Manitoba Hansard — 9 March 1983 (Sitting 22, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-22

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publlthed under the authority of The Honourable D. Jame• waldln11 Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 22 - 2:00 p.m., WE DNESDAY, 9 MARCH, 1983. Prmted by the Offiee of the Oueens Prinlet. Province ol ManilotMI

MANIT OBA 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,Hon .E ugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, 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 Thomp son La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Chur chill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Conr,ordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Char leswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burr ows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA Wednesday, 9 March, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . MINIS TER IAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho n ourable Minis ter of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Speaker, I'm pleased to announce to this Assembly the main elements of a voluntary ongoing income stabilization plan which our government has approved for Manitoba hog produc ers.

The plan represents a major ongoing commitment on the part of the Manitoba Government to our produc ers, hog men, persons. This commitment was made in recog nition of the significant contribution which hog producers make both directly and indirectly to the Manitoba economy. In the past hog produc ers have been plagued by periods of widely fluctuating prices in incomes. This situation has jeopardized the long term viability of the indus try. Only after a concentr ated pressure on the previous administration did hog produc ers obtain any form of gover nment assistance to stabilize their incomes.

Under du ress th at ad minis tration int rod uced a two-year income stabilization plan and that plan expired on December 31s t of last year. This government is not prepared to assist produc ers by devel oping ad hoe plans that do nothing for the long term prospects of the indu stry. Manitoba's ho g produc ers and our government recognize the need for a long-term Income Stabilization Program to protect producers against uncertainties in prices and incomes. Early in the new year I appoi nted a Produc er Management Comm ittee to develop the details of a long-term Stabilization Program for the hog indu stry.

That committee has presented a plan to our government and I am pleased to say that we have accepted their re commendations as the basis for the plan which will take effect May 1s t. The main features of this volunt ary plan - it will be a Stop Loss Program with a support price related to the cost of production. The support price level will be determined on the basis of a cost of production formula, which takes into account 87 percent of the costs of production . The initial support level will by $72 per hun dred weight.

To ensure the actuarial sound ness of the plan, premium levels will be adjusted on a periodic basis by the Management Comm ittee. At the outset, the premium level has been set at 6 percent. The premium contribution will be shared 2 percent by the government and 4 percent by the 608 produc ers. On an ongoing basis the government will share equally with producers in premium contributions up to a maximum of 2 percent for the government. A'I Manitoba hog produc ers registered with the board are eligible to participate.

Each producer will be able to insur e up to a maximum of 1, 250 hogs per quarter, or a maximum of 5,000 hogs per year. Multiple family units of up to thr ee, where the members of one family share in the owners hip, labour , and returns of a hog production unit, will be eligible for a maximum of 3,750 per quarter, for a total of 15 ,000 hogs per year. All indexed hogs are eligible, but sows, boars and stags are ineligible for support. Deficiency payments will be calculated on a quar terly basis.

If the average market price falls below the support price for that quarter, deficiency payments will be paid out shortly ther eafter. Mr. Speaker, I have given this Assembly the main features of the Hog Stabilization Plan for Manitoba hog produc ers. We think it's a good plan. We think that producers will think it's a good plan because it was developed in consultation with them. We are pleased to join together with the producers in a partnership arrangement to ensure the long-term viability of the hog industry.

The Management Committee and the Hog Board are explaining the details of the plan to produc ers at the regional meetings which are now under way. Further information about the plan will be mailed out to all producers registered with the Manitoba Hog Produc ers Marketing Board. Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportun ity to announce an initiative, which I believe will mark the beginning of a new era for Manitoba hog produc ers. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Min ister of Agricultur e for making this annou ncement in the House to the Assem bly, prior to making it to the hog producers. My first comment would be, Mr. Speaker, is I think there has been a recognition within the hog indu stry that a Hog Stabilization Program was a necessary element of the producing of agricultural commod ities in Manitoba. However, Mr.

Speaker, the policy of our gove rnment was th at of nationally pr od uced commod ities, th at we should ha ve a na tional stabilization program so that we could remove the problems that were created by the different provincial programs, and that was our first objective. The Minister does make comment about the program that we had in place. I think, Mr.

Speaker, other than some of the num bers change, that a lot of the program that he is announcing today, the guidelines or the basis for this program were established during our term of office and largely by a numb er of hog produc ers who were appointed to a management comm ittee, and who were fired by this particular Minister of Agriculture on a political basis. Now, he is confirming that they had done a good job.

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 Mr. Speaker, the Minister makes a lot of to-do about the fact that the government is putting up 2 percent of the premium and the produc ers are putting up 4 perc ent. When we annou nced our pr ogram , Mr . Speaker, there was, in fact, a straight-out support payment made to those produc ers who signed up, and I think th ere was some 80 percent of the producers of Manitoba, or 80 percent of the hogs produced in Manitoba, joined in that program with somewhat of a lower premium to those producers. I think, Mr.

Speaker, in concluding my remarks, a point has to be as well made that the Minister has to appr eciate the fact that the proof or the support for thi s program will be sho wn as the prod ucers of Manitoba sign up. I would speculate at this time, Mr. Speaker, with the hog industry being as it is, that probably the timing is right. However, I think that there would be a lot of hog produc ers taking a long hard look at this program before they would give 4 percent of their returns to this kind of administration to look after. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the Manitoba Data Services, 1981-82 Annual Report. Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make to the House. I would like to give the House a short report on the Finance Ministers' Meeting in Toronto last Monda y. The Finance Ministers discussed thr ee items: First of all, the current economic and fiscal situation and outlo ok; se cond, federal and provinci al capital investment projects; third, post-secondary education and established program financing arrangements. I'd like to deal briefly with each of these items in turn.

On the economy, a num ber of Ministers expressed the view that recovery is now taking hold and that massive stimulus may not be required to the same extent as it appeared to be during meetings last December. However, a numb er of Ministers continue to feel that sign ificant stimulus is required in order to assure that recovery takes hold. Manitoba counted itself among the latter group and agreed with arguments that governments can't afford to assume that economic improvement will be achieved automatically.

In this context, a numb er of have-not provinc es suggested that even if national recovery in the order of 1.5 to 2 percent real growth is achieved for 19 83, the effects may not be felt as quickly in disadvantaged regions.

In summar y, while the need for action supportive of econ omic recovery ap peared to be generally reco gn ized, there was a strong current of opinion that stimulus on the same scale as all governments felt to be requir ed during the Finance Ministers' consultations in December may not be required if the signs that recovery is taking hold are borne out prior to each govern ment's budget presentation.

With reg ard to federal and provincial capital investment projects, discussions during the meeting suggested that only one province had not submitted a specific list of projects to the Federal Government, which in turn suggests that there is sign ificant interest in such an approach. 609 Mr. Lalonde canvassed provinces for their views on whether or not an allocation of federal funds through loans to provinces would help. Acco rding to Mr . Lalonde, such loans would include elements of forgiveness and be provided at preferential interest rates.

Five provinces, including Manitoba, expressed interest in the idea; two asked for time to reflect on it and promised to advise Mr. Lalonde of their views in the near future; and thr ee provices did not express great interest. Accordingly, a definitive and positive consensus did not emerge.

On est ablishe d programs, financing, and post secondary education, the Federal Government ind icated its intention to split the established programs' financing block fund between health and post-second ary education and to limit the rate of growth on the so called post-secondary component to 6 percent in 1983- 84 and 5 percent in 19 84-85. Un der the federal proposal, some 32. 1 percent of the EPF block would be consi dered as post-s econda ry edu cation. If implemented, such an approach would reduce EPF cash payments to Manitoba by about $5 million for the coming fiscal year.

The provinces questioned the federal proposal to arbitrarily split a post-secondary component from the EPF block funding arrangement and noted that in most cases health spending now accounts for about th ree quar ters of provincial spending on health and post secondary education. Thus, provinces felt that the federal proposal to cap close to one-third of the EPF block fund would be inconsistent with current realities and could increase difficulties facing provi nces in assuring quality health and post-secondary education progr amming. Mr.

Lalonde suggested that the proposed federal split was consistent with the national average allocation of health and post-secondary education tran sfers in 1975-76 and that, though arbitrar y, such a base was felt by Ottawa to be legitimate. The provinces also noted that the general impact of the recessi on, particularly on unemployment, had increased the need for education with the result that enrolment levels and costs are increasing sign ificantly.

In that context, the federal proposal to reduce its su pport for post- seco nd ary ed ucation appeared inconsistent with the increased demands for quality educational opportunities. From a Manitoba perspective, I noted tha t the projected growth rate in federal EPF contributions amounted to under 8.8 percent on a per capita basis for 1983-84, far less than our budgeted 10 .5 percent incr ease in grants to the Un iversities Gr ants Comm ission and our 11 .6 percent increase in healt.h spe nding.

Thus, any further reductions in federal su pport on top of the major ongoing cutbacks implemented last year would add to the difficulty our province faces in assuring quality progr amming. Mr. Lalonde agreed to raise the matter once again with his Cabinet colleagues and also indicated that he was prepared to exchange views further on the matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for making what seems to be

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 a rather informa tive report to the House with respect to the Finance Ministers' meeting in Ottawa earlier this week. It is good news, as I said yesterd ay, that the Ministers of Finance seem to feel that they view the economy with some increasing optimism. Within the report, I would be a little concerned about what this may mean for Manitoba's Jobs Fund and will be asking the Minister questions on that furt her.

The question of the reduced funding under EPF would also be a concern to the members on this side, as it is to the government, because of the past history of what has happened to the Established Programs Financing arrangements. If it should lead to further cutbacks in the educational area, it would cause even more concern because we have seen some indication now that the province seems to be cutting back in its efforts. For example, the question of Student Aid.

It will be harder for students to get aid to go to un iversity under this government from now on and, if the Federal Government is also going to contribute to that situation by reducing educational cost-sh aring funds then it certainly would be further cause for concern. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. H. HARAPIAK introduc ed Bill No. 36, The Agrologists Act;

Loi sur les agronomes. MR. G. MERCIER introduced Bill No. 37,

An Act to amend The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act (2). INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 61 students of Grade 5 standing from Buchanan School under the direction of Mr. Maharaj. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. Also there are 32 students of Grade 5 standing from the Precious Blood School under the direction of Mr. McDonald and Mrs. Annette Bouchard. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Health.

