Manitoba Hansard — 10 March 1987 (Sitting 9, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-9

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 10 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

It's my pleasure to table a number of reports : Volume A I and Volume 11, Public Accounts, for the year ended 'f March 31, 1986, copies of which were provided to members prior to the opening of the current sitting of the House; and a report of the Provincial Auditor to the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, which was also provided to members previously; also, a Return under

Section 30 of The Public Officers' Act and The Public Trustee of Manitoba Auditor's Report and Financial Statements for the year ended March 31, 1986 . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines . HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I beg leave to table the Annual Report of the Department of Energy and Mines for the year ending March 31, 1986. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I'd like to table the Annual Report for Government Services for the year ending March 31 , 1986 . MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . .

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions , I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 50 students from Grade 9 from the Alexander Ross School . The students are under the direction of Mrs. Maclean, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia . On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon . ORAL QUESTIONS Bilingual directory - civil servants MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. 235 MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Last week, the Premier issued a directory of bilingual civil servants in the Province of Manitoba, which he called an important step forward in the Prov ince of Manitoba, which he called an important step forward in the process of bringing French language services to Manitoba. At the same time, the head of the government's French language services secretariat indicated that the number of bilingual civil servants had not increased in the past three years .

My question to the Premier is: does this indicate that the great demand that the Premier and his government said was there for French language services some three years ago, when they embroiled this province into a bitter and acrimonious debate on French language services, that great demand is not there? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, first, I think a correction would be in order. The embroiling of this province into a bitter debate was originated with honourable members across the way, not on this side of the House . So let the record be clear in that respect.

Insofar as language services are concerned, what indeed the directory indicates is that during the last period of time, though there has not been any significant increase in the numbers overall of bilingual civil servants, there has been organization and coordination to ensure that more individual departments have the capacity in order to be able to respond to requests in French so that they can be properly answered - more coordination, more organization . MR. G. FILMON: Well, there may be more coordination and more organization, but there aren't any more services , Madam Speaker .

My question , therefore, to the Premier is: is there any unfulfilled demand that his government sees today for language services in the Province of Manitoba? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, first, we're not the sources of exaggerated numbers that were suggested would be required in order to provide bilingual public services in the Province of Manitoba, nor was the Minister for Urban Affairs the originator of any exaggerated figures in that respect. If the honourable members would closely scrutinize those statements, they would find that to be the case.

You know there are clearly areas, Madam Speaker, where there is still a lack of bilingual servicing . In communities, particularly, where there is a heavy density of Francophone population, we still lack adequate bilingual service in those particular communities , and the government will attempt to continue to redress that problem . MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the First Minister could indicate where those demands exist, and why his government isn't moving to fulfill the demand.

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I thought that I had answered that in the previous question . I said in those areas of the province where there•s a substantial number of Francophone residents, specifically those areas of 10 percent and over that are Francophone, there is still a lack of service in some areas. We are identifying that lack and we'll continue to strive to redress that problem in those areas . Translation costs - federal contribution MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, speaking of exaggerated figures, in response to my questions in the Estimates for the Premier's area on September 9 of last year, the Premier sent me a letter on November 18, indicating and I quote: "With respect to legal translation costs themselves, the Federal Government contributed $300,000 in the last fiscal year.

While no final agreement has yet been struck for this year, we fully expect the federal contribution to be at least comparable to last . year's ." Yet the Annual Report of the Attorney-General's Department that was tabled in Committee of Supply August 19 indicates, and I quote : "We have received support from the Federal Government in the order of $400,000 last year, and we anticipate a similar amount this year." Is the figure $300,000 in the Premier's letter correct , or $400,000 in the Attorney-General's Anm~al Report correct? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, we will accept that question as notice .

Rural Manitoba - programs MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I have a question to the First Minister or to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Madam Speaker, the decline in population in 60 percent of the municipalities throughout Man itoba is indeed very shocking to, not only the Opposition, but to those people who are affected .

What plans or programs does the Minister of Municipal Affairs or Premier have to assure those people in rural Manitoba that they will not be called upon to bear the heavier load of taxation that has been incurred because of a loss of population under the New Democratic Party over the past five years? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, first I'm really surprised that the Member for Arthur would pose that question, he having been a member of a government during the term of a former Premier , Premier Lyon, in this province, in which there were two consecutive population losses in the Province of Manitoba, when there were absolute net declines in the Province of Manitoba . That has not been the case during the term of this administration, since 1981 to the present time .

So, Madam Speaker, I wish that honourable members would ensure that, when they ask questions, they try to base 236 those questions on correct premises rather than on erroneous premises . Madam Speaker, the thrust of this government in respect to Manitoba , including rural and Northern Manitoba, I think is one that is quite, quite clear, and is one of the reasons that this province has led most other provinces by way of growth , by way of job increase, by way of investment growth. It is because there has been a clear economic strategy carefully thought out in order to . . .

POINT OF ORDER MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable Opposition House Leader . MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we have listened in Opposition to Ministers giving answers that have no connection whatsoever to the question that's asked . Madam Speaker, Beauchesne points out that answers to the questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised , which the Premier in this case was not doing . The question was very specific as to grants to municipalitities with reduced populations and the effect on those municipalities.

The answer should not provoke debate , as Beauchesne says, and the First Minister is getting exactly into that area, Madam Speaker . A quick perusal of Hansard over the few days that we have been in Session will show the extended length of answers that have no relevancy to the question that is asked . And I would ask, Madam Speaker , that

whereas you have interrupted members on this side of the House who are asking questions when they add one extra sentence, that you ask the Ministers to keep their answers short, so that we can ask as many questions as possible . That is the objective of question period, to ask as many questions as possible and to get brief, short answers to them . MADAM SPEAKER: On the point of order, the Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, to that point of order, if indeed the question was, as the Member for St.

Norbert has suggested, a specific question as to grants to municipalities, then I'm prepared to acknowledge that my answer was too general. But if it is, as I recall the question to be - and, Madam Speaker, you may wish to review Hansard - a general question as to what your government intends to do in order to arrest the decrease in population in rural areas , then a general question like that deserves and I am obliged to provide a general answer to a general question .

I suggest to you that , Madam Speaker, you may wish to review Hansard to ascertain whether the question was a general question or whether it was a specific question . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur on a point of order. MR. J. DOWNEY: No, Madam Speaker, I have an additional question .

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: On the point of order, it's my understanding that, while we cannot determine , either the Opposition or the Speaker, the content of the answer, or the Opposition cann ot raise a point of order as to whether they're satisfied with the content of the answer, certainly I have asked, on many occasions , that the Honourable Min iste rs who are answering questions do adhere to Citation 358.(2), which the Honourable Opposition House Leader raised, which is that "answe rs to questions should be as brief as possible , should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate." I would like to caution all Ministers, once again, to follow that particular citation .

Rural Manitoba - population loss MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY : Thank you, Madam Speaker , I have a question to the First Minister .

In view of the fact that he has been the Premier of the Prov ince of Manitoba when they removed the Land Titles Office from Boissevain, when they removed the RCMP from Winnipeg Beach , Reston and Deloraine , Madam Speaker , the question to the Minister is, in case he has trouble with it, will he stop the exodus of people from rural Manitoba with his government policies so they don't have to burden the extra tax load which his government is incurring upon them? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the ques tion is argumentative , and it is one that calls for a general response. Madam Speaker, I'm prepared to provide a general response to the general questi on from the , Honourable Member for Arthur, if indee d that is the appropriat e manner to proceed .

The honou rable member knows full well that , during , the term of this government, there have been many pro grams by way of Interest Rate Relief , by way of the Beef Stabi lization Program , by way of other initiatives , in establishing health and educational institutions , by providing government services, municipal services, to the rural areas of this province that have improved rural life in this provin ce. Now , Madam Speake r, I am prepared to go on at great leng th to answer genera l questions, if that is indeed the wish of hon ourable members across the way.

Rural Manitoba - transfer payments to MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur, with a supplementary . MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker. In view of the fact that 60 percent of the munic ipalities of rural Manitoba have seen a decline in their population 237 under his term as Premie r of this province, will he contact the municipalities and the people of rural Manitoba and assure them that there won 't be a red uction in total dollars for support of rura l Manitoba out of the Provincial Treasury?

Will he give that assurance that they can look for the same amount of support which, Madam Speaker , they deserve, police protection and all those other services that the people in the City of Winnipeg exp ect and get? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, than k you, Madam Speaker . A rather interesting reaction to a newspaper artic le that appeared in yesterday's paper. I want to assure the Member for Arthur, my critic, that we will be reviewing this in the next mon th or so, the transfe r payments to the municipalities.

In the past, there has always been consideration taken about the potential reduction . We will be reviewing this matter and an announcement will be made at the appropriate time. Daerwood Machine Works - incentive payment MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you , Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Business Development and a little Tourism . On November 8, 1984, a conditional grant of $60,000 was made to Daerwood Machine Works .

The Minister says that it was not made on legal term s but on moral terms, and I maintain it was done because of compassionate and political reasons . Can the Minister tell us what the condi tions of that grant were? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Busin ess Development . HON. M. HEMPHILL : Yes, I will, as always . Madam Speaker, the terms of the grant, as I recall , it 's a fully secured loan . In fact, it's not a grant; it's a loan and a fully secured loan, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: Th e Honourable Member for Porta ge la Prairie with a supplem entary . MR. E.

CONNERY: Well, yes, the O/C states that it was a cond itional grant, but the Minister now says that it was a loan. Are the payme nts to the loan being made? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, I will have to check on that and I will report back to the member, but I can assure him that it was not a grant and that it was a loan and that the loan was fully secured . MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker , I was trying to get the Minister out of the chute, but the question is to the First Minister. Was the condition of that grant that Mr. Roels not tell the people of Manitoba , and

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 specifically the constituency of Selk irk, prior to the election just how incompetent his government is in handling affairs? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, if we are going to abide by the rules and the procedures and the practices regarding questions in question period , and if we are going to reference Beauchesne in order to attempt to bring, in the perception of members opposite, a diffe rent type of question period into bear, then I would reference Citation 357 where it states very clearly that: "In putting a question a member must confine himse lf to the nar rowest limits, and the purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the House.

A question oral or written must not be iron ical, rhetorical , offensive or contain epithet , innuendo, satire , or ridicule. An oral question or written question must not be trivial, vague or meaningless. An oral question or written question must not multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point, and a question oral or written must not repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused. A question must also not contain imputations.

