Manitoba Hansard — 22 May 1980 (Sitting 63A, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-63a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 22 May, 1980. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make to the House. Mr.

Speaker, honourable members know that the common sense and the ingenuity of Ma nitoba's farmers is being severely tested by the driest spring in a century. The current drought is already serious and forecasts sugge st that conditions may well worsen in the next number of days and weeks. Our farmers have a right to expect the support and backup of their government as they strive to meet the problems out of these worsening dr ought conditions.

To provide that support and backup we have today replaced the existing interdepartmental committee, which has been monitoring the situation, with a new Provincial Droug ht Coordina ting Committee. Mr. Speaker, I am the Chairman of that committee. The Ministers whose departments are most directly involved in drought related services are also all members of the committee. We will coordinate all emergency drought planning.

We will make sure that whatever personnel or agencies of the government that are needed to meet the shor t-term, medium-term and longer-term aspects of the drought emergency, are made available immediately. Specifically, we will be taking a number of actions to help farmers to maintain livestock herds across the province. I wish to announce that the government will provide special feed grain assistance, first to secure supplies of feed grain; and secondly, to help cover the costs of transporting it.

To make that possible we are looking at supplies of hay from southern Ontario, screening pellets, barley, oats and other feed grains and milling by-products that may be available and suitable as alternate sources of feed. At this moment we are in the process of purchasing feed pellets from Thunder Bay. These will be stockpiled and made available for resale to those farmers who need them later. We will be working closely with the Livestock Producers Association and others in this effort.

In additi on, we will make emergency hay and pastures available on Crown lands, including wildlife management Areas, for livestock if drought conditions worsen. We will assist in transporting livestock to those areas. If it becomes necessary, we will provide assistance to farmers to irrigate hay crops, using community lagoons and other available sources, including, for example, waters that could be diverted into the Portage Diversion, and the use of natural flows in the Red River Floodway.

We will, of course, continue to provide assistance for pumping water in developing new water sources and in installing pipelines through the Agri-Water and the PFRA Programs. Our officials have already met with PFRA and Agriculture Canada officials, and as well as representatives from the other Prairie Provinces, to discuss these and related programs. We have made a specific approach to the federal government to cost-share emergency drought programs, including the purchase of feed and livestock, emergency water programs, and the development of non-traditional feed supplies as required.

As a minimum, we would expect the federal government to assume the same proportion of such costs as they did in 1976-77. Mr. Speaker, one important form of back-up that has long been in place for the farming community is crop insuranc e. Cr op insu rance provides underpinning for the farmer and indeed for the total community. This year close to 15 ,000 farmers have insu rance coverage on 4.3 million acres. This amounts to a total coverage of some 200 million for land that can be seeded as late as June 20th for major feed crops and June 25th for other crops.

I think, too, that there is a general und erstanding among both public and private farm credit institutions that the cash flow position of some individual farmers may become difficult because of continuing drought conditions. No one, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, wishes to see any farmer become a financial victim through

an act of God. We will be monitoring the farm credit situation closely to assure that this situation is dealt with sensibly and sensitively through the drought period. I have dealt at some length with agricultural, because that is our most pressing problem. There are other aspects of the drought problem that are also critical and of an emergency nature, if I may say so, notably forest protection.

We have established a forest fire co-ordinating group under the Provincial Drought Co-ordinating Committee to ensure that the resources needed to deal with this probl em, including water bombers, personnel, and equipment, are available immediately when needed. If it becomes necessary, we will not hesitate to take additional actions, including closing highways or resort areas in fire-prone areas. Clearly this kind of dra stic action will be taken only where it is necessary to protect the environment. With respect to water supplies, we anticipate no problem for municipal water supplies at this time.

No problems are anticipated for indus trial and irrigation wells. Our Water Resources officials anticipate that the level of Lake Winnipeg will be at 714.4 feet by mid July and that continued drought conditions could lower this by about six inches this year. On the Assiniboine River, the Sh ellmouth Reservoir is expected to fill to normal summer capacity and water from this, un der controlled cond itions, can be released for downstream municipal and irrigation purposes. 3893

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. In our efforts, Mr. Speaker, we greatly value the help and su pport that we are receiving from personnel of PFRA and Agriculture Canada and from the Un ion of Manit oba Mu nicipal ities, which is represented by its Vice President, Dave Harms of Sno wflake. Cl early, we will rely heavily on the assistance of municipal officials everywhere in all aspects of our drought emergency programs.

We encourage farmers throughout the province to continue to work closely with the local agricultural representatives and of course we value the ideas, the suggestions and the support of people throughout Manitoba, including in particular the members of this House who share, I know, my own deep concerns of this worsening natural emergency. Clearly, there is only so much that men and women in Manitoba can do in the face of this kind of natural emergency.

We cannot wish or hope, or even work, the drought away but we must be and we are prepared to do everything within our power, working with the people of this province, to minimize the damage and the dislocation that arises from the drought and to use our col lective in genuity and ability to res pond real istically and effectively to the dr ought, as Manit obans have res ponde d to so many other problems in the past. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Natural Resources will be available for an update on the forest fire situation when question period begins. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, we on this side thank the First Min ister for the statement dealing with the particular problems that must be confronted now and solutions, if they can be found, to minimizing the impact of the droughts. So many of our old timers are ind icating these days that it reminds them of the worst of the 1930's when drought conditions then were prevailing, that the circumstances that appear now to be prevalent point in that direction. We all hope not and we hope in fact that rains will come in the next few days.

There are some points that I would like to make to the First Minister, however. First, it is our view that the announcement by the First Minister today was the least that could be done but is too late, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, questions were raised in this House by the Member for Ste.

Rose and by the Member for lnkster some three or four weeks ago, qu estions posing to the Mini ster of Na tural Resources as to whether or not there existed any contingency program and pertaining to what was then in the minds of all who could reasonably contemplate it as a serious drought situation that was occuring within Ma nitoba. We regret, Mr. Speaker, that this type of action was not inacted within days of those probing questions that were posed at that time. -(I nterjections)- MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, we heard the other steps that we would suggest should be undertaken by the government. We heard the Mi nister of Agriculture suggest as a courtesy that the packers should attempt not to take advantage of the farmers during this pressing period of time. We say, Mr.

Speaker, that this Legislature should take steps to introduce a floor price to protect our livestock producers during these critical times and we offer to the Mi ni ster of Agricult ure the su pport of all members on this side of the Chamber in introducing legislation to insure that there is a floor price; that we do not rely upon goodwill; that we do not rely upon courtesy of the packing industry. In our view, that will not bring about the result that the Min ister of Agriculture would like to see occur.

Secondly, to the Minister of Natural Resources, it is our information that this morning the Minister of Defence in Ottawa ind icated that armed force and airforce personnel are available by request of any provincial government that makes a request for assistance from that source. It is my information that the provinc e of Saskatchewan has now requested the assistance of the armed forces in that province, in order to assist in their critical forest fire situation throughout Saskatchewan. And yet, Mr.

