LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 15 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 Special and Standing Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tabl e the Audi tor's Report, Consolidated Financial Statements, for the year ended October 31, 1984, for A. E. McKenzie Com pany. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to announce today that the Manitoba Jobs Fund will be providing $45 million in low-interest mo rtgage financing under Manitob a Hou sing's RentalStart Program. It is estimated that the funds made available will support about 1,000 units. The program will offer 11 percent open mortgage financing for seven year terms for the development of new rental housing or for the conversion of existing non-residential buildings to rental housing. At the end of the seven-year term, projects must be refinanced privately.

The current call is being extended to the province as a whole including all areas of the City of Winnipeg with the exception of the North Portage Redevelopment Area, where some $20 million in RentalStart financing for an estimated 400 units had previously been committed. Financing for up to 80 percent of project costs will be provided for projects comprising a minimum of four units in Winnipeg and Brandon and two units for other communities. Rent supplements will be available for up to 25 percent of units in projects renting to low­ income households who might otherwise have difficulty affording market rents.

In addition, developers may be required to allocate a minimum of 5 percent of their units for the disabled. Proposals will also be received from no n-pr ofit group s. Dead line s for receip t of proposals will be April 30, 1985 for Brandon and Winnipeg, and May 7, 1985 for all other communi ties. In making this statement, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress my appreciation to the housing industry for its performance in rental housing production in recent years. CMHC statistics show that the production of rental housing is up 80 percent for the last three years compared to the 1979-81 period.

The 80 percent increase becomes all the more remarkable when you take into account that national production of rental housing has declined by 30 percent over the last three years. In particular, Mr. Speaker, the level of unsubsidi zed private rental housing development dou bled in 1984 150 as compared to 1983, further suggesting in this area as in others, continued growth in investor confidence in the future of Manitoba. Clearly, the industry is doing its

part in the face of continued high interest rates to respond to the current· tight rental situation. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I note that in the previous two years, annual levels of rental housing construction starts, at about 2,000 units each year, were on line with statistical projections of rental housing requirements for Manitoba made by both CMH C and the ind ustry itself. However, these projections did not take into account the additiona l pressures created by continued high rated of in­ migration to the province in its present high economic growth phase.

We are hopeful that the availability of low-interest RentalStart financing will serve to complement ongoing industry activity and our own direct development activity to significantly ease the tight vacancy situations in our communities. On the matter of Manitoba Housing's own direct development activity, I should also like to take this opportunity to make a progress report to the House in respect of my announcement last spring of our 1,200 unit, three-year public non-profit housing program. In 1984, we committed some 477 units subs tantia lly exceeding our first year target of 405 units.

This is in addition to some 150 units committed for low-income households under our Rural and Northern Housing Program. As well, some 226 units are, or will shortly be, coming under construction as a result of our first RentalStart proposal call, with other projects still under negotiation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Mem ber for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: I want to thank the Minister for this statement. We, on this side, welcome any action that will be beneficial to those that require it. Positive action to upgrade the living conditions of our people can only be commended.

I appreciate that we have had a very tight vacancy rate and I hope that this will tend to relieve some of the problem that we have in this area. Again I want to thank the Minister for his comments. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to advise the Legislative Assembly, on behalf of yourself, the Chairman of the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, that ag reement has been reached respect ing the establishment by this Ass embl y of a Legi slative lnternship Program.

This decision is the result of extensive consideration of proposals by the Management Commission and by representatives of each caucus. Members were assisted

Friday, 15 March, 1985 extensively in their deliberations by Professor Paul Thomas of the University of Manitoba, who will be academic director of the program. The program will go into operation on September 1st next, and will, each year, provide six Manitoba university graduates with an opportunity to work and study in the Legislature for a ten-month period from September to June. Several recent reports have called attention to the need for more staff support for members. The lnternship Program will fulfil! both legislative needs and academic goals.

The program will supplement and complement, rather than substitute for, existing or future caucus research assistance. Interns will be selected primarily on the basis of their academic accomplishment, maturity and interest in the legislative process. The academic goals of the program, Mr. Speaker, will be to provide students in a variety of disciplines with first-hand experience with the legislative process in Manitoba.

This will complement their educational experience in the classroom and it will create a group of young people with a greater understanding and appreciation of the role of the Legislative Assembly and its members within the political system. The interns' education experience will be enhanced through their work for mem bers. They will be given a uni que opportunity to observe the governmental and legislative proc esses from the point of view of legis lators themselves. In turn, members will benefit from the new ideas, research skills, and enthusiasm of each new group of interns.

In addition to work on behalf of caucus and members, interns will participate in regular seminars on aspects of the legislative process and each one will prepare a research paper. The existence of successful programs elsewhere in Canada illustrates the value of such programs, both to the elected representatives and to the students. An equal number of interns will be attached to each of the two cauc uses. Over the cou rse of their emplo yment, they will under take a variety of assignments: major research projects, information searches, speech wr iting, and constitu ency assignments.

They will be engaged on a full-time basis and will be paid $1 ,200 a month. Posters and applications for the program will be placed in all Manitoba Universities and will also be available from the Academic Director, Professor Paul G. Thomas, St. John's College, Unversity of Manitoba. The deadline date for applications for next fall, that's September of 1985, will be April 19, 1985. The budget for the program will be voted in the 1985- 86 Estimates of the Legislative Assembly and efforts are under way to raise funds from the private sector to offset some of the public costs of the program. Mr.

Spea ker, on beh alf of the Ma nagement Commission, I would like to thank members of both caucuses for their enthusiasm and support in the development of this program. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, on behalf of the Official Opposition, would like to say that I have been working with the Government 151 House Leader on this matter for a number of months. The idea of having the lnternship Program came to the Members of the Legislature some years ago. It is a program that is followed in a number of the other provinces and at the federal level.

We, on the opposition side, had some concerns about the program and our major concerns were that the Minister of Government Services would provide us with adequa te space so that these three interns that would be assigne d to the opp osition caucus would be adequately housed. Our other concern was that we would have some direct input into the selection of the students so that we would hopefully obtain a student who would work well with our particular caucus members, as would work with the government caucus members. So, those were the two concerns that the official opposition had regarding the program.

The Government House Leader has agreed to them as well as Professor Paul Thomas, and I can see this prog ram being beneficial both to students and to members of the Legislature. MR. H. CARROLL: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for Brandon West state his point of privilege. MR. H. CARROLL: It might have been courteous of the Government House Leader to consult with other members of the House that aren't caucus members in providing services to the Members of the House. There was no consultation; there was no indication that this was happening.

I think it was very discourteous to those of us that aren't in either caucus. MR. R. DOERN: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member did not have a matter of privilege. Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introduced Bill No. 5, The Freedom of In formation Act;

Loi sur la liberte d' acces a !'information. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the atten tion of honourable members to the gallery. We have 70 visitors from the Applied Linguistics Centre under the direction of Mrs. Kalinowsky. The Centre is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Labo ur. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this morning. TABLING OF DOCUMENTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Friday, 15 March, 1985 Mr. Speaker, before I begin a series of questions, I wonder if I might table some information and send copies to the Premier, the Minister of Education and the Acting Minister of Culture. ORAL QUESTIONS Arts Council - grants MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: In light of the challenge offered the other day by the Minister of Culture that members on this side review the Annual Report of the Manitoba Arts Council, and I can tell him that we did, and found that on page 13, that during the 1983-84 fiscal year that the Arts Council provided grants of $4,000 and 1,000 respectively to the pub lishers of the periodicals, Midcontinental and Herizons. I would ask the Acting Minister of Culture to indicate how many funds have been allocated to these two periodicals in the 1984-85? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, of course, it is expected that I'll have to take this as notice. Pornographic literature in schools MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the covering letter provided to the Minister of Education just a few moments ago, I ask her when did she review the pub lication, Midcontinental, and her reasons for allowing the publication to be distributed to Manitoba schools? MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, I do not have any recollection of seeing this material before, so I will take the question of when and under what circumstances it was distributed in the schools as notice. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Ed ucation, or any Minister, tell us how many public schools in Manitoba have ordered this publication in response to grants offered by the Minister of Culture for the purpose of introducing this so-called "culture" to our public schools? HON. M. HEMPHILL: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister of Education tell us how this publication containing graphic descriptions of oral sex and gutter language and articles totally demeaning to all humans, can she tell us how she could allow the Minister of Culture to provide grants to public schools to attain this material, supposedly reviewed and recommended by her department? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the member oppo site wants a full answer to the questions that he's 152 raising this morning. By his admission, he tabled this.

I have seen it just a few minutes ago, have not had time to read it, have indicated that I do not have any recollection of seeing this material, but I would look into it and provide the information for him. I don't think it's reasonable, having said that, to expect answers to the specific questions he's asking. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, the covering letter indicates the book entitled "Cultural Periodical" has been assigned to recommended grade levels by, it says, the Ma nitoba Educ ation -I bel ieve it means the Manitoba Department of Education. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

Can he indicate whether his support was sought, and knowing acceptance given, to the institution of a program that offers this type of pornography to our public schools? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: No, it was not. Mr. Speaker, I am going to review this publication. In the meantime, I am going to instruct that it not be distributed until I have had an opportunity to properly review it. MR. C. MANNESS: The final question, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the comment offered within the Throne Speech that the government will continue to fight pornography, can the Premier tell us how, not one, but two of his Ministers could allow this disgusting material to find its way into our schools at public expense? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Honourable Member for Morris has not accepted the word of a Minister in this House, who indicated very clearly just a few moments ago, that she does not recall having seen the publication in question.

I think there is a rule in this House that when a Minister does indeed give his or her word that that word must be accepted in this Chamber. I've indicated my intent to investigate this and if indeed the allegations that have been made by the Honourable Member for Morris are substantiated, then the appropriate action will be taken. McKenzie Seeds - progress of board MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question I'd like to direct to the Minister of Finance, and ask him if he is satisfied with the progress being made by the board in the operations of McKenzie Seeds? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I think the report tabled this morning is one that all Mani tobans can take some de light out of; a corpor ation that was in very serious trouble paid Manitobans approximately $1 million in interest costs in the last year, and on top of that made a profit.

That's a corporation that has assets of about $4 million and a corporation with those kinds of assets making that kind of pay-back to Manitobans is quite quite significant.