A question must also not be a speech, however short; nor be of unreasonable length or seek, for purposes of argument, information on matters of past history." There are a whole number of other things that a question ought not to be, that have just been violated by the Member for Portage in the phrasing of his questions, right from the earliest

preamble where he talked about Business Development and a little Tourism to the last question . In fact, if the members opposite - and I see the Assistant House Leader getting to his feet, and I welcome any suggestions or advice he might provide to us on this side again. If in fact, Madam Speaker, we are going to abide by the procedures and rules as laid out in Beauchesne, we can let them apply equally to both sides, and let members opposite frame their questions in the proper fashion.

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, on the point of order, that question is in fact out of order for all the reasons as raised here and many more, which we can go into detail on if required. MADAM SPEAKER: On the point of order, the Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: What we see now, Madam Speaker, is the government not only wants to take as much time as possible in answering the questions so that they can limit the number of questions that are asked for this side, the Government House Leader now wants, in the few limited questions we get, to restrict those questions.

The purpose of question period is to allow us to ask questions, and to get as many answers as possible, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader, with more advice . HON. J. COWAN: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, just so the record be clear, all we want to do 238 is have the same rules apply to both sides of the House. If the Member for St.

Norbert, the Opposi tion House Leader, wishes to stand up and attempt to muzzle individuals on this side of the House by sugges ting that we should not be giving full and factual information in answer to questions, then let them phrase the questions . in the way in which Beauchesne anticipated and in a way in which this House has said questions should be phrased in the past, so as we can answer them in a concise and factual manner.

But we will not allow them ' to suggest that this side of the House should abide by , the provisions provided for in Beauchesne, and that side of the House can do anything they damn well please . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I do hope the Honourable Government House Leader would withdraw that fina l remark. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, I think the intent was to suggest that they . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . HON. J.

COWAN: I think the problem's a very real problem, that members on this side, Madam Speaker, should not be forced to abide by the procedures while members on that side can do anything - and if you wish - they darn well please. But the fact is, they 're doing anything they darn well please anyway. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Opposition House Leader . MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

Let me, on the point of order raised by the Government House Leader, Madam Speaker, refer you to Commons Debates of February 24 of 1986, in which the then Speaker stated, in discussing the whole area of question period: " As one important principle, it should be made a part of question period that membe rs should be given the greatest possible freedom in the putting of questions that is consistent with the other principles or practices, should seek, in the words of Mr.

Speaker Jerome, to reduce to an absolute mini mum the negative disqualifications that may limit or restrict the membe rs' right to ask a question." I would ask, Madam Speaker , that you respectfully reject the arguments of the Government House Leader, in that the right and ability of members on this side of the House to ask questions should not be unduly restricted, as the member is suggesting. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, very seldom, if at all on this side, have you seen me rise to suggest that the questions that were being asked were out of order.

Very seldom, on this side, did you see any member rise to suggest that the questions should not be answered . As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, it is our intent and our policy that the members opposite do be allowed the greatest possible freedoms and flexibility in posing their questions and, by practice, we

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 have shown that to be our policy. We have not risen to our feet to suggest that the questions were out of orde r or that the quest ions did not abide by what was called for in Beauchesne or the practices of this House . Let the record be very clear. What is happening here today is what has been happening for far too long in this House now, and that is members opposite suggest that this side should be constrained, unduly so, in answering questions.

Either they don't touch the subject which they wish them to touch, either they're too long, either they're not acceptable, either we should n't be asking questions on this side of the House which demand factual information for the public and for members opposite and, at the same time, suggest that they have the maximum possible freedom.

What I would like to see in this House, Madam Speaker, in the interest of good debate and in the interest of the proper functioning of this House, is for the maximum latitude to be given to both sides of this House so that questions can be those questions which members opposite and members on this side feel are important questions to the public of Manitoba and so that the answers, most of all, can be full, factual , complete , and provide the information which this government wants to provide to the people of Manitoba through this House . SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . Order please.

I thank all members for their advice on this situa tion. As members well know, when we take time from question period to discuss points of order, we do keep track of the time that is lost and we do add it on . So I think it's very important that we determine points of order based on their merit and make sure that we do have the full adequate 40 minutes for question period. Also in terms of the rules for both questions and answers, as all members are well aware, there are not the same rules for each .

There are many, many qualifications that are put on the kinds of questions that are in order, and I do try to interpret questions to see whether they follow within those guidelines. The guidelines for answ ers are quite different . So it is, certainly, not possible to have the identical

interpretation on questions and on answers. The Member for Portage la Prairie's last question was certa inly out of order, and I do caution all members to address Ministers with their proper titles and with the respect that all honourable members deserve in the House. Also that we will , with the help of both sides, by following the citations in Beauchesne that are applicable to either side, have a very fruitful and productive question period according to the rules. Automotive Trades Association - cancelled meeting MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll attempt to ask my question without conflicting with eithe r rule in order that Manitobans can hold th is government accountable. Madam Speaker , my question is to the Minister responsible for MPIC. The negotiations between MPIC and the Automotive Trades Association continue to drag on with no resolution, and it has come to my attention that the Minister was to meet with representatives of the ATA on March 13, but it appears tha t he has postponed the meeting .

My question is this: why did the Minister impetuously call off the meeting and thus neglect an opportunity to bring a quick end to the imp asse ? MADAM SPEAKER: Could the honourable member please rephrase her question as not to imply motives? The Honourable Member for River Heights . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Yes. Why did the Minister cancel the meeting , Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urab le Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As usual, the Member for River Heights does not have all the facts.

As in the last question on this matter, the member had indicated that the Automotive Trades Association was asking for a 9 percent increase. In fact, the figures were between 17 and 30 percent . There is a considerable difference between $30.45 an hour and $35.50 an hour, and that is something like 17 percent or 20 percent . 239 On the matter of the meeting, the member should be aware that I had, some two weeks ago or so ago, responded to a telephone call from the consultants working for the Automotive Trades Association indicating that I might consider meeting with the representatives of the association.

I subsequently received a three- or four - page letter from the association, after which I advised the consultants or members on the negotiating committee that I did not feel that it would be appropriate for me to meet with the associat ion at this time. That information was conveyed to the representatives of the association last Thursday or Friday, and I was somewhat surprised that the consultant or the negotiators have not been speaking to the president for the past three or four days . If there was a surprise today, it's a communication problem within the association, not from my office to the association .

Minister's disapproval of questions - re Automotive Trades Association MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I have been told by a member of the ATA that the Minister called off the meeting because he disapproved of questions being asked in this House about negotiations. How does the Minister justify this sort of behaviour whereby the Minister of a Crown refuses to meet with a group when he receives questions which he deems unfavourable? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That question is not in order. Does the Honourable Member for River Heights wishes to rephrase her supplementary question?

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I'd like to ask a question to the Premier, Mada m Speaker. Is the Premier prepared to accept behaviour which would allow his Ministers to not meet with individuals because they don't like what is raised in this Hou se? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, there is no case to suggest that, and the question is hypothetical. Carman Agri Services - meeting with Minister MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , my question is for the Minister responsible for Autopac and follows on the recent answer of his Premier . Will the Minister responsible for Autopac meet with Mr. Dennis Lesage of Carman Agri to discuss the current problem that he is having with the bad situation caused by mishandling by Autopac of his claim in Saskatchewan? Will he meet with Dennis Lesage? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , apparently , the Member for Pembina doesn 't read the newspapers as thoroughly as I thought he did .

The fact of the matter is that there is a Statement of Claim before the courts by Carman Agri against the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation , and it would therefore be quite inappropriate for me to meet with representatives from Carman Agri at this time . MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , can the Minister indicate whether Autopac has been served with th is alleged Statement of Claim? HON . J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, I understand that, as of about an hour-and-a-half ago , the claim had been filed, but it had not been served on the corporation . MR. D.

ORCHARD: Well then , Madam Speaker , given that the claim hasn 't been served on Autopac, will the Minister undertake to meet with Mr. Dennis Lesage and discuss the mishandling of Autopac of his case in Saskatchewan? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: If it weren 't such a serious matter, I would almost find it amusing, the manner in which the Member for Pembina tries to play lawyer . This is a very serious matter -(Interjection)- in which the . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: This is a very serious matter , and I can appreciate the concerns that the owners of Carman Agri have about the existence of their business because of the particular court award . However , as I 240 indicated when the member firs t brought it to my attention, I think that the approp riate place to determ ine whether or not this matter has been handled properly is the courts . I notice the Statement of Claim is to that effect , and the courts will deal with the matte r and will adjudicate on it. MADAM SPEAKER: A final supplementary? Carman Agri Services - letter of Credit MR. D.

ORCHARD: No, Madam Speaker . I have a question for the First Minister . Madam Speaker , given that Friday, outside of this Chamber , the Minister responsible for Autopac admitted that there was now a policy in place whereby people being sued would be notified , indicating an error on Autopac 's part; given, No. 2, that outside of the House , the Minister respons ible for MPIC indicated that Autopac was served in Saskatchewan and failed to serve Carman Agri ; given , No. 3, Mr.

Premier , that there is no precedent in this case because Autopac is not similarly defending any other Manitoban; given , No. 4, that you, Sir, on moral grounds have defended a business in your constituency and provided , on moral grounds, financial support to that business; and, No. 5, given that the Minister again outside this House said that he would provide relief to Carman Agr i if they were sued by the Saskatchewan lawyer ; would the First Minister simply accede to the request I made to him in my letter to him of March 6 and provide a Letter of Credit to take Carman Agri out of the bounds of going bankrupt because of incompetent actions by this Minister and his staff and Autopac?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, let me assure you that I won't be asking for equal time in my answer as to which the Honourable Member for Pembina gave in his question , and I won 't need it either . Madam Speaker, there is a court actio n which is taking place in the Province of Saskatchewan involving Mr. Rieger and affecting Carman Agri, involving the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation .

We've also received notice that there is another action under way vis-a -vis Carman Agri and the Manitob a Public Insurance Corporat ion, apparently a suit just filed in the courts a short period of time ago. Usually in matters such as this, it is in the public interes t, as well as the interest of all parties including Carman Agri, to allow the courts to make t heir determination of equity and justice and have suffic ient confidence in them rather than attempt to disto rt the process in the Legislative Chambers . MPIC - policy re Autopac MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , a supplementary question to the Premier.

Is the Premier now telling Manitobans who have not been properly represented by Autopac , by Crown

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 corporations, by bureaucrats, that his policy now changes, wherein two years ago he supported Daerwood Machine Works Limited in his constituency from wrongful action of bureaucrats? Is that policy now changed in that the First Minister will no longer support and defend businesses in Manitoba who are wrongfully represented by bureaucrats of Crown corporations? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the very court action that is presently being dealt with is one that is attempting to determine whether or not Carman Agri was well represented, was well served by way of the legal processes by Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation in the case that was held in Saskatchewan. That is the very essence, the very substance .

