lEGISlATIVE ASSEMBl V OF MANITOBA nunsday, 18 December, 1980 Tim e - 8:00 p.m. THRONE SPEECH DEBA TIE MR. SPEAKER, Hem. Ha rry lE. Graham (Bi rtie­ Russell): The Honourable Min ister of Gov ernment Services has thir ty min utes. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (lakeside) : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was commis erating with the honourable mem bers opposite, particularly the Leader and the New Democratic Party as a whole prio r to the supper hour adjourn ment about ihe app arent and the very obvious diff iculty that they have to deal with, and they have to deal with it. We can just sit on this side and watch it.

I was suggesting that the Leader o! the Opposition has a most dif ficult task ahead of him. The other day we heard the pol itical obitu ary of the Member !or St. Johns, and you kno w, I'm not going to abuse the privilege, Mr. Speaker, and the Hous e rules by suggesting, when I look at the row of empty bencl1es opposite, but I have wo ndered where have been some of the heavy weights from the other side? For instance, where is the Member for Seven Oaks? Or where is the . M!P.. SPEAKER: Order, or der please.

May I suggest to the honourable mem ber that it is highly impr oper to comment on the absence or presence of any member of the Cham ber. Order please. The Hon ourable Member for Lo gan. MR. WllliAM JIENKIN S: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of ord er, I wish to in form the Ho use that the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks has been in bed with the flu. He will be back on Mon day. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Go vernment Services. MR. IENNS : Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me we started this afternoon's session off with the Leader of the Opposition asking where my Min ister of Fin ance was, who is in Ottawa on business, but of cou rse, that's fai r, Mr. Speaker, that's fair. And I accept, of cou rse, without question, the word, and I wish the Honourable Mem ber for Seven Oaks a speedy recovery because I'll tell you , his leader and his party is going to need him in this Cham ber if they're going to mount any kind of an effective opposition to us. Mr. Speaker, I can only let the facts speak for themselves.

Inasmuch as there has been a hesitancy on the part of mem bers op posite to really get into this debate and to really, which they keep on telling us is on the throes of the coming election, to warm up to the subject matter, the fray that's soon to come, and we see a disjointed, ununited, rather di smal effort in terms of representing the kind of of ficial opposition that I think, by and large, and after all, some of us have spent eight years on the other side of the benches and I think that we, during those eight years, and they were some of the years that I, quite fran kly wou ld just as soon forget.

But nonetheless we were there in num bers, ready to debate, ready to take issue with the govern ment of the day, at the drop of a hat. And I don't see that spirit emana ting from the of ficial opposition in these fi rst few days of this Session and, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to them that is going to be the cali bre of opposition that Mani toba electors will see at the next election and the result of cou rse is in evitable. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, and I do n't really believe that they will confirm it. 3ut the truth of the matter is that they have con ceded the next election to us.

They are obviously inv olv ed in some serious second thoughts about their own leadership and I suppose perhaps there's some jo ckeying taking place as to who eventually will be the leader that will have a serious possi bi lity of becoming Premier of this province, but certainly from what we've seen today and what we've seen in the early days of this Session, it would appear, not so much, Mr. Speaker, I'm hum ble enough to admit by our own action, but by the lac!< of action on the part of the of ficial op posi tion. Mr.

Speaker, I have suggested to you in the first few comments that the Throne Speech that we are de bating will receive wide and growi ng support, alluded to the very evident support that the Fi rst Min ister and this gov ernment is already surprising to us receiving on our constit utional position and it will be in teresting to see the New Democrats as they attempt to rational ize their pos ition, their common law relationship with the Prime Min ister on this question of Constitution which is quickly dissipa ting in front of them.

They belie ved that it was the pol itically expedient cou rse to follow, but what are they going to do if the next poll comes out a month from now and it shows that 70 percent of Canadians are diametrically opp osed to the cons titutional package that they no w find themselves suppor ting, and Mr. Speaker, that is going to be the case. I do n't think there's any reaso nable ob server of the polit ical scene in Canada toda y that cannot no w see that consti tutional package that ttoe Prime Min ister of this coun try has tried so desperately to foist on the country, drif ting and slipping away from him .

Indeed, it may well take the form that is suggested by the Member for ln kster, that patriation, yes, but very slim hop es of the amend ments which my nation al leader, the Mem ber for lnkster, and any other right-thinkin g Canadian is comp letely in accor d with a growi ng majority of Cana dians that don't ask England, don't ask Great Britai n, the Parlia ment of Great Britai n, to do what we have dif ficulty in doing ou rselves. That is the kind of final insult to the last vestage of our col onial pa st and it's being perpetuated by none other than our Prime Minis ter. So Mr.

Speaker, the Throne Speech is going to receive that support. The Throne Speech is going to receive that kind of steady, growing support from all of th ose th at are involved in the econo mic development field in the Province of Manitoba, both in the public and private sector. And , Mr. Speaker, again, I shouldn't be giving the NDP any lessons or any advice, but I can do that because I know the Member for St. Johns is not go ing to accept it and it's always ni ce to be able to do a little bit of crystal gazing and fo resee in the future knowi ng what the 149

Tha.msday, 18 December, 1980 end result will be. They haven't realized the extent they have fallen in to the trap that we have carefully laid for them . Their fo cusing on the issue of economic develo pment in this pro vince is, of cou rse, precisely what we want them to do, because what happens, honou rable gentlemen op po site, when these promis es that are cont ained in this Throne Speech become hard !act?

What happens when one month, anot her month, another month passes and major economic initia tives, promis es, turn out to be thousands of jobs, turn out to create the kind of economic development that they are helping us foc us in on and the need for as being so imp ortant to the Pro vince of Man itoba. In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I don't accept the po sition that of course is being hoisted on us by mem bers op pos ite and/or by others in com mun ity that suggests that our economy is that bad .

I'm acknowle dging that relative to our sister pro vinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta, that we are, and need to attract and develop the kin d of projects that are talked about in this Throne Speech. I'm also co nfident enough that they haven't been put in there just to fill up space, just to give tile Lieutenant­ Governor so mething to read about. I only indic ate to you gentlemen - and I see the Member for Ste. Rose has got his thinking hat on.

He's starting to get a little worried about what I'm telling you because, gentlemen of the oppo sition , you know when the ma jor economic flywheel in this pro vi nce, northern development of hyd ro, comme nces and when some of the major econ omic inia tives come off the paper and actua!!y start getting into the grou nd and employ ing people, I ask you simply, gentlemen, what's going to be yo ur platform? What's goi ng to be yo ur platform?

You know, having dedicated, devoted so much of yo ur time in helping us to fo cus in on this one issue - sure, it puts some pressure on us. it puts some pressure on us and we will have to perform but we are confident that we are going to perform . Mr.

Speaker, that co upled with the kind of so cial in itia tives that are being shown by this gov ernment that gentlemen opp osite just didn't dream we were capable of; the kind of initia tives that my col league, the Min ister of Com muni ty Health and So cial Services, the kind ol initi atives that the Min ister responsible for Housing is just announcing in these days that kind of selected help, that we promis ed by the way, as com par ed to the br oad brush or universal prog rams, because the difference is we can help where it's needed .

We can help where it's needed in a far more substantial way for those famil ies, those peop le in our soc iety that are raising famil ies at a most di fficult time with rising co sts. That 30 per month per child will not be spread over to everybody, including myself when I don't need it.

If we did that, the prog ram pos sibly cou ld not have developed more than 10 or 7.50 or 8.50 or 9.00 per child, but by doing as we prom ised, by selectively zeroing in and identi fying the area of need, we can make these prog rams meani ngful and real and in fact, co me to the aid of those whom gov ernments shou ld and ought to be concerned about and thus enrich our prog rams. Mr.

Speaker, these thi ngs are all co ntai ned, in some of them the gears are in mo tion, the programs are being started, January 1st start-up for some of them, coupled with the economic initia tives in this Throne Speech leads me to believe that there will be no question as to whether or not the acceptance of the po licies, of the ini tiatives, the prog rams of this gov ernment as co ntained in this Throne Speech will win ever wider and wider support . lt will be supporte d .by the agricultural com muni ty. Mr. Speaker, that is saying the redundant.

The kind of obvious, enthusiastic, aggressive leadership that our Min ister of Agriculture brings to the problems of agriculture, the kind of im mediate respo nses that this gov ernment has shown in a di fficult year, in droug ht, in flo od, and Mr. Speaker, that may not be evident to some of the hon ourable mem bers opposite who don 't have too much occasion to travel through the agricultural com mun ity of Man itoba . But again !et me tell you that it was one of the rewards of being in public life.

One of the awards of public life is being abl e to participa te in the Cabi net tours that we have been on, tr avelling through sout hwest Ma ni toba, through sou theast Mani toba and getting that kind of ins tant ack nowled gement, the fact tha t this gov ernment cares for the farmers of Manitoba, this gover nment cares for agriculture in Man itoba, and this Min ister best expou nds those con cerns, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I've already indicated to you that the Thr one Sp eech doesn 't leave gaps .

