON. E. KOS TYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for the question. As was previously an nounced, as part of our continued efforts to ensure greater efficiency within government, we have made the decision to reduce the amount of senior civil servants in the government by 21 positions.

At this time, I would also, as I ind icated when we dealt with this in a peripheral way at Public Accounts Commi ttee, table for the information of members of the House a listing of all the positions that were involved in the reduction. The plan is to reduce by 21 positions within the senior civil servants. At the same time, we are looking at the opportunities, where they may exist, for redeployment for individuals.

If that does not exist - and it will not exist in a number of cases, Madam Speaker - we are looking at providing some level of severance, and also readjustment assistance through the use of an agency in Winnip eg to assist those ind ividuals. MR. D. SCOTT : Madam Speaker, I'm wondering if the Minister would have information as to the number of people who have accepted early retirement and the number of people who are undergoing counselling and job search efforts. HON. E.

KOS TYRA: Madam Speaker, I'm afraid I'll have to take the details of that question as notice in terms of how many have opted for early retirement. I know a numb er are in the position and are accepting retirement provisions that exist under The 129 Superannuation Act, but I don't have the details of the numb er that are in that situation. I'll take the details of that question as notice and provide it once I have that information. The Public Schools Act - changes in MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin- Russell. MR. L. DERKA CH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is directed to the Minister of Education. For some time now, the Manitoba Teachers' Society has been lobbying this government with regard to some far-reaching changes that they are seeking to The Public Schools Act, changes which would alter The Public Schools Act considerably and include many of the same bargaining and dispute mechanisms which are currently in The Labour Relations Act. I'd like to ask the Min ister of Education whether he will be bringing in legislation during this current Session with regard to the requests made by the Manitoba Teachers' Society.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Education. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker, I am presently engaged in consultations both with the Manitoba Teachers' Society and with the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. I will be, in fact, meeting with the Manitoba Association of School Trustees later this month to discuss a range of issues, one of which is

Part VIII of The Public Schools Act. Members should recall that when a decision was made in the Fifties to have the teachers have a collecting bargaining regime under The Public Schools Act, an undertaking was given that they would always have approxima tely the same rights in collective bargaining that other workers who are governed by The Labour Relations Act have. lt is in that context tha t an examination of where we are today is taking place. Whether or not that will in fact result in legislation in this Session, it is too early to say, but certainly there is an active consultation process taking place. MR.

L DERKACH: Just a supplementary to the Minister. The former Min ister of Education acknowledged last year that in light of the complexity and importance of the issue, the discussions and perhaps even consensus should take place between the two parties, being the Ma ni tob a Teachers' Society and the Ma nitoba Association of School Trustees. Can the Minister assure us that those deliberations will take place and that the response to those deliberations will be taken into consideration in bringing in the new legislation? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, indeed, Madam Speaker.

I had occasion to remark in a speech earlier today to the Manitoba Association of Principals that one of the things that Is the envy of other provinces in Manitoba is, with differences that are obviously there, a shar ed effort to make what is considered to be the best education system in the country continue to work and to improve. Part of the way that has been built is through attempting to find consensus on key issues. I think that

Thur�ay, 11 February, 1988 attempt should be made in every instance. 1t may be that you don't always find consensus and have to make a decision, but certainly I am actively engaged in that search. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Education. HON. A. PENNER: Madam Speaker, I have a ministerial statement for which leave has been given.

Madam Speake r, I am pleased to be able to announce that provincial funding for Manitoba's four un iversities will total more than $18 4 million in 19 88-89, an Increase of $8 million tor 4.5 perc ent, which in fact, Madam Speaker, is equal to, by way of an example, the basic increase anno unced by the Province of Ontario and three times the Increase which was announc ed just recently by the Government of Alberta.

This funding will include: $1 76.2 million in unrestricted operating funds, an increase of 3.3 percent over last year ; $800,000 for the University Access Fund to support increased participation by groups who previously have not been fully represented in post­ secondary institutions ; $3 million as the second installment of the $20 million Universities Dev elopment Fund; $4 million for teaching equipment and building main tenance and repair , sometimes referred to as miscellaneous capital.

The $7 million in those two last items of capital funding, that is the Develo pment Fund, and Equip ment and Maintenance Funds, represents a significant 28 percent increase over 87-88 in a badly needed area. The Universities Development Fund, Madam Speake r, established in 1987, has already made a very significant contribution to the un ivers ities in supporting their own fund-raising efforts for significant and new initiatives, for capital expenditu res and other matters which could not necessarily be funded from the operating grant.

In addition, Madam Speaker, we are very pleased to be announcing the creation - I've just mentioned it - of a University Access Fund, designed to support increased access ibility to univ ersity educa tion. The province will grant $800,000 to the fund this year. The creation ot this fund, Madam Speaker, marks the be ginning of a new, long-term strategy to support programs and services in the un iversities specifically aimed at Increasing the participation rate of groups who have experienced barriers to entry and success in universities.

Maintaining low tuition and good financial support programs has not been enough to deal with all aspects of access ibility for such groups. Although Manitoba has among the lowest tuition fees in Canada, and one of the best student aid programs, the un iversity students from low-income families are still under represe nted in our un iversities. Barriers to acces sibility are as much social and cultural as economic. Through the Access Fund we hope to support efforts by the un iversities to provide 130 the kind of services which will significantly reduce such barriers.

Funds will be distributed to the universities for specific projects by the Un iversities Grants Commission. In develop ing proposals, the un iversities will be expended to consult with individuals who are likely to benefit from the fund, such as Native people, adult learners, immigrants, the disabled, and in some program areas, notably graduate programs, women. In addition to the Access Fund, Man itoba continu es to support one of the best student aid programs in Canada. Additional funding for that program will ensure that support is provided to cover tuition and living costs for all eligible students.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that at a time when we are still experiencing the effect of federal cutbacks in the growth level of Established Programs Financing, we are able to maintain a responsible level of funding for the Manitoba's un iversities. I am pledged, Madam Speaker, to work closely with the universities to find new approaches to meeting the challenges posed by fundamental shifts in the economy. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Roblin-R ussell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

I would, first of all, like to extend my thanks to the Min ister of Education for bringing in this particular statement on funding to the universities. Madam Spea ker , un iversities are very important institutions within our province and within our count ry. The Minister's ackno wledgement that greater access to universities is certainly an important one, however, over the past num ber of years we have seen some significant under fu nding in terms of the equipment, in terms of the buildings, at our un iversities. This has resulted in deterio rated situations.

We have seen a situation which exists presently at our un ivers ities. This has resulted in deteriorated situations. We have seen a situation which exists presently at the un iversity where there is a danger that the School of Dentistry may lose its accred itation because of lack of funding to update the facilitie s and the building.

Madam Speak er, last year we also saw this government impose a payroll tax upon un iversities which has created some hardship on the un iversities, and I'm wondering what steps it has taken in this particular year, or is going to take, to offset the increased costs in the payroll tax. The Min ister also makes reference to the fact that there has been a decrease in federal funding to the universities, Madam Speaker, and I must say that equali zation payments to Manitoba last year increased by some 10 percent.

So, therefore, it is a matter of where this government has put its priorities because the transfer payments which have come to this province have gone to other priorities of this government. In closing, Madam Speaker , I am encouraged that this government has recog nized the need for greater access to un iversities, and tor that we have to be thankful. Thank you very much.

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Vital, and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honou rable Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Member for Niakwa has 11 minutes remaining. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In the spirit of cooperation and with the possibility that the vote on Mo nda y night will change the government, I would prefer to allow all members the opportunity of speaking on what could be the last Addr ess from the Throne from the 33rd Legislature, and I would pass my time on to some other members. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will be speaking about the Mul roney-Reagan trade deal, which I believe is by far the most important issue to have come bef_ore Canadians In my career.

I believe that our nation's culture, history, social values, programs, political structure, political culture and world view are fundamentally different, No. 1, from those of our neighbours; are not only worth preserving, but they cry out for preservation and enhancement for future generations of Canadians; and third, are at risk in this agreement.