If the Honourable Member for Pembina is already making up his mind prior to the court case having made a determination, then I don't know why his constituent has launched a court action or why indeed is Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation appealing the action in the Province of Saskatchewan. Carman Agri Services - bankruptcy MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, a final supplementary to the Premier . Is the Premier then telling Carman Agri that they can go bankrupt because of wrongful action by MPIC and their defence in Saskatchewan; that pending the appeal, he is going to allow them to go bankrupt?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, I would SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . The Honourable Member for Pembina asked a question . I presume he wants to hear the answer. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: In response to the question from the Member for Pembina, I had indicated last week outside of the House and by correspondence that I was satisfied there was nothing in the conduct of this file by MPIC which would warrant intervention on my part such as requested in the letter of February 24.

However, I did say that the matter will proceed to appeal with every effort being made to overturn this judgment, which can only be viewed as inordinately high. However, with the filing of a Statement of Claim against the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation by Carman Agri, I think that particular action has foreclosed any possibility of MPIC trying to resolve the matter to Carman Agri's satisfaction. First-contract legislation - applications MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A.

MACKLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. 241 On Friday, March 6, the Honourable Member for Brandon West asked a question: Since the first contract legislation was brought in by this government, how many first-contract applications have been filed by bargaining agents with the Manitoba Labour Board, and how many have been filed by employers? The answer , Madam Speaker , is 24 by employees or employee groups, 1 by an employer . I just add a further note that the one brought by an employer for first contract led to the curtailment of a legal strike that was then ongoing .

New assessment classification re Headingley - refusal to establish MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, on Friday last, I tabled in the House a petition from a number of residents of the hamlet of South Headingley, requesting the Minister of Urban Affairs to take certain actions regarding a new assessment classification for their particular situation, as well as other large-lot situations surrounding Winnipeg . Yesterday, the Mayor was quoted as saying that the Minister had refused to establish that additional classification .

Can the Minister now advise the House if he has indeed made that statement? MADAM SPEAKER: That question is out of order. It's a member 's duty to ascertain the truth of statements that he brings before the House. The Honourable Member for Charleswood . MR. J. ERNST: If I may rephrase that, Madam Speaker : Can the Minister advise the House if that's the policy of the government at this time? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, as you are aware, Beauchesne very clearly prohibits the asking of questions as to whether or not a matter is a matter of policy under the government. I believe you will find it in the

section of Beauchesne entitled "Questions," under Citations 357 and 358. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood on the point of order? MR. J. ERNST: No. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West on the point of order? MR. J. McCRAE: I'm rising on the point to ask the Government House Leader just which citation he's referring to in Citation 357? MADAM SPEAKER: It's my opinion that - the Honourable Government House Leader . HON. J. COWAN: I thought the Assistant House Leader on the other side would have known. However, if he

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 requires assistance, we're always pleased to provide it to him as we were able to last week. The Citation is: " ... ask the Government's opinion on matters of policy." It's 357(bb). MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader draws our attention to 357(bb) , but I ask Your Honour to refer to Citation 357.(2) which reads : " Many of the traditional limitations on questions are now applied more strictly to written questions than to oral questions .

In the words of one Speaker: '. . . one need only look at Citation 171 of Beauchesne 's Fourth Edition,' " which, Madam Speaker, is reprinted in Citation 357 . of this, the Fifth Edition, " .. . in which will be found numerous, and in many cases, inoperable, restrictions cove ring the form and content of questions. I suggest that if each and every one of these restrictions were applied in every case, very few questions would ever reach the Order Paper." Madam Speaker, that would certainly apply to Oral Questions as well . MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. J.

COWAN: Again , the Member for Brandon West makes our point. The point is - and we made it earlier - we do not want to restrict members on either side of this House in respect to the questions they ask or the answers they give. We on this side feel that a free flow of information is important, not only to the workings of this House, but to the provision of information to the public .

When members opposite stand up today, as they did first, and start to suggest that we have to follow Beauchesne to the nth degree in respect to our answers , then we suggest that, if that is going to be the case, they must follow Beauchesne to the nth degree in respect to their questions. If they follow Beauchesne in the nth degree in respect to their questions, I would suggest this is what will happen, and I'll repeat what the Member for Brandon West said.

I suggest that if each and every one of these restrictions were applied in every case, very few questions would ever reach the Order Paper, and he suggests that applies to Oral Questions as well . That is exactly a problem we have been trying to avoid by allowing flexibi lity in the asking of questions and flexibility in the answering of questions, so that there will be that full flow of information. I thank the Honourable Member for Brandon West for his assistance and his help, because I think he has made exactly the type of case that we were trying to suggest would happen if we followed their advice.

Madam Speaker, we want that free and flowing question period. We do not want this , to have to stand up on every instance and suggest the question is out of order because , in fact , very few questions will reach this House if that is the case ; but as well we don't want to have to stand here and listen to them every time we try to give full and factual information, suggesting that we are not abiding by Beauchesne . Let us have the free and open-flowing debate that's required for the proper working of this House. 242 SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

I think a discussion in the Chamber as to how question period should be conducted is always very enlightening to all sides, includ ing to the Speaker . On this particular question that has been asked and the point of order specifically that was raised to deal with the Member for Charleswood's question , Citation 357.(bb) suggests that a question is out of order if it seeks the government's opinion on a matter of policy . Citation 358.(

f) says that a question " should not raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with as an answer to a question ." Those are the two major Citations that deal with policy issues and questions. In my opinion - and my recollection was that the Member for Char leswood asked the Minister to adv ise the Opposition as to a specific policy. If that answer is not in contravention of 358 .(f), which is too large to be dealt with as an answer to a quest ion, I suggest that the question is in order. The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs.

Did the Honourable Minister want the question repeated , which might be helpful after this length of time? New assessment classification re Headingley - refusal to establish MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, it was so long ago , I might have forgotten as well. The people of Charleswood asked a simple question . Will the Minister create a classification to resolve their assessment problem? My question to the Minister is: Has he done it? Will he do it? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. G. DOER: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

In answer to the question, I did meet with the City of Winnipeg yesterday, the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor , the Chairperson of the Finance Committee, and did reiterate that we would not be creating a ninth classification for purposes of differential mill rates . I can also say, Madam Speaker, that it was also the city 's opinion that a ninth category should not be crea ted but, notwithstanding that factor , I wouldn 't be recommending it. There will be shifts in the eight classifications .

After 25 years without reassessment, there will be shifts within those classifications : in the home sector, from the inner city to some of the suburban areas, in the commercial sector, in some of the other sectors that have been identified. But we are not going to create 15, 16, 17 classifications, based on ad hoc information from the City of Winnipeg. We still have not received information , Madam Speak er, on some of the specif ics. I understand the assessments for some of those properties are under appeal.

I also understand that the phasing-in legislation that we have discussed , all members have discussed, is very positive, which will allow the increases to be

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 over a three-year period, will be very positive for those people and similarly affected people in the City of Winnipeg. However, it was certainly the verbal conclusion of the members I met with from the city and certainly my own position that I would not recommend to my caucus and government that a ninth category be created. I thi nk it's very important that we be honest with those citizens. This is a very complicated item. I just would like to say one other point on it, with your indulgence. MADAM SPEAKER: I'm sure the honourable member will ask a supplementary . HON. G.

DOER: I think he will. MR. J. ERNST : Madam Speaker, the Minister referred in his response to the fact that the City of Winnipeg's position was, they were not in favour. Does the Minister have in his possession now a resolution of the Council of the City of Winnipeg to that effect? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I haven't got a resolution from the city council on any one of the classifications we've created throughout this process.

We have got some letters back and forth through the committee that the city has created and the committee that the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself - we've been meeting with the city to resolve many of the differences . The answer is there has been no resolution in my possession. I have said that there may be areas in The City of Winnipeg Act that would provide some sensitivity to the situation, subject of course to the facts being made available so we'll know what, in fact, we're dealing with . Deferral of taxes - legislation re MR. J.

ERNST : Madam Speaker , a new question to the Minister of Urban Affairs. The Mayor again yesterday is quoted as saying that the city does not have the right to defer taxes, but that the Minister had promised in fact to introduce legislation to allow the city to defer taxes . Is the Minister going to introduce such legislation? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, there are two aspects of the legislation we are planning to introduce that we've consulted with members of the House on and members of city council.

One is to deal with extending the appeal period to deal with the very real situation of comparing tax assessments across the city and the staggering of how those tax notices went out by city. The second issue is to provide phasing-in legislation, again in consultation with members in this House and members of city council, to allow for those tax increases within those classifications to take place over three years . I have not seen the data , Madam Speaker , on the allegations of these houses.

I have legal opinions from the province that say there may be all kinds of flexible means within The City of Winnipeg Act and other acts. Apparently the officials are meeting, between the city and the province. I am not intending, and the proposed bill on the Order Paper does not contain that proposed amendment, but I have always said throughout this process that we're flexible and sensitive and we would be willing to take that under advisement. I said that to the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the Chairman of the Finance Comm ittee yesterda y morning when I met with them .

Manitoba Hydro - review by PUB MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for St. Norbert . MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker , I have a question for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro . A lawyer representing the Manitoba Organization for Seniors and the Consumers Association has accused the Hydro of trying to stifle the public hearing with respect to Manit oba Hydro 's rate increase. I would ask the Minister if Manitoba Hydro is acting on his direction in attempting to stifle the scope of the review by the Public Utilities Board. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W.

PARASIUK: The counsel has been acting on behalf of Manitoba Hydro . I have not been issuing instructions to counsel for Manitoba Hydro as to how to act on this matter. Manitoba Hydro is acting as they have acted before National Energy Boards in the past, and as they have acted I guess many years ago before the Public Utilities Board . They have said that, if there is an appeal of a 2.8 percent rate increase, they're quite happy to defend the application to have the 2.8 percent rate increase defended and that's what they will be. 243 MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Minister.

Unlike the Attorney-General and the Minister of Culture, who have chosen not to proclaim The Freedom of Information Act and open up the deep, dark government secrets, would the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro intervene in this matter? As Mr. Peltz has stated, and unfortunately Manitoba Hydro wants to operate in the shadows, would he then direct Manitoba Hydro to agree to a full hearing and review of the rates before the Public Utilities Board? HON. W. PARASIUK: I'm very surprised that Mr. Peltz said that, in fact, because Mr.

Peltz over the last year and-a-half has been provided with a great deal of information that he has asked for. I'm very surprised that he would make that statement, given the full information that he has indeed been provided over the past year-and-a-half . MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, would the Honourable Minister then agree to meet with Mr. Peltz to review his concerns and agree with his request that the Public Utilities Board have a full review of the rates to be set by Manitoba Hydro, and that Manitoba Hydro not continue to object to an attempt to stifle that review and limit its scope? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Certainly, I have in fact had conversations with Mr. Peltz on this in the past, and

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 that if he felt he wasn't getting sufficient information that I certainly would be quite happy to meet with him. I've not heard from him directly; I think he's chos en to make a statement in the press, which I disa gree with . But I certa inly would be quite happy to meet with him and discuss this matter, and in fact discuss the matter of the rate review. Manitoba Hydro is quite prepared , as per the act, to have the rate increase reviewed, or future rate increases reviewed by the Public Utilities Board as the act and as the polic y provides for.

