LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 24 February, 1988. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Spe aker. MADAM SPEA KER , Ho n. M. Ph lllipa : Presen ting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pres enting Reports by Stand ing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Agriculture. HON. L. HARAP fAK: Madam Speaker, yesterday I indicated I would be tabling the listing of the meetings which were slated In different rural communities • regarding the feedlot proposal.

I have, to be tabled, a copy of the advertisement and the different locations for that. Madam Speaker, the additional Information with respect to the Free Trade Agreement that I referred • to yesterday, I indicated I would be tabling that material here as well. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Culture, Heritage and Recreat ion. HON . J. WASYLYCIA -LEIS: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

I have the pleasure of tabling the Annual Report for : the Manitoba lntercultural Council 1986-1 987; et aussl, Madame la Presidente, j'al le plaislr de vous soumettre le rapport annual du Centre cultural franco-manltobaln pour l'annee financlere du premier avrll, 1986, au 31 mars, 1987. Merci. MADAM SPEAK ER: Noti ces of Mot ion Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have from the Murdock MacKay Collegiate, sixty Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Kusmak and Mrs. Rlnn.

The school is located In the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Health. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislatur e this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC - Silver contract MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. 234 Nine days ago, the Minister revealed that Mr. Robert Silver was leaving the position of president of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, in return for a contract for $90,000.00.

At that time, the Minister agreed to table the contract that he had entered into with Mr. Silver In order to have him relinquish his position as president of MPIC. Is he now in a position to table that contract? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mi nister responsible for MPIC. HON. B. UR USKI: Madam Speaker , that question was raised yesterday and the answer is still the same today. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, it seems to take a long time for a contract that was presumably drafted and signed nine days ago for the Minister to bring it into the House. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question?

MDS - Silver - continuation as Chairman MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question to the Minister responsible Is: Does Mr. Silver, as part of that agreement, also relinquish his position as chairman of the Manitoba Data Services Corporation? HON . B. UR USKI: Madam Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I am not a lawyer by profession and the contract Is being reviewed by legal counsel and, as I said yesterday, again, as soon as I receive it from them it will be tabled in the House and my honourable friend will have all the information he desires. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, twice last week the Minister indicated that Mr. Silver would be retained in other capacities by the province in addition to the $90,000 contract. Could he just give us the straight answer: Will Mr. Silver remain as chairman of the Manitoba Data Services Corporation as part of that agreement? HON. B. UR USKI: Madam Speaker, those questions also were answered, but I think the honourable leader should wait for the contract and then he will see whether his questions are answered. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect, that question has not been asked before, so it could not have been answered by the Minister. Would he reconsider that and give us the straight answers? I mean people are asking, what is he getting $90,000 for? What else Is In the agreement? Does he remain as chairman of Manitoba Data Services Corporation after he has lost over $1 00 million as the CEO of MPIC? Does he get now to also lose millions

Wedneaday. 24 February, 1888 of dollars at the Man itob a Data Servic es Corporation be fore this Min ister takes some action? We want an answer. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. lt is out of order to in sist on an answer. The Hono urab le Min ister respon sib le for MPIC. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I don't think the ho no urable member is aware of his facts at all, In terms of the Manitoba Data Services. Madam Speaker, the Ho nourabl e Leader of the Opposition is no t a lawyer either, and I believe he should know ho w lon g lawye rs take in these matters.

Madam Speaker, on this issue, the original tact of the Opposition was that we were hi ding Robert Si lver. Madam Speaker, we made an arrang ement that Robert Silver, that we were getting rid of him to hi de him and we were covering up. Now that we ha ve an agreement that he will be appeari ng be fore co mmi ttee, th e Opposit ion doesn 't like that, Madam Speaker. You can ne ver satisfy them. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I didn' t suggest that I was a lawy er, and I don't thin k I need to be a lawy er to ask this Minister a question . I may need to be a lawyer to In terpret hi s answer bec ause . . .

MADAM SPEAK ER: Order please, order. Does the hono urable member ha ve a question ? MR. G. FILMON: I would like to ask the Mini ster a very simple quest ion. Can he tell us, is Mr. Silver goin g to remain as the cha irman of Ma ni toba Data Services Co rporation, or is he not? MA DAM SPEAK ER: Th e Ho nour ab le Mi ni ster of Employment Services and Economi c Security. HON. L. EVANS: Madam Speak er, as Mi ni ster respons ible for Man itob a Data Services, I can report to the Legislature that Mr. Robert Silver has done an excellen t job as ch airperson .

He's very ca pab le; he 's be en a very ca pabl e ch airperson of the MDS. He's been on for some time, and he will conti nu e in that capacity and serve the people of Manito ba , in deed, In a very excellent fash ion. · MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question then to the very fo rthright Mini ster of Empl oymen t Services and Economi c Security Is, wh at will Mr. Silver be paid In hi s capaci ty as chairman of Man itob a Data Services Co rporation , and will this be over and above the $90, 000, plus extras, in his agreement? HON. L EVANS: As I' ve in dicated, Madam Speaker, Mr.

Silver ha s served in this capacity for some time, and of course he has, - (Interjection) - ha ng on . If the Member from Arthur would be please be patient, we' ll answer the questio n. He ha s served in that capacity for some time and ha s no t received an ho norarium be ca use he was emplo yed In the publ ic sector in another capacity, and this arrangement will conti nu e. He will serve with out an hono rarium. 255 MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my fu rther - (Int erjection) - No, he's getting wh at he's worth this time. Opinion poll results MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question to the Premier is, in the Premier's absence on Monda y, the Deputy Premier took as no tice a question wh ich I posed on Criterion Research in some poll in g that they were doing throughout the provin ce during the past 10 days. I wonder if the Premier could give me the answer to that question no w. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urabl e First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Th e Deputy Premier took that question as notice; it remains under notice . MADAM SPEAKE R: The Honour able Leader of the Oppositio n . MR. G.

FILMON: All right , Madam Speaker, did the Premier say that the question remains on no tice? HON. H. PAWLEY: Un der no tice, Madam Speaker. MR. G. FILMON: Is the Premier in dicating that he doesn 't know wh ether or not Criterion Research is doing an omni bu s poll throughout the province on behalf of hi s government or any of its departments or agencies or Crown corporations? HON. H. PAWLEY: The question has be en answered, the question ha s be en taken as no tice. MADAM SPEAKER: Th e Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition , with a question. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could indi cate wh ether or not hi s Mini sters or their Crown agencies can do polling with out hi s knowin g about it. Is this a matter that is done routinely wit hc;>ut the Premier's knowled ge? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, again the question was taken by the Deputy Premier and it wil l be answered in due course. Plant closure - Brendon MADAM SPEAKER: Th e Ho nourable Member for Brand on West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question is di rected to th e Min ister of In dustr y, Trade and Tech nolog y.

The Federal Pioneer Electric Company of Brandon has announc ed .that it will be clo sin g its doors on May 2, laying off 57 workers, in addition to the 11 recently la id off. They were going to be cons olidati ng their operations and moving their man ufacturing activity to Brantford.

Wedneed ay, 24 February, 1988 This is the worst single job loss in Brand on in recent memory, Madam Speaker, and it has an impact on my commun ity, like the impact of losing 1,020 jobs in the City of Winnipeg. At one point recently the company approach ed the Minister's department to discuss expansion plans. Can the Minister tell us about that and tell us what assistance was offered to this company to help keep them in my commun ity? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Industry, Trade and Technol ogy. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speak er.

My department has been in contact with the company several times in the last few months, and it certainly is a most unfortunate event. As I understand it, there was a purchase of the company that it works roughly at one-third of capacity and that it was losing significant amounts of money and it was therefore closing. We had indicated within the last few weeks that we are prepared to discuss any ways of seeing whether there would be some assistance that was reasonable that could keep them going. I certainly can get back to the member on specifics of them. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker, the announcement was made last Friday. The company did have meetings with IT and T last fall, I understand. What has this Minister's department done? He's a full-time Minister I understand, of this department at least. What has this department done to prevent what happened last Friday from happening and what assistance will be offered to keep this plant open?

If the plant should close, how could another manufacturing company be attracted by the Grant and Economic Development Board, by the Chamber of Comme rce, or the Minister's department, in the face of this govern ment's tax regime and its Workers Compensation Board premiums, labour laws and this government's opposition to the free trade deal? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, at least the member didn't throw in the kitchen sink. He had pretty well everything else .

Now, Madam Speak er, the member should start looking at what's been happening in Western Canada in the last few years since the Pawley administration took office and compare what has been happening with respect to the economy here, with respect to investment here as compared to To ry Saskatchewan and To ry Alberta and To ry British Columbia. Our record is one that we are very proud of compared to other parts of Western Canada.

We have done well in terms of protecting employment and opportu nities for Man itobans, whether it was through the Jobs Fund, whether it was through other activities not only of the department, but also the private sectors have done well and, yes, there are occasionally failures. But those people opposite, never once talked about the successes. All they do Is continually harp and carp about the failures. I have Indi cated to him, not only last fall, but over the last few weeks and over the last few days, there have been discussions with that company and if there's something we can do, we will 256 do it.

We will not sit back and whine and groan like the Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: The Minister's response today is very cold comfort for those 57 workers who had planned to continue buying homes and were planning their future and families. What has this department done since the announcement and what will it be doing? What will it be doing? What has it done since the announcement by the company to explore possibilities to keep the company operating in Brandon? What has been done? HON. V. SCHROEDER: There must be a hearing deficiency on the opposite side.

I have now twice indicated that right now, in the last few weeks, there have been discussions going on that I do not believe are terminated at the moment. I don't understand why the - (Interjection) - Well, Madam Speaker, this company, I have indicated, was at one-third production level. This company was losing money because it didn't have a market. That's why they're closing in Vancouver. Madam Speaker , that's the point that still is not understood. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The honourable member was asked a question.

I'm sure the Honourable Member for Brandon West wants to hear the answer. The Honourable Minister. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Free trade, Madam Speaker, has absolutely nothing to do with it, but this is the group that is telling us we should support free trade because of what it will do to agricultural implements, not recognizing that we have had free trade for forty years in agricultural implements and that for every agricultural implement we sell to the United States, they sell three of the same value to Canada.

That's what's happened with free trade in that particular area, and the suggestion that the member would throw that sort of nonsense into a serious question regarding the lives of individuals and the futures of individuals in Brandon who are being laid off and who are insecure right now is shameful and disgusting. We are work ing on it. We will continue to work on it.

We will not do it only for one group, we will try to do it all over the province to help Manitobans and not to cut back on things like unemployment insurance and protection when people lose their employment in the way that the federal Mulroney Government supported by that group opposite has been doing. Group homes - report recommendations MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services.