Practically from the beginning, Canada's progress has been an economic anomaly , a 100-mile ribbon of people stretching for thousands of miles across the northern half of a continent we share with the strongest nation in the world; a ribbon along which we have established, not through weakness but through strength - a strength approaching stubborn ess - our own society with our own unique methods of economic, cultural and social development with our own view of ourselves, our own view of the world in which we live; a society which defines its world role In peace keeping and developmental terms, not In terms of world power.

Our neighbour is our ally, our best friend, our largest trading partner. Our relations with the United States are good and Improving and deserve our constant attention, but the Americans are our neighbours, not our family. We support the enhancement of trading relat ions with our neighbours, but we oppose with all the strength of our being a marriage of conven ience which looks only to the fast bucks, ignores our past, and endangers our future as an entity able to determine its own destiny.

I believe we must stop this deal, that it Is unlik ely that our current Parliament will do so, that Congress may approve it and that, if so, our only hope as a nation is to elect the Federal Government, hopefully before the agreement goes into effect, dedic ate it to the immedia te revocation of this deal; a government which would be prepared to continue negotiations at the GATT, begin again with the Americans, this time working toward an agreement which deals with trade, deals with trade remedies, with barriers, definitio ns, an agreement which retains decision-making in Canada 131 relating to our investment, our cultur e, our institutions, our social programs.

I say to those who label us as anti-American or anti­ free trade, that we have calculated the costs and the benefits of this deal. We believe that the risks outweigh the rewards. To those frightened doom sayers who tell us that this deal is our one chance at saving a drowning count ry, I say, new negotiations will coincide with new adminis trations on both sides of the border.

In fact, very few Americans are aware that we have an agreement here in the first place and, third, the largest trading relationship in the world will not be put at risk by some form of petulance which would be counter­ productive to indus tries and workers on both sides of the border.

While the agreement, if it comes into effect, theoretically allows either country to termi nate in six months, every serious ind ustrialist, economist and political scientist I have heard on the subject says that once the agreement is implemented over a period of four years, there is no possibility of Canada utilizing that clause because of the tremendous readjustment and rest ructuring that would requi red .

Indeed, the threat of termination, once we have adjusted, is one that is far more effective in the hands of the dominant partner, the Americans, whose pull out could cause wrenching, economic re-re adjusting. Given that proponents constantly repeat that this agreement does not impact negatively against our nationhood, you might ask what evidence I have in support of my position. I will deal with that. Nevertheless, I suggest that the burden of proof rests strongly with the proponents of a change which will be impossible to unm ake, following implement ation.

The ind ustrial and economic restr ucturing which will take place over the next five years, if the deal is in place, will - I repeat - in practical terms, be as impossible to undo as would an omelette be incapable of being returned to its original state. I've indicated that there are those who would weigh an agreement such as this purely in economic terms. I am not one of those, but I do believe that purely on economic grounds there are reasons for serious reservations. I'll deal first, however, with the Impa ct on our ability to determine our destiny, dealing first with economic institutions and history.

Many proponents of the deal laud the fact that this deal will restrict Canada from "interfering with Investment, energy, regional development and other economic issues our governments have had the ability to in fluence in our past." John Bulloch of the CFIB said recently that sovereignty is a buzz word for government lnterefence and he's delighted to see the agreement prevent this. Peter Lougheed has said the same things about oil and gas. I'll quo te at length from a recent

article by Lovell Clark, a seni or, respected scholar of history at the University of Manitoba. The former Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed, shifted the trade debate onto an entirely different level by remarks he made to a parliamentary comm ittee. Intentionally or not, he greatly clarified different levels by remarks he made to a parliamentary committee. Intentionally or not, he greatly clarified the real issue confronting the Canadian people.

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 The former Premier said that one good thing about the trade pact is that under its provisions never again would the Ottawa government be able to foist upon Alberta an unwelcome policy such as the NEP of 1980. He rejoiced tha t the Federal Government would evidently be powerless to do so. Lo, he laid bare the basic aim of the tr ade deal which the Mu lrone y government has concluded with the U.S. Market forces will rule not only with regard to oil and gas but to hydro-electric power, all of Canada's other resources and financial institutions, as well.

This is a prospect that should send cold shivers down the backs of Canadians. If they knew their history be tter , they would already be up in arms. Their country has been built not by free or private enterprise but by a combination of public and private enterprise which is one of the many differences which distinguishes us from our American neighbours. We would be well aware of this were it not for the fact that so much of our media is dominated by American influences. Even many of our leaders in government, in business, extol free enterprise as the basis of Canadian development when they ought to know better.

But in us adopting the free enterprise rhetoric in obscuring the reality of our achievements, Canadians are importing a foreign ideology which is utterly alien to their experience. Canadians have operated on the basis of a mixed economy, a public and private enterprise. Great projects such as canals, railways, airli nes, a national broadcasting network, hydro-electric installations, telephone systems, oil companies, and other enterprises have all been built by the strong arm of government.

Undoubt edly, the vastness of Canada and the scanty population have meant that government had to take the initiative in many instances. The country would never have developed if it had depended upon priv ate enterprise alone. This is so obvious as to require little or no elaboration. He goes on after discussing Crowns to say such important public institutions as the CBC, Science Counc il, NR C, the National Science and Engin eering Research Council, Un iversity Research Facilities and other vital entities are deli berately being starved for funds.

The gov ernment is driving towards a priv ate enterprise economy in defiance of traditional Canadian practice. As well as having built a nation through public and private enterprise, Canadians have also used the strong arm of government to create a humane and civilized society in the northern half of this continent, much superior to that of our southern neig hbour. Our splendid social legislation, our equaliz ation grants, our regional industrial development grants are but examples of the various ways in which we've sought to do this.

The Mulr oney government says that none of these things were on the negotiating table, ther efore not affected, but this is little short of dishonest. Quite apart from the fact that the negotiators have not even defined what constitutes a subsidy, there is nothing to prevent a future Congress from questioning and legislating against such practices and not the slightest doubt that a future Congress will do so. Our American neighbours will insist upon a level playing field in which market forces alone rule and government intervention is absent. Lougheed has made clear the issue at stake in the trade deal.

This is simply whether Canadians wish to 132 adopt an alien ideology and be ruled by marke t forces alone or whether they wish to continue to use government inte rvention in order to help pur sue their own economic dest iny. 1t is surprising if Canadians knowingly adopt such an option when they built such a wonderful country through their own past experiences and practices.

I add that although this marketpla ce free enterprise is very much invoked today is that what Canadians will expect as a policy opt ion, th at is a han dcuffed government worsh ipping at the shrine of the marketplace the next time we have a reces sion or a depression in this country? Is tha t the kind of handcuf fed government you want?

How can proponents argue the preposterous position that this agreement does not interfere with our ability to determine our economic destiny , that it doesn't interfere with our nationhood, doesn't interfere with our soverei gnty at the same time they revel in the stunting of the ability of government to do anything? They unde rstand this agreement full well. Several days ago another proponent, Dorothy Dobbie, argued against assistance to underdeveloped regions of Canada in the full knowledge that this agreement will impinge on government's ability to do just that. Does not Mrs.

Dobbie realize that the very Winni peg bus ine sses she purp orts to represent would be devastated by the implementation of such ideological economic Darwinism? The agreement goes much further than impinging on Canada's right to make economic decisions. Today, I'll deal only briefly with culture, social programs, in addition to the economic area already touched on, in order tha t I may also dis cuss some indi vidual components of the agreement. You'll recall that proponents trump eted the fact that culture is exempt from the agreement.

But what would happen if, for instance, Canada were to enact the fairly in nocuous film policy recently developed by Mrs. MacDonald. That policy would slightly increase the number of films shown in Canada and made in Canada. lt would provide a little competition for film distribution. Canadian films occupy only 3 percent of total screen time in Canada, an abysmal record for any developed country. In contrast , U.S. movies account for 98 percent of movie time in the United States. Distribution in Canada is dominated by two U.S. companies.

