LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 22 March, 1985. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINIS TERI AL STATEMENTS AND TABLLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Mr. Speaker , I wish to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba lntercultural Council for the year ending March 31, 19 84. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. M. SMITH introduced Bill No. 14,

An Act to amend The Community Child Day Care Standards Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les garderies d'enfants. HON. A. ANSTETT introduced Bill No. 15 ,

An Act to amend The Planning Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery. We have 25 students of Gr ade 11 standing from the MacGr egor Collegiate under the dir ect ion of Mr. Baranowski. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. There are 26 students of Grade 6 standing from the Marion School. They are under the direction of Miss Forest, and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Health. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this morning.

ORAL QUESTIONS Concordia Hospital - expansion plans MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Health. While neither the Throne Speech or last night's Budget indicated any plans for Concordia Hospital, I am aware that the Minister met with the board fairly recent ly. Are there any expansion plans being contemp lated by this government for that health facility? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I could advise the member to be a little patient.

You can't get all the news all at once. 316 My five-year capsule program should be announced during the Estimates, and I expect that my Estimates might be fairly soon. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of my· patience. I think that the people in that area of the city have been very patient. It seems to me that expansion plans have been promised every time the NDP get ready to go to an election. Mr. Speaker, my question is simply this: has that facility reason to be optimistic about expansion plans in the coming year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is absolutely right.

There was a complete freeze there for about four years a few years ago, but I think that in discussions that we've had we have started to move there, and I think the news will be good. Number of farmers in financial difficulty MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and I'm pleased to see t.hat he is in the House this morning, not out trying to . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I believe the honourable member does know that it is improper to comment on the presence or the absence of other members of the House.

The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your direction in making my comments. Mr. Speaker , I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Could the Minister of Agriculture tell this Assembly and the people of Manitoba how many farmers will be unable to get their financial requirements looked after in time, or will not be able to get their financial requirements looked after in time, to seed their crops in about two weeks time? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I hesitate to respond to the allegation of being in or out of the House, and I kno w the honourable mem ber previously raised qu estions with the Fir st Minister when it ju st so happened that I had been in the House for a number of days and then away on government business, and when I was away he raised questions to the Premier . It appears to be the style of the honourable member that questions are raised when I'm out of the House.

Sir, the question of farmers in financial difficulty has been one that this government has attempted to address as best we can with the policies that we have put into place over the last three years. Admitted ly, Sir, the policies were put into place in the hope that there would be a national recog nition of the seriousness of

Friday, 22 March, 1985 this problem, rather than going around and saying there isn't much of a problem. Sir, from our best estimates that we have been able to glean there are approximately 150 farmers who are in the process of liquidation in the Province of Manitoba. There are another 200 farmers who likely have enough equity in order in which to put their crops in and, of course, an additional 400 who are just following on those heels.

Sir, what is required, and we have put forward proposals in the hope that there would be some recognition that the grains industry is in great difficulty and farming in general is in great difficulty, we have tried to be as co-operative as we can to bring about a recognition that agriculture in this country is one of the most important industries that we have, and it will take massive concerted efforts on behalf of provincial governments and national government.

In fact, Canadians, especially Western Canadians, were frustrated about the lack of national attention to agriculture by the former administration, the Liberal administration. They voted very strongly in favour of a change in western agriculture, Sir, and they have that change. But there is very little coming other than additional fees imposed on produc ers across this country of some $33 million in one fell swoop; cutbacks in terms of agricultural lending, so we need and we plead with the Federal Government that they reverse some of their negative policies that will impact. clearly on the farm community. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Mr. Spe aker, the specific question was how many farmers are not going to be able to put their crops in this year? And if I calculated it co rrectly, there would be some 150 farmers that will be liquidating, another 400 that possibly will not be able to get enough financing for this spring's operation. Mr. Speaker , to the Minister of Agriculture, is the normal time period for getting a loan approval through the Manitoba Agricultural Corporation going to be shortened from what the normal time period is which I think is if not weeks, months, to get a loan approval? Is that being shortened, Mr.

Speaker, so there in fact can be some of the funds made available to those individuals? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm not sure that the question refers to an area within the administrative competence of the Minister. Perhaps the honourable member would wish to rephrase his question to make that quite clear. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question is: what is the length of time, or what will the length of time be tor an approval of an MACC loan to support those farmers who are having a difficult time in finding funds for this year's cropping program?

What will the length of time be to get a loan approved through Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the impression that is being created by the Honourable Member for Arthur is that the Manitoba Agricultur al Credit Corporat ion, through the Province of Manitoba, should do all the refinancing of the problems in agriculture. We have a 317 very small portion of agricultural lend ing of approximately 10 percent and will provide support to between 4,000 and 5,000 farm families. But to sugge st that now the MACC should be used as the total lending agency to refinance agriculture, Mr.

Speaker, I think the honourable member either doesn 't want to recognize the seriousness of the problem or really doesn't know. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the federal monetary policy is continuing to support high interest rates, interest rates are increasing at the national level and farmers are going broke. Mr. Speaker, at a time when they can bail out foreign countries, large Canadian corpora tions, it is time now to say that interest rates should be cut to the entire farm population because the farm community will not survive. Mr.

Speaker, I've asked and the First Minister has asked to arrange a meeting with the Federal Minister of Agriculture to deal with the question of the $33 million fee increase on the farmers of this country and that those costs would not be . . . MR. SPEAKER : Order please , order please. The answers to que stions should not be turn ed into speeches. The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the question is very specific and it's a very serious situation.

The farm community wants to know and we want to know how long will it take to get a farm loan approved with the money that was announced last night in the Budget? How long will it take to get a Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation loan appr oved? Will it be weeks or months? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker, the honourable members - we have the $10 0 million loan guarantee program - and he will recall, Sir, that when we approved this program, honourable members said that there would be no farmers that would qualify under the program and the program would be really a Mickey Mouse deal.

That's what honourable members opposite said. They said it would take very long to approve those loans. Sir, we have assisted over 700 farm families in terms of providing operating credit. That program is in place ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: You have elected the right candidate, they really have. They have elected a has-been who lost the election in 19 69, Mr. Speaker , who lost his deposit in 1969, that's who they nominated. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please.

I am having some difficulty in hearing the Min ister's answer. Is the Honourab le Minister of Agriculture completed? HON. B. URUSKI: No, Mr. Speaker . The honourable member should be aware that MACC has approximately

Friday, 22 March, 1985 15 field staff in the field and they will be doing their utmost to approve the loan applications, but to make the assertion that MACC will now do all the refinancing in agriculture, Mr. Speak er, the impr ession is not accurate. We can only do as much as we can through our own lending agency. We have speeded up the process in terms of our guaranteed operating loans and staff are handling those programs, but to say somehow that things will change overnight in terms of the speediness, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do the best we can with the staff that we have. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have one last question and it can be a very straightforward answer if the Minister would care to be so straightforward - this difficulty that he normally has. Will the Minister of Agriculture request to MACC that they take as swift an action as possible to in fact help those farmers who are in extreme difficulties? Will he direct them to move as swiftly as possible in making the decisions that have to be made? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the honourable members, by that request, will pass the Budget today so that we can instruct our staff to deal with financial questions.

Certain ly, we will be doing our utmost to handle the applications as quickly as we can, as we always have. But, Mr. Speaker , recog nizing that with the limited amount of staff that we have, and we basically have the same staff now as we've had when they were in government, we will do our utmo st but there will be delays from time to time - there is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker - but we could start today if they decided to pass that Budget. Dairy Farming regulations MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have one question.

A few days ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he would call the Agriculture Comm ittee to hear the dair y farmers and to hear those people who are concerned about recent directives that have restricted the dairy farm community from transferring quota, Mr. I Speaker, either partially with their herds or without. Will the Minister of Agriculture be calling the agriculture comm ittee to deal with that? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker , I have met with the marketing board personally on several occasions since last August when they tabled their new marketing plan dealing with no value for quota, but in going back since the honourable member raised the question about no value for quotas, I checked the approval of policy that was passed by him when he was Minister which basically is the policy that excluded value for quotas in the sale of cow herds.

He approved that policy and in that policy, Sir, where is the statement that the board, the Natural Products Marketing Council, would have the authority to stop the policy of sale of quota with cows should the value of quota be included in that cow sales? He approved that policy, since that policy has not worked. We now have to find a policy that will work and we will be meeting with dairy producers and the board and other produc ers to try and develop a policy in order that the value for quota is limited, Sir. 318 Radio and mobile telephones - increased fees MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR.

A. ADAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the First Minister and it has to do with complaints that I am receiving in regard to the exorbitant increases in fees for radio and mobile telephones. - (I nterject ion) - I wonder ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. A. ADAM: Well, Mr. Speaker, increases from $55 per annum to $13 0 - I would ask the First Minister what plans he has to deal with this exorbitant increase being undertaken by the Federal Government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker , let me just point out to you and to honourable colleagues across the aisle that the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose represents farmers just as honourable members across the way. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose has a right to speak out on behalf of the farmers of his constituency just as I wish honourable members would speak out for farmers in their constituencies. Mr.

Speaker, in my opportunity to tour various parts of the province, including I must say the Swan River constituency and the constituency of Roblin- Russell, one of the most frequent presentations made to me by farmers and by farm organizations was the soaring increase announced to take effect by the Federal Government of user fees affecting farmers right across Canada, and in particular the impact that the increase would have on registered seed growers.

I remember in Swan River a representative of the Registered Seed Growers Association indicated to me that 20 to 25 percent of the seed growers might be put out of business if the proposed fees were put into operation April 1s t. Mr. Speaker , I think we have no alternative but to ask for a meeting, which is being asked for this morning, in order to pursue this matter because I had hoped, I had truly hoped, Mr. Speaker, that by this date of March 22nd we would have had an indication by the Federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr.

Michael Wilson, that there would be a withdrawal of these announced fees. - (I nterject ion) - Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously the honourable members aren't well versed. The Minister of Finance indeed has announced the intention of increasing the user fees insofar as Canadians are concerned. Maybe the hono urable members weren't aware of that. So this is March 22nd, there are only eight days to go. Under those circumstances, Mr.

Speaker , I feel that we have no alternative but to ask, as indeed have other Premiers directly , other Premie rs, Con servative Premiers, met with the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa asking, pleading with the Minister of Agriculture to withdr aw this sharp increase in fees that according to our farmers in Manitoba might very well squeeze them out of operation.