15 March, 1985 Manitoba film Classification Board - Home-use Videos MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

In view of the announcement that was made by the Minister of Cultural Affairs on Tuesday that stated he wanted to protect our children from pornography, will the First Minister instruct the Minister to have his Classification Board monitor all literary publications supported by the department, to enable him to cut off the funding of the publications, so that this pornography cannot get into our school system and before our children? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

S peaker, I'm not quite certain of the intent of the question by the member in question SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think at this point, in fairness to all parties, that this matter should be left, before there is any presu mptio ns, with a full investigation that I've undertaken to fulfill. I think that the honourable member's question is in fact supercilious under the circumstances. Child Abuse Program - Child Protection Centre MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community Services and it's with regard to the Child Protection Centre, which has operated out of Children's Hospital since September 1981 by Ors. Ferguson and McRae. Can the Min ister inform the House why her department has held up an application for a grant of $65,000 to expand the Child Abuse Program operated by the Child Protection Centre since August of last year, even though the application, as I understand it, has the support of the Federal Government and the City of Winnipeg? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to go into more detail on that during the Estimate's discussion, but in general, in dealing with child abuse, the intention of the department has been to develop a network of services, but we can't centre them all in the immediate medical crisis response to child abuse, but indeed, must develop the capacity on a multi-di sciplinary basis 153 hroughout the child and family service system, the police system and indeed the school system where teachers are often the first to become aware of specific problems.

Again, our attempt has been to operate at a time when money is scarce to ensure that what money we do spend has the greatest impact and greatest potential to prevent and, of course, treat cases where there is abuse on children. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the alleged concern by this government, stated in the Throne Speech, with respect to protecting victims of child abuse, would the Minister not acknowledge that the purpose of this grant is to hire two social workers to deal with third-party victims of sexual assaults, people who are not presently being treated within the current system? The Child and Family Services treat family members, but they don't treat third-party victims, and these people are going without any treatment whatsoever. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite jumps to the conclusion that the only way and only place for such treatment to occur is out of the hospital unit. As I said, we're interested in trying to build the capacity of the system right across the province to deal with the problem and, therefore, we funnelled most of our money into training and some reallocation of staff to deal with the problem in the general Child and Family Service. However, I do think a more detailed discussion of the role of this centre in the total program of child protection in relation to abuse can more appropriately be dealt with during the Estimates.

MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that this application by the Child Protection Centre and by Ors. Ferguson and McRae of the Children's Hospital, two internationally recognized experts on child care, tha t this government is goin g to turn down thi s application for $65,000 to the Core Area Initiative to deal with this problem? Are they going to be turned down flatly and this grant is not going to be approved, even though the Federal Minister of Health, Mr. Epp, and the City of Winnipeg approved the awarding of this grant of $65,000? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, it's not always wise to respond in an ad hoe way to requests for grants. It's more important, particularly in a time ;carce resource - and I'm sure the members opposite would really approve - to attempt to spread the money in the most effective way. What we're trying to is a system- wide capacity to deal with the isstm abuse; crisis service, the prevention, and the long term follow­ up. In that context, it does not always make sense to put the money into a medical clinic. Chiropractors - fee structure MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCH ARD: fhank you, Mr.

Speaker , my question is for thf: ,:,nister of Health.

Friday, 15 March, 1985 Mr. Speaker, earlier this year - I believe in January - the Minister of Health broke an agreement with the Ma nitoba Ch irop ractic Associat ion , retroactively changing their limit and their fee structure of billing. Can the Minister indicate whether any discussions or negotiations were undertaken by hims elf or his department with the Manitoba Chiropractic Association prior to that January announcement? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, first of al l, the Minister of Health never broke an agreement at all.

The agreement was between the Manitoba Health Services Com mission and the chiropractors. I didn't even know about it to be exact. We wanted to stop the discrimination against single people and people of large families, and this inequity was changed. I asked the Com mission to inform the chiropractors; that was done. We waited. The president was notified. Then he informed the Com mission that he would meet with his executive. Nothing was done until they met with the executive. He was phoned after the meeting with the executive.

He said, fine, that some of them might not agree with it but they had no intention of criticizing or opposing it, because he didn't want to be seen as anti-government. A few days later, I got a letter from him asking me to meet with them within three days. At the time, we were looking at the Estimates, in fact, there was a three-day Cabinet meeting. I told him that I couldn't do it, and could he meet with the deputy minister. They refused. I later met with them; I explained the situation to them; I invited them to discuss it. I felt that there was very little to discuss on that.

It's correcting an anomaly, of course. There was no doubt that the group of chiropractors would not be in favour of something that might cut down on their revenue, there's no doubt about that, but that was something that the government had to do. Later on, they were invited to present a brief. They reminded me that I was on record as saying that there should be no limit. I acknowledged that. I still feel the same. The situation is that we look at the situation today. They did not come back to negotiate with us, so we did it ind epe ndently . We looked at what's happening in other provinces.

Five of the provinces and two of the territories are not covered at all. Saskatchewan has no limit. The other provinces, Ontario, Alberta and B.C., were somewhat ahead of us. We increased the visits by 50 percent. It'll be - (Interjection) - You wanted a answer, you're getting it. If you don't want it, tell me. I don't have to be accused of breaking agreements with somebody that backed down. So, Mr. Speaker, we have corrected this anomaly; that will stay. We're going to protect the individual and we are going in the direction of increasing it more.

They've commented that we're supposed to cover all health; the dietiticans would like to be covered ; the Canadian Nurses Association would have to be covered; the de ntists would like to be covered; the physiotherapists would have to be covered. They have a responsibility of getting the best deal for the members of their association, and I have the responsibility of 154 looking at the complete health care of the people of Manitoba. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister skillfully avoided answering the question when negotiations took place.

I would simply ask the Minister, is the new definition of consultation and negotiation with himself and his government amount to the description of the way the government's action is going to be - take it or leave­ it? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Consultation is done for a purpose, not to play games. When it's obvious that somebody does not want to take a different route by going, which is their right, to the public, a public campaign, to achieve what they want, and it's obvious that they will, as you see in the newspaper. I could have told the members that, that they would not be satisfied until they get 100 percent.

That's their job and their responsibility. I don't think that there's any purpose in negotiating under those kinds of conditions. By the way, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am sure that this is a first for a Minister of Health. I was successful in bringing members of the association of the chiropractors to the same table, a lunch that I hosted with some of the members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and I think that's negotiating that might send us somewhere. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, could the Minister indicate whether the association was consulted prior to his announcement yesterday of this increase of five visits per individual? HON. l. DESJARDINS: They were invited to send a brief; that wasn't done. They chose to go a different route and they were consulted at a meeting that I had with them. I know exactly what they want - they want full coverage. You don't have to be a genius - even the Member for Pembina should know that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Can the Minister indicate what the saving will be to the Province of Manitoba of his announcement made yesterday on the new limit and fee

schedule to the Manitoba Chiropractic Association? HON. l. DESJARDINS: I think the honourable member thinks he's in court and he'll have a yes or no answer. The situation is this. We've corrected an inequity; by correcting this inequi ty we saved approximately $600,000.00. We put back $300,000 to increase the visits and now we're in line with about the second, with a group of two or three other provinces, we're about second all across Canada in this service and we're proud of it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that the Minister indicates there will be a $300,000 saving to the province in the new limit and fee schedule, can the Minister indicate how many families formerly able to avail themselves of more than 15 visits per individual member of that family, how many families will now have to pay extra money for needed chiropractic service under the newly-imposed limit

schedule of the Minister?

Friday, 15 March, 1985 HON. l. DESJARDINS: Increased limits of visits - the correct ion should be noted, Mr. Speaker. I probably could get that information for the honourable member, but I won't bother. This is a situation, if we're going to do anything, we'll look on a question of needs, not necessarily because somebody is single that they should be penalized. There's one province that does it this way - of course in Saskatchewan there is no limit so they're out of it - so that leaves nine provinces and two territories.

There's one province that does it this way and I think we'r e in step with all the other Conservative provinces in the Dominion. Pollution control in Manitoba MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment, given that he hadn't read the report from the Canadian Nature Federat ion and that his colleague, the former Minister of Natural Resources, was boasting to the media that he was unaware of the Canadian Nature Federation and their 180,000 members. Mr. Speaker, the government was somewhat in the dark.

I wanted to ask the Minister whether he has now received and read the report which gave Manitoba the worst grade on pollution control in Canada and new statistics from Statistics Canada and data from the Canadian Forestry Service? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mini ster for the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I haven't read the report in detail at this time, a report which is dated March 14th, which I, through a considerable effort, obtained this morning. From what I have seen of it, Mr. Speake r, I shall say to the author of the report, "E" for effort and I'm generous.

The only information in spite of the fact that the author states in his report, on a number of instances, the difficulties he's had in obtaining information, the only request to my department for information came in October, 1984, where he says, "Dear Mr. Minister: Could you please provide information about the provincial legislation and policy governing returnable cans and bottles in Manitoba? Thank you very much. Yours sinc erely , Gregg Sheehy ." It was promptly responded to by my department at length, Mr.

Speak er, and that is the only request received by my department for information in the preparation of his report. Now, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the author, the report says that it is in no way indicative of the province's environmental status. He states on Page 3, "All of the eval uation categories use measurable indicators of efforts, dollars, spent on environmental programs, areas of land designated for conservation purposes and presence or absence of environmental laws, etc. We did not attempt to determine the degree to which they were informed in each province, nor did we attempt to categorize them.

"The province's performance of this report card should not be taken as a measure of overa ll environmental quality." 155 SOME HONOURABLE MEMB ERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order Please, order please. HON. G. LECUYER: "One cannot be assured of a healthier environment in Ontario and . . . " MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I don't believe that the reading of an outside report is the best use of question period. Does the Honourable Minister have a completion of an answer? HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I did not intent to read the report, Mr.

Speaker, I just wanted to indicate, as part of my answer, that the report was far from being complete. Now I just want to make reference to two points that the report comments on. The report makes its own judgment as to whether a province has legislation; whether it enforces it or not is not taken into consideration. Now, it doesn't reflect, in any way, any other approach that the province might have.

For instance, in terms of pollution control, it gives credit to provinces who have a major pollution problem and hence have to address it, but gives no credit whatsoever to provinces who have a lesser problem and have to spend less money in that regard or have been spen din g mone y th roughout the years and therefore don't have the problem. Nor do es it make any difference in per capita spending. If one province spends more money, it gets an "A", and if another province spends five times the per capita money, because that total amount is less, it gets an "F".

The province that gets the highest mark for wildlife preservation, for expenditure, for fishing . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. We expect questions to be brief, concise and to the point, and we expect answers to them to be also brief, concise and to the point. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speake r, assuming the Minister hasn't taken up the entire question period, I'd just take one part of the report. Since Manitoba is littered with non-returnable bottles and cans every summer which are an eyesore, will the Minister be implementing a policy to clean up this chronic mess? HON. G.

LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, as I told to the author of this report, there are a number of measures and policies in existence in Manitoba. There is no legislation, that is true. Perhaps Manitoba will to consider going to that direction, but in order do that, Mr. Speaker, we have to have more da:" than we have now. And currently this department . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMB ERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. G. LECUYER: Currently my department, Mr. Speaker, has a study undergoing to obtain that very same information. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

S ::aker, I want to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to introduce a Returnable

Friday, 15 March, 1985 Co ntainers Act, which would clean up the environment, which would also save some of the jobs in the glass­ bottle industry, and which would also put Manitoba in step with the other provinces, since there are only two provinces, Newfo undland and ourselves, who do not have such legislation. What's holding him up? All he has to do is go out, Mr. Speaker, and look with his eyes rather than wait for the collection of data. HON. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, in that fuzzy remark and comments made, Sir, I believe there was one question indeed and that was, would he implement legislation? Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the previous question, I said there is a report that will be shortly made available, especially in terms of the state of the environment in regards to returnable or non-returnable containers, especially in Northern Manitoba, where the problem seems to be the most pressing as a result, of not only a year's operation, as a result of years and years of neglect in that area.

Even the local jurisdictions, frequently perhaps, could be responsible for addressing this issue; but we are indeed presently awaiting a report to tell us exactly what the status is and to give us an indication of possible alternatives in terms of resolving the existing problem. CEDF loans - Beef N Reef Restaurant MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's question period, the Member for Sturgeon Creek raised questions in regard to CEDF. I made a statement which I would like to correct.

I have gone back and checked the information on the Beef N Reef Restaurant in Lac du Bonnet and found that the application for the loan was made in October of 1981, although the application was not approved until February of'82. I erred in my statement in the House for this loan when I said that it was approved under the previous administration, and I apolo gize for that and want to correct that. Mr.

Speaker, in checking the practice of previous Ministers in dealing with questions with CEDF, I found that when there were questions raised that were of a technical nature, the questions were referred to the Standing Com mittee; and after yesterday's question period, I see the wisdom of that policy and I'll be following that practice. Mr. Speaker, to answer the honourable member's specific question - his question was dealing with CEDF and when the policy was changed to go outside of No rthern Affairs jurisdiction.

At that time the policy of the CEDF was th at , "The Fund shall con sider applications for assistance to establish or expand small or medium-sized economic enterprises provided they are located in the areas which fall within the jurisdiction of Northern Affairs . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. G. LECUYER: . . . even though they may fall within the latter due to geographic area, enterprises 156 which receive Special ARDA grant assistance may also be considered; and that policy was passed in August of 1980. Chiropractors - fee structures MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health indicate whether, under the new imposed limit structures of the Chiropractic Association, that family members will be restricted and not have available to them the number of visits they were accustomed to under the agreement signed by his Executive Director of the Manitoba Health Services Commission? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary.

Now a large family, the maximum that they would get, let's say five, six, seven in the family or ten, they would qualify for 306. Now the 10 of them, or the six or the five would qualify for roughly $15 0 each. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question whether individual family members will be restricted under his new imposed limit structure. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I've missed the first part of it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, we'll discuss this in Estimates.

In light of the fact we can't get reasonable answers from the Minister of Health, could I ask the First Minister if other Manitobans and groups of Manitobans can be assured that agreements signed and in legal language or language used at the bottom of the letters, the agreements recorded in this letter shall be legally binding on the parties, can the First Minister assure that other groups of Manitobans with agreements with this government, signed in such fashion, will not have those agreements broken retroactively and unilaterally by the government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, first I regret that the Honourable Member for Pembina is performing this way to the Minister of Health, because it's the Minister of Health's birthday today. Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question from the Honourable Member for Pembina is incorrect. There was no agreement broken. as alleged by the Honourable Member for Pembina, and I would like the Minister of Health to further elabor ate on that point to the Member for Pembina. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, I think it is rather unfair to insist in not accepting the explanation that I gave, that the association was contacted on two occasions. They repeated on the same two occasions

Friday, 15 March, 1985 that they would go along with it and that was it, and they were informed of that. Furthermore, the agreement that is being referred to was an agreement between the Commission and the associations that I knew nothing about until I was informed later on; and I felt that this was not broken and we've tried - I met with them - and we've tried everything. We disc ussed this question with them, but the member is stuck on this thing.

If he thinks, and especially with what is facing the health system in this province, that we're going to have every deliv ery of every health service, veto everything the government does - we'll never get anywhere and we'll lose the whole ball of wax if we do that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I pose my question to the First Minister, following on the answer by the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health has indicated he didn't know the existence of this agreement and I'm asking the First Minister if other organizations can expect to have agreements, signed by the government, to be broken unilaterally by members of his Cabinet? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question is probably hypothetical, repetitive. Does the honourable member wish to rephrase his question to seek information? MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Is the policy of this government, under his leadership, no w to break agre ements sig ned and in effect unilaterally? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, it's not now nor has it ever been the policy of this government. Petrocan - bulk sales in Manitoba MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Co-operative Development. Mr.

Speaker, Manitoba Co-op shareh olders, customers, and others are quite concerned today regard ing Petrocan 's, could I say, heavy- handed attempts to expand its bulk fuel sales into the co-ops in Saskatchewan and it's alleged that they're moving into this province now. I wonder if the Minister or his staff has any knowledge of Petrocan's decision to come in and try and move their bulk sales into this province. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Co­ operative Development. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Mr.

Speak er, we have heard the same rumo urs and alle gations and are cur ren tly 157 checking them out to determine their validity and any impact they might have on the co-operative sector in Manitoba. I can add to that, that if in fact they are true and if in fact there is a negative impact anticipated, that we would want to very quickly undertake discussions with the co-operative sector here to review this situation and determine what action might be appropriate and wha t support the y migh t requ ire, if in fact it is problematic for them. llllR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister can advise the House and the Co-op shareholders and customers in our province, have you got any meeting scheduled with Federated Co-op or with Petrocan to see what actually is going on. HON. J. COWAN: I'm sorry, I have to apologize. I missed a portion of the member's question. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I've asked the Minister if he's scheduled any meetings with Federated Co-op or with Petrocan over the weekend or early next week to find out just actually what is taking place. HON. J. COWAN: No, as I indicated, we've heard the sugge stions; we've heard the rumo urs.

We are determining their accuracy now and reviewing the matter and if, in fact, those meetings are necessary, they be called and held on an urgent basis. Environment in Manitoba - evaluations of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Environment. This is in response to the Canadian Nature Federation's conservation report, A Report on Co nservation.

I note that they conclude their report with a welcome and advice from the agencies and governments so that they can better reflect on the state of the environment in the various provinces. Is the Minister willing to respond in detail to their report and thus, as well, assist them in developing criteria so that their evaluations in future annual reports, which they are I understand undertaking to develop, would more accurately reflect the state of the environment in the provinces across the country? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister for the Environment. . HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Towards the end of the report an indication that Environment Canada intends proceed a similar report on an annual basis and that this was to be a preliminary report in order to get to that, or perhaps spur Environment Canada into doing something similar on a yearly basis. Yes indeed, if necessary, we can help them improve their report in future years. It states that an expanded base will allow us to refine our analysis in the future and we agree. It continues by saying that additions of the report cards will allow us to ensure a more lair and accurate treatment of all

Friday, 15 March, 1985 the agencies involved, and again, we agree. So, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can develop, as various provinces of Canada, criteria whereby we can judge the state of our environment. Surely it's not based strictly on the total amount that one province spends. I know of course that Ontario has the possibility of spen ding a great deal mo re, but that do es not necessarily state that the enviro nment in Ontario, especially in Southern Ontario, is in any better condition than Manitoba. I, for one, can answer that question, that it isn't. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Wolseley and the amendment thereto proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Minister of Business Development has 20 minutes remaining. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to be able to conclude my remarks. I began yesterday in a somewhat critical vein. It was suggested by members opposite that I was fed bashing; it certainly wasn't my intention to fed bash.

I simply wanted to put on the record the fact that the Federal Government, in the course of its very short tenure, a matter of six or so months, has through neglect or intention done a number of things that have been detrimental to the economy of the Province of Manitoba.

My question was, because of the impact, and the impact ranged in the hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of their negative effect and the obvious concern of members' opposite for the economy of the province, why there had not been a more concerted effort, a concerted voice on the part of members opposite to voice their objections to the activities of the Federal Government in terms of their effect on Manitoba's econo my. Mr. Speaker, I outlined those yesterday and they need not be repeated.

Let me say, however, that they are substantial and while they may not be concerned about what the impact of what the Federal Government is doing, we certainly are and other Manitobans are. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in the last month to visit and meet with over 500 small businessmen in the Province of Manitoba and they are critically aware of the actions of the Federal Government; and while members opposite may not be voicing their displeasure, individual businessmen and people in all parts of the province are voicing their concern. Mr.

Speaker, for the remaining time I would like to locus on two different aspects of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition's speech in response to the Throne Speech. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition had said that the government's sole response to the question of economic development, to the question of economic growth, had been one word and that was Limestone. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite may be 158 opposed to the orderly development of Limestone. Manitobans, by and large, are not.

They recognize that the Limestone project represents the utilization of one of our most important resources, ii not the most important resource that we have. Mr. Speaker, for us to ignore a project that is the largest single development on the North American Continent, in the Throne Speech, would have been folly. For members opposite to downplay the impact of that project on the province is tantamount to neglect of their duty. Mr.

Speaker, it is an important project, but the Leader of the Opposition implies that this important project, this mega project is the only leading tool, the only tool that the government is using to spur economic development. He should certainly know better and if he believes that then I suggest that, as others have suggested, that he improve his research capacity. In the last two years, one of the most obvious tools that we have used is the Jobs Fund. Mr. Speaker, they like to comment that the Jobs Fund was there to create short-term jobs and to make-work jobs. Mr.

Speaker, we argue that the contributions made from the Jobs Fund to the creation of community assets created jobs and assets. It's also incorrect to say that the Jobs Fund was only used to create community assets. Mr. Speaker, there have been and there are a number of other vehicles tha t the province is using to create economic development. We could talk about the Venture Capital Program which was offered through the Department of Business Development and Tourism.

The Venture Capital Program was initiated two years ago; it used approximately $1 million of capital to spur approximately $3 million of private investment. That program was increased to $4 million last year. Mr. Speaker, I met with the Venture Capital Board, the private sector board which administers, in effect, this program. Mr. Speak er, in less than two years, the Venture Capital Program has created or maintained approximately 650 jobs. That in itself is a mega project; that is a mega project.