When the Min ister of Education brings forward his programs later on in the Session , programs co mplement ing those prog rams with other so cial services prog rams, it brings a rou nded, full co nside ration io r ail segments of our soc iety of gov ernment ection in to being and into pl ace. Mr. Sp eaker, I ha ve no question at all about the success of that prog ram. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not perfect and i must acknowledge an area of which we, col lectively, have been a di smal fai lure. I say col lectively because we've all had responsi bil ity, we've all know n, and that is dealing with the matter of hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we have allowed , even though - and I suppose it's the old adage, if we don 't say it often eno ugh, it isn 't belie ved - we ha ve allo wed th e myth to be perpetuated tha t we, the Conse rvat iv e admin istration, shut do wn, closed down Lime stone economic develo pment in the north. Now, everybo dy knows that is a blatant untruth and everybody knows that it was the previous adm in istration that shut down Limestone in the sum mer of 1977. I want to just reiterate that because we have to do that. Why? Because, Mr.

Speaker, the Member tor Burrows had a lot of fun reading back from previous budget speeches; allow me to read from '79 and ind icate, of co urse, what was happening in hydro. The other afterno on, it was yesterday afterno on, I suppose, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for ln kster drew a caricature of hydro as being a man or person with broken knees and a lacerated face and broken arms and that was the •Nay Hydr o was being presente d by the Conservatives and lo and behold now, when it suits our purpose, the man, Hydro, in that person, has made a remarkable recovery and is ready to do battle for the economic well-being of our prov in ce again. Mr. Speaker, let me just refresh you of the facts.

The fact of the matter is tha t Man itoba Hydro had its first general rate increase since its- inception in the early Fifties of some six-and-a-half percent in 1968. 150

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 Shortly thereafter, 1969-70 when the New Democrats took over of fice, and you will recall there was that year-and- a-hall, two years, of in decision, while they quarrelled with their conscience as to whether they were goi ng to flo od Sou th Indian Lake or not, some ol them had a bit of com mit ment about that, Mr. Speaker. Some had a matter of conscience because a lot of them campai gned on the fact that Sou th Indian Lake wouid not be flooded.

Well, two years went by and then of course finally they had to come to that decision that South Indian Lake wou ld be flood ed, and then finally thro ugh, agains t all the best of advice, both engi neering and all the best of advice from peop le that have given their lifetime service in public lif e in Man itoba - I am referring to the former Premier of !his pro vi nce, D. L. Campbel l, who was a boarcl mem ber appoint ed by that gover nment, against ail that kind of advice, they then proceeded on an il l-advised path ol construction.

The mistake was in their seq uential pro gra mming of the construction phases, but had this result that effective April 1st, 1974, the rate in crease to all Man itobans of Hydro users went up by 20.6 percent; follo wed by Ap ril, 19 75, another incr ease of 19 .2 percent; fol lo wed in the fo llo wing year, April 1st, 197 6 by 19.8 percent, 20 percent in other wo rds; on March 17th, the next year, that's the fou rth year in a row , a 15 percent; February ist , 1978, for ·15 percent; February ist, 19 79, anot her 14 .5 percent; Mr. Speaker, representing a staggering i50 percent increase in Hyd ro rates.

Can you imagine what wou ld have happened had they been allowed to stay in off ice for another fou r years? Can you imagine? Mr. Speaker, what happened, the y even came to the co nclusion that this cou ld not go on and that's why they ordered a shut down of Limestone in the summer of 1977. They ordered that. Mr. Speaker, we have been very negligent in not getting that salient poi nt across. I wou ld venture to say that if I asked nine out of ten peo ple on Portage Avenue tomorr ow, they wou ld suggest that it was this gover nment, Sterling Lyon's gov ernment, that shut down Hydro in the nort h. Mr.

Speaker, that was the course that they were on; 15 to 20 percent Hydro rate increases every year since they started meddling with Hydro, and you are suggesting to me that cou ld go on unim peded. We are now spending nearly one half of the ratepayers' Hydro bill - whatever yo ur Hydro bill is - 20 a month or 18 a mon th, half of it is going to pay interest, no thing on the capital , just the in terest. Mr. Speaker, that's why yo ur gov ernment, that's why yo ur fo rmer Leader, Mr.

Schrey er, came to some degree of sens es and called a halt to the con struction of Hydro projects in the north because by that time we had capacity com ing out of our ears; many times during the year up to 50 percent over capacity and, Mr. Speaker, no effort to sell it, no big effort to sell it. They'd fire sale it, as we have been co ntinuing to do whenever the Yanks want some of that power at con siderably less than what it costs us to prod uce. Mr. Speaker, we chose an alternate cou rse. From the very fi rst day that we took off ice we recogn ized how imp ortant Hydro was to us.

The Min ister of Fina nce, the Min is ter of Econom ic Development hadn't stopped in their search for suitable markets for that resou rce, not only for the over capacity that we now have but to enable us to start up the construction once again in the north which I am sure will take place very shortly . Mr.

Speaker, and how did we do it, because this is where the honou rable mem bers of the opp osition really are missing a bet. lt reminds me about the fate of another leader that I had the privi lege of sitting in this House with, in !act I was sitting in the present Min ister of Agriculture's chair at that tim e and he was then the Leader ot the Opposition with about 14 mem bers behind him. The New DP's were a splin ter party at that time and the chap that I am referring to of course is Mr. Molgat.

Hi s di fficulty was, and I subscribe his failure in pol itical life in Man itoba to the fact that he cou ld not stop from carping and whining and being negative about everything that was being done by what is fairly univ ersally acknowledged today, was perhaps one ol the most progressive gov ernments that this pro vince had ever seen. I am referring to the adminis tration of one Duff Robii n. But Mr.

Molga ! cou ld not fathom or cou ld not read the public perception of how he was carrying out his responsi bili ties and subsequently suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of the peop le and the dem ise of the Li beral Party as a Par ty in Man itoba as a result of that Mr. Speaker, honou rable mem bers op posite are not lo oking at what we are trying to do in a con structive, pos itive way. They are not recog nizing that the effort that has taken place in the forrnat ion of a western grid is truely in the best Canad ian, best Mani toba in terests. ll is some ihing that the nationa !

New Democrat ic Party speaks about very often in their policy meetings about the need to develop and work with sister pro vinces in a national Canadian way particularly when it comes to energy matters. Mr. Speaker, the other kind of indus trial incentitiv es that we are taking is again the very best kind of efforts that are being put forward in the sense that rather than import or export the resou rce, im port the jobs, and that's what 's goi ng to happen, Mr. Speaker, if the Alcan plant comes to Man itoba .

Instead of export ing the raw prod uct of electricity we will be impor ting into Man itoba, hundreds of jobs. (Interjection)- The honou rable mem ber who has spent some tim e in the planning prioritie s com mittee of the previous adminis tration certainly recog ni zes it as a good program. But Mr. Speaker, that's not com ing out in any of their statements here in this Hous e and it's not com ing out in any of the speeches that we've heard so far. Mr.

Speaker, let me make it very clear that the New Democra tic Party in their opposition , in their opposition to us on these and other items, is in effect helping us to highlight and to foc us public attention on their success when that success is self­ evident to all. And of course, the success will be there long before the actual produc t is turned out. The success will be there when men are work ing, when plants are being built, and when the economy can begin to feel the spin- off effects of such major in fusions of new capital in to Man itoba . Mr. Speaker, their words, their wo rds. Mr.

Speaker, I know I have the co nfi dence in my fellow colleagues that have been work ing on these items to kno w that they represent a great deal more than words . Now, Mr. Speaker, the Honour able Leader of the Opposition , and I think so many of the left have this 151

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 fixation abo ut big busi ness, and of course about multi nation als. The subject matter of Petro Canada came up in a speech by my frien d, the Min ister of Agriculture. I have anot her problem with Petro Canada. I always make it a poi nt, whenever I see a new Petro Canada sign go up some where, of rushing down there to try and buy some gas.

You see, I've been so brain washed by members opp osite and by the media tha t th ese multina tionals ha ve been rippi ng us off in terms of energy in gasol ine prices all these years, that surely I can expect to buy my gas for 15 or 20 cents a litre cheaper at my station. I get a little concerned when the Mini ster of Agriculture tells me that if they run it like the Post Office, I may have to wait two weeks for my gas. I see I'm getting through to the Honou rable Member for Ste. Rose.

If Exxon and Gulf and Texaco have been ripping you off all these years, then surely you don 't expect your own gove rnment to rip you off. So next time you see a Petro Canada station , drive up to it and introduce yo urself, tel l them you 'r e a fel low Cana dian, Man itob an, and sho w and exhib it some pride in that fine station .

Walk arou nd that station a bit, it's yo ur station , you know, walk around it a little bit to see if they're keeping it clean, but more imp ort ant, see if you can get yo ur gas there, five, eight, nin e, ten cents cheaper than you can across the way at Esso. -( Interjection)- Can you ? Mr. Speaker, we are all subject to being influenced by our own propa nganda from time to ti me. I came across an int eresting bit of writing by a George Guilder, he writ es in the American Spectator . it relates to the American industrial scene.

But most of us wou ld tend to believe that, with the co ncentration of big business, that it's getting harder and harder for the small entrepreneur, the smal ler businesses, to exist. Mr. Speaker, that simply is no t the case. We are being mi sled in the assumption that the largest com pan ies are in creasing their do min ance of the economy.