Speaker, we have per a recent announcement, ind ication that Snow Lake has just been evacuated as of a matter of an hour or two ago. So, Mr. Speaker, the situation is certainly critical enough in Ma nitoba that the Mini ster should seriously contemplate the urgency of following the lead of Saskatchewan and requesting the Minister of Defence for assistance from the armed forces. Mr. Speaker, we know that the members across the way will not appreciate these comments, but I believe they must be made, they must be made.

Lake Winnipeg Regulation is again proving its worth, and the statement by the First Minister this afternoon should put to rest once and for all, all those harping critics that we've heard from over the last two, three, four years, about the workness of Lake Winnipeg Regulation. It is inde ed a fortunate day for Manitoba that we did make possible, through foresight and ingenuity, Lake Winn ipeg Regulation, despite the criticism that came from some sources to the ingenuity in establishing Lake Winnipeg Regulations. It helps in this time of need, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . .

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne) introduced Bill No. 34,

An Act to amend The Garage Keepers Act and Bill No. 59,

An Act to amend The Fatality Inq uiries Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I should like to introduce to the honourable members 60 students of Grade 5 stan ding from Tanners' Crossing School, under the dir ection of Donna Shorrock. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Min nedosa. We also have 50 students of Grade 5 standing from Frontenac School, under the direction of Mr. 3894

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. Reimer. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Radisson. On behalf of all the honourable members we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Has the Min ister of Natural Resources called for any assistance from the Department of National Defence, the Mini ster of National Defence? MR. SPEAKER: Tt)e Hono urable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killarney): Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's concern in this issue. We, of course, are aware of the availability of Armed Forces' personnel and we are aware of the circu mstances un der which such personnel would be of use to us. At the moment, we have not found it necessary to call on them for assistance. The situation is such that we do have sufficient manpower available within the department and in the communities close to where fires are occurring, so that it is not necessary to call on the Armed Services' personn el . In many cases, Mr .

Speaker, I can assure the honourable members that the most effective people to be able to fight a fire, under the dir ection of my departmental staff, are people in the communities, especially in the northern areas. Those people are familiar with the bush and with the behaviour of fires and they tend to be much more useful than persons who are not so familiar. I might say, Mr. Speaker, in passing, that we have urged the Shilo Base that perhaps one of the things that they could do to assist there would be to cease firing into unb urned areas.

We have had a substantial number of fires occurring on the Shilo ranges and the situation there is of great concern to the local people, as well as to myself and others. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, my next question is to the Minister of Finance. Mr.

Speaker, in view of advertising which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune and Winn ipeg Free Press, compli ments of the Premier and the Min ister of Finance, compliments of the cost to the people of Manitoba, the taxpayers of Manitoba, I would ask the Minister of Finance if he could advise the Chamber as to the budget for the campaign expenses that will be involved in the advertising campaign that is being mounted by he and the Premier pertaining to various programs announced in the Budget. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I can 't give my honourable friend the figure for the program of information to the people of Manitoba with respect to programs announced in the budget, but I will take his question as notice and when that figur e is available I will be happy to give it to him. I would merely point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is a program of providing information on a number of matters that were contained in the White Paper to the people of Manitoba. We have ample precedent, of course, Mr.

Speaker, by some of the non informational programs that my honourable friends used to carry on when they were in government at public expense. We would hope that this program would be largely of an information nature and of much more benefit to the people of Manitoba, in telling them what was in the White Paper and how the changes are to be brought about, and the impacts that those changes will have on the general population of the people of Manitoba.

I am sure my honourable friend would agree that is a desirable thing for any government to do, to keep the people informed of those plans and programs that are in the people's interest. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refers to advert ising as one involving programs, that the advert ising inv olves past programs al ready implemented. The adver tising does not provide information as to means of application.

Would the First Minister tabl e in this House, so that all members might have access to the information, the free brochure explaining how the new programs work, in view of the fact that we haven't yet been able to obtain information from the Min ister of Community Affairs as to the new plan to create more day care, which the Minister of Community Affairs has been dodging in the question period in providing information not only to members of this House but to those who are interested in day care in the province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, we'll be happy to provide, for the enlig htenment of my honourable friend, a copy of the brochure when it's available and it will be freely available, of course, to the people of Manitoba who wish to have it as well. That document should be available within a relatively short time. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, would the First Mi ni ster advise whether this program of advertisement would be extended to radio, television, and to all the weeklies in the province of Manitoba, as well? MR. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, I'm not sure of the breadth of the broadcast or the program that is being envi saged but we will take his help ful suggestion as advice and perhaps extend it to all of those media, thank you. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister would also take a helpful suggestion and send the bill not to the taxpayers of Manitoba but to the Prog ressive Cons ervative headq uarters on Kennedy Avenue? MR. LYON: Well in that case, Mr.

Speaker, we would have to send the bill for something in excess of 1 billion to the New Democratic Party to begin to make up some of the losses that they imposed on the people of Manitoba . 3895

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for lnkster. Order, order please. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to di rect a question to the Min ister of Municipal Affairs. Ha s the Mini ster of Muni cipal Affairs made any decision with respect to the reference to a committee or otherwise a forum for dealing with the material which was contained in a letter from a former councillor of the local gov ernment distr ict of Alexander, which I brought to his attention approximately 10 days ago? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Mu nicipal Affairs. HON.

DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Certain documents that were referred to me, I have submitted them to legal counsel for advice and at this date I haven't received a reply yet. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, may I be advised from the Minister whether it is not a fact that insofar as one of those council seats is concerned that there was a councillor elected by acclaimation and, if so, the number of available councils would be three, which is a quorum, and therefore that the council should be immediately reinstated? MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that is true.

The nominations were completed yesterday and there were acclaimations in two of the three seats. As soon as the oath of office has been signed by those that have been acclaimed, then the order which suspended the Reeve and Deputy Reeve will be removed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for ln kster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, is it also a fact that interestingly enough one of the councillors who felt that they had to resign and thereby create a hiatus in council activities, is one of the councillors who is standing for re-election and apparently has seen the resignation as not being as desirable as when she resigned? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Municipal Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: That is true, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon. MR. THOMAS BARROW: My question is to the Min ister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker.

Due to the fire hazard at Snow Lake - we hear all the stories second-hand of course - yesterday they had a partial evacuat ion, women and childr en; some women stayed. Today we hear there's a complete evacuation. Could the Min ister give us a picture of the situation as it is?. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can respond to that que stion as the Mini ster responsible for Emergency Measur es Organization.

As of an hour ago, the personnel still remaining in that community are considered to be essential, either involved with the protection of the mine properties themselves and the town, and of course some support staff, which includes women to feed the people that are in the community. There has not been a general evacuation order made, nor was it necessary. The people in that community demonstrated their good sense by agreeing with the local officials, the Mayor, in making the evacuatin of all non-essential people, virtually complete. MR.

BARROW: Has the Minister closed down the secondary roads in that area at this time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Natural Resources. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I am not intimately familiar with the situation on the ground there, but I would feel quite certain, under the circumstances, that any movement in that area is strictly controlled. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon with a final supplementary. MR. BARROW: You said the armed forces were not qualified firefighters. I want to inform the Minister that miners aren't qualified firefighters, bankers, etc., they're all fighting fires.