Friday, 22 March, 1985 Topley, Robert - Racing Commission - Contract extension MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Mr. Speaker , I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Business Development and Tourism pertaining to the report that he issued yesterday on the Racing Commission and ask him if Mr. Robert Topley, who is the Supervisor of Racing, has had his contr act exte nded by th ree years by the Racing Commission? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Speaker, I am not aware of any immediate extension, but I will take that question as notice and report back to the House as soon as possible. MR. W. STEEN: Mr. Speaker , to the same Minister. I'd like to ask him if Charles Ibey, a senior judge who has been the centre of much of the con troversy that is taking place between the standard- bred horsemen this past winter and the commission, will the Minister review the fact that Mr. Ibey can be a judge and he's been into a lot of contr oversy between the horsemen and see whether Mr. Ibey is suitable to be a judge for this coming summer harness racing season? HON. J.

STORIE: Mr. Speaker, without dealing with the assumptions of the Honourable Member for River Heights, I think I should indicate that I have met with the Chairman of the Racing Commission. We have obviously dealt with a number of issues, particularly the numb er of appeals and the num ber of court references, the number of fines imposed by the judges at the track. One of my questions was: how do we compare in terms of the commission and the activities of the judges with other operations throughout Canada? We did an assessment; we are not out of line. There are a set of rules; they are imposed.

We have to maintain the integrity of racing in Manitoba, that is the job of the judges and the commission. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker , that they are doing their job. We are seeing an improvement of the situation out there because of the co-operation of the comm ission and the owner. I must say, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the horse owners as well, both the thoroughbreds and the standard-breds, I think the situation is improving and there are no unusual circumstances at all with respect to the charges, to the fines that are being imposed by the judges. MR. W. STEEN: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the same Minister if he would agree to a meeting with the standard- bred horsemen without having the commission members present, so that the horsemen could speak to the Minister in a frank and open and honest manner and display their complaints that they have regarding the Racing Commission to the Minister, and to the Minister without the commission being present. Would the Minister undertake to having such a meeting with representatives of the standard-bred horsemen? 319 HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Spe aker, for the honourable member's information, I have already written a letter to the new President of the Manit oba Har ness Hor semen Incorporated inviting them to meet with me without staff. The staff as a matter of fact were in Portage, I believe, yesterday dealing with the refinement of the rules governing the standard-bred operations. So, Mr. Speaker , there is a good deal of co-operation. I must say, Mr.

Speaker , that despite the contr oversy that has surrounded a number of individuals that some confusion and some circu mstances which are not resolved yet, that in the letter that I received from the new president indicated that the harness horsemen were willing to work with the commission, that the controversy and the individ uals involved did not necessarily repr esent the views of the Manitoba Harn ess Horsemen's Association. So, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a good deal of improvement in the circumstances, and I certainly would be prepared to meet and have indicated so by letter to Dr.

Val lsman, the pre sident. MR. W. STEEN: Mr. Speaker , I thank the Minister for that information, that he is prepared to meet with the ho rsemen without having staff and co mmission personnel within the same room. I'd ask the First Minister if he would be prepared to keep a commitment to Winnipeg horseman and lawyer Lawrence Greenberg and have a meeting with Mr. Greenberg. I understand that the First Minister has agreed to having a meeting with Mr . Gr een berg regarding the difficulties in the horse racing industry facing the horsemen in Manitoba, but Mr.

Greenberg has made six attempts to get a date for a meeting with the Prem ier. MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. W. STEEN: Would the Premier tell the members on this side of the House whether he is prepared to meet with Mr. Lawrence Green berg regarding the racing problems? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Sp eaker, in answer to the member's question, I have met with Mr. Greenberg, met at some considerable length with Mr. Greenberg, listened attentively to his concerns, asked him if he could make any specific recommendations. He indicated he didn't have any at that time, he had some gener al concerns; we discussed those, and Mr.

Greenberg clearly indicated that he represented a number of individuals, but certainly not the standard-bred industry, nor the Manitoba Harness Horsemen's Association. Tax Rebate Discounting - proposed changes to MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attor ney- General.

At the Fede ral-P rovi ncial Conference of Ministers of Consumer and Corpor ate Affairs last mon:h in Ottawa, you presented a discussion paper outli ning pro posed ch anges to tax rebate discounting. was wondering if you could indicate whether there has been any action on those. proposals.

Friday, 22 March, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: There has been no action as yet, except I should indicate to the House in answer to that question that the proposals which I placed before my colleagues in Consumer and Corporate Affairs, including the Federal Minister, were very well received. The Federal Minister, Mr. Cote, indicated that he would shortly be forwarding to Provincial Ministers some proposals, particularly with respect to things like Child Tax Credits and things of that kind which certainly there is a co nsensus ought not to be subject to tax discounting.

He indicated that some proposals would be forthcoming from himself and the Revenue Minister in a short period of time, and that when the Federal and Provincial and Territorial Ministers meet, as it happens here in Manitoba - we're hosting the annual meeting in September - by that time we probably can reach a consensus on some proposals in time to be reflected for the forthcoming tax year. MR. S. ASHTON: As a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker , I would like to ask, in view of the fact that changes have not been made this year, whether there have been any complaints to the Minister's department, and more specifically, whether any prosecutions have been laid under the existing Federal Income Tax Act? HON. R. PENNER: Under the Tax Discount Act, the Federal Tax Discount Act, yes, two. One that I can recollect in January where, indeed, a tax discounter was fined the minimum, which happens to be $1 ,000 on five separate charges, and we believe that to that extent the law and its scale of punishment operates as a deterrent.

That's not the main problem, however; the main problem is the system itself which allows 15 percent tax discounting and includes within the kind of thing that can be the subject of the discount things like Child Tax Credits. That is where an important social pr ogram is being eroded by a scheme which was originally thought to be helpful to some people who can benefit from quick returns that were not forthcoming from the rather slow collection and rebate system at the federal level.

We think that improvements in that and improvements in the levels of tax discounting and improvements in what can be encompassed in tax discounting are forthcoming and will be helpful. HERizons - grant provided MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Cultural Affairs.

Given that there are a number of good clean struggling magazines in Manitoba, and given that the Minister apparently has not paid much attention to their problems, can he confirm that he provided a special grant of $1 0,000 to the militant femin ists at HERi zons magazine last summer? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I can confirm that there was a grant given to HERizons 320 magazine for a special issue sometime last year, a special cultural issue with regard to poetry and that of women writers in the Province of Manitoba. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker , can the Minister also confirm that this magazine is in fact heavily funded, and that Mr. Axworthy obtained for them two years ago a $1 1 1, 000 grant, a $1 96,000 grant last year, and a $2 12 ,000 grant this year? MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. R. DOERN: Can he confirm, Mr. Speaker , that the Federal Government has poured half-a-million dollars into this magazine in the last three years? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Actions of the Federal Gov ernment are not within the adminis trative competence of this Minister. Perhaps the honourable member would wish to rephrase his question.

The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point is simply this, Mr. Speaker , and I ask the Minister - (I nterjec tion) - well, wait until you hear the question. Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker , that HERizons magazine has substantial monies available to it and doesn't need any money from the Provincial Government? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The que stio n is argumentative. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, a final question I would like to ask the Minister is this: would he be prepared to consider funding a good clean women's magazine in Manitoba, if approached? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The question, while obviously of interest, is hypothetical. Brandon University - act re governance MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. Does the Minister of Education intend to introduce

an act during this Session with respect to the governance of Brandon University? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the voice of the member opposite dropped just at the end of when he got to the question and I wasn't able to hear it. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that my voice dropped, I think her col leagues are making quite a bit of noise over there. I asked her whether she intended to introduce

an act during this Session of the Legislature that would have respect to the governance of Brandon University.

Friday, 22 March, 1985 HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated yesterd ay, when I was asked a question about another piece of legislation. and I have the same answer today - the legislation that is going to be introduced for education will be announced when I table it in the House. Reduction in Revenue - reflection in Quarterly Report MR. B. RANSOM: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Minister of Finance and the First Minister have both indicated that there will be some $35 million in income tax revenues lost to the government, I believe, during fiscal 19 84-85.

Can I ask the Minister of Finance whether or not that reduction in revenue is reflected in the Quarterly Report which was tabled by the Minister lost night? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The receipts we have received so far are in line with the original projections. On the other hand, we have been informed by the Federal Government that considerably more than that $35 million will be lost over the last three months of 1984-85. It looks like somewhere above $80 million.

Of course, on the other side as a result of that, we receive extra funding from the Established Programs Financin g Program for health and post-secondary education. This is something that's been happening right across the countr y. The member might have another question. Lease of buildings - debt-servicing cost MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, further a question with respect to the leasing payment which it's shown in Estimates this year that the government will be paying some $36 million to lease wha t used to be the gover nment's own build ings back from a Cr own corporation to which they have been sold, at least to a holding corporation. Will that 36 million, in effect, be a debt-servicing cost? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: It certainly could be interpr eted in that way, because basically what it's doing is paying the dividends on the preferred shares in the corporation, and certainly people could be justified in adding that on to the debt servicing, in a sense. In another sense, as I understand it, it's being done in a similar fashion to what other provinces, such as, British Columbia do their financing in. Engineering Services Fees - increase in MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Can the Min ister indic ate that the fees ch arged for eng ineering services to muni cipal ities by the government have increased from $75 an hour to $17 5 an hour? 321 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr. Speaker , I can't confirm that. The Department of Municipal Affairs provides no eng ineering services to municipalities.

I think the member's question might be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Natural Resources, or any other department which provides services directly, but no such services are provided by my department, and therefore, there has been no such increase from my department. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister then, is he telling this House that he is not aware of an increase of $75 an hour to $1 75 an hour for the services that are being charged as Minister of Municipal Affairs? HON. A. ANST ETT: Mr. Speaker , the honourable member asked for confirmation.

Not being the Minister re sponsible for Natural Resources, or any other department that provides engineering services, I am not going to confirm to this House and to the public the exact levels of fees. I am aware that there have been some increases, yes. If the member seeks confirmation of that, and wants that, he should get it from the appropr iate Minister. MR. A. DRIEDGER: To the same Minister then, Mr. Speaker, does this Minister of Municipal Affairs support that kind of an increase of $10 0 an hour? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is really not a proper question for Oral Question period.

Would the honourable member wish to reph rase his question? Water Power Rental Rates - revenue due to increase of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. R EYLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Press today seems to be somewhat concerned, although I felt the opposition would be concerned as well, that water power rental rates were raised in the Budget last night. Could the Minister inform the House what amount of reve nue the pr ovi nce expects to raise from this increase? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Ap proximately $4 million, Mr. Speaker . Water Power Rental Rates - impact on hydro rates MR. R EYLER: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Energy inform this House what he would expect the impact of that increase to be on hydro rates?

Friday, 22 March, 1985 HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to deal with the question for the Member for River East. I must note that the opposition seems completely deflated by the excellent Budget presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, yesterday and have sagged very noticeably this morning in terms of asking questions regarding the Budget. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. W. PARASIUK: In that respect, Mr.

