Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 33A (32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-33a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Leglslatlve Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publlah«I under the authority of The Honourable D. Jame• Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 33A - 2:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 24 MARCH, 1983. Printed by the Office ot the a- PriMe<. Province ot MlltJilobll

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second 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, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA,Ho n. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Cla yton 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, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Elllce Churchill 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 Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NOP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NOP NDP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NOP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NOP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 24 March, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presen ting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: I have a statement, Mr. Speaker. I would like them distributed. Mr. Speaker, I wish to announc e that the Universities Grants Comm ission will be disbur sing $14 6.3 million in operating grants to the three universities and St. Boniface College.

This represents a 10.3 percent increase in grants, inclusive of funds to offset the levy for health and post-secondary education. The grants to the universities are conditional on tuition fee increases not exceeding 9.5 percent. This is in line with the decision we have taken regarding tuition fee increases for the community colleges.

In considering an appropriate level of increase in our grants to the universities, we considered three things: - the present difficult economic conditions which have put pressure on provincial revenues; - the 15 .7 percent increase in funding we provided to the universities last year, an amount that was well above the inflation rate; - the signi ficant cutbacks by the Federal Government in established program funding this year. Under the conditions I have just mentioned, our level of support to the universities is fair and responsible.

As far as tuition fees are concerned, with this year's increase of 9.5 percent, averaged with last year's freeze, students in Manitoba will continue to find themselves paying the lowest fees of all provinces, with the exception of Quebec. They will still also find that the increase over the two years is still well below the inflation rate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We thank the Honourable Minister of Education for the statement that she's made today. In responding to it, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's valid to point out that the incr ease of 10.3 percent in grants, inclusive of the amount to offset the employment tax - the 1. 5 percent payroll tax that was put on last year - means an actual increase of something closer to 9 percent, I would think. As well, Mr. Speaker, I know that this has to be contrasted against the universities' requests for this year, for something in the neighbourhood of 18 percent increase, in order to carry through their plans and programs, as they had them outlined in entering this year. That, Mr.

Speaker, I suppo se, is evidence of the fact that this government has a serious budgetary problem to face, a deficit of some thing in the range of close to $600 million at the present time being projected and as well, this government has to, in its repriorization, try and cut the suit to fit the cloth.

I remind the Minister, of course, that when we were in government and were wrestling with the same kind of budgetary constraints and were endeavouring to be fair with the universities in making the grants reasonable in terms of the provincial resources, that her colleagues in opposition screamed loud and long and orchestrated demonstrations on the steps of the Legislature, led by, among others, the now Member for Thompson, who said that they, if put into office, would take off all constraints and give the universities massive increases in fundings. My, what a difference a year-and-a-half makes! Mr.

Speaker, I remind the Minister, as well, and hope that she would have taken into account in arriving at this decision that the university is one of the few growth industries in Manitoba today, with a 12 percent increase in enrolment this year, I believe. From information I received from t.he President of the Un iversity of Manitoba, in conversation on the weekend, they're looking at a 20 percent increase in applications for this coming fall.

So I wou ld hope tha t the fundin g that's made available, and I suppose that's reflective of the fact there are some 20,000 Manitobans unemployed under the age of 25 these days, and obviously greater pressure being put on post-secondary institutions to accommodate them. So I would hope that given the difficult times that everyone faces, this funding will not result in too great strains and harms on the quality of education at the universities. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to file in the House the second report of the Spring Run-off Outlook for Manitoba. It's a fairly lengthy report, Mr. Speaker. Generally, it is a favourable report, but of course these reports are su bject to the present conditions and can vary depending on precipitation between now and the full break-up. Copies of the report should be available for all mem bers. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable mem bers to the gallery where we have 33 students of Grade 9 sta nding from the Sanford Collegiate School. The students are under the direction of Mr. Hew, and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Morris. 1045

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 There are also 20 students of Grade 7 standing from the Churchill High School under the direction of Mr. Fenton. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Economic Development. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Protest demonstration, U.S. Consulate re Nicaragua MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister or, in his apparent absence, the Acting Premier of Manitoba.

Can the Acting Premier confirm that two mem bers of the Executive Council of the Gove rnment of Manit oba; namely, the Mi nister of Economic Development and the Minister of Natural Resources, at least those two mem bers; and the Member for River East, Mr. Eyler; the Member for The Pas, Mr. Harapiak; the Mem ber for Rupertsland, Mr. Harper; and the Member for Springfield, Mr. Anstett, all partici pated last evening in Winnip eg in a demons tration in front of the United States Consulate, at which demonstration the flag of the United States was burned? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that all the members named have been there; I know that there is a fair number. I wish to say that they were there repres enting themselves as individuals. The Consul General of the United States has been so informed. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member for lnkster said he wished to associate himself with a group who was present? MR. D. SCOTT: That I do, that I do. HON. S. LYON: The Member for lnkster was also present at the demonstration at which the American flag was burned.

Can the Acting Premier tell the House and the people of Manitoba if he considers that kind of conduct on behalf of Cabinet Ministers of the Government of Manitoba to be appropriate and to be decent, given the relationship between the United States and Canada, or what are he and his left wing colleagues up to in this province? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the information that I have is that the burning of the flag, none of the mem bers of this caucus had anything to do with it, that's unfortunate that was done. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes they were there.

That doesn't mean that people are responsible because they are there. The situation is that in this party we do not decide what every single member intends to do in his own time, on his own. This is something that every single one of, as members, are free to do and there is no intention of changing that at all. This is not done as

an act of this government. It is individuals who chose to be there and this is their responsibility and choice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson on a point of order. MR. G. LECUYER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Leader of the Opposition imply that we were there to condone the burning of the U.S. flag. I was there, never saw that there was the burning of the U.S. flag, in fact, I would vouch that this did not happen, and if it did, it did not happen while we were there or while I was there, nor that I ever condoned such a measure being taken. So I would like this put on the record, Mr.

Speaker, that this did not happen. It was implied and therefore I would like this put on the record. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable Member for Radisson for his explanation, I don't think it was a point of order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Acting First Minister that these various members of the government caucus, including at least two mem bers of the Cabinet of Manitoba, were acting on their own, can the Acting First Minister tell us whether the NOP Party is acting as a government or just a rabble? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I think that the responsibility of any individual's action is his own. There's a lot of things that happen in this House - the conduct of the Leader of the Official Opposition, we don't necessarily blame all the members of his party for that. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to engage in the kind of sandlot hooliganism that is is customary for the Member for St. Boniface when he gets caught in a corner, and he's caught in a corner right now.

I'll ask this question of the Acting First Minister, and we'll seek its confirmation from the real First Minis ter, if the real First Minister will stand up some day. The question will be this: Is the Premier of Manitoba prepared to offer a formal public apology to the Consul General, Mrs. Lillian Mullin, on behalf of the Government of Manitoba, for the unseemly behaviour of a number of its backbenchers and at least two of its Cabinet members in participating in that kind of hooliganism in front of the U.S. Consulate last evening? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, certainly not, certainly not, Mr. Speaker.

I repeat, the action of individuals is not the action of the Government of Manitoba. Besides that, in a free society, and a free 1046

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 society has to be free in every respect, certainly people should have a chance to voice their disap proval or approval of policies of others that concern all the free world. Garrison Diversion MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources, whom I understand will be going, either in his capacity as an individual and I would think as a Minister of the Crown, shortly to Washi ngton to try and win friends and influence American legislators, to share our concern about the Garrison Project, can the Honourable Minister, whose face filled the television screens, grinning, while the American flag was being burned - and by the way, a picture of which is right now on its way to those same American legislators that we will be trying to influence and win friends with - tell us how he expects to accomplish that kind of friendly persuasion in lobbying in Ottawa on a matter so important to Manitoba as the Garrison issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I am an individual; I am entitled as a free individual in this society . . . HON. S. LYON: We're beginning to find out what kind of an individual, too. HON. A. MA CKLING: . . . to make my views known as an individual citizen . . . A MEMBER: A Mem ber of the Cabinet. HON. A. MACKLING: . . . as to what I believe to be a form of international aggression, sanctioned by a government that believes in democracy, but through its actions is acting to destroy democracy in another part of the world. Now, Mr. Speaker . HON. S.

LYON: Tell us all about it. HON. A. MACKLING: . . . I have every respect (Interjection) - well, Mr. Speaker, the honourable members opposite want to harass me in my answering the question. MR. L. HYDE: We'll continue to harass you, too. HON. A. MACKLING: That indicates the type of view they hold, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't add anything to their stature. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of this House have great affection for our neighbors south of us. They are wonderful people, Mr. Speaker.

They happen to be represented at the present time with people in government that I don't support, whose views seem to be destructive of world peace and as individuals we are entitled - as individuals - to stand and criticize that, freely as free men. Mr. Speaker, in respect to this flag-burning incident, I was one of those, yes, marching in front of the Embassy as Al Mackling, individual citizen - (Interjection) - shame they say. Well, they can shame all they want. I did see the remnants of something burning. I inquired as to what had been burned and it was indicated to me that a flag had been burned.

I certainly, nor did any of my colleagues have anything to do with that act of destruction. So, let the record be clear, Mr. Speaker. We were there as free people expressing our views. We weren't expressing the views of government. - (I nterjection) - Well, what are we there for? Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member doesn't know yet, there's no point in my trying to tell him. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I trust you'll be generous with the Rules from the sometimes Acting House Leader who frequently lectures us about the brevity of replies or questions.

My question, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister - in view of the fact that the organizer of that particular protest, a Mr. Casper Shade, conceded in an interview, "There's 'absolutely no proof' at the moment of any U.S. involvement in the Nicaraguan situation. 'I don't know. It's a protest against the invasion of Nicaragua,' - he goes on to say - Shade said, admitting 'we probably could have protested in front of Eaton's."' - my question is that it's not that much fun burning an American flag in front of Eaton's as it is burning it in front of the U.S.

Consul, burning it in the face of our American friends, the people that we are trying to influence and help us with some co-operation; my question is to him, and I'll ask the question again because it is of vital interest to Manitobans, how is this going to further the cause of sett ling our differences on the Garrison issue? How is this going to help solve our problem on that issue? I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Health on a point of order. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a point of order.