Russell Smith died as a result of a bathing accident In a group home for the mentally handicapped on December 19, 1987. lt is presumed that he died of drowning; however, no one knows for sure since the autopsy two months past the death is still not available.

w.c:lnesdaJ, 24 February, 1988 Since that time the Minis ter has issued a series of reco mmendations which , wh ile important, do not address the major prob lems of group ho mes for the mentally ha ndicapped. Will the Mini ster tell the House today wh en will this government institute co mpulsory training programs for th ose work ing In group ho mes for th e menta ll y ha ndi capped or providing respite care for the mentally handi capped? MADAM SPE AKE R: Th e Ho nour able Min ister of Community Services and Corrections. HON. M. HEIIPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the investigation that was unde rtaken by my department related to this very tragi c acci dent was very co m prehe nsive and far­ reach ing. In my discussions with bo th Wlnnserv and with the Russell's parents, I be lieve that they also felt the same way, that this was a very comprehensive review and that it highl i ghted a numb er of concerns that they had and others had for some ti me.

Since then, Madam Speaker, we ha ve taken very strong direction in terms of working with not just the Winnserv Group Home bu t all other group ho mes by providing the full report on this tragic accident to all of the group ho me operators, pointing out the major areas of defi ciency and problems and co mmunicating the requirements that we had wh ere there would need to be upgrading and improvement. We are co ntinuing to work with Winnse rv and other operators.

We are dealing with and looking at the Issue of training and preparation for workers bec ause, clearly, one of the problems was the hi gh turnover of staff. Madam Speaker, we are working on all those things. We are working on them co ope rative l y with the communi ty, with the parents and with the group ho me operators. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplemen tary question to the same Min ister, Madam Speaker. In other words, there will be no compulsory training programs.

When will this government Introduce a salary enhancement grant for those working in group ho mes similar to those offered to day care workers in that the mentally ha ndicapped adult Is often more vulnerable than the child? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Well, Madam Speaker, I think I was indicating that this was a co mprehe nsive report th at looked at all of those Issues. lt looked at procedures, it looked at polic ies, it looked at programs, it looked at training and it's looking at salaries.

We are dealing and looking at all of those Issues co llectively wi th the communi ty, with the group ho me operators, and I think that's the way we should be going. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: On a supplementary to the same Min ister, Madam Speaker, bec ause Manltob ans are getting frustrated with looking and they want action. Will th is government ins ti tute more frequent In spections of group ho mes for th e mentally ha ndicapped to ensure appropriate programming and safety of residents at least to the level of inspections that are now co nducted on day care? 257 HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, one of the other areas that was looked at since I indi cated this was a very comprehensive examination was the question of monitoring and evaluation and that my department has be en instructed to look at those procedures and to look at both the monitoring and the co mmu nication that takes place be tween my department and the group ho mes.

I also indi cated that I was reviewing the procedures that were In place for doing Investiga tions of group homes, and I am pleased to be able to say, Madam Speaker, that I will very shortly be issuing new draft guidelines and pro cedures for the monitoring and Investigation of group ho mes that will be going out to the residents that are In group ho mes, to the families and to the group ho me operators for their reaction so that we do, indeed, ha ve a procedure In place that everybo dy unde rstands and that everyb ody will have a copy of and that people ha ve had inpu t into.

So, Madam Speaker, we are dealing with all of these is sues. Tranafer parmenta from Fed. Gov't MADAM SPEAK ER: The Ho nourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Th ank you, Madam Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister of Financ e. Madam Speaker, it is ob vious to anyone wis hi ng to do even a cursory analysis of provincial finan ces that th is government, prima rily as a result of the unconsci onab le tax grab that it brought forward in last yea r's Budg et, be ca use as a result of th at, this government is going to have come in a major inflow of tax revenue in the coming fisc al year.

Th is wil l be supp lemented by an inc rease in federal ca sh/ta x transfers. My question to the Mi nister of Fina nce: Can he at this time give us the magnitude of the Inc rease of cash transfers that will be coming from Ottawa? MADAM SPEAKE R: The Ho no urabl e Minis ter of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: The memb er knows that kind of information will be the information that will be contained in the Budg et wh en it's brought down in two days. We will be providing all the information with regard to the fisc al situation in our province.

We will be Indicating the inc reases or decreases, as the case may be , in various revenue sources including the one that he asked for. I woul d say to hi m that it would take significant increases in federal transfer payments to make up for the shortfall that Manitoba is experiencing in the support to the share of health and hi gher education expenses that we are incurring on be half of the residents of Manito ba . Th e same is true, as I pointed out in this Ch amb er just a few days ago, has be en stated by provinces like Ontario and New Brunswic k.

So the mem ber should be patient and wait for the Budget wh en it Is brought this Friday and we will be able to respond directly to hi s questions and also to the outland ish suggestions that he made this morning with regard to other fis cal matters.

Wedneeday, 24 February, 1988 MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, I'm glad to hear that the Minister tuned in to the conference I had this morning. Madam Speaker, I have in my hand here a news release from the Treasury Board of Canada, Fact Sheet No. 3, released yesterday by the Federal Minister, February 23, 1988. In that document, Madam Speaker, it shows that total all-cash transfers to the Province of Manitoba in '88-89 will be $1. 275 billion. Madam Speaker, that represents a full 10 1/2 to 11 percent increase over last year.

Again, Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister: Given that that is the number that will be in the Budget on Friday coming, will that money be directed towards deficit reduction? HON. E. KOSTYRA: My simple answer would be to wait till Friday. I unde rstand that the mem ber has made the suggestion !hat the deficit for this upcoming year should be around $200 million. lt's interesting that every time he makes statements, he keeps changing his projections. lt was just last April 1 when he issued a press ... A MEMBER: April Fool. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: April Fool's Day, yes, when he outlined a number of scenarios for the deficit projections for next year, this coming year, that will be contained in the Budget that will be coming down this Friday. And you know what one of his projections was, Madam Speaker, was a Ronald Reagan approach to fiscal policy issued on April Fool's Day of last year. In that scenario , he was suggesting a deficit level for next year of $420 million.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you and I would suggest to members opposite and to Manitobans that if we were to achieve the kind of deficit figure that he's talking about of $200 million next year, you would see the kind of hacking and slashing in this province of public services well beyond anything that Sterling Lyon's Government did and well beyond any hacking and slashing that's taken place in Saskatchewan and Alberta to come up with the kind of bottom line that he's talking about. We will not be following that course, Madam Speaker. Budget - reflect Crown corp'n losses MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, given the fact that the Minister of Finance has indicated that the government will not be directing towards deficit control the windfall of revenue that they can expect from the Federal Government and also from the major tax grab that they brought forward in this province, will the Budget this year reflect any portion of the Crown corporation losses that have amounted to several hundred million dollars over the last number of years? Will it reflect any portion of the unfunded liability associated with the government's responsibility in civil servant and teacher pensions?

Will the Budget reflect any aspect of those liabilities to the taxpayers of this province? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Again, Madam Speaker, the simple answer would be to wait for the Budget. 258 The member knows that I did respond in Public Accounts with regard to Crown corporation losses and indicated to him that we will be following the Auditor's advice with respect to the Budget this year, so the answer to that question is yes.

In terms of the pension liability, I find it strange the concern that that member has when it was his party in 1961 - and continuing through the years from 1961 all the way through to 1969 and again through the years from 1977 to 1981 - continued the practice of not doing that, and he is expecting this government to change that policy overnight.

The answer to that one is "No." We will be following, as I indicated in Public Accounts, the practice of other provinces which are working through a central committee; and it's all provinces, except the Province of Ontario, that has the same issue with respect to pension liability. In fact, the liabilities in Conser vative Saskatch ewan and Conservative Alberta are much higher than the liabilities in the Province of Manitoba. But we will work with all governments in Canada to come to grips with that issue with regard to pension liability.

Wife abuse - sentencing of victim MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Attorney-General. This week, another battered woman has been jailed for failing to testify in court against her abusive partner. When will the Attorney-General put a permanent stop to this intolerable practice of jailing the victim while the batterer goes free? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney- General. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, it was Judge Frank Alien who imposed that sentence.

I have indicated that we're not particularly pleased . In terms of what we know right now about the facts, certainly, it seems somewhat large for the offence. I should say, Madam Speaker, that several years ago, 1983, the then-Attorney-General changed the policy whereby women in Manitoba used to have to make these prosecutions in a private fashion. They had to go to a lawyer; they had t6 pursue prosecution. We changed that policy to say that where there was that kind of activity, we would not put the victim to that expense; society would take on that role.

There were problems over the years, as the Mem ber for Kirkfield-Park would acknowledge, that occasionally a spouse, which was usually a woman, would not come to court and then there were contempt charges. And we discussed that with different groups in the province and came up with a policy back in May of 1987 pursuant to which there would not be a prosecution of the victim unless there had been a review of the file by a senior prosecuting attorney as well as the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General on the criminal side. This particular case came to court in June of 1987.

The charges were then laid. lt appears, unfortunately,

Wedneeday, 24 February, 1988 that although the new policy had been in place for roughly a month, it may well be that that policy was not followed. We are investigating to determine exactly what did happen internally. We are concerned with that.

On the other hand, as I am sure the member Is aware, there is also the concern that if it becomes the norm that nothing happens to a person who doesn't come to court to testi fy, then we will get back Into the old system where the abusing spouse can say, "Well, there's no problem; If you don't show up In court, nothing will happen." So we are between two difficult circumstances; we have to run a fine line. We're not happy with what happened In this particular case. We are Investigating it. If the member has any specific items to add to that, we'd be pleased to hear them. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Madam Speaker, it's all well and good for the Attorney-General to talk about a fine line, but when a battered woman is faced with a position of going to jail or going home to the battering spouse, there has to be something that can be done. I would suggest that this Min ister, the Attorney-General, get off his whatever and get that woman out of jail. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MRS. G. HAMMOND: My question Is to the Attorney­ General, Madam Speaker. What is being done this minute by his department to get that woman out of jail today? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Madam Speak er, these things about fat whatevers are, I think, a little bit . . . MRS. G. HAMMOND: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Kirkfield Park, on a point of order. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I would never have referred to the Minister as having a fat whatever. I would like him to withd raw that remark, please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, If the member says she didn't say that, certainly I'll withd raw it. Madam Speaker, however, the implication of the . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: The implication of the question was that the Attorney-General should be running around changing the sentencing that takes place In our criminal courts. That of course is not the function of the Attorney­ General. Nevert heless, there have been discussions with respect to this particular case. I understand that the woman has been freed some time ago. She's not in jail.

If the member would check her facts before she makes these kinds of allegations, she would find out that her allegations are untrue, that we do have concern on this side and that we do act and that we're not happy with the way this case went. We're not happy at all with the fact that woman got a seven-day sentence, given the other things that had happened to her. 259 That's one of the reasons, Madam Speaker, that we are looking to, quite frankly, having some new input into the provincial Bench from a female perspective. We've brought three new female judges onto the Bench.