Speaker, Hydro is trying to be as produc tive as possible, and as efficient as possible, so I would expect the increase in water rental rate will have little or no impact. Hydro will attempt to try and make sure that it has as little an impact as possible, and hopefully no impact on future rate increases, Mr. Speaker . MR. G. FILMON: They'll sweep the 4 million up off the floor, right? HON. W. PARASIUK: No, we'll just be a lot more efficient. We're trying to become efficient all the time. Mr. Speaker , I believe that Hydro is very efficient and will even become more efficient.

Hydro is prepa red to pay its fair share. I see people on the other side keep asking for more and more and more and, at the same time, complaining if they have to pay for it. We're quite willing to meet our fair share with respect to water rental rates. Quality of Education - improvement of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. Last week on a News Service release, the Minister indicated that one of her priorities this year would be to improve the quality of education. Mr.

Speaker , I am happy that the Minister and government have finally come to the conclusion shared by most Manitobans that quality is lacking . MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. C. MANNESS: My question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, was it the survey results within and without the Department of Education, or was it the terrible scores that were reached by the students wit hin Winnipeg School Division No. 1, or was it some other reason that finally caused the Minister to come to the conclusion that quality of education is lacking within this province? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker , we have always been dealing with quality of education, we're just going to start talking about it more this year. We also - I want to go on record as saying - have quality education in our classrooms right now. The students in Manitoba have never had better teachers, better facilities, better equipment and better programs. 322 We have more children that are in school, that are being taught, that are staying in school, that are completing school, that are going on to post-secondary education than have ever done before. However, Mr. Speaker, there is always room for improvement, always.

That improvement is in two areas. The improvement is to look to see what it is the public knows about what's going on, and to provide better information about the quality of education; and second ly, to look for the areas wher e there are deficiencies. In the coming months, I will be dealing with a number of issues that deal with both better public understanding about quality education, and improving the deficiencies that we recognize we have. We can always improve our system. MR. C. MANNESS: One more question, Mr. Speaker MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired.

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Orders of the Day, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery. We have 80 students of Grade 8 standing from the Parkside School. They are under the direction of Mr. Klassen, and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Rhineland. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this morning. HANSARD CORRECTION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorne y-G eneral. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker , I have a correction for Hansard for Friday, 15 th of March, Page 166, the left-hand column, the seventh line where it refers to a speech of mine, ". . . victims of a great deal of social and economic justice." It should read injustice. MR. SPEAKER: The correction is noted. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MR. SPEAKER: On the pr oposed mo tion of the Honourable Minister of Finance, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is always a pleasure and a privilege to address the Budget Speech of last evening, and given the limited time that I've had to prepare for the response, I think there are a number of impressions that come from the Budget Speech in the manner in which the Minister delivered it. Mr. Speaker , in looking at the Budget Speech, there is the overall impression created in one's mind of a Minister of Finance and an administration that is caught in a vortex of a whirlpool of its own creation. They are helplessly being tossed about by the current in trying to hang on before they're swallowed up by the results

Friday, 22 March, 1985 of their own efforts of the first thr ee-and-a-half years. So the best they can do after this three-and-a-half years in government is to give us a Budget that has a higher deficit, that has higher taxes and that has no increase or improvement in the fundamental public services that people look to their governments to provide. Mr. Speaker , it only talks about unemp loyment and about the tragedy of unemployment which all of us recognize.

It talks about job creation, but there is nothing in the speech that gives anybody the confidence and the optimism to expect that there will indeed be jobs created from the private sector investment in economic development, that we need in this province. What an irony! This group, who in the fall of 19 81, when they took government, were so brash. They talked about themselves being proactive. They said that they were going to change, revo lution ize and impr ove everyt hing in this province. They talked about not being beholden to the bankers of the world.

Now they have to structure the Budget in such a way - the Premier calls it, carefully crafted - so as not to offend the bond rating agencies. They had to go there ahead of time to make sure that what they might do wouldn't further downgrade our credit rating, which has already been downgraded this past year, had to go cap in hand to those bond rating agencies and now, further, for $1. 45 billion of borrowing expected this year will have to go on bended knee to the bondholders and the bond sellers in Zurich, New York and Tokyo. What irony, Mr.

Speaker, for this group that said they wouldn't be beholden to the financial houses of the world. They're giving us another huge deficit that robs from the workers, from those ordi nary Manitobans who they say th ey choos e to rep rese nt, and rewards the bondholders, those very people that they say are the problem in world finance today and in finance right across this country and here in Manitoba. It robs the workers, of course, because they're going to have to pay more taxes. But taxes for what purpose?

To a greater and gr eater degree for the pur pose of paying interest on deficits incurred, to provide services that have long since been consumed and over with, and people forget what those services were and what benefits they got out of them, and yet, they're still having to pay their tax money to pay the interest on those services long since consumed . Mr.

Speaker, it robs workers because more interest cost and, indeed, even on this deficit alone that's announced here in this Budget, that interest cost is probably going to be another $60 million just on that one alone, and it's a great deal more, of course, on the cumulative $1 .85 billion of deficits that we've had in these four budgets of an NDP administration; and it robs the workers because their taxes going to pay interest means that they'll get less in the way of services from their government than they would otherwise have had if it had not been for those interest costs.

It robs workers because, as well, that additional burden of interest means that less mone y can go tow ards stimulation, incentives for long-term job creation in the private sector. What irony, that these idealogues sitting opposite are now eating humble pie. Those who said that they wouldn't be beholden to the financiers of the world are indeed in that very position, kneeling before them to 323 seek their continued good grace so that they can try and preserve that credit rating of theirs. Mr.

Speaker, in several places in the Budget, the Minister of Finance referred to the fact that he and his government know what Manitobans want. He said they've told this government that they want to live and work with dignity and purpose. They want a safe working environment. They want a province we can respect and learn from each other. Well, I'd like to tell the Minister of Finance and the Premier and the others who have spoken about knowing what Manitobans want, that I too have travelled through this province extensively in more than 50 of the 57 constituencies in the last 15 months alone, Mr. Speaker.

I've listened to what the people are saying, to what they're asking, and I have an understanding of what they want too. The most commonly asked question as you go through this province is: when is the next election?

So what they're really looking for, not only the things that the Minister of Finance has said in his Budget, they want this, they want that, they want the other thing, but they really want an opportunity to change dr amatically and fundamentally, the outloo k, the priorities, the opportunities for future work and future investment in this province and the only way they can have it is by calling a provincial election, and what they really want, Mr. Speaker, is a provincial election - fast. Mr.

Speaker, people talk about this government and it's interest ing, there are certain words that keep surfacing when they talk about this administration. They talk about incompetence, of course, and we all know that. But they talk about lack of integrity. They talk about manipulation, and we heard it again last evening from people who were in the gallery and listened specifically because of special interest in certain things that they hoped the government would do by way of this Budget Mr.

Speaker , they tell us all of these things and they talk about all of these things and they say, we really just want an opportunity to get rid of this bunch in government. They play their games in the question period and they try and puff up their confidence and the jousting that goes back and forth is to try and raise the level of confidence of the Premier and the Finance Minister, and they quote each other in their speeches, and they become the authorities that they present to the province. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'll tell you about some of the things that we know for the people of this province - and I would hope that somebody will pass this along to the Member for River East who stepped up today again and asked some planted questions - to try and do something for the government, and we now know why because recently we've been doing some public opinion survey, and we found out about certain things in River East, Mr. Speaker. The Mem ber for River East has a problem. We found, Mr.

Speaker , that two of the people who were considering candi dacy for the Prog ressive Conser vative Party in River East to run against this Member for River East have a higher recog nition rating than he does, and he has been the member for three­ and-a-half years, and the New Democrats are running substantially behind in River East, as everybody, of course, would understand. One of the prime reasons

Friday, 22 March, 1985 is, people don't know who he is and what he does in this administr ation. - (In terjection) - Well, Mr. Speake r, the Member for Thompson, as usual, is leading with his chin. He says that I have the same problem; it's a recog nition factor. Mr. Speaker , that was a topic that the Premier used on a number of times when he took personal umbr age about things that I have been doing over the past, and it's reported that at the NDP annual meeting a month or so ago, the Premier, in regaling the audience, said that Gary Filmon, the Leader of the Opposition, has a low recog nition factor.

In fact, he said the Conser vative Party was going to have commercials, these Americ an Express commercials coming up; and it's one of those in which the person holds up the credit card and says, "Hi, you don't know who I am," and we were going to do it and it was going to be "Hi, you don't know who I am; I am Gary Filmon, Leader of the Opposition," and ever ybody in the New Democratic convention thought that was a riot, Mr. Speaker. HON. H. PAWLEY: Ed Broadbent thought your name was Filmore. A MEMBER: Well, that's Broadbent. He doesn't get anything straight, does he? MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, Ed Broadbent hasn't gotten anything right yet, so I am not surprised. Anyways what the Premier was refer ring to was the fact that in public opinion polling that's been done, 9 out of 10 people in this province know who he is and only 3 out of 4 in that same polling know who I am. But what he doesn't tell his mem bers, Mr. Speaker , is in that same polling, although 9 out 10 people know who he is, 2 out of 3 don't want him to be Premier. Mr. Speaker , that's a problem. There are others over there who have a problem and we see signs of it.

We see signs of how it's being add ressed by thi s administration, they have all of a sudden become very very political in decisions they make. When they are making cuts, they are making them in areas that are held by Conservatives. The Portage School is one example. When they are doing things, Mr. Speaker , for a specific purpose to help people, they do it to help specific people in their caucus and we see a great deal of money being poured in to support the Minister of Agriculture. One of the reasons, Mr.

Speaker , is that last evening we nominated somebody to run against the Minister of Agriculture in the forthcoming election in the Interlake constituency, that is, if he chooses to run. A lot of us have our doubts about it because last evening over 1, 500 people turned out in Eriksdale at a nominating meeting to nominate the Progressive Conservative candidate to run against the Minister of Agriculture. There were six candidates and there are over 2,000 Prog ressive Conservative members in his constituency toda y, Mr .

Sp eak er, and they have joi ned in the movement that's taking place, that's sweeping this province because they want to get rid of this bunch so badly that all of them are going to put their efforts forward to that task. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 324 MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could bring the members to order , please. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously getting to the members opposite. I think it's important that we ought to get their attention, Mr.

Speaker , because there are many problems that have to be faced and they are not being faced by virtue of the messages that we got in the Throne Speech. The Throne Speech talks about jobs and job creation and goes through a series of statistics that seem to indicate that the government is proud of its record and happy with what exists in Manitoba today. They seem to be content with private sector investment because they say that it's up to levels that are very very impressive and they are delighted with it. Mr.