We have clearly, the mem bers that attended clearly did disassociate thems elves from the burning of the flag and that has to be accepted. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. L. DESJARDINS: They do not deny that they were there to show their disp leasure at some of the action of the United States Government, but they disassociate thems elves completely from the burning of the flag and that has to be accepted. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I will accept to some extent the Acting Premier's constant repetition that they were acting as individuals. Will then the Minister of Natural Resources consider, in the int erest of Manitobans, to 1047

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 remove hims elf from any further negotiations, because after all our American legislators are just individuals too, they're just human beings? Will he remove hims elf? Will he voluntarily resign from that portfolio or at least not handle the Garrison negotiations in Wash ington? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, many people in the United States including United States congressmen and United States senators are appalled at some of the actions of their government. Mr.

Speaker, I've indicated in this House, and the honourable members continue to babble otherwise, that I had nothing to do with an active destruction of the American flag and I have no reason to believe that I will not be welcome in the House of Congress, in the House of Senate when we go there to talk to those friends in respect to Garrison. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Gar ry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, when the Acting First Min ister says tha t mem bers of the Cabi net and members of the NOP caucus, but in particular, members of the Cabin et have stated that they have no responsibility for that action and that they do not condone it and took

part in it as individuals, does the Acting First Minister mean that the Minister of Natural of Resources and the Mini ster of Eco nomic Development will now resign from the Executive Council of this province? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I think that my honourable friend knows the answer to this, that in the United States, I think it is clear, that not every single American believes in every decision that is made by the government . . . MR. L. HYDE: We know that. We've got one right in the House here. HON. L. DESJARDINS: . . . just a minute.

I know you know and I know you can talk. I see you talking there. You've made the message. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the then Premier of this province attended a Republican meeting. He was the Premier of this province. He did that as an individual supporting that group. He could have been insulting all the Democrats. It's the same way. He was there representing hims elf. There was no criticism of that. He came back with a flag, excuse me, a tie, and Mr. Speaker, there is no way that we're going to try to muzzle individuals.

We even had the Am bassador of the United States who lectured our government right here in our country, an ambassador. That is his freedom. I think you show friendship to a country if you are not afraid to tell them of the things that you agree and those that you don't agree. - (I nterjection) - The Leader of the Opposition said, stand up and tell it. That's exactly what they did. HON. S. LYON: You're not a Red, why do you defend him? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm not defending him, I . HON. S. LYON: Yes, you are. Borrowing of Money from United States MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B.

RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. How much money does the Minister of Finance expect to be borrowing in the United States in this coming fiscal year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance know how much money he borrowed in the United States last year on behalf of the people of Manitoba? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I can get the specifics of that to the member in due course.

If he wants to ask me those kinds of specifics, I would appreciate it if he gave me advance notice and then I could give him the answers without having to go back and get the checking done. MR. B. RANSOM: Does the Minister of Finance know whether or not the kind of political climate that exists within a governmental jurisdiction borrowing money on the markets in the United States has anything to do with whether or not the borrowers want to lend their money? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The interest is the main thing. The interest, how much they can make on it. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member for Turtle Mountain is aware, the matter of ability to borrow has something to do with such things as credit ratings. It certainly has something to do with whether money has been repaid in the past and, if he is sugge s ting that we should mu zzle Manitobans and say to them that they cannot partake of a perfectly legal activity, an activity, whether it was - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, you hear the opposition referring to burning flags.

Our members have said very clearly that they disassociate themselves from that action and I believe that everybody on this side would clearly disassociate themselves from that activity, whether they were right or wrong. As I understand it, they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the United States of America was involved in a 1048

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 military activity against the nation of Ni caragua. On the basis of that belief, they went and said, we don't want that happening. That is basically what happened at that demonstration with respect to our members, as I understand it. I don't know of anyone in the United States who would say - (I nterjection) - members opposite say that may not be true. If it wasn't true, then there is no problem at all. If it was true, then I believe that many, many Americans including those who lend money to us would agree with the position taken by those demons trators.

But, regardless of that, I would not want this government to be in a position where we would tell people in this province not to partake . . . HON. S. LYON: Never mind the province, look after your own ... that's where most of the Reds are. HON. V. SCHROEDER: . . . of a perfectly legal and moral activity in order that we can borrow some money. I think that would be something akin to selling our souls. Four-laning Highway 75 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. My qu estion is for the Minister of Hi ghways and Transportation.

In view of the fact that the Minister has continued four-laning of Highway No. 75 and completion of that project to the U.S. border is part of the "Wish List" by the Minister of Finance, could the Minister indicate what particular advantage to the promotion of comme rce and the encouragement of tourism with our United States friends, participation by Cabinet Ministers and backbenchers of the government at a demons tration in which the American flag was burned, how do those actions by government members prove conducive to continuation of trade with the United States and encouragement of tourism by citizens of the United States to this province?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into an ideological debate with my friend, the Member for Pembina. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the public interest for both sides of the border to try to co-operate, whether it's with respect to transportation or other matters. It is not my position here to either condone or to condemn the actions of individuals, be they individuals, part of the Government of Manitoba, the backbench. That is for their own conscience, Mr. Speak er. - (I nterje ction) - Mr.

Speak er, if the honourable member wants to pursue with me whether that is, in any way, going to hamper tourism, I sup pose that's a hypothetical question. Canada Day Celebrations MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Acting First Minister. First of all, I would like him to tell me if he feels that should he and other of his Cabi net col leagues were to take

part in the celebration of 1st of Ju ly, and someone happened perhaps to burn the Canadian flag, whether he would SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. LECUYER: . . . consider himself morally bound by that decision? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Although I haven't heard all of the question, it appears to be hypothetical and it also is asking for an opinion of some one. Does the honourable mem ber wish to rephrase his question? MR. G. LECUYER: I'll rephrase that question then.

I want to al'lk the Acting Minister whether he will attend the celebration on the 1st of July next summ er, even though this possibility may take place? Secondly, would he be prepared to participate in a demons tration in opposing the Garrison proposals of the United States, even if this pos sibility were to arise that the burning of the United States' flag were to take place tlJere? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, any reception or celebration that I feel that I would like to attend, I will.

I will not ask permission of anybody, I'll go on my own; I'll accept full responsibility for my actions. I would hope that if some incident happened I will not be blamed, not more than I wish to blame the people across here for their responsibility of Watergate because they support the Republican Party in the . . . Afgh anistan Demonstration - USSR Embassy MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question of the Acting First Minister.

Would he mind giving - and I'm sure he'll have to take this as notice - us a list of all of the members of his caucus who paraded in front of the Embassy of the USSR at the time that Afghanistan was invaded by USSR and burned the USSR flag? Would he mind giving us all of the name s of all the New Dem ocrat 's caucus in Manitoba who did that and who performed that act of protest? - (I nterjection) - The left is always right with you guys. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to take that as notice.

This is not a thing that interests me or should interest the members of the House, not more than I'm seek ing to know where every single , member of the government caucus were last night or the night before or tomorrow. HON. S. LYON: We don't burn flags in front of embassies. 1049

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 A MEMBER: We don't burn American flags . HON. S. LYON: Reds do. Sale of electrical power to U.S. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: My question is to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Acting Minister whether or not the Minister of Energy will be travelling to the United States within the next few weeks in an attempt to sell electrical power? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Who did he ask? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: I was just going to tell the Member for Turtle Mountain that the Minister of Energy and Mines just walked in. ' A MEMBER: Good answer. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, like quite a few other things, that's quite evident to the members on this side, just as it's evident to us that the United States normally celebrates their national holiday on the 4th of July rather than on the 1st of Ju ly. The members opposite don't seem to be very aware of those sorts of things.

My question for the Minister of Energy and Mines was, does he plan to be travelling to the United States within the next while in an attempt to conclude some sort of power sale with the states or power companies in the United States? MR. SPEAKER: - The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, within the next month, I will in fact be travelling to the State of Wisconsin to have discussions with officials there on the matter of possible sales of electricity to utilities in the State of Wisco nsin. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is does he think that the negotiating climate with the United States, with power companies in the United States, will be enhanced by the fact that members of his colleagues in Cabinet were participating in the demonstration last night at the U.S. Consulate at which a flag was burned? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that matters that are extraneous to the discussions will have any impact. There are mem bers of political parties who are involved in certain activities. There indeed have been sup porters of the Conservative Party, Mr.

Speaker, who from time to time have been associated with western separatism. I don't think that's hurt them, Mr. Sp eaker . I don't think th at's hurt them in any discussions, Mr. Sp eak er, that they've had on governmental matters. There are matters of dispute regarding acid rain, for example; there's matters of dispute regarding fisheries between the United States and Canada. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, that those disputes are carried on within a spirit that we do have freedom of speech and we do have freedom to criticize each other on issues that we feel concerned about. Americans, Mr.

Speaker, have criticized Canadians about a number of issues. They have done that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't hold that against the particular state when I go down to speak to them, and I assume that they in fact will not hold that against Manitoba when I go down to speak to them about electricity. Cabinet solidarity and unity MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Acting First Minister a question.

In view of the fact that Manitobans will now be very concerned as to where this cu rrent government stands in respect to parliamentary traditions and practices, which we've inherited, can the First Minister advise this House whether members of the Treasury Bench, members of the Executive Council, in this New Democratic Party Government regard themselves as individuals or regard thems elves as representatives of the people who have taken an oath of office to operate in terms of Cabinet solidarity and unity? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, yes, very much so, when we deal with the affairs of Manitoba, the responsi bility that we have as a Cabinet. As far as individua l responsib ility, I don't think that you 're offending anybody if you dis agree with them. It would be a sad world and it would be a sad day for democracy if you've got to agree with everybody else to please them before you can deal with them. An honest disagreement is certainly - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker, I resent very much and on a point of order, I would wish that you admonish the members on the other side and make them realize that the burning of the flag had nothing to do - if this was done at that time, it's certainly not the responsibility of the members that were there. Burning of USSR Flag on legislative grounds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. (I nterjection) - Can he indicate to the House ... ? 1050

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. If there are members present who wish to carry on a private debate, perhaps they would step outside and do so. I would like to hear the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. Can he indicate to the House if he was present when the USSR flag was burned on the Legislative grounds last year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can confirm that I was representing the Premier at a rally sponsored by the Canadian Polish Congress, the Canadian Labour Congress, and other groups on the front of the Legislative grounds last year at which time the flag of the USSR was burned. I might also add, Mr. Sp eak er, tha t the Honourable Leader of the Opposition was also in attendance there. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the point of order raised by the Minis ter of Cultural Affairs, I was present at a freedom rally for the people of Poland.