On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. PROCEDURAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: Also before we reach Oral Questions I have two·-matters to bring to the attention of the House. Firstly, it has been stated recently in this House that there is some agreement between the two House Leaders that Oral Questions should alternate between each side of the House. If there is such an agreement I have not been informed. The actual figures are as follows since the beginning of this Session up until the latest printed Hansard. Opposition mem bers have asked 390 qu es tions, including supplementaries.

Government members have 610 asked 16 questions, including suppleme ntaries, with thr ee questions from the independent mem ber. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If the members wish to move towards more equality in question period, they sho uld so indicate. Otherwise, I will continue the longstanding pr actice of giving over whel ming preference to opposition members. Seco nd ly, although ther e has been a defin ite improvement in the decorum of the House, I have noticed that some members have used words that come close to being a breach of our Rules and of Beauchesne.

Since the members concerned are responsible public representatives and consistently have shown their respect fo r the Rul es and the ins titution of th e Legislature, I prefer to consider their words as being not an intentional breach of our rules. This is further borne out by the passing nature of their remarks and lack of any objection by other members of the House. There was certainly no persistent or wilful obstruction of the business of the House as referred to in our Rule 14 (1) .

Since infractions of the dign ity and decorum of the House reflect upon all members and are not in the best interests of the people of Manitoba, I strongly urge all members to choose their words with care. I respec tfully urge mem bers to review our Rule 14 (1) and Beauchesne's Citations 11 7( 1) and 315 (2) in order to assist them in their deliberations. Copies of these two citations will be distributed for the information of the members. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Just to the point that you've raised, if I may. Thank you very much for that statement, Mr. Speaker.

If I created the impression that there was some prior agreement between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader that the questions would necessarily alternate, then I wish to correct the reco rd on that. My point in agreement at the time .with the Opposition House Leader was simply this: first of all, the question period does belong to the opposition. We, on this side, recognize that and the record shows that.

My point was simply this, that in the relatively few occasions when a backbencher on the government side wishes to ask a question, then should it happen that there is no member for the opposition standing to ask a question, then in the nor mal cou rse , I pr esume that person wo uld be rec ognized. Wh ere someone on this side has been rec ognized, and members from the opposition are standing, then members of the opposition would be recognized in that event. That was my un derstan ding. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. B. RANSOM: On the same point of ord er, Mr.

Speaker, I simply would like to put on the record the statement, which I had made last Friday, to say that there had been no discussion between the Government House Leader and myself. Any agreement came about simply by both happen ing to hold a similar position.

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 I said, at the time, yes, Mr. Speaker, the question period is a time for the opposition and the backbenchers. It is a time for the opposition and the backbench on the government side to ask questions of the front bench of the government. It has been traditional, Sir, that at the very most the backbenchers on the government side would be given no more than the equal opportunity, the alterna te recog nition by the Speaker. That was the position that I held last Friday, and it's still the position.

With respect to the second point that was raised, Sir, I would simply advise you that anything which has been said on this side of the House has been said with due consideration. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell have a point of order . MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order , I wonder if you could be kind enough, you and your staff, to give us the statistics of the six Speakers that I've been through since I arrived here in 1966 on the same su bject matter that you raised this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The honourable member is prohi bited, un der our Rule s, from addressing questions to the Chair. I'm sure if the honourable member wishes to do some research, he is quite entitled to do so. ORAL QUESTIONS Jobs Fund - Capital MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: My question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the reports coming out of the Finance Ministers' Meeting in Toronto, and indeed the report which the Minister made to the House tod ay, indicates that there was some consensus that at least massive stimulation of the economy by the public sector was not required. Mr.

Lalonde seemed to indicate something short of even massive stimulation being required. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance advise the House what impact this might have on the possibility or the probability of the government getting cost-sharing for capital programs under its Jobs Fund? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make it clear that it was the position of Manitoba that significant stimulus is required in order to assure that recovery takes hold.

We were taking the position that we've heard about the recovery a number of times. Last spring, financial magazines were talking about the strength of the recovery because it was here. The Investment Dealers Association ol Canada met with our Cabinet in about May of 1982 and told us that the economy was turning around.

We had a number of those indicators and we tend to believe that we should be a little bit cautious about believing those kinds of indicators at this time. 611 Therefore, we are still urging the Federal Government to come in with us with respect to job creation and we're asking them to participate in the Jobs Fund in Manitoba. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Finance, can he assure the House that, irr espective of any action taken by the Federal Government, the province will proceed to expend all of the funds which they have allocated to the Jobs Fund? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: That's a hypothetical question. I do expect that there will be some federal participation. I had indicated that Mr. Lalonde had proposed some loan program which would provide us with loans at rates that would be more favourable than market rates and also that there would be a forgiveness portion to those loans which is something similar to federal provi ncial programs of the early 19 70's, which I understand had been quite successful. So I would expect that the Federal Government will participate.

I think the question is really how much participation and we're just going to have to wait until the Federal Budget, which I expect in April. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that there are in excess of 50 some thousand unemplo yed people in Manitoba who will be expecting some action on the part of this government, can the Minister of Finance assure us that commitments of funds will be made prior to receiving an answer from the Federal Government in order that there may be some positive results flow from this program? A MEMBER: It's all a hoax. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr .

Speaker , the specific announ cements as to usages from the Fund will be made when decisions are made. Just for instance, later on this afternoon there will be a meeting of the members of the Jobs Fund Comm ittee and ther e will be discussions about that sort of thing. Certainly there will be money spent. Now, whether all of it will be spent or not depends surely on the kinds of projects that come forward, and depends on whether there's a long term cost benefit to Manitoba. There will certainly be a larger benefit if we have the Federal Government participating. Manitoba Payroll Tax MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Moun tain. MR. B. RANSOM: A final question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Did he have the opportunity to discuss whether or not the Federal Government would be paying the Manitoba payroll tax? Did he have an opportunity to discuss that with Mr. Lalonde while he was in Toronto? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I didn't discuss that directly with the Minister of Finance, but I did ask

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 his deputy as to what was happening, and I was told that he expected things would be through Treasury Board within the next several weeks; so I would expect that before the end of the month, we will have received commu nications with respect to that matter. Economic Recovery MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Along the same vein, I'm wondering if I could ask the Minister of Finance what rationale was offered by those who feel the recovery is now taking hold? What detailed rationale was offered? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mainly, Mr. Speaker, there was some indication of incr eased sales tax collections in Januar y. I believe that happened in every province. It did happen in Manitoba; although I don't have the exact num bers here. There was also the major indicators in the United States being fairly positive, and there were questions SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a little bit like a lake . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: . . . when you get right down to the middle and it's at its very deepest, at some point you have to start coming back up. That doesn't mean that we're anywhere near in as good a shape as we would have been without "little Ronnie" and the boys from Chicago, but it does mean that there is, at this time ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. V. SCHROEDER: Members of the opposition can read as well as the members on this side . HON. R. PENNER: No, not necessarily. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, maybe not, maybe not.

But there have been reports emanating from various capitals indicating that there is some sign of life in the international econo my, and we will just have to wait and see. We happen to - and I heard the Member for Morris speak the other day; he indicated that he didn't see the recovery, and he and I are in agreement on that. I don't see the recovery in anywhere near the kinds of terms that some people in this country see it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, I am wondering then if the Minister of Finance can confirm the fact that our own national indicators in thems elves do not look 612 favourable; that, indeed, it's outside indicators that are tending to make us optimistic at this time. HON. V. SCHROEDER: No, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had indicated in the previous answer that there were some ind icators local ly, across the countr y, of impro vement.

Ther e were some indi cations tha t emp loyment was a little better than had been expected in the last reported month, but that may have had something to do with the weather; so it's not something that's terribly specific. If the member has read the reports coming from Statistics Canada, even they had some big question marks about some of the numb ers, although there were some positive numbers right here in this countr y. Snow and Ice Storm, Manitoba MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday , I was not able to be in the House because of another engagement, and there were a number of quetions asked as to the involvement of the Emergency Measures Organization in the cleanup and the work involved with the ice storm that took place over the past weekend. I just want to clarify an answer that was given and also clarify and shed some different light on a statement that was made by one of the honour able members opposite with regard to that, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Yesterday in the question period regard ing the EMO, the Honourable Member for Pembina said that he would like to assure the First Minister that the wrong advice was given, and the wrong information was given to me by an individual in EMO. He said it led to a wild goose chase for emergency standby generators, which ended up with cons titue nts who had ho ped to receive assistance from EMO would not receive the same. Mr.

Speaker, I also have a letter from the honourable member in which he also refers to this request and says the expectations of relief from EMO certainly were raised among farm residents, only to discover upon further investigation that no such ability to deal with the emergency existed with EMO. This letter was dated March Bth, and which I received today about noon. I just want to clarify exactly what happened and what my advice, my information, is as to that situation for this House. I do not think it's an abuse; it was raised in question period, and I am responding to it.

The EMO du ty officer received a call from the Hono u rable Member for Pembina, in which the Honourable Member for Pembina said that there was severe icing and power outages in southern Manitoba, and my information from the duty officer was that he advised the honour able member that there were appr oximately 12 to 16 small generators that existed but they were only good for providing minimum lighting. The point is that I want to point out there was at least, Mr. Speaker , a difference of opinion in this question. I'll tell you, I would like to go on why, as in terms of the answer that was given, Mr. Speaker.

What happened, Mr. Speaker, is the . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I am sure that the House would be glad to hear the answers to qu estions which seemed so important yeste rda y afternoon. However, if the answer is to be somewhat lengthy or contain figures, etc., perhaps it would be better if the Minister were to table the document and then all members would be privy to its contents. The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to shorten that statement and to provide it to the House in terms of a Ministerial Statement. Jobs Fund - allocation of funds MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister in his capacity as the Chairman of the Jobs Fund Comm ittee of Cabinet. The Minister of Finance had just indicated that the comm ittee will be meeting this afternoon or tomorrow afternoon. Has the comm ittee not met yet? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister indicated on February 25th that they would be making an announcement within the next two weeks as to the first allocation of funds.

Will that announcement be made today or tomorrow? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, soon. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister, in his statement on February 25th, said that "Other em ployers and unions may well be able to free up funds for job creation by working together through collective bargaining; and we will also meet with business and labour to see how the principle of shared responsibility can be applied in the private sector to increase the numb er of job creating investments in Manitoba." I wonder if he would advise the House, Mr.

