Manitoba Hansard — 2 August 1983 (Sitting 125, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-125

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 125 - 10:48 a.m., TUES DAY, 2 AUGUST , 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-S econd Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, lion. Leonard S. EY LER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry 1111. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W .J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T.. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thom pson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Chur chill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossrr,ere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 2 August, 1983. Time - 10:48 a.m. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before the prayers are said, Sir. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: This is most irregular. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, Sir, you have indicated to the House that the 10 o'clock sitting of the Tuesday Session would be taking place now.

From this side of the House, we have no objection to sitting this morning if there is unanimous consent of the House to do so, but it is not possible, Sir, for the House to sit at 10 o'clock when it it is 10: 40. Parliamentarians can deem many things, they can't deem that the clock has gone back. I cite as by way of example, Sir, this - that if the House had not met until 2:05 this afternoon, could you, Sir, have then deemed that the House was sitting at 10 o'clock this morning? I think the answer is apparent, you could not have deemed that to be the case.

Therefore, I'm merely suggesting, Si r - but it's im portant, it's for the record - that if the House is to sit at 10: 40 on this Tuesday mo rning , after the adjournment or after the vote that has been taken ending yesterday's Session on the adjournment, then it must do so by unanimous consent, which we freely give, but it cannot of its own motion presume to sit at 10 o'clock at 10: 40. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, what are we doing all standing here for prayers talking about a point of order? I'm prepared to add ress that at the appropriate time. How do you propose that we proceed? HON. S.

LYON: You can't enter upon a Session; if it's not in order, it's not in order. MR. SPEAKER: Since I have heard no objection to proceeding, perhaps I may read the prayer. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, Sir, with respect, so long as that is not taken as entering upon a Session, which is not properly called without unanimous consent. If there's agreement that there is unanimous consent for the House to sit - fine, we have no objection, we're ready to sit. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader to the same point. HON. R.

PENNER: I would like to addr ess that point of order, but it seems unseemly when the House is standing for prayers, that it should do so in this unprecedented manner, and I would suggest that the prayers of the day be said and if the Honourable Opposition Leader wants to reserve his position, let him reserve his position. We can speak to it at the appropriate time, but not surely, in this way. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, with respect, Sir, on the same point of order. I, Sir, perhaps have more concern about prayers than the Honourable House Leader.

I'm emba rking upon this at the proper time, Sir, because the House cannot be properly entered upon its business through prayers, until such time as we divine or as we agree as to whether the Session is properly called. That's why. It is no disrespect to my Lord on my part, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Since no one has objected, I will take that as unanimous consent without HON. FI. PENNER: Unanimous consent, with respect to what, Mr. Speaker? There's no consent on this side that the House needs unanimous consent to sit.

The House has been called into Session, the bells have rung for this Session - (Interjection) - I did not interrupt anyone on that side when they were speaking. The bells have rung for this Session. You made, Mr. Speaker, a ruling which was not chal lenged and since that ruling was not challenged, that ruling stands. You made a ruling, Sir, irr clear and unequivocal terms, that following the taking of the vote on the question which was put, we would then come to an adjournment period and that the next Session of the House would be for 10 o'clock or so soon thereafter as could be the case.

That was your ruling, it was not challenged. The bells rang, the House assembled, we are in House assembled. It's clear. HON. S. LYON: By leave. HON. R. PENNER: No, not by leave. HON. S. LYON: But you can't deem it to be 10 o'clock when it's 10: 40. Even the Speaker can't do that. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the will of the House to proceed wi th the prayer? Order please. The Honour ab le Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, the House is in Session and there are routine proceedings which are not dependent on leave.

That is an abominable suggestion, that the routine proceedings of the House depend on anyone's leave. How can that be the case? Surely, it's enough to attempt to hold up the business of the House to ransom - no pun intended - by bell ringing, but to say that when the House is in Session on an unchallenged ruling of the Speaker, it then depen ds on leave wi th respect to the routine proceedings of the House, just cannot be the case. It cannot be seriously suggested that that is the case. MR. SPEAKER .: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on the same point. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, Sir.

It is not only seriously suggested, I suggest that any clear thinking . . . 4740

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, may we have your permission to sit down while this rather ridiculous debate takes place? HON. S. LYON: It's not ridiculous at all. A MEMBER: Can you read a clock? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I think that's a good idea. Would all mem bers take their seats until this matter is decided? The Honourable Leader of the Opposition to the same point of order. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the point so that my honourable friends' real or imagined or mock sense of outrage will be crystal clear to everyone.

On this side of the House, we have no objection to sitting this mo rning. Wha t we are sa ying, Sir , is tha t procedurally the hour of 10 o'clock having passed, you, Sir, cannot, after adjournment of yesterday's Session, call the House for the beginning of a Session, the hour for which has already passed and I use by way - (Interjection) - I realize it's diffic ult for some of my honour abl e frien ds to read the cl ock , Sir , but nonetheless we'll carry on. Mr.

Speaker, I use by way of example, if the House had not reconvened until 2:05 p.m., then, Sir, you would have had to call the House, in my humble opinion, for 8 o'clock tonight, unless there was unanimous consent for the House to sit. There is unanimous consent for us to sit now. We give it freely, willingly, for the House to sit at 10:45 a.m., but it cannot be preordained that the House will sit at 10:45 a.m. and deem it to be 10 o'clock by you, Sir, by the Government House Leader, by anybody, unless there is unanimous consent. The point is a very simple one. It's a procedural point.

We're willing to get on with the business of the House. My honourable friends, if they wish to be dogs in the manger, that's their business, but all they have to do is acknowledge that the clock says 10:40 a.m. or 10:45 a.m., whatever the time is, and that the Session that is called, Sir - the Session that you can order to be called - would be 2 o'clock. We say it's not necessary. Call the Session right now. We'll presume that there's a morning Session. We give freely, unanimous consent for it. So I don't know what my honourable friend is becoming so outraged about. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me make something clear. There is no mock sense of outrage; there·is a real sense of outrage. The proposition that the opposition can decide, unilaterally, when this House shall meet and when it shall not meet is very outrageous. There may be in normal circumstances, and it doesn't vary when we are in unusual circum stances, a variety of reasons why the House does not assemble at 10 o'clock sharp. It could be a minute after 10:00; it could be 2 minutes after 10: 00, Mr.

Speaker, it could be momentarily delayed; the clocks could be wrong. To suggest that for that reason, because the clock is now a minute after 10: 00, that we now all bow down to the 4741 north where the clock is and say, the clock shall rule, surely is a flight from logic that is unparalleled in this House. That's No. 1. No. 2 - (Interjection) - Again we're getting this kind of chanting from the rear of the opposition benches, which makes it diffic ult to attempt to hold a rational discussion in this House.

This is a very important issue; name ly, whether or not when the House has been called into Session - well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling when the House was in Session that went unchallenged and that ruling cannot be ,,h,qlf<mc1<>ri now. You having made that ruling that the House meet at 10 o'clock or so soon thereafter - and I put those words to you to make sure about·the ruling - or so soon thereafter as is possible; that was the ruling. That's exactly what happened on your ruling, the House is in Session.

To insist that the House may only meet by leave of the opposition shows how far they have gone in their rex imperium; that they are the rulers of the world; if not the world, this part of the world. Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time for a Speaker's Ruling that established whether it's the Speaker who runs the House or the Mem ber for Charleswood, now is the time. We are here pursuant to a ruling of the Speaker to transact the business uf the House.

To have that person stand up in the middle of prayers &nd, with the members sitting, to ch allenge the routine proceedings of the House when the House is called into Session would set a precedent that would really, I think, shake the parliamentary procedu res to its very roots. That cannot be. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition to the same point. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I think that all that is needed to point up the fatal flaw in my honourable friend's argument is this.

If the bells had kept ringing, I use the example 2:05, if they had kept ringing on Wednesday until Wednesday at this hour, would you, Sir, have aeemed that the next Session was going to be 10 o'clock on Tuesday morning? Of course not. That's why we have clocks and calendars. They give us some guidance in matters of this sort. All we are saying is that the House in the ordinary course would ordinarily be called after 10 o'clock, would ordinarily be called at 2 o'clock.