I was present and somebody burned the flag of Russia at that gathering, and unlike my honourable friends, I don't disassociate myself from that. I think that was the proper thing to do. I'll tell the truth about it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, were the statements by the Leader of the Oppositon part of new parliamentary tradition that he's trying to esta blish whereby question period will be su bverted into some type of session for opposition members to make statements rather than ask questions? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by the Minister of Energy and Mines. We have one more example of how the members opposite don't wish to see an even, balanced approach to qu estioning and answ ering in the Ho us e. - (Interjection) - Earlier - perhaps the Minis ter of Natural Resources could contain himself long enough to listen to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier in the question period today the Member for Radisson interrupted while a question was being asked to explain his role in the leftist demons tration last night in front of the U.S. Consulate at which the U.S. flag was burned and no one rose, either on this side or the other side, to try and rule hi(.11 out of order, Sir. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 1051 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. There was no point of order on the floor and I will remind the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain the remarks of the Honourable Member for Radisson were ruled out of order from the Chair.

The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the diversion drawn into the debate, or dispute, by the Honourable Member for St.

Johns and the Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs, could I ask the Acting First Minis ter whether he would not, in fairness, in this House, to the press gallery, and to the people of Manitoba, concede that he, if none of the others understand this, that he, with 22 years experienc e in this Hous e at least recognizes there is a difference between the responsibility that is imposed upon a Cabinet Minister, a member of the government, and the responsibility that is imposed upon a member of the oppostion, even if that person be Leader of the Opposition.

There is an oath of office involved in the one ins tance and not in the other. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly concede that there's a difference with the Minister acting in his capacity as a Minister but that has to stop somewhere. When I go to bed with my wife at night I'm not a Cabinet Minister. HON. S. LYON: I imagine the performance is about the same in both places . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. L. SHERMAN: Do you treat her the way you treat the people of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. l.

DESJARDINS : She doesn 't seem to be complaining. Do you beat your wife? HON. S. LYON: When you're not used to much, why complain? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. L DESJARDINS: This has to go on the record. I want Shorty, excuse me, the Leader of the Official Opposition, to tell me what he means by when you're used to too little, you don't know the difference. Maybe he can explain it. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Oppostion. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm suggesting that his performance as a Cabinet Minister and as a husband are probably both the same and they're neither up to much.

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Do the mem bers wish to continue with Oral Questions? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of casting reflections on the Minister of He alth's ma rital performance, I would truly like to ask him a question of some concern. The Minister of Cultural Affairs indicated that he participated at a rally on behalf of the Premier in which the flag of the USSR was burned and he said that was acceptable by his estimation. Are we to assume then that since ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs on a point of order.

HON. E. KOSTVRA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did not state in my answer to the question from the Member for St. Johns that I found that that practice of a burning of a flag was acceptable. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable Minister for that explanation. The Honourable Member for Pembina. ·MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Cultural Affairs objects to the burning of the USSR flag as we object to the burning of the United States flag. There's possibly a difference in thought patterns there. MR. SPEAKER: Question? HON. D. ORCHARD: But, Mr.

Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Health, that since at a rally in which the Minister of Consumer Affairs was there officially on behalf of the Premier, that the credibility was lent to the burning of the soviet flag, would not the credibility be added to the burning of the United States flag last night by the attendance of the Minister of Natural Resources, the attendance of the Minister of Economic Development, wh o add ressed the rally that the American flag was burned at? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that any officials, anybody representing a government should start being involved in burning of flags, any flags, Lower Slobovia, China, it doesn't matter. I don't think that this is the thing and we are, the members, I can't speak for them, have dis associated thems elves from the burning of the flag. They do admit that they were there as a form of protest; that it was an orderly protest; and this is a decision they made. I decided not to go, I knew that the - (Interjection) for my reasons.

This is something that every single member of this House will have to search his conscience and decide what he should do. This is not something that Cabinet will impose on anyone. Burning of flags MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting First Minister. Can the Acting First Minister tell me whether it was the Manitoba taxpayer who paid for that American flag that was burned last night? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that and I don't know who paid for the matches either. MR. A.

BROWN: I wonder if the First Minis ter would find out whether it was the Manitoba taxpayer who paid for that American flag that was burned last night? HON. L. EVANS: That's not even in order. How can you sit there and let those questions be asked ? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'd like to ask a question. How in the heck did I get in this? I'll try to accomodate my honourable friend and find out all this information. As soon as I find out if we have a secret police here in Manitoba, I'll put him on the job immediately. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Memb er for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, to the same Acting First Minister, can the Acting First Minister give the taxpayers of Manitoba the assurance that all these flags that have been burned around here recently have not been paid by the Manitoba taxpayer? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, if somebody makes a complaint, I think that they would go to the Winnip eg Pol ice and say , he y, the mem bers or somebody burned my flag, I want to bring him to court. We haven't heard any complaints on that at all.

Motor Coach Industries - layoffs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minis ter of Labour. Could she tell the House what action she has taken during the past eight months, Mr. Speaker, while she has withheld the information from the House, that more than 532 employees of Motor Coach Industries are about to be laid off? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I simply have not withheld any information from this House. Motor Coach 1052

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 Industries has in a very courteous manner told us that they have been having some difficulties with gaining orders and that they were considering possible layoffs later in 19 83. The formal announcement of this came through and crossed my desk in an orderly fashion just recently, and the announcements have now been made public. This happens in any layoff situation. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the government promised there would be no more layoffs in Manitoba as soon as they were elected - and she received notice of this eight weeks ago - also, in view of the fact that it's indicated in news reports that the plant here is competing with a plant in New Mexico, has she investigated the economic circu ms tances existing in New Mexico as compared to here, and particul arly our payroll tax and other ec onomic disadvantages in Manitoba, and is she prepared to report on those matters to the House? HON. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to correct the record. The letter that I received was February 15 th, I don't think that was eight weeks ago in my calculation. The response was sent in early March to that recognizing that notice. The information that the honourable member has brought forward with regard to New Mexico is not something that I would be investigating as Minister of Labour.

I do know that my colleague is investigating and, on top of all of these situations where we have a breakdown for orders for a company, my understanding is that Greyhound, which I believe is the parent company for Motor Coach, simply isn't ordering any new buses this year. Now, whether that in fact is the case is something that I'm sure that my colleague will be determining. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like leave from the House to make a personal statement. MR.

SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave to make a personal statement? I'm sor ry, leave is not granted. Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. A. ANSTET T: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Citation 322, I would like leave to make a personal statement. MR. SPEAKER: Leave has not been granted. I heard several mem bers say "no." MR. A. AN STETT: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could poll the opinion of the House again. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable mem ber have leave? (Agreed) It appears now the honourable member has leave. STATEMENT BY LEAVE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Springfield. MR. A.

ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, Citation 322 allows members to make statements regarding their own personal knowledge and their own personal behaviour and, since reference has been made to activities in which I engaged last night, I would like to make a statement regarding my participation in those activities. I attended at the U.S. Consulate yesterday, as was reported by the Leader of the Opposition, to show support for the people of Nicaragua and to demonstrate my personal opposition to foreign military intervention in any form from any source.

I did not know that a flag was to be burned, nor did I know the origin of the flag that was burned. In fact, I didn't know a flag was burned until it was raised in the House and the Minister of Natural Resources confirmed that fact. I did not know until shortly after 2:00 p.m. today. I consider that an unacceptable practice. I consider it irresponsible and repre hensible and I wish to disassociate myself from that action, and I would do so regardless of the country of origin of the flag, regardless of where in the world it came from.

However, I will always feel free as a citizen of this country and of this province to speak out on any issue and to act peacefully in a non-obstructive manner on any issue that matters to me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. A MEMBER: Scott, you're not in the Cabinet. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if possible, if I could have agreement of the House, to make a similar statement as the Member for Springfield . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Leave has not been granted to the honourable mem ber. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, first of all, an announcement. I'm advised by the Minister of Transportation that, as a result of informal consultation with the Member for Arthur, there's an agreement that ther e will be an formal mee ting of the Stan ding Comm ittee on Agriculture at 4:30 this afternoon simply to set times for hearings on the Crow question. ORDERS OF THE DAY ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 29 - THE INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT, 1983 HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, would you please call the Adjourned Debate on Bill No. 29, Page 3, of the Order Paper, standing adjourned in the name of the Member for Lakeside. 1053

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 MR. SPEAK ER: On the pro posed mo tion of the Honourable Minister of Finance, the second reading of Bill No. 29 stan ding in the name of the Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by our House Leader, we, on this side, certainly have no desire to hold up the necessary funds that are contained in this bill encompassing some 30 percent of the overall expenditures required by this government to carry on the purposes of the government of the Province of Manitoba.

I might say, and it's always worthwhile saying this to honourable members opposite, that's a courtesy that was not always extended to us by the NOP Party when in opposition when we were in government. They did force us through tha t difficult y and tha t embarrassment, if you like, on the part of government where the government could not meet its payroll and that's of course what we're talking about. That was done and engineered by no less a person and a former Minister of Finance of the New Democratic Government, the former Mem ber for St. Johns, among others. So, Mr.

Speaker, I simply assure the Government House Leader that this bill before us, the Interim Supply Bill, will pass in good order in a responsible way after members on this side have had an occasion to comment on it. Mr. Speaker, I can't help and I know my colleague, the Member for Roblin-Russell, from time to time comme nts about the very size, the growth of government, reflecting on the fact that - I can recall in 1969 the total expenditures of government were some $300 million.

Now, the Interim Supply measure that we are now passing, which represents some 30 percent, virtually encompasses the total cost of government just a relatively short decade-plus ago. However, Mr.

Speaker, perhaps more important is the concern, and I want to raise it and I raised it at the time that I spoke on the Budget, is the fact that Interim Supply, as all of us understand it in the House and even if not all Manitobans understand it but those that do pay some attention to the goings on of the financial bills as they pass through the House should understand is that we passed this measure so that the government can get on with the business of funding schools, hospitals, un iversitie s and all the other functions of government, in advance, if you like to use the word, in the "interim", while the Estimates are more formally pursued and passed and then finally the Supply Bills in total are pass ed.

This gives the government the authorization to carry on those expenditures of funds required. Now, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my bringing that to your attention is that most Manitobans and, in fact we have to remind ourselves, most of us believe that's what these funds are going for. That's where this $300 million is going for.

One has to be reminded that in this year, very close to the total amount, $282 million is not building a single classroom; is not building a single mile of road; is not helping improve the facilities or hire nurses in the Flin Flon Hospital; $282 million of it is going to pay for the carrying charges of our public debt. You know, that too is astonishing because that just about is the same figure that the total cost of government was back in '69. So, Mr.