Day Care - Federal Gov't intentions MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR. H. SMITH: My question is to the Minister of Community Services . As we all know , there is a great demand for day care spaces and , as we all know , the Federal Government has promised much in this regard. Has the Minister any direct contact by correspondence or phone calls to let us know what the Federal Government is doing in regard to day care? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, we are in the process of meeting with the Federal Government .

Five of their officials have come and met with my officials again to hear the provincial position yet again. We, as yet, have no information on the federal intentions, though we do have a time frame within which they have promised that they will come to some conclusion on what their policy is. They say that they will meet with all the provinces some time in March.

The Parliamentary Committee will report March 21, and they will have their strategy ready by May for final - I don't know whether it's to be implementation or the final dotting of the "i's" and crossing of the "t's" in September - but to date, Madam Speaker, we have no idea as to what the parameters of that policy will be. Water Rights Act - drainage inspections MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you , Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. It is my understanding that The Water Rights Act has been proclaimed recently .

Under this act , will the farmers and municipalities not be required to have drainage projects on their property or within their jurisdiction inspected by government inspectors? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources . HON. L. HARAPIAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, The Water Rights Act has been proclaimed. The regulations pursuant to that act will soon be passed, 244 and it is within that framework there will be provision for ensur ing that any alteration of water flow in any area will be done in an orderly manner and doesn't impose hardship on neighbouring properties . MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Further to the same Minister, has the Minister made any effort in terms of making the municipalities or the farming commun ity aware of the new impositions that will be imposed upon their privilege in terms of providing proper drainage for their land? HON. L. HARAPIAK: There was a process of consultation that was undertaken at the time that the act was being reviewed, and it is our intent to undertake communication when the regulations are passed with various, in fact all, parties that would be interested , whether we have the municipalities, landowners, other parties of interest.

We will be undertaking a process of communication with those groups to ensure that the intent of the legislation and the regulations are understood - understood in that it is not meant to impose a hardship or a burden on landowners, but it is intended indeed to prevent the creation of a hardship by indiscriminate alteration of water flows, whether by individuals or property holders . MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson, who has 24 minutes remaining . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I feel a little awkward today . Last night, when launched my speech, I was sort of on a roll, and then had to sort of be cut off in the middle of it, and I feel sort of like somebody that's in the middle of a race . When you stop in the middle, you sort of lose your momentum .

But under the circumstances, Madam Speaker, maybe it was just as well.- (lnterjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Because since yesterday when I was speaking, I have been informed by my colleagues that they weren't sure on which side of the House I was on, that I was making this sort of a highroad loving speech. After reconsidering my comments, I think maybe it's just as well maybe that I was interrupted and maybe can get down to some of the serio us things that I wanted to raise.

Basically, the things that I was coming to yesterday was the record of this government , and I alluded to it in certain circumstances, what their record has been since 1981 actually, but more so actually since 1983 as I mentioned . Since that time, this government has been a very shy and timid government and seemingly don't have the ability or the desire to proceed with positive action that would be beneficial to all the people

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 in Manitoba. When I look at them sitting there, and I've heard comments being called from time to time, tell us what to do. For a government that has been in power for less than a year, to already be asking, tell us what to do, illus trates to me that there are problems there. I sometimes make light of this, Madam Speaker, but I always say, when a socialist hasn' t got money to -{Interjection)- spend anymore . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order , order please . If honourable members would lik e to have private conversations , would they kindly do so elsewhere . MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Thank you , Madam Speaker . As I indicated to Madam Speaker already, I was on a roll last night and it takes a little while until you get the momentum built up again. But what we see across from us, Madam Speaker, is a government with no plan of action and apparently no desire to move on any major thing . There is no long range planning . My colleague from Lakeside yesterday spoke eloquently as usual and gave us a bit of history as to some of the bigger things that have been undertaken in this province, for example, the installation of telephones throughout Manitoba, hydro, these kind of things .

This takes imagination and planning . We don't have that. Madam Speaker, you can hear that in the speeches from the government side, that there is no initiative left with them and this is in less than a year since they formed government . Madam Speaker , methinks, when I look at the Minister of Finance sitting in his chair from time to time, he looks like death warmed over already and he still hasn't brough t his Budge t forward . So I expect that there are not going to be very many good thing s happening in there.

Madam Speaker, the fact that the government side knows what is in that Budget , that is why they are all sort of playing a low-key type of approach to things , even their fedbashing has slowed down a little . It shows that the zing is gone out of this government , in spite of some of the comm ents by some individuals. Some of the comments concerning fedbashing, for example - there has been a lot of criticism of the Federal Government and some of it rightfully so. I walked into a coffee shop the other day and there were about 10 people sitting there.

The topic of conversation was Prime Minister Mulroney and what should be done with him. The criticism was quite severe, but people sometimes don't think through these matters very clearly. As I sat, they were trying to get me into the debate. I said : "Gentlemen, it's true . There are many mistakes being made at the federal scene, but you know, I find it so hard. How do you defend them?" I said the fact that the inflation rate is lowest for more than a decade now, more than a deca de, for a long time; inflation is under control. The other thing I said, it is hard to defend the low interes t rat e. In this

part icular case, some individuals said, "Well, our interest rate reflects what happens in the States ." Madam Speak er, I had the occas ion to go on a litt le holiday to Mexico, whi ch is the neighbour on the other side of the States and certainly it has no reflection there, so I don 't know whether it has that much of a reflection here. But these kind of things we don't think 245 about very much when we talk about inflation , when we talk of low interest rates and how it has stimulated the economy. The building starts in this province , for example , are directly related to the low interest rates .

Bu_t, you know, thes e things always have a way of being distorted a little bit. Everybody can play with figures. The government does it to thei r abil ity as best they can. We do it in our way. Madam Speaker, I'd like to relate incidents that happened in my constituency , for example. I met a farmer the other day. I said , "How are things going?" He said, "Well, not so good. " I said, " What's the problem?" He said, "Thirty- three percent of my herd died." I picked up my ears and said, "Well , what happened?" He said, " I only had three, one died.

" Madam Speaker, what I was trying to illustrate is how you can play with figures . In that examp le, one out of three makes 33 percent, and when I looked at that pre-Budget document that the Minister of Finance sent out , all these graphs and stuff like that, we, Madam Speaker, do the same thing . We play with figures to our advantage, if we can to some degree, but we are the Opposition, Madam Speaker. We are the Opposition . They are the government and they are supposed to be accountable and give direction .

That is why they sit there and, as I heard the Attorney-General say, "We got elected again and we're proud of it, and we like it." And rightfully so, they should , but they don't seem to be such a proud and energetic bunch, Madam Speaker . As I indicated before , you take the money away from a socialist and then he's stuck; then he doesn 't know what to do. That's what's happened here and I think that is why the glum faces on the government side, Madam Speaker. That is why the lack of being able to support the Throne Speech properly - just because of things like that.

I am sure that when it comes to the agricultural dilemma right now, if financially they could see their way clear, that they would come forward with programs that would be beneficial. But what they have done , they ar e reap ing the benefits of their five yea rs of mismanagement of all the areas of government . They are not reaping the benefits to where our defic it is so large that just servi cing the deficit is alread y costing us more than most of the departments are spendi ng, and that is the tragedy of it, that we do not understand what a deficit does to a govern ment .

I believe, Mad am Speak er, that the deficit in Manitoba, to serv ice the defici t that we have, our debt costs us over $300 million a year. I believe I am correct in that - 320-someth ing, whatever the case may be. Madam Speaker, when you take the Capital Budget, where Highways construction was around $89 million last year, or let's say $90 million, when we conside r that over $300 million is being spent to service the debt of the province, that shows why we can't come forward with programs anymore .

It is a tragedy, but they have created it and they are hung on the horns of their own dilemma at the present time . I don't know what is going to happen . If you consider that even if they do raise taxes, Madam Speaker - and the Budget coming up on March 16, we'll all have a chance to debate that - if they do raise the taxes, as we suspect they will, they'll still have to be cutting programs and you know what, Madam

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 Speaker? I predict that the deficit will not be going down . That's going to be a tragedy and the people of Manitoba will become aware and start catching on to what is going on. They will not be that proud of this government. We're looking forward to the day when finally the true story catches up. The true story is catching up on the federal scene, too. Members took great delight in the showi ng of the polls. I, Madam Speaker, would predict that this is going to be a roll around .

People will understand they went back to what they had and what they are having now and what they could be getting again , and then there is going to be a change of heart . I certainly, Madam Speaker, believe that, because the people by and large know what happens. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Madam Speaker , we all pick up certain interesting things that happen in the House and the comments that are made in and out of the House.

I find it interesting that the Member for Inkster, at the annual meeting of the NDP Party, came forward - you know, him of all people, and I don't say that necessarily disrespectfully - with the suggestion that Crown corporations should be sold and the money applied to the deficit. Madam Speaker, I'm impressed that there is at least one individual who has that kind of thinking even showing forward. Of cou rse, it got squashed and beaten down , but at least somebody was thinking out there about the deficit and it's most amazing and refreshing. Madam Speaker, I think I've embarrassed the Member for Inkster.

He's sort of blushing. I think he was probably raked over pretty good because the Premier made short work of that. But, Madam Speaker, in relation to the debt and the deficit of this province, so many projects could be undertaken . I know, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Natural Resources has endless projects that he should be dealing with . That poor fellow , Madam Speaker, the poor Minister has a problem. He's got a problem of making decisions. He's got a problem of being influential In his caucus and as a result they've taken and stripped him virtually of any funding for projects, so many of them.

I want to bring up some of this and I'm finally now to the area where I feel most comfortable, which is the Department of Natural Resources and the Minister we had. Madam Speaker, I have made many comments and speeches about that in this House. Madam Speaker, last year with the new Minister I used a certain amount of compassion . I was kind and I am a kind person, Madam Speaker, my colleagues know that. But it's come to the point and I felt it was only fair to give the Minister time to get his feet under him.

But being a bit of a cocky individual, as he was last year, I think he's changed somewhat at this stage of the game. But I raised the issue of problems within his department. I raised it, Madam Speaker. I warned him time and time again and the Minister was being cute about it. He was making smart remarks and being cute about it untll finally we had to table documents and finally, with kicking and screaming, we finally got some results out of it. Madam Speaker, that told me one thing, that the caution flag was up as to this Minister. Madam Speaker, it's been illustrated again.