We are quite happy to sit - in fact, we're wasting time now - we're quite happy to sit now and have the remainder of the morning Session, but we have to do it by consent, Sir, because nobody can deem that Wednesday is Tuesday or Friday is Thur sday or anything like that at all in the ordinary course of events unless there is unanimous consent. We are willing to give unanimous consent to have House sit this morning if my honourable friends will stop their niggling arguments and if you, Sir, will consider the point that has been made, that with unanimous consent the House can sit. You made that point, Sir.

I think it's a very reasonable point, and I don't know what the government is arguing about. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to place something on the record. I have made my submission in substance, and you will rule if indeed there is a point

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 of order upon which to rule, and that is that the government benches were occupied before 10 o'clock this morning. We were here. Then, strangely enough - isn't that unusual? - that somehow or other at 10:10 or 10:15, they walk in, choosing the time themselves and then say at the appropria te time, oh well, you can meet by our leave. That cannot be the case, Mr. Speaker. HON. S. I.YON: Mr. Speaker, your honourable friend is betraying his lack of familiarity with the parliamentary institution. The bells, Sir, ring not at the instance of - and stop ringing when the government members walk in.

If a party has called a vote, then the traditional rule of this House is that the Whip of the party that has called the vote will indicate when that party is ready to proceed with the vote. If the government chooses, as it apparently did the other day, to sit for another half-hour until their Whip tells the Clerk, that's fine, but it has nothing to do about when my honourable friends occupy their seats. It has to do with the well-established practice in this House.

Our Whip, I presume, came to the House at 10:15, 10 :30, whenever the case was, and advised the proper officer of the House that so far as we were concerned, the bells could stop. It was then open to my honourable friends opposite to keep them ringing for another hour or two if they wished. So the mere physical act, as my honour able friend would try to su ggest, of the government or of the opposition physically occupying their seats means nothing.

My honourable friend would do well, I would think , on such occasions, Sir, to confine himself to things he knows something about and to leave parliamentary tradition to those who perhaps have a better feeling for it than he does. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly remember that we began the Session on Friday morning after 10 o'clock. It might have been 10:12 or it might have been 10: 15, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly wasn't 10 o'clock. I heard no one saying that that Session began by leave or anything like that.

I heard no protests made at that time, Mr. Speaker. We had a Session on Friday morning that began after 10 :00 a.m.; it did not begin at 10 :00 a.m. sharp and, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to take that under advisement. I think it's important that be taken under advisement because, Mr. Speaker, you can't have the opposition coming in and out on an erratic basis as to what constitutes the starting times of the Legislature, because your ruling was quite clear that it would take place at 10 o'clock or immediately after, as is practical or possible. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain to the same point. MR. B. RANSOM: Just so that the record is straight, the Minister of Energy and Mines misunderstood the situation on Friday morning. We did not have a sitting on Friday morning. We continued the Thu rsday sitting on Friday morning because there was no hour of adjournment and the item being dealt with was a procedural motion. So we did not have a sitting on Friday morning as the Minister of Energy and Mines said.

Sir, I would suggest, in order that we might get on with the business, that the government side should grant leave to proceed this morning and that you, Sir, should take this question under advisement. If at some later time, you wish to rule that the procedure which has been followed this morning is correct, so be it; but for the moment, Sir, I see nothing wrong with the government as well as the opposition granting leave so that we may proceed . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, the issue is very simple, Mr. Speaker.

This side is looking for a ruling from you as to whether or not, pursuant to an unchallenged ruling which you made in the last Session, this House is now sitting in regular Session and is to go through routine proceed ings and then, in accordance with rules, the Government House Leader will call the government business of the day. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank those members that have spoken to this point. I believe that I would like to take it under advisement whether unanimous consent is required in order for the House to sit.

In the meantime, I have heard expressions of willingness from members to proceed with the business of the House this morning. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Now I would like to pray, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for his example to the House. Would members please rise. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Commit tees . . . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . .

ORAL QUESTIONS Jobs fund - allocation of funds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the First Minister, I'll direct my question to the Minister of Finance. A few days ago I asked the First Minister how much of the money of the bud getary authority in the Jobs Fund had been allocated. The First Minister took that as notice. Can the Minister of Finance advise the House this morning as to the answer to that question? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. 4742

Tuesday, 2 Aug ust, 1983 HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, all of the budgetary money has now been allocated. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, how much of the non budgetary authority has been allocated? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, are there projects now being rejected because there are no more budgetary funds in the Jobs Fund? HON. V. SCHROEDER: No, Mr. Speaker.

At this stage, although, just for instance, the bud getary portion has been allocated, it is expected that in some instances, probab ly, the cash flow that was anticipated for this year probably won't flow, so we're looking at not necessarily approving other projects, but not necessarily rejecting them either on the basis that there is no money there. Of course, that means that there will have to be further funds allocated next year.

Anybody on the other side who is familiar, just for instance, with the way the Department of Highw ays works, knows that you put a certain amount of funding in for budgetary expenditure for the year, and you know full well when you let your contracts, that not all of those funds will be flowed. That's why you generally look at contracts that are considerably above 10 0 percent of your budgetary authority. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Minister of Finance.

I note over the weekend that the very large Jobs Fund ads taking up half or two thirds of a full page in the papers are continuing over the weekend. Why are these promotional ads continuing if the govern ment has already com mitted all its budgetary authority? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, there is still some programming that will be announced, and there is still some programming that we are discussing with people who may well participate in the future in this year, including municipalities, including possible loan funds. There are a num ber of items that are still out there. I should add, Mr.

Speaker, that just a few weeks ago, we were being criticized by the opposition for not providing inform ation on the Jobs Fund. Brandon University - construction MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education. Can the Minister of Education advise the House whether or not funds have been made available through the Jobs Fund in order that the much prom i sed Sch ool of Mu sic Bui lding at Bra ndo n University can proceed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain what has been indicated to him before.

That is that the Music Building for the Brandon University is receiving serious consideration by this government. I would also like to indicate something that the Member for Turtle Mountain raised a concern in a previous question about this, suggesting that there was a real concern that the money coming from the Federal Government or the NEED Program would end in September and that we had a real time problem. We have checked on this, Mr. Speaker, and have found that that program will be in place until June.

In fact, there will even be an additional period of time beyond that for clean-up of existing programs, so we're not in quite the time problem, nor is the money threatened in the im mediate future. MR. B. RANSOM: A supplementary to the Minister of Education then, Mr. Speaker. Can she assure the House then that any holdup with respect to the approval for the Brandon University Music Building, even though the government has announced it twice, has nothing to do with any shortage of funds in the Jobs Fund? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, while the Member for Turtle Mountain talks about the Music Building being announced twice, I think that it's imp ortant to give a little bit of history and to say a few things that have not been said in the House before; that while the Music Building has been accepted and is a high priority by this government for the most-nueded facility for the Brandon University, and that we have a great respect for the work that is done by the Music - they are a place of excellence for the Province of Manitoba in teaching of music and we recognize that - there has been a lot of changes made in the proposal by the university where it has gone from an initial addition of $1. 6 million to a $6 million project, Mr.

Speaker. The approval in principle for the building of that Music Building was based on a comm itment by the Brandon Board of Governors to raise $4.5 million. In other words, they did not get approval of the University Grants Commission for a $6 million facility. In fact, the University Grants Com mission have said clearly that they do not believe they need or can justify such an elaborate facility. However, if they want to raise the money themselves, they are free to do it and they have approval to do it MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps the Minister could just confirm to the House: Is the Jobs Fund broke and bankrupt, or is there money there and the government is simply holding up on their promise to go ahead with the Brandon University School of Music Building? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the NEED Program, I think that I ought to explain to members opposite again that the NEED Program is part of the Jobs Fund.

If you're talking about jobs funding for the Music Building at the University of Brandon, then you are talking about something that has been already committed under the NEED Program for that facility. The NEED Program is a part of the Jobs Fund, at least the provincial portion of that funding. Main Street Manitoba Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. 4743

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 IMR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In light of the Minister of Finance's answers this morning regardi ng available funding or lack thereof in the Jobs Fund, and in view of the announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Does he now have funding from the Jobs Fund to undertake reconstruction of Stephen Street in Morden so that the Main Street Manitoba Program might proceed as announced? IMR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speak er, I am not certain as to whether we have the necessary engineering works under way to be able to proceed with the project, but notwithstanding tha t, in order to facilitate the needs of the construction industry, it was our intent to spread fairly thinly, if you like, the amount of money that is going to be made available, $2 or $3 or $4 million, via small contracts to accommodate more contractors who are short of work. I doubt very much that we would want to approve a project of $ i million in scope. MR. D. ORCHARD: So then I take it, Mr.