Go vernments and tax vo uchers have done their best to drive in novators and promoters out of the game, but despite that, when you take a check on the 50, and the 200 largest manuf acturing firms in the States, they have failed to in crease their equity po sition in overa ll man ufacturing in the Un ited States. There is no evidence that large compan ies are squeezing out small entrepreneurs. The numb er of an nual small busine ss starts, and this is the Un ited States, has increased from 93,000 in the year 1950 to some thing like 450,000 today, in the year 19 80. Mr.

Speaker, what that tells me is the tremendous ingenu ity that is there in a free and open soc iety if allo wed to flourish. Mr. Speaker, the

article essentiall y deals with the very exciting develo pments in telecommunic atio ns, in co mputer industries, ind icating that it is these firms, th ese high tech nology firms that are now representing by far the greatest growt h rate in job promot ion. You r matur e firms, you kn ow , you r Chryslers, yo ur GM prod ucts, are sitting there; but yo ur growt h is in the new and high technology firms all across the Un ited Sta tes and devel oping a tremendous need for man power to mend this need for new capital and doing very well at it. The

article con cludes by suggesting that these new firms will in evitably triumph in the long run, but whether they can fulfil ! their prom is e to rel ieve our curr ent situation or problems depends largely on pol itics, on whether the dom inant powe rs will allow the future to prevail, whether politicians can co mp rehend the value of free men and free wealth. Mr.

Speaker, there is this very serious difference of opini on between us and for some of yo u, as I did, caught the supper hour news, CBC news, and the resident economic adviser for the CBC was being interviewed, he's a good friend of ours, he used to be a co ll eague of ours in the Ho use, and I'm referring of cou rse to Professor Cy Gonick. He was being asked what was his so lution to the current, adm ittedly very serious, situation and of course it surprises none of us who sat and worked with Mr. Gonick in this Cham ber that his so lution was total state controlled so cialism. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the only difficulty with it is , if that is - and I accept that as a legiti mate alternative po sition, but you know, Mr. Speaker, and without dealing with that very serious question that is in front of the wor ld right now in Poland. that is a cou ntry that has for 35 years now operated under that system, and it will take our cou ntries that will bail them out. We are feeding them. (Interjection )- Mr. Speaker, the honou rable member suggests that I shou ld talk about El Salvador.

I wanted, if I may, just one mo re little deal to make with the honou rable members op po site becaus-e from time to time they do get upset about red-baiting that some of us engage in and I want to make a com mitment to my friends opposite, that I will cease and desist from any of that if they will agree to doing one small thing for me.

I'm lo ok ing at the Member for Poi nt Do uglas, perhaps he cou ld be the person that cou ld do that for me. if the New Democrat ic Party, which will be assembling a conv ention in February, can pass a simple resolution suppor ting the rights of Pol ish workers to form a free and in dependent union, if you can pass that kind of resoluti on in your conv ention, I will cease and desist from any further red-baiting . I kno w the party, they can not pass that kind of reso lution. They cou ld pass a resolution , a simi lar resolution, about a grape picker in Calif ornia .

In fact they cou ld even spend their hard-earned money to promo te a boycott of Cal ifor nia grapes. Not that I have anything against the people in Calif orn ia being able to have grape pickers unions, but that used to occ upy their min ds. Mr. Speaker, closer to home they did n't like the purchasing practices of one nota ble and well-known Canadian food process ing co mpany, Kraft Cheese, and they passed resoluti ons time and again in their con ventions . Do me that little favour at yo ur com ing conv ention, have the Member for Point Doug las pass that resolution, and I will respect him for it. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Honou rable Member for Rossmer e. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I wou ld like to co ngratulate you on your reappoi ntment as Speaker and I look for wa rd to yo ur assistance in the upcoming Session. I was worried earlier in the day that pos sibly the job creation in this pro vinc e was oc curring right here in this Cham ber as a result of the stateme nts of the, especially the Min ister of Agriculture and the Min ister of Gov ernment Services, they were throwi ng so many red herrings into this Cham ber that I thought we were prod ucing a fish factory here. 152

Thursday, 18 December, '1980 The issue in Man itoba at this time, as it has been since the 1977 election , is the economy . The issue is the handling or the misha ndling of the economy by the people opposite. The issue is the matter of the acute, protracted restraint which we were promis ed in 1977 and which that Tory gov ernment has so faithfully given us. Housi ng starts are down. our real net inc ome is do wn, our percentage of na tional income is down , our po pulation is down. We're the only pro vinc e in the cou ntry with a po pulation that is decl ining.

Our retail sal es. as a perce ntage of national sales, are down; our job creation rate as a percentage ol national job creation rate is down; our real domestic prod uct is do wn, that's for the fi rst time since before we had an NDP gov ernment. There are things tha t are rot ten in this provi nce, bankruptcies, forec losures, unemplo yment, and thank good ness, very soon the Tory term in of fice. People in this prov ince have learned again that Tory times are hard times. Tou gh times. So they' re attempting to save their hid es, and they've done so in a numb er of ways and on a numb er of fronts.

The Min ister of Gov ernment Services just fin ished a speech filled with flim !lam. H 1 was talking about the New Democrat ic Party, about the Opposition , about the fact that one of our mem bers is ill today, he made great hay on that, but when we . . . MFl. SPEAKER: Order please. Can I repeat to the honou rable mem bers to make any mention of the presence or absence of a mem ber is highly im proper in this Cham ber. The Honou rable Member for Ross mere. MR. SCHROIEDIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't my reference, it was a reference to speech of the Min ister of Gover nment Services.

But while we are talking about problems, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the problems of the mem bers opposite . Let's look at what is going to happen in this next election in the const ituency of Osborne . Are we going to see the Attorney -General running there or is he going to run sou th to Fort Garry? I wo nder, Mr. Speaker, or will he go all the way so uth to SI. Norb erl. And the MLA for St. Matthews, where's he going? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We can only have one person at a time involved in the debate in this Cham ber. The Honourable Member for Ro ssmere. MR. SCHROEDIER: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, it's pretty obvious we've hit a sore spot. The MLA for St. Matthews, is he going to stand and fight in Ellice or is he heading west into St. James, and if so, where is the mem ber for St. James? Where is he headed? - (Int erjection)- Yes, talking ab out Ro ssmere, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Conservative Party, will he come to Ro ssmere, or will he run north to River East? Let's watch this. Let's see what they are going to do. And who, Mr. Speaker, will be the Gimli goose for the To ries? Is it goi ng to be the Min ister of Education or is it goi ng to be the Min ister of Gov ernment Services?

That will be very in teresting, very in teresting, Mr. Speaker. And in Radisson, Mr. Speaker, are we going to have the MLA for Radi sson running in Radisson agai n, or is he goi ng to head so uth to Niakwa and fight with the current member for Riel for that one because he's afraid to hold that one in the NDP sweep in the com ing election. What is going to happen there? Some of them are ab sol utely cornered; the Member for Emerson, the Member for Spri ngfield MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest to all mem bers that they allow the cou rtesy to the mem ber who is speaking without in terruption.

The Honou rable Member for Ros smere. MR. SCHROEDIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Emer son , the Mem ber for Spring fie !d, the Mem ber for Dauphin, Swan River, Thomps on, where are they going to run to? They have no place to run. They will be retired. We have finis hed heari ng their con tributions and at least one of their mem bers, we've heard from the Min ister of Go vernment Services, he's talking about the Memb er for St. Joh ns and what he referred to as a political obitu ary.

How about the Member for Brandon West, who is not goi ng to be with us any longer, and after the next election there will be an NDP member for that riding sitting on that side of the Hou se. A MEMBER: Remem ber we're going to read these back to you , Vie. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes. But the gov ernment has tried on a numb er of fronts to divert our attention from the issue of their tot al mism anagement of this economy. For instance, they are attempting to put a human face on Tor yism. They have been trying that for months without success.

After three years of deterioration in the education services, in so cial services, in health services, in any services to peop le, after three years, suddenly they' re starting to say that they' re spending mon ey. We had these advertisements, I'm sure that there is no mem ber in the House who wou ld want to take credit for those advertisements for seniors with the little old lady pushing the cart in the supermarket saying, what a ni ce day. They got 7.80 a month. it didn't even keep up with inf lation. They' re worse off on the cost-of- living basis now than before you did it.

That money that yo u're spending on those ads wou ld have been much better spent on the prog ram and in creasing the amount. They chan ged the MSP elig ibi lity rules so that people above 55 years of age were eligi ble, pro vid ing that they were on the poverty li ne. (ln terjection)­ Yes, and I kno w of only one person who has applied for that prog ram. She happens to be a wo man who is in receipt of a Canada Pension because of a medical di sabil ity. She has a 15-year-old son , and yes, she receives some soc ial assistance in add ition. She applied back in September, Mr.