Speaker, as to which business and labour groups he or the committee has met with and, in particular, has he had an occasion to meet with Mr. Dick Martin, the President of the Federation of Labour , who apparently yesterday criticized a decision by unionized workers at Red River Co-op's lone Winnipeg store to accept a wage rollback in an effort to save their jobs. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have had the occasion to meet with quite a number of public service sector unions and public sector negotiators dur ing the past two weeks. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, did he have an opportunity to discuss this matter with Mr. Martin at the NOP Convention last weekend? 613 HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, no, I didn't have an opportunity to discuss this matter with Mr. Martin this past weekend. MR. G. MERCIER: Does he intend to discuss this with Mr. Martin? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Martin is already fully informed as to the approach that we're undertaking and has indeed sat in on some of the discussions that have taken place up to this point with the public sector unions. MACC - interest rate MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the Minister indicate what the present interest rate is for borrowings for farmers under the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, it's within the 12 percent rate, but I'll take the question as notice and get the honour able member the specific rate. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister, can the Min ister ind icate when this rate was established? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, there is a set formula when rates are changed with respect to the lending rates of MACC as the borrowings are required from the Department of Finance, but I'll get the specific dates when they're established as well for the honourable mem ber. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. The difficulty I have is there have been loans approved under MACC in January and as a result have been held up for over two months based on some confusion about the interest rate.

I wonder whether the Minister would consider maybe informing his staff as to what the interest rate is so that they can proceed with these loans. Farmers have made commitments to dealers and suppliers based on the approval and now have been held up for two months, and I'm just wondering whether he would consider advising his staff so that these loans can be proceeded with. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honour able member should be aware that there was a change in procedure made approximately two years ago as to how the loans would be treated in terms of applications to MACC, whether the loan would be treated on the basis of at the time it was received by the corporation and the interest rate charged on that day, or the loan would be treated on the basis of when the monies were actually dispersed after the approval. That question was raised by a numb er of farmers especially during the time when the inter est rates are going down.

It's to the advantage, of course, of the borrower not to take use of the monies

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 until the cash is flowed. Thus, of course, if there's been a downward change in interest rates in the meantime from the date of application to the date of using that mon ey, the bor rower gets the benefit of the downward rate. That question has been raised and has been resolved at MACC that the rate will be charged on the date that the monies will be dispersed, Mr. Speaker. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Just a final question, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister.

How long do these farmers then have to wait after the approval of two months ago until they can finally get the money released to meet their obligations? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable mem ber has some specific clients that have had appro val of their loans and the money hasn't cash flowed, I'd be pleased to look into it if the honourable member would provide me the information. Manitoba Beef Commission - fraudulent payments MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture.

Can the Minister of Agriculture assure this House and the taxpayers of the Province of Manitoba that there aren't any fraudulent payments being made by the Manitoba Beef Comm ission as alleged by the President of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, those comments were made by that gentleman and as well, I guess, were repeated in this House by the Member for Arthur.

If there are, if these gentlemen have information about fraudulent activities of farmers, I would not only hope, but I would believe that it would be their duty as citizens of Manitoba and as members of this Legislature to inform the Beef Comm ission and the law officers so that action could be taken with respect to any fraudulent activities of producers. Mr.

Speaker, it should be pointed out that we certainly do not want to have any fraudulent activity, but what the member is suggesting, and if you recall he suggested that a pay-out be made directly to producers on the basis of numb ers of animals sold or animals on the farm in terms of the grant of their proposal. The same kind of situation would result regardless of which application of programs would have been undertaken, Mr. Spea ker. If the memb er has informa tion, Mr .

Speaker, I think it's incumbent on him to bring that information to myself or to the Beef Commission and raise is so that taxpayers' dollars would not be wasted on fraudulent activity. POINT OF ORDER MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, before my next question, I want to speak on a point of order and I would refer back to Hansard. The Minister has accused me of saying 614 that I said in this House that there was fraudulent activity taking place, that it was I that was providing that information. I made reference, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The whole matter has been taken under advisement.

It might well be better for the ... . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: The Minister of Agriculture in answering the question raised by the Member for Arthur alleged that the Minister of Agriculture had said that the Memb er for Arthur ha d said tha t ther e was fraudulent activity taking place, and the Member for Arthur did not say that.

He asked for assurance from the Minister of Agricultur e that reports to the effect that there was fraudulent activity were not true, and the Minister of Agriculture has no right to put words into the mouth of the Member for Arthur and he should withdraw that allegation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order . I read Hansard. I do not have the copy of Hansard here, but I will bring Hansard here where during the honourable member's speech on the Budget Debate, the honourable member initially in his remarks quoted someone making the statement.

He went into his speech about fraudulent activities and then he went on in his speech, and later on in his speech he repeated the charge that there was fraudulent activity. Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Arthur made those remarks in the Budget Debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order . I, subject to the opportunit y to go over Hansard in detail,· did not in my own words say that there was fraudulent activity taking place within that program. It was a reference made to the same thing as I made in my question today.

I believe that the President of the Cattle Producers Association had in fact made those allegations and that's what I'm ref erring to today, the same as I was in my Throne Speech Debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, to the �ame point of order . What has been raised is a difference of

interpretation and indeed a difference of what was actually said in Hansard; neither mem ber has Hansard here. My understanding is that you will take into consideration the point raised, refer to Hansard, and make a ruling. Surely that's a sensible way to go about it, rather than debating what was said when neither of the two men seem absolutely sure. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. There was a dispute a couple of days ago between the same two mem bers

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 on what sounded like the same point The matter was taken under advisement. I'm not sure whether the point is the same point, however, I will also review that and hopefully give an answer to the House when I receive the appropriate Hansard. The Hon ourable Member for Lakeside. ORAL QUESTIONS Cont'd Beef Inc ome Assurance Program - applications MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, a sup plementary question to the Minister of Agriculture if he would perhaps take it as notice.

If I recall checking his own Department of Agriculture Annual Report the average beef herd size in Manitoba nu mbers some 31 or 32. It's alleged that the average herd size of the applications for the Beef Stabilization Fund numbers in the 60s. Would the Minister und ertake to confirm those figures? MR. D. BLAKE: Does that tell you something Billy? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, of the 5, 000 cont racts, I will take that question specifically as notice.

In terms of the nu mbers of animals that have been enrolled, I think the average cont ract is somewhere between 50 and 60. I believe that is corr ect, Mr. Speaker. It should be pointed out that approximately, above two-thirds of the province's beef cow herds have been enrolled in the program. Not the entire amount. Mr. Speaker, it also should be pointed out to the honou rable members that we have, and are making checks de aling with some comp laints that we've received. We believe that most farmers in the province have and want to live up to the contract.

We have a number of producers checking to make sure, we don't want to see that happen to the program, and in fact that's the point I raise Mr. Speaker, to the Honou rable Member for Arthur , if he does have any information to this effect should bring it to our attention. We do not want to see fraudulent activity and we do have people that are involved, in fact, doing the inspections to make sure that the animals that were applied for in terms of the enhancement grant are in fact on the farms. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, always appreciate when a Minister does have his facts at hand and I would press him then for the other half of the question that I asked about. He indicates that my estimation of the average herd size of those herds that have enrolled in the Beef Stabilization Plan are in the 55 to 60 nu mbers. Can he then also confirm that the average beef herd size in Manitoba is in the 30 nu mbers, as I believe is indicated in his report? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honour able member should also be aware that there are approximately, by statistics, somewhere in the range of 350,000 beef cow 615 herds in the Province of Manitoba and about 260,000 are registered on the program. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order . The Minister of Agriculture in his answer to my question said that I had accused the cattle industry or the fact that there was fraudulent activity taking place and I would like to refer to Hansard which I spoke in my Throne Speech Debate, Page 462 to clear the record, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. Again I'm not sure whether the honour able member is referring to a matter which has been taken under advisement. If it is then it would be better that he did not pursue the matter. The Honou rable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to bring it to your attention so that when you are taking under advisement it's on Page 462. Mr.

Speaker, I was making reference to the fact and this is to deal with the fraudulent activity and I will quote if you allow me a minute to clear up the matter, "well let them proceed to hang in there and stick with it." This is a new sentence "The response from the cattle producers - and I pay attention to what cattle producers say - the first response that I heard from the Cattle Prod ucers Organization is that it was being mismanaged and that there was fraudulent activity taking place." It further carries on, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

I thank the honour able member and I certainly will peruse Page 462, which he alluded to. Charge Account Interest Rates MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Given that the Bank of Canada rate is some 9.5 percent, and the prime rate around 11 .5 percent, I would like to ask the Minister about the fact that some Winnipeg corporations like Eaton's and the Bay are charging 2.4 percent per month to their customers on charge accounts while other companies are lowering their rates in view of declining interest rates. I'd like to ask the Minister whether he could investigate and work with his provincial and federal counterparts to try to get some of these companies to lower these excessive and unj ustified interest rates? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Consumer and Corpora te Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the member for bringing that to my attention. We will certainly take it under review. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to ask the Minister if, as a public information service, he would

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 be prepared to publish a list of Manitoba companies that are charging excessive interest rates? Crow Rate MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: A question for the Honour able First Minister, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I ask the First Minister, regarding the current and ongoing debates that are taking place across this country regard ing the Crow Rate, actually what position do you take, and your government? Do you support the position that you took at the NDP convention last weekend supported by your national leader Ed Broadbent, Mr.

Blakeney from Saskatchewan, and Mr. Barrett from British Columbia, or do you support the position that was introduced in this House yesterday by the resolution from your Transport Minister? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: I believe it's on the Order Paper, I believe to be debated possibly, - (Interjection) - you're calling it today, yes. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Roblin-Rus sell. MR. W. McKENZIE: He looks like he's riding about three horses, or maybe four right now on the Crow, him and his government. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. MR. W. McKENZIE: Can I ask the First Minister how he can, and direct his Transport Minister yesterday to tell us in his discussions on the resolution that we've got to be really hasty, and we've got to move this resolution through the House real fast when we, even on this side, don't know what position the First Minister and his government's taking on this res olution, or on the Crow in fact? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, although I know that I'm not in order respon ding to that question, which is out of ord er, I would like to certainly remove any doubt in the mind of the Member for Roblin-Russell that the position of this gover nment has been anything but very, very clear in respect to the Cr ow. We are opposed to a change in respect to the Crow rates. The only difficulty that we've had is pinning do wn the position of honour able members across the way including the position of the Honour able Member for Roblin-Russell. Automobiles - ministerial MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G.

FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . My question is for the Honourable Minister of Agricultur e. Can the 616 Minister of Agricultur e confirm that the automobile which the government purcha sed on his behalf last Ma rch cost alm ost $3,000 more than any other ministerial vehicle pur chased last year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agricultur e. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that, but I can tell you that the order in terms of automobiles was already there when we came into office, in terms of the num bers of automobiles that were there.

I think that question was answered by the then Minister of Public Works. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm trying to make is that there were six automobiles purc hased last year, and five of the six fall within a price range within $1 ,000 of each other . My question is, why does the Minister feel that he had to spend an additional $3,000 of taxpayers' money in order to get a car that was superior to all his other Ministers? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot tell you the exact amount of money that was spent on the car, but the car was purc hased with respect to the ongoing policy that was then in effect. Mr. Speaker, it was put into place; in fact, those six cars were ordered as part of the government fleet. I, as an individual Minister, had no direct involvement into how much money would have been spent, but I did have an influence as to where that car would have been pur chased. MR. G. FILMON: In view of the fact that the Minister did have a

part in the decision as to where the car was to be purchased, did he direct that the car be purchased under this fashion or was it done by public tender? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, ministerial cars, out of practice, going back, are normally pur chased in the area where the Minister - (Interject ion) - and they are pur chased, I believe as well, through public tender in terms of tendering. I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, the vehicle was pur chased through Pub lic Works through the normal process. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Lakeside. MR. H.

ENNS: I can only attest to the fact that when I was responsible for Government Services, we tendered the fleet purcha ses. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member intend to follow up his

preamble with a question? The Hono urable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I don't know whether the Member for Lakeside was Minister of Government Services at the time or not, but the car I'm driving was pur chased in Thompson,

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 Manitoba, when that government was in office. Mr. MacMaster, of course, was the MLA for that area and we can check to see what the costs were, but to suggest that they weren't purchasing in different regions of the province is inaccurate. Of course, the argument that the Member for River Heights would like to make is that all purch ases come in Winnipeg and you ignore the rural areas of this province. MR. SPEAKER: That was not a point of order . The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, just as a

preamble, I'm not questioning whether or not the car was rightfully purchased in a particular area of the province. I will be happy to share with other members of the House the list of all the cars that have been pur chased back to 19 78 for the record for Ministers, but there does not appear to be any other incident in which one car purchased in a year is $3,000 more than all the other cars purchased in a year and I'd like to know why. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Payoff, payoff. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, it should be known that when a car is ordered, there is a range or standard car that is to be ordered. I can get up in this House and say that I did not make any specific request of Public Works to order anything else on the vehicle that normally came for that class of car. But, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what the honourable member is saying, as pointed out by the Minister of Finance, cars that have been purcha sed - in fact, one of the cars that I drove was purchased outside of Winnipeg, somewhere in the province. There were various dealerships in which those cars came from. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, does he feel that it's reasonable that his car should cost $4,000 more than the Premier's car that was purchased ... A MEMBER: What happened to $3,000.00? MR. G. FILMON: ... at least th ree and, in this case, it's 4,000 more than the Premier's car. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I don't know what the car cost and certainly I would not think it appropriate that I should be given a vehicle any different than anyone else. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho n ourable Min ister of Government Services. HON.

J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, all future ministerial cars, of course, are going to be of the compact variety. The cars for last year were still ordered under the other 617 policy and were of the large variety that the opposition used during their time and . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. J. PLOHMAN: . . . I can certainly get details for the member as to what the costs were for each of those cars and why they cost that much, Mr. Speaker. They are traditionally purchased throughout the province and that does not mean the best price is not received.

The Wildlife Act - report MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, there was a report due on the 1st of October under provisions in The Wildlife Act. The question was raised with the Minister of Natural Resources last December and he indicated that the report would be forthcoming shortly after that. Can the Minister tell the House when the report will be ready and at least assure us that it will be tabled before the March 21s t deadline contained in the resolution before the House? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, that answer then will obviously be subject to further debate in the House. Pelican Lake MR. B. RANSOM: Another question to the Minister of Natu ral Resources, I note that in the Minister of Finance's wish list for capital projects that, under the heading of Water Projects, there is an item such as $3 million and some dollars for Lake Dauphin.

I know that the department had already initiated activities on a project at Pelican Lake in southwestern Manitoba and I'm wondering whether it is just an oversight on the part of the Minister that that project would not be included in the wish list. HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker. POINT OF ORDER MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order that was raised by the Member for Turtle Mountain and the Member for Arthur.

When you'r e taking under advisement the matter raised by the Member for Turtle Moun tain and the Member for Arthur , I would like you to take also under advisement the statement made on the same page, further down, Mr. Speaker, by the

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 Honour able Member for Arthur , and I quote from the paragraph on Page 462, '' I'll tell you one other problem," Mr. Speaker, and in that paragraph he indicates and I quote again, "But he is now paying 5 percent or 7 percent of the gross value of that animal into the government coffers that are being fraudulently handled or being mismanaged, Mr. Speaker. That is farmers' money, Mr. Speaker, that is going there and it has to be checked out as well." Mr. Speaker, that comment should be taken as the other problem that he talked about on fraudulent activity. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I thank the honourable Minister and I will assure him, I will read the whole of Page 462, among others. ORAL QUESTIONS Cont'd Cable Television Service - Offices of Ministers' Assistants MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Communi ty Services. Can the the Minister of Communi ty Services confirm that he has had cable television service installed in the office of his executive assistant, so that his executive assistant might have free ch oice to television programming? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services.

HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check that. There was some kind of service installed, but I gather that's the same service that's available to all offices in the building. MR. D. ORCHARD: We ll, Mr . Speaker, whils t the Minister of Communi ty Services is checking whether his executive assistant now has cable television, would the First Minister und ertake to canvass the rest of the Treasury Bench to see if their executive assistants, special assistants and other political appointees now have cable television in their offices at taxpayers' expense? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: I'd just like to make clear that when we assumed office, there were some 17 colour ed television sets that had been pur chased by the previous administration during the years 198 0-8 1. In addition, there were 8 Betamax machi nes tha t had been purchased and had been installed in various offices in this building. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a stop was put to the acquisition of any further colour television sets or Betamax machines in this building. If there's a deviation from that, I will certainly make the necessary corrections. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the First Minister did not answer my question, I ask him again, will he und ertake to canvass the other members 618 of his Treasury Bench to see if their special assistants, executive assistants and other political appointees have received cable television installations at taxpayers' expense? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the previous admin istration was changed. There is no additional colour television sets or Betamaxes being pur ch ased as was the policy un de r the pr evious admin istration. If there has been a deviation from that policy, Mr. Speaker, the necessary corrections will be made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions having expired, will the Honourable House Leader indicate the next item of business? ORDERS OF THE DAY HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Mr. Uskiw on Page 5, standing in the name of the Member for Arthur? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. On the proposed motion of the Hono ur able Minister of Transporta tion, the Honour able Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Highways indicated that we could have another day, so ther efore I would like to let the bill stand in my name. However, without losing my speaking privilege, if the Premier wanted to proceed , I would allow that to take place. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave to have the matter stand? Agreed and so ordered. POINT OF ORDER MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Moun tain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that the Member for Arthur needs leave to have the matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. Or der ple ase.

Does the Honour able Acting Government House Leader wish to speak on the same matter, the same point of order? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I took it that you were going to make a ruling without. MR. SPEAKER: It has been . . . HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker, if you want my contribution, I think it has been the custom of the House that the Speaker will then put it to the House as to whether or not any other member wishes to speak. Mr. Speaker, I did not see that sequence of events take place. If, Mr.

Speaker, it is the wish of the honourable member that he wants to speak another day and is not prepared this day, then he indicates

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 such to the Speaker. The Speaker then asks whether there is anyone else desiring to speak. If there is not, fine, then there is agreement. But that isn't the way this proceeding was followed, and I - (Interjection) - No, it is not. That's the rule, that's the rule, Mr. Speaker, and I take it that the honour able member is not intending to speak today and I will indicate that there's no one on this side then that will speak. We'll allow it to stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The resolution will stand then in the name of the Honourable Member for Arthur . The next item of business. HON. A.

MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, will you now call the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, found on top of Page 5 of the Order Paper. MR. SPEAK ER: On the prop osed motion of the Honourable Government House Leader . The Honourable Member for Turtle Moun tain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I'm afraid we're not going to be able to proceed with the debate on this item in the absence of the Government House Leader, and in view of the fact that during question period the Minister of Natural Resources said that a report, which was required by law to be tabled last October , would not be tabled within the time period named in this motion. I don't think we can proceed with it at the moment, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to ask that it stand. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. A. MACKLING : Mr .

Speak er, by leave (Int erjection) - Sure, you want to call it 5:30. Mr. Speaker, will you revert to Page 2 of the Order Paper and call Bill No. 4. It's the propo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Mines and Energy and it stands in the name of the Honourable Member for La Verendr ye. MR. SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honour able Minister of Energy and Mines, Bill No. 4, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for La Verendr ye. Stand. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, would you then call Bill No. 5, The Surface Rights Act, a motion of the Honourable Minister of Mines and Ene rgy, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for - (Int erject ion) He's not here? The opposition indicates that the Honourable Member for Bir tle-Russell isn't here, we'll allow the matter to stand then. I will now call Bill No. 6, a motion of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Arthur , who is here. 619 ADJOURNED DEBATES - SECOND READING BILL NO. 6 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZER CONTROL ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the second reading of Bill No. 6, the Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on this particular bill and I will keep it fairly brief. I know that several members of our caucus would also like to put some concerns on the record, and in dealing with the particular bill that is before us, Mr.

Speak er, the Min ister of Agricultur e and the government, in introducing this particular bill, indicated in their introduction of the bill, that it was not a very important Act, not a very major issue that they were dealing with, and then tried to - in a fairly light sort of a way - keep the farm community and the opposition benches from saying a lot about it.