Speaker, from the Minister of Transportation's last answer, that the question posed by the mayor and council of Morden two weeks ago as to whether Main Street Manitoba could proceed, de pendent on funding from the Department of Highways and the Jobs Fund, that answer has been given and the ans wer is, no, that project shall not proceed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affai rs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker , not to leave the honourable member's remarks on the record, let it be clear that the undertaking with the Town of Morden was based on a phase-in project.

It is my understanding, and I have been so advised that a considerable part of the public side of the Main Street Project could proceed. Tha t was the intent of the original negotiations. It is possible for the town to proceed, for instance, with a park down in the centre of town. That project, I understand, is approximately $1 0,000 by itself. There are other items that could be proceeded with, such as street furniture and so on. There are a considerable amount of works that could be undertaken on a phased basis as has been agreed in the original agreement.

If the town does not wish to proceed, of course, that is their prerogative. They do not have to proceed if they do not wish to do so, but it is there for them to do if they so desire. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then that begs a supplementary question to the Minister of Municipal Affai rs. Is the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying that aspects of Main Street Manitoba Program will proceed in Morden without any commitment wha tsoever by the government to upgrade Stephen Street this year or next year? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, that is the original agreement.

It was that in view of the uncertainty of the reconstruction of Stephen Street, that we would have a project that would assist them in beginning their project; the business people can proceed with their end of it. They could start to do their storefront renovations if they so desire, if they so wished. We are trying to obtain engineering advice on whether or not ... MR. D. BLAKE: Get some credibility, Pete. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ADAM: Well, I hear a voice from Minnedosa that talks about credibi lity. I think he is the last person that should talk about credibility in this House.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affai rs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, we have asked the Engi neering Depart ment to unde rtake a study on whether it's feasible to do a three-block reconstruction and what the costs would be. We want to obtain that information because when I was there making the announcements and meeting with the townspeople, the mayor of Morden had requested whether or not we could proceed wi th the thr ee-b lock

section of reconstruction of Stephen Street. We're trying to obtain that information, first of all, if it's feasible, whether it would cause any drainage problems or things of that nature; but we are still looking at just the three blocks to see if that would be feasible to go ahead under some other program. Garrison Diversion Project MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct a que sti on to the Honour ab le Mi nister of Natural Resources. A few days ago, on July 29th, Mr.

Homer Engelhorn, Manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District in North Dakota, indicated by a press release that they are setting up a 5,000 acre test area to monitor the various irrigation methods to be used partially to, I suppose, answer some of the Canada-United States concerns about the Garrison Diversion. My specific question is the same press release indicates Mr. Engelhorn has sent invitations that have been extended to Canada's Federal Government and to the Manitoba Government to inspect and monitor development of the Garrison Diverson, particularly those aspects which may affect Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, is the Government of Manitoba considering the invitation and, if so, in what manner would that presence of Manitoba officials take place? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that the Honourable Member for Lakeside has quoted is a 4744

Tuesday, 2 Aug ust, 1983 vigorous proponent of the Garrison Diversion project and does not accept the findings of the International Joint Commi ssion; a joint comm ission which said that it was com pletely una cceptab le. Th ere was an unacceptable risk for Canada of any diversion of Missouri River water into the waters of the Hudson Bay watershed. None thel ess, despite the International Joint Commission's statement, the proponents of Garrison press on. They press on and they have proponents like Mr. Engelhorn saying that these fears are not to be considered.

Then we have friends of those people in Manitoba that repeat those same statements. It doesn't assist our cause, Mr. Speaker, in attacking what is an environ ment al th reat . The Internati ona l Joint Commi ssion's recomme nda tions were made after extensive study and after hea ring. evidence from prominent biologists and researchers, and we are not going to deviate from the decisions of the International Joint Commission. I have been down and looked at the Garrison Dam.

I've been down and looked at the fish screens; fish screens that are a man-made device intended to screen out foreign biota, but we know that man-made devices break down. The International Joint Commission were very very concerned about the development of any devices or the security of any devices that would protect against transfer of biota. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, the sometimes Acting Hous e Leader all too often stands up to lectu re members opposite about the nature of replying or asking questions in this House. A MEMBER: Right on. MR. H.

ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to get into a Garrison debate in question period. I simply asked the Honourable Minister a question as to whether or not his gover nment is going to partic ipate in a monitoring program that was announced regarding a project that is of great concern to Manitobans. That's all I asked: Does the Minister intend to respond to the invitation sent to him by the Garrison Conservancy District to monitor for the next eight to 10 years the kind of effects that are of concern to us? By the way, Mr. Speaker, his

interpretation of what the International Joint Commission study had to say about the problems is entirely wrong and not in keeping with the facts; but again, Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking on a point of order. I do not want to debate, as he wants to debate, the Garrison project in question period. I'm. simply asking, and I'm now reverting back to my question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Engelhorn said invitations have already been extended to Canada's Federal Government and to the Manitoba Government to be part of the inspection and monitoring process over the next 8 or 10 years in this 5,000 acre test-site area.

My qu est ion is: Does this gov ernment intend to participate? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside did not have a point of order, but I thank 4745 him for reminding members that this is not a time for deba ting. The Honourable Minister may finish his answer. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I readily admit to the Honourable Member for Lakeside that perhaps my answer was inordinately long. However, Mr. Speaker, when I have stood in my place on many many occasions seeking the intervention of the Speaker to prevent an abusive question period, I have had but limited result. Mr.

Speaker, therefore, I felt it desirable to give full answer to the honou rable member's question, but i readily admit that the answer was too long. The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a meeting of officials designed for September - these are Canadian-Manitoba officials - and a decision about how we act in respect to the proponent's pleadings that we get involved and ther efore admit that what they're doing is fine, this sort of pleading has to be add ressed at the high level because we don't want to be drawn into accepting a state of facts which we don't trust. Fr ench translation - Hansard MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. The President of the Societe Franco-Manitobaine said yesterday that he had asked the Attorney-Gen'3ral and the government for the translation of our daily Hansard record into French. Can the Attorney-General confirm the request? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: No, I've had no such request.

The Standing Comm ittee of this House on Rules has made a decision with respect to Hansard and that decision will be followed, namely, that when someone speaks in the French language, so soon thereafter as the translation is available, it will appear in Hansard. That is the decision adopted by the Rules Comm ittee, that is the decision that will be followed. There has been no request to me or at least no request that I have received, so I can't deal with the matter any further. MR. R.

DOERN: I would then ask the Attorney-General if he could indicate why the President of the SFM made that statement on CKSB yesterday? MR. P. FOX: Why don't you ask him? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Elmwood should remember that he should ask quest ions whi ch are within the adminis trative competence of the particular Minister to whom he asks his question. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I'm puzzled by the response because I want to ask a question based on an interview on CKSB yesterday in which the President of the SFM said that he had made that request of the Attorney-General and he was told that the matter should be left for later resolution by the courts.

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is almost the same question and it is of a matter still not within the admini strative competence of the government The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear from the record that there was no such conv ersation at any time between myself and the President of the SFM. I doubt very much whether he made those remarks and I will wait for a translation of that broadcast to see what in fact he said. MR. R. DOERN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would then ask for a clarification and ask whether there was any verbal and/or written request by the SFM or any French langua ge associati on requ esti ng tha t Hans ard be translated into French? HON. R. PENNER: During the course of discussions leading to the proposed amendment, the question of Hansard came up and myself, as the respresentative of the government, insisted that there would be no reference, nor was any reference to Hansard needed in the proposed amendment because that issue was dealt with insofar as it needed to be dealt with in two ways: one by the original

Section 23, which remains as is and deals with the records and journals of the House, which do not include Hansard; and secondly, by a decision of our Rules Committee, which I felt was perfectly satisfactory. MR. Ft DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would then ask the Attorney-General tha t if there is a disagreement, would it not be possible for the SFM to make that challenge through the courts and that would, in effect, contradict the government's pamphlet, which says that further avoidance of court cases would be the result of that same agreement? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Perhaps the Honourable Member for Elmwood would wish to reph rase his question so it is not a hypothesis. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I simply ask the Attorney General ii it is not a fact that a challenge regarding that particular question could still be made by the SFM at a future date? HON. R. PENNER: Well, it's just as hypothetical, of course, as the previous question.