Speaker, and she was given the full amou nt, the full total of 15.64 a mo nth, and she recieved that, Mr. Speaker, for September, for Octo ber, and for Nov ember, and you know what happened in December? That gov ernment took that full 46 off of her so cial allo wance cheque for Decemb er - that gov ernment - nobody but that gov ernment. Nobody but that gov ernment wou ld set up a firecracker of a program like that, that wou ld allo w a person the belief that they were going to be receiving 15 a month more and then pull it back at Ch ristmas ti me. Not even Scrooge stole mone y from the poor at Christmas time. 153

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 They have tried the SAFER program, Mr. Speaker, and I tell you that program is perceived in my riding by seniors as no thing but an excuse for landlords to raise rents which that go vernment hasn't dealt with because of their friends. In my particular district, I'm sure the Member for Crescentwood is well aware of which friend we are talking abou t They see it as a program wit h a means test whic h incr eases go vernme nt burea ucracy , and so they ar e no t impr essed. There will be further attempts at putting a human face on this go vernmen t, Mr. Speaker.

I predict that there will be a substantial and belated inc rease in the funding of education in this province. I predict that there will be a belated incr ease for fundin g of special needs childr en in this provi nce, but i tell you , Mr. Speaker, that is too late to save that gove rnment or to save the Mini ster of Education .

We all kno w and the public of this pro vince kno ws that an NDP gover nment will be capable of and has more wil l to prov ide those types of services to peo ple, and so they haven 't been able to put a human face on their go vernment and that particular ruse to divert us from the econ omy wil l not wor k and so they tried plan numb er two, the Mega pro jects. We heard about the Flin Flon mine, the di scover y made under the NDP; the aluminum project, and on April 18th, 1980, the Premier in for med this House of the !MC deal. At least he informed us of the tip of the iceberg.

This isn't the first time that the Premier has been inv olv ed with St. Lazare. Twenty years ago he was at a meeting of the Executive Cou ncil of this pro vince which passed an Order-In-Counci l and one of the where ases is: Wh ereas Tumbe ll Mines Limite d is the holder of a certain pot ash lease contai ning 53,842 acres, and this is the ide ntical prope rt y, and another where as:

Whereas the company has drilled two wells which ind icate the presence of potash of probable econo mic .grade. Twenty years ago our Premier was involved in that and he has pulled that old rabbit out of the hat And so we have heard that so ng before. The ·Min ister of Fina nce on that very same day answered a question posed to him by the Member for Churchill , and I just happen to have Hansard of that day, or a copy of that page with me. On page 2671, Mr.

Cowa n's last sentence of his question was, "My question to the Min ister is, can he ind icate if this flir tation with so cialism, this partnership was bro ught abo ut as a result of a request by the com pany or did the government force themselves upon the company in this regard?" And Mr. Craik 's answer, the last sentence of his ans wer, "W ith regards to his question, I would have to advise him that this came about by way of mutual agreement. lt takes two to tango and the two tango ed and this is it. " Some of tho se very same people were present when a previous Tor y gover nm ent tango ed with Dr.

Kasser and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is nobo dy in this provi nce who do esn't kno w who led and who follo wed during that tango. The Tory tango, Mr. Speaker, is one step for ward and three steps back and that's what they have done with this deal. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they stepped forward one step with an announc ement of a mi neral development, but how many steps back did it take them? They started off by elimi nating their right to a 50 percent par tnershi p in mining in this pr ovince. They remember it well. They should be ashamed of it. That was a step back.

Then they gave half of our potash land away to IMC. Under Duff Ro blin you did n't do that, but you are doing it now. And then they entered into a secret agreeme nt that they have still not tabled in this House. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is nothing but a gimmick to save their hides. This 25 percent equity is something that is a shame to the province, a sham - you can say that it's a sham if the Member for Churchill wishes. And IMC, I quote from its annual repo rt, its 1979 report on page 23 under the heading Reserves.

"IMC Canada controls the rights to mine 147,300 acres of potash bearing land in Saskatchewan . This land of which 13,000 acres have been mi ned is in the sout heastern por tion of the provi nce and cons ists of 76,000 acres owned in fee, 57,400 acres under lease fro m the Provi nce of Saskatchewan and 13,900 acres leased from othe r parti es. Afl the leases are renewable by !MC Canada for successive terms of 21 years with the first term of each expiring on October 31st, 1981. During the renewal terms of the leases, rents and roy alties will be established by regulation of the Saskatchewan government.

The reserves in this acreage are estimated to be abo ut 8 feet thick conta in ing 1.3 bil lion tons of recov erable ore at an average grade of 2f!. percent K20, enough to support current operat ions for more than a century." The repo rt go es on to indic ate that tot al annual prod uction in 1979 was 3.1 min io n tons, but they had prod uction capa bi lities in Saska tchewan of 4.2 millio n tons.

They are 1. 1 mi llion tons below total capacity, and that very same com pany has over 36,000 acres of potash land at Carls bad in the Un ited States and until last year they had a mine which they sold to Dennison for a 24 mi ltion pretax pro fit in New Brunswick. The point is no t that there is anything wrong with IMC or that they are not a capable company. They are one of the leaders in the field.

There is no questio n about that, but the point is that IMC is in absolutely no hurry; is under no force of tim e to enter into an agreement with the provi nce of Manitoba. lt has other areas where it can expand up to its current capacity level. IMC has all the cards. lt is dealing with a gov ernment that is in di srepute. lt is de aling with a gov ernment that is on its last legs and I for one do not like the notion that go vernment, on its last legs, should be able to enter in to a secret agreement to try to pull its chestnuts out of the fire before an election campaign. Mr.

Speaker, I have no doub t that the public has no confidence in that government at this time in its position and hour of weakness, deali ng with !MC on a secret basis. I also have no doubt that with the in creasing prices for potash on the world market, tha t what we have th ere is a very marke table comodity which will be mark eted within the next several years be it under that go vernment or a good governm ent. But the difference will be, Mr.

Speaker, that we will get a proper economic return for the people of Manitoba and we will no t get in volved with a bunch of secret agreements which wil l se!l our rights down the tube. When I say that, Mr. Speaker, the same thing has happened just very recently in New Bruns wick. Did you kn ow that the Pot ash Corpora tion of America has entered into a deal with a weak Tory gov ernment in New Brunswick - a weak gov ernment which has only a one mem ber 154

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 majority and needs desperately to hang onto power - a deal which gives them pot ash rights in that pro vince for a ro yalty of 6.2 5 percent. I quote from the Kings County Record of Wednesday, April 9th, 1980, and in that edition, a senior member of the New Brunswick gov ernment is quo ted as being very unhappy with the arrangements made down there. And agai n, it was done by a gov ernment under pressure, in secret. We don't want any repeats of course of CFI or that New Bruns,.vick project .

Incidently I shou ld mention that in Saskatchewan, the gov ernment is receiving more than dou ble the ro yalty that they have nego tiated in New Brunswick although the potash in New Bruns wick is withi n some thing lil<e 50 mi les of a coast in an ideal po sition to compete on the wo rld market. But they were so desperate that they sold their in heritance down the river to that co mpany, and I have no faith that my friends opp osite are not in the process of doing the same thing right now. I wou ld like to see all do cuments tabled, and I believe that is im port ant for the public. The Mega proj ects then, Mr.

Speaker, are not work ing. There are three reasons. The public does reme mb er Tory previous gi ve-aw ays. The y do rememb er and they want to see the line print before they stand up and cheer. The public remembers the prom ises of good times and no budgetary deficits - jobs for everyone. Our kids are going to stay in Manitoba. We are going to have a happy time here, a great provi nce, a pro vince to be proud of. Remember that in 19 77, remem ber what you people were saying? Well, the public remem bers and that is anot her reason why they will not buy a pig in a poke from you people.

And of course the public has watched not only yo ur econ omic mismangement, not only yo ur broken promises, but they remember you r abysmal record at leg islating. The y ha ve no con fidence in you at all. I refer you to the incident of several days ago when you knew, you knew months ahead of time that we were goi ng to be com ing up with a problem in this Hous e and when it arrived, what did you do? You pulled in to yo ur back pocket for so me silly resolution which wasn't going to solve the problem and you had to get us, the Oppos ition , to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for you.

When we heard that resol ution , Mr. Speaker, we went to our caucus and we were shocked that a gov ernment wou ld be so ill­ prepared that a House Leader wou ld have no thing available to handle a situation which we had all seen com ing, to tally unplanned. And so, Mani tobans have no co nfide nce in the Mega projects tha t this gov ernment is annou ncing. You have now gone to yo ur thir d ruse to get our minds off the economy, Ottawa-bash ing, and that takes many fo rms.

You have the pathetic attempts of the Min ister of Gov ernment Services to try to get in to a fight with his federal co unt erparts over anything that's worth or not wort h fighting about Then you have the suggestions of the patriotic Tory backbenchers, that we shou ld patria te the Cons tituti on , but don't touch it - no amending form ula, no no thing, just bring it back. Well, Mr. Speaker, the current ame nding fo rmula on the Const itution is one which allows a joint address by the Parliament of Canada and the Senate of Canada to the Westmins ter Parliament to change the Const itution.

That is the way it has been goi ng for a numb er of years, for 100 and some years. But if we remo ve Westmins ter from that equasion, there is no amending form ula. Is that what they want? Are they saying unanim ity? Are they saying never? We have heard examples in the Com mitt ee on Statutory Regulations and Orders which I might say is capably chaired by the Member for Crescentwood . We ha ve had suggest ions down th ere for amendments but we have never had anyone say that it shou ld be absolute unani mi ty and we know full well that if that's what you are asking, you will never get changes.