Speaker, during their term of government we have lost more than 10, 000 jobs in manufacturing alone; and that's between December 1981 and December 19 84. The figure has dropped from the range of 65,000 to around 55,000 and that is a significant drop, Mr. Speaker . Now they have said, of course, and I have heard the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Finance and others talk about the fact that, of course, we have increased the number of jobs in the service sector.

Well, they may be happy with that but I question whether or not the people of Manitoba are happy with that because the difference between jobs in the manufacturing sector and jobs in the service sector is a very substantial difference in terms of economic income. The average wage in Dec emb er 19 83 in the manufacturing sector, Mr. Speaker, was $370 per week ; the average wage in the service sector was $292 per week -370 versus 292. They are happy with giving people service jobs and losing manufacturing jobs, and we're losing them by the thousands; in fact, 10,000 the first three years of this administration, Mr.

Speaker. They didn't address that and they didn't address it all because they have no answers for it. Indeed, that doesn't fit in with their plans and they selectively quote statistics. They selectively quote now from Statistics Canada rather than the Conference Board and I will address that in just a few minutes. But, Mr. Speaker , the fact is that they have created here in Manitoba a climate that is hostile to private investment. It is hostile to business and job creation. We have heard all about the various aspects of it.

The Minister of Finance is content to say that they know what the people want, that they are happy that they have come forward with another $500 million deficit. He calls it a "good" Budget. In fact, he says it's a "dream" Budget. The Premier said that it was a well-crafted Budget. Well, there is no shortage of modesty over there, Mr. Speaker. In fact, as has become the case over recent major announcements, they have taken to quoting each other as their sources of support and as their sources of expertise, Mr. Speaker.

The self-congratulatory nature of that Budget Speech is something that we haven't seen in the past. Referring to comments on social democ racy, they referred to the Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade

Friday, 22 March, 1985 and Technology &s the new world expert on social democr acy. I question whether or not the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology really knows what he's doing when he lauds economies and unemployment rates of various social democratic countr ies in the world. Has he really checked into some of the differences and similarities in these countries that he says are models for social democr acy? Does he really want us to have what they have in Sweden - the low-unit employment rates, the low-unit wage costs that they have there compared to here?

Does he really feel that it would be advantageous for Manitoba? Does he really feel that the tax rates that they have in Sweden would be advantageous for Manitoba? What about West Germany? He lauds West Germany as a model in terms of their low unem ployment rate, Mr. Speaker . But what do they do with their workers, Mr. Speaker? They have an unusual system there of what's called guest workers - people who are brought in from outside the country - on temporary work permits, who leave when the work is over.

In the middle of a term with their families in school, they have to leave the country when the job expires, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of brutal system that he says should be used as an example for Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. That's what we hear from these people. That's the kind of exa mple they want to use of care, com passion, consideration; that's their example that they want to use of social democracy. Mr. Speaker, they can't even find a suitable person as a reference, as an expert, so they have to turn to somebody within their own benches and quote their Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Well, I'll just give them another quote from somebody who is a social democrat friend of theirs, James Laxer, who is the federal NOP research director and he said, not too long ago, just where would the NOP notion of economic recovery lead if it were actually implemented - to a sky-rocketing deficit in manufactured products trade, to a disastrous balance of payments situation, to a falling dollar, to higher interest rates. Indeed, the First Minister said that a falling dollar was something that you agreed with when he was at the First Ministers' Conference in Regina. - (I nterjection) Laxer said, Mr.

Speaker, anyone who doubts these consequences - (Interjection) - Laxer, their former research director, said anyone who doubts (I nterject ion) MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Laxer concluded, Mr. Speaker, in referring to their philosophy and their economic outlook, he said that anyone who doubts these consequences need only refer to the experience of France in the first year of the Mitterand Government. Mr. Speaker, we continue to have all of the negative disincentives to job creation and expansion in our economy. The payroll tax, Mr.

Speaker , labour legislation that is being quoted by union leaders as being the reason why businesses can't continu e to operate in this province, why businesses have to move right out of this province and relocate elsewhere. Even their own union leaders are stating that their labour legislation is the cause of these moves outside the province. 325 Mr. Speaker , with respect to the CCIL , it was quoted by my colleague in the House a couple of weeks ago during the Budget Debate. Mr. Speaker , they continue to have surcharges on personal income taxes.

The only companies that they can convince to stay here, or to locate here and, in many cases, they're buying even the jobs that are already here. They talked about Westeel-Rosco and, Mr. Speaker, the y'r e paying Weste el- Rosco to help them in a consolidation that will actually reduce the total numnber of jobs that Westeel-Rosco has in this province. But they will keep a small percentage of those jobs with massive government input of mone y. That's what it's come to in this province because of the disincentives, the negatives that they have intr oduced into our province.

They talked about corpor ate welfare in the past and they said that the government should never grants. In fact, Alexa Mc Donough, the leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia said, while she was here, that the Nova Scotia Conservative Government was buying jobs in Nova Scotia, giving grants to pr ivate companies. What she didn't realize is that her own soulmates right he re in the Ne w Democratic administration are doing as much and more. They're now having to pay more for people to stay here.

They're offering upwards of $30,000 per job for people to come here, and that's private sector people, that's pr ivate sector investment. The people that they say they're not so sure about because, you know, they're not paying their fair share of taxes. They're a drain on the economy; they're corpor ate welfare bums. All of those things that they say about them today they're desperately trying to buy their support to stay here for jobs. Mr. Speaker, they appear to be satisfied with the con tinuing shift of dependency off private cap ital spending on to public capital spending.

They talk about the increase in capital spending in Manitoba and how some of it is an increase in private capital spending. But, if you look at the facts, if you look at the record, you'll find that in 1981 private capital investment in Manitoba - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. If there are some members who wish to conduct a private debate, perhaps they would do so outside the Chamber. In the meantime , the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your caution and I hope that members opposite will take heed of your advice.

I'm sorry that I've touched a sensitive cord with the Minister of Tourism and Small Business because, when he was up north a couple of months ago, he was emba rrassed when I refuted all of the things that he was saying in front of an audience up there and he continues to be sensitiv e to th ose thin gs. - (lnterjec tion)- Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the continuing shift of dependency of this administration off private capital investment and and on to public capital investment and I was making the comparison between the proportion of capital investment in Manitoba that

Friday, 22 March, 1985 was private in 1981, versus the proportion of private investment today in 1985. It was 71 percent of the total capital investment in 1981 that was private capital investment and today, 1985, it's 63.6 percent, a dramatic drop of almost 10 percent. They talk about prudent fiscal management in the Budget Speech. The people who manage themselves wisely and prudently add over 1.8 billion to the deficit in thr ee years.

In three years they increased the total debt of the province by 140 percent, a 140 percent increase in just three years of their administration, of all the debt that had been accumulated for all time pr eviously in this pr ovince. Is tha t prudent management? Is that the way you manage the resources of a province? Do they call it prudent management, Mr. Speaker, when they spend, even in their fourth year - it's gone three years previously and we thought that maybe they'd come to their senses - but even in their fourth Budget, they still spend 16 percent more than they take in?

How many families, how many ordinary Manitoba farmers could take that kind of economics into their home life, that they could continually spend 16 percent more than they're taking in in income? Is it prudent fiscal management that resulted in our credit rating being downgraded last year for the first time in over a decade? Is it prudent fiscal management that has lead them to the position where they are so vulnerable that they always have to throw themselves at the mercy of the bankers and the bond holders and the rating agencies of this country? Mr.

Speaker , the people who manage themselves wisely and properly disestablish their entire housing department by an Order-in-Council and then a couple of weeks later, have to pass an Orde r -in-Council to re-e stablish the Department of Housing, and then a week later come forward and tell us it was all a mistake. That's prudent management. Mr . Sp eak er, is it pr ud ent fiscal management to put yourself in a position of this year having to borrow from the lending agencies 1.45 billion to continue the operations of their administration?

You know, the Budget refers to projected growth rates for this coming year 1985 and, all of a sudden, their expert has become Statistics Canada. They've totally ignored the Conference Board. They've always referred to the Conference Board in the past as being their chief source of objective information on the economy. - (Int erjection) - Now, Mr. Speaker , the Minister of Finance says, "Don't be silly." I have a copy of a speech he gave to the Manitoba Outlook Conference last October. Manitoba Outlook Conference which was put on by the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce.

In that speech, no fewer than five times, he refers to the Conference Board statistics for Manitoba. Today, he won't even talk about it, he won't address it. Not one person on those benches during the Throne Speech Debate mentioned the Conference Board statistics and what they mean. A MEMBER: Why would that be? MR. G. FILMON: Why? Well, I'll tell you why, because what he used to say was the most objective analyst of growth rates and economic activity in the country, the Conference Board, this year is projecting that Manitoba will have the lowest growth rate of any 326 province in the countr y.

At 1. 6 percent, we're going to be almost a full percentage point below the national average, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker , moreso than that, and I quote from the Conference Board what they said about Manitoba's prospects for this year. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board says in its most recent report about Manitoba's prospects for this coming year: "Many of the province's largest manufacturing industries, food processing, clothing, and agricultural machinery, for instance, have - not participated in the general manufacturing resurgent.

The problems facing these industries will persist in 1985, and progr ess in Manitoba's manufacturing sector will be slim once again." That's after three years in which they have already lost 10,000 jobs and over 200 manufacturing firms from our base. Mr. Speaker , it includes the major focus of both the Throne Speech and the Budget. That takes into account this Conference Board report, Limestone, because it says here: "A major factor in this forecast is the assumed start of work on the multi-billion dollar Limestone Hydro-Electric Project.

In total "- that's including Limestone - "Mani toba's real gro wth is forecast to be 1.6 percent this year." It includes the Jobs Fund; it includes everyt hing that's in that Budget and that Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, and it is still going to be the lowest growth rate in the entire countr y. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer further to growth rates.

In his speech on the Throne Speech Debate, the Premier said that: "In fact, in 1980, we had a drop in the economic growth in the Province of Manitoba when the rest of the country was doing well." He was talking about how bad thi ngs were under the pr evious Conservative administration. Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't recall that drop in growth rate, so I went to the Conference Board statistics, again the most recently available ones, to look at the gross domestic product in Manitoba.

It shows that in all of the years between 1977 and 19 85, there was only one year in which we had an actual drop in our gross do mestic pr oduct, and that was 1982 und er his administration when it dropped by 2.9 percent. In fact, in the four years under our administration, Mr. Speaker, it increased by 5.9 percent, and in the four years, including the projection for this year, under this administration it's only increased 3.7 percent; 5.9 under the years that he said weren't good, and 3.7 under the years that he says were great. Well, Mr.