Anybody - as I've pointed out to the House from time to time - can walk into the Registrar of the Court of Queen's Bench and file a Statement of Claim which could be absolutely ridiculous on its face, but as a procedural matter the Registrar of the Court of Queen's Bench is bound to accept it until a referee of the court and a very simply

summary application dismisses it as being frivolous and vexatious. The fact is that under

Section 23, as it has stood since 1870, that

section - which has stood as I say since 1870 and will continue to stand - refers to the records and journals of the House. The records and Journals of the House as they were in 1870 did not include Hansard. Hansard is not a record and Journal of the House. Somebody may - although I doubt whether anyone would - but somebody may walk into court at any time, under the original

Section 23, and make this claim or that claim, but it would have nothing to do with our proposed amendment which indeed will restrict the ambit of claims. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I ask a final question of the Attorney-General. The pamph let says that by signing this agreement, " . . . by doing so we avoid further court cases . . . " Can the Attorney-General explain how this agreement will in fact obviate the need for further court cases if there can be dozens and dozens of challe nges? HON. R. PENNER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member for Elmw ood ha s repeatedly made the statement that he's not a lawyer and he need not repeatedly prove it.

The fact of the matter is, and it's been made ab undantly clear time and time again in the presence of the Honourable Member for Elmwood, none so deaf who will not hear, that what is being avoided are tests on the validity of our statutes; that it will not be possible now if this goes through, as I'm sure it will, that somebody will come with respect to a charge, let's say, under The Liquor Control Act and say, but, no, tha t charge cannot proceed because The Liquor Control Act was enacted in English only.

That will not be possible, because our statutes passed in one language only, when they should have been passed in two languages, in accordance with the original terms of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, will have been validated by the proposed amendment. Division bells MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: To the Minister of Government Services, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that continuous bell ringing in this Legislative Assembly is apparently becoming a habitual pattern, may I ask the Minister if he is willing to supply earplugs to the security guards and other support staff who may be continually at work during the nights and weekends? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur ab le Mini ster of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the honourab le member for that question. You know, he certainly raises a very valid point. There have been a lot of problems that emp loyees have experienced, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the bell ringing that has been subjected upon them by the opposition, and if they are going to continue to subject our emp loyees in this buildings and visitors to this building to this incessant bell ringing, we're certainly prepared to take some steps to reduce the annoyance by perhaps having a number of the buzzers turned off if this continues.

It is certainly something that is defying tradition in this building and this House, Mr. Speaker, and we have to look at taking some measures to relieve the tremendous both er, and more than that, stress, certainly on emp loyees in this building, we will do that and we regret that it is being thrust upon them by members of this opposition. 4746

Tuesday, 2 Aug ust, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows with a supplementary. MR. C. SANTOS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given that high decibel level of noise may have undetermined effect on the human nervous system, and there are some individuals who might be allergic or hi ghl y sensitive to noise, would the Minister grant the same privileges as earplugs to those employees who may be at work, in their mental decisional activies, would he be willing to supply earplugs to those employees? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, we can consider that request. It would have certain drawbacks, as well.

As the honourable member knows, I think there would be a lot of difficulty with answering the phones with earplugs, but hopefully the opposition will consider making sure tha t this doesn't happen again, Mr. Speaker. I think they have to look at what it does to visitors in this building, as well as the emp loyees in this building, and we will look at any measures that can be taken. I think the best measure, though, is to reduce the number of buzzers that are ringing for over a long period of time and we are taking steps to determine whether it is possible.

All of the buzzers currently are on one circuit and it makes it very difficult to turn each one off individua lly, but we can make some changes on that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Government Services could confirm that I, the Whip on this side, and our House Leader previously had advised the Speaker that it is satisfactory to us on this side if there is only one bell ringing, or if some steps were taken to reduce the noise. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if they have indeed been that considerate, they would have to ask the Speaker if that's the case. I have not talked to the Speaker about that. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, one further question to the Minister. I wonder, with respect to his concern about the bell ringing, if he might on behalf of the constituents of Dauphin recommend to the government that the resolution with respect to bilingualism be referred to an intersessional committee. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think that the honourable member should direct :1is question to the appropriate Minister when he has one.

I certainly do not answer with regard to bili ngualism for the government and for French Language Services on this side, Mr. Speaker. That is certainly one that should be add ressed to the Attorney-General. The people of Dauphin certainly understand our position because they are getting the facts about the resolution, and one that the honourable members opposite are not able to give to the people of Manitoba and have made no effort to give, Mr. Speaker. I want that to be on the record.

The people of Dauphin know the facts about it and they are not as concerned with the irrelevant information that the mem bers opposite are putting forward to the public. They are able to get the truth. Manu facturing shipments - decline MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Economic Development. I just heard the Attorney-General say, "I thought it was going to be me." I couldn't really be bothered asking him anything. Mr. Speaker , my qu estion is to the Minis ter of Economic Development. Mr.

Speaker, the latest report, July 19 th, from Statistics Canada shows that Manitoba is down 5.5 percent on manufactured shipments leaving this province between Janu ary and April of this year, and that's eighth in Canada. Can the Minister of Economic Development tell us why we are eighth in Canada in 19 83, and what is being done to solve this situation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the market in the areas in which we have our manufactur ing strength are weak right across the country.

If the members opposite haven't noticed, most manufacturing plants right across the country are operating at 60 percent. There are closures going on. We are naturally affected by that, and it is the particular mix of companies we have and the generally depressed economic conditions that are in the main responsible for that change. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my further question to the Minister is that the same report gives us an indication of what is happening between May and April of 19 83.

Manitoba ha d an incr ease of 6.5 of man ufactured prod ucts being sh ipp ed out of the province, which is ninth in Canada. I wonder if the Minister could explain why this trend is gradually getting worse in the province. I might say, Mr. Speaker - another supplementary to the Minister - the reports this morning from Statistics Canada are that the exports of Canada are higher than they have been in several years. All other provinces are shipping, why is not Manitoba, if that's the case? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the main areas where we can influence the promotion of trade are to assist our companies to adjust in the technological field so that they can in fact be com petitive on price and quality in the international trading market.

As the member opposite knows, we did reallocate funds within Enterprise Manitoba, within our total bu dget, in order to, on the part of Labour and Employment Service and Education, to give more training for people in that field; and in our department to improve the ability of the Tee centres, the food service and the man ufact uring side; to advise Manitoba manufacturers in that area. There will shortly be in an 4747

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 active state a CAD /C AM K capacity to assist manuf acturers further. There is also a selective trade promotion program going on. I regret as much, or more than the member opposite, the fact that our current situation is in a decline in that area. I think we have commented though all along, when Manitoba was not dipping quite as much as other provinces in the economic recession, we did predict that our emergence from the recession was likely to be grad ual and slower. There is a lag effect that is in place here.

If the mem ber opposite has some constructive suggestions to make as to how he thinks we can selectively assist our manuf acturers in trade promotion I would like to hear those ideas. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I don't happen to be on the government side, but when this government was in office manufacturing shipments, and manufacturing employment increased stead ily. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Economic Development if she can confirm, or does she agree, that the forecast for the real domestic product, for the Province of Manitoba for 19 83, is for Manitoba to drop from second in 19 82, to seventh or eighth, tied with Saskatchewan in 19 83? What is being done to stop this forecasted trend in Manitoba? As a matter of fact I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is doing anything to stop the trend which is forecast for 19 84, which is the real domestic product of Manitoba to be ninth in Canada during that time? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the change in the structure of the economy is something that is not isolated to Manitoba. There are sectors over which we have more direct influence such as housing and service sector, and we have encountered really a phenome nal impovement in the housing sector because of o;..ir will to move in that area. In the manuf acturing sector we are much more dependent on what is going on in the markets across the country, and as I did respond before the lag effect is in place.