This weak federal policy, the new one which would provide possibly up to 10 percent Canadian film screen time in Canada is now being axe -murder ed by a bipartisan group of Democrats and Republic ans in the United States, by virtue of their proposal to implement the Mulr oney agreement. Inside U.S. Trade, February 12 edition, suggests our $25 million program would trigger a $1 -billion response by the Americans.

This is the language they are proposing for the im plementation of the deal, quote: "The President shall consider in his asse ssment of equiv alent commercial effect the actual and potential damage to U.S. interest which would result if such Canadian actions were adopted internationally by other U.S. trading partners in such trade with the U.S." So they say, when we calculate economic effect of Canadian activities in the film industry, we'll not only calculate what happens in Canada but we will theorize about what would happen if China did this, if Botswana

Thuraday, 18 February, 1988 did this, if everybody in the world did this. Then they come up with a huge number that they can use against pork, they can use against combines, they can use against any particular Canadian commodity they choose. Now what do you think the Americans would do if 95 percent of the films shown in the United States were made in the Great White North, in social democratic Manitoba, dis tributed down there, say by a subsidia ry of Petro-Canada or something like that?

Do you think we would get past 5 percent, as fast as you could say anti-dump or countervail or some other national security provision that they would work on? Well, if you do, you have more confidence than I do that we would do that. Even though less than 10 percent of the books we read are Canadian, a few percentage points of our songs are Canadian, almost all of our prime time T.V. incl uding U.S. stations comes from the United States, is of U.S. origin, we have maintained a vigorous and distinct society and culture.

That culture is, by necessity, subsidi zed, be it Wayne and Sh uster, Hockey Night in Canada, Stompin' Tom Connors, Farley Mowat, Anne Murray, Maclean's Magazine. To Canadians, to quote Pierre Berton: "This is a necessary form of cultural protectionism. To those who think of Canada as another state In the union, part of the American domestic market, it's unfair competition," or to quote Michel Lansburg: "INe've already registered the ominous rumblings from American publishing, movie and periodical interests.

We know that, along with their money will come the ir resistible demand for the dismantling of our unfai rly subsidi zed theatres, orchestras, public broadcast ing, artists, film board and periodical and book publishing indu stries. Once that stream of in formation and art has dr ied up, our distinctive viewpoint will wither too. "As free trade, like a tide, washes away at our cultural foundations, our political structures will inevitably crumble. "That's what is so hard to get across to people.

Identity sounds thin-b looded and abstract compared to the brassy gleam of prom ised jobs and quick loot. it's human nature to take what seems tangible. Esau, his mouth watering, lightly sold his birthright to Jacob in return for a steaming pot of lentils. Only later did he grow." I believe firmly that our culture is in severe dang er. lt appears that only the Quebecols, who are able to use language as a shield from U.S. culture, feel in any way secure. in fact, Parizeau Is openly supporting the deal because of this fact, believing it will lead to the quicker destruction of Canada. What about our social programs?

Are they as safe as proponents claim? I have a quote from Professor Bruce Wilkinson, Professor of Economics, University of Alberta. He says: "This claim ignores the fact that Canad ian unemp loyment benefits and Medicare benefits cover a far greater portion of the population. About 85 percent of Canadian unemployed receive unemployment benefits and full Medicare coverage,

whereas th ree-quarters of U.S. unem ployed have neither. Again, 35 million people in the U.S. have no medical coverage whatsoever In contrast to univ ersal coverage in Canad a. In general, unem ployment insur ance costs for U.S. firms are less than for Canadian. "Is it not possible that In the future, when the competition is more intense because of trade, that 133 Canadian firms and U.S. subsidiaries in Canada may argue that they cannot afford to play by Canadian rules in Canada, that our rules should be harmoniz ed with those of the U.S.?

Pressures for harmoniz ation could also arise with respect to health care arrangements. Because the U.S. is, by far, the largest country, it would be Canada moving closer to the U.S. model, not the other way around. Thus, although social programs are not in the agreement, they could certainly be adversely affected by the agreement in future." I would add that the points made by Professor Clark would confirm that U.S. ideological blinkers would mil itate against our solution to programs, problems like Medicare, and that the neo-Tories might agree with that position but not ordina ry Canadians. Who is right?

One test might be to ask yourself whose ideological family stood where when the following were introduced in Canada. Where did they stand when old age pensions were introduced? Where were the Tories? Where were the proponents and their ancestors on that argument? Where were the Tories, the Crispo's and so on, when unemployment Insur ance was introduced? Where were the Tories when Medicare was introduced? They were calling us communis ts in Saskatchewan when that came forward. Where were the Tories when Canada Pension Plan or day care or progressive labour laws were introduced?

Can it really be the case that the far right, the Crispo's, the Dobbie's, the multinationals, the Liberals, the Tories, Peter Pocklington, are truly advocating this agreement to protect the future of these programs? Are Atwood, Remy DeRoo, Laxer, Knowles, Gonick, Blaikie, really out to destroy these social programs, and the far right is protecting them? Maybe Peter Newman says it best when he says, "The real problem with free trade is that we may not realize what we've lost until it's too late to get it back.

The process is all too reminiscent of that wonderful old James Thurber cartoon in which a decapitated swordsman protesting that he is fit to carry on the duel is told to try sneezing." Professor Crlspo is fond of saying that every free trade agreement ever signed has been of benefit to the small partner. The French are still French, the Germans are still Germans. In the European partnership every single country is a minority making relationships quite different from the elephant-mouse scene our Prime Minister once und erstood but does not now. Back to Europe, what of the German experience in the 19th century?

The trade agreement between the ind ustrial and military giant Prussia, with ten's of neighbouring small countries, an agreement which did not extend as far as this one does, allowed the Prussian point of view to prevail on all important policy matters for decades until finally in 1871 they swallowed up every single country but for one, Luxembourg, that was part of that economic trade agreement. Only Luxembourg got away. Closer to home and more on our kind of a big versus little example, the United States had a trade agreement with Hawaii in 18 75. By 18 87, the Americans had Pearl Harbor.

Not only did they have Pearl Harbor, they also had an agreement with the Hawaiians that required the Hawaiians to abstain from any other trade agreement with any other country. Hawaii was going to have one partner and one alone by 12 years into that agreement.

Thuraday, 1f February, 1188 By 18 98 they were gone, they were hi stor y, no refer endum, no nothing. Boom, they were part of the United States, with a First Governor by the name of Dole by the way. Can this happen to Canada? Recently I attended as Manitoba repre sentative at a conference of U.S. and Canadian legislators where Mr. Crispo suggested that we shouldn't worry about the impact of the agreement.

Senator Sam Nunn of Louisiana who I thought was a fairly sensible individual promptly said to him, "P rofessor, legislators are paid to worry." What then are the benefits we stand to gain as a result of this massive gamble with our soverei gnty? (Mr. Deputy Speaker In the Chair.) The Economic Council of Canada says we will gain 350,000 jobs. Yet Its analysis assumes (1) services will not be included in the agreement; (2) we would get about 50 times as much in terms of procurement from the American Government as what we got. Seventy percent of our jobs are in the service sector.

We already have a trade deficit with the Americans on services. This agreement will increase that deficit. The Bank of Nova Scotia study on the deal ranks the agreement by risk index with a maximum risk of minus four, maximum benef it of plus four and divides up Canada's economy into four sectors, ranks resources as plus four, manufacturing minus one, agriculture minus one, and services come in at minus two. I'll just read what they say about services.

I should say before I do that, I'm quoting now from this report, "Compared to others our estimates of the benefits of free trade tend to be somewhat conservative reflecting the preoccupation of this report with credit risk." This is the report they'll take when their clients come in to get a new loan. This is the report they'll look at for sector by sector, industry by ind ustry to determine what they will do. They are saying one out of four sectors in Canada will be a winner, three out of four will be losers.

Now this is what they say about services, "Un avoidably, free trade in the service sector will produce a negative net impact of at least medium size. In general, the Canadian service sector is smalle r, weaker and less competitiv e compared to the service sector In the U.S. All other sectors, other than services, are losers." What about procurement? We bravely went to the table against these thir d countries - Third World negotiators is what Reisman called them, I think he's from the fourth dimension - and publicly asked them for $558 billion and claimed victory when we got $3.5 billion out of it.