A member of the armed forces is just as able to fight a fire as anyone. There are no professionals. When does it become acute MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. Ha s the honourable member a qu estion? Would the honourable member proceed with his question? MR. BARROW: My God, Mr. Speaker, here's a town that's burning up on three sides ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If the honourable member has a question, let him proceed with his question. MR. BARROW: They've evacuated the town. The town is in danger of burning up and the situation doesn't call for bringing in the armed forces. Why, Mr. Speaker? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. MR. RANSOM: Mr . Speaker, the honourable member of course is misrepresenting the statement that I made. At no time did I say that the armed forces made poor firefighting personnel. I said we did not need the armed forces at the moment. I said that so long as local people who are familiar with conditions locally, people who have experience in the bush, as long as manpower is available from those sources, then it is not necessary to call in the armed forces.

We are quite aware of the assistance that the armed forces could provide, especially if it became necessary to ask for their assistance in an evacuation. That is the sort of thing that we would expect to be able to make extensive use of the armed forces' personnel, within that sort of action, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to have it remain on the 3896

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. record in any way that I made the statements attributed to me by the Honourable Member for Flin Flon. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that so far as is known to me, the evacuation of the town of Snow Lake has taken place very smoothly un der the di rection of the local government, who have been responding to the situation, have been carrying out their responsibili ties, and there is no reason to believe that the situation would have been carried out any more effectively or efficiently with the help of the armed forces. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Rhineland. MR.

ARNOLD BROWN� Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Min ister of Natural Resources. According to some news' reports, there were some 20 new fires reported in northern Manitoba. My question is -(l nterjections)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I realize there are many members of the Chamber that want to ask questions, but I suggest they stand in their place to be recognized by the Chair before they do so. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. BROWN: Thank you , Mr . Speaker.

My question is, can the Minister bring us up-to-date on the forest fire situation in northern Manitoba as it stands today? MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's concern for wanting information about the forest fire situation. It of course changes very quickly on a day such as today, Mr. Speaker, but I can inform the House that there are approximately 90 fires burning in the province at the moment; and in addition to the seven fires burning in the vicinity of Snow Lake, there is the very serious fire in the Porcupine Mountain area, which I reported upon yesterday and the day before.

That fire has now consumed approximately 120,000 acres and is proving to be essentially impossible to control. It is within, perhaps, three or four miles of No. 10 Highway, near the southern side of the Porcupine Mountain. In addition to that, I can report that the fire in the Wallace Lake area is moving towards the Ontario boundary, if it has not already crossed into Ontario, still is a concern to Manitoba on its northern flank as well. I am pleased to be able to say that we have made arrangements to bring one additional Canso water bomber in from the province of Nova Scotia.

We expect that that aircraft will be here by tomorrow afternoon. The United States firefighting people in the State of Minn esota have agreed to cover off the south-eastern part of the province, or at least to assist with fighting fires in the south-eastern part of the province which falls within the range of their land-based bombers - they operate with a di fferent kind of equipment than we do, Mr. Speaker - and we're happy to have this kind of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, because it allows us to make better use of our equipment elsewhere in the province. MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because of the serious forest fire situation in these areas, I wonder if there will be any restrictions in the usage of provincial parks imposed during the weekend. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, that question is under consideration at the moment and I expect that sometime later this afternoon, I will be announcing the type of restrictions that will be in place for the next few days. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

PAWLEY: Just as a matter of co-operation by the Minister, I would suggest that the Min ister might wish to give such statements during the statement period and distribute copies of his statements. I think it would be much more useful and productive for members of the Hous e that they would have statements that they would be able to relate to, and would be able to deal with prior to awaiting the issuance of Hansard. We appreciate the information. We would just like it, Mr .

Speaker, if we could receive some more constructive method of dealing with this very critical situation than simply dealing with it through the question and answer period. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, speaking on what presume was a point of order by the Leader of Opposition, may I advise him, and through him all members of this Cham ber and all people in Manitoba, that the fire situation in Manitoba is changing hour by hour, and it would be imprudent for the Minister, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, with respect to his responsibilities -(I nterjections)- MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I would hope that members of the Chamber would extend courtesy to those that are on their feet speaking in the Chamber. The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: I am merely trying to ind icate, Mr. Speaker, some of the situations that honourable members opposite may not well be aware of. In the passage of one day we have lost 60,000 acres of forest in the Porcupine Reserve, and, Mr. Speaker, to ask -(Interjection)- Mr. Speaker, the honourable member ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. May I suggest to the Honourable Member for St. George that he wait his turn.

The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: I am merely trying to ind icate, Mr. Speaker, in as co-operative a way as I can, that the Minister is giving statements to me as the Chairman of the Co-ordinating Committee of this dr ought disaster as quickly as he receives them. We are convening a Cabinet Meeting the minute that this qu estion period is over to get the up-to-date statements of what has occurred since 2 o'clock, sinc e we came into this Cham ber. So I merely suggest to my honourable friend, with the greatest of respect, that the suggestion that he makes about the 3897

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. Min ister having prepared statements which would be stale by the time they are given, is not a very practical source of help. I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, if I may, what I said in my prepared statement to the House, that we would like to have, Mr. Speaker, the co-operation, the ideas, and the support of honourable members of this House in the very severe situation which we face. That kind of co-operation and support we eagerly wish to have from the honourable members. I would wish that they would become aware of the severity of this situation. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a question. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, the First Min ister ind icates that a statement would be stale if given, but, Mr. Speaker, if that is so, then the answers to the questions are stale. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I find the honourable member is debating. Order please. The honourable member has no point of order. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a very bad practice that is developing in this House, and it is simply that Ministers, rather than making statements, are responding . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Does the honourable member have a qu estion? - (I nterjections)- The Honourable Mem ber for St. Matthews. -(I nterjections)- The Honou rable Member for Elmwood with a point of order. MR. DOERN: Ministers - and the last Minister was a good example - instead of making a statement under Ministerial Statements, are having backbenchers ask them set-up questions and then making Mini sterial Statements. Now that is the practice. I think we should be on guard about it. If the Ministers want to make statements, fine, then let the opposition reply to them.

Let stop this phony practice of setting them up and then not allowing the opposition to reply. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The honourable member is using very strong language and I would suggest that he temper his language when he is speaking in the Chamber. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, on this same point of order, if it indeed is a point of order, let me remind members opposite that the Premier clearly ind icated upon completion of read ing his statement that the Minister of Natural Resources would shortly be in the Chamber to provide further information with respect to the fires to the Chamber, and that is the reason why, in the absence of any questions from members opposite, the question was asked by a member on this side, who was interested in that matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Rupertsland on a point of order. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Yes, Mr .

Speaker, I believe it is incumbent on us, as members of the opposition, to draw this matter to your attention, in order that we can seek your protection against this unfair practice by the government of Manitoba. I say this, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. May I point out to the honourable member that it is highly improper for a member to cast di sparag ing remarks against the actions of the Speaker. I would ask him to withdraw them. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Speaker, on the contrary, I am seek ing your clearn ess and justice, and protection in light of this unfair practice on the part of the government of Manitoba, not unfair practice on your part. Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't wish to leave any such aspersions on the record, but, Mr.