Now the improvements in this deal have to do with marketing, with improved investment, and with technological adaptation and training of the work force. Programs to support all of these are in place, Mr. Speaker. There are no magic solutions to improving the role of manufacturing in Manitoba, but the picture is not all that bleek. There are companies with strength that are ready to take advantage as things impr ove and we are doing what we think a government can and should do to assist in that process. Retail sales llll R. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, according to the report put out by the department, manufacturing did increase during our four years of government, and also, Mr. Speaker, the same conditions apply to all other provinces. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask this further question to the Minister, and briefly read, "In May, 19 83, all provinces except Manitoba which was down 0.5, Alberta which is down 0.9 and the Yukon Territories which are down 22.4 percent, all other provinces showed an increase in department stores sales except Manitoba, Alberta and Northwest Territories." Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister can give us the reason why retail sales in department storas are down in the Province of Manitoba. A MEMBER: The sales tax increase. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. 1111. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, managing the economy requires that you look at both sides of the ledger; that is, who has got money in their pockets and what they' re spending their money on. We have attempted to manage things such that no one group of the population had to carry the . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Equal sharing in misery is what it's called. HON. 1111.

SMITH: You know, with respect, the member opposite suggests, equal sharing of misery. There is something to be said when times are tough that the difficulty be shared around, Mr. Speaker, and that not only one side of the economy, the particular business function be favoured. What we say is that what's good for busi ness mu st also be good for the people. Therefore, what we have put in place is the best balanced program that we think is feasible in the current economic conditions. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for oral questions has expired. ORDERS OF THIE DAY MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. FI. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, I just would like to announce first of all that in accordance with the terms of the Speed-up Motion, the House is being called into Session until such time as an alternative or other announcement is made. That is, the House will sit this afternoon, this evening, tomorrow morning, afternoon and evening, and so on, pending arrangements with respect to comm ittee hearings that may be entered into as soon as we've had time to discuss those. For this morning's session, Mr.

Speaker, would you please call first of all the second readings on Bills 11 2 and 11 4; follow that this morning, Mr. Speaker, by calling the adjourned debates on 48 and 55. It would be my intention early this afternoon following question period to call the debate on the referral motion. SECOND READING - GOVERNMENT BILLS BILL 112 - THE STAT UTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(1983) HON. R. PENNER presented Bill No. 11 2, The Statute Law Amendment Act (1 983), for second read ing. MOTION presented. 4748

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes as prepared in the usual way by legislative counsel have been circulated and therefore it would not be my intention to go through them. I just want to highlight two or three things, so that I bring them to the attention of members of the House. I wouldn't want anything that ought to be the subject of some attention escape the attention of anyone in the House. No. 6, Mr.

Speaker, repealing 8(3) of The Corrections Act, which is the provision of The Corrections Act requiring every hearing in a Family Court to be in camera, is in line with a whole number of changes that will be suggested in subsequent Sessions - I would like to have brought in more this Session - that deal with provisions in our statutes which are or might arguably be in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So that is the particular reason for that, there having been a number of court decisions on the Cha rter in which it has been held that blanket requirement that a hearing in a public matter be in camera would not be valid. I draw particular attention to members opposite, particularly the Mem ber for Tuxedo but all members, to Sections 9, 31 and 32.

I previously did announce in the House, in response to a question that the concerns which we had and the members opposite as well with respect to the question of babysitters who were doing nothing but babysitting or the equivalent, that this would be brought in and is being brought in in this way to clarify what was the original intention of the bill. So

Section 9 deals with The Employment Standards Act, and makes it clear that people serving as babysitters or companions for the elderly or the infirm are not defined as em ployees under The Employment Standards Act. You have like provisions in Clauses 31 and 32 dealing with The Vacations with Pay Act and The Workers Compensation Act. Mr. Speaker, I draw attention as well to something which is of some considerable fiscal importance to the Province of Manitoba. They are minor amendments on the surface to The Legal Aid Act and in paragraph 28 to The Social Allowances Act.

These amendments are technically necessary for us to comp lete a claim that has been agreed to by all provinces with the Federal Government which will begin pa yment to the province for civil legal aid under the Canada Assistance Program. They have agreed to allow this claim to be made retroactively so that, in tact, something close to $1 million will be earned under that claim by the Province of Manitoba going back to April 1, 19 80.

But in order for us to complete the application under the Canada Assistance Program so that those people who qre in need and have received or will be receiving civil legal aid, we will obtain a 50-50 cost sharing of those costs from the Federal Government. There has been no provision up until this time for the receipt of any assistance for civil legal aid. There has been with respect to criminal legal aid.

Cl ause 29 of the prop osal stren gthens some provisions of The Sum mary Convictions Act, those new provisions which were passed in the last Session, to strengthen the protection of persons who might be the subject of a default finding under the new provisions, and increases the requirements of a judge to make sure that all procedural regularities have been observed, and all procedural safeguards have been observed. Those, Mr. Speaker, are the main points to which I draw attention.

As I say, the document has been circu lated and , therefore, memb ers have the full explanation of the proposals for The Statute Law Amendment Act (1 983). I commend it to the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: I move, seconded by the Mem ber for Lakeside, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill 114 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

(3) HON. R. PENNER presented Bill No. 11 4,

An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act (3), for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill contains consequential amendments to The Legislative Assembly Act based on the introduction of Bill 18; that is, The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act. As mem bers are aware, Bill 18 pro poses the introduction of a disclosure principle in respect to pecuniary interests of members, Cabinet Ministers, which arise during the course of offical business.

The disclosure principle, recommended by the Law Reform Commission, would replace many of the disqualification provisions presently set out in The Legislative Assembly Act. Accordingly, Bill 11 4 considerably reduces the lengthy disqualification provisions in the early part of The Legislative Assembly Act. For example, Mr. Speaker, we propose to repeal the general rule that any person undertaking or executing a contract or agreement with the Government of Manitoba is ineligible to be elected to the Assembly.

The obsolete and restrictive nature of the no-contract rule, as ii is sometimes called, is amply demonstrated by the two pages of exceptions set out in the current act. You had originally a blanket disqua lification and then it became palpably clear that this really disqualified a lot of people from even running for office, who ought to be allowed to run for office, and so we set up a whole numb er of exceptions. Now, as I say, this disqualification principle is being replaced by a disclosure principle.

The repeal of the rule will permit a corresponding reduction in this extensive list that we are so proposing in Bill 11 4. Again, Mr. Speaker, the nature and extent of contractual relationships between MLA's and the Go ver nment of Manitoba will be su bject to the disclosure provisions of Bill 18, but not obviously the disqualification provisions. 4749

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not proposing to repeal all of the disqualification provisions presently in The Legislative Assembly Act. As a matter of principle, no person who holds a continuing office or employment with the Government of Manitoba should be eligible to sit in the Assembly, and conversely, no member of the Assembly should have the privilege of reward ing himself or herself with an office or commission from the Government of Manitoba.

Consequently Bill 11 4 does not affect the current disqualification provision for any person excepting or holding an office, commission or emplo yment, or performing a duty in respect of which a salary, fee, or allowance is payable from the Crown in the right of Manitoba. As with the disqua lification provisions that presently exist, there must be reasonable exceptions, and Bill 11 4 states those exceptions, which we believe to be reasonable - and let me say here. parenthetically, Mr.

Speak er, we'll be more than happy, of course, to listen to suggestions, either in debate on second read ing or in comm ittee, as to other exceptions which might have escaped our attention. Thus we have retained those provisions in the current act whereb y, for example, persons who receive fees for issuing various kinds of provincial license or permits, or who receive commissions for collecting provincial taxes are not disqualified from running for office.

We have, for example, people who, pursuant to the provisions of The Sales Tax Act, collect and remit sales tax through the ordina ry course of their business and no one would seriously suggest that they should be disqualified from holding office. Also we have added new exceptions which we believe, in light of contemporary practice, to be reasonable. Lawyers receiving fees under Legal Aid certificates, and do ctor s being paid by the Hea lth Services Commission will not be disqualified from sitting in the Legislature on those grounds. There is a special situation, with respect to the holders of judicial offices.

Under our current system, full-time judges of all courts are prohibi ted from seeking elected office, but The Legislative Assembly Act presently permits a justice of the peace to be nominated for and elected as a member of the Assembly. No person, Mr. Speaker, charged with interpreting and enforcing the Jaws, even at a minimal level, should simul taneously be making laws.