For this we place our sover eignty at risk? Esau got a better deal. In terms of agriculture, the agriculture sector is at serious risk and poultry, dairy, fruits and vegetables. The grains area is unaffected. In cattle and hogs, there' I! be some net benefit based on our assumption of full free trade and poultry and lower tariffs in fruit and vegetables, we estimate free trade will be a small overall net negative in the agriculture sector. Okay? That's what they're saying about agriculture. What are they saying about man ufacturi ng?

In manufac turing, the losers will be hit up front, while the winners will tend to collect further down the line. Princ ipally on this account, we estimate that free trade 134 will be a small overall negative in man ufact uring. a small negative read ing reflects a hard hit on small manufacturers while large manuf acturers generally face a neutral or only slightly positive outlook, at least in the immed iate future.

They also point out that food processing will be a strong loser because of government intervention, because of marketing boards which they will join with the Tories gladly to tear up for farmers and farm families in Canada. That's what they'r e do ing with this agreemen t. I won't be getting into electricity today. I would like to, but there are a number of problems in that area, not the least of which is the fact that we no longer have a floor price to deal with the Americans on and we'll be getting into that during the Session. These reductions in tariffs do open some opportunities for Canadian indu stries.

At the same time, those who view open borders with unmi tiga ted delight should be cautioned by those Bank of Nova Scotia warnings. You know we've heard from speakers on the opposite side that we've had this wonderful free tr ade in agricultural implements and we should have this for every thing, and they've mentioned Versatile. But have they ever looked at our trade account in agricultural implements? Do they know that for every machine we sell to the U.S., they sell us more than three of equal value. If we had that as a model for free trade, we would have a humo ngous trade deficit which we don't have.

We have a trade surplus overall and that is one of the worst examples Tories could give of the benefits of free trade, where we are losing. Every time we sell $1 worth of machinery to the United States, they're selling more than $3 worth to us under free trade. And only Tories need reminding - only Tories need reminding - that a country in that kind of a strong surplus position in that sector is not going to meddle with that sector, knowing full well tha t it cannot be a winne r. We didn't get exemptions from U.S. trade remedies.

We didn't get a definition of subsidy; we didn't get a definition of safe harbour which we were promised. Now, after giving up our bargaining chips, they're saying now we'll negotiate some of these things over five to seven years, after you've made your ec onomic adjustments, your structural adjustments to this agreement. I, in conclusion, Mr.

Dep uty Speaker, call on Manitobans to examine this agreement with great care, to ask proponents, to answer questions raised , to demand that this deal be cancelled, that we go back to the table for a narrow deal, one that I would have liked to have dealt with with respect also to comments of the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Americans aren't into the kind of opening up that these people think the agreement will do. I'm quoting now from the Washington Post: "When the Canadians imposed a screen ing requir ement on foreign investments, the United States rightly protested.

Now the House wants to impose even more ownerism­ damaging proced ures on investors in this country." That's what they're doing and they've hamstrung us, they've hand cuffed us. They're glad they did it; they did it for ideological reasons. Mr. Deputy Speaker, our nation's culture, history, values, programs, political structure and world view arE

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 different from th ose of our neighb our, must be preserv ed, are at risk in this agreement, and this agreement must be stopped. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblln-Russell. MR. L DERKACH: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I begin this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by ind icating that I am very pleased to be able to rise In my place and enter into debate on the Throne Speech. The privilege is one which I respect and is one which is very essential in our democratic system.

May I welcome back the colleagues on my side of the House, and also extend a welcome to the members on the opposite side, but I will stop short of wishing them well because I beli eve that Manltobans are dis gusted enough with the performance of this government that they don't want me, as a representative of my constituenc y, to wish them well. They want me here to defeat this government, to remove it from office, so that Manitobans can elect a new government, a government which will meet the needs and aspirations of this province.

Last week, Mr. · Deputy Speaker, we listened to a Throne Speech delivered by a government, and it made me ask the question of myself: what is it that I would expect to be inc orporated into a Throne Speech? And I guess I would have to say that in a Throne Speech a government should project its objective for the ensuing year, it should create a vision that it has for the province, and it should establish a plan of action that it will embark on in the ensuing year to help to enhance the quality of life of the people that it governs. We ll, it was no surprise, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when this government deliv ered its Throne Speec h, that we saw no plan, we saw no substance, we saw no vision for the province. lt was a depiction of a tired, worn out, sterile government that had an insatiable lust for power. The utterings and phrases such as "fair/caring" have become the rhetoric which is meaning less in the eyes of many Manitobans. The track record of this admin istration Is horrible, to say the least. The last two Sessions now we have seen mismanagement, corruption and deceit at a level which I thought could not be matched. But when this Session opened, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have seen even a greater degree of Ineptne ss and even more cover -up, deceit, mistrust and corruption. I have never seen a member on the government side of the House, or I have never heard tell of a member on the government side of the House, who has been asked to move the Speech from the Throne, get up and denounce the government as was done by the Member for St. Vital. lt's certainly probably the ultimate embarrassment for a government in power. And you know, one didn't have to ask what the comments of the Premier were.

All one had to do was take a look at his face as he stared , with his steel eyes, in almost utter anger at the Member for St. Vital as he delivered his spee ch. And then the Premier made the statement, "Well, constructive criticism is not bad; as a matter of fact, it's good." But then the Member for Kildonan makes a comment about the moving of the Throne Speech, and he said, 135 "If we had the power, the majority, I would kick his butt around the Legislature 10 times. lt brings back comments, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that I remember were made in this House about the cadence of jackboots in the hallways of this Leg islature. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder what this government would do If they had a real majority in this House. Would they be kicking Manltobans all over the province? They've done a pretty good job of it right now. But unfortunately, the Member for St. Vital finds himself in somewhat of an awkward position, because I'm sure that when the vote is taken on the Throne Speech, the Member for St.

Vital also risks the em barassment of being kicked by the people of this province for not defe ating this particular government if he chooses to vote that way. The comment has been made that Autopac is just a symptom of the many devast ating circu mstances this government has created for this province. The handling of the affairs of Autopac shows us how this government's continued interference bungles the Crown corporations to the extent where they lose millions and millions of dollars.

But I guess we can't blame the Minister responsible for Autopac totally for the situation that exists in Autopac because some of that blame has to be shared by the former Min ister of Autopac, the Member for Gimli, who, for some reason or other, had his records shredded.

Then we heard the Min ister responsible for Autopac get up in the House just yesterday and make his comments with regard to the Throne Speech, and I have never heard such disgusting remarks in the two Sessions that I have been in this Legislature as I heard uttered by the Mi nister re sponsible for Autopac yesterd ay. lt bordered on the edge of being silly in many instances as he roared at the fact that the increases had to be blamed on the Conservatives. You know, I can't help but think that the Member for St. Vital was right. Who is minding the store? Or is anyone minding the store? I don't think so.

How could any admin istration, how coul d any department that lauded to have a surplus of $72 million absolutely squander not only the $72 million but all the premiums that were paid in the two years and end up with a $10 million loss just in two years? Now what kind of business management is that? lt's probably the same kind of business management that we had with MTX, that we had with Flyer Industries. This government just can't run a peanut stand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it has proven that time and time again.

I ask: Why would the Premier continue to leave a Mi nister in a portfolio where such in cr edi ble mismanagement, such incredible losses occur? Why would he not remove him? I think the answer Is plain. He hasn't got anybody to replace him with on that side of the House; and, secondly, he hasn't got the nerve or the intestinal fortitude to replace a Min ister who has bungled in such a drastic fashion. I wonder where this Crown corporation is going to be in two years if it continues under the steward ship of a Minister that is heading it in the di rect ion that he is today.