We think that those kinds of things have to happen. There has to a perspective on the way society sees these kinds of things. There has to be a recognition that we don't attack the victim in the courts. Tourism - fecl.-prov. agreement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. lt's traditional with this government to continua lly blast the Federal Government for their lack of support in funds. Ma da m Speaker , in 19 85, the Federal Government signed an agreement with the Provincial Government for a first-class tourism program.

Madam Speaker, $15 million was promised by the Federal Government for a program . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I'm having trouble hearing the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie who is asking a question. MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speak er, the Federal Minister of To urism was in Winnipeg yesterday. The Information that we get is, why Isn't Manitoba spending the money on tourism. Can this Minister tell us? Also, the worry was: Will the money not be spent before the tourism agreement runs out?

How much money does Manitoba stand to lose because of this incom petent govern ment? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Business Development and To urism. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speak er, I apologize to the Honour able Bernard Valcourt, the Mi nis ter responsible for To urism In the Federal Government, that he was obliged to see me in this building. He had expected me to participate in a conference of Min isters dealing with To urism, but I had to explain that I could n't get pairing arrangements to meet him on neutral grou nd.

I appreciated the fact that he was somewhat discomfited in this arrangement, but we met in this building. I was quite surprised to read afterwards of his comments in the press because quite frankly, Madam Speake r, the funding under that agreement had been held up for over six months by a deliberate freeze action on the part of the Federal Government. There was a backlogging of a series of agreements that had passed all through the process but were held up by that freeze In Ottawa. As a result of that freeze, we lost specific

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 ini tia tives in Mani toba. I pointed that out to the Honourable Minister and, when I had explained that, I thought that he appreciated and had backed off but, in his comments to the press, he continued along that line. Madam Speaker, the investments that we will make in Manitoba are to be good, sound tourist investments. We're not going to throw dollars around to buy votes. We want good tourist development and what we fund will be worthwhile. MA. E.

CONNE AY: Madam Speaker, if this Is the first time they're not going to throw money around to buy votes, it'll be the first time that this government has done that. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MA. E. CONNE AY: Yes, Madam Speaker. One of the problems with the Tourism Agreement is the minimum size of projects that is required in this agreement. Did the Minister discuss - and we've had many many complaints from the tourism people, the lodges and outfitters looking for money but can't fit it in the huge criteria. Did the Minister discuss any changes in the program with the Minister?

HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I was able to point out to the Federal Minister that all of the monies under this agreement in each sector would certainly be likely called for. We have allocated specific monies in various regions, ;n accordance with the agreement, and there's no question but if we had more money we'd probably be able to cash flow that, but not necessarily in the two years remaining.

Madam Speaker, in the area of tourism development, and the honourable member should appreciate this, we are levering private sector investment, significant investment, two or three times the amount of the public investment or it's not worthwhile. That's the kind of thing we're doing. When you're trying to get that kind of dedicated private sector investment, there Is a lot of work to be done. Those private sector investors have to be convinced that what they're investing in will be a viable project. That takes time. We're prepared to give them the time to ensure we get cut that kind of project, Madam Speaker. MA.

E. CONNE AY: Would the Minister table in this House the various amounts of money that have been spent by sector and the amounts of money spent on the private side, and those spent on the public side? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, during the course of my Estimates, I'm sure the honourable member will want to go dollar-for-dollar on every item. I'll be delighted to share that information with him. Western Grain Stabilization Program - premium increases MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Lac du Bonnet. MA. C. BAKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. 260 Has he been consulted about the proposed increase in the farmers' share of the Western Grain StabilizatiC>n Program? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Agriculture. HON. L. HAAAPIAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to indicate, Madam Speaker, that I as a producer, like many people in this Chamber and many producers in the province, would have had indication from the Federal Minister that there is consideration being given to revamping the West ern Gr ain Stabilization Program.

I should point out for members in the House who are not familiar that that, Madam Speaker, is an excellent program. it's a kind of an insurance program, something like Autopac, but it covers a different area. That program, Madam Speaker, is in a deficit position at $1. 5 billion.

In order to address that issue, there is indication, a public statement In the Saturday, February 13 issue of the Brandon Sun, that the Minister responsible is considering a 500-percent increase in the premiums to Manitoba farmers. lt would seem, Madam Speaker, that is hardly comparable to the issue that was of such concern to the Member for Ste. Rose - not a 24 percent increase. If a 24-percent increase causes him to lead a rally at the Legislature, a 500-percent increase to the farmers of Manitoba, Madam Speaker, should cause much graver concern on his part. MA. C.

BAKER: Has the Minister got any idea of just what the effect will be on the grain growers and oilseed growers in Western Canada in financial terms? HON. L. HAAAPIAK: I can only address the issue of financial impact on farmers of Manitoba. I want to indicate that, in the last year, the premium contribution from Manitoba farmers was estimated to be $5 million. lt had been at $8.3 million. Madam Speaker, some 20,000 Manitoba farmers make a contribution to the program. The maximum premium is $600 at the current rate.

If the statement that was indicated in the Brandon Sun comes to be, that premium would then be $3,000 at the maximum, Madam Speaker. lt poses a very grave concern, Madam Speaker, because there is a legitimate concern about deficits in programs of that sort, as there are in any other insurance programs. But as there were concerns raised about the impact on farmers, this poses a much greater impact than the previous concern. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Orders of the Day. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: If honourable members would like to continue in chaos, they can go right ahead. I called Orders of the Day.

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 The Honourable Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, do I get to ask a question now? Madam Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the - (Int erjection) - MLA for Morris ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Now seriously, if honourable members want to hold private conversat ions, they can go out in the hall or elsewhere so we can continue the business of the House. ORDERS OF THE DA Y ORDER FOR RETURN NO. 1 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for Morris, That an Order of the House do issue for return the following information: 1. The number of staff with communi cations and public relations respon sibilities (

a) within each department, (

b) within Executive Council, (

c) within comm ittees of Cabinet and (

d) within other direct government agencies, detailing the classification, benefits costs, other non­ salary costs, and salary of each individual. 2. The same information as In (1) above for communications support staff. 3. The departmental appropriations for communication costs within each department, within Executive Council, within the committees of Cabinet and within other direct government agencies. MOTION prnented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Madam Speaker, we are pleased to accept that Order for Return.

Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet may I ask leave of the House to table the Estimates sequence. MADAM SPEAKER: May I put the motion first? HON. J. COWAN: Sorry, please do. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I could have leave of the House to table the Estima tes sequence. MADAM SPEAKER: Agreed? (Agreed) HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, as you a·re aware, through a cooperative process that was agreed to by the Opposition Government two years ago, we have 261 set out a particular process for ordering the sequence of the consideration of Estimates by the House. Yesterday, the Opposition House Leader and myself sat down and undertook that review and did order the sequence.

So, Madam Speaker, just in quick response to the Member for Emerson's comments across the floor, we think this is an excellent ordering of the Estima tes' review and are looking quite forward to the lively debate and exchange that will take place during the course of Estimates' review as it does always and, quite frankly, we couldn't have done it better ourselves had we done it by ourselves alone. So I'd like to thank the Opposition for their cooperation in that regard. it truly was a cooperative process. I think this is the second year that we've tried it and ifs working well.

M adam Speaker, therefore, pursuant to the rules of the House sub-rule 65, subsection 6.2, I am tabling for the House the sequence that has been determined for the consideration of the Estimates by the Opposition House Leader and myself. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney -General. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I move to Second Reading of Bill 3, I'm tabling the roll of statutes which is this green pile. By agreement it was not circulated. I'll move it after tabling those documents.

I'm just indicating that by agreement they were not circulated to all members, and I thank the Member for St. Norbert and the Member for River Heights for agreeing to that procedure. - (Interjection) - Oh, I was told that it had. SE COND READING BILL NO. 3 - THE RE-ENACTED STATUTES OF MANITOBA HON. V. SCHROEDER presented The Re-enacted Statutes of Manitoba, 1988, Act;

Loi sur les Lois readoptees du Manitoba de 1988, for Second Reading. MOTION preaented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, I'll be fairly brief. The re-enactment was the process commenced in 1985 in response to orders of the Supreme Court of Canada which, in effect, required that all laws of Manitoba be re-enacted in English and French and printed and published: first, before December 31, 1988 in the case of CCSM acts, regulations and certain rules of administrative tribunals; then before December 31, 1990 in the case of other laws.

At the last Session of the Legislature, the largest part of the CCSM acts were re-enacted in the dual­ column bilingual format. Those acts came into force on February 1, 1988. In this bill, we'll be re-enacting the remainder of the CCSM statutes, except for three acts, which will be subject of separate bills at this Session. At the end of this Session, the CCSM will have been completely re-enacted in the new format. Printing and publishing will therefore take place before the December 31, 1988 deadline.

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 The form of this bill is the same as the form of The Re-enacted Statutes of Manitoba 1987 Act. The acts to be re-enacted are set out in full in the roll, and the acts to be repealed are listed in the schedule. The honourable members will know that I've tabled In this Assembly the roll containing the texts of the acts to be re-enacted by Bill No. 3. Copies of the roll will also be made available for examination in the Legislativ e Library.

Special arrangements have been made to have re-enacted acts in the hands of CCSM subscribers as soon as possible after they're re-enacted by this Legislature. I am pleased with the work of officials In the department, who planned and carried out the work necessary to complete this re-enactment, and it's with pleasure that I move Second Reading of Bill No. 3, The Re-enacted Statutes. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned. MOTION preMnted and carried.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney- General. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before moving Second Reading of Bill No. 4, again I'm tabling the

schedule referred to in that bill. Those are the documents before Mr. Remnant, before us. lt's available on the table with the Clerk, same provisions as in Bill No. 3. BILL NO. 4 - THE STATUTE RE-ENACT MENT ACT, 1988 HON. V. SCHROEDER presented Bill No. 4, The Statute Re-enactment Act, 1988; Loi de 1988 sur la readoption de lois, for Second Reading. MOTION preMnted. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-G eneral. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I referred to the re-enactment process, the timing

schedule required in the previous bill. I won't go over that again other than to say that the acts in Bill No. 4 are in the second categor y, not to be included in the CCSM, but they are in The Public General Act of Manitoba. A

schedule containing the text of the acts that are being re-enacted by way of this bill and copies of that

schedule will also be available In the Legislative Library. The text is modelled on the text of The Re-enacted Statues of Manitoba ( 1988) Act. However, the acts to be re-enacted are included in a

schedule rather than a roll to avoid confusion with The Re-enacted Statutes Act. There will be at least one more bill of this sort to complete the re-enactment of The Unconsolldated 262 Public Act before December 31, 1990. That's it on this one. I move Second Reading of Bill 4, The Statute Re­ enactment Act, 1988. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, the debate be adjourned. MOTION preHnted and carried. GOVERNMENT RESOLUTIONS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, that:

WHEREAS many Manito bans support increased trade but continue to have serious reservations about the Canada-Un ited States Trade Agreement signed on January 2 of this year; and WH ER EAS grave concerns have been voiced throughout Canada about the lack of opportunity and Information for a full review and discussion of the terms and conditions of this complex and wide-ranging agreement; and