This Minister just went through an episode about elk 246 ranching, and aga in he showed the problems that he has within his caucu s and within his Cabinet. He came forward after months of window dressing, running around indicating that he was listening to the public. This argument had been going for years already, Madam Speaker, and the Mini ster could have very easily resolved the whole problem of elk ranching if he had been forthright and honest in his department and educated the public as to what had been done with the experimental ranch in Minitonas .

If they'd been open about the facts and explained so there was no doubt that things were not being done properly, there was no accountability, that's all he would have had to do. He had the information, Madam Speake r. I, to this day, have not had it yet. I asked the Minister in question period the other day whether he would be prepared to table all those documents.

Whether The Freedom of Information Act is passed or not, this Minister is going to give those documents in this House, because I know that the taxpayers of Manitoba are going to be foo ting a bill of anywhere from over $600,000 to $1 million in compensation to an individual, Madam Speaker, who the province gave the right to catch elk out of the wild, and we will be turning around and paying compensation. It's just a matter of how much and when. Madam Speaker, the whole problem could have been resolved if that Minister had known what he was doing. Madam Speaker, we have more issues like that .

We have a problem - and a lot of these problems are related back to the fact that he hasn't got money to undertake projects - we have a major drainage problem in the Portage area and the Whitemud Water District. A farmer won a legal case against the government, one farmer, but I don't know how many more who will follow this same area of attack on this government. If the Minister would come forward with a major project and resolve it, the rest of them would withdraw their actions. And we have this going on and on and on.

I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that on Highway 216, where last year we had a problem there where some of the irate farmers were ready to blow up a highway, and I was out there and some of the resource people were out there, and we will be out there again this spring, the situation virtually nothing has been done unfortunately.

I want to encourage the Minister, and we'll go into this more in-depth when we get into the Estimates about some of these projects, about how much money we would be able to save in the long run if we could undertake proper planning in terms of staging projects , something like the five-year hospital plan that we have in place, so that these people know it's on the drawing board somewhere along the line. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.) What we have is a knee-jerk reaction, you know ; depending who jockeys hardest with the Minister, that's where maybe a project will develop.

He follows the same line as the Minister of Transportation did. I think out of almost all the highway projects, he had well over half of them in his area. I'm talking about the Minister of Highways. If this Minister thinks that his drainage projects are going to work in the same way, that that's going to make him popular, I dare say he'll have a surprise.

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 I'm throwing out some suggestions for the Minister. Why doesn't he develop a five-year program and then establish the priorities and do it that way? It would make a lot more sense. I haven' t seen the Estimates yet. I'm very keen to look at the Estimates, though with some apprehension, because if it follows the pattern of last year, there 's going to be more reduction again with this Minister's department, the Minister of Highway's department, in agricultu re, you know , and the genera l operations, probably there 'll be cutbacks in there.

Those are usually the ones that get kicked first; they're easy to do. I want to make some more suggestions . I don't want to be totally critical, but the invitation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from time to time has been, "Give us some ideas." Really, I feel sorry for them. I think we should give them some ideas; for example, habitat retention , and the Member for Arthur made reference to it already. We are in a crisis situation in the farm area . Farmers are not even sure whether they're going to be seeding or not. We have much land out there that actually could be used for wildlife habitat - habitat retention.

I'm suggesting to the Minister why don't we, together with the Wildlife Associations, work out a long-range plan in terms of keeping some of this land, setting it aside, let's pay the taxes for it. Some farmers would just be happy if the taxes were paid, they'd leave it that way. So these are things to be looked at. But what do we have? We have no ideas coming forward. It's a try and stay alive type of attitude that we have. Maybe if we don 't do anything, it'll go away or nobody will notice. Well, we're noticing, we're watching, because we plan to form government next time around .

So we're being very attentive, and I don't mind sharing these ideas of things that should be done in that regard. For examp le, I want to suggest to the Minister why he is not actively pursuing at a time when we're conc erned about unemployment, when we're concerned about economic conditions, why we're not proceeding to look for processing of rough fish. That's a thing that's been there, a lot of potential there, but no, there's no initi ative, nothing happening.

While we talk on the area of fishing, I want to talk a little bit about commercial fishing, and I just want to raise this concern with the Minister because there's a lot of concern being expressed . They did an experimental thing with the small mesh in the south basin catching perch, and in two years time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people are already saying the results were showing well. What does this Minister do? He chops the program . (lnterjection)- Not on the advice of the fishermen . We'll get into that in-depth because I have petitions that I will be presenting to this Minister . Anyway, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I've been sort of trying to pick up in a sense where I left off yesterday, and it doesn't do the same thing, like you can't get going quite as properly. You probably know what I mean . But I will have ample opportunity, as will all of us, to take and watch this government. Yes, we will give you advice; we will give all of you adv ice, and we hope that you will listen to some of it and follow up some of that. It is going to be with great interest, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that we look forward to the presentation of the Budget on March 16 to see exactly what direction this government is taking the people in Manitoba. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Ellice. MR. H. SMITH: I would first of all say how pleased I am to take

part in this debate , and I'd also like to congratulate the Speaker, who 's not here now, but to congratulate her on her survival. I cannot believe the rough and tumbleness and the vicious attacks that exist in this Chambe r from time to time. But, first of all, I'd like in my speech to discuss the Opposition. In the Leader of the Opposition's speech the other day, he said, "Where are the government's priorities? Are they agriculture or the deficit or jobs or education or health or roads?" The fact is . A MEMBER: They're not roads. MR. H. SMITH: Well, sure, they're not roads as you've been maintaining .

But the fact is in the Throne Speech, numerous pages , starting on page 3, but throughout the Throne Speech, it tells you the priorities of this government. For example, on page 3, it says, "My government is determined to meet the challenge of protecting and maintaining needed vital public services like health and education through careful scrutiny of resource commitments and revenue-raising initiatives." Throughout the whole Throne Speech, it explains what our priorities are, but somehow the Leader of the Opposition cannot grasp that. 247 A MEMBER: Harvey, you're more naive than I thought. MR. H.

SMITH: Well, all I can do is listen to his words. He obviously cannot listen or read very well. But, you know, he does read the newspaper; this is what I find amazing about the Opposition. They get all their information from the newspaper. They very rarely come up with anything where they have researched and developed a case; they very rarely do that . For example, the other day there was an

article in the newspaper on AIDS . That day, the Leader of the Opposition got up and pointed out the facts the newspaper reporter had uncovered that, in effect, two provinces did not have in legislation that the AIDS cases had to be reported. Then he came out with the big thing about this. It was a valid point but it didn 't come from the Opposition; it came from the news media. Also, they didn't even have enough courtesy to go ahead and praise this government for the educational efforts on AIDS, the commitment on AIDS. We are doing more than any other Western Province .

They didn't mention this; they just had a scare appeal and that was all. They find it difficult to praise this government when this government is doing an excellent job. For example, in the Leader of the Opposition's speech, he referred to the fact that occasionally you've heard from this side of the House and from Crown spokespeople , that hydro and telephone rates are the lowest in North America in Manitoba . He dismissed that with just saying something like , he used that old saw again, instead of saying, look, these are achievements of this government that are -worthwhile.

Now's there's also an attempt to distort a lot, for example, in the Opposition speeches. For example, the

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 Leade r of the Opposition got up and he quoted the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women, where they made a point that 23 percent of all positions created by the Manitoba Jobs Fund were given to women. Then he goes on from that point and he says: " That's an acknowledgement of failure ." What the Status of Women were saying was, this is, in effect, something that concerns us. The point wasn't raised by the Leader of the Opposition when the Jobs Fund was formulated. It wasn't used last Session .

We haven't heard anything about it until the Status of Women came out and said, look, here is a weakness in this plan. I don't know why the opposition can't do a little bit of research work and uncover some of those things themselves. Another disto rtion in the reply to the Throne Speech - the Leader of the Opposition discussed having a conversation with his colleague, the Member for Morris .

He sort of quoted the Member for Morris saying that the Minister of Finance, in consultation meetings throughout the province had said something to the effect that - don't tell us how to save money or to cut back on expenditures; we're not interested in that. That's not true . I attended some of those consultation meetings. The whole point that was made all the time was: Where can we provide this same service at less cost? Where can we cut programs that are not as valuable to us, not as vital to us? He made every effort. Yet we have this distortion taking place.

Now, I must admit that this Session I have noticed a difference in the Opposition . I guess they should be congratulated in that way. They have made a point of suggesting a few things that we should cut. For example, in talking about aid to the farm community, they brought up the fact that we could take some of the Jobs Fund allocation, and give it to the farmers. They don't say how much of the Jobs Fund allocation; they don't say anything except give some of it. Now how much would you like to cut it by? Why not give specifically some information on that?

In other words, the opposition should give us an idea what a Conservative Government would be like. What programs would they cut when they talk about controlling the deficit? How would they control the deficit? When you go to Estimates, as I was a new member in the House last Session, go into Estimates, and I thought it was a joke sometimes, the questions I heard. There was no seriousness. For example, one of the members, I guess it was the Member for Springfield , talked about gravel on his local highway. We heard one member talk about a broken park bench somewhere in the province.

We actually heard one member talk about the weeds on one side of this building or other . The ultimate question I heard in Estimates was this : What questions should I have asked that I have not asked? What sort of Opposition is this? If they're discussing Budget, controlling the deficit , they should be telling us what programs they would want cut. You go to Estimates, it's like a honeymoon session . There is very little suggestion by any member of the opposition of programs to cut.

Now, admittedly I do see, as I said before, some improvement in the Opposition since they do discuss some things they think are not important. For example, in the reply to the Throne Speech, the Leader of the Opposition attacked the small business bonds proposal. He said it's not 248 necessary ; the re's available capital , interest rates are low. But the fact is, he discarded the need for capital help for small businesses . Now, let me tell you this. They need capital help when they first form their firm . I know somebody in my riding, for example, who wanted to start an autobody shop.

He only had the amount of money for rent. He started it.- (Interjection)- I thought you were going to speak . A MEMBER: I'll get my chance. MR. H. SMITH: You'll get your chance but why don 't you give someone else a chance. The fact is when business is formed they need - all the calls I've received are from new businesses wanting to form or just formed six months ago. Most of them need some help wherever they can get it, encouragement to start their business. The idea that money is out there because people are willing to lend it at the current interest rates is not good enou gh.

It' s not good enough because people have an idea , they have faith in the idea and banks and financial institution s ask for secured loans, ask for what property they own, etc. So you, in effect, need to go ahead and have some financial help , some encouragement to small businesses, especially when you realize that small businesses create over half the jobs. So I think that is important. You tell that to, for example, someone who tries to start a small business, saying they have no problems with raising capital. It's obvious that they have problems.