I have a couple of concerns, after reading some of the regulations, and particularly the implications that this new Act has for the freed om, or the mobility of the farm commu nity, to exchange work activities from neighbour to neighbour; and in fact, the hand of government being again put in place to see that each and every one of those farm people aren't doing an unjust deed, or in fact, causing damage to the neighbour who they are providing a service for. And really, Mr.

Speaker, you know I can remember back in the development of the spraying and the beginning of the spraying activities in rural Manitoba, where in fact, a very few people owned a sprayer and that, basically, come May and June of the year - (I nter ject ion) - As I was saying, it was no t an uncus tomary practice for neighbours to provide one another with the equipment, or the chemical to treat one another's crops, or to kill the weeds, or whatever was necessary.

As the farm community became more used to using the chemicals that were made available and the products that were provided by the chemical indu stry, there was an education program that basically went along with it, that the people who were involved in spraying or applying of the chemicals were pretty much knowledgeable of what they were doing.

And to be quite truthful, there was a certain group in society, in the farm commun ity, who didn' t want to have much to do with the handling of chemicals because of the nature of the product, the fact that it was, in a lot of cases, somewhat foreign to what they'd been used to and did not feel as if they were desirous of being involved. So that's basically some of the history.

As the development of the chemical application, or the handling of fertlizers and pesticides and the weed chemicals developed, there were people who specialized in it, people who were specializing in the outlets of it and a certain amount of control, regulatory control, I think, is necessar y, particularly on those individuals who are supposed to be responsible. In a lot of cases, they are harmful chemicals, or could be dangerous to human life, and so there should be some element of control at that basis on the distribution part of it.

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 But as far as the farmer-to-farmer handling, the farmer-to-farmer work activity, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that we need the kinds of restrictions that are being introduc ed in this legislation. The Minister referred to a regulatory change that would allow a neighbour to do up to 500 hectares, well I don't prefer to use the word "hectares", I would sooner use the word "acres" and that would translate, in my mind, to something in excess of 1, 000 to 1, 10 0 acres - in that neighbourhood, or three other individuals. Well, that's getting pretty nilly picky.

I would wonder why you would want to say that you'd have to restrict to three people or 1, 000 acres. It's something like their policy on the sale of Crown lands. It seems that the government feels that they have to put certain rest rictions on people - that overall philosph ical appro ach - that without the Minister's app roval, certain things can't be done. Tha t's a philosoph ical hang-up they have, and I think, Mr.

Speaker, the thing that has to be changed, is that the legislation has to be amended and to be changed, so that it is, in fact, freer for the farm community to continue on and exchange the use of equipment, the application of one another's chemical, or chemical for one anot her, without having to be licenced, without having to be controlled, because it has been, as I've indicated, a very common practice for the many, many years th at the farmers have been using it.

The government no w doesn't need to feel it's their re sponsibil ity to come in and lay a regu latory mechanism, costing money for both the inspection side of it, for the farm community to have to adhere to regulations that in a lot of cases probably won't be lived up to, to any great extent, and would ther efore like to see that particular part of it changed. Mr.

Speaker, the comments that were made the other da y by the Memb er for Pembi na, I think, fairly adequately covered some of our major concerns and we'll be prepared to hear the other members of our caucus to proceed to debate on this, as well as mem bers of the government bench who are proposing this legislation be passed. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: I move, seconded by the Member for Emerson, that deb ate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Acting Government House Leader . HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to revert to the second item from the top of Page 4 on the Order Paper, the second read ing of Bill No. 33. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. BILL NO. 33 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PHARl\ll ACEUT ICAL ACT HON. L. DESJARDINS presented Bill No. 33,

An Act to amend The Pha rmaceutical Act, for second read ing. 620 MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I have a short explana tion. I trust that this bill will not be controversial and will get the support of the members of the House. The cu rrent def inition of "i nterchangeable phar maceutical products" states that only drugs in the same amounts, active ingredients, and dosage form may be listed in the Manitoba Drug Standards and Therapeutics Formulary.

The Manitoba Drug Standards and Therapeutics Committee, in developing a formulary of th erapeutically equ ivalent drugs, is bound to recommend only those drugs which meet the criteria of sameness established in this definition. In the past year, 20 drugs representing approximately 9.1 percent of prescriptions dispensed in Manitoba have been rejected for consideration in the formulary by the MDSTC because they did not meet the terms of the defi nition, even though the commit tee may have considered them therapeutically equivalent.

Therefore, in order to fulfil! the general mandate of the formu lary; that is, the the rapeuticall y interchangeable products dispensed at the lowest price; the MDSTC has recommended an amendment to The Phar maceutical Act to provide for the consideration of therapeutically equivalent drugs that are the same or similar in amounts, active ingredients, and dosage form. Approval of this amendment would provide a similar procedure for determining therapeutical equivalence as currently exists in the Saskatchewan and Ontario drug formularies.

If the MDSTC were to recommend the inclusion of all 20 drugs, previously rejected because of the current restrictive legislation, the potential annual reduction in Manitoba prescription price could be as much as $780,000.00. As the province currently reimbu rses approximately one-third of prescription drug costs through various drug reimbur sement programs, then the annual savings to gover nment could reach $260,000.00.

I feel that it is quite clear that the standards would be maintained, the quality would be maintained, and both the taxpayers, through their taxes, and the province and also the individual person that has to pay part of the drugs would save much more money and I reco mmend it to the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Roblin-Russell, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEP UTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Act ing Government House Leader . HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, would you call Bill No. 7, proposed motion of the Honour able Mr. Uruski. That's at the top of Page 3.

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 7 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE DAIRY ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 7, standing in the name of the Member for Emerson. The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the outset of my comments on this bill, Bill No. 7,

An Act to amend The Dairy Act, I would like to indicate that I intend to cover a pretty wide-ranging area of the dairy indus try here. On Thu rsday, the 24th of Februar y, when the debate started off and the Member for La Verendrye was making points on the dairy ind ust ry, ther e was considerable confusion and points of order raised as to what portions of the dairy industry could be discussed while debating this bill.

I would like to indicate at the outset that I intend to cover the whole waterfront, and I want to justify that appro ach to it for the simple reason that under The Dairy Act, which we are amending at this stage of the game under this bill, it covers all aspects of dairy; including licencing; selling; what not to do, including not just producers, processors - the whole ball of wax.

So I feel at liberty to be able to cover that whole waterfront and hope that - you know - the Minister at that time jum ped in and interjected at various times and so did the House Leader at that time, and I wanted to just raise that point before I get into the bill. The concern I have, initially, it's a very small bill. When you look at it, it's a one-page bill; it seems very inno cent enough, and why should we even have concerns, because to some degree there has been a board apparently that has been functioning to some degree and has been in place. Now we're encompassing into

an Act here. But I want to take this opportun ity to raise some concerns about establishing another board. There is a certain

section that indicates a board will be established that will be adjudicating The Dairy Act. That board is going to have very wide-ranging powers to deal with anything that happens in the dairy industry and I am very concerned about how this board is going to be appointed. It indicates that the Minister can appoint this board to proceed to then carry out the responsibilities under The Dairy Act.

I want to make reference to the Milk Prices Review Commission that was established under the previous administration that brought into place a formula of pricing milk to the consumer and a cost that was going to - not to the consumer - but a price that the producer was going to be getting for his product. The people that were placed on the board it took a long time working out to get the most capable people on the board - worked out a very favo urable type of formula that was well accepted by the consumer as well as produ cer.

I think that a very effective job - and what concerns me very much about the appointment of the Minister on these boards - and I'm making reference to the Milk Prices Review Commission - when the 621 Minister decided it was time, he politically removed them, fired them all, and appointed different people onto the board that were politically inclined along with his line of thinking, whatever that may be. We have sometimes a very big problem finding out exactly what the thinking of the Minister is.

That is why reference has been made to the Milk Prices Review Commission that was established by the Minister - not by this Minister - by the previous administration. It was replaced by this Minister - very capable people, very capable people doing a commendable job and I raise that again, because I am concerned about the quality of people that this Minister is going to put on the dairy board.

When we look at the people that this Minister put on the Milk Prices Review Commission at the present time, there is very little relevance to people that have knowledge about the dairy industry, about the dairy business as such, and I'm very concerned about the appointments that this Minister is going to put on this board. When you consider the authority that this board is going to have to regulate everyth ing in the dairy industry, from the minutest producer to the product that is sold, it gives me very grave concern.

When we consider the difficulty that the dairy industry has been in, and I have been a dairy producer for 16 years myself, we've gone through various trying times in terms of establishing a milk marketing board, to establish a quota system which is being attacked by consumers very often because they feel that by establishing a milk control board or a milk marketing board, by establishing a certain price that the consumer is not getting the benefit of the free flowing enterprise system in the dairy indu stry. Wh en you consider , Mr .

Deputy Speaker , the investment that anybody in the dairy industry has at this present time, the reg ulations that have been imposed on a produ cer, on the processors, it is phenomenal. The average dairy farm that could even be considered close to being viable has to be in operation with approximately 40 cows. With the kind of housing that you need, the kind of equipment, your capital investment, your operating costs, things of this nature, you're looking at a capital investment of over 300,000 in the average herd.

That's a minimum herd of 40 cows that can even be shown to be relatively viable, and we have operations that run dr amatically more. When you consider the total investment on the average dairy farm on the size of some that we have, we have to be concerned about the kind of people that are going to be sitting in responsible positions to make decisions for these people, including the processors who have dramatic investments in the processing aspect of it.

Here we're going to take, by this bill, allow the Minister to pol itically appoint people again without any knowledge, ability or not, in the dairy indus try, and I refer again, he did this in the Milk Prices Review Commission. He arbitrarily appointed political friends without any ability or kno wledge of the dairy industry. The majority of them on the board in my opinion are not capable to serve there, and we're going to have an illustration of that possibly again when we pass this bill allowing the Minister to appoint whoever he feels to run the dairy industry.

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 As I indicated, the dairy indu stry, the producers are under supply management which comes under criticism very often, but I daresay that if I would show the returns of the dairy farmers, the net returns of the average dairy far mers in Manitoba as compared to the net returns for mem bers of this House here, that we probably would have to have a different look at the matter.

For the investment that they have, the return on investment - and I have had the occasion to fill out many applications for dairy farmers when they make applications to the Farm Credit Corporation in terms of mon ey, for example, and very very seldom do we see anybody that is going to be able to show a net return of more than maybe 10 , a maximum of $1 5,000, net return, on an investment on the average of over $300,000.00. Why people are even wanting to go into the dairy indus try boggles my mind. I served there for 16 years and one of the problems they had was how to get out of it.