Speaker, I know that all mem bers opposite, although I would certainly like to think the Minister of Finance has growing concern about the size of deficits, but I asked the question during the Budget Debate, you know, at what point, at what percentage figure of our total revenues does the size of a deficit become acceptable or unacceptable? We've made a very quantum jump from the kind of average 4, 3.8, 5 percent of total revenues to cover the carrying charges of our debt to 9 percent in this year. That's a very quantum leap. What will it be next year?

Will it be 14 percent, 13 percent, or will it be 18 percent, or will it go down? But my question still remains, what is acceptable? Because to relate that to more understandable terms - that's always the problem when you're dealing with multimillions of dollars.

We have to understand that a lot of hardship that so many individual busi nesses were faced with, indi vidual famil ies faced with in their household mortgages, farmers were faced with on the farms, was a farm or small busi ness or indeed just the working couple, could carry the costs of their mortgages on their homes, could carry the costs of borrowed money to operate their farms or their busi nesses at acceptable or certain levels of interest, at 8 percent, 9 percent, maybe even 11 and 12 percent they were carrying.

But they couldn't, they all of a sudden faced themselves with a crisis when those interest charges jumped to 18 and 19 to 20 and 22 percent. When all of a sudden, ove rnight, as household mortga ges were being renegotiated, had to be renegotiated, in a family that found itself capable of living within their means and capable of providing shelter at $200 or $300, $400 monthly payments, all of a sudden, overnight, faced $500 or $600 monthly costs for shelter.

That's of course one of the reasons that prompted this government in introducing some measure of relief, not the kind of measure that they prom ised on November 17 th in '81, but some measure of relief in terms of their Interest Relief Program to farmers, to household owners, to small busi nesses. Now, Mr. Speaker, I see little in the actions of this government that assures me, holds out the promise, that that percentage point of carrying charges which now represents 9 percent is going down in the near future.

In fact, I would have to say that virtually everything this government has been doing, certainly during this Session indicates the very opposite to me. Mr. Speaker , this government is isolating itself economically and I must say I can't ignore the debates of question period. They even seem bent on isolating thems elves politically.

It's simply beyond me that there aren't at least some thinking heads opposite that don't understand the utter foolishness, even if there is no particular warmth and feeling for our American friends and cousins opposite, even if ideologically or for other reasons, they don't like the Americans - we know that obviously exists - but, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about a government that's charged with the responsibility of carrying on the economic affairs on and for the people of Manitoba and we do a lot of busi ness with them.

We have all kinds of very serious issues that are directly dependent on how well we get along with our fellow Americans. 1054

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 We will not resolve the major flooding problems of the Red River Valley, or the Souris River Valley, without the kind of co-operation that can only come about if there is a sincere and genuine co-operation, partnership, and friendship developed with those who are equally and mutually bound up in these problems. The kind of actions, the kind of statements that this government indulges in, individually, privately, as mem bers, as Cabinet Ministers, you know, that's a peripheral debate. We have obviously a somewhat different point of view in terms of Cabinet responsi bilities.

We obviously have a somewhat different point of view in terms of the oath of office that you take when you become an executive councillor. It's quite different, Mr. Speaker, than being another member of the government backbench or a member of the opposition, quite different. I have legal responsi bilities. I have very specific responsi bilities depending to the department that I've been sworn in to accept. So, Mr.

Speaker, when I say that this government surprisingly is isolating thems elves, firstly economically, they have said, no, even to the belated coming to some sense of the seriousness of the question in Ottawa. And when Ottawa belatedly says - we need to worry about the size of deficits and gosh they should be worrying about it, we are now approaching $30 billion of a deficit in Ottawa which I think and, you know, translated to our neighbors, the Americans, is about 20 times as bad as ours. Is that an exaggeration Mr. House Leader? - (I nterjection) - Eighteen times maybe eh, 18 times.

We are making, but we are isolating ourselves more importantly, and it came out at the last First Ministers conference, that brief little period of time that they had to deal with economic issues, more importantly when the Minister of Finance last was there, from the rest of the provinces. When certainly in reading reports from th ose mee tings, from read ing reports from the statements that the other nine Premiers are making in this country, that the Prime Minister is making in this country, they are saying yes, let's try and pull the lid down a little tighter.

Their suggested guidelines of six and five were immediately rejected by this government. Not just in word, but more important, in action, by the kind of contracts they're signing with their own Civil Service, and by the kind of Budget that was brought down in this Chamber that talks of a 17 percent increase in spending, and we haven't seen the last of that figure. I think the Minister of Finance will not stand or fall, or have his reputation stand or fall on the validity of that figure. That figure could well be 20 percent before the final figures come in. Mr.

Speaker, I can't understand the actions of this government in pursuing that course because what it means - and this is perhaps the most important thing - is that we are simply guaranteeing ourselves here in the Province of Manitoba that we will isolate ourselves from the recovery that may, God willing, come to Canada.

If we are imposing on our small busi ness, medium-size busi nesses, additional onerous burdens of taxations such as the payroll tax, such as increases in corporate and personal taxes, such as the increase in the sales taxes, as this Minister will have to do while rest raint is being practised in our neighbouring provinces, we are simply making sure that it will be that much more difficult for Manitoba busine sses to partake in the recovery, as I say, should it come, making it less attractive to bring into the Province of Manitoba some of the needed investment dollars in the private sector that fuels the economy and that creates the real wealth, creates the real jobs in this economy.

Mr. Speaker, on other occasions, I would be prompted to of course acknowledge that there always is a different alternative and I acknowledge it. There is an alternative open to the government and one that is perhaps attractive to some members of the government.

But it's not my purpose today, Sir, to get into those fields but simply to express, once again and put on the record, a very serious concern that 12 months hence when we meet under similar circums tances, when we talk about the 1983-84 Budget and the 1983-84 figures, nothing this government has been doing, in terms of how they are conducting their affairs economic ally, leads me to believe that we will be in any better position than what the Minister was forced to put into his Budget this year when he said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote from Page 20 of his Budget, as " . . .

I indicated, the public debt costs had increased rapidly. For 19 83-84, they are estimated at $282 million . . . " I remind you, Mr. Speaker, just not that many years ago, $282 million paid for the entire costs of running government, " ... up $15 5 million or 12 0 percent increase from the $127 million total projected originally for the 1982-83 fiscal year ... "This year, public debt charges will account for nearly 9 percent of our total expenditures, . . . " Mr. Speaker, I would feel much more comfortable in passing and supporting the bill before us, Interim Supply, and I will support it, Mr.

Speaker, because the busi ness of the province has to be proceeded with and we'll do it in good order. But, Mr. Speaker, I do so with a heavy concern that the request for a similar bill will be up by another 60 percent, 80 percent, 100 percent next year. It went up 12 0 percent this year. What do we see out there? How many factories are opening up their doors? How many factories are putting in new machinery? How many new jobs are being created out there? We just heard today that we are losing another 500 jobs in a major industry in the Province of Manitoba. So, you know, Mr. Speaker, this is what bothers me.

Too many mem bers opposite talk rather glibly about when the recovery comes. When the recovery comes, all will be well. They cling to it like a true believer at a camp meeting, particularly a good evangelistic meeting, - (Int erjection) - moonies, maybe. Mr. Speaker, I do not see in the actions of this government any signs that they are preparing Manitoba, that they are laying the climate, the business, the economic climate to make sure that Manitobans will benefit from their fair share of that recovery. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR.

L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Norbert, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. 1055

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majes ty. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion in moving to Supply is to consider the presentation by the Minister of Finance of resolutions with respect to the Loan Bill No. 1.

MOTION presented and carried and the Ho us e resolved itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Suppl y to be granted to He r Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE CAPITAL SUPPLY MR. CHAIRM AN, P. Eyler: Order please. We are considering the motion of the Minister of Finance, Capital Supply. Do you wish the motion read?

RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $30 million for Capital Supply: For the Jobs Fund, $20 million; Manitoba Beef Stabilization Fund, $10 million; for a total of $30 million for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1984. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. R. DOERN: Keep it brief, Brian. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I hear the Member for Elmwood say, "Keep it brief." Mr. Chairman, we have been doing that up to this point. Today, perhaps, that will not be the case. Mr.

Chairman, the Government House Leader, on the 22nd of March, 1983, Page 965 of Hansard, said that he had no need for lessons from me as to how to run the Hous e. Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Honourable Government House Leader doesn't think that he needs lessons on how to run the Hous�. but we're here this afternoon dealing with this bill in this comm ittee and we needn't have been here. This is one more example of bungling and of inept management of the busin ess of the House by the Government House Leader and by the Minister of Finance.

For the honourable members opposite. who are perhaps not aware of what is happening here, this bill should have been dealt with when the Interim Supply Bill was brought before this comm ittee. The two of those bills could have been dealt with at the same time. You may recall that we passed the Interim Supply Bill through this stage without debate; we passed it through the next stage without debate; we gave the Government House Leader leave to get to the position of having the bill brought to second reading.

We would have done the same with this bill except that, once again, we are given a demonstration of the totally inept handling of the busi ness of this House that we're getting from this government and this House Leader, and I intend to spend a little time on that subje ct. Last year, it was very evident in this House that the Government House Leader and the members of the Treasury Bench had very little idea of how the House should operate and how the busi ness should be done.

I fault the First Minis ter for having appointed a front bencher , a Treasury Bencher to the posit ion of Government House Leader, when that person has had no experience in the Hous e. To appoint any person to be Government House Leader, when that person has had no experience in the House, is unfair to that person and it is unfair to the House because it inevitably results in wasted time and that was the case last year.

Any of the mem bers opposite who were here during the previous four years will understand that there were many occasions when the New Democratic Party in opposition debated at length various issues and used the rules to prevent the busi ness of the House from proceeding as the government might have hoped. There wasn't anything necessarily wrong with that, Mr.

Chairman, but a Government House Leader who had been here during that period of time would have been able to avoid some of the shoals that this Government House Leader has floundered on, because they would have known how they handled things when they were in opposition and the busi ness of the House could have gone more smoothly.

It was evident, I think, to everybody who was watching the busi ness of this House conducted during the last two or three weeks of the Session last year that the busi ness of the House was actually being ordered by the members on this side of the House and that, without the co-operation of members on this side of the House, they would have been sitting here for some time longer. But that was the first year, and perhaps we might be prepared to accept that the Government House Leader, in his first year of operation, being unfamiliar with the busi ness of the House, could make some errors in tactics and strategy.