Speaker, in this case, and let me finish my point, in this case, which is a very serious case in Manitoba, one where the province is in danger of many serious forest fires, we feel that it is only incumbent on the government to make a Ministerial Statement on this in order that we may at least respond to that, rather than having a set-up job of having a backbencher every day jump up and ask a question, and the Mini ster then making a lengthy statement to the House during the question period and not allowing us the opportunity of having a response. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for ln kster. MR.

GREEN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious concern to all members of the House regarding this question, in view of the difficulties that the First Min ister ind icates that could take place with regard to immediate statements, could it be ind icated by all honourable members - and I would think that the members on this side of the House would agree - that if there is information that is important to the members of the House, that at any time that takes place, in view of this emergency situation, Mr. Speaker, that the House would immediately give consent to a Mini ster to make a statement. - (Interjections)- Mr.

Speaker, I am suggesting that if at 3:00 o'clock . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please .. MR. GREEN: I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that if at 3:00 o'clock or 3:30 this afternoon, the Min ister wants to come in, even though he can't make it in writing and deliver to the House some important information, that he do it by way of a statement and that this would give members of the Official Opposition the opportunity to respond and they won't have the feeling that they are being precluded for a response by the fact that it comes as a question. I am sure if we followed that procedure, Mr.

Speaker, then both sides of the House would feel that we are dealing with the emergency and not with the problem with regard to House procedures. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister on a point of order. 3898

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. MR. LYON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the Honourable Member for ln kster, may I say that we thank him for that very constructive suggestion, and I think he appreciates, as a former Min ister of Natural Resources, something of the severity of the problem that the whole province faces at this time, and I think his sugges tion is an extremely useful one.

The busine ss of preparing statements, statements by the time they are prepared are out of date, and he knows that from his own experience, and I am sure that various Min isters involved in the Committee will take advantage of that suggestion, with the permission of the House, to make oral statements from time to time as the situation changes, because it is changing rather rapidly. On the second point; I would not have thought it necessary to make the point.

I find in incredible to hear elected members of a Legislatve Assembly in a parliamentary democracy talking about the right of any member of this Legislature to ask a question of the Treasury Bench. Mr. Speaker, we are, all 57 of us, here as elected representatives of the various constituencies in this province and all 57 have the right to ask questions of the Treasury Bench at any time, that is a fundamental of the parliamentary system.

If my honourable friend from the east side of Lake Winnipeg, would like to go over to the mother of parliament sometime, he would see parliament in operation, whereby the backbench of the government, be it labour or conservative, on an average question period, Mr. Speaker, ask at least a third of the questions of the Treasury Bench. Let my honourable friend become better in structed in parliament before he tries, Mr. Speaker, to instruct you in your duties. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks on a point of order. MR. SAUL A. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the government knows very well what the preced ents in this House are, and they'v e not followed them. Just two days ago, the Minister of the Environment wanted to make a statement, not at 2:30 in the afternoon or 3:00 o'clock, at 10:00 o'clo ck at night; he got un ani mous consent immediately and he made a statement, and it was responded to. That has been done before, it should be done now, and I'm surprised that the government is trying to cover up and maneuver as they are. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Natural Resources on a point of order. MR.

RANSOM: I appreciate the suggestion that has been made by the Honourable Member for lnkster. I simply would point out for the record, that during the time earlier this year when there was some question of flooding occuring in the province, when I came into this Chamber with last-minute information and asked leave of the members opposite to make a statement without distributing the text, I was refused. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. The Honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, i ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

We have a point of order that has been raised, and I think it's only fair that the Chair should deal with it. There does seem to be a problem with respect to information provided to the House. Information can be provided to the House in answer to questions, or it can be provided in the form of statements. We. have set up our rules that do allow a reply to a formal statement that has been made. I haven't investigated thoroughly, but I would suspect that statements that do allow replies are usually ones that change policy.

In most cases a statement that allows a reply, in my opinion is one that usually affects the policy of the House or the government. I could be wrong, but there is a difference. There is a difference between statements and questions, and in this particular case, I believe the honourable member for Rhineland was seeking information, information was provided to him. In that case I do not see that there was a point of order that was raised. The Honourable Min ister of Government Services. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to revert to the statements . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) MR. ENNS: Unfortunately, because of the nature of the statement, I would not of course have copies. It involves the possible evacuation, possibly later on this afternoon, of several additional communities as a result of the very serious fire on the Porcupine Mountain. These communities consist of Mafeking, Bellsite, Novra, and the surrounding farm areas. They are currently being assisted by the local officials and the RCMP co-ordinated by the Emergency Measures people on site, for evacuation of their home sites at this present time, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, we thank the Minister of Government Services for the statement. We regret the contents of that statement indi cating the increased severity of the problem confronting us. I think in view of the statement that the government would like to again reconsider their position in regard to calling in the armed forces. The situation appears to be worsening rather than improving. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. LEN DOMINO: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General.

It concerns the new federal Young Offenders' Act. Last year when we had a Progressive Conservative government federally, I und erstand that a dr aft was circu lated to the provinces and comments were asked for from the various provinces. I wonder if the new Li beral government has forwarded a draft for the Young Offenders' Act to the province of Manitoba and asked for our comments? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. 3899

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative admin istration's Solicitor General, Mr. Lawrence, had asked for comments from all provinces on the proposed Young Offenders' Act by the end of June of last year, and of course the election intervened. The new Solicitor General has asked for comments on that same proposal. MR. DOMINO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: understand one of the key elements in the new act might be a uniform -(I nterjection)- I guess I'm right there.

I under stand one of the key elements in the new act would be the fed eral government suggesting that we might adopt a uniform juvenile age for the entir e country. I wonder, has the Manitoba government ind icated whether it's in favour of a uniform age across the country? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have ind icated to the Solicitor General that we would be in agreement with a uniform maximum age across Canada if in fact agreement can be arrived at between all provinces. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Matthews with a final supplementary. MR. DOMINIO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A large number of my constituents feel that that maximum age for juveniles should be sixteen years of age. I note that several other provinces have an age of 16 and that there is increasingly a large number of serious crimes committed by sixteen and seventeen year-olds that often go virtually unpunished because of the nature of our juvenile laws. I wonder, is the Manitoba government prepared to recommend to the federal government that that maximum age for juveniles be sixteen years? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, of course there is a wide variation among provinces.

Ma nitoba and Quebec, I believe, are the only provinces with 18 as the maximum age. Our neighbouring provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario are sixteen. I would prefer to wait to determine, Mr. Speaker, what the response is from all provinces before we proceed to consider the matter further and determine whether or not in fact all provinces can agree on a uniform age under the present proposal. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honourable Minister of Health.