It's a thank less job; it's a 7-day-a-week job, or two times a day, 7 days a week, every day year- round; usually a family operation for man, wife, kids, everybody's involved, working hard, getting very little return. Actually the return as a rule that comes out of it by and large is because it's a family opera tion, every body working toget her. The average couple, for example, would not be able to run an operation on their own. The work is too demanding. I wanted to raise these points, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because having been an ex-dairy farmer, I sympathize with them and I think people opposite, especially the government people including the Minister of Agriculture, doesn't seem to have much of a feeling for the dairy indu stry. Every opportun ity that I have to raise points of concern here, I will do it. I want to raise again the fact that I am not happy with what the Minister did with the Milk Prices Review Comm ission and I'm going to be very concerned how he appoints the board that is going to admin istrate to the whole dairy industry.

If we're going to have all kinds of unq ualified political friends admin istrating it again, I'll tell you something, the dairy indus try cannot afford it. They're in a very vulnerable position at the present time; they're making very little mone y. I'd like to indicate that anybody that's gone into dairy in the last 10 years with a relatively high capital investment and borrowing is on the verge of going down right now, and if anybody questions that then go and ask FCC in terms of how many guys are making money in the dairy indu stry.

It is always cons idered because they have a supply or a guaranteed income up to a certain poundage that it is a viable opera tion. It is not like the Minister of Agriculture who is living under the umbrella of supply management in the turkey indu stry. The dairy indus try is in trouble. Anybod y that has gone into it in the last 10 years is having difficulty.

When we consider the dairy farms that are for sale at the present time, who are the buyers or have been the buyers basically have been people that have come across from Europe who have divested themselves of their holdings out there, come here with a fair amount of capital and buy into the dairy indus try here. As far as local individual young people being able to get into the dairy indus try - and I can list you 12 in my area right now - there is no way that they can financially get into the business.

Then we have a Minister of Agriculture, and that is where my concern lies, who's not sympathetic towards 622 these problems. He's concerned about bringing in a farm land bill, he says to help young farmers get into the business, whether it's grain business or dairy business. But what does he do? He closes up all avenues of people that can buy; he's closing up the avenues of borro wing. That is a sympathetic Minister? No. I have very grave concern about this Min ister of Agriculture when he makes appointments to boards of this nature. MR. R. DOERN: He drinks a lot of milk, Albert, and so do I. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Well, not enough people drink a lot of milk. I don't know whether the Member for Elmwoos, because if he does I appreciate that, because that's the closest thing in any sense of responsibility that he has towards the dairy industry - because I don't know whether he knows the front end of a cow from the back.

During the interjections in the debate the other day by the House Leader, he said he knew a cow, the front from the back, but I doubt how many of the members opposite here do, but if they are concerned about the dairy indus try at all ,acquaint yourself with some of the problems that these people are facing. You live in a sheltered world out here and I can include most of you, because the dairy people are in a minority. Nobody cares for them, nobody worries about them. You know, and then the pressure comes on from various economists saying the supply management groups should be done away with.

Well, if you'd ever open up the milk flow let's say you would probably get more cheape r milk, you would, but you'd also put most of the dairy industry out of business within two years. At the present time many of these farmers are in dire straits. There are over 400 applications out of 600- some-odd producers in the province that have had applications in for more quota. They have to keep expanding, try and expand, produce more milk because the cost freeze is on.

The one thing that I want to say in their defence is the re will always be difficulty in the agricultural community these days as long as we have a cheap food policy where 18 cents of the earned dollar is used for food, as compared to anywhere from 30 to 50 cents in the European countries our people will always have problems.

The bigges t pun ishment th at our dairy people basically have is to have a Minister of Agriculture who doe sn't un derstand the problems that are there, arbitrarily changes people on boards that have no knowledge of the industry and I expect it will happen again with this board the moment this bill is passed. You'll probably have all kinds of political hacks, let's use that word. We might even have the Mem ber for Elmwood on that board, you kn ow. That is the kind of disaster I'm referring to. You have to have people on there that know what is going on in the industry. MR. R.

DOERN: Who's going to protect the consumer? MR. A. DRIEDGER: The concern seems to be, and I can't un derstand it from the Minister of Agriculture,

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 seems to be to protect the consumer , to give him cheap food. He is the Minister that is supposed to be looking after - you know, the agricultural community has no feeling whatsoever. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, he is without a doubt in my mind, he is the worst Minister of Agriculture this province has ever seen. A MEMBER: Worse than that. MR. A. DRIEDGER: That is why I have to raise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is why I have raise the concern about this Minister appointing anybody to any board. That is what this little bill does.

That is what this little Bill No. 7 does, it gives that Minister unlim ited authority again, and the dairy farmers are going to be the losers in this thing again. And they will be the losers, and I'm surpris ed that the mem bers that supposedly represent agricultural ridings have not spoken up. They haven't spoken up on this bill. They don't have concerns about the people the Minister puts on; they're not concerned about any of the increased costs to the farmers. What do they do in their caucus room, just glibly appro ve all these things that are being thrown to them? MR. R.

DOERN: We drink milk, we sit around and we drink milk. MR. A. DRIEDGER: When have we had any of the backbenchers express concern about the plight of farmers? They haven't expressed any concern about the farm people. MR. R. DOERN: Albert, some of my best friends are farmers. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I can see that the Member for Wolseley is expressing interest in this bill and possibly will want to be on that board and these are the kind of things, with all due respect . . . MS. M. PHILLIPS: Un iversal cow care, that's what you want. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: . . . everybody has their fields where they specialize in. I dare say there's very few people on that side that specialized in the dairy industry, or have any concern, and the Minister of Agriculture should, that's his responsibil ity. He took his oath that he was going to look after the interests of agriculture. He has not proved that today. Mr.

Speaker, there will be other people that'll be speaking on this bill and as I indicated some of these bills look so neat and tidy, you kn ow, just the appointment of a board and I want to raise these concerns, and we're going to be watching who he appoints as he has done with the Milk Prices Review Commission. Wholesale firing of the group. The most qualified people that could be looked at through the dairy industry - fired them all and put in his friends.

That has been done - pardon me? - (Interjection) - Those people that were serving on the Milk Price Review Commission were picked by joint consultation between the indus try, the processor and everybody. 623 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order , please MR. A. DRIEDGER: Well, members are maybe getting tired of the repetition on it and we will repeat it until somebody listens to some of these things. A MEMBER: Hitting raw nerves. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: The Member for Kildonan, with all due respect, he's been here a long time, he's seem many things happen pro and con and I wish that he himself, who has neighbors that have been farmers, should have some real concern about the farm populace because some of the mem bers that are repres enting rural areas there do not. A MEMBER: Not very many . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Anyway, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wanted to raise these points and I will raise them again, and again, and again, in the interest of the dairy industry of Manitoba which is an important part of our agricultural econo my. Thank you. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Arthur that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you call, would you call Bill No. 19. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 19, On the proposed motion, by the Attorney-General, . . . MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indu lgence of the House to have the matter stand. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pardon? MR. H. ENNS: Stand. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stand. Is that agreed?

The Acting Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you now call the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Mr. Schroeder , that stands in the name of the Honourable Member for Minn edosa. ADJOURNED DEBATE - SUP PLY MOTION MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 Let me commence my remarks today. I did get started briefly last night but let me commence today with a word of welcome to Mr. Remnant, our new Clerk, and welcome him, and congratulate him on the competitjon that he won out over a large number of contestants. I understand even the Deputy Clerk, who we're happy to see back with us, was close on his heels in that contest so with the exceptional talent that applied for that position I'm sure the House will be served well by both of these gentlemen and I welcome them back into the Cham ber.

I must say it's been probably and exceptional start for the new Clerk so he has gained a great experience in the first few days of our sitting, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in entering the debate on the supply motion, I want to say that I was not able to participate in the Budget Speech Debate, and I hope that some of my remarks won't be construed as referring to the Budget Speech, but the Budget that was brought down, Mr. Speaker, left us with a somewhat of a let-down feeling. We were expecting to hear a Budget that may suit the times but it appears the government is not in step with the times, Mr. Speaker.

We are concerne d when we get the de tailed statements of Revenues and Expenditures that the gov ernment has again und eresti mated their expenditures, Mr. Speaker, and overes timated their revenues. It was done last year; we told them that last year, Mr. Speaker. We said, time and time again, that was the case and it was proven out very very emphatically when we learned some months ago, in December, when we first sat at the start of the Session, that the deficit had risen to a staggering $495 million or $498 million. I won't go into all of the revenues, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that I think have been overstated, but there was one that comes to mind and I realize it may be a touchy one to deal with. But under the item of the Attorne y General 's Estimates, I notice there's an increase of some $20 million, $20 million in liquor revenue. Now, Mr.

Speaker, no one is going to object to an increase in the price of that commod ity, but I want to tell the Minister that there's a resistance that will build up when the price becomes prohi bitive, just the same as there is when we say to the members opposite, "Where is the limit that you will go in deficit financing?" The same applies to this commo dity - where is the limit? And I say to the Finance Minister that there's a resistance building up on the price increases, and that will show up in his Estimates.

Sooner or later that will show up in the Estimates and I'm just using that as an example of his overest imating of revenues, because I don't think those revenues are going to be forthc oming, Mr. Speaker. That is just one small example of how they're overes timating their revenues. But when there's a shortfall, or when there is a shortage, Mr. Speaker, he blames it on a shortfall of revenues - a shor tfall, my eye.

He was hoping and praying last year that there would be some turnaround in the econo my, and he'll be praying harder this year than he was last year that that turnaround is going to come in time to shore up some of the financial mess that he has got us into by the mismanagement of he and the government of this province's econo my, Mr. Speaker, because we, on this side of the House, hope that there is some form of recovery. 624 We're getting some indications that we may be heading out of a recession and we certainly hope that's the case, but when the turnabout does comes, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it'll be too late to help this government. The y'll be so far down with their deficits, they'll be so far down in the mire that the small turnabout is not going to come in any time to help them out of the mess that they' re in. Mr. Speaker, they refuse to heed the advice that they're getting from all sources. They refuse to face reality and they'v e gone on spen ding, spe nding, spending. They've been odd man out. The Premier was odd man out at the Premiers' Conference in Moose Jaw a few months ago.