Consequently Bill 11 4 proposes that a justice of the peace, magistrate or part-time provincial judge should be eligible to seek election to the Assembly but must, if elected, resign from his or her jud icial office before being eligible to sit or vote in the Assembly. Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 11 4 proposes the repeal of certain sections in The Legislative Assembly Act which prohibit members from receiving, from private individuals, any compensation for services with respect to matters before the Assembly.

The reason for that is that this basic prohibition is more appro priately situated in Bill 18 and is accord ingly being transferred to and is to be found in that bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Pembina, debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING Bill 48 - THE ELECTIONS FINANCES ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 48, on the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, standing in the name of the Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. Fll l\ll ON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a privilege to speak on this bill and to put forth views that we on this side hold very strongly about some of the very, wha t we consider to be, adverse aspects of the legislation that will not be in the best interests of all Manitobans; that will indeed cause the taxpayer and the average Manitoban a good deal of additional expense and an unwarranted intrusion into their pocketbooks, as taxpayers.

Many members on our side have spoken strongly and indicated our concern and our opposition to the replacement of what currently is a voluntary system of elections contributions to parties, to individuals. who voters and the public, in general, believe in and wish to support; replacing that voluntary system with a compul sory system that will see a significant portion, approximately half of the costs of election campaigns, picked up by the taxpayer at large. Of course, we on this side, Mr.

Speak er, see that sort of intrustion into the pocket books of average Manitobans as being harmful, as being a negative connotation, and as being another example of the greed of mem bers opposite - the Government of Manitoba today, the New Democratic Party - the greed with which they approach virtually everything, as it has to do with furthering their own personal desires and goals and aims in future.

They are willing, at every turn, to rob from the taxpayer for the good of themselves, as mem bers of government, as members of a party which hopes to remain viable and a part of the governmental process in Manitoba in future. We have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, I have in speaking to Bill 55, which at a time of very very considerable financial duress in this province, that the government is facing all-time record deficits for two years in a row. The first year of their government they had a deficit tha t exceeded the total of all four years of our government.

That was more than double the largest single deficit prior to their entry to office. Then they followed, the very following year, this fiscal year in which we currently find ourselves, with an even greater deficit. They are, with their strange set of priorities cutting back in areas such as the 4-H Clubs, cutting back in legitimate areas of concern for the taxpay er, but adding cons tantly to the costs of government. This, Mr. Spea ker, is just one more step along the way.

That is why we on this side of the House are concerned, because we see it as not being warranted today or in the near future until the government can get its act together, until they can get their expenditures under control, until they can demonstrate, not only to the taxpayers of Manitoba, but indeed, the financial world, the financial world who is being very critical of us, who has set us back by reducing our credit rating, by limiting the amount of funds that we can borrow in 4750

Tuesday, 2 Aug ust, 1983 future on the open market in a variety of different ways; until they have demo nstrated that they can cope with and deal with those serious issues that face us, we, on this side, Mr. Speaker, do not believe that they ought to be dipping further into the pockets of taxpayers. In this bill, Bill 48, which as I say, will now add on a further major load to the taxpayers by asking them to pick up a portion of all of the election costs of virtually all of the gr oups and indi vid uals who put forth candida tes to run in future provincial elections.

This burden will result from the major thrust of this legislation. Mr.

Speaker, leaving aside the additional bureaucracy that is going to be created by this and those hard-to define bureaucratic costs, leaving aside that aspect of it, the major import of this legislation is that it takes away the emphasis that all of us, I think, in the past have agreed with and have pointed to with pride and tha t is the volu ntary contributions from so many Manitobans that have allowed us as political parties and as individual politicians to run for office and to state our views and to further the democratic process of Manitoba. I say that, Mr.

Speaker, knowing that the members opposite have at various times utilized this voluntary contribution process to demonstrate the support out in the provincial community, among average Manitobans to demonstrate the support for their party. I have heard them - and I'm sure others have - say, I think with some touch of pride, that they have had many many more individual contributions than have other parties.

I have heard them take a federal national study of the contributions to political parties and say, aha, we, in the New Democratic Party, get more small individual contributions and we are not as dependent on major groupings such as corporations and so on. They have utilized that to demonstrate and to state their position that they represent more small individual voters and taxpayers in this province. It's not true, of course, Mr.

Speaker, because we know that the vast majority of the lunds that are raised by mem bers opp osite in the cour se of their electioneering, in the course of their fund-raising to further their political ideologies and their political objectives, comes from unions, from a checkoff system, Mr. Speaker, in which small, individual, working-class people have no choice whats oever. This is something that has to happen because of their membership in the union, tha t the y mus t contribu te to the New Democratic Party through their check off system.

We know that they are heavily dependent on that kind of funding and that the unions play a major role. We have, in the past, read excerpts from articles that have occurred in union magazines, that have trumpeted with pride how they, the unions, won the last election in 1981 for the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, but they won it with a good deal of compulsion, if they, indeed, did have the effect that they take credit for, a good deal of compulsion, Mr.

Speaker, because there was a lot of arm twisting, a lot of coercion and a lot of small-time pressure tactics being used on mem bers of unions. not only for their participation in the election campaign, but for their financial contributions. Mr.

Speaker, when I reviewed the contributions that were made during the course of the last election and all of us, of course, look at them and draw our various conclusions as to who supported the New Democratic Party financially in the 1981 election campaign, under that voluntary system that exists presently, I found some very interesting little excerpts that I wanted to point to. For instance, it appeared quite evident to me that this New Democratic Government exerts a good deal of pressure for a so-called tithing kind of approach to things because if you take a look, Mr.

Speak er, at the names that appear on that register of those who contributed to the New Democratic Party in the 19 81 election, you will find - surprise, surprise - that virtually every executive assistant and/or special assistant of this government gave a good, healthy contribution to this party. Now, would you say that that was a kickback or a payoff for a job, Mr. Speaker? Some may say so, I'm not sure. It's a matter of

interpretation. Further to that, take a look at the list of those who were appointed to boards and commissions by this New Democratic Government and you will find that virtually every name appears on the list of major contributors to the New Democratic Party for their 1981 election effort. Would you say that that was a kickback or a tithe that they were paying, or that they bought their appointments to those boards and commissions, Mr. Speaker? Who knows? I mean, that may be an

interpretation that some may come up with. You know, it was fascinating to find all of these various contributions in that material that came out as a summa ry as result of the current election financing procedure and program that we have in government today, the one that we say is fair ball, that works on a voluntary basis. It certainly works on a voluntary basis from our side. I'm not so sure that it does from the New Democratic side.

There appears to be good reason why there is some compulsion on the part of those who have had to contribute in order to have their jobs or their positions on boards and commissions. In order to earn their livelihood, they obviously have to send back a certain agreed portion to the government of Manitoba, the New Democratic Party Government of Manitoba. Interesting, how they approach things. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, there weren't too many contributions from my constituency to the New Democratic Party, and so it was very easy for me to go through the list of names and try and figure out what relationship they might have had with the party.

You know, there were some old-time ties, I would say, that even in a constituency such as mine in which the New Democratic Party gets something in the range of about 20 percent of the vote, they still have firm supporters who have had ties with the party over a long period of time, connections that you can make as a resu lt of this indi vidua l system of volu ntary contributions to the parties as they exist. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party fares very very well, thank you indeed, through this individual system of contributions.

They not only can utilize it for the propaganda that they do to suggest that they have more individuals contributing, and less emphasis on corporations, as they say, which isn't quite true because you can find some very interesting major corporate donors to the New Democratic Party if you go through the list. All of them, interestingly enough, do significant business with this government today. These corporations, these large corporations, who the New Democratic Party have said in the past they dislike, they are not in iavour of, somehow still are tied in with 4751

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 this New Democratic Party government in terms of contributions, major contributions to the financing of their 1981 election campaign. As the Me mb er for Turtle Mo untain says, the y probably regret it now. Indeed, I'm sure that they do. But that's a funny sort of situation how the New Democr atic Party can say, we dislik e the big corporations but they certainly don't turn down - (Interjection) - they'll take their money. They certainly don't turn down their contributions if you look at the record.