We have done it by using a vehicle that incorporates risk capital from the private sector, capital from the government, into different ventures in the province. It has been a tremendously successful program, and I say again that those 600 jobs or 650 jobs are in themselves a mega project and it was funded through the Jobs Fund. It was another tool that the government is using to promote economic growth. Mr. Speaker, in my meetings in Thompson, in Carman, in Brandon, the Venture Capital Program was mentioned and applauded by both the private sector and the councillors and municipal officials that I met with.

The Interest Rate Relief Program, which was pooh­ poohed by members opposite, has saved 600 small businesses -600. Mr. Speaker, that represents another major mega project, in terms of the jobs it has saved for this province.

I should say that one of the most interesting things about my feedback from business people, people who had used the Interest Rate Relief Program, was that they not only appreciated the timely assistance, but more importantly they appreciated the counselling, the business management skills that they gained from being involved with the very dedica ted and professional consultants that our department employs. Mr. Speaker, we could talk about another weak spot, one that the Member for Sturgeon Creek is fond of

Friday, 15 March, 1985 discussing, the weak spot in terms of manufacturing - I'll discuss where manufacturing is going in the province. But we did some thing in the last Budget, we introduced the manufacturing tax credit. Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers Association only a few days ago, they indicated that that particular incentive had been invaluable, that it had been used and it was creating jobs for Manitoba. So, we are aware that there are a number of vehicles that we can use to promote economic growth. Mr.

Speaker, in the last Budget as well, the payroll tax was rem oved , the hea lth and post-seco nda ry education tax levy was removed from 67 percent of the businesses. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology is using the Jobs Fund, using public funds to invest in new companies and to promote the growth of the movement of companies from other parts of the countries, other countries of the world, to create jobs in Manitoba. I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has already announced in this House, continuing agreements to promote the growth of our economic base. Mr.

Speaker, the development of the Info Tech Centre - the contributions that are coming from some of the major computer hardware and software developers in the world are now investing in the Province of Manitoba. We have IBM, we have Burroughs, and we have Sperry. Mr. Speake r, tho se are significant dev elopments, developments in an area that we all acknowledge, I think, is the wave of the future. Mr. Speaker, programs like Careerstart and the Jobs­ In-Training Program offered by the Department of Employment Services are supportive of small business and they are recognized as being supportive.

They have created jobs for students and young people. So, Mr. Speak er, the gov ernment is not using Limestone as its only initiative. It is a major one, but there have been and there will be others. Mr. Speaker, we could talk about the Housing Program. Over the last two or three years, 6,000-7,000 jobs have been created at the same time as we create tremendous spin-off benefits in the suppliers and the building material suppliers throughout the province.

We had another announcement today which I know, and I think members opposite know, is going to be a tremendous spur to the creation of employment and to the growth of our economy as a province. Mr. Speaker, I could talk about the agricultural incentives, the agricultural initiatives, that have been taken by the Minister of Agriculture, all of which have been designed to promote the growth, the development, the stabilization of the agriculture sector. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Arthur, the previous Minister of Agriculture, had four years in which he twiddled his thumbs while the farming community went from di saster to dis aster. He decima ted the Beef Stabil ization Program which could have, which should have been a factor in maintaining the packing plant industries in Manitoba. Instead, we saw two of them di sappear. What we have now is a consolidation occurring from places like - I think it's Calgary or Edmo nton to Winnip eg. Mr. Speaker, all of these initiatives combine to lead everyone to one inescapable conclusion.

The reason that we have the low est unemployment rate year-over-year in the Province of Manitoba is because we have done things; because we 159 have taken the initiative; because we have been creative; because we have been prepared to invest in Manitoba. We've invested, as I've said, in a number of vehicles. Mr. Speaker, the doom and gloom that's promoted by members opposite is frustrating, of course, on this side. I suppose it's even more frustrating because it isn't supported by any kind of factual base.

My colleague, the Minister of Finance, put it on the record, I think, in a clear and concise way, the fact that in comparative terms - the Member for Tuxedo, the Leader of the Opposition, in his juvenile analysis says what about how it was doing in 1981. Mr. Speaker, anyone with half a mind - and I give the Member for Tuxedo credit, I think he has half a mind - know that the only fair way to do that kind of analysis is on a comparative basis. Where are the other provinces? Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Rossmere, the Minister of Finance, indicated where we stand, indicated which government has done the best job in relative terms of creating an atmosphere that will enhance investment. He put on the record the fact that the period from 1978-81 was not all roses, that Manitoba was actually doing poorly in comparative terms. He also put on the record the fact that from 1982-85, the province has done remarkably well in comparative terms.

We have a nice comparison - a term when the Conservative Government was in power in the Province of Manitoba and there were the majority of other Conservative Governments, and their government was incompetent; their government has a dismal record in comparison to other governments - then we have a change, and from 1982-1 985, we have a government whose record is second to none. Mr. Speaker, the government isn't going to rest on its laurels, which I clearly outlined. There are a lot of other things that need to be done.

In my department, in the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, in the Department of Employment Services, there will be things done. We're not going to sit and twiddle our thumbs. We're not going to adopt a "look, ma, no hands approach" to government. Mr. Speaker, we are going to do things. Mr. Speaker, we are able to do things. Mr. Speaker, whether members opposite like to believe it or not, whether they like to join with some of the nay sayers in the province, some of the nattering nabobs of negativism, there are things happening in this province.

Whether you like to believe it, groups like the Manitoba Homebui lders Association and other groups who are investing in the Province of Manitoba support the things that we're doing. Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that has caused me a good deal of concern, and probably one of the most legitimate concerns that has been raised by members opposite and by the Leader of the Opposition, is the question of confidence, the question of creating that kind of climate, that optimistic clmate, that climate of confidence that's required to build Manitoba. They talk about it a lot. The question is, Mr.

Speaker, how do you define that confidence? It's easy to say to say, well, the business community has no confidence. I'm a social scientist and I want to quantify that lack of confidence. How do I quantify it? I only have a number of tools at my disposal, a number of ways to quantify that lack of confidence. One of the ways to quantify confidence,

Friday, 15 March, 1985 obv iously, is the willingness to invest. I've already said that under the Venture Capital Program, we are having no trouble finding Manitobans who are willing to invest in Manitoba ventures. We have a mega project on our hands in that program alone. Mr. Speaker, the Mem ber for Tuxedo sat in his seat and he chirped and chirped about the fact that the Conference Board was negative. Well, Mr.

Speaker, March 13th, Statistics Canada says total in capital investment is going to grow in Manitoba by 11 .4 percent; capital investment in manufacturing is going to grow by 21. 6 percent; private capital investment is going to grow by 8.3 percent; public capital investment is also going to grow, showing our confidence in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, in terms of total capital investment, a measure of confidence, the confidence that people have in the Province of Manitoba, we have the largest increase shown by any province. So, where is the confidence question? It's there in do llars and cents.

The people of Manitoba are putting money where their mouth is, not like some members opposite who preach doom and gloom but don't know the facts. Mr. Speaker, one of the favourite targets of the Member for Sturgeon Creek has been manufacturing and I give him credit. Manufacturing has been a weakness, but not in the last three years. Manufacturing has been a weakness, has been declining in terms of real investment in Manitoba since 1972. Mr. Speaker, there has been a decline. We recognized that and we said we're going to do something about it. We did something about it, Mr.

Speaker, through the tax system, providing the tax credit system. For the information of the Member for Sturgeon Creek, this is the second consecutive year, Mr. Speaker, this is the second consecutive year that manufacturing investment has shown significant increase. We have the fourth highest increase of any province in Canada this coming year projected by Statistics Canada. Mr. Speak er, the mem ber is shaking his head - (I nterje ction) shipments, we're talking about investments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's only if we invest are we ever going to ship it. So, Mr.

Speaker, if we look at some kind of objective criteria of what of whether the business people in this province have confidence, we have to an swer, yes they do. Mr. Speaker, another measure of confidence obviously has to be the question of whether businesses are relatively doing better, whether corporations are paying more tax and the answer is, they are. Mr. Speaker, bankruptcies according to the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are down 22.8 percent, the second consecutive year when there's been a marked drop. Mr. Speaker, we have to move on to go beyond investment.

There are other indicators of confidence, why people should be confident, an indi cation of whether they are. Certainly the population increase, people don't come to a province because they don't have any confidence. We've had the largest population increases in decades. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing our population expand . Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. Mr. Speaker, contrary to the opinion of 160 members opposite and we are tremendously conscious of the sensitivity of raising taxes, we are in the middle of the road. We are not alone with our payroll tax or its equivalent. Mr.

Speaker, I have a tremen dou s response when I sit down with businesses and I explain the truth to them. When I put on the record the fact that we are not "leading the pack" in terms of taxes, that we are in the middle of the road, Mr. Speaker, there is some appreciation for the fact that we're conscious of it and it's important that we remain conscious of it. Mr. Speaker, thousands of businesses incorporated in 1984, over 8,500 in the last three years - Is that a lack of confidence? - Mr. Speaker, 2,500 in 1984. Mr. Speaker, labour relations - is that not a measure of the confidence? Mr.

Speaker, other than Prince Edward Island, we had the lowest number of days lost of any province in Canada. Prince Edward Island has a population of 20 percent of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, and over our three years the labour relations climate has never been better, and the "doom and gloom" sayers who say that this labour relations amendments are disruptive, the increa ses to minimum wage are disruptive, is nonsense, patent nonsense. Mr. Speaker, the figures, the facts don't bear them out. They don't bear them out on any kind of objective assessment.

They don't bear them out by the population coming to Manitoba or the investment of the private sector in Manitoba, or the history that we have had in terms of labour peace. Mr. Speaker, we're not prepared to say, in their terms, that we're abandoning working people in this province. We believe that we have created a relatively harmonious relationship between labour and management. We know that statistically and factually people are investing in Manitoba and we're not abandoning working people.

There is a rule for government to play in ensuring that working people have a fair deal and that business investors have a fair deal, and we've found the fine balance, nay sayers not to the contrary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me say the facts are on our side, history is . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. The Ho nourable Min iste r's time has expired . The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like, Mr.