WHEREAS the proposed agreement goes far beyond trade to affect foreign investment, management of energy resources and the future viability of Canadian cultural industries; and WH EREAS these and other provisions seriously threaten Canadian sovereignty, Canadian jobs and Canadians' ability to make free and inde pendent decisions about our future development; and

WHEREAS Canada already has the highest level of foreign economic control of any ind ustrialized country; and

WHEREAS Canada, under this agreement, will have no powers to review the takeover of companies with less than $15 0 million in assets, while the United States not only retains all of its numerous restrictions on foreign investment intact, but is presently revising those restrictions such that they will be much stronger than Canada's; and WHERE AS this agreement does not provide secure access to the United States market for Canadian and Manitoba goods and services, because Canada remains fully subject to United States countervait, anti-dumping and other provisions, which will therefore continue to be used to discriminate against Canadian exporters; and

WHEREAS the agreement offers the United States increased rights of access to Canadian non-renewable and renewable enery resources, but does not prevent the United States from launching counterv ail, anti­ dumping and other actions against exports of Manitoba's hydro-ele ctricity; and

WHEREAS a great many Manitoba farmers stand to lose income as a result of increased imports of United States farm products; and

WHEREAS this deal will not prevent the United Sates Government from continuing to provide huge subsidies

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 to United States grain farmers, a practice which has caused a loss of income for Manitoba farmers by giving an unfair advantage to the United States in Canada's traditional agricultural markets; and WHE REAS thi s ag reement fails comple tely to anticipa te comple x labour market adjustment needs of the very large number of Canadian and Manitoba workers who will lose jobs due to the agreement; and

WHEREAS this agreement inhibits our flexibility to im plement government programs to add ress environmental, occupational, safety and health and employment standards; and

WHEREAS this agreement seriously endangers the Federal Government's power to pursue regional development programs, both short- and long-term, that provide for some measure of balance and fairness in this country; and

WHEREAS this agreement seriously endangers the Federal Government 's power to pursue regional development programs, both short and long-term, that provide for some measure of balance and fairness in this country; and

WHEREAS the Federal Government has entered into a massive new bilateral trade agreement without first undertaking concrete steps to remove a range of inter­ provincial trade barriers which have inhibited fair trade within Canada; and WHE REAS the successful multilateral approach to trade negotiations and the gradual elimination of trade barriers such as those achieved through the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, are the best long-term solutions for Canada and Manitoba in gaining improved trading relations; and WHER EAS the Manitoba Government will be referring this resolution to a committee of this Legislature to ensure that all members have an opportunity for thorough study and debate; and

WHEREAS the Manitoba Government has already committed not to bind itself to implement those aspects of the proposed agreement falling under provincial control, and to take appropriate measures to protect Manitoba from the negative impact of the agreement.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Parliament of Canada to reject legislation to Implement this unacceptable agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Legislature affirm its support for a range of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements within a framework of a fair and international economic system, leading to the gradual elimination of tariffs and the reduction of certain non­ tariff barriers; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Legislature call upon the Federal Government to strengthen Its regional development efforts through compr ehensive national economic strategy, providing a more equitable sharing of resources.

MOTION preeenlecl. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speake r, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this resolution that is now placed before the Chamber.

There is no question, 263 Madam Speaker, that this resolution in fact deals with a subject presently being debated in Canada, which, I can say without hesitation, is probably the most Important issue that has confronted Manitobans and Canadians for decades. lt is, I think, the most important measure that we will be dealing with during this Session. lt is fair to say that the implications of this deal will have a serious, far-reaching and profound impact upon this count ry, and that impact will have consequences for years to come. This reso lution deals with the specific deficiencies of this deal.

Madam Speaker, this resolution does not deal with the issue as presented to us by the Federal Government, but this resolution attempts to deal with the issue as is, and not as the issue is being spoon fed to us in Ottawa. This resolution recommends preferred strategies to the deal that we are now dealing with as Canadians. This reso lution deals with proposals in order for us to enhance international trade relationships in order to increase growth. This reso lution will provide, I'm sure, during the process of the discussion, the opportunity for full and vigorous debate by all members in this Chamber.

The magnitude of this deal, the fundame ntal importance of this deal demands in this Chamber full, complete and honest discussion. Manitobans deserve the chance, Madam Speaker, to see for themselves exactly where their elected representatives stand on this issue and to have the opportunity to test the position of their elected representatives in the Province of Manitoba on this particular issue of so much importance to Canadians and Manitobans everywhere.

Madam Speaker, let me first emphasize, so that there need be no misunderstanding within this Chamber, that this government supports whole-heart edly, freer trade, fair trade. Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that this government supports the reduction of tariffs. In fact, 80 percent of our exports now are covered by way of free trade. Only approximately 5 percent of our exports now involve tariffs of 15 percent or over. So in the past number of years, Madam Speaker, there's been a gradual reduction of tariffs within the Canadian- U.S. trade situation. · Madam Speak er, let us also be very clear.

We suppor ted the negotiations that took place. We attempted, during the process of those negotiations, to make positive and constructive suggestions to the Prime Min siter and to Canada's Trade Commi ssioner, Mr. Reisman. By last October, however, it had become very clear that Manitoba would be left with no alternative but to oppose this particular deal.

Madam Speak er, I'll be delighted to deal with all particulars as we go along because there has been a great deal of misinformation, misstatement of fact and misr epresentation that has been spouted in this province by Members of the Conservative Party. lt becomes clear that the Mulroney Government has bargained away far too much in order to achieve very little by way of return under this deal. Madam Speaker, during the course of this discussion, I hope that I will be able to persuade honourable members - at least some honourable members across

Wedneeday, 24 February, 1988 the way - that it indeed is the fact that in the process of bargaining, Canada gave away its bargaining chips and received very little in return. In other words, Madam Speaker, we got a bad deal. We negotiated a bad deal, insofar as Canadians were concerned. Just before I proceed, I notice in the United States that there is now pressure for some further concessions, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, let me tell the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, based upon our experience with the government in Ottawa vis-a-vis this particular trade deal, I'm afraid they're going to give away some more in order to silence any critics in the United States. That would be true to past performance on the part of the Ottawa Conservative Government. This deal goes far beyond trade matters. This is not just a deal involving tariffs, in the reduction of tariffs. This deal, Madam Speaker, goes to the very heart of Canada and the vision that most Canadians share insofar as the future direction of this country.

This deal includes provisions, Madam Speaker, which directly limits Canada's ability to limit foreign takeov ers investment, the opportunity for Canadians to manage their energy and resources. Madam Speaker, not only did we not achieve results which were promised but we gave away far more than was ever anticipated in non-trade areas. Madam Spe aker , the reason for this resolution summarizes our basic reasons for concern and the concern that has been expressed to us by Manitobans over the past few months.

Madam Speaker, Manitobans expressed clearly to us and to some of the honourable members across the way, very much to their displeasure, that attended the meetings that were held in various parts of this province. Manitobans expressed their displeasure with this meeting, this agreement, Madam Speaker. A MEMBER: Their displeasure with the meeting. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, let me just tell the honourable member that obviously the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues did not listen to the words of Manitobans at those meetings. They prefer to misinterpret.

They prefer to distort the voice of Manitobans, because the Conservative Party has never been known as one that listens to ordinary people in the Province of Manitoba. Manitobans have expressed to us exactly what their real concerns are in relationship to this deal. These concerns, Madam Speaker, not only were expressed to us at the six meetings in question, but they have been expressed to us by hundreds of letters and phone calls, in fact thousands of communications to this government, the concerns of Manitobans as to this deal that's been worked out in Ottawa by the Mulroney government.

Manitobans have told us particularly that they are not happy with the indecent rush towards this deal. Mani tobans have told us that they want more information in respect to this deal, and Manitobans have told us very clearly that they object to our moving along to the American track record, the American agenda, the American process, in working out an agreement of this framework. Madam Speaker, they 264 are unhappy that we were left with but only a few weeks in order to review this deal before the signatures were imprinted on this deal by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I want to just say so there is no misunderst anding, I have commanded the Prime Minister for the series of meetings that took place involving all Premiers. There were some eight or nine of those meetings. Madam Speak er, there was opportunity to exchange information and position at those meetings.

What I do object to, Madam Speaker, that finally, months after the draft agreement had been promised, we were left with but a few weeks, I believe two to three weeks before the final signing of the agreement by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, without opportunity for input by Canadians prior to the signatures being imprinted upon the deal. Madam Speaker, they're unhappy; we are concerned.

Manitobans are concerned that they have been railroaded into this deal in order to meet not a Canadian deadline, not a deadline that is established by way of Canadians, but to meet a deadline imposed by the United States of America and one that Manitobans and Canadians object to, Madam Speaker.

They expressed their unhappiness at those meetings that this most massive and important economic treaty in our history was entered into without first giving them an opportunity, as Canadians, to review the deal and to have real input into the deal. - (I nterjection) - We ll, Ma dam Speaker , the honourable members opposite - the Honourable Leader of the Opposition in fact says they were elected to govern but the Prime Minister of this country, before the election in 1984, said that free trade would be negative to the interests of Canada.

When he campaigned in 1984, he said it was negative to the interests of Canada. A MEMBER: What did you say when you campaigned in ... HON. H. PAWLEY: Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition, I never compaigned, unlike the Prime Minister, for free trade in this country. A MEMBER: You got off an airplane and had a press conference saying you're all for it. That's what you did. HON. H. PAWLEY: Well, the Member for Sturgeon Creek often lives in his figment of imagination, because that's all it is, Madam Speaker.

We've heard many figments of the imagination from the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, who prefers to hear what he wants to hear rather than what in reality was said. Madam Speaker, Manitobans, when they purchase a car or a house want to know exactly what they are buying. Canadians, Madam Speaker, should not be expected to buy a car or a house or something as fundamental as this trade deal sight unseen. We don't buy products in that way. We do not, as Canadians, buy a deal that ties the hands of future generations.

Madam Speaker, if the present Federal Government wants to tie their own hands, fine and dandy, but what Canadians reject, and properly reject, is a deal that

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 imposes a mandate that is a Conservative mandate vis-a-vis this deal upon future governments and upon future generations. Madam Speaker, of course unfortunately, that is what we can expect so often from across the way because there is a party In this province, regrettably too frequently across Canada, that feels that they always know what is best for everybody else, that there's no need to listen, there's no need to consult, that there is not another point of view. Madam Speaker, That party is the Conservative Party of the Province of Manitoba.

The result, as I have indicated, has literally been the request for thousands of pieces of information. Speaking to this resolution, I'm going to outline some of the basic reasons why this New Democratic Party Government stands in opposition and why we believe, Madam Speak er, that political leadership is essential on this fundamental issue in Canada and in the Province of Manitoba.