It was reported in the press, the Finance Minister was apparently odd man out at the most recent meeting, the conference. He went down there stating that we had to prime the economy with great public expenditures and public projects to provide empl oyement, and we all want to see employment provided. Mr. Speaker, the consensus coming out of that meeting was just the opposite. The consensus was that it is not necessary to have great amounts of public spending now to prime the pump, that the economy is showing some signs of recovery, and that these expenditu res are really not going to be warranted. Mr.

Speaker, I want to refer for a moment to the Jobs Fund and obviously, while we're talking about expenditures, there was a great to-do about it in the Budget of $200 million into the Jobs Fund. Well, I won't really go into it all, Mr. Speaker, because my colleague, the Member for Turtle Mountain, did it so well the other day to point out in some detail that the money is just not there, that it's really a "fraud fund", it's not a Jobs Fund at all, of the $200 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, the jobs that would be created, of course, would be very very minimal.

We've said that time and time again and they've continually referred to that great Summit meeting, Mr. Speaker, in Portage la Prairie, where they had the business, and labour, and management, and government, all together and a great meeting of the minds. They've quoted on a numb er of occasions the co-operation that went on and how the Winnipeg Cham ber of Commerce said this was the greatest thing that had ever happened and how well they were working with this government. Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to quote from the latest issue of the Mid-Canada Commerce

article where the President of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce has indicated the gover nment is maybe out of touch with the times. And it goes on, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "The flood gates continue to open as our government spends, spends, spends. As restraint rings out across the nation, the Manitoba NOP Government goes on a spending spree. These are difficult times, because increases in the 16 -percent range went out with the '70s, and this government must be out of touch with the times. Inc reased spending of 16 percent at this point in time borders on being irresponsible.

The deficit will be increased by another $80 million, reaching a projected $579 million, and that's the good news, Mr. Chairman. That's the good news, because the nature of the beast suggests an actual Budget deficit of $700 million by this time next year," and we have indicated tha t tha t's probably a fairly conser vative figur e. "E stimates are bound to be more than revealed and the projected revenue is wishful thinking," and we have said that time and time again, Mr. Speaker.

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 A MEMBER: Who said that? MR. D. BLAKE: That's the President of the Winnipeg Chamber of Comme rce, Mr. Lloyd McGinnis. "E veryone expected some degree of job crea tion," it goes on, Mr. Speaker, "b ut $200 million is difficult to rationalize. We just don't have that kind of money to spend." He says, "Of course, we could always borrow it and lose our AA credit rating in the process, but unf ortuna tely the job crea tion, which appears to be in the offing, is only a short-term, stop-gap program.

There is little doubt that we will have no alternative but to repeat the process again next year with a further increase in the deficit. Creation of permanent real jobs can only be achieved through meaningful long-range plann ing, combin ed with an appropriate ind ustrial strategy and a business climate which fosters investors' confidence. The Budget proposals do not encompass these basic ingr edients of job crea tion." Mr. Speaker, we have told the members opposite time and time again that that's the direction they should be leading this province and that's the way we should be proceed ing.

A MEMBER: They're not listening. MR. D. BLAKE: Until such time as the payroll tax is removed, little real economic development can be expect ed. The psycholo gical impact and financial burden of this tax continues to loom as a major deterrent to the creation of real jobs. The Budget job proposals accomplish little more than an offsetting of those lost through the payroll tax burden. "Mr . Schroeder is correct," the

article goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, "at a 16 percent corpor ate tax rate, we are in line with other provinces, the two other provinces, the two highest in the nation." That's who we're in line with. An other

article in this magazine comment, Mr . Speak er, "Ho w many people outside gov ernment actually believe this province needs a ManOil? At the present time, private sector oil exploration is currently booming in southwestern Manitoba without government involvement. The Budget proposals are clearly an un necessary and un desirable interv ention of government. The need to be involved defies logic." Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind members opposite how that great oil boom taking place now in southern and south western Manitoba got started.

It is the result of policy brought in by the Conservative Government when they were on that side of the House to provide some stimulus, some incentive for the drillers and the oil companies to move in and discover oil in Manitoba, and they have been extremely successful, Mr. Speaker. When that incentive is provided to industry, they will move in. You go out to southwestern Manitoba and ask anybody about the jobs and the economic stimulus that it has provided to that part of Manitoba and it defies everything that the members opposite are trying to cram down our thr oats, Mr. Speaker. The

article closes off, "In spite of the fact that our public debt charges are about to double and our credit rating will be lowered, we, in the private sector, must press on with the task of increasing prod uctivity and improving our com petitiveness in export markets. We 625 must stay in tune with the times, even if our government is not." Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read that into the record to illustrate where is this great community of conference and consul tat ion tha t the Minis ter talks about. Mentioning the Job Creation Program, we've had a good example of what this government is up to, Mr.

Speaker, is the Main Street Manitoba Program that was referred to the other day. It was brought in with great fanfare and we all thought it was going to be a great stimulant to the construction industry and for the ru ral towns. We heralded tha t with some veile d enthusiasm, but after all the time and all the questioning, Mr. Speaker, we finally got an Order for Return the other day that says, one project has been approved. I am ple ased to say, Mr.

Speaker, that when the announc ement was first made , peoplC' in my constitue ncy, the villages and towns, were so happy with it that they got right to work and the Village of Erickson was the first project approved and the only one. But when you look at all of the announ cements and the fanfare that this program, this million-and-a half dollars that was going to be spent, there has only been one project approved at $200,000 and can you not see very shortly, Mr. Speaker, the headlines in the paper? - "1 00 percent inc rease in Main Street Programs.

Minis ter of Mu nicipal Affairs appro ves second project." It would be 10 0 percent increase, Mr. Speaker. That's what I'm afraid is going to happen with our $200 million job creation plan, Mr. Speaker, because the mo ney is no t ther e for them and the wage settlements that we've seen at the provincial level are not going to encou rage very many cont ractors, I don't think, to jump right in and try and get on some of these programs.

As referred to in the question period, when someone in an influential position like the Manitoba Federation of Labour gets up and decries the fact that employees of the Co-op on Wall Street and Ellice Avenue have taken a 10 -percent cut in wages to maintain their jobs, that has happened in many many other areas of our econo my, Mr. Speaker, not only here, but across the line.

There have been strong hard-bar gaining unions across the line that have voted voluntarily to take a cut in wages to maintain the jobs and to keep providing the income that's necessary to meet their mortgage payments and whatever other responsibilities they have. To say tha t there's $10 million saved on the renegotiation of the Manitoba Government Employees' cont ract is just not true, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to a great number of civil servants in my area and said, it's really a fine gesture.

Even though the government won't sho w leader ship , you people have sh own leadership by giving about $600 apiece back to the government to put into this Job Creation Fund. They just look at you astounded, Mr. Speaker, and they say, we did like so much give anything back. All we're doing is waiting thr ee more months to get a bigger increase than we had coming before. So if this government keeps pounding the old drum and saying, we saved $10 million, it's just not going to wash, Mr. Speaker. They better get some new press releases out to the employees, because they're not buying it. Mr.

Speaker, there have been many many meetings out in rural Manitoba. Last fall, there were some 22

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 municipalities had written to the Minister and I'm sure they had meetings with him, with the First Minist er, pleading with him - they were of a united voice - to keep the cost down as far as education, hospital costs and the costs of other negotiated contracts that were coming up with their employees and other employees and 6 and 5 was used. I know the members opposite want nothing to do with the 6 and 5, Mr. Speaker. I suppose maybe it's because 6 and 5 was born in Ottawa and doesn't sit very well, so maybe they should call it 3 and 4, or 7 and 2, or whatever.

But the message of 6 and 5 is - and I think 6 and 5 should have been brought in 10 years ago, Mr. Speaker, it might have been meaningful. I think it's too late to be of that much help, but at least it is an indication that costs have to be held down. With the First Minister receiving all of this material from this particular municipality or these municipalities, Mr. Speaker, obviously he hasn't listened to that.

I attended a meeting last Friday in my constituency where there were about 150 municipal councillors, school board trustees, various other people involved in the municipal field that met and said we have to do something to keep the costs down . The crux of that meeting, or what could be gleaned from it, the general feeling of that meeting, Mr. Speak er, is that the government is not listening and they have to do something to really hammer their point home , and I know they hit on certain items .

Part of the problem, one of the councillors indicated, as rural councillors see it, is that teachers' salary demands this year are unreasonable. Now, they had a Manitoba Teachers' Society person there, they had people from the Trustees' Association - and the Teachers' Society Union, of course, is one of the strongest in the province and they're tough bargainers, Mr.

Speaker - but that particular trustee went on to say that when the Provincial Government settles with their unions for more than 6 percent, it destroys our position with our teachers, our hands are tied, and we'll be lucky to come out of it with a 9 or 10 percent settlement. The

article goes on, when the president of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, which is a strong union, Mr. Spe aker, made representations - and I don't wholeheartedly agree that maybe they should start withholding taxes because I don't think that solves the problem because they're going to have to pay them sooner or later because it's probably illegal - but what they're trying to get across to the government and the First Minister and his front bench is that something has to be done and the government has to show some leadership in trying to hold these costs down.

The First Minister can't only listen to labour, Mr. Speaker. He can't just listen to Dick Martin, who we know he must meet with regularly, because Dick seems to have his ear and have a strong voice in whatever direction this particular government takes. I think we should name him the Vice-Premier of the province. I think my friend and colleague, the Member for Roblin, tried to make this point the other day and the situation just wasn't quite right for it, Mr.

Speaker; but the First Minister is talking about this great spirit of co-operation that he has with business, labour and industry, and at the convention he talked about co operation, compassion and creativity . This is not 626 original, Mr. Speaker. Someone phoned into a hot-line show the other day and he said he forgot about adding - co-operation, compassion and creativity - he forgot to add productivity, and then we would have "CCCP," which are letters commonly known to most people that watch the sports pages and other items on the international news . Mr.

Speaker, there were some other items I wanted to mention along those lines, but I think we can move along and get on with further remarks on the expenditures and our details of financing the province. But I want to warn the members opposite that they cannot continually listen to some of their left leaning members over there .