Speaker , it certainly depends on your perspective, and even this Premier can't keep his statistics straight with all of the research staff that he says he has. Mr. Speaker , he talks about how good the economy is, and he ignores totally what has happened with the deficits that I referred to earl ier. He ignores totally the fact that there are still 20,000 more people unemployed today in Manitoba than when his administration took government; ignores totally the fact that there have been 966 business bankru ptcies since they took government. I read the litany of failures of businesses into the record in the past.

Mr. Speaker, a total of 154 farm families have declared bankru ptcy, and the Minister of Agriculture told us that, for every one that declared bankruptcy, there were three others that voluntarily liquidated and went out of farming. Mr. Speaker, welfare cases, they've always said what an indicator that is. In fact, the NDP in British Columbia

Friday, 22 March, 1985 are trying to make hay of the welfare rolls, the size of the welfare rates and rolls in British Columbia, saying that, you know, the evidence there is of the disaster under a Social Credit administration. Well, here's some evidence that we'll send to British Columbia to see whether or not Mr. Skelly is willing to try and tell his people in British Columbia why in Manitoba, in 19 81, the City of Winnipeg had 2,436 welfare cases and, thr ee years later by 1984, it had risen to 7,259. That's a 197 percent increase in the welfare rolls in Winnipeg under this administration. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance said, what about the increase in private capital expenditures in Manitoba? Mr . Speak er, let me tell him tha t even with the projections for 19 85 taken into account of some increase, of some recovery, very very slight or slim, as it's said by the Conference Board, t.hat the investment in manufacturing for this year, 1985 versus what it was in 19 81, it's still 21 percent less A MEMBER: Capital investment. MR. G. FILMON: Capital investment, that's right. Mr.

Sp eak er, the capital investment in utilities and communications, another very important part of our gross provincial product, is still less than it was in 19 81. Where has the progr ess been? Where have all of these successes of New Democratic administration been? Mr. Speaker , I thought that Budget Speech was perhaps one of the most partisan that I have heard in history. This Minister of Finance didn't refer to it as the govern ment, he kept referring to it as a New Democratic Party adminis tra tion. He wanted to emp hasize the partisanship that he felt was behind the things that were happening in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker , we agree that there is a great deal of partisanship behind the policies and the decisions of this administration. He said, and his Premier has said over the cour se of recent debates, and they've repeated it for months now, that Manitoba is a model for the rest of the country in terms of economic development. Mr. Speaker , I say to them, ask the Conference Board what they think about that statement, the model. Mr. Speaker, ask Terry Sargeant and Laverne Lewycky who campaigned on that slogan during the federal election this summer in Manitoba.

Ask them whether they believe that Manitoba is a model for the rest of the country and if that's the reason that they are where they are today, out of government. Ask the people of this province whether or not we're a model for the rest of the country, and they'll tell you, no. A MEMBER: Ask them whether they want an election. MR. G. FILMON: Yes. Mr. Speaker , this administration piously likes to talk about its commitments to spending money in education, social services and various other areas that they believe they have a corner on the market of concern for.

Many will recall in the late '70s that people from the New Democratic Party in opposition got involved in a major major issue, a public issue that the y trump ed up that said that Manitoba wasn't spending its legitimate proportion of federal transfer income on the things that it was supposed to, principally 327 on health and post-se condary education. At that time, the y said that - horrors! - the Cons ervative administration was diverting some of the federal transfer monies into roads; into roads, they said, and other things that were not a priority for this province at that time.

Well a report has just been released in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, and the report is called: "Giving Greater Point and Pur pose to the Federal Financing of Post­ Second ary Education and Research in Canada." The author of the report was an individual by the name of Al Johnson. It was commissioned under the Liberal administration. Many will remember Mr. Johnson as the former head of the CBC in Canada. He did an analysis of what the provinces do with the federal transfer of monies under the EPF transfers to post­ secondary education. He took the provincial operating grants in 1977-78, and compared them with 1984-85.

He found, Mr. Speaker, that in 1977-78 the proportion of federal fundin g th at was being spent in post-secondary education was 80.3 percent. So of all of the EPF transfers for post-se condary education, 80.3 percent of it was federal money going into post-secondary education in Manitoba. That was in 19 77-78. In 19 84- 85 it is 102.9 percent. In other words, all of the funding for post-secondary education in this province is federal and another 2.9 is being diverted into advertising. Talk about manipulation, Mr. Speaker; talk about deception, doub lespeak.

Here are the people who are committed to funding post-secondary education and health, and are taking all of the federal monies and even siphoning some of them off, not even putting all of the federal monies into it - post-secondary education. Mr. Speaker , that was released in Ottawa last Friday. But I am surprised that this Minister of Education, that this Minister of Finance have not commented on this. A MEMBER: Wait till the students at the univ ersities hear this. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker , over this period of time, between 19 77-78 and 1984-84, Manitoba has had the third highest reduction in their usage of their funds. They have increased the proportion of federal funding the third highest, Mr. Speaker. That's what's happening. These are the people, Mr. Speaker , who said in the past that they were opposed to taking federal funds and diverting them for other purposes and they are doing it. They are not putting their share in and they are the ones who rasied the issue in the late '70s and they have done nothing about it. In fact, it's worse. Mr .

Speak er, talking about double speak and misleading, some of the people who were in the gallery last even ing were here for the purpose of finding out what this administration was going to do to help some of the areas of their particular concern and amongst them were people from the heavy construction industry.

The heavy cons truction ind ustry has had a tremendous reduction in the numbers of construction firms, in the volume of work, ever since these people have been gov ernment because they have systematically reduced their proportion of the Budget and their commitments to highways construction in this province. As a result, 13 ma jor firms have gone out of

Friday, 22 March, 1985 business entirely in Manitoba in the three years that they have been in office; and those who are here are now having most of their work outside of the province. Now they know all about that because this group, the heavy construction industry, gave them the reports, met with them privately and gave them all of this information. Weil, they were here in the gallery last evening to listen to the Budget in hopes that there would be something of encouragement in there because they are big employers, big investors and very very important to the economy of this province.

When the Minister of Finance talked about the fact that there was something like 20-odd million - 26, 28 million more being spent than they took in, in revenues in highways, they thought this must mean we are going to get more. Then they waited and they waited and they waited until they actually got the Budget numbers.

They found that as part of the Budget this Minister has actually added taxes to fuel and added certain licence fees and things that have increased the take from this administration by $24 million - $24 million dollars as a result of this Budge t - more coming out in so-called user fees from the automobile, construction, highways sort of side of things, the highway side of things, and they put $2 million more into highway construction. They are taking $24 million out and putting $2 million more in.

So we asked them, how does the Minister come up with his figures that say they are actually putting a great deal more into highways than they are taking out? Well, he said, it's very interes ting. He ignores the revenue from licence fees and he ignores the revenue from the automobile registration in the province. In fact, if he took that into account, the analysis would be entirely different. So they said, in sitting here listening, we now understand what you people have to put up with, with this doub lespeak that goes on. Mr. Speaker , other people were here and listened to the Budget.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for one, had a representative here. The Premier spoke earlier this Session, during the Throne Speech Debate, about how important the development of small business in this province was. He talked about the job creation that came from small business and I agree with him wholehearted ly. As a matter of fact the statistics show, Mr.

Speaker , that two-t hirds of all the jobs th at are created in Canada are created by businesses that were fewer than 20 employees 20 years ago - that's a very significant number, very impressive - and it says that we are a nation and we are a province that has been built on the development of small business.

You only need look at some of our largest companies in Manitoba and you know that a generation or two ago many of them were small family-owned corporations, and today they are world-wide in stature, they are international in their influence and their investments and every thing else, they're into 50 and 100 millions of dollars and they started as small family­ owned operations a generation or two ago. A MEMBER: They are the Versatiles. MR. G. FILMON: That's right, they're the Versatiles of this world. They are the Tan Jays of this world. They are the Monarch industries of this world. They are the 328 Richardsons.

They are all of these people who started with family-owned coporations that have grown into world-wide stature, Mr. Speaker, development firms that are doing almo st all their investment outside of Manitoba, whether it be Lakeview, whether it be Imperial, whether it be so many of those other firms who are now not investing in Manitoba because the opportunities aren't here, because there isn't a climate that allows small business to grow into large and large business to continue to prosper. It's not here.

Of course, these people who the Premier just said last week were very important to Manitoba, these small business people, what did they say about the Budget last evening? Well, here's what the representative of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Botting. Botting scored the government for it's big brother approach with gr ants and handouts, development agreements and Jobs Fund. Top of the list for small business is the hated payroll tax, repository of the worst of the govern ment's sins according to small business. "That tax is extremely unfair," he said.

"Yet it comes from a government that says it wants tax reform and fairness. Unlike corporate taxes, the payroll tax is levied regardless of whether or not the small business has made a profit." So that's what the people who could create and would create employment, investment, job activity in this province, small business people, that's what they say about this administration and its policies.

So I have to say that the Premier ·and the Minister of Finance obviously didn't ask the right people when they've come up with their policies in the past because what they've done has created nothing more than disincentives and roadblocks to investment and growth in our province. Where are their priorities?

Let's take a look at some of the clues that we might get in looking at the things that were released last evening in the Budget in the Estimates: Management and administrative salaries in the Executive Council increased by over .25 million; Business Development and Tourism expenditur es are down by $2. 1 million, Mr. Speaker . That's because, of course, we've got the new Minister here who knows every thing that needs to be done in this province in Business Development and Tourism and because he knows, he can cut the Budget. Mr.

Speaker , the funding for CRISP programs, now this is the progam, Child Related Income Support Program that gives low income families additional support to be able to make their way in the world today under difficult times. This CRISP program has had a reduction of $353,000 this year. That's because they have changed the rules to disenfranchise and disallow 1, 000 farm families from getting CRISP assistance. These are the people who are concerned about the welfare of the farmers in this province. Mr.

Speaker , we were talking, and we heard the Minister of Health saying he agreed with some of the things I was saying about promoting well-being and health in this province, chariging the focus of just treating the sick and putting it on to improving the health of the people who are already well and keeping them healthy for longer periods of time. He said he agreed with me, but they are very committed to that, they have been doing this and, Mr. Speaker, they haven't changed the Budget on it. They're not spending any more money on that particular sector.

Friday, 22 March, 1985 Dental Services are down $1. 4 million. Now we know what that is, and that's because they refused to give the Children's Dental Health Program to the people of Brandon. That's their confrontative attitude. They say, our way, or the doorway, you wouldn't get the Children's Dental Health program in Brandon because we say to you that it either has to be implemented by the dental nurses or not at all. Mr. Speaker , the Premier and the Minister of Finance talked about confidence and optimism.