Our support for the trade negotiations had always been based upon certain basic conditions - basic conditions that we outlined in this Chamber over the last two years that were very clearly expressed to Manitobans; conditions which unfortunately have not been met - and now, Madam Speake r, I'm going to deal with specifics for the honourable members across the way.

Madam Speaker, first, we were told that we were going to have a dispute settlement mechanism - a dispute settlement mechanism, we were told, that would provide secure access to the American market; a dispute settlement mechanism, we were told, that would provide us with protection against countervailing duties; a dispute settlement mechanism that would ensure that we would gain protection from the omnibus trade bill that is now before the American Congress.

Madam Speaker , firstly, this deal does not provide us with the secure access we were guaranteed by the Ottawa Conservative Government; secondly, this deal does not provide us with protection from U.S. countervailing duties; and, thirdly, this game is fixed in the United States' favour. Madam Speaker, the dispute settlement mechanism is not going to resolve future trade disputes in an effective manner. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Arthur, on a point of order. MR . J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I hope it wasn't on the record, the comments of the Member for Dauphin who indicated that the Governor of the State of North Dakota is ignorant . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR . J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I would hope that that would want to be struck from the record. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, what we gave away, In order to obtain this toothless and ineffective dispute mechanism was major concessions by way of investment, by way of energy and by way of numerous 265 other policies.

This issue of investment should never have been on the negotiation table. The issue of investment should never have been part of this deal. Madam Speak er, let me tell you, months before Decem ber of this year, I advised the Prime Minister that there was no way that the Province of Manitoba could ever support any deal by which we gave away the autho rity of future governments and future generations to control investment direction in Canada. Madam Speaker, it effectively gives up our right to review American takeovers of Canadian companies.

In fact, under the provisions which state that there is a threshold of $15 0 million by which there is no subject to review after the next three or four years, there are only six companies in the Province of Manitoba that are immune from takeovers without review by the Canadian authorities. Madam Speaker, there is nothing in this deal to stop United States companies from buying Manitoba companie s and closing down tho se companies and moving the jobs south to the United States - nothing whatsoever. The deal is too one-sided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C.

Santos, in the Chair.) Canadians are denied the access, the right of access in many U.S. areas. As a nation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm in a view that there is no way that we should surrender our economic control over foreign investment. If we lose economic control - I say to the honourable members across the way - we eventually lose political control in Canada. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, for one, am not prepared to see that happen or work towards that happening insofar as future generations of Canadians are concerned. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the investment provisions of this deal provide no job protection for Canadians or for Manitoba workers. The Federal Government has been totally inconsistent with respect to whether there will be training and job adjustment programs for displaced workers. There seems to be no commitment to ensure that displaced workers will be provided with the jobs or training they will need in order to survive.

Despite all the bold and exaggerated state ments and predictions that have been made of tremendous job gains, these predictions that have been made by the proponents of this deal, the reality is that the overall change insofar as the number of jobs will be very, very small. This deal will not be the panacea, as honourable members across the way are wont to do, for future jobs and for prosperity as has been· indicated by so many that have supported this deal. Another area I'd like to deal with is energy.

I was surprised that the Honourable Minister of Health, when I first expressed my disagreement with this, said, "Oh, how can the Premier of Manitoba ever oppose this deal because it's good?" said he . . . HON. W PARASIUK: Federal Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: The Federal Minister, yes. My apologies to the provincial Minister of Health. He said, "How can the Premier of Manitoba ever oppose this deal? lt's so good for Manitoba Hydro and the exports of Manitoba Hydro." Mr. Deputy Speaker, he clearly did that without even examining the agreement, or he would know that this agreement doesn't do anything

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 insofar as improving the lot of Manitoba Hydro in respect to its multimillion dollar export sales. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a continental energy policy that provides clear infinite energy resources even in times of shortage. Future Canadians, in fact, will be required to priorize their own energy needs so that further south, U.S. users will be able to consume and will have the right to consume Canad ian energy regardless of the circum stances at th at time. A Canadian energy policy, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, must be established in Canada by Canadians and not in the provincial capitals of this country or in Washington, D.C. First, by way of specifics, it is very interesting that the Federal Government, and I would like the honourable members across the way to deal with some of these specifics that insofar as the deal is concerned - oil and gas - there is protection insofar as countervailing dut ies being im posed insofar as exploration or development.

In fact, it appears that the oil and the gas lobby in Alberta and elsewhere was able to obtain its way insofar as obtaining protection against countervailing duty. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no such protection insofar as hydro is concerned. lt means, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that future public works provided for the Province of Manitoba insofar as hydro construction such as transmission lines into the United States, which in the past have been financed to some extent by federal contribution, can be subject to countervailing duty. Now, I ask you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Why is oil and gas traded in one way and hydro-electricity in an entirely different way? And I ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how can the Federal Minister of Health suggest that some way or other, by waving his wand, this is a tremendous deal for Manitoba Hydro? I ask the Leader of the Opposition how he can suggest to Manitobans that we should support this because this is a good deal for Manitoba Hydro? Furthermore, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there have been very serious concerns that have been expr essed recently that will have to be addressed and can't be fudged over by honourable members across the way or by their cousins in Ottawa that this particular deal, insofar as energy is concerned, has serious implications for energy provisions for the pricing of our exports of hydro-electric power.

While the text of the agreement is unclear on this point, a prominent U.S. trade lawyer has stated , and I quote - and the Leader of the Opposition ought to listen very closely to this rather than just mouth the words of his Prime Minister and his national leader in Ottawa, and I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition for once start standing up on behalf of Manitobans rather than parodying the line of the Prime Minister, his national leader in Ottawa. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I've indicated, a prominent U.S. trade lawyer has stated . . . MR. G.

FILMON: We can see the strings being pulled by Ed Broadbent right now, Howie. HON. H. PAWLEY: To the Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledge and I make no secret of it, Ed Broad bent 266 has much more influence on me than Brian Mulroney insofar as making policy suggestions. I make no apology whatsoever to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I indicated before the polite interruptions by honourable members across the way in their usual courteous manner, a U.S. trade lawyer has stated that the intention is clear; there are to be no higher prices for exports to the United States.

Lawyers can argue all they want about technicalities but the U.S. would say very firmly the intent of this agreement is clear: no export prices higher than prices in Canada. Mr. Deputy Speaker, very serious questions, but in their undue haste in order to complete this agree ment, the Leader of the Opposition probably thinks he has the answer. He will automatically parrot no such thing. And yet some of the most skillful trade lawyers in the United States indicate very clearly that is the case according to the trade deal that we have before us. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as I indicated just a few moments ago, you don't buy a used car, you don't buy a house on the basis of not knowing what is in the engine or what's inside the house. You check it out first, and certainly you check out what it means insofar as future energy and resource policy for Canada as a whole.

Hydro-elect ricity, as I have indicated, and I want to again state this because the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Arthur and his federal counterpart, the good friend of the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Provencher, the federal Minister of Health, state that there will be some assistance to Manitoba Hydro exports. Let me make it very clear that there is no assistance whatsoever. MR. J. DOWNEY: Leave the sleaze up to your Attorney­ General. HON. H. PAWLEY: The Member for Arthur says, leave the sleaze behind.

I said the federal Minister of Health was a good friend of the Leader of the Opposition. I don't know what's sleazy about that. If there's something in the Member for Arthur's mind, then let him get up and express it. I thought I was being unduly polite, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This agreement will virtually be of no assistance in Manitoba in order to ensure our export of hydro. We did not need this deal in order to secure the American markets.

Indeed, as I've explained, this deal may in fact hurt the opportunity and the capacity and the potential of the Province of Mani toba to export renewable energy to the United States. Mr. Deputy Speak er, I'd lik e to now deal with agriculture. Many farmers will be seriously affected by this deal. lt's been suggested that this deal is going to be beneficial to - and I've indicated this deal may have some benefits, though it can work both ways insofar as our beef producers are concerned. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, insofar as our hog producers, they will still be subject to American countervailing duties and the anti-dumping legislation. There's no getting away from that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, during the course of the debate, I hope to be able to explain to honourable members how, in fact, hog producers have been dealt with separately from other farm products, not even included under the

Wedne8dey. 24 February. 1988 definition of meat. Pork is not Included under the definition of meat. Mr. Deputy Speak er, if I were a pork producer in the Province of Manitoba tod ay, I would be asking some very direct and very straight questions about this deal. Mr. Deputy Speaker, fruit and vegetable growers are going to experience Increased and tough competition from the larger fruit and vegetable operat ions from California and Florida under this deal. Our pouHry producers are going to lose mone y.

Some U.S. poultry products will be Imported from the United States, displacing some of our poultry production In this countr y. The United States will continue to give huge subsidies to Its grain farmers, making it easier for them to go after all our traditional farm grain markets. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me just comment on the tremendous good will that exists between Ronald Reagan and th e Prime Min ister of this count ry, wonderful good will.

But the President of the United States, the great arch-commonlst (sic), the great defender of freedom and democ racy, doesn't hesitate one moment to subsldize American grain to the Soviet Union, even If it means the undercutting of the Canadian farmer. That's the extent of the commitment that exists between the President of United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there was an article, which I hope to read to honourable members, dealing with the canola producers, and the president of the canola producers indicating very, very clearly yesterday in the Winnipeg Free Press, if I dare mention the name of the newspaper, that canola producers In Western Canada stand to lose millions of dollars because of this deal. I wish the Honourable Member for Blrtle-Russell was here. Maybe he could explain to the canola producers in his constituenc y. MR. G. FILMON: They're going to make a hell of a lot more In sales. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Well the Leader of the Opposition says they're going to make a hell of a lot more in sales. That's not what the presldent of the Canola Association state s. Maybe he should meet with the president of the Canola Association and justify his remarks to the president of the Canola Association before he makes statements about something he knows nothing about. In fact, I wish I had that clipping here, Mr. Deputy Speaker . I was looking forward to reading .it to honourable members. Here we are, here we are - good. Just so that the Leader of the Opposition knows that - you can take this under advlsement.

"Pact costly to canola Industry. The Canada U.S. free-trade agreement will cost the western Canadian canola Industry at least $44 million over its first 10 yea rs, the chief executive director of CSP Foods Limited said yesterd ay. "The agreement calls for the elimination of the rail subsidy provided under th e Western Grain Transportation Act for canola oil and meal shipped to Vancouver for export to the northwestern United States. '"We've developed quite a market In the northwest ,' AI Huffman said. 'We will lose that market,'" says Mr. Huffman." The document is February 24.

Well, I'll read the entire document to honourable members. "But the treaty will also mark the end of the U.S. tariff on canola oil and meal, and Huffman said that could mean an extra $22 million for the Canadian industry. "CSP Foods will record its second consecutive annual profit this year." Yes sir, they're enjoying a $22 million profit this year. "The Winnipeg-based oilseed crushing company will earn about $6 million in the year ending March 31, he said. "Last year, the company made $766,000.