While I understand the Minister did not attend the very interesting demonstration of the visual ear aid for hearing handic apped today, I wonder if the Minister would advise the House, in view of the assistance that's been given to this program by the federal government in research and tax break, what assistance the provincial government is prepared to offer to these handicapped people? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): No, Mr. Speaker. The honourable member is correct. I was at the 66th Annual Meeting at the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses today.

The rest of her question I'll take as notice. MRS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister then confirm that money has been included in his department's budget for the past two years, to assist this program and has been eliminated before the estimates were presented to the House? MR. SHERMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not confirm that.

I will have to check to see whether that specific project - I cannot recall - to see whether that specific project was forwarded as one of the recommendations coming to my office from the department; but certainly there are a number, as the honourable member may be unaware, a number of proposals, programs and projects that come forward in recommendation form before Ministers when the first examinations of preliminary estimates are launched in approximately the autumn of the year. It might have been in that category.

Certainly there has been no rejection of it in any sort of sense whic h dis counts its viabilit y or discounts future consideration. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge with a final supplementary. MRS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Min ister of Education, and I am sorry that he is not able to answer. I hope someone else on that side can ans wer in his absence. What provision is the Min ister of Education making for the hearing of disabled childr en and young people, to become proficient in the use of the visual ear machine?

And how many uni ts are provided for their use and education at the Manitoba School for the Deaf? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister without Portfolio. HON. EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Education I would be pleased to take that question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: My question is to the Min ister of Resources.

In view of the very serious fire situation and in view of the information he provided to the House today that at least one of the major fires has dou bled in size since yesterday, from 60,000 to 120,000 acres, is now threatening several communities, I wonder if the Min ister can report to the House if he is satisfied that the government of Manitoba has sufficient resources in tha way of equipment - that is heavy equipment - water bombers, water pumps and so on, all the necessary equipment to action all of the major fires that are threatening either lives or property or communities in Manitoba, that are now burning?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. MR. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that we do have sufficient 3900

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. equipment to be able to deal with the fires that are in existence at the moment in the manner that staff would consider to be consistent with how they would normally be able to deal with fires. Our concern is that the situation is so critical in terms of the fire hazard, that fires may well get started - and they will get started - within the next few da ys , especially if we happen to experience some electrical storms. We have been fortunate in not having had very many electrical storms to date. So that is our concern.

I can assure the honourable member, with respect to the Porcupine Mountain fire, I am assured by my staff that it was essentially independent of the amount of equipment available, that we were unable to contain that fire. The fire was of such intensity at the time that it entered the province that virtually no amount of equi pment would have been able to control that fire, shor t of cons uming the vast amounts of forest that have been consumed and that are likely to be consumed by that fire still today.

I'm informed this morning that in the vicinity of the fire at 5:00 o'clock this morning, the temperature was something like 87 degrees Fahrenheit. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, my second question is, in view of the Minister's answer, does the Minister now have his department's staff, equipment and other resources available for fighting forest fires fully deployed on existing fires, or does he have some reserve capacity to deal with the potentially hazardous situation that we are now facing?

In view of the expanding nature of the present fires, it's reasonable to assume that many of the existing fires will expand and, in addition to that, many new fires are likely to erupt in the near future in the days ahead. MR. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do have sufficient equipment at the moment. We do have equipment in reserve.

We anticipate being able to deal with the situations as they arise,. but given the uncertainty as to the dur ation of these extreme conditions, we are making contacts with equipment suppliers elsewhere in North America and we will be in a position to be able to fly in additional equipment on short notice, should that become necessary. We have, of course, been in touch with other jurisdictions as well, as I've pointed out previously, where we've been able to make some arrangement with the Minn esota people to handle fires in the south-eastern part of the province.

At the moment we are not pressed for equipment or for personnel, but we are looking at the possibilities of getting fur ther water-bombing capability because we anticipate requiring it in the da ys to come. Might I also point out, Mr.

Speaker, in response to that question, that if there was any misunderstanding with respect to my answer concerning the use of the armed forces earlier, I would like to point out that we do have, at the moment, adequate personnel and adequate equipment to deal with the situation, but should it become necessary to call on the armed forces to assist us either in fighting fires or in evacuating personnel, we will certainly do that, just as we called on the armed forces for assistance in fighting the floods last spring. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Memb er for Rupertsland with a final supplementary. MR. BROWN: Mr.

Speaker, as a follow-up to the Minister's answer, can he assure us that he has at least alerted the Canadian forces and is more than reasonably assured - as he says he is - that the equipment that will be required in the days ahead, if these conditions persist, will be available to the province and the province will not be suffering extensive delays and be putting themselves out, in terms of not having sufficient equipment to battle the fires? MR. RANSOM: I think I can provide that assurance, Mr.

Speaker, but I should point out to the honour able member that the equi pment that is necessary for fighting forest fir es is not the equip ment that the armed forces have readily available to them. The sort of equipment that is available is a rather specialized type of equipment plus the heavy machinery, the bulldo zers and things of that nature, that are required, and those of course are acquir ed from the private sector largely. So equipment is not a problem.

Where the armed forces might be of some assistance is, if we should become short of personnel, or if there is a necessity for some type of legistic organization that the department is unable to carry out; or that it would become necessary to have their assistance with the evacuation of personnel; or if we required perhaps helicopters, that might be required to gain access to isolated areas. Our people with our Drought Coordinating Committee have been in touch with the armed forces. They are quite aware of our circumstances and we are aware of the assistance that would be available to us. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired - the Honourable Government House ·Leader. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, before debate, could I simply ind icate to the members of the House that next week the Committee on Economic Development will meet Tuesday and Thursday at 10 :00 a.m., and on Friday afternoon at 2:00 p.m., if necessary, to complete its business. BUDGET DEBATE MR. SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honou rable Mi nister of Fina nce and the amend ments thereto - the Honourable Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I am going to focus most of my remarks in this debate on the issue of renewed federa lism. It is a major immediate challenge that confronts us at the beginning of this decade. Before I get into that though, I just wanted to pass on one observation regarding the forest fire situation. There seems to be some undue hesitancy on the part of the provincial government about calling in the armed forces. I am wondering whether in fact they are concerned about the possibility of 3901

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. having to pay the costs of bringing in the armed services, and I would hope that is not the reason why they are hesitating in this time of need. I think, if that is the case, that it would be unfortunte, and I hope that isn' t the reason why they are hesitating, especially if we are talking about situations where towns may have to be evacuated and inde ed are being evacuated, because I think the armed services in that respect has the necessary equipment and the personnel trained in these areas to do the job expeditiously and well.

I would hope that the government would not be concerned about any costs in this situation, but rather would try and meet the emergenc y and the immed iate needs of the population of Manitoba in this time of fire threat. Mr. Speaker, I have refrained from commenting on the issue of renewed federalism very much prior to the Referendum Vote in Quebec, because I think that a lot of what happened in the last two weeks was grandst anding, especially by a numb er of federal politicians, unanimously passing resolutions that they would meet as a Parliament in Quebec City for one day prior to the Referendum.