We ll, let's take a look at accountabilit y. This side of the House has asked for accountabili ty not just now. We've asked for it in the last Session; we asked for it the Session before. Where is the accountability? In the last Session, we had a bill presented that created a new acc ountability

Thureday, 11 February, 1988 department headed by none other but the super Minis ter. This Individual was going to see to it that Crowns are brought into line, there was going to be no more squandering of monies, and there was going to be no more mistakes made. And then what did we get? We got Autopac. We have asked this government to bring Autopac before the Public Utilities Board to make sure that they answer some of the many questions that people have on their minds with regard to the exorbitant increases that were levied on the people of this province. Did they agree? No, they did not agree.

What has the Min ister responsible for the Crown corporations do ne to ensure that there Is some acco untability? Well, they are going to have some sessions with the public on some utiliti es. Not on all the Crown corporations, but on the ones they pick and choose, they will have a dog and pony show across the province to tell the people what enormous benefits they are getting from our Crown corporations. But that is not going to work. Manltob ans will not be fooled again. My constitue ncy, Mr. Deputy Speake r, is as upset as the rest of the people In this province. They have had enough.

I continue to get calls and letters to encourage me to work as hard as I can to defeat this govern ment; and that I will do, because Manitobans can't afford this government any longe r. Autopac was the last straw. The people of my constituency are not high income people, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are farmers. The business people in my constitue ncy depend largely on agriculture to sustain their livelihoods.

So when you have a government last year bringing down a Budget which literally raped the pockets of these taxpayers and then on top of that you have the kinds of increases that we are looking at In Autopac, it has become un bearable for the people in my constituenc y. The farm economy ha s not been assisted at all by this government, and the way the farm economy goes, so go the businesses in my constitue ncy. You know, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when I travel from Winnipeg back home to my constituency every week end, it is almost like going Into a different world because the economy Is much different in the city. lt is bouyant. In the rural areas, because of the depressed farm situation, the economy is much worse. People in my constitue ncy cannot afford to go out for nice din ners on weekends, or even once a month they can't take their families out. They have to scrape and save every penny to make sure that that farm operation will exist for another year. What about the services to these people?

We asked the Min ister who's respon sible for the Ma nitoba Te lephone System about rate increases yesterday , and from that flowed the discussion on providing private lines for Manitobans, and he said, if you want private lines, we're going to have to increase the rates. lt sounds reasonable, but how much are you going to increase those rates? Are they going to be increased in an inflated rate so that the losses of MTX will be paid for at the same time? Because this government has let us become so suspect of them, we cannot help but have to ask those questions and get those answers.

And the Minister said, from his seat, he made the remark that if we want the service, we'll have to pay for it because he lives in Concordia and he's got a private 136 line. We ll, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to tell you, with such arrogance, it is no wonder that we have the kind of fe elin gs people have agains t this particu lar government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for Virden yest erday stood In his place and he asked some questions about agriculture.

You know, agriculture is near and dear to the hearts of us who are involved in it, and with the new Minis ter of Agriculture, we thought that perhaps this Individual would have more compassion for the people who are involved In the agricultural indus try. But you know, when I heard the answer from the Min ister, I was almost appalled because it was a joke. He found it very funny. As a matter of fact, he became very cynical when he answered the question that the Member for Virden had asked. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the reality is there. Manitoba farmers are in desperate straits.

This government has not done anything to assist them relative to what provinces next door have done. So, therefore, I can't see this Minis ter doing any more than the former Minis ter of Agriculture did for our farm economy. We listened in the Throne Speech that there is going to be some form of feed lot stabilization program coming on, but it's too little, too late, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the cattle ind ustry in this province is almost dead.

This government has managed to kill the feed lot industry in this province, they have managed to kill the slaughter indu stry in this province, and now they are going to try and rebu ild it, and it wasn't done based on economics, Mr. Deputy Speaker. lt was based on the stubborn attitude by a Minister who would not be willing to save an Indus try that was in desperate straits. Well, Mr. Deputy Speak er, I'd like to take a look for a moment at what is happening in the area of education, an area tha t I have been charged with some respo nsibility in terms of being critic of education.

A month ago, we had an education fi na nce ann ouncement made in terms of the changes that are going to be made to the funding for public schools in this province. Immed iately, we saw that the inequiti es that were caused by the approach that this government is taking would create havoc out in our school areas. Ye sterd ay, the Minister of Education said the reason that we have this formula in place and the reason that there are such inequ ities is due to the fact that some school divisions are rich and can afford to levy higher special levies, and some of the school divisions are poor and can't afford them.

He said this is all equal ized through the equalization formulation. We ll, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not true; that is not correct, as a matter of fact. If the Minister of Education would care to at least assess what Is happening, he would unde rstand that in fact that is not happening. The equali zation formulas are not working. lt is the low spending school divisions, the divisions who practise efficienc y, who are effe ctive, that are receiving the small grants. The school divisions that are losing students are also suffering because they are recei ving the low grants.

We have called for a change to the GSE formula now for at least three years. We asked that this formula be turfed out and that a new formula be replaced which will treat students and will treat school divisions on an equitable basis. To date that has not happened. As a matter of fact, in the last funding approach that the

Thuraday, 18 February, 1988 Minis ter announced, the opposite happened. We see even a greater disparity between school divisions. We have some school divisions that are rec eiving as much as 14 percent because their enrolments are increasing; perhaps because they're not qui te as efficient. We see other school divisions whose rev enue income for this year from the province will be less than 1 percent. As a matter of fact, one of the school divisions is even going to lose some money. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there is no way that we can continue and yet make statements in the House that we have a commit ment to make acce ssibility to education equal in our provjnce. lt just doesn 't work. This present Minister of Education and the former Minister of Education did not und erstand that and they haven't dealt with the problem to date. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Mini ster also made some other announcements. He announced the fact that there would be a change in year-en d. This was not only a surprise to us, it was also a surprise to the school divisions.

Sometime back in October, officials from the department met with some of the Manitoba Association of Business officials to ask them some questions about how they felt about changes to the year end. And there was a commitment at that time by the Min ister that changes would not be brought In until such time that fu ll consultation had been made with the school divisions, the secretary treasurers, the superintendents.

As a matter of fact, as I understand it, there is a meeting scheduled for 24th of February where that decision is supposed to be made upon the consultation and upon the information that was received at that meeting. well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to tell you that school business officials were somewhat upset to find the Minister of Education made his annou ncement prior to consulting with them. Then we have the change in remittance dates by municipali ties to school divisions and to the province.

And again, not only was it a surprise to us, but it was also a surprise to the municipaliti es and to the City of Winnipeg. I can't understand it, I find it almost incredible that a Mi nis ter would make a decis ion and make an announcement that would affect the City of Winnipeg by some $6 million and not have the courtesy or the courage to go and talk to the City of Winnipeg and talk about the effects that it would have.

I think that the announc ement was made in haste, and I think anybody you talk to would agree, because there have been some changes that have followed since the announcement, changes that have been requested by the muni cipalities. But nevertheless, what is there going to be there to replace the $6 million loss, for example, in the city of Winnipeg? They are now going to have to go back to the taxpayer to get that money. The whole funding formula approach for public schools, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is based on dependence, on special levy, on the local taxpayer.

We object to that, and local taxpayers object to that. 1 asked the Minister about the 90 percent funding to school divisions and the fact that this government, this Premier made a commitm ent to move in that direction. I showed him an example of where some school divisions are paying 51 percent of their costs, of their operating costs, from special levy. The Minister's response was this. He said, "We in fact are paying 137 more than 90 percent when you consider the pension premiums that we pay." What else is he going to throw into there?

Is he going to throw the $500 rebate on farm land tax and consider that as part of the 90 percent? So when this government talks about 90 percent funding to school divisions, what are they really talking about? Nobody really knows. Jt's some convoluted formula that they have in their own minds and in their own back pockets. Today, Mr. Deputy Spe aker, we received an annou ncement on university funding and, upon the face, one would say that the funding that's going to go to the universities is quite adequate this year and is laudable. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I caution you about a few things in that announcement.