We have heard about things like the ERA in the Un ited States where three-quarters of the States, or what ever the fo rmula is, can't get tog ether to pass a cons titutional amend ment. Now what they are talking ab out is to ha ve ail of us, all eleven provinces, no thing - no dissent whatsoever before you can change, and that is not a very bright pos iti on -(Inte rjection)- 10 pro vinc es and one federal govern ment, that's 11, I'm sorry.

I appr oached one of the memb ers of the Legislature who made this suggestion of straight patriation with no amend ments and he said to me, but what I want is a little amendment in there to give Ottawa the powers which Westmins ter used to have. I just wo nder how many Tories wou ld get up and support that, the notion tha t the Cons titution is there, but only the federal gov ernment can amend it. They were com plaining about referendums.

There wou ldn't need to be any referendums because under the current proposal the only way you can have a referendum is if the federal gov ernment wants a change in the Cons titution. If the federal gov ernment are the only people who can amend the Cons titution, why wou ld they need a referendum? That is not to say that we on this side support the particular proposal before the Parliament, right now. We have our di fferen ces with respect to the referendum po sition , the perpetual veto of several central Canada pro vinc es and other matters.

That co mm ittee that I referred to -( Interjection)- I'll come to the Bill of Righ ts. We had an in teresting mee ting with a com mi ttee from the Alb erta Legislatur e. Mr. Speaker, I was offe nded by the position of the Man itoba Tories in ba cking region alism, di vision , and greed, and when I asked, Mr. Speaker, whether they cou ld name anot her cou ntry on this planet where the region in which oil is produc ed is the region whi ch receives the funds and sets the prices, they cou ld not .

They mentioned that there were several anomalies, as there are in the Un ited States where in certain min or instances, the States have certain powers over pricing and funds. But other than that, there's no thing else on the planet, and the y just simpl y say, well, that's our Cons titution . We want ours different from everybody else so that a Man itoban can have lived here all his life, but has no in terest as a Canadian in the oil that's in Al berta, or an Ontarian can have lived in Canada all his life and have absolutely no in terest in the hydro in Man itoba . I reject that po sition.

I believe that being a cou ntry means somet hing more than that. Wh ere was the gov ernment and its members during that entire meeting? They were ducking any real issues, they were not sho wing any leadership, they were not sho wing any fore sight, they were not 155

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 sho wing any planning, other than the plan to attempt to di vert public attention from the real issue in Man itoba, the economy, toward Trudeau bash ing. That was it When that com mittee first met, we were told that they wou ld be flexible, they wou ld be flexible on everything other than the entrench ment of rights. Yes. And of course we had heard the Premier's previous statements with· respect to the slippery slide to Republicani sm; well that has been a lo ng, long slide because in Manit oba, Mr.

Speaker, we have had entrenched rights sinc e 18 70 un der The Man itoba Act, and the question is, what kind of rights? We have had, for instance, the right as a people in this pro vince for this Legislature not to have the right to change the time of elections to more than five years un less there is a time of emergenc y. Th is Legislature can not make it six years. This leg islature cannot, although it attempted to do so in 1890, take away peop le's language rights. We have

an Act which says that there are certain rights to langua ge in the cou rts and in the Legislature which this Legislature has no right to take away from Ma n itobans . Of course, if it wasn 't entrenched , if that right wasn't entrenc hed , Mr. Forest wou ld have had no grou nds upon which to go to the cou rts. The courts did no thing but tell us what the law is, what we knew the law was, to enforce the law. That 's all they did, they didn't make the law. The Parliament of Canada and Britain made that law. Mr.

Speaker, all gov ernments, all ten provi ncial gov ernments and the one federal gov ernment app roved of the Victor ia Ch arter in . 19 71, that Victoria Charter had included in it an entrenched Bill of Rights, a stronger Bill of Rights, I might add, than the one that the current gov ernment is presenting. That was in 1971 .

All ten provi ncial gove rnments and the federal gov ernment of this cou ntry approv ed, in 1976 of the Uni ted Nations Cov enant on International Human Rights, as well as the protoc ol, which gives our cit izen s the right to go to an in ternational tribunal if one of our gov ernments viola tes their rights. Of cou rse, we have seen the example of linda Love!ace who ha s no rights in Canada . linda Love lace is an Indian wo man who married a white man, who lost her status as an Indian because of that fact.

Had she been a man, and had an Indian man married a white wo man he wou ld not lose his status, and so there was di scrimi nation on the basis of sex and tha t happens to be agai ns t the International Charter on Human Rights. Now, she co uldn't go to a Canadian court. There's no Canadian court that cou ld deal with her rights. She had to go to the Un ited Nations . She had to go to Geneva. Our cou rts, the people opp osite say, are not capable of dealing with her rights.

We agree that yes, she has that right but we pro vide absolutely no remedy for her in this cou ntry altho ugh that right is based on our international treaty obliga tions . I might state that the federal proposal !or a charter of rights does not even meet with the basic minimum requirement of the Un ited Nations Charter to which we are a party. Now, Mr. Speaker, laws evolve over the years and some rights I suggest have been created by the co urts. I will give just several examp les of that.

About 50 years ago in a law case entitled Do nahue versus Stevens, it was held by the court that a manufacturer cou ld be held liable to a co nsumer of a soft drink who had purchased it not dir ectly from the man ufacturer but from a store, where there was some for eign material in a bottle. That was a case that changed, I wou ld suggest, at least the common law had evo lved and that was a principle which had never been recog niz ed before.

And ten or twelve years ago in the case of Hedley Burn versus Helier, the cou rts held, for the fi rst tim e, that a statement negligently made by an ind ividual know ing tha t someo ne else will rely on that statement, will result in dama ges being paid by the person making that statement to the person hearing it, if those dama ges were reason ably foreseea ble. Outside these Cham bers, we have rights against each other . !f one of the mem bers get rambunctious and punche s somebody out in the hall, or if some body has a car accident and someone else is at fault, there are remedies in the cou rts.

You can go to the courts and say, I was injured, I want a remedy, ! want dama ges, and you 're entitled to them under our law. If someone tells yo u, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to keep you out of a church, I don't want you going to a Mennonite Church and I will keep you out; I am yo ur neighb our and I will not allow you to drive. You have a remedy, you can go to the courts and you can get an inju nction authorizi ng or or dering that person off of yo ur back and you can get dam ages, Mr.

Speaker, without a Bill of Rights, without an entr enched Bill of Rig hts, it has happ ened that Legislatures have done precisely that In Quebec, the pad lock laws were passed against Je hovah 's Wit nesses tel ling them they can not go to their churches, to the church of their choi ce. they had no remedies agains t the Legislature, they co uldn' t go somewhere and say, you can't do this to me, there are basic human rights that you cannot take away and you cannot tamper with.

They co uldn't do that We have in this pro vince a situation where males, who are in charge of or custod ians of childr en, are not treated in the same way as females who are in charge ol childr en. Males afe being di scrimina ted against on the basis of sex in Man itoba, but there is no thing you can do about it There may be a breach of your rights but there is absolutely no thing thal you can do about it other than to lob by. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that an ind ividual shou ld have the right to a court decision whe n he is being di scri mina ted against, and he shou ld have the right to dam ages.

There must be that right and in terms of the right to lobby, that com mi ttee of ours sat through numerous hearings, we never heard one single indi vidual say that lob byi ng changed the gov ernment as a result of the mis treatment of the Japanese during the Second World War; changed the gov ernment as a result of the fact that Canadian Indians didn't have the right to vote until 19 60; chan ged the govern ment in Quebec as a result of the padlock laws; and the Lo velace case, the Indian case, a prime example of mi nority rights not bei ng an issue in election campaigns, not being involved at all as an issue in election campaigns, was where the Min ister in charge of Indian Affairs, Mr.

Epp, said, yes, next year I will change that law. But that didn't become an issue in the election campaign and despite the fact that he was going to protect mi nority rights, his gov ernment was swept out of of fice, and it's just an ind ication 156

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 tha t mi nority rig hts are not ma tters which are ord inarily dealt with, or, I wo uld submit, ever dealt with by the electorate in the heat of an electoral battle and as the Member for Transco na poi nts out rightly, John Diefen baker als o bel ieved in an entrenched Charter of Rights. I didn 't know he was a Republican. 1 wou ld submit that this total attempt by the Tories has been a pavlo vian attempt to equate western di sgust with the Trudeau Gover nment with support for the pro vincial Conservative Gov ernment.

They have attempted to di vert our attention from the mis erable mismana gement of this pro vi nce and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it will not work. !\II R. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Abe Ko vnats (Rad isson) : Ttoe Honou rable Min ister of Min es and Natural Resou rces. HON. !aiRIAN RAN SOM {Sour is-Killamey): Thank yo u, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I wou ld ask you to pass my co ngra tulations on to the Spea!<er on assuming the respon sibili ty again in this Session of our Legislature. I know that he will act in the usual im par tial fashion to which we ha ve become accustomed.