Those types of actions taken right before the vote, in my estimation, were grandstanding, and I believe that they were insincere, and I believe that many of the people posing them were insincere, and many of the people in Quebec and the rest of Canada saw those actions as insincere. Frankly, in the light of statements in the last two days by the Premier of Manitoba, I was right about the insincerity of a number of the statements of people prior to the Referendum.

I belie ve that renewed federalism is an issue that we must be very serious and sincere about, because the implications of major changes in federalism are so fundamental and longstanding. I was thankful and I was relieved by the vote of the people of Quebec in yesterday's Referendum. Sorry, the Referendum the day before yesterday. Quebecois voted in favour of Canada, in favour of trying to meet their hopes and aspirations -(lnterjection) Pardon? -(I nterjection)- I was going to speak yesterday, indeed, that's right.

Quebecois voted in favour of Canada, in favour of trying to meet their needs and aspira tions, which really have mushr oomed over the last 20 years within the framework of a renewed Canadian feder alism. Having voted for some type of renewed feder alism, the ball really is in the federalists' court. I don't say in Canada's court, I say that the ball is in the federalists' court.

I believe the onus is now on the federalists; not the separatists; not the union ists like Col lver and Ham in Saskatchewan and other assorted Conservatives in that province, who are unionists in terms of seeking union with the United States; not with Unitary Status, who believe that we should have one state that doesn't take into account regional or cultural dif ferences; and surely the onus is not, and should not be, with paroch ial provincialists, who would dismember the country.

Surely the onus is on us, the federalists, to renew a commitment to feder alism, to make positive accommodations and changes, to make federalism stronger, to make it work as best as possible for all peoples in all regions. The approach really must be positive. It must be sincere. I think the sincerity of approach or the necessary condition of sincerity of approach poses a problem for the Quebec people. At present they have a government, which I believe does surely not have a manda te to neg otiate any type of sover eig nty association.

The people have spoken out in favour of renewed feder alism, yet the· government representing them, at least for now, is not sinc ere about feder alism. I believe the people of that province have a problem, and I believe that will create problems for us as Canadians in our negotiations. I believe that we do not have positive attitudes about federalism in many other provinces, and I think that presents tremendous problems for us, because when we talk about strengthening federalism, or when I talk about strengthening federalism, I surely do not mean weakening the country and weakening the national government.

I was heartened by the responses of many people in Canada to the results of the vote the other night in Quebec. Their attitude was positive, it was creative, there was good will. Unfortunately, other persons' responses were quite disappointing. Some seemed not to accept the democratic will. Levesque was saying, wait until next time.

Others saw this as an opportunity to dismember the country, and I believe that the biggest threat to this country comes from the positions of people like Premier Lougheed of Alber ta and Premier Peckford of Newfoundland, and I find that the position of the Manitoba Government in this respect disquieting as well, because there seems to be some tacit support for the decentralist tendencies of these two people with respect to economic powers.

They reminded me of wolves circling an aging deer or moose, waiting for the kill, and surely that is not the approach that we will, or should take forward into negotiations and discussions about renewed feder alism, which takes into account not only Constitution, not only the institutions, but surely should take into account some policy differences, which may in fact have creative problems rather than constitutional problems.

I think sometimes when we talk about renewing federalism or making the federal system work better, we use the need for constitutional change as a smoke-screen to cover up problems of policy, where in some instances the federal government has not been cooperating with provincial governments with respect to optimum utilization of resources, or in some instances provinces have not cooperated with the federal government. That is part of the type of tension that might exist within a federal state.

I think it can be creative, but I do n't think that those difficulties in terms of policy differences should be covered up by saying that our problems really are ones of Constitution. I must say that of all the responses to the Referendum Vote, the response of the Premier of Manitoba saddened and dis appointed me the most.

Here at the very blush of victory in a sense, and I think that most Canadians felt that it was a victory for Canada, was our Premier, not being positive, not trying to exude any type of good will to the rest of the country, but rather being negative, being reactionary, being inflexible, before even hearing arguments for changes. It is as if the Premier had fallen asleep since the debates of the 19 60s and had just awakened and had responded to the concerns of that day. I tell our Rip Van Winkle Premier that 3902

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. great changes have taken place since 1966 or 19 67, especially changes in Qu ebec, an awa kening of cultural and linguistic aspirations, which in many respects is admirable, and which in many respects should be seen as a. positive creative force for our country, not one to be sneared at; not one that one tries to appease but rather that one tries to build in, to strengthen federalism. I think the Premier got out of politics at that time and he really hasn't been able to bring his mind set to the latter part of the 1970's into the 1980's.

It's an anach ronistic at titude th at he brings to th ese dicussions and I believe that the people of Manitoba do not support him in his negativ e position with respect to developing a renewed federalism. I do not believe that we need macho-man politics at present, I believe that the situation requi res state smanship and we are not getting it. We as a country, we as a province need an open mind.

We should be prepared to listen; be prepared to put forward our views, not in rigid stereo-types but in a sincere attempt to find a more workable, albeit not a perfect solution to the various diverse needs and aspirations of Canadians and the people living in the country. The Premier said he wouldn't negotia te sovereignty association before the referend um. The night of the referen dum he says he will not negotiate a constitutional Bill of Rights. Is this a new non negotiable item that the Premier has now put forward?

Does that mean that . the referendum vote, and the hopes of the referendum vote, are indeed stillborn? I believe that it is wrong for the Premier to start laying non-negotiable items on the table just after the referendum vote and I now under stand why the First Minister was wary of having any type of debate on the whole issue of feder alism prior to the referendum, because I think had we had a debate his biases and his negativism would have come out and that could have in fact hurt the referendum. So in one sense I'm glad that he didn't go to Quebec - yes, as my colleague says.

I think that negativism is a very dangerous thing at present and it's the negative attitude. Some of the substance we can in fact have our differences on; there might be some surprising agreements. I, for example, must admit that I am not a big fan of a constitutional Bill of Rights, but I would be willing to listen to the arguments put forward, and I am not going to suggest that we should make it an non-negotiable item before we even sit down to talk about the entire mix of proposals being put forward for constitutional, or institutional, or policy changes with respect to a renewed federalism.

My colleague says that you need to entrench language rights somehow, and because of comments like that I am willing to listen and say okay, fine, maybe we do it with a specific amendment; maybe we do it with a Bill of Rights. I'm not going to say that one is on an . . . basis, throw it out. I think the Premier is taking that nega ti ve attitude to an extreme. I believe that his position of all has been the most negative.

It's the language that he uses that also is one that could insight such negat ive backla shes on the part of the people that we in fact are trying to concilia te and bring together, as a family of nations, as a family of people, as a family of provinces. We will not pursue abject appeasement, is the statement of the Premier. Common law provinces don't have to buckle in. That type of attitude is shocking.

It's the wrong approach to take and what I find strange about it is that here he was trying to build these distinctions in between common law provinces and Quebec, while at the same time the real serious threats to federalism are the threats posed by people like Premier Lougheed, when they say we are going to take away powers from the central government.