I believe that the First Minister indicated that, indeed, during this Session things would be different, and that he was going to call the House in December to begin the busi ness of the House and, especially, to introduce some major legislation in order that the opposition could have an opportunity to study that legislation. That was a good idea. Mr. Chairman, that they should do that. It should have allowed the government to get back here in good time, following the Christmas break. What have we seen as a consequence of that, Mr.

Chairman, aside from the fact that the House was not called back into Session until the 24th of February, we had the two major bills that were introduced during the Session in December. We had The Law Enforcement Review Act and we had The Farmlands Ownership Act and what have we seen since, Mr. Chairman? I don't believe that The Law Enforcement Review Act has been called. - (I nterjection) - It was called and stood and the reason is, Mr. Chairman, we are told that there are amendments to these bills.

Now how is the opposition suppo sed to debate, in principle, two of their major pieces of legislation when we are told that there are amendments coming? But we don't have the amendments, but we have reason to believe that some of the amendments are out there in the public, that the public has knowledge of the amendments. What kind of ordering of the busi ness of the House is that, Mr. Chairman? What good was it to introduce these bills in December and then here we are, almost through March, and we're not able to debate the bills because we don't know what the bills 1056

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 are, because the government is already talking about amendments. One of these bills, Mr. Chairman, and of course was a follow-up to the bill which the Minister of Agriculture had to withdraw from this House last June, because it was such a horrendous piece of legislation.

He had to go away with his tail between his legs and instead of coming back with a bill that would have been acceptablEi'and we asked for, and insisted, and received the opportunity to have at least brief debate on that bill last spring, to indicate to the Minister of Agriculture what the problems were with it, instead of coming back with a bill that took care of all the concerns that the public had, which were basically those that we were expressing, he comes back with a bill which again has to be amended before it has even gone to comm ittee, Mr. Chairman.

This Session. the Leader of the Opposition seems to have decided that he needs a backup House Leader to the House Leader that he has. A MEMBER: The Leader of the Opposition? MR. B. RANSOM: The First Minister - has decided that he needs a backup House Leader. So we have the Minister of Natural Resources now who has . . . A MEMBER: You have a backup House Leader now. MR. B. RANSOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, it was hardly evident that we had a House Leader on the government side last year, let alone a backup one.

This year we have a backup in the form of the Minister of the Minister of Natural Resources and he has done little more than obstruct the busi ness of the House. He insists on rising during question period and trying to tell the opposition that we're taking too long in placing our questions. I want to put a little bit of information on the record and the Member for Radisson can check this out hims elf, but last year I rather expected that the way busi ness was being conducted was somewhat different than it had been in the previous four years.

I had had the impression that as a Minister of the Crown that I and my colleagues used to answer questions in as straightforward a fashion as we could and generally in as short a period of time as we could. And I had the impression that the members of the opposition used to take a rather inordinate length of time in asking those questions.

So, I asked someone if they would go through, on a random basis, some of the previous copies of Hansard and make an assessment simply by counting the number of lines taken up by the NOP in asking their questions when they were in opposition, the number of lines taken up by the Cons ervatives when they were in government in answering those questions and then choose at random some pages in Hansard when the NOP were in government and do the same thing. Well, Mr. Chairman, what did we find?

We found that taking pages from 1979 and '80 and '81 and I don't put this forward as a scientific study, I would ask the honourable mem bers op posite to do their own comparison because I wouldn't want them to have to accept mine. But I'll tell you what this ind ication is, that for 1979, '80 and '81 on the pages selected, the opposition took 3,757 lines to ask a given number of questions; the government answers took 3,508 lines to answer the qu est ions. So, Mr. Chairman, the government Ministers were taking slightly less time to answer the question than the NOP in opposition were taking to ask it.

Now, we looked then at what happened when the NOP were in government - (I nterjection) - and we found then that would make quite a difference. The Minister of Finance says what would happen if we added in Jay's question and he's referring to the old master of bombast from Churchill who used to go on ad infinitum, ad nauseum asking questions and speaking. I admit, that would have made quite a difference. But, let's look at 19 82 when the NOP were in government and out of the questions that were asked, we used 1, 825 lines to ask a series of questions. Well, Mr. Chairman, the government answers took 2, 711 lines.

So, the government was taking half as much time again to answer the questions as we were taking to ask them. And, so be it. But what do we have this year? We have the would be Government House Leader who likes to go and march in front of the U.S. Consulate, we have him trying to raise continually on points of order to tell the Speaker that the opposition is out of order in asking the questions that they are. Mr. Chairman, I find that rather had to accept on the basis of the record, and the Minister of Natural Resou rces of course wasn't here during the last four years either.

So, here we have both the Government House Leader and the backup House Leader who weren't here during the previous four years to know what was going on. I think it would have helped had the First Mini ster dem onstrated a little more judgment and put a member like the Member for Lac du Bonnet as Government House Leader.

Then, we would have had someone who understood how the House operated and he doesn't seen to be listened to very much by his colleagues in Cabinet so he would be able to have more time to sit in the House, and I'm sure that the busi ness of the House would have been ordered much more efficiently had that been the case. Now, let me deal for a moment, Mr. Chairman, with Interim Supply. A MEMBER: We wouldn't want to take you away from the Main Street Program. MR. B. RANSOM: Let me deal with the question of Interim Supply, Mr. Chairman.

Again on Page 965 of Hansard on Tuesday of this week, the Government House Leader rose and he said, "Mr. Speaker, I must, on a point of order, place on the record the fact that I have communicated with the Opposition House Leader the fact that there is an urgency about this matter. This is Interim Supply, the end of the month falls on Good Friday. The pay cheques of employees must be mailed by the 28th of March. We will go on calling this bill; we will not allow this kind of dilatory treating of a serious matter to go unnoticed by the people of Manitoba." That, Mr.

Chairman, simply because members on this side stood the bill. We stood the bill. No indication, Mr. Chairman, that bill would not pass and contrary to what the Government House Leader indicates further on, he had my assurance that we would pass the bill 1057

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 when it had to be. What we were doing by standing the bill, Mr. Chairman, was facilitating the busi ness of the House because every day that we stood that bill brought us a day closer to the day that it was going to be passed. The Minister of Finance would have been happy to see it not debated at all until a quarter to 10:00 on the 28th of March and he would have known that we, true to our word would have passed the bill and he would have had Interim Supply. But, no.

The Government House Leader rises in his place because he doesn't understand how the House works and gives us what-for because we've chosen to facilitate the busi ness of the House. Now, I don't mind getting it when I do something and when we do something which is an abuse of the rules or which obstructs the busi ness of the House. But I must say I don't appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, when we get criticized for facilitating the busi ness of the Hous e.

Just so there should be no misu nderstanding about the fact that we were facilitating the busi ness of the House, I want to go back to the Interim Supply of 1981 - and the Minis ter of Finance is smiling and you may come to appreciate the reason why he is smiling. Three years prior to 19 81 the NOP in opposition had said, the government isn't bringing in Interim Supply in time for them to be able to debate the bill. Fine. When I was Minister of Finance, I looked at the dates it had been brought in and I said, yes. I think they have a point.

They really weren't given all that much time to debate the bill, so I'm going to bring it in earlier and I'll give them time to have proper debate. So. Mr. Chairman, on March 11 th, we took the Interim Supply Bill to the very stage that we're on now. That's an important consideration for you, Mr. Chairman, because you may think that I'm straying from the subject matter at hand. This was the stage that Interim Supply was at on March 11 th and that's when the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Pawley, spoke on the bill. He carried it through until adjournment that day.

One has to recognize that at this stage the debate cannot be adjourned. Once called, it is either debated until the time expires or until we move out of the committee. He took it to the point where the time expired. On March 13th, _ we called it again and on that day we had my colleague, the Member for Pembina, spoke; then we had Mr. Doern speak on the opposition. We had Mr. Green speak on the opposition side and another of my colleagues was speaking as well, again, brought the debate to the expiry of the time. March 18th, we're back in committee again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schroeder spoke that day. Mr.

Hanuschuk and Mr. Walding all spoke that day and took the time through to the adjournment again. March 20th, Mr. Uskiw spoke, and Mr. Uruski spoke, and again took the time right through to the adjournment. Then on March 25th, Mr. Green spoke; Mr. Corrin spoke; Mr. Blake. Mr. Uruski. We used to hear quite a bit from Mr. Corrin, Mr. Chairman. He was the runner-up to the master of bombast for Churchill, but he doesn't speak very much any more. Then we called it again on March 27th, Mr. Chairman, as time was wearing on. Mr. Uskiw spoke again; Mr. Downey spoke; Mr. Green spoke again; Mr. Adam spoke; Mr. Mercier, Mr.

Cherniack. Mr. Cowan spoke - still didn't pass it, Mr. Chairman. Time expired again, so on the 30th of March we came back into committee. Mr. Mercier spoke; he was attempting to impress upon the opposition that time was running out, that the bills had to be passed or the government wasn't going to be able to get the pay cheques out. Ah, never mind, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cowan spoke again; Mr. Pawley spoke again; Mr. Boyce spoke again; Mr. Filmon spoke, again trying to move things along. No. Back again, Mr. Green spoke; Mr. Cowan spoke again; Mr. Evans. Mr. Orchard tries to move things along; Mr.

Cherniack speaks again; Mr. Filmon puts in another plea. Mr. Green speaks again; Mr. Cowan speaks again; Mr. Boyce speaks again and, at last, on March 31 st, we moved out of this comm ittee, Mr. Chairman, after seven days of debate in this comm ittee on a resolution that we passed last week in five minutes. Five minutes. - (I nterjection) - No, last week we passed that out of comm ittee in five minutes and they took seven days. I know that we have already heard charges from the government that we have obstructed the busi ness of government.

The Government House Leader rises in his place and condemns us for standing a bill and bringing it that much closer to passage. And we still weren't done because then, Mr. Chairman, you'll recall that it has to go to the bill stage. On March 31s t. the bill is called for second reading and then we have Mr. Doern speaking again. Mr. Enns spoke; then we have Mr. Desjardins; Mr. Uruski spoke again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McKenzie spoke; Mr. Corrin. Mr. Schroeder is back in speaking and that's on March 31s t, Mr.

Chairman, and that was the occasion when, if the bill didn't pass, then the civil servants were not going to get paid. My colleague, the then Member for Brandon West, who was the Acting Government House Leader. came over here and spoke to the Member for Concordia who was sitting in the seat where the Member for La Verendrye sits now and says we need to get this bill passed. Can you give us the assurance that it's going to pass? No, I can't give you thEM'lssurance that it is going to pass. So we asked, will yol!l"give us permission, unanimous consent, to sit past -1G<o'clock so that we can pass this bill?