Now, I should point out that the Leader of the Opposition also suggested in his speech, that pressures are building . There's new demands on services, technology, falling world prices for resources . He says: "But surely every other Provincial Government in this country is facing the same problems." That is true, they are. But how are they tackling it? Here I have an Alberta News Release. This is dated 1:00 p.m., Friday, January 9, and in it says: "The Education Minister of Alberta, Nancy Batkowski (phonetic) today announced a 3 percent decrease in the 1987-88 per pupil foundation grants for basic education".

A decrease of 3 percent. And then it goes on and a few paragraphs further down it says this : " This is in sharp contrast to the planning scenario of 5 or 10 percent decreases that were considered," and in Mrs. Batkowski's (phonetic) words: "Reflects the high priority which this government places on education" . They place such a high priority on education that they only had a 3 percent decrease - that's Alberta 's answer. This includes everything in education .

This includes transportation grants, grants for early childhood services , grants for vocational education , grants for private schools , grants for ext ension programs and the provincial portion of the languag e grant . They've also cut funding for community schoo l programs - it will be reduced by 50 percent . Now, that' s the Alberta answer . That's the Alberta answer.

Now, we have a news story here that appeared the other day, March 6, Globe and Mail, on Saskatchewan: "Wage Freeze Set as Deficit Triples in Saskatchewan ." And they go down, and then, talking about education and other budgetary items, they said this, "Operating

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 grants to schools, to hospitals, municipalities and universities will be frozen for the next two years ." For two years , frozen . So when we talk about vital services we're talking about those services that we consider vital, like education, health. We think it is important to maintain those services. Now, let's look at British Columbia . What is British Columbia doing to deal with its deficit problem? No funds from provincial general revenue go to universities or community colleges. Only federal dollars are allocated.

So, they don't spend a cent other than what they get from the Federal Government . B.C. has no system of bursaries for post -secondary students . No bursaries or loans. Now, what do we do in comparison on these two things? For one, we are spending over $100 million more than we get from the Federal Government on post-secondary education. So we are doing a considerably lot more than British Columbia is doing . Bursaries and loan rebate program in Manitoba. In 1985-86 there were 3,498 awards providing a total of $2,787,000 in bursaries and $3,422,000 in loan rebates and B.C.'s doing nothing. Nothing .

Tuition fees are the highest in Canada in British Columbia. University of British Columbia, $1,530; Manitoba $982 .00. So, B.C., how they 're doing it, is they are cutting the services, the essential services . Now, all three other western provinces are cutting back in services. So that's what you people across the way should note. We are trying to maintain these services to the children of Manitoba, to the young adults . And in every area of government we are attempting to provide the services that we have provided . Now, from time to time the Opposition attacks on isolated instances from the newspapers.

They do this quite often . I would like to tell them the only way not to make an error is not to do anything. And that seems to be the idea of the Conservative Opposition. Now, they can't even get here. They can't even be present in most days of the House to have all their numbers here. You can note the numbers in last Session where our whole team was here. How can you expect them to take it seriously when they only consider it really a part-time job? I can remember last Session the Leader of the Opposition took a week and went to Expo. That's the sort of thing that - I mean, they are not serious.

They deserve to be in Opposition . It's clear cut. Now, they are also insincere in other areas of criticism. They pretend that they are concerned about the status of women. MA. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please . The Member for Sturgeon Creek , state the point of order. MA. F. JOHNSTON: The point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it now going to be routine for members to start talking about when other members were here, or when they weren't here, or when they were out of the House, or not out of the House? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There should be no reference about the absence or presence of members in the Chamber. 249 MR.

H. SMITH: Now, I believe the Opposition is not sincere most times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when they are speaking . For example , in today's paper there is the headl ine story: " McDougal Breaks Date With Male only Club," the Conservative Club, all- male, and she said she is not going to attend this because it, in effect, violates something that she -believes in - equality and opportunity for women. But who rushes in? Janice Filmon, wife of the Provincial Conservative Leader , Leader of the Opposition . And what does she say?

She said yester day she does not approve of men only clubs but considers it an opportunity to give members a women 's point of view . She wants it both ways. It's much like the Progressive Conservative Party generally, progressive and conservative put together. It doesn't make sense. They want to have it both ways. I just think that the wife of the Leader of the Opposition should not have attended this gathering . She should have not attended it because this group is an all-male group and they basically are not really concerned with an exchange of ideas amongst the Conservative Party.

But, you know, there is also a contradiction in times from members from the Conservative Party. You get comments, for example, the Leader of the Opposition said this the other day in his reply to the Throne Speech: "Onl y the arrogant would believe that monies belong in the hands of government rather than in the individual who earns it." The fact is, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have always, and most people do believe in this province and in Canada, that when we cannot do something as an individual, the government itself as a whole acting on behalf of all people, can do it better than I as an individual, then it belongs in government hands to do it. Now, obviously, he does not agree with the Member for Lakeside, Mr. Harry Enns who said this, and I think this is surprising and encouraging to see this sort of outspokenness and frankness by the Member for Lakeside. He said this about the Inter-City Gas Corporation.

He said : "Frankly a takeover of ICG is a sensible option." A sensible option. That's Harry, the Member for Lakeside in direct contradiction to his leader.- (Interjection)- Well, I think it is a sensible option. I'll talk to you about some of the things that people are concerned about. For examp le, in the Globe and Mail the other day there was an

article about unemployment, 41 percent of the Canadian population said unemployment is their top worry . Their top concern .- (Interjection)- But I find this, getting back to my main point , all your main efforts are all from the paper the day before . What I'm refering to now is a survey on concerns of Canadians and they say 41 percent are concerned about having a job . And yet you people say do away with most of the Jobs Fund, which doesn 't make much sense at all. Now, one of the other things, by the way, I found interesting the other day is your Urban Affairs critic , talking about the Core Area Initiative.

He actually credited someone with the formation of the leadership in this and I found it amazing how that person could sit in his desk without squirming because every Manitoban knows that the pressure came largely from the core area itself and pressures on a federal member in the federal Cabinet, who basically presssured for

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 the Core Area Initiative. It didn't come from a member of the Conservative Cabinet. Now, with the Core Area Initiative, let me tell you this, a lot is happening in my area. Sargent Avenue is going to be revitalized, much like Selkirk Avenue. So is Ellice Avenue, both in my riding . And that in itself is very, very important . I find that t he criticism of the Member for Charleswood, regarding the $12 million training program is not very useful. Obviously, we need people to be trained for jobs . We need to create more employment.

And training people is important as we've shown in education, in comparison to the Conservative Governments elsewhere in Western Canada . And he, likewise, echoes the same outlook - training is not important. Training is important if you want people to be able to get better qualified jobs . You may say I'm not responsible, but I really do believe that listening to you people, like you have your own fantasies, your own world. The fact is, this is an excellent Throne Speech.- (Interjection)- No, I've never seen you hit a woman or a child, for that matter, and I don't think you would.

But the fact is you're not refuting our comments ; you're just mixing it all up, pretending to go ahead and confuse the world. The fact is it is very, very clear that our job is to maintain the existing services and to let them grow. Your outlook is to cut, cut, cut, cut . You are people who supported the Lyon Government. Many of your members were in the Lyon Government. MR. J. McCRAE: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There's a point of order being raised by the Member for Brandon West. MR. J.

McCRAE : The honourable member opposite says that we, on this side of the House, would cut, cut, cut, cut. Would he care to comment today on the situation at the Brandon General Hospital? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Differences of opinions are not a point of order. May I remind the member on the floor that he should direct the remarks to the Chair . MR. H. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.- (lnterjection) Brandon General Hospital , any change you look as a cut, what the Minister of Health is trying to do is rationalize the delivery of health services so we all have adequate health care but at the lowest possible price .

Why not go ahead and do that? Why not, in effect , change the program to adjust it to modern times? It's very, very clear. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Conservatives, in Opposition, they always talk about new services or more and more of this and more and more of that, but let them get into government and see what they bring us. Let's see what they bring us. They have never, in fact, isn't there a saying? There's a saying that Tory times are bad times or tough times , and that's very, very true, they are.

They are because you, in Opposition , appear to be people of all - to support every cause, to support every program, to give more money to this and that. Once you assume office, you want to go ahead and cut, cut, cut. That's your theme . 250 MR. J. McCRAE: Now you're saying it again. MR. H. SMITH: I'm saying it because , quite truthfully , to the Member for Brandon, that you don't understand, you don't listen. You don't even follow history. All through Canada 's history, the Conservative Government were times of bad times, and just a short time ago , Mr. Deputy Speaker , that . . .

A MEMBER: Did Sterling Lyon cut beds at Brandon General? MR. H. SMITH: Sterling Lyon cut, cut, cut, all across the board. So you know, " protracted restraint" is what he called it. He used nice terms for it. Health care reform is important.- (Interjection)- Well, let me tell you this . Let's talk about highways, to the Member for Portage, let's talk about highways . I believe health care is more important than the gravel on the road in Springfield. The fact is we're spending the money. Our priorities are health, education, community services. We're concerned about the whole province.

You know, listening to the Leader of the Opposition the other day, the Leader of the Opposition goes ahead and tells us - he tries to pit rural area against urban area . The Jobs Fund occurs throughout Manitoba , not just in the urban areas. We all have enjoyed, in all parts of Manitoba, the benefits of the Jobs Fund, creating jobs. - (Interjection)- No. A MEMBER: You're just concerned about your area then. MR. H. SMITH: I'm concerned about the whole province and that is I think what you should all be concerned about .

In fact, that's one of the things I notice when all you get up to ask a question or to make a speech , you generally just talk about your road or your park bench that has not been repaired.- (Interjection)- Look, this government , by spending priorities, has established that education and health care are its utmost priorities and that is clear. Your priorities are deficit and roads. The Member for Portage talked about the establishment in Portage for training of teachers and for children who have handicaps.

He said in this House, "Are there any members on the government side that are willing to come out, I'll take them out, I'll rent a bus? Are there any members there that will come out with me and take a trip through this facility?" So I put up my hand . To this very date I have never had an invitation ; I've never had a ride offered and I've reminded him four or five times. He wasn't interested in that project . He wasn't interested; he was only interested in making political hay. What I'm saying is I'm trying to prove the insincerity of the members in the Opposition forthwith .

That's why they deserve to be in the Opposition . When you offer to take us to someplace to show a program, to point out the errors of our ways, you should at least be prepared to do it if you make the offer . I just see a motley crew. I had a letter yesterday, by the way, that was interesting, from an individual on Dutch elm tree disease. He's talking about maybe he'll be put in jail because he wouldn 't allow them to cut down the trees

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 that were diseased with Dutc h elm .- (lnterjection) Because I think this is unfair and absolutely ridiculous. Here we have a government who, on one hand , is so concerned about the natural environment that they'll even put a farmer in jail in order to get a few dead trees. On the other hand, this same government sets up casinos so as to create an environment which will lure young people into gambling addiction and a life of corruption. The fact is there's no relationship between those two things.