In 1966, it lost $7 million. '"The market for vegetable oil and high-protein meal has improved in the last several months,' Huffman said in explaining the turnaround. "He said India's peanut crop was damaged by drought and storms hurt Mala ysia's palm oil, leaving both nations seeking alternatives." MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wondered if I could ask the Premier to table that document, please? HON. H. PAWLEY: I've got lots of documents that I would like to table. I'm glad the Leader of the Opposltion is expressing such an interest.

Maybe he'll learn something about this deal before we're finished. 267 MR. G. FILMON: No, I'm going to learn about your stupid ity. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sense that there's quite the thin skin on the part of honourable members across the way. I sense quite an insecurity on the part of honourable members across the way. I think that Insecurity is there because they kno w this Is a bad deal and they know they are going to have to defend a bad deal that's proposed by their national Leader in Ottawa. Our food proces sing industries will lose jobs. They will be forced to buy cheaper American products.

Even large Canadian giants like McCaln Foods of New Brunswick have indicated - and Portage La Prairie have expressed their disagreement, their concern about the Impact of this deal upon the food processi ng industry. The former Min ister of Industry and Trade in the Lyon admin istration surely must be concerned about the direct Impact of this deal upon the food processing industry in Manitoba, which is one of the fastest growing industries in the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Manitobans have grave concerns about how this deal will affect our family farmers. I think, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they have concerns for very good reason. Culture - despite the fact that culture is supposedly exempted from the agreement, the deal will allow the United States to take action against any Canadian export in response to any trade-related Canadian effort to safeguard their cultural industries. The potential for retaliation will seriously discourage Canadian governments from adopting or improving policies designed to assist cultural ind ustries. Therefore, although the threat to Canadian culture may be very indirect, it is very real.

Further, I want to talk about disadvantaged regions and disadvantaged groups. I believe that the trade deal's reliance on the free market forces - and I admit there are two different visions - will place limits on the

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 ability of future Canadian governments to implement special development programs for the benefit of some of our disadvantaged groups in our society, such as Canadian Natives. The same threat also exists with respect to programs to assist women to take their place in the work force. lt also appears likely that women will be some of the primary targets for job losses. That's why women's groups from one end of this country to the other have been speaking out forcibly about their concerns in respect to potential job loss among the women in the labour force in Canada.

This deal will also seriously endanger future attempts by future Provincial and Federal Gover nments to pursue regional development programs to assist the poorer regions of this countr y. The same restrictions would also affect our flexibility to implement a range of environmental, occupational, safety, health and social programs, and employment standards. The deal will force Canadian business and industry to make profound chan ges in order to remain competitive with many American industries and states which have lower wage scales, poorer labour laws, lower work-package benefits for the workers.

In other words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what this deal will do is reduce the Canadian standard to the lowest denomi nator . I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's not good enough for Canadians. Freer trade with United States has brought neither jobs, industry nor prosperity to states like Mississippi, West Virginia or Arkansas.

If it was indeed true, as the federal Conservative Government suggests, that this deal would ensure greater prosperit y, greater wealth, greater opportunity and greater job development, more equitable regional development in Canada, then why is it that cities like Grand Forks or Fargo are not more prosperous than cities here in the Province of Manitoba? That question has been posed. lt has never been answered by the proponents of the Canada-U.S. trade deal.

As our resolution states, the key to regional inequities requires the strengthening of regional development programs, the development of a comprehensive national economic strategy that will ensure a more equitable sharing of resources. The trade deal should not be used, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a poor excuse for the lack of an effective comprehensive policy in order to ensure regional economic development in all parts of this countr y. I have outline d the major concerns which the Manitoba Government and the people of Manitoba have in respect to this deal.

The deal requires full debate, critical analysis, not the pledging of total blind unthinking acceptance of every

article of the Mulroney­ Reagan trade deal. In fact, let me just state, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that unlike honourable members across the way, we have acknowledged some benefits in the deal. In fact, in our pamphlet, "The Canada-U.S. Trade Deal," . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, the Honourable Minister has the floor. HON. H. PAWLEY: I hope the honourable member has as much to say when he's standing as he has constantly 268 from his seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope it makes a lot more sense than what he says from his seat .

We have indicated, as a Manitoba Government, that we believe that there are some concrete benefits within the agreement. We have indicated the gradual reduction of tariffs, except those of processed food products, should be of net benefit for both Manitoba's industry and for Manitoba consumers. We've indicated that the agreement to work towards compatible technical standards and improved provisions for tem porary access of businesspeople will also be some benefit to Manitobans.

We've also indicated Manitoba's position is not that there are no benefits In the agreement, but that Canadians have given up far too much for very modest advantages as a consequence of the deal. So let it be very, very clear insofar as that point is concerned. I've outlined the concerns that the government has, concerns that are based on the actual wording of the agreement and, I believe, the concerns that Manitobans have in respect to this particular deal.

This deal requires full and critical debate and discussion and not the pledging, as is the case by the Conservatives in this Chamber, of blind and unthinking acceptance of every

article of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. I think this whole discussion up to this point has been a sorry and sad spectacle as far as the members of the Opposition are concerned in this Chamber and outside this Chamber. What is it, Official Opposition? I want to exclude the Member for River Heights from that, although I'm not sure where the Member for River Heights first stood in respect to this deal.

What is it that members opposite owe their colleagues in Ottawa that has led them to total and unquestionable support of a deal which clearly has tremendous faults, faults that can impact negatively upon the people of the Province of Manitoba? I say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's not too late for honourable members to rise In their places and to take a stand on behalf of the interests of the people of the Province of Manitoba and to reverse their position, which has not reflected the public interests of the people of this province.

I urge, as well, the leader of the Liberal Party to give her full and unqualified support to this resolution before this House. I want her to deal with the confusion that exists now within the Liberal Party on this particular deal, confusion that Is witnessed elsewhere in Canada by Liberals In respect to this deal. We don't often kn ow where Liberals stand In respect to this. We have Premier Peterson, Premier Ghiz, who in my view have taken strong principled positions in respect to this deal.

On the other hand, we've had Premier Bourassa, who has been echoing the line of the Prime Minister of Canada in respect to this. At least I'll say Premier Bourassa's not going to deny that he's been echoing the position of the Prime Minister on the free trade. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks there's something different about that, he's sadly mistaken. Quite dif ferent positions, and I think there's a respon sibility on the part of the leader of the Liberal Party in this province to clear up the position of the Liberal Party in respect to this issue.

I would ask the leader of the Liberal Party not to permit the conservative elements within her party and the power brokers within her party to inhibit her from

Wedneaday, 24 February, 1888 speaking out against this deal. I implore all members opposi te to support this resolution so that this legislature can send a clear and unequi vocable message to Parliament before the legislation is introduced in Ottawa itself. There are other alternatives, and I would like to deal with some of the other alternatives. This resolution also deals with the positive side, the constructive alternatives that can be pursued in order to Increase trade, obtain fair trade with other countries.

We continue to support the concept of lowering tariff walls, trade barriers, but we do not need this deal in order to achieve those objectives.

All legislators should be demanding that all the provinces first reduce existing Interprovincial trade barriers that Inhibit fair trade within Canada, and I want the honourable members to know that when we met this last time in December in Ottawa - and without breaching any confidence - I couldn't help but note that those Premiers who were the greatest proponents of this deal, the most enthusiastic supporters of free trade, were the most reluctant to support the free exchange of goods and services from province to province. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I suggest that we first put our own house in order, and I would challenge honourable members, I would challenge their colleagues in other provinces to ensure that we bring about free trade within Canada from province to province, and the removal of barriers of goods and services from province to province. They will find they have the wholehearted support of this Provincial Government, if we can obtain that kind of support throughout Canada. We should be moving and more, as I say, to expanding our trade in particular with countries of the Pacific Rim. Those are the future growth areas.

I would like to refer honourable members to this week 's Newsweek magazine called the "P acific Century." The Pacific Century deals with the fact that, as the year 2000 approaches, Japan and other trading partners of Asia are moving into positions to dominate the world economy. For Americans, adapting to the loss of U.S. pre-eminence will pose unprecedented challenges. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is happening, and the

article goes on to explain the rapid increase In growth in the economies of the Pacific Rim. This

article goes on to describe the Increased volume of trade that is now taking place in the Pacific Rim countries. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we were in Japan, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was with me. We were impressed by the desire on the part of the Japanese to incr ease investment and trade with Canada. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Japanese are very fine people to do business with and to deal with. One of the things that struck me as very Interesting and might be of interest to honourable members across the way, we discussed auto parts when we were in Japan.

The Japanese said, sometime In the future, we would have had an auto parts plant built by the Japanese in Western Canada. This deal forecloses that kind of opportunity on the part of the Japanese. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we've got to be working towards is Increased trade with the world commu nity, and particularly those economies that are growing at a fast rate. As this

article describes, the growth rate In the United States is slowing down. This deal is out 269 of date. If honourable members wanted to introduce a deal of this nature, it should have been done 20, 25, 30 years ago. The world has changed. The world is changing and it's leaving the Conservative Party behind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. lt was on that basis, in fact, that we signed seven Memorandums of Understanding with Japanase banks and trading companies that were interested in pursuing investment in the Province of Manitoba.

Since then, there have been a number of teams from Japan that have been here investigating investment opportunities in Manitoba. lt has been those trading companies and banks that have been distributing information to their customers, advising them that Manitoba is a good place to invest In and encouraging their customers to look favourably to the Province of Manitoba. That's the kind of trade, that's the kind of investment that we ought to be encouraging, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We should not be placing all our hopes, all our efforts, all our energies on an economic union with the United States, an economy which is in clear decline when compared to the Asian, an economy which is clearly in decline when compared to the gr owth of the economies In Europe and in the Pacific Rim. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that the President of the United States was very forthright.

I notice he didn't repeat the statement a second time, but I believe in the latter part of December, when he was speaking to the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, when he proudly announced to the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce that this economic union, as he described it, was the most important constitutional development since 17 76 - a constitutional union, an economic union between the United States and Canada. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I notice he hasn't repeated that statement, because it dealt considerable embarr assment to the Prime Minister of this country and the line was straightened out, but I believe that the President of the United States hit the nail on the head when he acknowledged that indeed this was an important document leading towards economic union.

We should be working on trade agreements with a larger world economic commu nity, not just in this trade agreement, and I'm for enhanced and increased trade to the United States or any other part of the world, but we should be doing it with all countries of the world, and encourage and enhance trade and the removal of tariffs through GATT with all the nations of the world. Let us not fall into the tragic trap of establishing a new economic Constitution with the United States that will inhibit and damage Canada's long-term global interests. Once this deal becomes law - (I nterjection) - MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Once this deal becomes law, to try to undo it will be virtually impossible. lt would be like attempting to undo an omelette. The fu ndamental changes will have already taken place in the economy, in our industries, in our business. This will indeed ensure that future governments and future generations will be tied in their ability to develop their own destinies, their own direction and their own approach. MR. F. JOHNSTON: . . . because they're free, not governed by a bunch of Socialists.