Mi ght I also co ngra tula te the Mover and the Seconder of the Throne Speech for the excellent job which they did in mo ving and secon ding, backing the co ntent o! the Throne Speech. I think it also wo uld be appropria te, Mr. Speaker, if I was to congra tulate the Leader of the Opposition on surviving his fi rst year as Leader of the Oppo sition . Mr. Speaker, in his reply to the Speech from the Thr one on Monda y, the Leader of the Opposition said that the Const itution is not the most pressing problem confr onting Man itobans today. Mr.

Speaker, the Constitut ion might not be the most pressing p·roblem facing the cou ntry today, but in my view it's certainly the most imp ortant problem, the most imp ortant question facing the cou ntry today. lt wasn't the most imp ortant problem a year ago, but Mr. Trudeau has made it the most irnportant issue facing the cou ntry today, because he has proposed change s tha t will change the basic na ture of gov ernment in Canada in a way thal Canad ians are only no w co ming to appr eciate. I think tha t the fo rmer Leader of the National Conser vative Party, Mr.

Stanfiel d, who was a man not giv en to overs tatem ent, said that those propos als, those con stitutional proposals put forward by the Li beral gov ernment in Ottawa amount to a cou p d'etat just as much as if tho se changes were to be brou ght about by force of arms. I must stress that Mr. Stanfield is not a man given to ov erstatement yet he sees these changes as being of that magnitude of imp ortance to the people of this cou ntr y, Mr. Speaker. That co up has been very carefully planned and orchestrated .

If you can imagine the situation that the Fi rst Min isters of the Provi nces fo und themselves in , in Ottawa in September, having before !hem a i8d erai strategy do cument which set out the plans of the federal gov ernment as to how they were going to deal with the provi nces. Now, the existence, Mr. Speaker, of a strategy do cument in itself is not unusual.

One might expect a gov ernment to have a do cument, a strategy laid out, but what is particularly sho cking to me about this do cument was the fact that it was a strategy for fai lure. it was not a strategy to succeed, but rather a strategy for fai lure and to make it appear as though the pro vi nces, the int ransigence of the pro vinces was the reason !or the fai lure. And th ose words are used in that do cument, Mr.

Speaker, and I think that is a very sho cking thing when our national gov ernment is opera ting on a strategy of that nature and have even reduced it to a written strategy docu ment as well. it was evident in that strategy to the extent to which they were prepared to go to co nvi nce the people of the right ness of their posi tion . They referred in that do cument to the advert ising campaign which we all saw last year, the 6 milli on Canada goose, and they raised the moral question, Mr.

Sp eaker, about using taxpa yers ' funds to advocate a pol itical phi los ophy and the y said that this was a question which that gover nment, the Cabi net Min isters, wou ld have to deal with , that it was some thing tha t the public wou ld react to, but that gov ernment has obviously been prepared to fo llo w tha t course, and they have been largely successful in making the pro vi nces appear to be responsi ble for the breakdo wn of those discussions. They were successful at one point.

And they also were able to pursue the strategy of making our Fi rst Min ister and others appear to be op posed to human rights because th ey were op posed to the entrenchment of a Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, I wou ld like to place on the record some of the things that we favou red with respect to the cons tituti onal deba te because I think it's im portant for the public to understand that we wou ld like to see the Const itution returned to Canada, or come to Canada. I believe 10 Premiers agreed on an amend ing form ula at the September meeting of Fi rst Minis ters.

I don't think they cou ld have been that far away from agreeing, not only the 10 Premiers but the Prime Min ister as well, on an amending fo rmula. The Const ituti on cou ld have been brou ght to Canada under tho se circumstances and changes made within the frame work of tha t !o rmula . Some fede ral Min isters have expressed the feeling that it is a national disgrace to have to go the British Parliament and ask for changes in our Cons titution.

I don't feel that it is a national di sgrace to do tha! but I can understand why some people in our cou ntry might feel that or might feel much more comfort able with the Const itution in Canada. Fine, bul why wo uld those same peop le who feel it a national disg race to have to go to the mother Parliament to gel a change made in our Cons titution , why wou ld they go and ask the mother Parli ament to entrench a Bill of Rights which they know they wou ld not be able to put in to the Cons titu tion , were the Cons tituti on to be in Canada prior to that? That is a co ntradiction, Mr.

Speaker, which I am not able to understand. We are in fav our of seeing a Const ituti on in Canada. We also, and it has to be said, we are in favou r of human rights despite the effo rts of the federal gover nment 10 make it ap pear otherwis e. If there are some weaknesses and certainl y the system is not perfect, in the way that our Parliam ents and leg islatures have protected human rights, then let us work to wards impr ovi ng within our existing system, the protect ion of those rights rather than embarking on a course of action which wou ld change the basic structure of gov ernment in Canada.

The proponents 157

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 of change have not , to my satisfaction , demonst rated the necessity for those changes and, Mr. Speaker, I think the onus is upon them to demonstra te why we shou ld accept the changes that they are putting forw ard. At the Fi rst Min isters' Conference in September, our Fi rst Min ister and our Min ister of Fin ance, put forward a paper dealing partly with the question of trade between provi nces and the freedom of ind ividuals to move back and fort h among pro vinces to seek employm ent.

Our Min ister of Fin ance pointed out that there has not been one single conference convened to di scuss tha t questi on, not one conference. No effort has been made at !he national level to resolve that issue. Is it really necessary to move dir ectly from where we are today to entrenching that right in the Cons titution? I think not , Mr. Speaker. I think not . I think that it wou ld be possi ble for gov ernments to work towa rds strengthening the fabric of our country within the parli amentary system that we know now. Some of the things that we do not favour, Mr.

Speaker, the essentially unila teral patriation process which the federal gov ernment is now pursuing, and I believe now that the vast majority of Canadians also do not supp ort the method whic h the federal gov ernment is fo llo wing. We do not supp ort the entrenchment of a bill of rights in the Const itution because of the change that it makes in our system of gov ernment, because it takes the respon sibili ty for making laws out of the hands of the Legislatures and places it into the hands of the courts.

If that is a change that Canadians want, and I don 't think they do, if it's a change that they want, we must be certain of that. lt must receive the kind of discussion that is necessary to be assured tha t people understand it. The kind of closure on debate that was invoked in the national Parliament earlier this year. is very di fficult to understand on an issue as fundamental as the Con stitution of the cou ntry. lt is very di fficult to understand. Surely it is not necessary to meet artificial deadlin es established by essentiall y one person, the Prime Min ister of this cou ntry. We do not supp ort Mr.

Tru deau 's amen ding fo rmula and I understand from the remarks that the Mem ber for Rossmere made that there is some question in the mem bers opposite ab out the amending fo rmula which awards a permanent veto to so me pro vinces and establis hes a framework for the ho lding of a referendum that co uld allow the federal gov ernment to bypass the provi ncial legislatures and to remo ve the ow ner ship of resou rces from pro vinces. We do not favour such a system that can strip us of the rights that we have with respect to resou rces. I think, Mr.

Speaker, tha t Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan put it rather well at the Fi rst Min isters' Conference when he pointed out that in 1936 Saskatchewan had appro xima tely a milli on people and tod ay in 19 80, Sa skatchewan ha s approxima tely a milli on people. Over that period of time he said, people from Saskatchewan have had to leave that pro vince in order to seek oppor tunities elsewhere in the cou ntry. He said at last we have the opporutnity based upon our resources so that tho se people in Saskatchewan no longer have to leave Saska tchewan and go somewhere else to seek oppor tunities.

He said why shou ld that oppor tunity now be removed from Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, that's a question tha t all Ma n itobans and all Cana dians, I think, must ponder very carefully before com ing to a con clusion on this question . Mr. Speaker, I was shocked by the statement of the Leader of the Oppos ition in his reply on Monda y when he referred to the court case which is under way. He said a court case which is premature is an excuse for the Premier to stop nego tiating on the Cons titution. Mr.

Speaker, anyone who was watching the course of debate in Ottawa in September wo uld kn ow tha t on the Sa tu rday morn ing when the Premiers appeared with the Prime Min ister, and you will recall the looks of sadness on the faces of everybody arou nd that table, it was our Fi rst Mini ster who said, I think we have made substantial progress, Mr. Prime Min ister, and that with some further discussion we can make more progress. Our Fi rst Min ister did not move away from further negot iation and I think it is an insult for the Leader of the Opposition to ind icate that he did.

Our Prime Mini ster, our Fi rst Mini ster in Man itoba has pro vided leadership to Man itobans and to the co untry beyond what people now recog ni ze today. When the question of the entrenchment of a Bill of Rights first arose, our Fi rst Min ister stood alone in opposition to that. Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that when the Fi rst Min isters met in Otta wa in September, he had some seven ·other gov ernments with him who had seen the wisdom · of the case which he put forwa rd . I hope that one da y tha t the con tributi on that our Premier has made in this debate will be recog ni zed. Mr .

Speaker, yesterday the Member for lnks ter made a reasoned and impa ssioned attack on Mr. Trudeau's proposals and he described them as the worst threat to soc ial and economic change facing this cou ntry and this province today, the worst threat to soc ial and economic change. He acknowledged the wisdom of our Premier's po siti on and this gov ernment's po sition. Mr. Speaker, who is perpetrating that threat? Mr Trudeau is perpetrating tha t th reat and who is suppor ting them in that threat?