The fact is you have to get those Dutch elm trees before they spread further and further and so you have to do it, but that's the type of thinking that the Opposition comes out with all the time. In conclusion, let me just tell you this . I believe you people should take your jobs seriously. I believe you should all resign today and have an election in each one of your ridings. Thank you. MA. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MA. D. AOCAN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as Peter Warren would say, "Let's get right down to business." I would like to start, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , by saying not only am I pleased to be a member of the Legislative Assembly when our new Lieutenant-Governor, Dr. George Johnson, was appointed ; but as well, feel very good about the appointment of Sterling Lyon, former Premier of the Province of Manitoba to the high Court of Appeal. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, once again, I wish you - oh, I better change that - to Madam Speaker, once again, I wish you every success in carrying out your responsibilitie s in a fair and impartial manner, and to all the other members of this Legislature, I wish you all good health and hope that we will all remember that we are here to represent those people who expressed their confidence in our ability to serve them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I've been looking forward to this opportunity to speak on the Throne Speech for quite some time now.

I realize that this is my opportunity to express the views and concerns of my constituents of Turtle Mountain. (Madam Speaker in the Chair .) Madam Speaker , the constituency of Turtle Mountain , under its original conditions and prior to settlement had wooded areas and plains and valleys. That particular combination led to a great diversity of wildlife. That, in turn, resulted in providing the basis for the earliest inhabitants of the area who were , first of all, Assiniboine Indians, and later the Plain Sioux .

There is a great deal of history associated with the area and it is proudly displayed in the Moncur Gallery of pre history, dating back some 10,000 years. This incredible museum is located in the town of Boissevain. A MEMBER: Nice town. MA. D. ROCAN: It is, too. Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the Throne Speech positively, but as you have heard from previous speakers, it is a nothing document . Therefore, I'll say nothing. It is like commenting on the contents of an 251 empty box. Nature abhors a vacuum and yet the government tried to deliver one. Let's consider what my constituents expected.

They were anxiously awaiting some positive moves towards assistance to the economic farm crisis. But what did they get? Nothing. More of the empty-box syndrome. Small business is treated the same way. What did they hear in the Throne Speech? Nothing. What did they get? Nothing. More of the empty-box syndrome. Madam Speaker, here we are in one of the prettiest areas in Manitoba . Even the difference in the American dollar should have attracted many to our part of the prov ince, but, obviously, we don't rate with tourism, advertising and promotion .

Obviously, we don 't rate when competing with the NOP-controlled urban constituencies . Madam Speaker, I can't explain to my constituents why tourist attractions such as the Assiniboia Downs, North Portage Development with its Omnivax Theatre, the Planetarium , are of greater importance than the resources that we have available to us in Turtle Mountain, such as Pelican Lake and Swan Lake, and we, too, also have numerous golf courses. Madam Speaker, these are important to my constituents and they are available to all Manitobans, indeed, all tourists.

But, Madam Speaker, they are not given the attention that they should be given. We are not average Manitobans that the Premier so often describes. We are proud Manitobans, proud of our history, and we are proud of our potential and we are proud of our diversity. Madam Speaker, we have so much to offer to the rest of Manitoba. We contribute our fair share and we reap the empty box. Madam Speaker, where do we go from here? Farmers are looking at reduced incomes. If last year wasn't bad enough, we can tell them, emphatically, it is going to get worse. For small business who depend on agriculture, expect the worst.

The tourism industry, well, we have nothing for you. What message of hope do I convey to my 15,000-plus constituents that this government knows they exist and that they care about them? That's a joke . Is it safe to say that farm land will have to be taken out of production? Are we asking these proud Manitobans to become complacent, mediocre and average? Madam Speaker , as you have heard time and time again, the farming communities are in dire straits. When will this present administration get it through their thick heads that they had better put something in the box? Conversation doesn 't cut it.

Action is where it's at and inactiv ity is what we are getting . Every time that my colleagues make a suggestion, the government ends up fedbashing. How constructive is that, Madam Speaker? I call it paranoia. This government is not responsible; they are accountable. Everyone else is to blame. Les electeurs Manitoba ins n'ont-ils pas elus ce gouvernement pour gerer les affaires de la province . Je presume qu'ils se rendent compte qu'ils seraient tous congedies si c'etait l'entreprise publique.

II n'y a aucun conseil d'administration qui tolererait votre incompetence, et je dis bien incompetence, Madame la presidente .

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 (English translation) Did not the average Manitoban elect this governmen t to manage the affa irs of this province? I suppose they realize that if this was free enterprise , they would all be fired for gross mismanagement. No Board of Directors would tolerate their incompetence, and I stress incomp etence, Madam Speaker. They should be charged under The Clean Air Act for their pollution. It smells like sour gas . Madam Speaker, the Rules of the House provide me with 40 minutes to debate this Throne Speech . The document is not worthy of 40 seconds.

Why waste time debating the contents of the empty box? It's difficult to explain regional disparity of an insignificant nature, but how would I explain to my constituents the building of a $20 million bridge that goes nowhere, Madam Speaker? When I'm trying to get a little bit of water control . . . A MEMBER: Well, they closed the Boissevain Land Titles. MA. H. ENNS: No, the river got wider . MA. D. AOCAN: That's what happened. I believe you , Harry. I believe you. But I'm trying to get a little bit of water control between these incredibly pretty lakes that are a major tourist attraction .

Maybe Duckie's Bridge is to someday become a tourist attraction. What a legacy for the Premier to leave! You can be sure that my constituents will be as thrilled as they are over our involvement in Saudi Arabia . Madam Speaker, another question that my constituents raise is how can we alienate our American neighbours by being opposed to everything, and I mean everything, that they represent, and scream when we lose a CF-18 contract? Is the NOP totally opposed to the U.S. military; in fact, even NATO? Then why should we be interested in a contract that ensures that fighter aircraft remain airworthy?

Madam Speaker, I was quite surprised by some of the comments made by the Member for Kildonan regarding Versatile. This member is part of a government who criticized a Federal Government for not giving the Province of Manitoba the CF-18 contract; and, Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House made it clear to the people of Manitoba that we did not agree with the Federal Government's decision. Now, Madam Speaker, the Member for Kildonan has the nerve to rise in his place Monday last and say how wonderful this deal was on one hand and then on the other criticize the Federal Government for making it.

I was interested in noting, Madam Speaker, that the province was not involved in this deal and that it was the Federal Government and the Federal Government only who looked after the Versatile workers . One has to wonder, Madam Speaker, why the Provincial Government wasn't involved or didn 't even take

part in this deal. I think I have the answer, Madam Speaker, because if the Premier and the Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Technology would have been involved, it would have screwed the whole thing up and the Member for Kildonan would have probably stood in his place and blamed the Federal Government for his colleague's 252 own stupid ity. It simply goes to show you, Madam Speaker, who really cares for the Versatile workers. It's the Conservatives in Ottawa, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker, havin g said all this, and I can understand why the Member for Kildonan is upset.

It's because the Ford Motor Company of Canada parent corporation is based in the United States. And what does United States stand for, Madam Speaker? It stands for free enterprise . Something totally foreign to the members opposite for they feel the state can do everything . Well, Madam Speaker, the Versatile deal shows that this is wrong . I resent having somebody who fled his own country , because he was afraid to defend it, stand in this House and criticize the same institution, namely the Government of Canada, who let him in.

Or maybe we should find a way of sending him back as was proposed by his federal leader, Ed Broadbent, who said on a recent Vancouver radio talk show : "If a person has had a fair and just hearing, if he has had all the rights of appeal inherent now in Canadian law, and he is found not to be a real refugee, then kick him out of the count ry." That's from Ed Broadbent, your leader. Don't talk about compassionate and morals . Madame la presidente, je ne prendrai pas de temps precieux a debattre un document vide. Les actions parlent plus fort que Jes paroles.

Des actions positives , des actions contructives , des actions affirmatives , en faite n'importe quelle action serait bienvenue par mes commettants. Ce discours du throne promet que le gouvernement restes endormi et stagnant . (English translation) Madam Speaker , I'm not going to waste valuable time debating an empty box document. Action speaks louder than words, posit ive action, constructive action, affirmat ive action. Indeed, any kind of action would be welcomed by my constituents . This Throne Speech promises only that this government will lie dormant , stagnate.

There is no optimism , there is no light at the end of the tunnel for those people who I represent, and for me to waste more time talking about nothing serves no useful purpose. My only hope is that in the near future this menagerie that calls itself a government will take off its blinders, remove its earplugs, and wise up to the needs of those they serve, meaning all of Manitoba . Madam Speaker, I am not the only one who thinks that the farmers of Manitoba are served poorly by this government.

As an MP from Manitoba advised the Minister of Agriculture when he said, and I quote : "It would be more appreci ated and more beneficial to all Manitoba farmers if you would concentrate your efforts on delivering wholesom e, sound and beneficial programs from the Provincial Government. To simply complain about Federal Government initiative was not , I would suggest, the reason you were elevated to the position of Minister of Agriculture ." Madam Speaker, the Throne Speech stressed the firm need and the determination to fight for fairness from Ottawa .

Madam Speaker , I want fairness for Manitobans , not contingent on Ottawa's participation, just fairness for all Manitobans , by Manitobans, for Manitobans .

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 Fedbashing does not generate results that positively affect the qual ity of life of my cons tituents . To them, fedbashing is just proof of incompeten ce , mismanagement and irresponsibility , like watchi ng kids play. I'll pick up my marbles and go home . Madam Speaker, the constituents of Turtle Mountain are hardworking and proud . They recognize that two out of three people in Manitoba live in Winnipeg. Whose fault is that? What incentives are provided to encourage rural lifestyles?

Is this government proud of their ability to discourage creativity, innovation, dignity and self respect, and reward complacency, mediocrity and stupidity by appointing their followers to boards and commissions, etc .? How is a small businessman in my constituency , struggling to make a profit in spite of the obstacles thrown in front of him by this government such as payroll tax, unfair labour laws and all the rest, supposed to take a lead from a government whose only claim to fame is consistent failure?

Madam Speaker, never in the history of the NOP have they been able to run a business profitably, and they continue to gouge the taxpayers to fund their ill-conceived ventures at home and abroad. Their efforts at turning rural Manitoba into a Third World environment is succeeding at an alarming pace . My constituents are fed up. When will you stand up and be identified as a do-nothing, irresponsible bunch of hypocrites, always blaming somebody else? Madam Speaker, which way do they want it? Consider the removal of police protection from a rural town.