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 HON. H. PAWLEY: Well now there's an interesting comment I'm going to put on the record. The Member for Sturgeon Creek cheers that because he doesn't want future generations to have that kind of freedom, because he doesn't want them to be governed by "a bunch of Socialists." That's the attitude to democracy that so many Conservatives across the way have. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't mind what anybody says, but if anybody lies about what I said in this House, I take it as an insult to myself. I did not say that, what he said, and I make it very clear on the record.

I said, "I want future generations to be free, not ruled by a bunch of Socialists." If that First Minister wants to tell lies about what I said, it's only because that's his nature and that's the way he's been all his life. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A disagreement about the subject matter is not a point of order. HON. J. COWAN: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe it would be the honourable thing for the Member for Sturgeon Creek to withdraw any imputation or any suggestion he made about any honourable member of this House having lied in this House. He knows the rules full well.

He know s that is unparliamen tary , Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would hope that he would have the courage to stand up and withdraw those sorts of comments which are unparliamentary, unnecessary and lack any accuracy. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the point of order. I believe that I have a very clear voice and what I said in this House the Premier heard very clearly, and he deliberately presented to this House a compl etely wrong impression of it which I believed was downright lying. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: 40.

(1) No member shall speak disrespectfully, or use offensive words against the House, or against any member thereof. HON. J. COWAN: On the point of order . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Government House Leader, on the point of order. HON. J. COWAN: I'm sorry, because of some of the chirping from members opposite, I believe I missed the latter part of your statement. Were you suggesting that the Member for Sturgeon Creek, by way of clarification, does not have anything to withdraw or are you suggesting that he indeed has used unparliamentary language and should withdraw? MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The committee rules that no member of the House shall speak disrespectfully against any member of the House. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I heard part of the exchange and I will take the matter under advisement and would hope if unparliamentary language has been used that there will not be any 270 difficulty in members settling that to the satisfaction of the member against whom the language has been used. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I must acknowledge to you that I think your ruling is quite fair to take it under advisement and report back.

Cle arly, Madam Speaker, the honourable members across the way are demonstrating tremendous insecurity about their position in respect to this. The Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek and other honourable members across the way obviously prefer to interject and to shout from their seats, rather than to participate in reasoned debate and I believe this matter requires reasoned debate and, as I said, not blind allegiance simply because your Leader in Ottawa has told you the position that you should take.

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, once this deal is consummated, it cannot be undone after an initial period of time upon the ratification of the deal. Again, I hope the honourable member doesn 't think I'm misrepresenting him. The Member for La Verendrye said that's the good part of the deal. Madam Speaker, let me tell you that's what concerns me about this deal. What concerns me about this deal is freedom and the freedom of future governments and future generations to mark their course of action.

I thank the Member for La Verendrye for clearly indicating in this Chamber, in fact, what the position of the Conservatives is. They do want to tie the hands of future generations and future governments. That's exactly what I suspected was the position of honourable members across the way. What is important, Madam Speaker, is that we cannot enter this deal on some sort of trial basis. If we do, we'll simply end up having to accept the deal that we really don't want as Canadians. The future of our country is all too important for us to permit this to happen.

The Prime Minister, I say to you, did not have a mandate from Canadians for him to sign such an initiative as this. He does not have a national consensus in this country for him to enter into such an agreem ent. I suggest he must work with Manitobans and for other Canadians. We must work in order to reject that particular vision of Canada, and I admit there are two different visions of Canada. There is a vision that honourable members across the way share, a vision of the marketplace, the vision of the survival of the fittest, the vision that if you're strong and you're mighty.

The importance is to increase the productivity at all costs, even if there are others that fall by the side. They don't require assistance and help is not a vision of a caring kind of society, is not a vision of a society that places empha sis upon social programs, upon the need of society collectively to help those who are in need, those who are disabled, those who are in need of proper and decent comprehensive health care. Madam Spea ker , Canada has become a major economic power. We've become a prosperous country. We have survived fnr 120 years without this kind . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

WedrteMeJ, 24 February, 1Ma All members will - (Interjection) - Would the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek also come to order? All members will ha ve an opportunity to participa te in the debate on this resolution. The Honourable First Minister has the floor. HON. H. PAWLEY: Honourable members should clear this up in this Chamber. Are they suggesting that there's a better Medicare system In the United States than in Canada? I wish that they would get to their feet.

If that's what they're Implying or suggesting, I wish they would say it In this Chamber so that Manitobans would know where they stand In respect to a comprehensive Medicare system. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Spea ker , it was my understanding that . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Emerson, on a point of order. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, I understood the Premier to ask If there were any conditions we wanted to put on the record about the health services in Manitoba versus the United States. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, we are a vast country, a country that has been linked together by way of a common transportation system, a common commun ication system, a country, because of our vastness In size and our thinness of population, has had dominant within its policy-making In the past 120 years an emp hasis upon regional eco nomic development. Madam Speaker, I am concerned about the future of regional economic development programs in this country under this particular deal.

Madam Speaker, what we are being told Is, well wait - and it says so right In the agreement itself - wait for the next five to seven years, and we're going to have commonly agreed rules between United States and Canada as to what is a subsidy and what is not a subsidy. Madam Speaker, that is what concerns me, because we've given away the bargaining chips even before we've sat down at the table to discuss regional economic development.

In fact, I say to you, Madam Speak er, that it may very well be that it will be the wealthier and larger areas of this country that, In the long run, will enjoy greater benefit from this kind of trade deal than the poorer and smaller regions of this country. Madam Speak er, I believe that Canadians have confidence. This deal was born out of fear. lt was born out of fear because of the softwood lumber and the shakes and shingle and the potash and the fish decisions.

So we were told why we had to enter into a new trade deal, in order to protect ourselves from the United States and what they might do to us insofar as trade policy was concerned. Madam Speaker, I believe that Canadians are not driven by fear. Canadians are not driven by insecurity. I bel ieve that Canadians are confident people. Canadians are people who have a future because they have the resources, they have the talents and the energies. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I requested yesterday that exhibit be removed from · the House.

Would one of the members please remove that exhibit from the desk? 271 The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, let me tell you that members on this side understand the tremendous nervousness across the way, because honourable members are so clearly afraid to debate this issue. They don't want to listen to the arguments that are presented against this trade deal. Madam Speaker, Canadians are confident, Canadians have the creativity.

We can go forth into this world and we can build our trading opportunities, Increase our trade because we've got the resources, we've got the energy and we've got the humankind that we can increase our trade opportunities and not be driven to do so out of fear, out of insecurity. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people we represent and, we feel, the future generations of Manitobans who will be forced to Inherit what is a misguided, misplaced policy, let us show our collective Opposition in this Chamber what Is a very, very bad deal that could impact negatively on Canadians now and in the future.

Madam Speaker , I urge and I hope there are some members across the way that will demonstrate the strength of conviction and character to stand up with members on this side against this deal, who can express themselves in opposition to this trade deal, who will join with us In passing this resolution, so we can forward this resolution to Ottawa to let our Canadian Parliament know where the Province of Manitoba stands vis-a-vis this Canada-U.S. trade deal. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. A MEMBER: Where's the rest of your troops, Gary? MR. G. FILMON: Where's the rest of your troops?

Where's Walding? Where's Walding? -· that's the most important question. Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and respond to the resolution that's been put forward by the Premier on free trade. Let me begin by stating unequivocally right from the beginning that I and my colleagues are totally opposed to this resolution - absolutely and totally opposed to this resolution. Madam Speaker, I believe that the topic of free trade with the United States Is probably the biggest single issue to face Canada since the Second World War.

Madam Speaker, Canada is at a crossroads in which the choices it faces are firstly, on the one hand, being a confident forward-looking country, a country with resources, a country with opportunity, a country looking forward to the opportunity of seizing a market, seizing

"'-cc nuday, M FAruary, 1988 expansi on, attracting investment and creating job opportunities for the future. That's the one hand. That's the hand of those who support free trade. And on the other hand, we have the weak-kneed, faint-hearted approach of the Premier who says that we must continue to be afraid of those people who are larger than we are in population, afraid of those people who want to be bring protectionist measures against us.

We are going to cower from them; we are going to let them attack us sector by sector, area by area, industry by Industr y, and we are going to collapse into ourselves and protect ourselves from all of those people outside and let our economy stagnate. And our young people have to move away to other countries to get the opportunities that they deserve and that they seek. Welt, Madam Speaker, we want none of that fearful attitude. We want none of that faint-hearted approach from this Premier and his gove rnment.

Madam Speaker, I believe that this Free Trade Agreement has the potential to place us on a course of prosper ity, growth and opportunity that will be the greatest opportunity that any of us will see in our lifetimes In this province. Madam Speaker, the Premier spoke about vision, and I agree that vision is the key to this debate. We have a vision. We on this side of the House and the federal Conservative Gover nment have a vision of strong, self-sufficient people, a growing economy , prospe ring businesses, job-creating opportunities for the future of our province.

That's the vision that we have and I'm sorry that this Premier doesn't share that vision. Madam Speaker, my only regret Is that this crucial debate, this resolution, has been Int roduced by this Premier and this government merely as a means of diverting the attention of the people of Manitoba because this government would rather talk about anything than its record. lt doesn't want the people of Manitoba today to talk about the huge increases in taxes, the 2 percent tax on net Income, the overall increase of 20 percent in our tax load that we placed upon the backs of the people of Manitoba this past year.

He doesn't want to talk about outrageous Autopac Increases. He doesn't want to talk about the waste and the mismanagement of our Crown corporations. He doesn't want to talk about their priorities that are see ing Manitobans having to go to North Dakota for CAT scans, having to wait In line or being on stretchers waiting for beds In hospitals that he's closed down. Madam Speaker, that's what he doesn't want to talk about and so, as a consequence, he puts forward a res olution on free trade.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to say, in relation to free trade - and the Premier is gett ing sensitive as soon as I begin because he says, "Why don't you talk about free trade?" - he doesn't want to talk about the hospital beds he's closed. He doesn't want to talk about the people who have gone to North Dakota for CAT scans. He doesn't want to talk about over $1 00 million lost in MP IC during the past two yea rs. He doesn't want to talk about the losses of $48 million in the Te lephone System In two years. He doesn't want to talk about $200 million in losses at Workers Compensa tion.

He's very sensitive and I can understand why, but, Madam Speake r, these are things that I am concerned about with respect to this govern ment's attitude. 272 When you look at the fear mongering that has been put forward by this Premier and all of his Ministers and the way in which they discuss the deal, it's all political. it's all been a calculated, planned approach to try and gain some cheap political support for Ed Broadbent and, hopefully, to try and do the same kind of thing that the Premier of Ontario did in making it an election Issue that will carry him to victory.