Speaker, to wish you well in your capacity as Speaker for what we all expect will be the final year of this government's term. I'd also like to offer my congratulations to the Member for Fort Garry who ha;; newly joined us. We're looking forward with confidence to his contribution to the debates of this House. I'd also like to congratulate the Member for The Pas who has been elevated to the rank of Cabinet Minister. He has demonstrated yesterday and today that he is both fallible and an honourable rrian in his apology to this House. He may not be too comfortable where he is. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to offer my sympathy and best wishes to the Member for Kildonan, the former

Friday, 15 March, 1985 Minister of Labour , as she wages her personal fight against cancer. We miss her presence very much and wish her well. Mr. Speaker, in 1981, the New Democratic Party were elected to office on the slogan, "A great people, a great future, Manitoba and the NOP." They swept into office, Mr. Speaker, with flags flying, a confident group of Social Democrats pledged to turn the economy around. They were going to turn the economy around with their interventionist approach to economic management. Well, let's look, Mr.

Speaker, at the great future promised by the NOP and compare that great future with what has actually happened, because I would not want them to be judged by any other standards than their own. One of the first promises of the great future that that government made, Mr. Speaker, was jobs, not welfare. Three years to the month after that government was elected, there were 15,000 more unemployed in this province. Mr. Speaker, there were only 11,000 more people employed.

Within only two years after being elected, and I only use two years because these are the most recent statistics available, the numbers of peo ple drawi ng unemplo yment insuranc e in this province had risen to 40,135 from 20,439. In two years, a doubling of the number of people on unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, the number of people on welfare, the amount of money paid in welfare in only two years went up by 43 percent, over $50 million more paid in welfare. Jobs, not welfare, that was the great future that this NOP group promised to the people of Manitoba.

They promised no business, no home, no farm, would be lost as a consequence of high interest rate. What do we have, Mr. Speaker, three years after this government is elected? We have record numbers of farm bankruptcies, business bankruptcies, mortgage foreclosures. That wasn't the great future that they promised to the people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.

They promised to turn the economy around in this great future and they took an economy that was growing at 4. 7 percent in 1981 that ranked third in Canada, that was above the national average and they've taken it to the point where in 1985, it's predicted to be growing by the Conference Board at 1.6 percent, tied for dead last with Prince Edward Island and below the Canadian average, and that, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the government has their illusory Jobs Fund and despite the fact that they intend to proceed with the construction of Limestone. Those factors are in the projection, Mr. Speaker.

That's the great future of turning the economy around that the people of Manitoba have received from this government. They said that the y wou ldn't be dependent on multinationals for the economic development of this province. Not only do they continue to negotiate with Alcan, but they rushed to embrace Alcoa. They rushed to embrace that huge multinational corporation, Alcoa, to try and bring them to this province for economic development. Since that time, Mr.

Speaker, we find this government trying to bribe, trying to buy - I shouldn' t use the term "bribe" - trying to bring the multinational Pratt and Whitney to Manitoba, with the offer of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. But they said that they wouldn't be beholden. They wouldn't use multinationals. they would n't depend upon multina tion als for the develpment of Manitoba. 161 Mr. Speaker, their sole hope for re-election lies with the construction of Limestone.

How ironic it is that the First Minister, when he was interviewed and reported in the December 19th, 198 1 issue of the Financial Post, he was asked, "Is a new generating station at Limestone contingent on these other projects such as the Aloan Smelter"? He said, "No, it's not. We must not become dependent on decision- makers outside this province," and the major plank, the major possibility, the major hope for this government's re-election, Mr. Speaker, hinges upon a deal with a huge and profitable energy company in the United States, Northern States Power, that made $18 3 million worth of profit in 1983.

Whe re do es th at leave the First Mini ster's commitments? Mr. Speaker, the government, the NOP promised the people of Manitoba they would not be dictated to by the moneylenders in New York and Zurich, and what do we find? We find today a government fighting to preserve their credit rating from a second lowering, Mr. Speaker, and we find them imposing economic policies in which they do not believe. Talk about being beholden to the mone ylenders in New York and Zurich, because this government has been forced to change their entire approach to government. Let me give you a further quotation, Mr.

Speaker, to demo nstrate that this is precisely what the government has been forced to do by the moneylenders is to change their policies, because when the First Minister was reported in the Globe and Mail on December 31s t, 1981, he said and this is a quotation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a quotation from the First Minister, "I believe the policies of restraint are worsening the debt and if we are going to try to reduce the debt, we must move away from acute protracted restraint." That's what he believed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

He said he wouldn't be beholden to the moneylenders and today they're grovel ling in New York in front of the moneylenders to try and save the credit rating of this provinc e and they'r e being forced to implement economic policies in which they don't believe. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the NDP said that they would encourage small business and what have they done for small business? They've raised the payroll tax, Mr.

Deputy Speaker; they've raised the sales tax; they've raised Workers' Compensation costs by up to 60 percent; they've imposed labour legislation that makes it much more difficult for a small business to operate; and they've raised the costs to small businesses. Those are the of things they've done to help small business. That's the great future that was promised. That's the great future that's come about and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they said the�' wanted to be prudent fiscal managers.

Once again, in the Editorial the Financial Post from December i9th, 1981, the Premier, smiling, and it says to Show NOP are Good the NOP are good managers. he established quite a challenge for himself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and what have they done? What have these good managers done? They have doubled the direct debt of this province for direct government programming in just three years. In the entire history of this province, the debt for direct government programs came to $1 .334 billion and in their first three years, they will have more than doubled it.

Friday, 15 March, 1985 We will have had the credit rating reduced at least once, hopefully not twice, but that's a threat. This government has seen spending increases go up by 42 percent, while the economy was growing by 24 percent. Was that the great future, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the NDP promised the people of Manitoba? Were those the good managers that the Premier talked about? They said they would restore the health care system and social services. This was part of the promise of the great future - Manitoba and the NOP - and under the management of this government, Mr.

Speaker, the waiting period for elective surgery in major hospitals in this province has gone from weeks to months, and sadly, people are dying because of the fact that they are not able to get the health care that's needed, when they need it. They took support for the Child Related Income Program away from approximately 1, 000 families in this province.

A year ago the Minister of Economic Security - or whatever he is - the Member for Brandon East, stood in this House and said that the level of services under that program would be maintained and within months 1,000 people had been cut from the rolls of that program. Was that part of the great future that the NDP promised the people of Manitoba in 1981? They have been reduced to the situation where we had the Minister of Education having to go out and organize to get donations of clothing for kids who don't have parkas in this city. Is that the great future that the NDP promised the people in 1981?

They said they would ease the property taxes. They would ease the burden of property taxes, and what's happened? The property taxes in the City of Winnipeg on the average have gone up by 40 percent already and they're going up further again this year. Another example of the great future under the NOP. They said they would preserve rural communities. They even had a special paragraph in an election document dealing with that, which I'd like to read into the record , Mr. Deputy Speaker.

He said, "Bring in a package of policies designed to make sure that people in small communities have the kind of access to government services that people in larger centres have. Our villages and towns must be preserved." And what did they do? Immediately, on coming into office, they stopped the de centrali zation of people in the Department of Natural Resources who were going to be moved to Steinbach to be in the same area with the people that they serve. No, they stopped that decentrali zation, Mr. Speaker, and then what did they do?

They have shut down the Land Titles Office in Boissevain, a service that's been in that area for over 100 years. It's been in Boissevain since 1903. They did that without a word of consultation, without a word of consultation with the local government authorities. That's the equivalent of over 2,000 jobs in the City of Winnipeg, without a word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they did it. And they said that they would listen, above all, they said that they would listen to the people and what's happening today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is they're not listening, they're not talking.

They didn't consult with the people in Boissevain before they shut the Land Titles Office. They weren't listening to the people of Manitoba over the French language issue. All that they hear, all that this government hears is what they want to hear. 162 I've talked to people who have consulted with the Minister of Finance as he goes around the province trying to convince them that what he's going to do is right. I've talked to people who have spoken with him and his mind is closed to everything, except what he wants to hear.

And just as that led to the defeat of Schreyer's Government in 1977, it's going to contribute to the defeat of this government as well. That's the great future that the ND P promised to the people of Manitoba and that's what the NOP has delivered in three years.

That's the great future and the thing they didn't tell us, that they didn't tell the people of Manitoba in 198 1 was that they wouldn't be able to govern because of Ronald Reagan and high interest rates and the Federal Government; and we hear them today, or in recent days in this Throne Speech Debate, stand and say their hands are tied because of these things that are happening over which they have no control. They didn't tell the people that in 1981; they didn't tell them that at all. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have before us a government today that has failed on every major economic promise that they made to the people of Manitoba and on most of their other promises as well. Some of the areas where one could say they've had some success are those where they have been able to impose their will on other people at the expense of other people. It hasn't been the kind of program that the government had to implement on its own through its own good fiscal and economic management.

We have before us a government that has confronted its people as no government in the history of this province has ever confronted its people before, and that of course has to do with respect with to the language question that was handled so badly by this government. We have a government that has abandoned its discredited socialist economic theories. They came into government full of great expectations.

The First Minister appointed the Member for Osborne to be Minister of Economic Development and she came into this House and she came into committees and she travelled around this province and she outlined the socialist economic theories of this province; she likened their management to a scrub football game with the government being the quarterback, as the way they saw the economy in the province working. Within a couple of years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course the First Minister removed the Member for Osborne as Minister in charge of Economic Affairs in this province.

That was one of the first indications of their recognition of the failure of these discredited socialist economic policies; and since that time we have witnessed some extremely interesting reversals on the part of this government, some of them large and some of them small; such things as offering millions and millions of dollars to multinational corporations to come and locate here in Manitoba, but perhaps the most interesting ones are on the other end of the scale, things that the former Minister of Natural Resources did when he finally realized that when the public sector couldn't afford to do something, turn to the private sector.

When they couldn't afford the cost of maintaining roads ide parks, the former Mi nister of Natural Resources turned to the private sector, but did they

Friday, 15 March, 1985 do that for the security in this building, Mr. Deputy Speaker? No, they didn 't. They knew it was going to be cheaper, they knew it was going to cost a couple of million dol lars more to have thos e people incorporated under the government payroll but they did it nevertheless; but that was in their early days. Since that time, they've obviously had a reversal of their thinking with respect to what they can do and how the economy of this province functions.

We had a government that, when they came into power, believed that they were in charge of events; they had their idealistic goals of where they intended to go and what has happened, after three years, is that we have a government that has lost control of events. Far from being in control of what's happening, we have a government that is being buffeted and being swept along on the tide of events, on the t!de of problems and they are grasping at anything that might be of some assistance to them to stay alive. A government that has reached that condition is a government that has lost its mandate to govern.

They have lost their mandate to govern; they are directionless and of course the consequences of that, we're all aware of. What we have here today is not a brave band of ideal istic social dem ocrats embarked on trying to improve the economic and human condition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What we have instead is a disorganized gaggle of socialists interested in one thing only and that is the retention of power. Those high ideals that this group held when they came into power are gone.