One is that there is an $800,000 grant going to the universities to enhance access to education. But if we are going to maintain a world class un iversity in our province, I ask the question, how are we going to do that if the facilities, the equipment and the buildings are deteriorating faster than they can be repaired, and this government does not make a substantial commitment to that? Last year, there was a commitment of some $20 million, a matching grant that was supposed to be forwarded to un iversities after they had raised their $20 million. Well we saw in this announcement, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that not $20 million is going to be forwarded, as a matter of fact, only 3 million of that is going to be forwarded. The main tenance grants that go to universities are very inadequate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it's not a matter of us asking for a huge infusion of funds into the universities at this particular time. What we are saying is that, because of the mismanagement of this government in not seeing to it that those Capital programs were maintained year-by-y ear, we have caught ourselves in a situation where we may be losing, for example, the accred itation to the school of dentistry. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I believe that this government has abandoned the people who elected this government to represent them. The Premier In his Throne Speech attempted to deflect the issues that are facing the province by focusing his attention on free trade. We have just heard the Attorney-General stand in his place and go on at some length about how free trade is going to affect this province. Of course he picks and chooses his notes and the articles that he reads from. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if you talk to Man itobans, if you talk to the commodity groups, if you talk to farmers, if you talk to the people who are involved in the dairy ind ustry, the hog ind ustry, the poultry ind ustry, they are supportive of free trade. Ye t, we have this government standing and tel ling us that it is not good for Manitobans. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask you, who do you believe? Do you believe our government? Can this government, for example, better our free trade agreement? If we left them to form a free trade agreement with the United States, can you think of what it would look like?

A MEMBER: You would never have one. MR. L. DERKACH: You would never have one to begin with but, if they did finally arrive at one, I'd hate to

Thureday, 11 February, 1988 see it. Take a look at their track record. They couldn't come to an agreement in the gas industry. They tried to take it over but they couldn't. They bungled that. They bungled the Flyer sale. They gave it away. Their Crown corporations are in a mess and they're the first ones to stand up and talk about how free trade is going to be bad for us. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I maintain that the only reaso n and the only people they are representing when they speak against free trade are the big union bosses in this province. They are not talking on behalf of Manitobans.

They have no vision for where this province should go, where this country should go. All they are inter ested in is that insatiable lust for power that I talked about and then satisfying the union bosses who are in the pockets of these people. So can Manitobans trust this government? I say no. We can't trust them because of their past performance. We can't trust them because they are driving business out of this province. They are driving the trucking industry out of this province. They have driven business away from us.

To en hance that the Premier even saw fit to appoint a Min ister of Business and Tourism, who is what? - who is anti-American to begin with, who is anti-busine ss, and here is the man who is going to promote business and tourism in this province. What a mocker y. Where was the Premier's head when he was making his appointments? What was he thinking about? I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in saying that the people of this province have had enough. This government is finished. They have no ideas; they are worn out; they are corrupt. They have deceived the people of this province.

We must get rid of the pain that this government has imposed upon the people by ousting them out of office as soon as we can. Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Highways and Transportation. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speake r. I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne, and first of all, Mr. Deputy Speak er, through you to the Speaker, I would like to express my wishes to her for a successful Session and that she continue to carry out her respo nsibilities with the competence and the fairness that she's exhibited in the past.

I look forward to the few minut es that are allocated to each of us to speak on the Speech from the Throne. I'm looking forward to this Session at which time our government will take further steps to enh ance employment growth and economic opportunities in our province; to a Session at which time the government will once again show its commitment to strong policies for health care, maintenance of existing programs and development of new ones; to this Session when again our government will show its commitment to the growth and diversity of Manitoba's agricultural economy and our commitment to rural communities.

Manitoba has indeed been fortunate over the years, since 1981, to be a province that has, if not the lowest, the second or lowest une mployment rates in Canada 138 - not during the Lyon years. I am indeed pleased that we are a province where we have been reaso nably successful with providing employment opportunities for our youth - at present, I believe second lowest.

That's not good enough, and hopeful ly, during the Sessi on, we will be able to deal with success ful init iatives such as the Jobs Fund, CareerStart, Youth Busine ss Start, Jobs and Training and other programs that will provide opportunities for our young people. Additiona lly, our government will continue the access programs which have contributed to assisting many Manitobans in gaining entry into post secondary training and educational opportunities and thus to employment opportunities.

I look forward to legislation that will be introduc ed that will help narrow the disparities in our society , and we will continue delivery of our promise to enhance the quality of life for those with lower incomes. I wish to express best wishes to my colleague, the Minister of Health, who has an onerous responsibility in maintaining the existing levels of service that we have in our province, and to look at new options or new alternatives or initiatives. I am indeed pleased that the emphasis will be on encouraging healthier lifestyles; in other words, let's start dealing with wellness and not with illness.

I am pleased that there will be improved availability of health services in rural and in Northern Manitoba. I, along with many Manitobans, am very encou raged and excited about the introduction of a range of init iatives to shift the emphasis of health care from large in-patient institutional programs to community­ based services, including expanding community health programs, further development of community health centres, and alternatives to in-patient hospital services. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Speech from the Throne again demonst rates our commitment to rural Manitoba and to the agricultural sector of our economy. I'm pleased that an income stabilization program for .the feedlot sector of Manitoba's beef industry has been announ ced and will be established. I am pleased that last year's special School Farm Tax Assistance Program which provided some $1 1-$12 million of assistance to those who were in need will be extended.

I'm ind eed pleased that a rural development institute will be created in concert or cooperation with Brandon Un iversity to add ress the special needs and concerns of ru ral commun ities, an opportunity for rural Manitobans to deal with what they perceive to be important issues towards the continuance of the rural lifestyle. I'm ind eed pleased to note that our government will continue to implement programs and policies enhancing the growth and diversity of agricultur e so that this tremendously important industry can continue to play its vital role in the expansion of Manitoba's economy.

As noted before, the improved availability of health services to rural and Northern Manitoba will be appreciated by many, as will the changes to the Manitoba Te lephone System that will be int roduced to improve phone services to rural Manitoba. All in all, know that we, on this side, look forward to this Sessior at which time we can deal with the issues that are o concern to Manitobans. During the responses to the Speech from the Throne we've heard quite a bit about the Manitoba Public

Tlturad.,_ 11 Febru.ry, 1988 Insurance Corporat ion, and I would like to spend a few moments to deal with this issue, because if ever there has been a subject that has not been dealt with honestly, it is the matter of the increases in the premium rates for vehicles for this year.

I will probably be one of the first ones to admit that when the initial rates were proposed, it didn't take very long for us to recognize that the increases would create considerable hardship to many Manitobans, and I commend my colleague, the Min ister respo nsible for M PlC, for revi ewing the proposed rates and for bringing about changes which provide some recognition of good driv ers and at the same time will help ensure that those driv ers who are responsible for accidents will, in fact, be paying more of their share towards the costs of running the corporat ion. So this government has listened.

But the reality is that in the past year, MPIC, in fact, recorded the highest number of claims in its history. MPIC paid out the highest claims value in its history. lt's not as if it were a busine ss and lost money; the reality is that not enough premiums were collected to offset the cost of those claims. One would believe that somehow or other, MPIC miscalculated, frittered away mone y, mismanaged, whatever . Time arid time again, my colleague states that the admi nistrative costs are 3 percent or 4 percent of premium volume, about the lowest administrative costs of any insurance corporation in Canada.

That is not mismanagment; that's good performance. The fact that MPIC pays out 82, 83, 84 cents of every premium dollar in claims, that's not mismanagement; that is showing that Manitobans are getting the best value for their premium dollar in any insurance company in Canada, but you would never believe that if you read the reports in the newspapers or listened to the mem bers of the Opposition. I would just make a short refere nce to Miss Angels Welch.

I've followed the issue as it developed through the columns of the Winnipeg Free Press, and I must admit that I have considerable respect for this young person for taking on a cause, for putting a lot of energy into it, and for eventually coming up with several thousands of signatu res which she delivered to the Mini ster's office. My only regret is that I feel that young person was being used, and if there's anything I can't stand, it is seeing people being used. I say "being used" because, like a lot of young people, they have never had any dealings with the private insurance sector .