And the Premier of Manitoba has never said anything about the attempts of some of these nouveau riche provinces to weaken Canada despite the fact that they themselves through the course of their history have been tremendous beneficiaries of the concept of sharing, which is inherent in Canadian federa lism. Alberta was bankrupt in the '30s; Saskatchewan was bankrupt in the '30s; Ne wfoundland was bankrupt in the '50s, '60's, and '70's, and now these provinces are saying we have hit our little moment of glory in history and we're going to pool this money all together and we won't share it with anyone.

Well the ebbs and flows of history, we've only existed for just over 100 years and if you think about the fact that we surely will exist for many more hundreds of years, let me tell those other premiers that the ebbs and flows of history will change and it is in every province's interest to reinforce and believe in the concept of equaliza tion; the concept of sharing between rich and poor regions, rich and poor people; rich and poor provinces. That is the approach that I feel very confident that our party stands for.

It is not the position that I have heard articu lated by Conservatives because Conservatives inherently are against redistribution. There have been a few of them. One of them is somewhat dis liked by many Conservatives. -(I nterje ction)- That's right. Surprisingly, the one prominent Cons ervative who has said that an inherent characteristic of Canadian federalism is redistribution was Dalton Camp. But of course Dalton Camp would be th e type of Conservative who would not be li ked by the Conservatives opposite us, because Dalton Camp, I assume, had some red Toryism within him.

I urge the First Minister to be positive, and I don't think he has been to date. Now when I look at the issue of renewed federalism, I must say that there are many perceptions of it. -(I nterjection)- Oh, I'll get to that, I'll get to that. What do you want to do now? Are you saying that we should somehow punish Quebec, that we should turn around, beat it over the head, because they didn't agree to something in 19 71? Is that the backwa rd- looking Conservative approach that's going to take us into a new renewed federalism? It won't, it won't and I'm telling you thar it won't.

And that type of attitude is exactly the type of attitude that will lead to a split in the country. MR. McKenzie: You tell us how you're going to solve it. That's what I want to hear. MR. PARASIUK: I'm getting there. I certainly will solve it by being a bit fairer and open-minded than your First Min ister has been to date. We have in fact had an emba rrassment as a province from the 3903

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. statement put forward by him. I am saying that there are di fferent perceptions of this whole issue - (I nterjection)- Wait a second. There are dif ferent perce ptions of this issue. I know the his tory somewhat better than you my friend. The point is that what we should do, we should hear the dif ferent perceptions, and if the Member . for Rocklake has positions and perceptions on this issue that he wants to put forward and the Member for Roblin, I want to hear them.

And I believe that people of Roblin should hear them, too, and if some people in Roblin have some positions that they want to express, they should express them too. That is precisely why I support my leader's call for an all-party committee to be es tablis hed now, to provide a forum for discussions on this issue, which will enable the Legislature, an all-party committee of the Legislature, to have public hearings and to allow people like the Member for Roblin, if he wants to be a part of that committee, or to allow his constituents to come forward, but he doesn't want to be part of that.

The point is, my leader has put forward that excellent suggestion. We believe it should be carried out. Who's the one backing off? Who's the one saying, no, we won't do that, we'll only consider establishing an all-party committee once we have established some stereotype positions. We say that that is the wrong approach to take into these dis cussions on renewed federa lism. -(l nterjection) That's precisely the examples I wanted to point out. There was an all-party task force in the north; there was. That's an excellent point.

There was an all-party task force in the north; there was an all-party committee looking into the whole question of family law and there were a number of div erse opinions and positions on it. There was an all-party committee on municipal affairs, on agriculture, and dif ferent views were put forward. There are precedents that exist for open government, for participatory democracy and at a time and on an issue when we most need open government, when we most need participatory democracy, this government is turning thumbs-down on an excellent proposal for an all-party committee.

The other point we're hearing is that this is not an issue, this is not an issue. The drought's an issue; the forest fires are issues. Those are issues surely, but if the Member for Minn edosa is saying that we sweep the whole matter of renewed federalism under the rug, you are playing into the hands of the separatists in Quebec. Just as with your attitude with respect to economic powers, you are playing into the hands of the separatists of Alb erta.

Surely we can establish a forum for hearing about perceptions of federalism and for exchanging views and this can, in fact, be done without a sacrifice of principle, especially if one's principles are logical, practical and take into account the cultural realities of Canada. If they aren't logical and practical, what's wrong with improving a principle or modifying it in the light of bona fide improvements put forward by other people, or if other alternatives that are useful are put forward?

There is often too great a tendency for adopting hard rigid positions and never being flexible and I say that it is at this time that we should be open minded and flexible. So I look forward to serious discussions on renewed federa lism. I do so with a combination of hope and concern. My hope is that we can improve federalism so that all people feel comfortable within it and obviously right now there is a substantial portion of Canadian population that does not feel comfortable living in Canada, as constituted at present.

My concern is that we may try to change a federation into a confederation at the expense of our country. Canada surely is greater than the sum of its parts. I bel ieve that ultimately Canad ians see themselves as Canadians first, Manitobans second, Al bertans second, Newfound landers second. There is a tendency, because provincial politics is close to us, for people to see themselves in talking about everyday issues, possibly as Manitobans first, but if they can step back for a second, they surely see themselves first as Canadians.

If you travel outside this country surely what you tell people, what you proclaim about yourself internationally, is that I am a Canadian. You do not go out proclaiming that you are a Transconian or a Manitoban. You'r e first proclamation to people is, I am a Canadian. But I believe that there are strong pressures on provincial governments and provincial leaders to come away from federal-provincial conferences or to come away from constitutional conferences with a pound of flesh gained at the expense of Canada.

There are 10 governments chipping away at the concept of Canada and only one defen ding it, and often not defending it particularly well. I think it's important for provincial politicians to go a bit beyond their parochial provincial interests and speak out in defence of Canada, not just say, well, it's so easy to do the other. We've had Levesque attacking Canada with the concept of soverei gn ty association and I didn't particularly buy that proposal. I have some very major concerns with the proposals of Claude Ryan. I look for some real federalists to come forward from Quebec.

Levesque came up with a referendum to try and establish independent Quebec's sovereignty and then he wanted to negotiate association. On page 38 of the Beige Paper, Claude Ryan goes a step further, that most people haven't picked out. His recommendation No. 4 is that the new federation will be composed of two orders of government, each sovereign and autonomous in its fields of jurisdictions. So Claude Ryan, without even going through a referendum, has inde ed willed sovereignty on the part of Quebec and then will negotiate its relationship to the rest of Canada.

That is a position that we will have to listen to possibly, we will argue against but I think that we have to be prepared to listen to anyone coming forward, even people like Brian Peckford, the Premier of Newfoundland, who came out with the statement that Canada is an agency of the provinces. The lud icrous position of the state's right is taken to its ridiculous extreme and if Canadians want to go around arguing that their country is somehow a creation of its parts, I think it is important for us, as Canadians living within provinces, to think clearly about who we are and what we are, first and foremost.