Well, it won't work, Madam Speaker. · tt won't work. No matter how much they plan, no matter how much they strategize, they will not make people forget or be diverted In their attention. I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, if you listen to the things that are being said by this Premier, you can tell how far they've gone to try and manipulate the public mind, to try and touch the right buzzers, to try and make people respond emotionally to what they're saying.

You'll notice that this Premier and his Ministers don't refer to this as a Free Trade Agreement - they refer to it as a deal - but it's further than that, Madam Speaker. They don't refer to it as an agreement between two gove rnments; they refer to it as a Mulroney-Reagan deal. Madam Speaker, you can tell that they have done polling, that they have probably done focus groups In which they find out that people don't trust the Prime Minister and the President.

They feel that they can discredit this Free Trade Agreement by tring to Instead focus attention on people's rela tionships with the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. He talks about their close relationsh ip. He talks about some sort of arrangements that are almost clandestine, that people should mistrust. He puts all of those fears and concerns in people's minds rather than talk about it as being an agreement to liberalize trade between two countries, because that's what it is, and when people understand it, then people will support it. He doesn 't want that" to happen, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, his approach is insidious; it's almost subliminaL lt certainly Is rooted in the psychology of trying to discredit Individuals as opposed to dealing with an agreement between two countries. Madam Speaker, the first time that I realized what this Premier was doing was on a Friday morning when he was called tong distance In, I believe it was either Tokyo or Hong Kong ... HON. H. PAWLEY: Ye s, 2:30 in the morning. MR. G. FILMON: . . . by Peter Warren. You may reca ll this, Madam Speaker. The Premier is reminding me it was 2:30 in the morning; I was going to acknowledge that.

I can't understand what sort of staff he must have that would allow you to be Interrupted at 2:30 in the morning to take a call from Peter Warren in Winnipeg. I would have a great deal of criticism for the staff that would allow that to happen. I must admit that I felt terribly for the Premier because he was awakened from a sleep, and Peter Warren called him to ask him to respond to some things that were being said by Premier Grant Devine on Peter Warren 's program.

The Premier talked about it - and I admit that he did sound a little fuzzy and a little bit confused at the time - but he was talking away about the Free Trade Agreement and about whether or not he would debate

Wednesday, 24 February, 1988 with Grant Devine, and he said, no, he wouldn't speak to Grant Devine, and, no, he wouldn't debate with Grant Devine about the Free Trade Agreement. And all of a sudden mid-sentence he stopp.ed and he said, "Well, really , it isn't a Free Trade Agreement; it's a Mul roney­ Reagan deal ," and the program had kicked in! The program that Mic hael Balagus and Garth Kramer had written for him had clicked in! lt took him about three min utes before it actually took hold of him and he realized that he had been talking about the Free Trade Agreement and he shouldn't.

From that point forward, I have listened to every speech that he has made, I've listened to the nons ense put forward by the Min ister of Energy and all of the Cabinet Min isters who've gone out throughout the province, and they talk about it as the Mulroney-Reagan deal. Madam Speaker, that should be a concern to people - it is to me - that these mem bers opposite are so dish onest as to not want to give this agreement the status and the attention that it deserves.

Instead, they want to put it on to a political plane in which they can attack the indi viduals inv olved who are represented by the agreement and try and discredit the agreement by dis crediting them. Absolute no nsense! Madam Speaker, there's the further bit of nons ense that this Premier raised again today and his colleagues raise every time. They say, "You know, we really are in favo ur of free trade, but it's this deal that we don't like." Madam Speaker, these are people who began by saying that they were in favour of free trade. This Premier said he was in favour of free trade many, many times.

These are people who set forth conditions under which they would support the Free Trade Agreement and they set forward those conditions back in 1985. Madam Speaker, let's talk about where this Premier stands on free trade because this is what he said May 14, 1985, and I quote: "Premier Howard Pawley defended his support for a common market with the United States. 'I wouldn't have supp orted it if it hampered Manitoba jobs,' Pawley said." That's No. 1; that's May 14, 1985.

Then on May 31, 1986, here's the headline: "Premier vows to be own man in trade debate." Headline, Swan River: "Premier Howard Pawley said yesterday he will steer his own course on freer trade with the United States. He said he won't allow the federal NDP, labour or interest groups to direct his views on the issue. 'My first consideration must be that of what's best for Manitobans,' Pawley said. 'I can't be influenced by the position of necessarily the federal party or any inte rest group."' Madam Speaker, that's what he said then.

And at that time, he said, "I will support this Free Trade Agreement if it takes care of my concerns." And he said, "My concerns are that I do not want health care, social programs, regional development programs or any of those Federal Government supports to be able to be included in the agreement." Well, Madam Speaker, they were not includ ed in the agreement. Then he said, "I am concerned that the brewing indus try should not be adversely affected by the agreement." Madam Speaker, the brewing industry was taken out.

Then he said, "I am concerned for the trucking indus try." The trucking indus try was removed from the agreement. 273 Madam Speaker, he said, "I am concerned about the Marketing Board controlled commodities, that they should not be adversely affected by the agreement." They were taken out, Madam Speaker. Every one of his arguments and concerns was taken care of in the agreement. So what did he do? He went to a whole new set of concerns. Then, Madam Speaker - (In terjection) - We'll look at those other concerns later on.

But I'm just saying to you, Madam Speaker, to begin with, that this Premier has no credibility on this issue, that he is acting totally politically on this issue, and that he is dancing to the tune of Ed Broadbent, Bob White and Shi rley Carr. Madam Speaker . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I seem to have touched a sensitive chord, but I'll tell you this, that at least I say the same things publicly as I say to his face privately, unlike the things he just said earlier about the Member for Provencher.

He tells me one thing privately to my face and then publicly he goes on with a big deal about the Member for Provencher - Ho, ho, ho! I say the same thing privately to you as I say publicly to you. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: We know where you stand. We know what this Premier said privately in the meetings that he had on free trade with the other First Min isters and then what he had to say publicly when Ed Broadbent kicked his butt around the block and said "Y ou'd better get in lin e." SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER : Order please, order please. Order please.

The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: What the Leader of the Opposition said is a complete falsehood. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, this Premier and his members, none of whom have had any busine ss experience, none of whom have had any negotiating experience, they are trying to tell Manitobans and the public that it's the little flaws in the agreement that they don't like, that they feel that Canada should have gotten everything and the Americans nothing.

Well, Madam Speak er, that isn' t possible unde r any circumstances, and you can talk to the best negotiator that Canada has ever had on its behalf, Simon Reisman . Madam Speaker, he negotiated the Autopac which has made Ontario wealthy, prosperous and expansive, and made Ed Broadbent's constituency the most wealthy constituency in Canada. Madam Speaker, he knows at no time was he so naive as to suggest that Canada could get everything and the Americans nothing. This is what Simon Reisman said in a talk in Winn ipeg a couple of weeks ago - or sorry, a couple of months ago - about that very topic.

I quo te, he sa id, "reach ing the deal required

Wednesday , 24 February, 1988 compromises." We did not get everything we wanted. The Americans did not get everything they wanted. And then he went on to tell about some of the things that each side got, but what he said was, "in balance, this was an excellent deal for Canadians; this was an excellent deal for Manitobans; this was an excellent deal for Canada as a whole." Madam Speaker, this group expects people to believe that it's going to be a win/lose situation, that Canada wins everything, the Americans lose everything. But, Madam Speake r, they have never won in any negotiations before.

They got their butts kicked in negotiations with their staff, who get a no-cut contract from them so that they can't manage anymore. The management is in the hands of the people who work for them instead of them. Madam Speaker, they negotiated a real good deal to sell Flyer. They had to pay the Dutch company $3 million. They had to take all the risks. They make real good deals with everybody. That's why we didn't get Alcan; that's why we didn't get the Western Electric Grid; that's why we didn't get the IMC potash deal, because they don't know anything about negotiations.

And then they have the nerve to tell people that it's really just the deal, that they could have made a better deal on behalf of Canada. Well, that's hogwash, Madam Speaker, absolute hogwash. Mada m Spe aker, in full recognition of this government's motives on this matter, I would like to take the opportunity to place clearly on the record some of the benefits of trade in general and this agreement in particular. As well, I want to be putting to rest a few of the most blatant misconceptions that this government has been propagating.

Historically, trade has been an activity that has built the world's greatest nations. You look throughout history, small nations like Holland were powerful in the early centuries because of trade. They went throughout the world and established empir es because of trade. Britain was another small nation with limited resources that went throughout the world and became powerful in an economic sense because of trade. The United States became the most powerful economic force in the early part of this century, mainly because of trade.

Madam Speaker, Japan and West Germany today are coming to prominence in an economic sense worldwide, despite very small coun tries limited resources because of trade. Madam Speaker, on the other side of the coin, following the stock market collapse in 1929, U.S. and Canada joined all the other developed world nations in raising tariffs, barriers to trade. They thought that was the answer to the stock market collapse. What happened was a 57 percent increase in tariffs occurred in North America. We suffered the worst economic times In our history.

We had the Great Depres sion, the 10 lost years that everybody knows about, that we heard about growing up in this country. There is one lesson that all of us should have learned, and I think have learned from that national tragedy, and that is our nation's fundamental need to trade. Why leave barriers in place, any barriers in place if there's an opportunity to remove them and open up further trade?

How can this Provincial Government fall to see that we need to have trade, and enhanced trade, and expanded trade, in order to survive and to grow as a nation and as a province? 274 On the other hand, Madam Speaker, the other side of the coin is when we want to hurt and harm countries economically , what do we do to them? We cut off trade with them. We did that in wartime, to countries we wanted to harm immediately in an economic sense, we cut off trade with them.

What has this Premier and his colleagues and many people throughout this country proposed with respect to South Africa, a country whose apartheid policies are abhorrent to all of us? What are the suggestions? We bring in immediate economic sanctions and cut off trade with them. Why? Because we want to harm them in an economic sense, to get their attention and change their political policies. So we know that expanding trade is good, cutting off trade is bad. This Premier doesn't seem to unde rstand that, Madam Spea ker.

Why would we deliberately want to hurt ourselves when we have the opportunity right before us today to help ourselves immensely for the future and expand our opportunities for trade? I don't understand it. I don't understand this Premier. I don't understand his colleagues. Since the Second World War, we've experienced the greatest period of growth and expansion in our country's histo ry, all because we've systematically removed bar riers to trade, all because we have systematically expanded our opportunities for trade, principally with the United States, but all throughout the world.

But you know, Madam Speaker, we have seen these arguments before that are being put forth now by this Premier and the opponents to free trade. They talk about us losing our identity. They talk about us being swallowed up in the greater economic union that is going to be formed in this Free Trade Agreement. The same arguments were being put forward in Great Britain, when people there were fighting going into the EEC, and for 10 years people said that we're going to lose our identity. People said that we're going to give up too much.

They said that we don't need that agreement and, in fact, it will be bad for Britain. But as time went on and eventually when Britain was suffering such terrible economic times, they were convinced to go into the EEC. Since they went in