No, we won't give unanimous consent to sit past 10 o'clock so that we can pass this bill. So what happened? The pay cheques couldn't go out the next day - right? And I sent a Jetter to every civil servant saying that the NOP wouldn't pass the bill. After eight days of debate, they didn't pass the bill, Mr.

Chairman. - (Interjection) - I can refer them to my colleague Warner Jorgenson's speech that was made when they came in here on a grievance the next day because that is, without doubt, the finest speech that I have ever heard in this House, the finest piece of debating skills that I have every seen displayed in this House - and I see the columnist from the Free Press is smiling because she remembers. That was indeed a masterpiece and, for those of you who weren't here at the time, it left a rather shellshocked-looking bunch on this side of the House.

The Leader of the Opposition turned in vain to see if somebody couldn't get up to defend them further and there wasn't a soul on this side that felt they wanted to try and match the kind of debating skills that the Member for Morris showed. So we came back, Mr. Chairman, on the second of April, and do you think that the members would have passed the bill then without debate? No, Mr. Schroeder 1058

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 spoke on the bill again on the second of April. Then we go into Committee of the Whole - it's quite a series that this bill has to go through - do you think it passed then? No, Mr. Walding had to speak on the bill. MR. R. DOERN: That was a good speech, too. MR. B. RANSOM: The Government House Leader stood two days ago and gave us "what for" because we weren't wasting the time of the government by debating Interim Supply. Now tell me, Mr.

Chairman, where is the judgment of the Government House Leader and of the First Minister to make that kind of an accusation when the recent history shows what had happened in this House two years ago? Last year, Mr. Chairman, you will recall there was some debate on this item, but it still went through rather quickly. There was no debate at this stage at all last year; there was no debate at the Ways and Means stage. There was some debate at second reading, and it went through and it passed in time for the government to be able to pay its bills. So, Mr. Chairman, we could have been through this stage of the bill.

This could all have been done if the Minister of Finance had simply done his job - and I think the Government House Leader, next year, will probably go to the Minister of Finance and say, are you sure you haven't got another bill that you want to introduce in here before we get caught up in the same embarrassing kind of situation that we got caught in last year? But this is the Minis ter of Finance that is continually acc using me of being confused, Mr. Chairman. You may have noticed that along the way, you may have noticed that.

We run into situations where the Government House Leader says he doesn 't need to be lectured, and listen to this, Mr. Chairman, because this is the height of intellectual achievement on the part of the Government House Leader because he says, "I need no lessons how to run the business of the House from the 'Turtle from Ransom Mountain."' That's a real high level that lends itself, Mr. Chairman, to putting the name on the Government House Leader as the "Rouge from Fort Penner," and that might stick for a while ... MR. D. ORCHARD: The Hair from Fort Red. MR. B.

RANSOM: . . . because I think there may be a little more reason to apply the tag of "rouge" to the Member for Fort Rouge than there was for him to apply the tag of "turtle" to me. A MEMBER: See how things backfire. MR. B. RANSOM: I rather expect that the Government House Leader has not heard the last of that. That may come back from time to time. Mr. Chairman, that doesn't bother me that the Government House Leader should do that because all it indicates to me is that the Government House Leader was trapped in a situation at the time and he didn't know what to do.

He is never able to take the route of simply not saying anything, he always has to respond and so he stood to see if he couldn't insult me to try and make a point. At the same time - and this is a bit of sleaze that I didn't expect to get from the Government House Leader - he said, "It was open to the Opposition House Leader at any time. I discus sed it with him to give me the assurance that he is now being compelled to give in this House. Now that he has done what he ought to have done, if he knew his business, I would not have had to raise the matter at all." Mr. Chairman, that is not true.

The Government House Leader knew because I told him, when he told me that the bill had to pass by the 28th of March, that the bill would pass, because I've been through it. I know what the Minister of Finance is faced with. I know that if he doesn't get his bill passed on time that he's going to have a problem because the government isn't going to be able to pay its bills. For the Government House Leader to make that kind of an accusation simply doesn 't sit very well, Mr. Chairman, and it's not likely to facilitate the busi ness of the House in the future. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I have another piece of busi ness that I would like to deal with and that has to do with the sche duling of the comm ittees. The Government House Leader has recently given to me a copy, a prop osed

schedule of comm ittee mee tings, Law Am endments proposed for April 7th; Economic Development for April 19 th; Economic Development, again, for April 21s t; Public Utilities for April 26th and 28th, May 3rd and May 5th; Law Amendments, May 10th; Economic Development May 12 th; and Public Accounts, May 17 th. Mr. Chairman, my concern with this is that the Government House Leader and the government - I don't blame him entirely for this, but he's the one who's in charge, he's the one that's in the kitchen so he's got to stand the heat. The problem is, Mr.

Chairman, that these comm ittees should, to a large extent, already have been dealt with. They should have been out of the way by now and what is going to happen and I've told the Government House Leader this in writing, it will be conveyed to him today, that the problem is busi ness is going to pile up at the end of the Session because these should have been out of the road.

In 19 81, which was the last year we were in government and that was the year, by the way, you may recall, the last time I spoke or advised the House about the kind of debate we had on the simple motion to extend the time for filing of reports that we received such a vicious oily tongue-lashing from the Member for St. Johns at the time and the present member for Churchill, the Minister of Northern Affairs, about the inept bungling by the Government of the Day. This is the sched uling of the comm ittees in 1981.

Public Accounts was February 26th and 27th ; Manitoba Telephone System, March 17th and March 20th; MP IC, March 19th and March 24th; Hydro, April 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 9th; CEDF, February 17 th; MDC, February 19th, Channel Area and Moose Lake Loggers, February 24th; Manfor, March 26th; Manitoba Mineral, May 5th; and McKenzie Seeds, May 7th. Mr.

Chairman, what we have this year is that proposal from the Government House Leader to begin the Standing Committee at a time - wel l, thank you for that, I'll simply be able to continue on later if I run out of time because we' re in comm ittee - when the Government House Leader is proposing to start this year, we were almost completed in 19 81. What he is proposing on this list is to deal with Public Accounts 1059

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 on May 17 th. Public Accounts were available last December. There is absolutely no reason why Public Accounts could not have met in December when the House was here. There's no reason why it couldn't have met in January or February or any time that we've been here. We will be examining Public Accounts over 14 months after the end of the fiscal year. That's never been done before. In 1979, I recall we held Public Accounts in November and December to deal with it as soon as we could. I expect, Mr.

Chairman, what the Minister of Finance wants is to deal with Public Accounts as far removed from fiscal year 1981- 82 as he can get and as close to the end of the Session as he can get, because that's where his Estimates were last year. I expect that's where they're very likely to be this year. I would encourage him to move them up. I expect he wants to deal with this when there is some pressure on the House to conclude its business, Mr. Chairman. I'm afraid that simply demons trates a difficulty, and there's one other thing I should put on the record, Mr.

Chairman, is that the Minister, the Government House Leader, has allowed eight sessions, he has scheduled eight sessions to deal with those comm ittees. In 19 81, they, in opposition, took 16 sessions to deal with it. In 1979, they took 12 sessions to deal with it and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that eight sessions will not be sufficient time to deal with this and they're going to be into legislation in Law Amendments and the other comm ittees of the House. So what we're seeing is a great waste of time.

If the Government House Leader had only taken time to either consult the record, or to consult with his own people, or to consult with me, we could have told him weeks ago that the busi ness of the House should have been ordered differently in order to save time. So, Mr. Chairman, I note that you'd like to end this presentation and that has been sufficient time for me to deal with that sub ject on this bill, but I'm sure that some of my colleagues have some comments to make as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: It seems to me that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw the rule book. I'd just like to put one or two things on the record and indeed to the extent that I have to defend myself. My defence will be brief because the record in fact speaks for itself. Just one comment about the last Session, which, true, was the first Session in which I occupied this important position of Government House Leader. We introduced some 65, 66 bills, I forget the exact number. Of those bills only two, in fact, were not proceeded with.

Through the course of what was my first Session, every bill which was introduced but two, and those two were withdrawn for very good reason, were proceeded with. The Estima tes were proceeded with in good time and in good shape, and indeed some of the time which was taken in Estima tes exceeded the time normally taken in preceding Sessions, whether by this side or the other side. We have the records that show that, but that's what Estima tes are for, they'll take as much time as the opposition wants to take and there's no problem with that.

But, nevertheless, the Estimates were proceeded with, the bills were proceeded with, the two that were withdrawn; one, Bill 30 having to do with the Legislative Assembly because we were anxious to get as much consensus as possible on a bill of this kind. Efforts are still being made to find that consensus. That was a very laudatory reason for withdrawing that bill. The Session had some fits and starts. What Session doesn 't? But for it to suggest in any way that it was disorderly, or a shambles, I think is not what the record will bare out.

I make no apologies for my stewardship in that sense as a novice, I'll admit it, a House Leader; one has to contend with a whole number of variables, one of which, of course, is the Opposition House Leader.

I want to just deal very briefly with that because, as was pointed out to me by the Member for Turtle Mountain - and let me apologize for that slip the other dav when I played around with his name, that was unseemly and I do apologize for it, I ought not to have done that - but the Member for Turtle Mountain last Session said to me, and I thank him for that, that there must be co operation if the affairs of the House are to be run and I've endeavoured to do that. But let me just take two recent examples.

I, having been asked by the Member for Turtle Mountain, the Op position House Leader, about comm ittee meeti ngs, said I will be bringing in a proposed

schedule this week but because there must be co-operation I accept that. I didn't simply stand up here, I don't think it would have been even seemly or within the tradition of the House, and say - here are the dates for the comm ittee meetings. I prepared a draft list and it's listed as, "Proposed

schedule of committee meetings." I gave it last Friday, I believe it was, to the Opposition House Leader and I said, Jet me know what you think if this, and he said to me, well, okay, I think I only have one. He did say that he thought they were a bit late and I said, well, I've looked at the record of last year and that's the only record I have to go by - and they're more or less consonant with last year's record - then he said, well, I think I'll have one problem and I will let you have a note.

I asked him again yesterday, because I wanted to make the announcement to the House for two reasons, with respect to the first meeting of Law Amendme nts the public should have a couple of weeks notice. There are many mem bers of the public who want to make representations. I wanted to be able to make the announcement, but I did not want to make it unilaterally. Today again I called upon him and he said, I will let you have a note. He was not intending to let me have a note. It's clear now that what he was intending to do was to utilize this occasion to play politics with the Busi ness of the House.