In fact, the Premier challenged us on this side saying, that we keep being negative; and he says they, the Conservatives, are not confident and optimistic about Manitoba and Manitobans. He has said this repeated ly, and some of his Ministers have said it during the Session. Well, Mr. Speaker, he fails to understand. We are indeed confident and optimistic about Manitoba and its opportuniti es for the future. It is this administration in which we have no confidence and no optimism, no optimism that they could do anything. Mr.

Speaker, we acknowledge better than anyone that there are resources here that can be developed for the long-term benefit of all Manitobans. The Hydro resources that we've spent so much time talking about, are Hydro resources that shouldn't be developed to export the energy and the jobs to the United States. They should be developed to have the jobs come here, to attract energy-intensive industry. We should be attracting heavy energy-intensive users: alu� inum smelters, magnesium production, hydrogen, aerospace, high tech, all of these things, Mr.

Speaker , but we are not; and we're not because they continue to add to the debt load and the rates of Manitoba Hydro in a manner that reduces the incentive for people to come in here by virtue of an attractive energy price. Mr. Speaker, we know that it can be done. We know that confidence and optimism should be here because we have a strong vibrant and energetic work force; people who have a strong work ethic; people who have themselves attracted investment here because of the reputation that the Manitoba work force has outside of this province. We compete in textiles with third world ..r countries.

We compete with third world countries in mining because of our produc tive work force and our strong management. We have the entrepreneurial talent. I talked about so many small enterpris es that have risen to become large multimil lion dollar op erations right he re in Manitoba, and we continue to have those opportunities, Mr. Speaker .

We have water resources, water resources that are largely undeveloped for tourism pur poses, that are for secondary processing, because in many cases the water isn't in the area of the province in which it could be most productively used, and that might require some long-term investment, in dams, in canals and other things, Mr. Speaker. We have various different mineral resources that are still in the ground waiting for investment capital and markets to be developed.

I remember the Minister of Finance when he was the critic in 19 81 with respect to some of the projects that were coming into Manitoba, and they talked about us being negative. I remember the Minister of Finance when he was then just the Member for Rossmere, and he was criticizing our entering into potash development in this province with 329 International Minerals and Chemical Corporation, and he argued that we weren't getting a good enough return in terms of royalties. His argument was that Saskatchewan had a higher royalty rate, or was going to have a higher royalty rate and therefore get a better return.

He totally ignor ed the fact that our deposits were a little less in quality, and that there would be a gr eater investment today in developing the mine than there was when Saskatchewan developed those mines. In fact, in order for there to be an opportunity to get any economic return, that those rates had to bear some relationship to the ability of the investor to get some return. So he said, and I can't remember if it was a couple of percentage points different, two or three was his argument, that we should be getting the same rate as Saskatchewan.

So rather than get a percentage of hundreds of millions of dollars coming out of the potash industry, which would have taken place were IMC investing here in 19 81, today we're getting three percent more of zero. A MEMBER: One hundred percent of nothing. MR. G. FILMON: Zero. That's what we're getting because his administration took the attitude that we'll squeeze them for an extra couple of percent of royalty, Mr. Speaker, and ignore their opportunity for a rate of return and get no investment. We were talking at that time $600 million investment in a potash mine, but he said, no.

Well, that was their positive attitude in 1981 towards things that were being done by the then­ Conser vative administration. Mr. Speaker, how can the people of Manitoba have confidence in this administration? How can we, on this side, have confidence in this administration when we see all around us the signs of waste and mismanagement; when we see the losses of Flyer Industries, of Manfor, the mismanagement of McKenzie Seeds, the conflict of interest and all sorts of problems that have torn that company apart, Mr.

Speaker , under this administration, and their politically motivated operatives who they have put on boards and put in a position of running these operations? Mr. Speaker, talk about positive. I was just reviewing from my own memory the little manifesto that was produced in 19 80 by the Member for Brandon East, who at that time did his analysis of Manitoba and its prospects in its economy. I want to tell you, if you can find one positive word in this analysis, then I'll eat this paper. Mr. Speaker , he was so negative, so detructive about Manitoba, so uncomplimentary about Manitoba, that it was unbelievable.

What a shame. Mr. Speaker , it's incredible that today these people are proud of a 1. 6 percent growth rate in 1985, when that growth rate in 19 81, when they said it wasn't good enough, that growth rate in 1981 was 4.2 percent, I believe. A MEMBER: 4.7. MR. G. FllMON: It was over 4 percent, and they said it wasn't good enough. They tore it down and were negative about ever ything that happened. Every time a mega project was anno unced in thl s Hous e,

Friday, 22 March, 1985 negotiations, whatever, they jumped on it, Mr. Speaker, and now they have the audacity to tell us that we aren 't demonstrating the kind of confidence and optimism that we ought to be in Manitoba! We're confident and optimistic in Manitoba and in Manitobans but not in this administration. Mr. Speaker , I want to touch on, just briefly, a couple of other things.

One, specifically, is a matter that has taken a great deal of attention in debate already in the House and undoubtedly will continue to be debated - the issue of the advancement of construction of the Limestone Generating Station, the commission of development of Limestone. Mr. Speaker , the Premie r, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy and Mines, have been hammering away at the opposition because they appeared as interveners before the National Energy Board. They keep saying that they are negative interveners, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, they plant questions with the Member for Concordia to stand up and say, who are the interveners? Mr . Sp eak er, would you name the � interveners, he said to the Minister. Well, Mr. Speaker , ' you rightfully ruled it out of order at the time. I'll tell the Member for Concordia who the int erveners were. These people, who they wanted to deny the right to appear before the National Energy Board, deny the right to ask questions, to seek information and to be assured that this government and the Manitoba Hydro were proceed ing in the proper manner; that's what these people went for before, and they say, Mr.

Speaker , that they should not have been able to do that. They call them negative interveners. I will tell them who they were, Chief Walter Monias of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okemakanac, Inc. which is a group of Northern Indian Bands. Those people, Mr . Sp eak er, appeared legitimately as concerned citizens of this province, and they say they had no right, that the y'r e negative interveners. They shou ldn't have been asking the questions. That's what they called them, Mr. Speaker. We had people coming from the British Columbia Hydro and Power Auth ori ty, from the Ministry of Resou rces in Quebec.

We had the Consumers Association of Canada represented by Arne Peltz. Mr. � Speaker , thousands of Manitobans represented in the ' Consumers Association of Canada, and they say that they were negative interveners and shouldn't have been there. Some of the things that they're quoting from are directly from the questions asked by the Consumers Association. They say silence them, they're negative, they had no right to ask those questions. Mr.

Speaker , that kind of hammering away, that kind of intimidation tactic, to say that anybody who appeared before the National Energy Board was wrong to have appeared, was wrong to ask questions, is the kind of tactic that they may get away with in a totalitarian environment, but I want to tell you - thank God! - we don't have that here.

Thank God Manitobans can go before a public body in a democratic forum and ask questions of their government, ask questions of the people to whom they pay the taxes, the people to whom they pay their Hydro bills, ask questions about their development plans and about the elements that· go into this, but these people say, no, they have no right, they're negative, they are bad for Manitoba. There are others who came before them: the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Association, Hydro Quebec, the 330 Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He had no right to ask questions before that body.

That's what the membe rs of this New Democratic administration say. Mr. Speaker , the Ministry of Energy for Ontario, Ontario Hydro, Saskatchewan Power Corporation, the Northern Flood Committee repres enting thousands of Northerners, they had no right to appear according to this New Democratic administration. The Mennonite Central Committee of Canada, they had no right to appear according to this administration. Mr. Speaker, the Crossroads Resource Group, the Manitoba Environmental Council, negative interveners according to these people, no right to ask questions. That's the kind of administration we have. Mr.

Speaker, Chief Percy Mink, on behalf of the Easterville Indian Band; Moose Lake Indian Band, Grand Rapids Indian Band, The Pas Indian Band, Grand Rapids Special Forebay Committee, they had no right to appear before the National Energy Board. According to these people, they're negative interveners and they're bad for Manitoba. That's what they say, Mr. Speaker (I nterjection) - and of course, Donald W. Craik. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, R Eyler: Order please. The Member for Concordia on a point of order . MR. P.

FOX: The matter of privil ege is that the honourable member is imputing that those people, negative interveners, hacl no right, and he's attributing it back to me. I say that is wrong, he has no right to attribute that to me. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, that kind of harassment will not work with us. You're not going to stop us from asking questions. You're not going to stop us from asking for information and from putting the truth on the record. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please.

Does the Member for Concordia have a point of order? The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker , and of course there were two other interveners that the Minister of Energy wanted to have on the record, and I'll put them on the record: Donald W. Craik, the former Minister of Energy and Mines, the former Minister of Finance; and the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, what did they say during the past number of days? They have said that the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba appeared as negative interveners before the National Energy Board, was opposed to the sale.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Leader of the Opposition.

Friday, 22 March, 1985 MR. G. FllMON: Mr. Speaker , they said that the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba appeared as negative interveners before the board. This Minister, who was not there, Mr. Speaker , at any time during the proce edings, said that we went to oppose him. Well, I'd like to put on the record quotations from what we said before the board, Mr. Speaker.

"The Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba supports in principle the interconnection of Manitoba's power systems with neighbouring systems in Canada and the USA, and the sale or exchange of power and energy on a mutually advantageous basis." Negative? I wouldn't say so. We further said: "Our interest in the matter before the board stems from a desire to gain an understanding of and to support any reasonable exchange, sale or commitment of energy resources b�, Manitoba Hydro which would result in long-term .. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G.

FllMON: . . . benefits to the power consumers, the public and the industrial economy of Manitoba, Canada or our neighbour s in the USA." Mr. Speaker , I remind you this was said in October. It has nothing to do with incidents that have taken place since. Mr. Speaker , further we said: "Until we have had the opportunity to participate in the hearings, our support of the sale of firm power to NSP remains conditional." We did say that we objected to the applicant's call for urgency to advance the construction of Limestone by up to two years, and we gave reasons why, Mr. Sp eak er.

But we said: "Our ob jections to the applicant's call for urgency ... "- and the call for urgency was in the advancement - ". . . in no way implies opposition to the sale of power and energy to the NSP system. NSP has been and remains a natural customer and supplier of power and energy to Manitoba Hydro." Is that a negative intervention, I ask, Mr. Speaker? We went there to ask questions, because we believed, Mr.

Speaker , that alternative development sequences, not sequences so much as timing, would have been more advantageous to the people of Manitoba, and we still believe that because the NEB never did refute that point of view. Mr. Speaker , the reason that our position has never been refut ed , that our position has never been addressed was that it was outside of the terms of reference of the National Energy Board to look at alternate development sequences and scheduling. Mr.