What they are interested in now is holding on to power and, to that end , they are prepared to engage in a duplicitous campaign of propaganda and Orwellian dou blespeak, aided and abetted by a cadre of socialist hacks who have been inflicted upon an otherwise competent and caring Civil Service.

They are prepared to pick the taxpayers' pockets to try and convince them through the use of propaganda that indeed this is a great future that we have, despite what the facts would indicate; because in two years only they've added 124 new image polishers to the staff of the government; they have raised the budget for advertising from $2,797,000 in 1981 to $4,757,000 in'84 and we know it's going through the roof from here, because last December, for the year we're in, they voted themselves another $590,000 for advertisi ng. This wasn't for kids' parkas; this wasn't increased social allowances.

This was for advertising, image advertising. This, from this pack of incompetents who, when they first came to power, stopped Alcan from advertising in Manitoba; they stopped them from advertising. They know how vital advertising can be. They recognized it right then and they didn't want Alcan to have a good image in Manitoba and so they stopped them, but they're prepared to spend millions of the taxpayers' money now to promote their own image. Let me provide you with some examples of the doub lespeak and double dealing that this government is engaging in.

Let's deal first of all with the financial statements of this province. This Minister of Finance has brought the province to the brink ol financial disaster, financial crisis, and what's his response to it? He cooks the books; he changes the books so that the Provincial Auditor, who is a servant of this Legislature, will no longer approve of the book keeping of this Minister of Finance. What response de we get from 163 the Minister of Finance? He says, I don't keep the books for an accountant; I keep them for the people. Well, he keeps two sets of books; he keeps two sets of books.

That's what this Mi nister of Finance do es. Tha t accountant that he speaks so demeaningly of happens to represent the people of this Legislature and the people of this province. So, the one set of books that the Minister of Finance keeps, he tells the people o! Manitoba the deficit really isn't that large because we're buying a lot of assets, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it's really not that important, but that isn't what he tells the money lenders. When he went to Europe to try and borrow some German Deutsche Marks, he didn't try and peddle those cooked books to them.

In Ma rch of 19 84 - (Interjection) - No, no, that's where they tell the truth because it's not influenced by the political agenda of the Minister of Finance and his government. That's the duplicity, that's the double dealing that we get from this government. A classic example of the doublespeak. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Education called a press conference awhile ago and said that the government was going to move towards 90 percent funding of education, raised the expectations of the public again. A couple of weeks later, what does she do?

She comes out with an announcement that funding to Education is going up 2 percent, less than half the rate of inflation. Tell the people that you're going to raise it. Tell them that you're going to move to 90 funding and go exactly the opposite way. doub lespeak. The other thing, another example. The Minister of Agriculture calls upon the private sector, the credit unions, the banks, the federal farm credit. He lower the interest rates to 8 percent.

What's he The exact same day as he's calling on them to lower the interest rate to 8 percent, his own agency is sending out letters to the people of Manitoba saying that going to raise their interest rates to 13 percent, Speaker. That's doubl espeak, that's duplicity. If he had really wanted . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Order please, order please. MR. B. RANSOM: ... to get co-operation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from those banks and from those credit unions and from those other lending agencies, the Federal Government, and the other provinces, he would have put his money on the line first of all.

He would have said, we are going ahead , we are going to reduce our interest rates to 8 percent in MACC. Now, won't the rest of you come and sit down and about what we can do for this broader problem that members on this side of the House have been talking about for years. stood up in the supplementary supply bill debate two years ago and warned the Minister about this. That's the way he could have gained the confidence and respect.

Instead, of course, his credibility was blown and what they have tried to do now is salvage that credibility with the expenditure of $6 million but, unfortunately, he has lost tne opportunity to gain wider co-operation. further example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the doubl espeak and double dealing of this government -

the Minister of Energy and other members of this government travel around this province and speak consistently of a $1.7 billion profit that's going to be made from Manitoba Hydro. Aside from all the conside rations of whether or not capital costs are involved, let's just look at what that $1.7 billion is. It's not really $1. 7 billion, not in the terms that people would speak of it today. It's $402 million in 1982 dollars. It's not $1.7 billion.

Do you know what the deficit of this province will be in 2005, if you make the exact same assumptions as they've made with respect to that profit, and that ii doesn't change because of or decreasing revenues? Just on inflation alone, the will be $2 billion 63 million by the time they get this so-called $1.7 billion profit. That's the kind of dou ble dealing and dou blespeak thal's being used to try and hoodwink the people of this province.

A further example of the two-bookkeeping system and the duplicity, is that they try and tell the people of Manitoba now that they're going to take the profits from Manitoba Hydro and use it to maintain services in Manitoba. That can be the subject of a whole de bate itself, but just the fact that they're telling the people of Manitoba that, once again, as my former Leader would say, as they go rattling their tin cup in New York, Zurich, and Germany, they're telling the lenders that the profits from Crown corporations, the profits from Hydro go to Hydro to service the debt, Hydro.

When they borrow money that is going to help build the assets of Hydro, and they tell those lenders that the profits are going to help to service that debt, then they'd better go to help them service that debt or this credit rating won't have seen anywhere near the bottom yet. Then , the ultima te - what 's left?

The ultima te admission of this group of people across the way, the ultimate admission of their defeat, that their record will not stand on its own, is that they are once again resor ting to their time-ho no ured base tactic of spread ing fear through the hidden agenda theme that they have used so successfully in the past. There is nothing in the record of that government that will lead to their being re-elected. There is nothing that this government has done . . . MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. MR. B.

RANSOM: . . . or holds as policy that the people of this province need fear, so what they do is go and talk about the hidden agenda. We know all about that. Ask the Member for Ste. Rose what the people in the senior citizen's home in Ste. Rose were told during the last election, the people on the Indian Reserves were told during the last election. That's the tactic that the Member for Thompson and his colleagues intend to resort to.

They will be telling the people what they want to tell them about the horrid things that those Tories are going to do, because they will not be able to campaign on their own record, because their own record is dismal. They went there once - NDP, great people, great future, Manitoba and the NDP. It worked once, now what are they going to do? They have nothing positive to offer to the people of Manitoba.

What we have seen from the Member for Thompson is the kind of tactics they are now going to resort to. 164 1985 We'll tell the people what we're going to do as we move up to the election, as we go into the election, Mr. Speaker. We'll tell the people what we're going to do. When we come back into this House as nnvA1rnrnA1nt we will deliver on what we're to do. tell the public one thing and another. We will not engage in duplicity, and dou blespeak, dou ble dealing, such as this government has done hoodwink the people of the province. So, Mr. Speaker, my position is that this govemmenf has lost its mandate.

This government has simply lost its mandate; they are adrift; they are being buffetted by events; they admit themselves that they are unable to govern because of outside influences. Their record of performance is dismal, there is really only one option open for a government that has lost its mandate, and that is, Mr. Speaker, they should go to the people. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me congratulate the Member for Fort Garry. I believe that he will serve his constituents well, albeit in a lost cause.

I note that he worked at one time for the Department of the Attorney-General; so did the Minister of Finance when the Premier was the Attorney-General. We still can't figure out whether making him Minister of Finance was reward or punishment. I'd like to also congratulate the Member for The Pas. He had quite a baptism of fire this we�k. his first question period, which he came out of very well.

But earlier in the week he, together with myself, attended a meeting of Ministers of Justice, Attorneys-General, on aborigina l rights in Toronto, together wit h the Minister of Justice for Canada and the Minister for Ind ian and Nor thern Deve lopment, and there he encountered, for the first time I believe, at least in that number, a number of senior Tory politicians across this country and he said to me, they seem so different, this lot, from ours. They're so sensible. And of course, he was right, they are different.

There is the difference between night and da y between th e kind of Conservatives that you see, some of them in the leadership of the Federal Government, some of them in portfolios across this country who approach problems logically, who are well-researched, who attempt to define public policy in decent terms. Compared to that bunch across the floor of this House, there is a difference between night and day. And congratulations to you, Sir. Welcome back for yet another season. i suppose had you known when you were appointed Speaker what you now know, you would have asked for danger pay.

It certainly seems to me in this House it's a requisite and if were serving on the Legislative Management Committee, I might even suggest that. And to the Assistant Clerk, again, welcome, as others have done. Good luck. I regret to advise you that in this Chamber, what you see is what you get. - (Interjection) - Well, not always, that's true. Not always. Mr. Speaker, listening, as I have done over the last few days, reading, because I was away for the first couple of days, the various contributions in the debate on the Throne Speech, and rising to speak to it, I do so partly in sorrow and partly in anger.

Sorrow and

Friday, 15 March, 1985 genuinely so, because the magnificent effort which ordina ry Manitobans, working together with the ir government, have made to overcome the worst effects of the recession, has been the subject of carping criticism based on inadequate research or no research, the subject of monumental doom and gloom. In anger, Sir, because as a Manitoban, I for one am proud of our province; I'm proud of its achievements; I'm proud of its people and, yes, proud of its government and its vision and its work for social justice.

And like most Manitobans to whom I speak, I'm angered when the Leader of the Opposition can do little better than catalogue closures, counting them like so many steps on the way to the political heaven about which he dreams in vain. What a testament of doom, what a testament of political failure, when that's all he can do. The Member for Thompson did us a service, doing the kind of research which he can do so well, when he pointed out that in approximately 135 paragraphs in that speech by the Leader of the Opposition, 105 or 11 0 of them were completely negative. And that was his whole approach.

He dreams in vain of that political heaven to which he aspires, because I can tell him and his colleagues now, that the ordinary people of Manitoba who are proud of their province and who feel good about their province, don't need and don't want his counsel of despair. Sir, I'm angry for another reason, a personal reason about which I must say a few words. It deserves no more.

On Tuesday, when I was absent from the House, and it's usually done in that way and compounds the felony, the Member for Sturgeon Creek chose to accuse me - and it's on the record - of an impropriety, he chose to drag in a family member, that's the lowest of the low, and Sir, what is even worse, the Member for Sturgeon Creek, in order to lend credit to a palpable falsehood, stated to this House and to all his colleagues on both sides of the House that "a record of a payment," and I quote his words, "to a close relative of the Attorney-General in co nnection with the Somerville-Belkin case could be found in the Public Accounts".

He told this House that, that palpable falsehood, knowing as he must have known, or at least being reckless about the means of knowledge which was available to him, that there was no such record, because there was no such payment, and there was no such payment because there was no such retainer, knowing as he must have known. He not only attacked me, but he chose to drag in a member of my family.