Now that ought not to have been done. If there is to be co-operation it has to be a two-way street. - (Interjection) - Now the Member for Turtle Mountain says, that with respect to the time in which The Interim Supply Loan Act is to be dealt with, that he is perfectly aware of the need, he's had all of the experience - and I'm sure that he has - and the experience I hope will stand him in good stead and that he will be true to his word; that's the difficulty. I mean, I hope that the Member for Turtle Mountain doesn't take this in bad stead but he tends to be a little bit monosyllabic.

You know, and one only asks that one gets the word so you know what it is. 1060

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 I must say this, that when I raised the question, true, over the phone, no t alwa ys the best means of communication, with respect to the need that had been transmitted to me by the Deputy Mini ster of Finance raising with me the question of the peculiarities of this month and Good Frid ay, and the rest of it, the need to try and get things through by the 28th of March, and when I raised that over the phone with the Memb er for Turtle Mountain it is my recollection - and that's all I'll say, I'm not going to swear on a stack of bi bles, or affirm - but it's my distinct recollection that I got a grunt. or something akin to a grunt, rather than, don't worry, the matter will be dealt with by the 28th of March.

Had I had that, there would have been no necessity to raise the issue in the House in the way in which it was raised. One final comment because I don't want to take up the time of this committee with raking over old matters and dealing with old hurts and old sores. it's true that the Member for Tu rtle Mountain is feeling a little bit hard done by in the sense that I stood in this place the other day and criticized him. Well, he has the right to defend himself but we do have other busi ness to transact.

I'd like to say this about the two bills to which reference has been made, The Law Enforcement Review Act and The Farm Lands, and some reference about amendments being out there well, I don't know about the Farm Lands Bill, I don't think there are amendments out there anywhere. There certainly are no amendments with respect to The Law Enforcement Review Act. lt was one of our stated purp oses, Mr.

Chairman, in calling the Session and in tabling the bills, that they should be available first of all, properly to the opposition so that they might consider the heart of the matter. the substance of the bills, so that when we met again in February as it turned out, we would be able to debate the substance of these bills in due course. it was also our purp ose to make the bills available to affected constituencies, in the case of The Law Enforcement Review Act, with a whole number of police asso ciations, the City of Winnipeg, the Winnip eg Police Commission, so that we could have the benefit of their advice recog nizing the justice of a criticism that was made last year by some groups, that it was late in the day for them to get notice in a sense, and first instance of the contents of a bill after second read ing, and then to be faced with a meeting of Law Amendments in a relatively short period of time. lt didn't give them the opportunity to think, to meet, to consult, to do whatever they wanted to do in order to give the best possible presentation at the committee level in order to improve the shape, form and su bstance of a bill.

So that inde ed with respect to The Law Enforcement Review Act the bill, after it was introduced, circu lated and distributed in the House, was made available to these affected constituencies who have been writing and meeting with me and indeed the consultative process has been working very well. As a result of a lot of this input I came to the conclusion that some changes should be made but I didn't want to spring these on the opposition critic of the Attorney-General sort of at the last minute.

I thought he should have the benefit of those, and I had made him aware of the fact that there would be likely amendments introdu ced at the comm ittee stage a 1061 yesterday, when I called the bill because we were simply calling all the bills, Sir, to him, he raised the point that he would like to know at least the substance of any possible chan ges so that he would not be tilting at windmills when he debated.

In fact, it was only yesterday that I comple ted the pr ocess, or Mo nda y, th at I completed the process of consultation sufficiently to want to put out a form of proposed amendments and I believe they are now in his hands. So that what has been happening here is not that we've been delaying debate on the bills - Farm Lands has already been called - but that it would have been unfair to the opposition critics of the particular pieces of legislation not to let them have the substance of possible changes to the bills so that they're contribution at second reading debate could be inde ed all the better.

So I've thought it imp ortant to make these points in answer to the criticisms and defence offered by the Member for Turtle Mountain this afternoon, he had the right to do that. I think he has the right at any point to raise his criticisms, but I am beginning to get the uncomf ortable feeling that there's an element of vindict iveness that is entering into the criticisms of the Government House Leader. The Government House Leader is flayed for this; the Government House Leader is flayed for that.

Qui te often, to the kno wledge of the member opposite, there are a numb er of variab les that the Go vernm ent House Leader must deal with. The Government House Leader is not a dictator, and he cannot say to members of Treasury Bench, you must have this ready by this date, there are affairs of the government to run and one does the best that one can. I would appeal to him, and I'll conclude my remarks with this appeal, to himself take to heart what he has said to me about co-operation. I thought it's beginning to work fairly well this year.

There are things to be ironed out, but if, on every possible occasion, the Government House Leader is going to be the target of this kind of criticism, it's going to be very, very difficult. I'm not saying that in any way of withdr awing co-operation - I will not do that - I think co-operation is necessary, but it is a two-way street. So let's get on with the busi ness of the House.

I mean if they have to take all of the time that they're taking, instead of researching the problems of the people of Manitoba, to research how many lines in Hansard were used back in 197 9 or 19 80, then it demonst rates a certain level of bankrup tcy of ideas and of substance with respect to the busine ss of gover nmb.lt. I think it's a fruitless exercise. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, what we just hear from the Government House Leader is, "Let's get on with the business of the House." That's exactly what we're talking about, is that we need not have been here this afternoon, in this committee, if the Mini ster of Finance and the Government House Leader had done their job. HON. S. LYON: And knew what they were doing. MR. B. RANSOM: Because had they brought this bill in earlier in the week, or last Frid ay, I think it was, when

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 they brought the Interim Supply Bill in, it would have passed without debate, just as the Interim Supply Bill did. It would have gone through Supply, it would have gone through Ways and Means, we would have given leave for it to be introduced for the first time, and indeed, to be introduced for second reading and it would have been adjourned, it would have been debated once or twice. - (I nterjection) - Well, the Government House Leader thinks that we're sup posed to bail him out of his problems all the time.

When he comes forward with thoroughly incompetent management of this House and tries to blame us for stalling the busi ness of the Ho use - tha t is absolutely patent nons ense, Mr. Chairman. It is absolute patent nonsense, Mr. Chairman. He talks about bankru ptcy of ideas. Talk about bankruptcy - it's not only going to be the government of the province that's bankrupt - we can see where the Government House Leader is going. He talks about vindictiveness. He thinks there's vindictivenss involved. Do you think for a minute, Mr.

Chairman, that if we had wanted to be vindictive, that we would have passed Interim Supply through this stage last year without debate, and through this stage again this year without debate, after those member opposite took seven days in debate in 19 81? Does that sound to you like vindictiveness, Mr. Chairman? That we did that, that we allowed the busi ness of the House to proceed after the kind of obstruction that we got from the members opposite and the Minister of Finance was one of them. He knows full well what happened.

He could have least have advised the Government House Leader of what kind of behaviour we saw from their own members two years ago and what he should have told the Government House Leader was these guys aren't being vindictive because their facilitating the busi ness of the House, and we didn't hold it up. This needn't have been held up, but now tha t it's here, due to your incompetence - to the Government House Leader's incompetence - it's going to be debated, Mr. Chairman. It's going to be debated.

The Government House Leader is trying now to say, after having given me a list a few days ago of the proposed sched uling of the comm ittees, that I'm now holding it up. He didn't put forward any sugge stion of when the comm ittees were going to be held, until I rose in the House and asked the Government House Leader, when are you going to begin calling your Standing Comm ittees? HON. S. LYON: A month after the House started. MR. B. RANSOM: Because he should have realized that he had the document, like Public Accounts - months ago - it was available last December.

The Government House Leader says he only has last year to compare to, Mr. Chairman. That shows you that the Government House Leader doesn't understand the operation of the House, because right over there, Mr. Chairman, I can point it out to him, is kind of those tan covered books over there, are called the Journals of the House and if the Government House Leader will refer to some of those, he will find that they actually tell you what busi ness was conducted in the House and you can go back and find out how many days were spent debating these things, and when it's traditional to have them introduced.

A MEMBER: You wouldn't expect a law professor to know that would you? MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, he had the audacity to stand in this House, a few moments ago, and try and say that we took more time on some of the Estima tes than they took. Mr. Chairman, I'll give him a few facts about the time that the opposition spent on the Estimates. In 19 79, the New Democratic Party, in opposition, took 337 hours and 35 minutes to go through the Estimates of Spending. In 19 80 they took 358 hours and 5 minutes, and in 19 81 they managed to cut it back to 292 hours and 55 minutes. Last year, Mr.

Chairman, this vindictive group on this side took 270 hours. That's a full 80 hours, 90 hours less than the government took in 1980. Well, I can assure the Government House Leader it wasn't because of his good management. The only reason that it passed in that period of time was because we recognized that the busi ness of the House has to get on.

We don't insist on beating an issue to death, time and time agaia, and making 40-minute speeches every occasion that arises, and I recall the Member for Ellice, at that time, and the Member for Churchill used to rise practically every occasion, and if they didn't go on for 40 minutes, they sure went on for 30 minutes. We hear it time and time again and when the Member for Ellice used to stand and go on, practically everyone of his own people bailed out and left him here talking by hims elf.

And they're talking about us holding up the busi ness of government, about us being vindictive, in not moving the busi ness of government along. Mr. Chairman, I asked the Government House Leader to talk to some of his colleagues. Talk to the Member for Lac du Bonnet, talk to the Member for Ste. Rose. Ask them. Ask them about how the busi ness of the House was facilitated when they were in opposition. And the Government House Leader says, he can't get any more than monosyllabic answers.

Sir, all that's required is yes or no, and I have great difficulty in making more than one syllable out of either of those answers. I don't know what it is about the Government House Leader that he isn't prepared to accept a yes the first time. What does it say about a person who doesn't accept the first answer? Why does he have to go back and say, "Do you really mean that?" Mr. Chairman, when we give our word on this side of the House that something is going to happen, it's going to happen. HON. R. PENNER: Why didn't you do it? MR. B. RANSOM: And I did. HON. R. PENNER: No, you didn't. MR. B.

RANSOM: Well you see, this is the problem with the Gov ernment Hous e Leader. If he wants everything in writing, I'll give it to him in writing, Mr. Chairman. When we give our commit ment tha t something is going to be done, it will be done. But the 1062

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 Government House Leader has the attitude that just because he calls a bill in this House, or a resolution, that it's up to us to debate it, when he calls it. That's not so, Mr. Chairman, that's not so at all.