I can assure you that if she were living in Ontario, where they have a private sector insurance ind ustry, she would not be treated anywhere near as well as she's being treated in Manitoba. lnterestly enough, she was on CJOB about a week ago and I listened when she gave the details of her 1987 Toyota Turcel. When she was asked whether she had any access, she said no and she was quite correct.

When the rates were compared between Ottawa and ' Winnipeg and Calgary, as I recal l, Manitoba's rates were I the most favourable, and I know that the benefits and 'the coverage provided would have been superior to t• anything provided in Ottawa or Calgar y. The one thing that was never raised during all those • interviews - and you see here's where the real hone st : job of journalism isn't being done. If that young lady 139 had a number of claims, even though she wasn't at fault, I can assure you her rates would have gone up.

Now interestingly enough, I was going through some clippings just a day or two ago and I noticed that she has had, I believe, five claims in the last four or five months. A MEMBER: Who? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Angela Welch. I think - two hit and runs and about three break and entries - she has had about five claims. Now I know what they would do in Ontario. The insurance company would say go find yourself another insurance company or they would jack her rates up considerab ly. Now I'm speaking from personal knowledge. Last June - (Interjection) - No, I read it in Gordon Sinclair's column. Don't you read it?

Last June, I was in Toronto, at which time I spoke to a young woman perhaps a few years older than Angela Welch. This young lady drove a 1985 Chev Cavalier. She had $1 million public liability and $250,00 0 collision and $10 0,000 in comprehensive. She was paying about $800, I believe, for insurance, and when she was involved in an accident in a parking lot and she was stationary, but she filed a claimed .. A MEMBER: Was the car moving? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No, she was stationary - you'r e not moving when you're stationary. She did file a claim and her insurance rates, her premium went up from $800 to $2,634.00.

A MEMBER: Where was this? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Toronto. Her same coverage in Winn ipeg would have cost her under $500, even with that accident. So Ms. We lch, and I don't know what she pays for insurance, but I suspect that if she had been in Ottawa or Toronto or Windsor, she would probably be paying about two or three times what she is paying in Manitoba. That's the one thing that really bothers me is that never has any reference been made as to what happens to your claims, to your premiums when you file a claim, or two, or three, or four, or five. As I indic ated, her intentions were very laudable.

I think she got swept up in this campaign and I think there were perso ns who found it very advantageous to take advantage of her and try to do a real job on M PlC. Now if I talk about one columnist in the Winnip eg Free Press, it would be totally remiss of me not to make reference to the other newspaper in Winnipeg. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot recall, in the years of reading daily newspapers, a situation where a newspaper takes a cause onto itself as it did with this Autop ac issue. I have never, to the best of my recollection, seen a situation where a newspaper takes on a political venture such as this.

Now, it's rather interesti ng. I don't know what happened to these coupons. Are they being supplied to the P.C. caucus or are they being supplied to the Insurance Bureau of Canada? Who did this? Who paid for this ad? Thi s cer tai nly does not represent an un biased, objective newspap er. - (Interjec tion) - Ye s, I certai nly

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 could. Here we have a number of columns that I found rather totally unacceptable by one Donald Benham, who I understand was a former executive assistant to Joe Clark. So I'm sure he would n't have any political feelings, but it's rather interesting how fact and fiction are mixed together to leave the appearance that it is an objective sto ry. I find that totally incredible.

Then I know that this kind of information is used by, particularly, the Leader of the Opposition in support of the position that he has taken, but there is blatant distortion in the coverage provided in the Winnip eg Sun, and it is most unfortunate. I think that Manitobans should be very aware of it. You know, I find the Opposition very interes ting. They are the people who don't believe the Provincial Auditor. They don't believe the Provincial Archivist. They can say whatever they want to and leave impressions all over the place that are totally, totally incorrect.

Well, some day, the truth will come out in a court case, when witnesses will be brought forth, and you will all have eggs on your face, every last one of you. Isn't it interesting? Here is this Opposition that two years ago, just to give an idea of how they deal, I would suggest - (Interjection) - Dishonestly? No, it's not dishonest.

Well, I can't find the word, but I want to go back to 1986 when the Leader of the Opposition was crying about the surplus, the reserves that Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation had, and how on the basis of some experts' advice, Ma nitobans were being overcharged and they were going to rebate $20 million. Now, isn't that interest ing, that a few short weeks after, on page 2 of the Winnip eg Free Press, there was a comment that this particular consultant disassociated himself from any remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition because he had never talked to him?

He had never talked to him, but here's the Leader of the Opposition using this consultant as some sort of basis that the corporation had too high a reserve. The Leader of the Opposition has a solution. He's going to send rates or the premium for review to the Public Utilities Board. Well, maybe he should talk to the Leader of the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan, Grant Devine, who also a few years ago had the rates reviewed by the Public Utilities Review Committee.

Incidenta lly, he had the same consultant who I just made reference to look at their reserves, and the consultant said, you should rebate $30 million or $40 million. Pardon me, the consultant to the Public Utilities Review Committee said, you should rebate $30 million to $40 million to the drivers of Saskatchewan. The Public Utilities Review Committee issued an order which, a very few months after Premier Devine int erfered politically and, through an Order-in-Council, dispensed with the Public Utilities Review order. Now, if you want to talk about political interference, that's where it's at.

Somehow or other, the Leader of the Opposition feels that is the way to go. The Leader of the Opposition is clearly on record as wanting to privatize autom obile insurance. I can und erstand that because I think, for 16 years, a lot of Manitobans have never seen the ugliness of the private­ sector insurance industry. Some of them may be, shall we say, sucked in by that kind of a statement. I can assure you that, from the hundr eds of people or thousands of people that I've met in Ontario who are 140 totally fed up with the system there, Manitobans would never want to be part of that again.

He did say clearly - I watched on T.V. last night where the Leader of the Opposition talked about doing whatever he could, including opening the basic coverage to competit ion, so that Manitobans would have a lower insurance rate. I think my colleague, the Min ister responsible for M PlC, this afternoon expressed it very aptly when he called the Leader of the Opposition stupid. You can't open up the basic portion of Autopac and not have it privatized. That is why it is so efficient in that there is universal coverage for basic insurance, and you have the tying in of your registrat ion with your insurance.

If you have a 20-80 mix, you no longer have the combination, you no longer have the savings. So let's not fool the people. But it's interesting. We do have all kinds of - Manitobans, I think some of them, a good number of them, feel they have legitimate complaints. I looked at this week's issue of the Scratching River Post. I gather it's a constituent from the Memb er for Morris. This gentleman complains about his two tow trucks, the premiums increasing to, it says here, $442 on the large truck and to $345 on the smaller towing vehicle.

He is feeling that he is hard done by because he is paying $700 for two towing trucks. I recall being in Toronto last June - (Interject ion) - I've been invited to Ontario a number of times, because the people see the problems in the private­ sector insurance, so they invite a public insurance representative to go over there. Anyway nonetheless, I recall so vividly a gentleman by the name of John Adamacopoulus (phonetic). He owns a towing company in Toronto. He had 25 tow trucks. Interestingly enough, in 1984-85, he paid a prem ium of $29,000, a little over $1 ,000 a vehicle.

In 19 85-86, he paid $87,780 for his coverage. We 're now up to over $3,000 a vehicle. Last year - he had a number of claims. I'm not saying he didn't have some claims. He had, I believe, nine claims in total on those 25 vehicles over the three years. Last year, the insurance companies were no longer offering collision coverage, no fire coverage, no theft coverage - 25 vehicles and his premium was $255,950; $10,238 a tow truck was his premium, and no fire, no theft, no collision. Yet we have here in Emerson, a tow truck with $345.00. That is one-thirtieth the cost of what this gentleman was paying in Toronto.