That's one of the good things about The Elections Finances Act as it exists today, there is a public record, and if you want to go through it you can certainly see who are the corporations, who are the major donors. And you can then very quickly determine why there's a connection, because indeed they all have a connection with this government. You know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. We've heard it from the other side in the past, but we can say it with equal effectiveness and with equal conviction, because we have the record of who contributes to the New Democratic Party and what they're getting for it.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to that major, sort of, faceless block out there that they call organized labour and their contacts, well they're certainly getting their share of effectiveness, in terms of legislative changes, in terms of commitment to policy from this government. There's no question about it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speak er, I was speaking not too long ago with someone who is an ardent supporter of the New Democratic Party who is - (Interjection) - yes, there aren't many left. But I found one in the course of my summer visitation with various people, in various areas of Manitoba.

This individual, who is an ardent New Democratic supporter and involved with the party in an organizational sense, said to rne that he represents a grouping that is very important to the New Democratic Party. They're broadly based and they have a lot of voter potential and therefore he does have access to Ministers. And he quickly said, not of course like the Federation of Labour. He said, of course, they run by all their legislation, by the Federation of Labour, before they bring it into the House, before they even take it to Cabinet.

Before they even take it to Cabinet he said they run all of their proposed legislation by the Manitoba Federation of Labour just to make sure it's acceptible because after all the Federation of Labour does have a great deal of clout, not only with respect to the amount of money that they raised through the union check off system but, of course, with respect to the work that they put in. And, you know, we read about the boiler-room tech nique, the coercion, and the arm twisting that was done with union mem bers, and so on and so forth. But, Mr.

Speaker, to whatever extent one can criticize the kind of techniques and tactics that are used by the New Democratic Party in raising funds for election expenses under the present system, at least it all comes out in the open eventually. It comes clean, they have to make a reporting of it, and all Manitobans can take a look at just what the relationships are between those who contribute and what this government does for those who contribute in future.

That's fair ball, because mem bers opposite have used that same technique in discussing our relationship with those people who have contributed to our party in the past. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that one should never get into the situation of the pot calling the kettle black, because they have as much to answer to the public for under this present oµen, voluntary system as we do, and we can make our case just as strongly as they can make their case. So whatever the down sides may be of the present system, Mr.

Speaker, it still contributes in its way to ensuring that the demo cratic process is carried out democratically, that th ere is an emphase on voluntary support, not only the support of the people who walk door to door, who put a sign on their lawn, who campaign for people, but the people who contribute to the party on a voluntary basis - all of this kind of volunteer spirit. Mr.

Speaker, let's be honest, it's voluntary efforts that have contributed towards the growth and the furtherance of so many of the institutions that we pride ourselves in in society today, that I believe that voluntary aspect should never be downgraded, should never be denigrated or attempted to be wiped out. Unfortunately the kind of Big Brother approach that this government has taken in most of its legislation this Session, has been to the detriment of volunteerism, to the detriment of the voluntary contributions that so many of our major institutions in society still depend upon. I say that, Mr.

Speaker, in many, many ways. If you take a look at virtually all of the social agencies that have existed and do exist in Manitoba today to do jobs that are needed for the furtherance and the betterment of society, they were undoubtedly initially started by volunteers, and staffed by volunteers, developed and continue to grow on a voluntary basis. If it were not for the volunteers in society, there would be virtually no social agency that exists today in Manitoba, virtually none, Mr. Speaker.

If you take a look at what exists today in terms of recreation, wha t we look upon as, you know, sort of the public recreational programs through commu nity centres, through larger groupings as you go throughout the province, all of those things were initiated and begun and grew to what they are today as a result of voluntary efforts. Now I will admit that many of them have been taken over by Big Brother in the form of government.

I lament the fact that, for instance, in terms of the Municipal Government we have so little input today from the volunteers in our community centres, that virtually every thing is done by paid staff; that program ming, and events, and activities are all done by paid staff, and virtually none done by voluntary staff is to me a very lamentable situation. The same thing holds true when we take it, as I say, into most social service agencies. The same thing holds true in health care.

A good deal of what used to be done in the past was done by all of the various voluntary societies who staffed hospitals, personal care homes and others, to supplement the paid staff positions. Slowly but surely, as a result of the futher intrusion of govern ment, of the Big Brother approach that was started, or at least certainly was fostered to a great extent by the New Democratic Government, in the 19 70s in this province, and that now is going forth with great accelerat ion and great speed as the government endeavors to wipe out volunteer efforts in everything t1 at we do in society, and replace it, Mr.

Speaker, with a compulsory government-run set-up. Now we had the instance in Brandon where the Kinsmen Club wanted to contribute over, I believe, a 4752

Tuesday, 2 August, 1983 million dollars to the library - (Interjection) - Sorry, $1 50,000, I'm corrected. Mr. Speaker, $1 50,000 to the furtherance of a major library facility in Brandon. Now all they asked for, Mr. Speaker, was the opportunity to have a board member representing the Kinsmen Club on the board of that library. Now that certainly isn't, to me, a very major request. Let's face it, after all, they do represent the community; they are made up of people in a voluntary capacity from the commun ity, and they will continue to be, as long as they are a service club, which they are.

So that doesn't denigrate from the goals and the objectives of a commun ity-based library, in fact, that supports them, I would say; but this government, somehow, took exception to that and said, no. We will not put anything into an Order-in-Council, or a piece of government regulation, that will call for a member of the Kinsmen Club to be on that board. We don't care about the contribution they are making in terms of money, in terms of their efforts to support that library facility; we don't care, we would rather have everything under our thumb as government, the heavy hand of government coming through, again.

Mr. Speaker, I hark back to the very major institution in Manitoba which is called the Red River Exhibition. I don't know if many people realize that was started by the Kinsmen Club in Winnipeg and that, in its early goings, it was totally run by Kinsmen. It became such a major extravaganza and community event, certainly of national repute, one of the major fairs of this country, and it became too big for the Kinsmen.

Now what did the non-p rofit organ ization tha t replaced it, that was made up with the assistance of various levels of government and community input and so on and the y, in order to grow and further their objectives and ideals, and become one of the significant fairs of Canada, what did they do? They said, we will continue our relationship with the Kinsmen Club and they will continue to appoint someone to our board of dir ectors, becaus e we want to recog nize their contribution in getting it started, their commitment to it in the future.

We will do that, because we think it's for the good of the commu nity at large. Now that's a recog nition of volunt ary efforts and volu ntary contributions towards something important in society. How much more important an objective or ideal or goal in society do we ha ve than furthering the demo cratic process; than furthering the process of ensuring that democracy works by the people, for the people, and of the people in Manitoba?

That is what's at stake here in talking about financing of elections in future for Manitoba, is that objective of furthering the democ ratic process and ensuring that it's as representative as possible; that it takes into its overall workings as many Manitobans as we can, not just in a serise of including them because they have a vote at the ballot box, but ensuring that they can come out and work in support of their candidate; that they can put a sign on their lawn; that they can go door-to-door and campaign for them, but as well that they can contribute in whatever level they want in terms of financial contribution, but yes, they can.

It is the small donations tha t are imp ortant, because the y allow someone to have a commitment to an individual. I have, Mr.

Speaker, gone door-to-door in every campaign in which I have run, and that's two civic campaigns for City Council in Winnipeg, two provincial campaigns, and I have always been amazed and very pleasantly surprised at people, not only committing their support, saying that they will vote for me, but saying that they will come out and work for me, or sitting down and writing out a cheque for $25 or $10, something to demo nstrate a commitment to the party that I represent or to the individual who is running for office in their area, because that shows, beyond any question, an extra level of commitment in their minds, and they want to do it.

They don't want somebody to tell them, at the end of an election campaign, well ladies and gentlemen of the Province of Manitoba, you have contributed, through your tax dollars, a million dollars to this last election. Aren't you happy about that? Aren't you happy that you have contributed to allow for members of the Marxist-Leninist Party, for members of the Communist Party , for mem bers of the Rhi noceros Pa rty, for mem bers of all of these parties to run in Manitoba for election? That's what you have done. - (Interjection) - That's right, Mr. Speaker.