They have failed to heed the warnings of Frank Syms, who they'll remember; they have failed to hear the warnings of Herb Schultz; they wouldn't listen to Sid Green, and I'm afraid the First Minister has been blinded; now he has to listen to the Dolins and the Cowans and the Penners, and I think he should take some heed . He may have to pay a little bit of attention to the Minister of Health before long because there seems to be a little pot boiling, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health is sitting there with the old snippers, and at the right time we just don't know which way he's going to move with them .

I'm sure he's keeping the Premier on his toes, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: Well, the Premier knocks twice a day on his door now. MR. D. SLAKE: An item in the Financial Post, Mr. Speaker, of February, 1983, quoted the Premier as saying that he wasn't going to retract like a turtle; he wasn't going to pull his head in or retract into his shell just because the deficit was under fire by some credit rating agencies down in the States. But what they were saying, Mr.

Speaker, they were giving this government a warning that they had better trim their sales and watch their expenditures because this is what leads to a decreased credit rating. There are other provinces that have seen it happen and it can happen here if we don't keep our spending under control, if our borrowings run rampant as they're going to run this year. The members on the Treasury Benches better take heed, Mr. Speaker, because these warnings haven't been given lightly, and they better get things under control before they turn this province into an economic wasteland, Mr. Speaker.

A MEMBER: Hit 'em again, Dave. Remind 'em again. MR. D. SLAKE: Now, I have a number of other items that I wanted to touch on, Mr. Speaker . A MEMBER: Hit 'em harder, Dave. MR. D. SLAKE: You know, when we went into oil and to encourage oil exploration in the province, Mr. Speaker, they called that a giveaway; but when the NDP give financial incentives to oil companies and things of that nature, they call it resource development.

When the former NDP administration lost millions in food projects, in William Clare and Chinese food and Saunders Aircraft, the terms they used were job creation schemes and investing in Manitoba - well, I hope these

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 aren't going to be some of the job creation schemes that we've been promised in the $200 million fund, Mr. Speaker - but when the Conservativ e Government tried to bring in some projects that will give us meaningful jobs, like the Western Grid and a continuing of Limestone, they call them giveaways. When that government grabs up all the farmland in Manitoba, they call it a land bank; but when we start selling it off, they call it selling to speculators. A MEMBER: Rock 'em again, Dave, baby. MR. D. BLAKE: I know the Health Minister told us last night in his speech, Mr.

Speaker, that he had spoken to a vice-president of Alcan and he said, we really couldn't build in Manitoba anyway, times have turned around; but he didn't tell us whether that vice-president was still working with Alcan or whether that was the one they let go. So we don't know really how much we can put into that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we could go on and on about the un wise spending and the misdirection that this government has taken, but I'm afraid ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. D. BLAKE: We seem to have an exchange going on here, Mr. Speaker. I just couldn't catch on to what they were saying.

I want the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs who says I won't spend any money in Erickson - I hope that money is committed, because he has gotten up in this House and said that project is comm itted and I don't think there's any way he can scrap it now. I am going to encourage every one of the villages in my constituency to get a program in the Main Street "P ete" as fast as they can, because he's got $1. 5 million that's he's anxious to get going because that cash is going to flow, he says, in 19 83, the cash is going to flow; and I'll tell you, we want to make sure that we get our share of it, Mr. Speaker.

A MEMBER: The money's gone to pay off the debt, Dave. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take up too much time; there are many others that want to contribute to this debate. I know members opposite will probably want to get in on it also and I don't think it would be fair for me to run the clock out. I would like to close, Mr.

Speaker, with a reminder to members opposite and to the First Minister and the mem bers of his Treasury Bench, and I would like to ask him to reread and maybe refresh their memories a little bit with the words of the Member for Burrows, who spoke in the Throne Speech last year, when he spoke about honesty and integrity in gover nment. He spoke of responsibi lity, responsible government, being responsive to the people. I want them to read that speech again and reflect on it, Mr.

Speaker, because this crew across the way here, trusted temporarily with the ship of state which is our province, they haven't listened and our ship is listing very very badly. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Member for Pembina. 627 MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After the stimulation of the debate by the Minister of Health last night, I feel compelled to enter in this debate on this particular motion. Mr.

Speaker, in any presentation of a Budget and in any presentation of the Revenue Estimates that a provincial Finance Minister and a government presents, that's the document that shows to the people of Manitoba the kind of leader ship they can expect from their government over, at a minimum, the next 12 months, but pr ob ably programs are going to be annou nced in most budgets and directions are going to be enu nciated in most budg ets which will put the mark of a government on the province for much longer than the one year that those budgetary measures are in effect. That's why, Mr.

Speaker, a budget is a document to demons trate leader ship. Mr. Speaker, if there is one incredibly outstan ding feature of this Budget presented by the Minister of Finance, it is that it demo nst rates clearly, finally and precisely that this government has no leader ship; that this government, with its present leader and the Premier of this province, has no leadersh ip. It has no direction in which it is taking this province in a progressive nature. It hasn't set a plan out that all Manitobans can see will offer them hope for the future. That's non-existent.

The leadership that was shown in this Budget by this Minister of Finance and by this Premier is leader ship into bankru ptcy of this province. - (Int erject ion) - The Member for The Pas is applauding the fact that the Budg et is leading this province into bankrupt cy. He thinks that is good. I wonder if the Member for The Pas would care to go to his constituency and tell them that's what he applauds in this Budget, the bigger deficit, the leading this province into financial difficulties. That is the kind of leadersh ip that they elected him to put in the government of this province.

If the Member for The Pas did th at, he would find hi mself quickly unelected. But no, I don't expect the Member for The Pas to do that. He will follow up on the same kind of very "pie-in-the-sky" promises that his leader gave us last time around during the election campaign. He'll try to do that again, but burned deeply into the memory of his constituents will be the failures in those provinces and the failures by that gover nment. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Member for The Pas on a point of order . MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Pembina was saying that I was for leadership that is trying to bankrupt the province. I never made any statements of any such type and we wouldn't be for a government that is trying to bankrupt the province. We are for a province that is compassionate and caring for people and that's what our programs are aimed at. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honour able member for that explanation. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, a simple question, did the Member for The Pas have a point of order? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

With out searc hing through Beauchesne for the corr ect reference, I know

Wednesday, 9 March, 1983 that there is reference in there to a member's statement, particularly concerning himself, as being requir ed to be accepted by the House. The Honour able Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Speaker . Mr . Speaker, the Member for The Pas does have a problem. He applauded the statement from his desk when I said that his leaders hip was lead ing th e province into bankru ptcy and that's his problem. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for The Pas, when he goes to the electorate the next time around, is going to have to face the failure of his government to deliver on a numb er of promises, promises that were made by his leader dur ing the elec tion campaign which ar en't del ivered in th is Bu dg et, in this set of Reve nue Estimates. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Mem ber for The Pas is going to have to go to his constituents and justify a payroll tax which wasn't promised in the election. He is going to have to justify to his constituents a 1 percent increase in sales tax to his constituents.

He is going to have to justify a vastly incr eased level of fuel taxation for gasoline and diesel fuel that his constituents burn. He is going to have to justify to his constituents in The Pas why this government chose to end the hydro rate freeze one year prematurely and give his constituents a 9.5 percent increase in hydro rates. The Member for The Pas is going to justify as a further measure in this Budget, which is not part of the taxation process of this Budget and the Revenue Estimates, the fact that we are promised a gross income tax. As sure as night follows day, Mr.

Speaker, that will be part of the taxation system as a result of next year's Budget. That also, the Member for The Pas is going to have to justify to each and every voter in his constituenc y. A lot of measures that weren 't promised and are delivered: higher costs, higher user fees, reduced services in a num ber of government departments and the breaking of the major prom ises that this government made; name ly, jobs; namely, not cutbacks in mun icipal funding; namely, not cutbacks in education or health care.

He is going to have to justify to his voters in The Pas why the government broke those promises and chose, Mr. Speaker, to raise an incredible amount of taxation dollars in the form of new taxation from his residents, voters and constituents. Mr. Speaker, I don't think he can do it. Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting back and forth debate and, sometimes during debate, it's the comments th at are made by go vern ment backbenchers and Treasury Bench Ministers that are said off the record that are very very leading and per tinent.

Every time a member from our side of the House chooses to mention job creation and the phony fund that their Minister of Finance has which is make work, tem porary jobs and one of our members refers to the very real opportunity for long-term employment that this gov ernment inherited after the elec tion campaign; namely, the aluminum smelter, the Power Grid, the potash development and expansion to Manfor, all real possibilities for this province. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. D.

ORCHARD: Now, they are doing it already; the brain child from Thompson is saying there were no 628 agreements, and a numb er of members over there are saying it again. Mr. Speaker, I want these people, I want the Member for Thompson . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I am having some difficulty in hearing the honourable mem ber. The Honour able Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, these very same mem bers th at sit th ere and say ther e were no agreements, that there was nothing going on, should read the prospectus drawn up in December of 1981 by the Minister of Finance, the Honour able Victor Schroeder, taken to New York in order to borrow money on behalf of the Province of Manitoba. Do you know what it says in that prospectus? It says that the province is seriously negotiating an aluminum smelter , a Power Grid, a potash mine, etc., etc. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if those projects were so nebulous and nonexistent, why did their own Minister of Finance, when he went to New York to beg them to lend the Province of Manitoba money, choose to put them into the prospectus as a direction of future growth and prosperity in this province? He did it because it would make the borrowing of money much easier on the New York money markets.

That's why he did it, because the lenders in New York recognized the financial strength, the employment, the investment, the job creations, and all of the related spin-off jobs that would occur from those projects would be of long-run benefit to the Province of Manitoba and would make Manitoba a better place to place bond issues and borr owed money. It would be a mor e secure province. That's why the Minister of Finance put those projects into the prospectus. They weren 't to him, or to his Minister of Energy and Mines, airy, fairy, "pie in-the-sky" projects.

Time and time again when we questioned the Minister of Ene rgy and Mines in this pr ovinc e about the negotiations with Alcan and the Power Grid, he said negotiations are ongoing, they're proce eding; we're hoping to conclude an agreement. They weren't "pie in-the-sky," Mr. Speaker. The only time those projects became "pie-in-the sky" was when the Minister of Energy a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-22
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 22.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6cab6f25a18bcc3e5bb2d15c2b3318bd79419d9e

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