The opposition has the perfect right to stand the bill or a resolution, and I recall last year, during the debate on the Crow Resolution, when it was such a great urgency to carry that debate through, that on the Friday morning before the election in Saskatchewan the next Monday morning, the Government House Leader got up, blustered in his place and tried to force us to come to a vote on the resolution. We have the numbers. That's the attitude of the Government House Leader. We won the election; we've got the numbers and, damn it, we're going to force things through. HON. S. LYON: We are the masters now. MR. B.

RANSOM: That isn't the way the system works, Mr. Chairman, and you may recall, that come Monday and the defeat of the Government in Saskatchewan, all of a sudden the interest in the Crow debate evaporated and it never did come to a vote. Mr. Chairman, they do have the numbers and they have the responsibility to govern but they also have some responsibility to this Legislature and to the opposition members of this Legislature. We have been co-operating to facilitate the busi ness of government to a greater extent than those members did when they were in opposition.

I can tell the Government House Leader that we will continue to co-operate so long as there is some co-operation coming both ways . As long as we continue to have the little backup second-rate Government House Leader, the Minister of Natural Resources, continuing to rise in his seat and try and cut our members off every time that we're placing a question, then there may be some difficulties. He should realize, as I think the Government House Leader does, that the question period is basically the time for the opposition and for the backbenchers to ask questions of the Ministers.

If the opposition chooses to take a little longer in asking their questions, it's our time that is being taken. Ins tead, we have the Minis ter of Natural Resources continually trying to obstruct the Busi ness of the House. Mr. Chairman, I expect, as I said, that some of my other colleagues will have considerable to say on this resolution before it passes through the committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak to this matter, Mr.

Chairman, because once again today, Manitobans and Manitoba workers have learned of another considerable and significant setback. News reports today indicate that as many as 532 employees at Motor Coach Indus tries could be laid off by June 10th. Mr. Chairman, when I had an opportunity to ask the Minister of Labour questions, particularly with respect to what action she had taken since she had received notice of this, as I said in my question, eight weeks ago, she corrected me by saying that she received notice February 15 th, which is some five-and-a-half weeks ago.

Whether it is five-and-a-half weeks ago or eight weeks ago, she has taken no action at all, Mr. Chairman. She said, that's not her jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, do we have to remind the Minister of Labour that there are over 54,000 unemployed people in Manitoba and then when a sign ificant industrial concern like Motor Coach Industries files a notice with her that as many as 532 employees are going to be laid off within a matter of a few months, that it's something she should look into. Mr. Chairman, the news reports indicate that the plant here has to compete with a similar plant in New Mexico.

In my question today I asked her whether she has done any invest igation to com pare the ec onomi c circums tances under which that plant operates in New Mexico and the economic circums tances under which the plant operates here in Manitoba. She indicated she had taken no such action. Mr.

Chairman, I want to use this opportunity to recommend to her very highly that she do investigate, and maybe if she investigates that and finds out the reasons why the industry here has difficulty competing with the plant in New Mexico, she is going to find that they have, for example, no payroll tax in New Mexico, a 1. 5 tax on employment. Mr. Chairman, we're talking about a highly intensive labour industry.

I suggest to her that if she would do that, as I requested her to and report to this Ho use, perhaps repor t to her colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, she's going to find as a result of the actions of this government in imposing this kind of tax, in increasing the sales tax, in increasing all the other taxes that this government has done in the 15 or so months that they have been in operation, they have put this industry in a very difficult com petitive situation with ind ustrie s outsid e of Manitoba.

These taxes are, I suggest, a cause, at least partially, of the difficulty which Motor Coach Industries find themselves in at this particular time. Mr. Chairman, we're talking about an industry that employs a large number of people in Manitoba. We're talking about an industry that, I suggest, has a great future. The bus indust ry, Mr.

Chairman, is one that we can be relatively satisfied with that it's going to continue for a long period of time and the Minis ter of Labour should, when she receives this kind of a noti ce, undertake some kind of investigation so that she can make some kind of a report to her Premier and to her government, on the steps that could be taken to help Motor Coach remain competitive in this industry and maintain jobs for these 532 employees. How long, Mr.

Chairman, is it going tc take for this government to realize that the tax measures that they ha ve introd uced are making it very difficult for manufacturing industries in Manitoba to compete? How long is it going to take, Mr. Chairman? How many more layoffs do workers in Manitoba have to go through before this government realizes that it is acting to the dis advantage of workers in Manitoba? Mr.

Chairman, I take this opportunity, once again, we will be going into the Labour Department Estimates, I expect, sometime next week when we will be asking questions of the Labour Minis ter along this line and we expect her to take a much more active role in the unemployment question than she's taking so far. Mr. Chairman, yesterday she introduced what she called an important new initiative in the Manitoba Jobs Fund, called Careerstart. Mr. Chairman, the Estima tes 1063

Thur sday, 24 March, 1983 in 19 82-8 3 containe d a prov1s1on for a Youth Employment Program of $2.931 million and Youth and Student Employment of another $2.9 million. The Estimates this year in the Department of Labour contain only, under Employment Services, approximately $2.9 million for employment programs. What the government has done, Mr.

Chairman, has mo ved - and the y acknowledge it on Page 13 4 of the Estima tes - they've moved some $2.7 million from the 19 82-83 Estima tes under Labour and Employment Services to the Jobs Fund, and the Minister of Labour stands up and calls this an important new initiative. This is nothing, Mr. Chairman, other than a continuing program, one that we had initiated while we were in government, one that was very successful in those years in providing some 5,000 jobs for a similar amount of money.

With the restrictions that the government introduced last year and this year, a much smaller number of jobs are going to be created and there is no expansion of the limited program that they had last year compared to the program that we had, which supplied many more jobs. So, Mr. Chairman, this is not an important new initiative. This is nothing but a continuing program, no expansion, and I do say to whoever now is the House Leader or the Acting House Leader, Mr.

Chairman, that when we were in government, when a member of the opposition spoke at this stage of this matter, the appropriate Minister was asked to be in the House, to • listen to the opposition critic. Mr. Chairman, we see no evidence of that whatsoever from the government side, and I take this opportunity to remind the Acting House Leader, whoever that is, that in the future as members rise on this side, as we intend to rise, to debate this particular matter, that they arrange to have the appropriate Minister in the House to listen to the comme nts that are made with respect to their jurisdiction. Mr.

Chairman, the only thing new about this program is it has a new name, it's called Careerstart, compared to what it was called before, tut it is no new initiative, Mr. Chairman. I remind members opposite that when we introduced our program that hired 5,000 students in the summe r, the unemployment rate among students was much much lower than it is now. It's 17. 5 percent right now. There are 20,000 people between the ages of 15 and 24 unemployed and that rate is going to increase as we approach the summer months. Mr.

Chairman, there are no jobs available for the graduates of high schools, of community colleges, of universities. Those graduates are going to impinge upon the part-time jobs that used to be taken by students continuing their education. So for those students, Mr. Chairman, who are looking for part-time summer emp loyment, they're going to have a very very difficult time. I'm not ju st ca lling, Mr. Chairman, upon the gov ernment to intr oduc e and create make-work projects for students throughout the summe r. They have to add ress the whole que stion of private sector employment.

The criticism that they've received this week, directly to the First Mins ister by the President of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, should be taken very very seriously by them, Mr. Chairman, because everything we see in Manitoba is a restriction of jobs in the private sector resulting from a lack of a proper economic climate, from the lack of any incentives in this province under this governmen\. Mr. Chairman, the program announced by the Minister of Labour is no new important initiative, it is a continuing program.

It is unsatisfactory in terms of dealing with the severe problem of unemployment among young people which we have at the present time and which is going to increase during the summer months. Mr. Chairman, it's time that the Minister of Labour dealt with the problems that are being created by this government in the private sector and investigated them. It's time that she deals with the situation evidenced by another layoff, like Motor Coach, that she look into the reasons why a Manitoba industry cannot compete with outside ind ustries.

I hope, for the sake of the unemployed people in this province, that the Minister will start attending to those duties in the way that she should in order to do whatever she can and everything that can be done for the unemp loyed in Manitoba, because they are being left adrift. The Minister of Labour's reaction was short of getting contracts for more buses. There isn't much we can do. Well, she's overlooking, Mr.

Chairman, the fundamental reasons why Motor Coach Industries is not getting contracts for more business, why they are having difficulties competing and why they are being put at an economic dis advantage by the taxing policies of this government. In her absence, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Acting Government House Leader, whoever it is, will bring to her attention the remarks I made about these two particular instances in order that this matter can be dealt with in some serious way in the hopes that these layoffs will be put to a stop in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?

The Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know the Attorney-General in his position as Government House Leader has wiggled and twisted like a fish on the end of a line . . . MR. H. ENNS: That he has. MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . over our concerns about the way he has ruined the operation in this House. - (Interjection) - The Member for lnkster is back in his seat making his usual contribution to this House and, Mr. Chairman, this whole House rues the day that an honourable member of this Legislature was defeated and replaced by that excuse for an MLA as what happened in lnkster last election.

When we had the former Member for lnkster in this House we could count on him for a rational, logical debate, a little levity and a whole lot of knowledge and it's unfortunate that we've got that kind of an MLA here now who can't contribute anything but flag-burning demonstrations against the United States, marches against El Salvador, and whatever else, and attending Marxist Conferences at the University of Manitoba, and other matters that are at the forefront of consideration to Manitobans. Those are the kind of issues that Manitobans are really concerned about.

The 54,000 unemployed Manitobans are very glad that the MLA for lnkster sees fit to attend Marxist Conferences at the University of Manitoba; to march and demons trate in front of the U.S. Emba ssy last year in a march, I believe, against El Salvador that 1064

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 time; to march in front of the U.S. Em bassy last night and burn a United States flag in front of the U.S. Consulate last night in demons tration of Nicaragua. MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Order please. The Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I would like the member to withdraw that remark. He just accused me of burning a flag. Of any nation, I have never done such. I have no intentions of ever doing such and I would suggest that the Member for Pembina withdraw that slur in this House which is only too common coming from his mouth. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I must apologize, on behalf of my leader, for not including him first off in the esteemed group of demons trators from the Government of Manitoba that were present at the demonstration at which a United States flag was burned. But he saw fit to stand up in his place and say, yes, he was there. He wanted to be recognized with that group of people who chose to burn a United States flag in the Province of Manitoba in front of the United States Consulate. That's his problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Orde

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-33a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 33a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6c081536803bb9bdfc19e67a2c663ecb434a44ac

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