The NDP are suppor ting that threat, the greatest threat to so cial and econ omic change in the reas oned judgm ent of one of the able st parliamentarians that this Hous e has ever seen. Mr. Speaker, I think that the mem bers op po site shou ld ponder that jud gment made by the Mem ber for ln kster, very carefully. Mr. Speaker, I wou ld like to move on and deal with some econo mic quest ions if I might. (Interjection )- Yes, Mr. Speaker, some one says Brandon ec onomic s and inde ed they are right, Mr. Speaker.

I feel com pelled to make a few co mments on the latest economic analysis on the Member from Brandon East. I'm sorry , I apologize, Mr. Speaker, · it's the Member for Brandon East, he's actually from Transcona. I wou ld like to quote from his do cument, if I might, Mr. Speaker. I usually spend a major port ion of my time in the Budget Speech and in the Throne Speech to deal ing with the details of the Mem ber for Brandon East's latest economic analysis. I am not goi ng to do that ton ight, Mr. Speaker, because I don 't wish to devote that much time to it, but I wou ld like to quote some thing here.

He says, "What basic changes occ urred in 19 78 to 1980 to cause our pro vincial economic activity to be lower relative to 158

Thu rsday, 18 December, 1980 the rest of Canada? What elements were at work during the Cons ervative years that were not present during the NDP years in go vernment? The only basic change was a change in go vernment pol icy itself." Mr. Speaker, that is the basic premise on which this entire analysis was conduc ted. The Member from Brandon East - for Brandon East, is an economist, I've heard. He is a pro fessional economist.

If he took this material to a seminar of his peers and made that kind of premise that the only change, the difference between the 1970 to '77 period and the '78 to '88 period was gov ernment pol icy, he wou ld be laughed of f the campus. He would be laughed off the campus, Mr. Speaker, for that kind of in tellectual bankrup tcy. The mem bers oppo site are fond of talking of bankru ptcies, they don't have to look further than that. Let me list a few of the factors that are changed no w from the conditions that prevailed during the earlier part of the 1970s.

This is the fi rst year since 1954 that the Canadian eco nomy has produc ed less than it did in the previous year. That happened in 19 80, no t the period 19 70 to 19 77. We are expe riencing un precedented and extrao rdina ry interest rates, prime rate toda y at 17.5 percent, the U.S. rate at 21 percent, the prime rate last April was at 17 percent, those kinds of thi ngs.

That fact has a major im pact, especially on the Mani toba economy because of the kind of economy which we have here, because of the reliance of smal l busi ness on borro wed mo ney. lt has a greater im pa ct on Man itob a than it has on Al berta, for instance. They don't have that same kind of reliance, they're not work ing on the same margins, they have a greater oppor tunity for return. We have experienced in the last couple of years the virtual colla pse of entir e indus tries, the auto ind ustry, the housing ind ustry, the steel ind ustry, the recreational vehicle ind ustry, in Nor th America, Mr. Speaker.

Those were not phenomena th at were experienced during the period of 1970 to 1977, and the Member for Brandon East says, no thing changed but go vernment policy. We are no w experiencing synchron ized world-wide recession, which they did not experience in the period of 1970 to 1977. Many countr ies toda y are on the verge of bankruptcy, Peru and Zaire, and Jamaica and Turkey. They have had to go -(I nterjection)- Pola nd, yes, they have had to go to the interna tional banking system and ask that their debts be reordered . That is happening today, not the period of 1970 to 1977.

We have unpr ecedented hik es in the pric e of energy, we have unprecedented in flation and, Mr. Speaker, one of the most in teresting thin gs tha t I found in this report, the Economic Council of Canada, a Clima te of Unc ertainty, was some in forma tion showi ng that during the period of 1974 to 1976, the Canad ian economy grew faster than the U.S. economy, than the Japanese economy, than the French economy, West Germany, Italy, and the Un ited Kingdom; 1974 to 1976. In the period of 1977 to 1979, the Canadian eco nomy exceeded oniy that of the U.K.

The perfo rm ance of the Cana d ian economy then was exceeded by the U.S. and Japan and Italy and West Germany and France, and the Member for Brandon East, a profe ssional economist, says no thing's changed but gov ernment pol icy Can the public place any reliabil ity on an analysis put forward by that mem ber? And let me tell you , Mr. Speaker, some other very in teresting statistics associated with that period of tim e. Let's look at the num ber of jobs that were created in that period of 19 74 to '76 when the Ca nad ian eco nom y was one of the leaders, the leader in the wor ld. What happened in Mani toba?

In 1974 there were 17,000 job s created. Pretty good year. Pretty good year. in 1975 they lo st 2,000 jobs; 2, 000 job s whi le the Canadian economy led the worl d. In 1975 there was another 9,000 jobs, for a total of 24,000. At least 7,000 of those were in the public sector and supported by tax doll ars, but 24,000 jobs. Now, 1977, there were 3,000. I'll sort of mo ve from that because the previous gov ernment had some responsi bil ity for that and we had some respo nsi bil ity. Let's !o ak at 1978 and '79. In 1978 there were 11 ,000 jobs created in Manitoba.

In 1979 there were 13,000 jobs. 24,000 jobs created in this provi nce in two years during a period ol time when the Cana dian economy was lagging beh ind all major OECD count ries except the Un ited l<ingdom. For three years, in '74, '75, and '76 when the Canadian economy led the world , tho se mem bers who were then in gover nment saw 24,000 jobs in tho se three years. And the Memb er for Brandon East says nothing has changed except govern ment pol icy. Well that change in go vernment pol icy, Mr. Speaker, has had a very very beneficial effect on the economy of this province.

Within the circumstances that prevail tod ay, the in ternational situation of in terest rates and energy prices and worldwide recession, Manitoba has many strengths. We have a very diversified economy, the agricultural economy, our mining, our man ufacturing ranging from light to hea vy man ufacturing, aerospace, of high technolo gy type of man ufacturing, we've got a lot of fin ancial services here, we've got fo restry resou rces, one of the three provinc es in Canada tha t ha s some oppor tuni ty for th e development, the use of our soft woods, we've got hydro pot ential, of cou rse.

The hydro freeze that's provi ng to be one of the major attractions to ind ustry to come to this province, we are well located as far as geography go es to serve the west and the mi dwest to the Un ited States. We' re rec ogn ized as having a very stable workforce. The housing situation is good in this province to be able to absorb addi tional in dustrial expansion here. We've go t the cultural and recreational and educational facili ties here to sup port a larger popu lation. We have a tremendous in frastructure for a province with a mil lion peop le.

And it's a very very attractive place for an ind ustry to lo cate, especially with a gover nment that welcomes the pri vate sector to come and inv est in this province. And although we' re very vulnerable to interest rates in the situation that prevails today, we are going to build on those strengths that this province has. We're going to uti!ize tho se strengths for the future. Th ere ha ve been some di ffi cult ies, we acknowledge that, th ere has been some popula tion loss, but let me tell you , Mr.

Speaker, that Statistics Canada in formation sho ws that from Janua ry to October of this year, there has been an increase in the popula tion of this province by 2,000 people. An incr ease of 2,0 00 people, and the Mem ber for Brandon East is still talking about the declining 159

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 popu lation of this province. Wel l, wher e's the credibili ty? During the period of time we have still maintai ned the thir d lo west unemplo yment rate in Canada, we've provided oppor tunity for our yout h, the period of '74 to '76 there were some 4,000 people age 15 to 24 entered the workfor ce in Mani toba and there was not one single extra job for those people. From '77 to '7 9 there were 6,000 people age 15 to 24 that entered the workfor ce and there were 6,000 new jobs for thos e people.

And the Leader of the Opposition says that we have broken our promis es to the youth of this province. Mr. Speaker, he need o nly deal with the facts, and don't get them from the Mem ber for Brandon East. No w, Mr. Speaker, we have some major successes that we are on the verge of achieving. I'm not going to deal with those in detail, I'm going to be content to see the opposition say that tho se developments are just pie in the sky and they're never going to come to pass because I want to watch.

I want to watch the look on their faces as each one of these agreements starts to fall into place; forestry, pota sh, western power grid, Alcan. Those are the major ones, Mr. Speaker, that we're work ing for and there have been a lot of other successes as wel l. But in the few min utes that I've got left, I want to review a few of the NDP polic ies as they have been enunciated because I think it's im portant that the public should understand. They should understand what those pol icies are.

Because in cont rast to our pol icies of building on the strengths of this province, the NDP want to resort to the same old disastrous economic pol icies, priming the pump. I saw the Member for Brandon East on television the other night, he wants to prime the pump. Good Lord , the federal gov ernment is running a 15 billion deficit, and he wants to prime the pump. They want to return to construc ting hydro plants that they don't need. He says that's going to put us at the mercy - if we don't build until we've got a market - that's going to put us at the mercy of the purchaser.

But somehow, he's going to build them when they're not needed and he's not going to be at the mercy of the purchaser. Understand that if you can . I can see them extending tha t principle to developing potash mi nes for which there is no sale for the potash . Makes just as much sense, in fact it makes mor e because they cou ld store it rather than let it run around the dam. They're going to bring back rent controls until there is a satisfactory level of housing. If that isn't a contradiction in terms, Mr. Speaker, I don't kno w what is.