I wish we had more comparisons. I notice that the Winn ipeg Sun made a valiant effort at providing some comparisons. They showed some where Manitoba was lower; but when it came to taxis, in Manitoba, the old rate was $2,005 and the new rate was $2,750, Toronto not available, Calgary not available. You know, I can't believe that. Anybody who jumps in a taxi, goes to the airport in Toronto, will be told what the premiums are. They're 4,500, 4,800, 5,000 - not available. Look, they've got a nice big pictur e of a Kenworth. Is that what that is?

In Manitoba, the old rate was 596, the new rate is 760, Toronto not available, Calgary not available. Incredible, because I can't believe this, but this is the kind of - I see Donald Benham's name is beneath it. I'm not crediting him with these pictures, but it's certainly very poor research. Wel l, nonetheless it's rather interesting that, when do come to rate comparisons, they say you can't

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 compare Toronto with Winnipeg. You should look at Ottawa. Well I can tell you. I have been into Fort Frances, I have been into Windsor, Welland, Emo, Tilsenburg, and about half-a-dozen other places which are fractions of what Winnipeg are, and hundreds of people show up at meetings because they are paying three, four, five times what they're paying in Winnipeg. Let 's have some honest comparisons. Let's not leave Manitobans with the impression that the corporation's being mismanaged. There are some problems, but they will be attended to. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on one other area that we'll be debating during this forthcoming Session, and I think it is of particular interest to all Manltobans. it was rather interesti ng, when the subject was raised earlier by a colleague of mine, I saw the Opposition sit there, stony-faced, without a comment, and that Is on the subject of free trade. More specifically, let's talk about the Mul roney-Reagan trade deal.

I know that Manitobans do want more information, and I'm pleased that we are, through our advertising campaign and through the availability of leaflets, providing some of that Information. lt's rather interesting that the Opposition would scream about an expenditure of $50,000 or $60,000 to provide that Information when the Federal Government is spending $15 million to provide Canadians with their vision of where Canada should be. I certainly will look forward to hearing where the Opposition stands in terms of how the proposed agreement will affect agriculture.

I've listened to Keystone Agricultural Producers present their point of view. There are other views. I've listened to some of the views expr essed by members opposite, and I can assure you that there are very differing views. There are concerns about the future of marketing boards. There are very legitimate concerns about what may happen to some of our social programs. There are very legitimate concerns about the giveaway of our resources, the rape of our resources. Ever yone saw that happening. There are concerns about the loss of control over our economy; there are concerns about the sovereignty of our country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the debate on free trade. I know that my colleague, the Minister of Indust ry, Trade and Te chnology, this afternoon gave us a few ideas of why the concerns are there.

I know that Manitobans will be looking forward to this debate, and I'm sure Manitobans will be Interested in finding out why the Opposition has such a glowing vision of this future for Canada under this trade agreement when a secret report from the Bank of Nova Scotia raises some very serious concerns about how that agreement will impact on agriculture, on small business, and what it's doing to our resources. lt would be interesting to hear how the Opposition can respond to that. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we look forward to this Session to hear where the Opposition stands on some of the important programs that will be debated and the legislation that will be debated during this Session.

Particularly, we will be very interested In hearing what the Tory view of the world is, as seen through the eyes of Reagan and Mul roney, and compare that to our govern ment's view of an independent and prosperous country; providing the best level of social services and health services that are available in the world where 141 there Is a future in our country for our sons and daught ers and where we have a vision of Canada, of a count ry, which will continue to be independent and have control of its destiny . Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Stu rgeon Creek. MR. F.

JOHNST ON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will begin by talking about the Throne Speech. There's no question in my 20 years of listening to Throne Speeches, I can tell you that it is the worst. I don't know that I could accuse the government or the Premier with a Throne Speech of not leaving out, or I couldn't be critical of them putting in, to put it that way, the subject of free trade; and to say that their government is opposed to it and will have resolutions and will debate it and oppose it with the Federal Government, I can't be critical of that.

But to debate free trade in the Throne Speech degraded the Throne Speech to the point where the NDP party has learned to degrade this Legislature with the way they answer the questions in the House with their disrespect for all the rules in the question period, which is the main part of the House, and I must say, led by their House Leader who is the worst person as far as that is concerned. So naturally it spreads to other people and obviously it has spread through all the members of the House. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am obviously going to have silence during my comments. lt's taken me a long time to get them to do that, and I'm very happy because those of them who are here are listening. I noticed the Member for Thompson kind of giggling, because that's what they arrange to do in their Caucus Room. They said that when the Member for Sturgeon Creek gets up, we'll just ignore him and let him speak and that's fine with me, because we have . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: I was not giggling.

I was doing some work and listening to the member, giving him the cou rtesy that I think all members of the House deserve. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that wasn't a point of order and, if I think he's giggling, I can say so. So if I'm going to have silence, I really am going to mention what has really happened with this government. They stand up in this House and they have intima ted since one poll came out that it was Autopac that did it. Then another poll came out and it's Autopac that did it.

The amazing part about the polls that came out in the media during the last three weeks, the first one came out putting the Progressive Conservative Party well ahead of the NDP and the Premier said that he was waiting for the best poll that's done, that's the University poll. Mr. Matas (phonetic), he said, I will depend on the results of that poll because it is larger and we will wait until it comes along. lt did. lt did! lt came along and it beat the daylights out of the NDP even more and, when I take a look at this poll, never

Thursday, 18 February, 1988 at any time were the Conservatives more than above five points different from the NDP except when we were way ahead. We were 10, 12, 15 points ahead. At the present time, we are 25 points ahead accord ing to this poll and these gentlemen on the other side put it down to Autopac. Isn't that amazing? Even during the time of the F-18, we were always within five or six points, and only for a six-month period, and we jumped right back and -then we have taken over the lead again.

Even during the time of the ele ction in 1986, we were only one point or a point-and-a-half away from it during that time, which only proves that the people of Manitoba have stopped being fooled by this government. We have the worst government and the worst Premier that we have ever had in this province and the people of Manitoba have said so. As a matter of fact, there is another poll kicking around, and I have it only by rumour that the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, the Member for Selkirk, is the most unpopular Premier this province has ever had.

Never has there been a time when a poll comes out that says 40 percent of the people think you are doing a bad job, the other 40 are avera ge, 10 may be good. And you know what that means? Nearly 90 percent of the people of this province don't believe that this government is doing a good job and have said so to the poll that this government and these Min isters believe is the best in the country. Now, I would say that I don't know that anybody can remain at 50 or 58 as we were at one time, that's pretty hard to do.

But I don't ever expect that the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba will drop to 25.4 of the popular rate or as you were in Apri1'84 of 23.6. The only reason you climbed back a little bit is because you fooled the people.

You went through an elect ion, making election promises daily that were the most disgusting thing that I've ever heard and also degrading to the intelligence and the people of Ma nitoba to the point where you are actually kicking them around, and they don't care because the socialist philosophy is "stay in power at any cost, it doesn't matter about the people, but we just must stay there to control them." 1 say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I refer to your speech.

Social demo cracy is not what you think it is when you discuss these people on the other side, because they don't know social democ racy, they only know control. Let me just take a look at something that I had the opportunity to get dug out of the files. lt's Mr. Pawley's comments on Autopac in 1970, and Mr. Schreyer's, Mr. Mackling's was there, or the members from those constituencies. I'm sorry I mentioned their name. Mr. Evans, or Mr. Brand on East, was there, and the Member for lnterlake was there, too. Oh, it's a big file; this isn't all of it. lt's right here.

But I can tell you this, that at one point if the president of the Canadian Insurance Association had gotten up and spoken back in 1970, he would have been laughed at by the NDP when he told them that rates were going up because there were more accidents and it was the reason why the private indu stry had to raise rates, they were laughed at. They were told by the members opposite at that time that there was absolutely no reason for what they were doing.

Yet yesterday, the honourable Minister in charge of Autopac got up and read from the Canadian Insurance 142 Associ ation documentation that the reasons why we have to do this is because of the accidents and because it's going up everywhere. In 1970, their tune was exactly the opposite. I tell the Member for Thompson - he must have been 10 years old at that time - that they didn't believe in 1970 that there should be different rates for Thompson. They said everybody should be treated equally in the pro