For the record, Sir, the outside counsel retained by myself at the time when we were looking at the legal problems engende red by tha t same Member for Sturgeon Creek and his careless hand ling of the province's affairs, we retained Ray Taylor, Q.C. of the firm , Taylor, Brazzell and McCaffrey, and we received advice from Brian Squ air, Q.C., of our own department. That is the legal advice upon which we relied in coming to a judgment in a matter which is now before the courts. Mr. Speaker, I will say no more about that sordid event than this.

I knew full well when I ran for office that, when elected - and I knew I would be elected , I know I'll be elected again - that I was moving into a fishbowl. But I was naive enough to think that decent people did not attack their political opponents through their families. Well, I suppose that still is true of decent people. 165 Mr. Speaker, the Member for Wolseley, in her very fine speech in moving acceptance of the Throne Speech, dealt in part with equality issues, particularly, but not exclusively as they touched on the problems of women in our society.

It may seem like gilding the lily to add ress in part some of the concerns that she did, but I do want to touch on some of these matters from the perspective of the Attorney-General.

In the Throne Speech, we dealt with some of the policies that have been put in place by my department with respect to the prosecution of spousal abuse, with respect to the prosecution of obscenity, and in the policy directive that I issued on the latter of those policies dealing with legal obscenity, I said, in appropriate cases, particularly where material alleged to be obscene conc entr ates on sex ual violence and hu man degr edat ion, the Crown will proceed by way of indictment, and I said th at th ose who ped dl e pornography do so at their own risk.

And I note, Sir, that when we announced our policy with respect to the classification of videotapes, some video distributors were saying, well, we don't know what's in these tapes or we don't know what the guidelines are, would you please tell us. More and more, Sir, Canadian courts are making a clear and well-unde rstood distinction between erotica on the one hand, about which there is a considerable level of tolerance in our society - whether that's good or bad is another question - and the exploitation of sexual violence, of dehumanizing material of that kind.

And I say it is not difficult for the distribut ors to make that same distinction, and in entering into that business and seeking to profit on the distribution of that kind of material, they have the duty to ascertain what the law is, and to follow the law. We will not become censors. The reason why we will not is that to do so is to put that kind of ju dgment into the hands of political appointees. We believe in the integrity of the courts, in the ability of the courts to develop the kind of legal standards to assess the levels of community tolerance and to make judgments in that way.

An independent judiciary is best suited to deal with a sensitive area such as this and it ought not to be left to political appointees to censor. So we reject that approach, but we do say that we will enforce the criminal law vigorously in this area. We do say to those who are in the business, you are so at your risk and you must take care. Incidental ly, Sir, statistically, the number of charges laid in the City of Winn ipeg under the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code - in 1982, there were 10; in 1983, there were 20; in 1984, there were 100. We are doing more than talking about it; we are acting.

With respect, Sir, to spousal abuse - members are aware of government policy announced early in 1983, while the implementation of that policy is not free from difficulty, in my judgment, it has been an outstanding success, combining as it doe s, Sir, a prosecutorial policy which removes the onus for laying charges from the victim to the police; com bines that with a network of support services including safe houses to which abused women can turn in their hour of need. Again, some statistics with respect to this, Sir.

In 1984 the Winnipeg Police Department and the RCMP combined, laid over 1, 662 charges under that policy. The RCMP, for example. attended 891 calls, laid 699 charges, obtained 373 convictions. The policy, as I say,

Friday, 15 March, 1985 is not free from imperfection. There are more things to be done; there are counselling services to be provided, but it is working. Mr. Speaker, with respect to both obscenity and spousal abuse, women are the primary victims. But on a much wider scale, they are the primary victims of a great deal of social and economic justice. In the Speech from the Throne, we annou nced a number of programs to continue our efforts to deal with this injustice, particularly as those efforts in this Session will relate to implementation of the requirements of

Section 15 of the Ch arter, which comes into force on April 17, 1985, and with respect to moving forward on pay equity. Our commitment to fulfill the mandate of the Charter is more than a vague promise, more than the publication of glossies such as the Federal Government indulged in, and the Government of Saskatchewan - expensive publications - here's what we're thinking about doing. We have acted and we were the first to act We had a study commissioned in 1982 under Professor Gibson of the law School and we immediately began to act on some of the recommendations.

In 1982 we passed in this House an Equality of Status Act, for example, in which we abolished a number of antiq uated court actions which treated women as though they were the property either of their husbands or their parents. Those were abolished. In 1984 - and here I'm de aling with a very signi ficant piece ol legislation - we passed the Pension Benefits Act which came into force on January 1, 1985. Under that act, no pension plan shall provide or permit a rate, a pension or options with a sex differential, or exclude anyone from a pension plan on the basis of sex. We lead the country in that respect.

It has become another shining example of Manitoba's leadership with respect to family legislation, with respect to equality legislation - another reason, I say, to be proud to be a Manitoban, another reason to reject the kind of carping criticism that we heard throughout this week . In this Session, Sir, we will introduce a charter compliance bill which, among other things, will deal with problems raised by - I should say, opportunities created by -

Section 8 of the Charter with its prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure and by

Section 15, the equality rights section. But most important, we will be bringing in significant legislation with respect to pay equity. Now the leader of the Opposition spoke about pay equity. He chastised us for not and I quote, "equal pay for work of equal of all, two observations about that - firs! of all, that's what equity means. Pay equity means equal pay for work equal value - that's what it is designed to achieve. Second ly, to the extent that what he said seemed to be - and it certainly sounded like support for pay equity, say, welcome aboard.

Mind you, I'm not sure that the Leader of the Opposition fully realized what he was supporting, but that of course would be characteristic of him. I raise this question, and I want it on the record, whether or not the Leader of the Opposition is in the House, and that is, will his apparent commitment to pay equity persist after Keith Godden of the Chamber of Commerce gets ahold of him? I doubt it. You know, Mr. Speaker, his speech really did show remarkable confusion on his part.

Page 41 of Hansard for Monday, March 11 , 1985 from the speech of the 166 leader of the Opposition in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I quote in part, "Mr. Speaker, pay equity is a cop-out on the part of this government. It's not a commitment to equal pay for work of equal value; it's not a commitment to employment equality." Wei!, first of all, let me repeat that phrase from that quotation when he said "it's not a commitment to employment equality." Mr. Speaker, employment equality is of course not the same thing at all as pay equity.

Employment equality deals with hiring practices; pay equity deals with pay practices. So it's clear he doesn't even know what he's talking about. Employment equality or equity deals with affirmative action and hiring practices. Now, again, let me welcome his support to the extent that that was support for affirmative action. But last night the Me mber for Niakwa bitterly attacked affirmative action in this House. Don't they discuss these matters in their caucus? What do they discuss in their caucus? You know, who ordered what topping on the pizza?

Here you have the Leader of the Opposition - let me underline it - saying in effect that he supports affirmative action in employment, because he talked about employment equity. He even quoted Judge Rosie Abella and her report on that and said, here, we support that. Then the Member for Niakwa stands up there and in the most vigorous part of his speech denounces, with every fibre of his being, affirmative action. Now, if their whole caucus can't get together to discuss the issue, perhaps those two can find time to sort it all out.

We would like to know exactly where the opposition stands on equal pay for equal work, whether or not the appa rent commi tment in the leader of the Oppositio n's speech is indeed a commitment that will withstand the criticisms of Keith Godden of the Chamber of Commerce. We want to know whether they are solidly behind our program, for example, of affirmative action in connection with the Limestone project. We want to know that.

Because if what the Member for Niakwa said is indeed their policy and their line, then the leader of the Opposition better tell the people of Manitoba that they're opposed to affirmative action for the people of Northern Manitoba with respect to the Limestone project. Affirmative action, Mr. Speaker, does not mean excluding people from the south. It does not mean that. And it is mandated specifically by the second

Section of

Section 15 of the Charter that says in the first part, and in the second, notwiths tanding that, ""'"''"''v"' action is a social policy which is endorsed constitutional ly. Let me then try and spell it out again for the leader of the Opposition. I want it on the record because maybe get a chance to read it and to think about it. Employment equity deals with affirm ative actio n, a-lfirmative for women, affirmative action for Natives; affirmative action for visible minorities. That's what that means. Affirmative action for the physically handicapped ; that's what that means.

Pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value deals with wages and salaries after hiring. Two different things, conceptually. And further, pay equity is not as the Leader of the Opposition seemed to suggest, the same as paying men and women the same money for the same job - that's already guaranteed by law. If you

Friday, 15 March, 1985 have a man and a woman doing the same job but being paid differently, that is prohi bited by The Manitoba Human Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, what emerges from our programs, from our legislation, from the Throne Speech, is a clear notion of the linkage between our social and economic programs being castigated by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, a few moments ago the Member for Turtle Mountain, about our economic development programs.

They're trying to int erpret them as some conversion, some latter-day conversion to Conservative orthodoxy and, of course, nothing could be further from the truth because our economic development approach is closely int egrated with our social polici es, for example, affirmative action. So let me just deal with that for a moment to illustrate the point that I'm making. We introduced rent control legislation, badly-needed rent control legislation shortly after assuming office, and we needed it in the face of the inadequate - to put it charitably - policy that had been developed by the now Leader of the Opposition.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that rent control policy, a social policy, is coupled with the RentalStart Program - a second stage of it was annou nced in the House today - and that RentalStart Program is the other side of the coin. The two are integrated: a social policy with respect to affordable shelter in rent control and in certain degrees of subsidized housing, and an economic thrust with respect to the building of houses. affordable shelter under the Homes in Manitoba Program, the building of rental units.

A program which again is an outstanding success in Canada, never mind measured in Manitoba terms, an outstanding success and it has been one of the most successful programs that we have initiated. But there you see a combination, as I say, of social and economic programs. So too, in looking at the development of our power resource in, let me say, a very carefully measured way - and all of the carp and criticism of the opposition will not denegrate from the significance of what is being done.

We're talking about, first of all, obtaining a significant, uninterrupted sale of power, and on the basis of that and a careful assessment of Manitoba's own needs - one incidentally which is not based on the counsel of despair but sees Manitoba growing - that is what they lose sight of. We are looking as well at the domestic market.

We see Manitoba growing in terms of population; we see Manitoba growing in terms of industrial expansion; we see Manitoba growing in terms of industrial investment; we see Manitoba growing and we bring that factor, as well as export sales, into the calculus when we look at the development of the power potential of Manitoba.

The notion that I found expressed either in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition or one of his colleagues, that you wait until the moment when you need it and then you start building, is so patently ridiculous and all of their vain puffery about how great they are as economists - you know, I do something just short of giggling, because giggling is more the type of thing that the Mem ber for Pembina engages in - when I listen to the Member for Sturgeon Creek puffing himself up as an economic wizard - you don't know anything about economics, go back to the law school - and so on.