They'r e going to force the private sector out of the health care field , we don't know how far that's going to go, do ctors, dentists, just to what extent they' re prepared to go there, they'r e going to have compu lsor y go vernment participation in the mining indus try agai n, to return us back to the same disastrous kind of explor ation levels that were going on in this province dur ing their previous experimentation, they're going to pay more than lip service to small business, which I suppose wou ld mean that they're going to reintroduc e succession duties and that they're going to increase the capital tax, and that th ey' re going to incr ease the corpora tion taxes as well.

We' re going to have mor e state ownersh ip of farmland; that's got to be a major plank of NDP pol icy for the 1980s. And Mr. Speaker, they are going to place the economic decision making of this province in the hands of the union leaders. Because the Mem ber for ln kster, Murdoch MacKay, a former President of the NDP, tell us that the Party is in the hands of organ ized labour. The se are respected capable mem bers of the NDP, former mem bers, that say the Leader of the Opposition is in the pocket of the leaders of the labour unions. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think the people of the provinc e want to place their economic decision-making in the hands of the union leadership. Mr. Speaker, the NDP in 1977 were defeated, I think because they were out of touch with reality. They were out of touch with reality. Their econ omic policie s were di sastrous. There's an ind ication in their statements again toda y that they want to return. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable mem ber has five min utes. MR. RAN SOM: Thank yo u, Mr. Speaker.

They want to return to the pol icies of yesterday, of yesteryear, to re-im plement some of the same kinds of di sastrous pol icies that they had pursued during the period of 1970 to 1977. When their leading economic light, their leading economic brain in that grou p ma kes the kind of prem ise about the economic conditions prevailing in the world and in Canada and in this province, the kind of statements and analysis that he has done, I think that the people of this provi nce have to ponder very very carefully. I think there is only one conclusion that they can come to.

They don't want to return to the kind of situation that prevailed in tho se years, Mr. Speaker. During that election the people voted for polici es based on econ omic rea lity. Mr. Sp eaker, we ha ve had economic reality in this province for the past three years and some of it hasn 't been all that palatable and I'll be the fi rst to admit that because reality often is not that palatable. Mem bers opposite want to stand up and say let's kno ck the int erest rates back by two or th ree percent. That's the way they want to tell the people tha t the y don't ha ve to take any thing that's unpalatable.

I don't think that's reality. The Leader of the Oppo sition, what I find mo st disconcer ting about the Leader of the Opposition 's position is that he says that the enthusiasm of ind ividual peo ple is a weak reed to place any confidence on, Mr. Speaker. The ind ividual enthusiasm is a weak reed. On this side of the Ho use we bel iev e that ind ivid ual enthusiasm and initia tive is the kind of thing tha t econom ies are based upon. Mr . Sp eaker, the amendment which the .

Honour able Leader of the Opposition has made to the Throne Speech should be rejected in the same way that the electo rate is going to reject the NDP in the next election. Merry Ch ristmas. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR S. JU II\IIE WIESTBURY (Fort Rouge}: Mr. Speaker, may I again congra tula te you on the position that you hold and I would like also if I may to congra tulate you on the good humour with which 160

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 you meet even your harshest experiences in that office. I want to congra tulate also the Mo ver and Seconder of the Speech on their recog nition by their leader for this im portant task of in tro ducing the Throne Speech this year. Mr. Speaker, last session I took advantage of the oppor tunity you so kindly affo rded me to be one of the first respond ers to that session's Throne Speech. I was new in the Legislative Assembly and I was eager to make my contribution as an indi vidual, as the Member for Fort Rouge, and as the Li beral Party representative in this Cham ber.

I want to thank yo u, Mr. Sp eaker, and the other mem bers of the Assembly for the cou rtesy and understanding shown a newco mer by mo st of you. I aiso appreciated the toleranc e sho wn by my honourable colleagues in allowing me to subject them to my Li beral views on the go verning of our province. I am sure they fou nd them a refreshing change lrom their own and from each other's views. I return to the Hous e this session, Mr.

Speaker, not yet what one wou ld call a veteran ol this august Assembly, as the Honourable Min ister of Consumer Affairs so kindl y reminds me from time to time, but as one who has at least experienc ed one other Throne Speech and is in a position to compar e one with another and to recogn ize the shortc omings of both; the failed promis es of the fi rst and the false ho pes of the second. Sitting back and listening to the debate that has gone on so far, Mr.

Speaker, I am aware of an amazi ng repititious simi larity in the style and rhetoric of the other two pol itical positions bei ng espous ed here in matters relating to this province.

I feel called upon to present to you for your own relief and perhaps for the intellectual stimula tion of the other mem bers of the Assembly, a thir d view as to the direction this province cou ld and should be taking; a dir ection we could see us hitting as early as next year under the stewardship of the Liberal Party in Manitoba's recently elected leader Doug Lauchlan, and I want to just take a moment to thank those mem bers of the Ho use who ha ve so warmly welcomed Mr. Lauchlan, both at Go vernment Hous e the other night and in the halls here in the last few days. I appreciate the cou rtesy as usual.

While I didn't notice many of the mem bers of this Cham ber at the recent Li beral policy conv ention, Mr. Speaker, I kno w that they all foll owed the reports with great interest lt was a very good conv ention. lt was well attended by Li beral delegates from every constituenc y in the province. They all had the opportun ity to contribute their voi ces to the ever­ growi ng dis satisfaction with both the Cons ervatives and the NDP.

They also had the opportunity to be more positive in outlook , to review the needs of the people of the province, to update the Li beral point of view on a numb er of issues and to select from two excellent candida tes an outstan ding indi vidual as their spokesperson and leader for the remai nin g months of this 3is t Legislature and into the next My col leagues here have noticed , I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that this is a time of high spi rits for Liberals in Mani toba. Fi rst, because the current admin istration is in its dying months of its existence.

Secondly, both the Tories and the NDP have been so accommoda ting in driving back former di saffected Li berals back to the fol d, and thirdly, because there's an opportun ity for the thir d alternative in Manitoba polit ics to emerge once again. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that in the next Legislature our party leader will be the first Li beral, the first of several Liberal mem bers to comment on the Speech from the Throne. lt is fit ting, Mr. Speaker, - (Interjection)- I presume that this isn't bein g taken off my time. lt is fitting tha t the Li beral leader and his caucus will be .... That was really witty, Mr.

Speaker. I have to congra tulate that man on his excellent wit, it's unusual. Tha t the Li beral leader and his caucus will be pres enting their col lective pol icy agenda for Manitoba in the coming years but toda y I have the opportun ity to pave their way and I intend to do so by presenting my own view and those of my party on a policy agenda for our province, a pol icy agenda that could be ado pted toda y, Mr. Speaker.

We live in an in creasingly complex and smal! world where not only actions in other parts of the world or in other parts of cou ntry affect each and every one of us, but where it is no longer possi ble to separate economic factors from social ones or from political ones or from personal ones. Cons equently, we musi as a people and most defin itely as a gov ernment try to understan d ho w economic pol itical and social factors affect one another and we must try to deal with them compr ehensively. 1t is di fficult to predict what will be the final outcome of any one polic y, conseq uently, Mr.

Speaker, we in the Li beral Party believe ii is dangerous for any gov ernment to make pol icy decisions which are based on dogma, which are based on a rigid and theoretical view of the wor ld. We believe the world is more compl ex than that We believe that decisions must be based on a clear and accurate picture of the world in which we live. We believe that this world changes and thus we belie ve that pol icies must be revi ewed and reco ns id ered as the o bjectiv e real ity around us changes. Inserting a polic y agenda for Mani toba then, Mr.

Speaker, we must first assess the situation in which we now find ou rselves. Through the past decade of the 19 70's Mani tobans ha ve been offered two polit ical theories of society and forms of go vernment In the early 19 70s we were offered a theory of society where gove rnment could ensure aii tho se things which are good. In the late 1970's we were offered a second theory where free market forc es wou ld solv e all the evi ls of society. Though the 1970's were not a decade of comp lete deprivation, Mr. Speaker, that decade was a relatively poor one for Ma nitoba.

Thou gh' Canada ha s pr ospered relatively wel l com pared to the world , Ma nitoba through this decade of two different gov ernments has lo st ground com pared to the Canadian average. For example, Mr. Speaker, we have witn essed a steady erosion of Mani toba's relative posit ion. In 1970, Manitoba accou nted for 4.24 of Canada's real dome stic product. In "1978, we only represented 4.03 percent . In 19 70, Ma ni toba account ed for 4.6 7 percent of Canada's emplo yment. No w Man itobans only account for 4.4 1 percent of that total . Mr.

Speaker, Statistics Canada reports that between June 19 79 and June 19 80, 41 ,000 Man itobans have left the province. Population growt h throughout the west is above the Canadian average except in Man itoba. Our net popula tion is do wn by 3,200 while the other western provi nces are growi ng. 161

Thursday, 18 December, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hour being 10:00 o·clo ck the Ho use is adjourned and sta nds adjou rned until 10:00 a.m. tomorr ow morning. (Frida y) 162