Speaker , if there is any doubt about that, all we have to do is to read from the statement that the Minister of Energy put before the House just the other day. It gave the three terms of reference of the National Energy Board. Those were very simply to make sure that the power wasn't required in Canada. So the National Energy Board said they qualify on that. They said they had to make sure that the price of sale to Northern States Power was less than the price it would be charged to Canadian customers, to Manitoba customers. Well, Mr. Speaker , they are selling it at the system rate, they are comparing it.

The National Energy Board's 331 frame of reference is to compare it to the system average rate. In the system average rate, that's the rate that tells you what you're going to be paying in Manitoba at the time of the sale, and they're satisfied that Northern States Power will be paying more than we're paying in Manitoba. But you have to recognize that it isn't just the cost of energy that's produced by Limestone.

That's the cost of the entire integrated system and that includes, energy that's being produced by all the plants on the Winnipeg River that have been long since paid for, long since amortized and today are producing energy at less than one cent a kilowatt hour, that includes power that's being put into the system by things like the Grand Rapids Project that was developed in the early '60s, again at a very much lower rate of cost than the ones we're building today on the Nelson River. It might be something in the range of a cent or two a kilowatt hour.

They all come into the mix to give you your average system rate and that's what the National Energy Board com pares their sale price to. Surely, Mr. Speaker , what we're doing in that respect, is we're giving the benefit to the American customers. Of all of the development that has taken place for decades, for generations, that has arrived at a low cost of operation from all of the various components in the system, the plants on the Winnipeg River, Grand Rapids and others, that's the base sign of comparison. Well, if you can't sell to the Americans for more than that, Mr. Speaker , you're in pretty big trouble.

So of course the price is going to be higher than that . . . A MEMBER: Buildings galore going up in Minneapolis. The boom. I'm for development here. MR. G. FllMON: Mr. Speaker, the other thing that we said to the National Energy Board was that the board might be inadvertently lending cred ibility to the proposal by this administration to advance the construction of Limestone by two years. The board came back and said very clearly, they are not inadvertently lending credibil ity, that it is not their purpose in responding, Mr. Speaker. So we weren 't wrong in that, Mr. Speaker . Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance said last evening in his Budget Speech that the National Energy Board found no reason to believe that this wasn't the best development sequence for Manitoba Hydro. But, Mr. Sp eak er, th ey were only given one dev elop ment sequence to consider. They weren't given alternative development sequences. They wer en't given different opportunities to look at what is the total benefit to the people of Manitoba, if you don't start it two years ahead of time.

They didn't look at it from that context, they only looked at the narrow terms of reference of the dev elop ment sequence that was before them. - (Interjection) - So how could they tell you that this was the best, 1r1hen it was the only one that they could consider? Mr. Spe aker, these people opposite have taken such great liberties. They have said in statements that National Energy Board said it was a good deal for Manitoba and Canada. It didn't say that anywhere.

It said it met their criteria and they were satisfied that the numbers as presented for the sequence and case as presented, went through the computer. and came

Friday, 22 March, 1985 out the same as it did through Manitoba Hydro's computer. That's right, Mr. Speaker . You know, I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the things that are being said by - (I nterject ion) MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I find it interest ing that the things that are being said by the Minister of Energy and the Premier inside this Chamber, the kind of "rah rah" taking liberties with what the National Energy Board said, are different from what they're saying outside in the public. Out there, they have an obligation to tell the truth. Mr.

Speaker, here and I quote from the announcement that was made by the Premier just the other day, March 20th, to a number of business people when they were opening the Limestone development office. He said, "As you know, the National Energy Board has approved the sale and we have opted for a 1990 in-service date for Limestone." He didn't say that the National Energy Board said it was the best plan, that it was the best way to go. He said, "we have opted" and he differentiated between the sale being approved and the decision to be advanced. Mr.

Speaker, I'll get to the point that the Minister of Finance is attempting to make in his own simplistic way. The Minister of Finance says - (I nterjec tion) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: The Minister of Finance says that the National Energy Board reviewed the figur es that were before it with respect to the two-year advancement and came out saying that, indeed, it showed a net return on expenditures, Mr. Speaker . He calls it a profit. Mr.

Speaker , they gave them two years in which there is only bridge financing on the pr oject and the y compared that to opportunities to sell for uncommitted markets, to sell some additional interruptible sales and they said, they will come out ahead. That's Manitoba Hydro's analysis. And according to that analysis, if the ' things come according to what they've projected , that will be an advantage.

But what he doesn't tell you is that when you move forward the two years of bridge financing, you bring forward by two years the first year on which you have to pay the interest on the total investment - that's $300 million. That $300 million is nowhere in the calculation that results in that response, Mr. Speaker , $300 million dollars a year of just simply interest. If you add on operating costs, capital recovery and all those things, you're into $350 to $400 million. That has to be borne by the system, because if you didn't have those bridge financing costs . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G.

FILMON: If you didn't have those bridge financing costs in 19 91 and 1992, you'd have them in 1993 and 1994. So there would be less cost. But by 1993 and 1994 you're already now into paying the $300 million plus in interest in operating and every thing else, so you just move it forward.

But that doesn't show up 332 in the analysis on those individual years because all you show in those two years is the bridge financing which is a small fraction because the real bill comes later and it's borne by the system as a whole. - (I nterject ion) - Well, fine, but that's not the way it has to be, if you do it on a total cost analysis. - (Interjection) - That's the only answer they have, Mr. Speaker , is that that's the only way it's done and . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. J.

COWAN: The big question is whether or not Manitobans would actually save the $300 million in interest for two years, and they would if you didn't proceed in this manner. - (Interject ion) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Other members will have the opportunity to put forward their opinions to the House in due course. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines on a point of order . HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I sent the Leader of the Opposition a note indicating I had a meeting at 12 :00 noon today which was arranged some time earlier.

I'd like to let the House know that I certainly will read the rest of his speech, because frankly I found his comments different but certainly warrant re ading. - (I nterjec tion) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I thank the honourable member for that personal explanation. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: You know, I find it strange that members opposite will make certain quotes and then not relate it to what the figures are being shown to them by the Minister of Energy.

For instance, last year at the Natural Resources and Public Utilities Committee meet ing we had here, it was revealed that in their analysis as to what their returns are on the Sale Sequence, Manitoba Hydro only includes about 300- and-some-odd million of capital costs because they say that you really don't include the capital costs of Li mestone. All you do is the differen tial cost of advancing the construction to meet the sale, so that out of a $3 billion investment all you've got in the mix for capital is about $300 million in order to make your comparisons that give you the so-called $1. 7 billion profit.

Yet just last week, the Prem ier, on the CJOB Action Line, said 40 percent of Limestone is being comm itted to the Northern States Power sale. It would seem to me that it should occur to him that if 40 percent of Limestone is being committed to that sale, why isn't 40 percent of the capital cost of construction in it? It isn't, Mr. Speaker . Why not the interest at least on that 40 percent being shown in their actual costs?

It isn't, and the reason is because it's become utility convention to say that you sell it out of your system as a whole, and therefore you don't really sell it from that last plant you build, you sell it from the system as a whole. So what that does is give to the Americans the advantage of all of the

Friday, 22 March, 1985 low cost invested in the system to keep our rates down over all the years, and they get some of the benefit of that by virtue of the sale. Mr. Speaker , that's what strikes me as being strange, that the Premier would say that 40 percent is committed, yet he isn't even prepared to say that the interest on that 40 percent is part of the calculation. It isn't. That's why, when you have that kind of analysis, you say to yourself is there really a benefit or should we be looking at this in isolation?

Even if you argue that for the purposes of the sale, you don't take it into account because you're selling it out of the system for the purposes of advancement. I say and so do many others, Mr. Speaker , who appeared before that committee, you have to take into account the capital cost of building that plant two years earlier. You can't just say it's a portion of the cost and its borne by the system. Because, if you do, what you're saying is that now the people of the whole rate system, all of the customers of Manitoba Hydro, are going to be paying more in order for you to justify that advancement.

That's exactly what we have been arguing, and it has not been refuted, Mr. Speaker . The Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, in making his analysis, keeps saying that this sale is so much better than the Western Electric Grid, because he says that we are getting all of these profits and that we would be getting a marginal return on the grid. But the comparison on the grid, Mr. Speaker , is that on the grid they would be paying the full common bus. rate from Limestone which is pro jected to be somewhere between .06 and .08 cents a kilowatt hour. That's what they would have been paying.

The interesting thing is that the Northern States Power sale is returning about 7.5 cents a kilowatt hour, so we would be getting approxi mately the same returns from the grid, but the difference in the grid was we didn't have the risks. You see, all of these calculations are predicated on the fact that Hydro is projecting an interest rate of 11 percent, that they're project ing cost escalation rates of 6 or 7 percent a year, that they're projecting an 81- cent dollar and all of those things. If all of those things go negative, Mr.

Speaker, Northern States Power has no risk because they have a fixed price, we bear all the risk. He says that in the grid, in the case of the grid, that Manitobans were bearing the risk on the construction costs. Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement that the escalation and construction costs would be shared by the partners, that any escalation in the rates of interest would be shared. We had no risk on those things. The only risk that we had was that our estimate of cost of Limestone had to be firm before the escalation costs - in today's dollars, it had to be firm.

He says that was a risk for us, but they're using exactly the same estimate in their calculations for Northern States Power , so the y obviously think that it's a firm estimate it's a good estimate. Where is the risk? Mr. Speaker , he doesn't know what he's talking about. Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of thing that they're doing. They criticized the Alcan deal where Alcan was going to be paying for the entire cost of their portion of the plant, that Alcan was going to be paying for upstream invested costs in Churchill River Diver sion, Lake Winnipeg Regulation, some costs on transmission and all those things.

Alcoa, they were going to give them 333 the power at system rate just out of the system and have all that invested cost by the people of Manitoba paying for Alcoa. That's the difference, but that's the way they operate, Mr. Speaker . They make those false comparisons and they don't back them up. Mr. Spe aker, they have said where do you stand on it? Well, Mr. Speaker , they have made an agreement; they have signed a contract. We will ensure that Northern States Power gets their power in accordance with the agreement. Mr. Speaker, they've said would you stop Limestone? Mr.

Speaker, they're making commitments today - it's in the Budget Speech - of over $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, we will deal what we have to deal with when we take government, and we'll ensure that it's managed to the best advantage of the taxpayers and the people of Manitoba. It won't be managed for a political timetable. It won't be managed for people who are trying to regain power in another election, it will be managed for the best advantage of the people of Manitoba, and we will minimize the costs and maximize the benefits for Manitobans. We won't in any way, Mr.

Speaker , deal in the way that this incompetent, discredited bunch are dealing. Mr. Speaker , we will get the markets that we need to justify the energy that's being produced when we're put in that position. Why, Mr. Speaker, are we concerned, or why do we believe it's important that Manitobans know that this government, this administration, is proceed ing in a way that mismanages and squanders our valuable hydro resource?