Does it really matter to these people to make these decisions when they have no understanding of rural life? Could we presume that, if we became a special-interest group with a minority point of view, we would then get the attention that we have been denied? Madam Speaker, the pride of the people who I represent is not for sale, and cannot be diminished by the antics of a government whose shortsightedness prevents them from seeing beyond the Perimeter Highway. The stuff they smear, they call campaign promises; in my constituency, we call it biodegradable fertilizer.

Has this government lived up to any of their campaign promises? I ask you, have you? This government is trying to steal our way of life, our heritage. The NOP and its Sherwood Forest philosophy, ably led by its own version of Robin Hood, flanked on his right by Friar Tuck and on his left by Maid Marion, ably assisted by Little John and the rest of the Merry Men, are stripping the lifestyles of many Manitobans to accommodate their own bunch of ne'er-do-wells . This can't be appreciated by those who have worke d hard , starting with nothing, but proud to be fiercely independent.

They raise, feed , educate the ir families in the hope of a prosperous future , only to have it stole n from them by these philosophers . A century ago , this theft would not warrant a court appearance . The end was swift and sure, and society was not asked to carry the burden of thei r existence . Madam Speake r, is it not true that in 1984 this government took an attitudinal survey on image and , when asked, 69 percent of the Manitobans said it is time that the government did something to give Manitobans a greater sense of pride in their province? And what do we get? A bridge north of Selkirk.

Also, 66 percent were in favour of the province being involved 253 in Expo '86, despite the existing economic times and the $5 million investment . Madam Speaker, is this a government that listens? No wonder my constituents cannot bel ieve the words identifying government policies or objectives . We are back to the empty box syndrome, because Robin Hood's bag is empty, Madam Speaker, and all indications suggest nothing but bad news is coming with the Budget, Pandora 's Box. Nothing out of the Throne Speech provides me with any opportunity to be optimistic about the future of Turtle Mountain.

Madam Speaker, this government says that it is an open government , and that they are listening to the people of Manitoba . They stood in their places in 1985 when this House passed The Freedom of Information Act and said to this House and to the people of Manitoba, in a couple of months, this act will be proclaimed. MR. H. ENNS: That's what they said . MR. D. ROCAN: Don't worry, trust us. That's what they said. Well, Madam Speaker, we saw an example of the ir trust yesterday when my colleague, the Member for St.

Norbert, asked a question regarding this act, and the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation said, in a year this act will be proclaimed, in a year because the documents aren't ready. Well, Madam Speaker, why weren't they ready when the Attorney-General introduced the legislation into this House? I guess he never thought Manitobans wanted to see the act.

Madam Speaker, I couldn't believe the Minister of Culture , Heritage and Recreation's answer when she said "limited resources." This Minister and those before her have cut the budget of the Legislative Library and the Public Archives and, along with the rest of her Cabinet colleagues, increased their hacks and flacks instead of channelling those resources to get The Freedom of Information Act ready and established for the use of all Manitobans .

On page 6 of the Throne Speech, Madam Speake( " we find the following words: "The traditional reporting relationship between the Crowns and the gover11ment is no longer adequate . In order to increase the accountabil ity of the Crowns to the government and to the people of Manitoba , my government will introduce reforms which will be the most comprehensive in Canada ." What a crock, Madam Speaker .

They squandered $27 million in MTX and they've lost millions in Flyer; and after being in government for six years , they only now realize that the reporting struct ure of Crown corps is not adequate, sort of closing the door after the horse leaves. We talk about Crown corps. We have our Autopac ; we have our Lotteries ; we have Manfor; we have our MTS. Madam Speaker , it says here that the alarm bells should have been ringing a long time ago , had the Minister responsible at that time taken heed. The politics of power are power of politics. Limestone , Madam Speaker . We talk about jobs in the North.

They're saying somewhere, I think there 's 1,400 short term jobs at Limestone, to make hydro that we can't even seem to give away. McKenzie Seeds - had it not been for the previous Member for Turtle Mountain, I would hate to see the figures on McKenzie Seeds. I have no faith in this government to reform our Crown corps . Look who they put in charge, an opportunist,

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 the Minister of Urban Affairs to chair the newly formed Crown Reform Committee of Cabinet . If the Premier was serious about reform , why did he not chair this committee himself? Why did he appoint this Minister to chair this committee? Could it be that the Premier is grooming the Minister as a possible replacement? Who knows, Madam Speaker? This government is tired and this Throne Speech shows it. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Before I begin my remarks today, I would like to commend our new Lieutenant-Governor on his grace in delivering the Speech from the Throne; and to you, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to welcome you back to this Chamber, and I trust that all members of this Legislature will strive to prevent some of the rancor which existed during the last Session of this Chamber . I want to pledge, certainly on behalf of all my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, our fullest cooperation to you in order to ensure that parliamentary business is conducted in a way in which it ought to be conducted in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, I want to also congratulate the Mover and the Seconder for their insightful grasp of the problems confronting Manitobans. I thought their contribution was one that certainly ranks high among contributions in previous years. To the Member for Lac du Bonnet, I believe he has brought a realistic insight insofar as the problems of rural Manitoba, particularly those of the farmers of this province, and has articulated those well, not only during his speech, but also in subsequent opportunities that he's had since, and I thank him for that contribution.

Insofar as the Seconder, the Honourable Member for Elmwood, he has, by his presence in this Chamber, and by his address, brought to the attention of this Chamber, I believe, a number of issues, a number of suggestions that are constructive; and we welcome suggestions from all members, not just on this side, but from the other side, hoping to hear as many as we can that are constructive and will positively work to the general betterment of all and certainly, to the Honourable Member for Elmwood, he has done that on a consistent basis and we are pleased to receive those contributions.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that the insightful address of both members demonstrates that the vision of the New Democratic Party Government of the Province of Manitoba burns brightly.

Members on this side of the Chamber understand the challenges that we face as Manitobans, the challenge of creating a better quality of life for all Manitobans to ensure that our society is one that is made more just , more equitable, more fair, the challenge of the creation of more jobs and better job opportunities for all Manitobans, the development of stronger rural communities and greater opportunities for the farmers of this province, despite the difficulties that obviously farmers right across Canada are presently being confronted with, the challenge of maintaining and enhancing the amount of social and economic security that is available to every Manitoban. 254 The people of Manitoba are no strangers to challenge.

Whether you speak of the origina l inhabitants of Manitoba, our original people, aborigina l people, the early trappers, the traders of the Selkirk Settlers who, Madam Speaker, if I can say so, through their wisdom chose lands in the constituency that I have the honour of representing, many years ago, the other early pioneers of this province have faced this challenge and they have met the challenge head on, the spirit of Manitoba, the spirit of our pioneers , pioneers who arrived in Manitoba from a spirit of, yes, courage and radicalism, because they were prepared to leave the safety and the stability of the old land to face the challenges , the uncertainties and the harshness of the new land, the original settlers who came to this province who were, first and foremost, motivated by the spirit of cooperation, realizing that by working together we could accomplish much more than by working individually.

That was the spirit of our original settlers and that is the spirit of Manitoba today and that is the spirit that I believe, Madam Speaker, is as strong for newcomers to our province as it is for those whose roots have been here for many, many generat ions. Successfully meeting challenges engenders a tremendous sense of confidence and of pride . That, Madam Speaker, pretty well describes Manitobans, proud folk, confident folk , moved by the spirit of cooperative motivation.

When this country was faced by a devastating depression in 1980 through 1981 to 1982, Manitobans expressed their confidence in the New Democratic Party of the Province of Manitoba to represent their interests and to move the province along, out of that recession. It was the people of the Province of Man itoba who utilized sense of good judgment to elect a New Democratic Party, because they knew in the New Democratic Party there was a realistic alternative to recession and to unemployment and to poverty. I believe, Madam Speaker, that Manitobans are proud of that decision.

They are proud of the fact that once again they, with their fellow citizens , could work together cooperatively in harmony to stave off the effects of the recession, and to emerge even more strongly , better prepared to meet the challenges confronting us. I must say, Madam Speaker, that I was, yes, just a little bit more than disappointed in the address by the Leader of the Opposition in respect to the Speech from the Throne.

I had thought, in view of the abysmal showing that the Conservative Party is showing in the polls both federally and provincially, we would have had a stirring appeal from the Leader of the Opposition; that it would be an appeal that would be emotional and would be charged w ith a vision that the Conserva tive Party has for the future of the Province of Manitoba; that it would be a speech that would contain within it constructi ve ideas and constructive proposa ls for remedying, yes, serious challenges that we face in the Province of Manitoba.

I thought fully, Madam Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition would use that particular occasion to shore up his position in order to beat off the wolves from within his own party who, of course, we all recognize on this side of the Chamber. Madam Speaker, I was particularly disappointed in the unfortunate personal attack by the Leader of the

Tuesday, 10 March, 1987 Opposition on the Minister of Northern Affairs in his address . I found no clas s in that attack. I found it a very personal attack, an attack that lacked sensitivity . I don't know what the Leader of the Opposition was attempting to accomplish by that sort of personal attack on the Minister responsible for Northern Affairs in this Chamber. It was an attack that, I think , was unbecoming of a Leader of the Opposition.

I believe that the people in the Province of Manitoba, as they have demonstrated again and again, rebuff that sort of headline attack, which is only based upon smear and the attempt to personally attack someone in a very low sort of manner. Madam Speaker, that sort of effort on the part of the Leader of the Opposition was as dispirited as I've ever seen in a speech of any member of this House. It was an admission of failure. It was a failure to come up with comprehensive alternatives to this government's programs and policies.

It was a failure on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to understand the real issues confronting Manitobans. Frankly, Madam Speaker, it was a failure on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to provide leadership on behalf of Manitobans in this Chamber. The Member for Tuxedo, yes I acknowledge , was content to continue to represent his traditional allies and special interests that formed the basis of the Conservative Party : the banks, the oil companies, and large big business.

You know, Madam Speaker, when I hear some howls from across the way, then I know that honourable members are hurting when they hear the truth being espoused in this Chamber in respect to the basis of the Conservative Party in the Province of Manitoba . Members opposite were content to make another attempt - and they've demonstrated this from the beginning of this Session - to fool people . Madam Speaker , they ought to have discovered by this time that you can't fool all the people all the time. I suppose, Madam Speaker, we on this side of the Chamber should feel ourselves fortunate.

We should feel fortunate that we have an Opposition such as that which we have in this Chamber, an Opposition that persistently and constantly involves itself in contradiction, inconsistencies, an Opposition that continues to demand more and more services. Madam Speaker, let me remind you that not a day has escaped us so far this Session where there hasn't been more demand for additional services . In fact, just the other day, one of the honourable members got up - I guess he received a telephone call from one of his friends in Ottawa - and wanted us

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 9.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6f8b731cadb49f0af77fb81373df3e615afe4ca1

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