And the Member for Morris - is it Morris or Emerson or wherever he comes from? - Clayton Manness, where does he come from? 167 A MEMBER: Morris. HON. R. PENNER: Morris, the Member for Morris, he's got his Economics degree; he sits back there on great heights you know, and if anybody on this side purports to talk about economics and economic development, and does so as well as, for example, the Member for Thompson does - ho, ho, ho, what do you know about economics? By definition, because you have a social democratic ideology, you can't possibly know anything about economics.

Why look at the economics wizards in B.C. Look at these wonder boys and their economics. Those are their ideological cousins. Now there's been a lot of talk, incidentally . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, the Member for Lakeside endorses the policies of the Government of British Columbia. There's been some talk - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, I'll wait till the Member for lnkster allows me to speak. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, the Member for Lakeside wholeheartedly endorses the economic policies of the Government of British Columbia. Now there's been some talk about the so-called hidden agenda. What's wrong with that is it's not hidden. It's open. Let's talk about their open agenda, and we don't have to really look very far afield to see it in action in B.C. Look at the budget brought down by that wizard of economic brilliance in B.C. A MEMBER: Known as the Sheriff of Nottingham. HON. R. PENNER: That's right - rob the poor and give it to the rich - oh yes, we know that philosophy.

And what do they do, first of all, after the dismal failure the likes of which Canada hasn't seen since R.B. Bennett, another Tory, another Bennett with exactly the same kind of policy - the next thing you know you'll be seeing Bennett buggies in British Columbia - so what does the Minister of Finance bring in, after the failure of their policy, the utter failure of their policy, the tearing apart of the social safety net, the adversarial way in which they have dealt with social policy, a billion dollar gift to big business?

First of all, they said, we have developed this trickle­ down theory of economics, the kind that the Member for Morris is deeply in love with, and if we just sit back and create the conditions by focusing entirely on the deficit, deficit will go away and big business will have confidence in British Columbia; they'll come in and they'll invest. Well, big business did not come in and invest in British Columbia, because they saw a government tha t could not manage. They saw a government that pitted class against class.

They saw a government that tore apart the social safety net and they were not amused, to put it mildly. Now having decided, in the first instance, to leave it to the marketplace, the much valued and loved

Friday, 15 March, 1985 ma rk etpla ce of the Mem ber for Mo rris and tha t economic wizard, the Member for Sturgeon Creek, they've decided that maybe they were wrong, that they ought to tinker with the market but how are they tinkering with the market by a $1 billion gift? Boy that's economic wizardry; that's economic brilliance.

And at the same time, as I read it, the Minister of Finance in the Globe and Mail tod ay, their presentation of the Budget - about which the Member for Turtle Mountain, who castigate d you in un parliame ntary terms, incidentally, while you were out of the House - presents their deficit as an operat ing deficit and a capital deficit. Can you imagine? A MEMBER: Where did they do that? HON. R. PENNER: In British Columbia, in British Columbia.

So we're not talking about a hidden agenda, and while I'm at it - and I may say for the first time in a week, enjoying myself - talking about a hidden agenda, is it so hidden about what they propose to do to rent controls, to which I adverted a few moments ago, I hear you asking. It's on the record now, once or twice. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition, then an unimportant person, merely the Member for Tuxedo, said, we will have user fees with respect to the rent control mechanism. There's a brilliant idea, you just think about it, how that's going to work.

Then, in his first principal speech after becoming Leader of the Opposition what did he say? I've got it and I want you to know I'm keeping it for the election, and I want you to know I'm going to use it in the election. Who says they're going to get rid of rent controls? I'll tell you what that means to the people of Fort Rouge who I represent, it means disaster, and we will not allow that disaster to happen. The people of Winnipeg will not allow that disaster to happen; and the people of Brandon will not allow that dis aster to happen; and the people of St.

James will not allow that disaster to happen, because we know, and they know, what rent control has meant for them in terms of . . . (Inaudibl e) . . .. It's not a hidden agenda, and we will spare nothing in bringing home to the people of Manitoba exactly what it is that they have in mind as the Government of Manitoba. Look, hidden agenda - week in and week out, speech after speech, the one sort of specific - God, you can comb through those speeches time and again and look for specifics, talk about vag ue gene raliti es and buffoonery.

What is the specific they're going to get rid of the health and post-second ary levy. There's why, that's it, the great bonanza for the people of Manitoba, right? For the people of Manitoba - what do you mean the people of Manitoba? It's the employers who are paying it - (Interjection) - yes, it is, they're paying it, so they remove with one fell blow 120 to 130 million do llars of revenue, right? And what will they substitute for it?

I'll tell you what they'll do, because it's the only alternative if they're going to carry that through and not destroy the social. safety net, is a couple of points on the sales tax. Well, my gosh I have to be careful, I agree we shouldn't be talking in this area at all, right? But we know what they're going to do.

They've announced 168 what they're going to do and that's about the only thing we can depend upon with respect to that bunch of losers on the other side of the House, is that they will do that and they will follow - because they said they will follow their ideological cousins in British Columbia - and we will have another province in Manitoba, in which, in fact, unlike what has happened in'83 and'84 in Manitob a, the manufacturers will not invest in because they will not come to a province, whether it's here or British Columbia, regardless of the ideological stripe of the government where, in fact, the government cannot manage but can only produce social dissension, the like of which we haven't seen in a long time.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have chosen in speaking to the Throne Speech Debate, to talk in the main about the question of equality.

The thing in my mind that most cle arly di stingu ishe s us as a social demo cra tic government from any other government in Canada is our commitment to social justice; and our commitment to social justice necessarily carries with it - we know tha t - the requir ement of the kind of economic development which will produce first of all the jobs because that alone is a profound social policy when you take people, particularly young people, particularly Native people, off the unemployed rolls and you put them to work.

That in itself is not merely an economic measure; it's a profound social measure, but on that basis there is also produced the extension of the tax base so that within the kind of tax policy which is acceptable in this particular kind of period in which we're living, you can't produce the revenues, not only to preserve the social safety net but to extend it. So we do have a coherent policy; we do have a vision.

When you, Sir, put on the list, as we will, as we are, and as we will do, in the forthcoming election, our Rent Control Program, our Day Care Program, our pension legislation, our labour legislation - which has brought industrial peace to Manitoba - then the people of Manitoba will know that we have a social democratic government that is not some fuzzy wuzzy, ideological mismanaging bunch of economic dummies as they are attempting to portray us.

If you look objectively - and that's all we say is necessary - at all of the economic indicators and everything that has happened to bring Manitoba out of the recession, then you come back to the point that I made at the very beginning of my speech and I repeat it I am proud to be a Manitoban and I for one will not dump on Manitobans and their achievements.

I am proud of the way in which ordi nary Manitobans have taken the bit between their teeth and under the leadership of this government have moved Manitoba ahead; and I resent the kind of carping criticism and prophesies of collapse and doom that bunch of losers on the other side has burdened us with all of this week. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ RusselL MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I deem it a privilege and · an honour to follow the Chief Law Officer of our province in this Throne Speech Debate and while I didn't learn very much about where this government is going to carry the people of our province, he did give us some indication that he was

Friday, 15 II/larch, 1985 going to throw his hat in the ring for the next election. That kind of disheartened me, Mr. Speaker, because if you listened to the Honourable Member !or Elmwood here the other day and some of the words that's passing around in the halls of this building, it appears that the honourable member would be well advised to take that opportunity to sit at the bench, rather than pursue a political career, because I think he's treading on rather rocky ground if he thinks he should throw his hat into the ring again. Mr. Speaker, he talks like the typical socialist.

They talk about social justice as if this crowd of misfits that are over ther e are the only people that have a conscience, are the only people that understand the social needs of our people and are the only ones that can possibly resolve the social problems our people are facing. It historically comes up time and time again that they are the only ones that can fix this problem. Mr.

Speaker, may I wish you well during the Session and if another Session is coming I hope the affairs of the House as they have in the past in your guidance and that we don't create any untold problems that stirs up the animosity of this House and yourself, Mr. Speaker. We wish you well. I extend my greetings to the new Pages that are here; I wish them well in their deliberations, the new Assistant Clerk that sits at the table. Mr. Speaker, I noted the other day the death of the former Sergeant-at-Arms from this Legislature, who was here when I arrived in '66, the late Frank Edwin Skinner.

I think that I would like, on behalf of, I'm sure our caucus and likely the House and those that knew Mr. Skin ner, extend our deepest condolences to the family. He was quite a man, this Skinn er, Mr. Speaker, a big strapping man, First World War vet, founder of the Duke of Kent Legion, I unde rstand, in this city; was awarded the Meritorious medal, I think, in '52 and he handled the Mace - I've never seen another Sergeant­ at-Arms ever that could throw the Mace around like this man, Skinner. He flipped it around just like a toothpick in his place and when it hit that table, when he laid it on the table, Mr.

Speaker, this Chamber almost shook, the way he did it. He was an artist and a master of drill and he brought a lot of decorum to this Chamber and he made a lot of friends. Mr. Speaker, I also regret the Provincial Auditor has left us. He was born and raised in my constituency and I'm sure we're going to miss him.

He left under most difficult circumstances because of the type of Minister of Finance we have in this province, who the Auditor refused to sign the report and condone the type of recordings and the carryings on of this Finance Minister; I don't think the way that a Minister and an Auditor should try and conduct the affairs of the House. Mr. Ziprick is gone and he served this province with distinction and was the people's Auditor and he did a very good job and I was sorry to see him leave under such difficult circumstances. Mr.

Speaker, this Throne Speech, this document that has been passed out to us the other day, I've seen quite a number of these in my time here and this one is the one I think I could say is the least substantive of any that I've ever read.

It's the signs, the omens, the words that spell out to me, this Pawley Government, they're tired, they're worn out, they're broke, their cupboards are barren of policies or solutions that they 169 thought they had to deal with the affairs of our province and our people and it's a tragedy, the nature, the seriousness of some of the problems that we're facing in our province, that this government still has not been able to add ress themselves to it; like the one of the unemployment which was their No. 1 priority - and I'll get back to that when I go through this famous document they released to the people of our province in 1980 - but a government, Mr.

Speaker, who are facing 48,000 people are unemployed today, 20,000 more than when they came to office. They have got to be ashamed of their conduct. They've got to be ashamed of the way they pledged and promised that they were going to deal with these matters, that it was their No. 1 target; so, Mr. Speaker, they have failed us in the House, they have failed the people of this province miserably. Mr. Speaker, this Throne