We know because there was a Commission of Inquir y that was done here in this province that said what th ey bel ieved about how Hydr o was being adminis tered under the former New Democratic administration that resulted in increases in hydro rates of over 100 percent over a period of two-and-a-half years. Mr. Speaker, I'll just quote, "The board has not ensured that Hydro's managerial capacity and decision­ making process were adequate to its task. Hydro has not demo nstrated the confidence which should be expected from a corporation of its size and importance." Mr.

Speaker , they talk here about the board and the relationship, because the Minister of Energy said it wasn't our decision, it was the board's decision. I've looked at the people on the board, and I fail to find people who aren't committed and appointed and in awe of this government. A MEMBER: You wouldn't say that about Peter Fox, would you? MR. G. FILMON: The Member for Concordia, right. That's one of the objective people who made that decision. Mr.

Speaker, the former NOP Minister of Finance was the chairman, the appointed individual who is now the chairman came as the chief researcher for Ed Broadbent's office. These are the objective people who made that decision, who made that rec ommendation to the Minister. These are the people who have the expertise, financial and otherwise, to be able to make these kinds of multi-billion dollar decisions. This is what the Commission of Inquiry said previously about the relationships of boards and management.

It said, "Hydro's Chairman," this was in the '70s, "came to be regarded as the voice of government. ,Professional

Friday, 22 March, 1985 independence and the autonomy of board members were inhib ited . The chairman intr uded and was permitted to intrude into political matters." Can anything be said differently about this current chairman of the board? Mr.

Speaker , I can tell you that at a gathering in Brandon just a few weeks ago, a person, who is a good friend of these people - in fact, he's rumoured as their next prospective candidate in Brandon East - said publicly that Hydro was being totally manipulated by the New Democratic administration, that it was being politically run, and that all of its decision-making was political. That's what he said in front of many people at a gathering in Brandon.

He's expected to be the next candi date for the New Democratic Party in Brandon, and he said that we should be stopping this procedure based on a politically motivated decision to advance construction of Limestone, and that's the kind of response they get from their own people. Well, Mr. Speaker, while the Premier was up huffing and puffing the other day, and growling at us to try and tell us how strong he was and how tough he was in his resolve about the things that are going on in this provinc e, he said, where do we stand on hyd ro development.

Well, I want to make sure tha t he under stands, without equivocation, Mr. Speaker, that we are totally opposed to any move to divert funds and siphon off funds from Manitoba Hydro into the general revenues of this province. We will oppose it firmly and, should this administration force it through in its dying days, we will repeal that legislation. We are not going to have the Hydro funds siphoned off and hydro rates continually skyrocketing as a result of the mismanagement of these people so that the funds can be diverted to adver tising and other govern ment priorities. No way will that happen.

That's where we stand on Hydro. Mr. Speaker, I've got a few questions for the Premier and I hope that he'll read them and give us the answers because the people of Manitoba want to know where's this Premier who keeps saying to us, where do you stand on Hydro? Well, he can read today where we stand. Tell us! Where do es he stand with respect to pornography in this province? Is he in favour or against it?

He says in the Throne Speech he wants to stamp out pornography; he says they're going to classify home video movies, and then he says to his Minister of Culture and his Minister of Education, it's okay to let that go into the schools, to pay for it, to spread it. Where does he stand on pornograp hy, Mr. Speaker? Where does he stand on the sex education course that was brought in by his Minister of Education from Calgary? Where does he stand on that where divisions are deciding today what they should do about their health and sex education course?

They are getting no guidance from this administration because it's now hands off, they got burned badly. It involves so much material that is not in keeping with the religious and moral standards of the vast majority of people of this province, and they've got hands off, but behind the scenes they are saying it's okay, you can go ahead with it, we won't do anything, just don't let us get involved. Where does he stand on that, Mr. Speaker? Where does he stand on aid to private schools? We have told people publicly where we stand, Mr. Speaker, 334 and the Federation of Independent Schools know where we stand.

What are they going to do about it? Where do they stand? Mr. Speaker , where do they stand on anti-scab legislation? They passed it successively at conventions of New Democrats in this province. Time after time they passed anti-scab legislation. Is that what we can expect when they are re-elected to government in 19 99, or whenever that might happen - a long time away - but is that what we can expect? Is that what they are going to run on? Mr. Speaker , where do they stand on getting into the life insurance and pension management industry in this province?

We have had one Minister, the Minister responsible, say they were studying it and they were making a decision; we had the Premier say they are not getting into it. Let him tell us where he stands on that one, Mr. Speaker. Those are the kinds of things that he ought to be addressing instead of trying to make some issue out of us to try and find out where we stand on this issue. Finally, of course, Mr. Speaker HON. G. LECUYER: I didn't say it. MR. G. FILMON: I just did. The Mini ster of the Environment has difficulty understanding. I will let him read it in Hansard.

So what we are faced with in this Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, is another example of a tired, worn out discredited administration, a government that lacks integrit y, a gov ernme nt that lacks com petence, a government that has mismanaged our economy so badly that we have a higher deficit, higher taxes and no improvement in social services, and no offer· of encouragement to let us believe that the economy is going to revitalize and grow and bring in new job creation activities. Mr. Speaker, they called it a well-cr afted document, a "dream" Budget.

The only dr eam that Manitobans have to look forward to from this Budget, Mr. Speaker, is the dream of a provincial election. So, Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Memb er for Turtle Mo untain, that the motio n be amended by striking out all of the words following the word "House" and adding the following: Regrets that the budgetary policy of the government (1) fails to offer a framework for economic renewal that will provide jobs for the record num bers of unemp loyed people in our province; (2) has resulted in deterioration of social services and basic infrastructure; (3) has imposed increased taxation; (4) has failed to control the rapidly expanding provincial debt which places a burdensome cost on tomorrow's taxpayers, the young people of today; (5) continues their sad record of incompetent management of Manitoba's public affairs.

MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Friday, 22 March, 1985 IN TRODUCTION OF GUES TS MR. SPEAKER: Before calling on the next member, I would like to direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery on my left. We have a group of law students from Oslo University. On behalf of all of the mem bers, I welcome you here this morning. BUDGE T DEBATE Cont'd MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Co­ operative Development. HON. J. COWAN: Mr.

Speaker , I have to admit that I enjoyed the debate, the contribution to the debate by the Leader of the Opposition much more today than I did on his previous debates in the House, and I want to congratulate him on a speech that was full of fury, even if it signified very little. He told the convention story and about the card and the advertisement, but he got it just a bit wrong. How it really happened was there was a mention of "Hi, you may not know me, I'm Gary Filmon" and then it went through the rest of the advertisement.

But what the Leader of the Opposition suggested happen was that the whole crowd thought it was a riot. I think his exact words were, "Everyone thought it was a riot." That's not how it happened, see, half of the people there turned to their neighbour and said, "Who's Gary filmon?" And the other half said, "I don't know." He reminds me a bit of a song that Kris Kr istofferson sings about a silver-tongued devil, and he mentions a man that's partly fact and partly fiction, and if he'd just added in a bit about distortion he would have had an ill1Jstration of the Leader of the Opposition exactly it is.

So I thought we might find out a bit more about where the Conservative Party stands on the issues from the speech by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, there was a statement in his speech that I wrote down, hopefully verba tim, that I think spells out very clearly where they stand on the issues. The Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote: "We will deal with what we have to deal with when we take government." That's a quote. That's what he says.

Now I'm really worried because now we'll never know, or at least we won't know for a long long time because it's going to be a long long time before they get to be the government in this province again. Once again, they've led us through a diatribe of despair and a lacklustre litany of half facts and half fiction that, I must admit, in this case was more craftily constructed than in other cases, but still nonetheless constructed mostly out of innuendo and assumption in order to substantiate what their perception of the world should be. That's their negative perception of the world.

In spite of his lengthy speech, we know less right now about where the Conservatives stand on the important issues of the day than we did before he made his remarks. How many times, Mr. Spe aker, have we stood in this House and challenged them again and again and again to put on the record where the Conservatives stand on the important issues of the day? They've been challenged to rise above political opportunism and their 335 readily apparent lust for power so they can tell the people of Manitoba just what it is the Conservatives stand for in 1985, and they refuse to do it.

We have challenged them to lift their heads from the dark clouds and look at all the good things that are happening in Manitoba, and there are many good things happening in Manitoba today. We have challenged them to outline their party's policies and to tell Manitobans what they want to do, what it is the Conservatives want to do in order to make this a better province, and they refuse to do that. In this Budget, the New Democratic Government has put our vision of Manitoba and what it is today, and more important ly, what we believe it can be in future years before the people of Manitoba. We've done that.

We have told them what we think are the important issues, and we've told them how we are going to respond to them. In the Throne Speech that we presented just two weeks ago and in the Budget, and an excellent Budget I might add and congr atulate the Minister of Finance and those who worked with him on that, in that Budget just last night we have clearly outlined the vision that the New Democratic Government shares with Manitoba and its people. We have talked about the types of thin gs that Manitobans across this province have been telling us are important to them.

We have built their hopes and their aspirations into our government and budgetary programs and policies. We have lis�ened carefully and what it is that they have been telli1 .g us, Mr. Speaker, is very clear. Firstly, they have told us that out of all things they want a government that believes in them. They want a government that believes in individual Manitobans and how we can collectively work together to make a better province.

We listened to them: Tadoule Lake and Thompson, to Churchill and Carman, Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids, Lundar, Granville, Lac de Grandview, Shamattawa to South Indian Lake to Souris, from Brochet and Lac Brochet to Brandon, and they all want the very same thing from their government. They want an opportunity to build their province and to feed their families through productive employment. They want a government that cares about them and is compassionate. They want a government that doesn't turn its back on them. More important ly, they want a government that is fair.

As the Member for lnkster says, from all that it soon becomes pretty obvious that they sure don't want a Conservative Government back in this province again for a long long time. So I'm afraid we may never know what it is they are going to do with the issues that they intend to do whenever they might happen to become the government, as they have suggested they will tell us at that time. So what does this Budget mean to those Manitobans, and how have we responded to those hopes and aspirations? It means more opportunity for Manitobans.

During the Throne Speech Debate a couple of days ago I spoke about a constituent of mine in one of the Reserve communiti es who wanted his sons and daughters to have a fair chance at employment on Hydro. This Budget and its $2 10 -million commitment to job creation and preservation of jobs through the Manitoba Jobs Fund means that his sons and daughters will have that fair chance that they dese,rve.

Friday, 22 March, 1985 We have already heard what members opposite have to say about the training programs, and about the affirmative action programs, and about the preferential hiring programs that we have put in place to ensure that happens. MR. F. JOHNSTON: What did we say? HON. J. COW AN: The Member for Sturgeon Creek says what did we say? I would suggest that he go back and read the