There are so many people who represented radical, fringe and non-traditional areas and concepts and platforms who have run for office in this province in the past who were soundly turned out, defeated and never again su rfaced to be a source of concern or worry to the average Manitoban, who would have had an opportunity to get government funding had these provisions been in place. I say to you, Mr. Speak er, that is not a provision that is warranted. That is not something that the people of Manitoba want or would support.

I don't think that we, representing Manitobans as we do, as elected people in this Legislature, ought to support such a proposals. I don't know where the government gets its ideas from. It seems to be corning forth with all sorts of ideologically-based legislation that, if you analyze it in terms of the average Manitoba taxpayer, it's bad, it's wrong. Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said very strongly and forcefully in speaking to this legislation that this would not become - now, the Attorney-General had indicated that he felt that this was important because it would prevent politics from becoming the preserve of the wealthy. Yet, what he is doing instead is saddling the low- and moderate-income people with the majority of the cost of future elections.

The Leader of the Opposition demonstrated it with facts and figures taken out of the income tax rolls of this province that the vast majority of it - I believe it is something in excess of 60 percent - will come off the backs and out of the pockets of the low and moderate taxpayers in this province. That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong, absolutely and totally wrong, because those are people who least can afford to pay for it.

Those are people who may make a choice at some point in future if it is a discretionary dollar but, if they can't afford it to begin with, why should it be taken compulsorily out of their pockets under the guise of somehow improving the democratic process? Mr. Sp eaker , I don't unde rstand the Attorne y Gener al 's statement about polit ics bec oming the preserve of the wealthy in any case because, if you take a look at some of the things, as I say, that they pride themselves in, they say that they have a vast 4753

number of individuals who contribute. They have said in the past that, for instance, in their government, they represent a wide and broad cross

section of people in economic terms. A number of their candida tes and a number of their current members of government were unemployed al the time that they ran, for office, and they felt that demonstrates that they represent a broad cross

section economically of the people of Manitoba. Of course, they are doing everything possible to cover that because in the other Elections Act that we are dealing with they do not want the person's type of employment to be on the ballot, so that they, perhaps, can cover up the fact that people are unemployed, or the fact that maybe their job or their position is not of a status that's normally recognized by the vast majority of people in the province. They're trying to do all that sort of thing but, as well, they're not being true to their position that they've taken, saying they do, in fact, represent the broadest cross

section of people, because now that broad cross

section of people - many of whom are lower and mode rate income people - are going to have to pay out of their pockets for their future endeavours in politics. MR. A. DRIEDGER: That's a shame. MR. G. FllMON: And that is a shame, as my colleague from Emerson says. Mr. Speaker, I find another aspect of the legislation that's proposed to be absolutely ludicrous. The fact that the government is suggesting that they're doing us a big favour by totally prohibiting government adver tising during !he course of an election campaign. Now, isn't that dandy, Mr. Speaker? MR. H.

ENNS: That's a question of morality which was always there. MR. G. Fil.MON: Yes, as the Member for Lakeside said, that was a question o! morality that was always there. It was acceptable to all governments that you did not do blatant political advertising, but it doesn't matter because this government is putting that forward as presumably a stirring example of how they are comm itted to a very moral form of financing elections and nobody gets the upper hand, nobody gets the advantage.

Except what they don't tell you is that they are breaking all records, right now, as they exist in this Session of the House, breaking all records for spending on public adver tising. You know, we've been bringing it forward and pointing it out to them. There's all the Jobs Fund advert ising that is designed to prop up a sagging failing government, to try and make them look good when it's not possible. They have been so incompetent and so derelict in their responsibilities and duties to Manitobans that people have already decided.

There's been a sh ift in public popu larity of this government already since the 1981 fall election, a shift of something between 10 and 15 percentage points and, in many areas, it's over 20 percentage points. They are sagging and failing and they're trying to prop their own image up with adver tising. We talked earlier about, just this year, now these are just things that have happened since Januar y, so we're into about the eighth month of this calendar year, a massive program advertising the Jobs Fund. Then we went into the ma ssive program on the sprayi ng campaign. Can you believe it?

The cornerstone to this government's aerial spraying for mosquitoe campaign, the cornerstone is a $ 10 0,000 pu blic adver tising program. That was the first thing they announced after they decided to spray for mosquitoes with malathion. Well, as I said when I was in Dauphin, in speaking to one of the reporters there, their approach, Mr. Speaker, we have no objection on this side, for instance, to the position that they've taken in listening to sound medical and scientific advice, in order to decide to aerially spray for mosquitoes, but what we do object to is the kind of soap opera approach that they use to it.

You know, today they say we're not going to spray because we have no existence of western equine encephalitis in either horses or humans; tomorrow they say we are going to do it because we still have no existence of western equine encephalitis in horse or hu mans.

The Mi nister Government Services announces in Dauphin that he will not spray in Dauphin until after the festivals, in Dauphin or Gimli or all those areas, he won't spray until after the festivals because there are so many people moving into those areas for the festivals and there's thousand of people in there, so they won't spray until after the festivals are over. The day before the festivals begin he announces, the planes will be in, we're going to spray for mosquitoes.

It's a soap opera; it's not based on scientific medical advice and it's supported by $10 0,000 advertising campaign, to tell people all the wonderful things they're doing for them; Mr. Speaker, it's wrong. So they're not saving us anything saying they're not going to allow government during the course of a campaign, they'll have that have spent every nickel available leading up to campaign and have drained the taxpayers' pockets before they do it. The same thing, Mr. Speaker, with this French language accord that they've signed, the agreement.

That'll be into the hundreds of thousands in terms of adver tising, full-length pictures of the Premier, and so on and so forth. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that they're not going to do any Manitobans any favour by cutting back the spending on advert ising that the government will be doing. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this will be more costly than the existing legislation by at least a million dollars per election, but a great deal more when it's all counted up.

As well, because it restricts indi viduals from advertising without endorsations, it restricts the freedom of speech and the opportunity for the real democratic process to take place in the course of an election campaign. It will have representatives on its advisory comm ittee who represent fringe elements, who are really on the outside of all of the normal thinki ng of Manitobans in a free society. They will be represented. At what cost, Mr. Speaker, at what cost? It will adversely affect the taxpayer, as I have said, and we don't agree with that and we don't believe that that ought to be the case in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, I say, on behalf of all members on our side, that this legislation is not warranted; that this legislation is wrong, in principle, and that this legislation will, above all, be costly to the lower and moderate income taxpayers in Manitoba, those people who we 4754

Tuesday, 2 August , 1983 ought to consider every time we bring forth any bill, those people whose needs, goals and desires we ought to be concerned about. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation with some enthusiasm. There have been three admi nistrations that have dealt with the question of election funding and election expenses.

The Schreyer Administration, I guess in the early '70s, brought in legislation to limit the amount of expenditures which I think wasn't a bad idea, but it, in effect, put a ceiling on the expenditures that could be made by mem bers of the Legislature and political parties, but it did not provide a floor. I, myself, argued at that time and have argued since that it's fine to have a ceiling, but you also need a floor. The Lyon administration, I think, has to be given some credit for allowing private donations, a la the Federal Government on income tax, and I think that was not a bad step.

But they brought in some bizarre features which were later gutted from the bill, such as, a truth squad, and I'll deal with that later. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, introduced by the New Democratic Admi nistration, I regard as progressive and a long overdue reform, and I think that ultimately, when the history books are written and when the judgments are given on the performance of the government that, contrary to what has been said by the official opposition, this will be one of the best pieces of legislation passed by the administration and ever passed in this House. Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has taken some glee and enjoyed referring to this legislation as sort of a little bit of Jesse James. I don't see it in those terms, in terms of fam ous bandits and famous characters of history out of the story books or the history books.

If there is any comparison, and I don't think this is an accurate comparison, but if there is any comparison to be made, then it should be with Robin Hood, namely, taking money from perhaps some of the wealther segments of society or taking money to counter the influence from some of the wealther segments of society to give people an opportunity to fight elections on a somewhat fair basis. Because, Mr. Speaker, in a day when millions can be spent on the media to win an electi on, surely it's unfair and undemocratic for someone in that campaign to have only a few cents with which to fight. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. When this motion is next before the House, the honourable member will have 37 minutes remaining. The time of adjournment having arrived, this House is adjourned and will stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. 4755

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-125
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 125.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	66fab430be190aa2476092247b6c4634f9fd1301

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