I say that these Premiers are grandstanding and that they are fooling the people. I have ind eed been to a number of so-called Premiers' conferences and the Premiers like to give the impression that if Ottawa was very very weak, they somehow, acting in concert, would be able to do great and wonderful 3904

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. things for this country. Well, the thing that they usually achieve easiest agreement on is abashing Ottawa; that's an easy one to get agreement on. Whenever it comes to a situation where you have to talk about trade-offs between provinces or talk about policies that might help one province at the expense of another, there is no agreement and there is stalemate and usually the issue isn't dis cussed at all, it is swept under the carpeting completely.

I'll give you a couple of examples about issues which I believe have been swept under the carpet at the recent Western Premiers Conference, the one that took a very strong position saying no to any type of negotiation on sovereignty association and took a couple of other strong positions on issues outside of their geographical territory. I'm wondering if the western Premiers dis cussed at all the situation where Alberta's sitting on this huge pot of money; it's using its Heritage Fund to raid ind ustries from other provinces.

Surely that will hurt the ind ustrial base of those other provinces, and how will that be dealt with in this confederation that people like Loughheed and Peckford propose? Wha t about the whol e qu estion of medic al researchers being raided by Al berta, that's using its big potful of money to raid researchers from Win nipeg, an issue which the Minister of Health agreed with me on as being a very serious problem? Was that issue even discussed by the Western Premiers? I can say that it wwas n't dis cussed because that is the whole way in which Premiers operate when they get together.

They never deal with contentious issues and that's why I think they're fooling the people when they go around thumping their breasts and saying that they could do so many wonderful things for this country. When we had dou ble -digit in flation, all the provinces could agree on was to send a resolution to Ottawa asking Ottawa to do something about it. I don't agree with what Ottawa did subsequent to that request. But I don't want to take away from the federal government the real powers to do something about inflation. I believe it's important that Canada be strengthe ned , not weake ned.

I belie ve that Canada, under Trudeau over the last 12 years, has weakened itself. I believe it's weakened itself with respect to social programs by transferring so much of this responsibil ity, without any conditions, to provinces and that has weakened social programs. I think it's weakened itself with respect to its fiscal capacity and that's one of the reasons why its deficit is so much larger at a time when certain provinces sitting on resources are building up huge surpluses and there is no way to redistribute this wealth within the country.

I believe that Canada, under Trudeau over the last 12 years, has weakened its fiscal capacity by so many tax concess ions, especi ally to the large corporate sector, and there is a report on hidden taxation by the Department of Revenue, nationally, which estimates that there is something in the order of 15 billion in deferred taxes. That equals the federal deficit. There is no interest charged on those deferred taxes, so the deficit escalates each year because of the deferred taxation.

So I believe it's not because of the constitution, I believe it's because of some inadequa te policies that Canada has weakened itself but I think it's important to keep Canada strong. There are some major challenges facing us. We have disparities between rich and poor regions, rich and poor people, rich and poor provinces.

We have the major challenge of growing dominance within the Canadian economy of foreign multinational interests which do not take into account the lon g-term interests and concerns of the Canadian people, or the Canadian people as a whole, and the Canadian people living in particular provinces. When I see situations where we are trying to repatriate some of our economy, that will not happen if we decentralize and provincialize so many of the economic powers, as is the wish of certain Premiers in this country. We have a situation where these multinationals are larger in size than Canada itself.

And here we have a situation where certain people want to fragment our power, vulcanize it to a point where you're going to have Manitoba with 1 million people trying to deal with some multinational located in 80 countries that is 100 times the size of the Manitoba Gross National Product. It is a ridiculous position to take and it's a very narrow-minded one and it's surely one that I believe the multinationals are secretly applauding. It's a dir ection which is being showed here.

We have the provincial government tying into a multinational with respect to the development of potash; tying into a multinational reducing its interests in a mine from a controlling in terest to a 27-percent interest; to Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting trying to create the illusion that Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting is a national Canadian company when it's not, it's controlled by Ang lo-American, a South African country. -(I nterjection)- It's not a wholly ... That's right, it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anglo American, and I think that there are some difficulties in trying to deal with them.

I think that, unfortunately, there have been a few provinces that have capitalized on short-term wealth and have gone around becoming quick nationalists, or provincialists, I'd say. I think that it is a danger; it's too easy a path for provincial politicians to take. I think there is a case to be made in the interests of a province to have a strong federal government. I want to clarify one thing that I raised the other da y with the First Min ister. This concerns the parliamentary request to patriate the constitution.

I asked the Premier if Manitoba has contacted the Prime Minister in this respect and I really didn 't articulate my question properly. I meant to ask him if we have requested consultation with the provinces. I believe that the constitution should be patriated. I believe that that should take place after a period and process of sinc ere consult ation between the provinces.

However, if a province is completely obstinate and is not willing to agree to a process of amendment, I belie ve that ultimately the responsibility lies with the federal government to patriate the Constitution, to clarify that position I have taken. With respect to the real issue of feder alism, which I believe comes down to the division of powers, there are three categories. There is the category of cultural powers; second category of economic powers; and the third one of social legislation powers, social policy powers. Right now there are two cross- 3905

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. currents. There is a group in Quebec, which because of its historical development, especially over the last twenty years, is pushing for change s in the Constitution regard ing cultur al powers. Those, I believe, can be accommodated. We have taken positions in the past, I certainly have taken positions in the past which I believe may have been too in fle xible in this respect and I am willing to accommodate the reality of the Quebec factor.

At the same time, there are another group of people in the country who are trying to use Quebec's demand for some cultur al decentraliza tion or decentralization of cultural powers, use that as a lever to get a decentralization of economic powers. I believe that would be disastrous for Canada, and should be argued against.

There may have been some instances where friction was caused between the federal government and provincial governments because of dif ferences in policy, and that should be resolved through the political process, not through a process of trying to revise a Constitution and get away from all those problems. You will have those problems on a continuing basis, but I certainly wouldn't want to emasculate Canada as a means of trying to overcome some difficulties that might have existed between provinces and the federal government with respect to resources because that is where the big push is taking place.

The third category of powers is the area of social policy, and in that respect I believe that the federal government has given away too much to date. We have given away the nation control over national standards of medical care, health care and education. We have seen abuse in dif ferent provinces because of that. I believe that it is important for the federal government to have a role in social policy and in social legislation and in social programs.

Without the federal government, we. would only not have equalization, which we all brag about as being a tremendous quality of our federation, but we would not have Med icare. The second characteristic that we as Canadians, when we go forth into the international arena as Canadians, like to brag about it being distinctive and positive about Canadian feder alism, and we would not have had that if we would not had a federal government pushing this forward, despite some objections from provinces. You do create tension in this area when you have some dif ferences.

I say we would not have Medicare in Canada without a courageous government in the middle 1960s, but surely we would also not have had Med icare if we would not have had a courageous New Democratic Party Government in Saskatchewan in the early 19 60s, which pioneered Med icare and showed the way for the rest of Canada and provided an example for Canada to implement through the rest of the country. We have two dif ferent sets of stimuli at work for constitutional change. One, which I will say openly, I have some sympathy for with respect to cultural changes.

The stimuli for the economic changes, I don't have that much sympathy for. I do not want to weaken this country; I do not want to weaken this country's ability to deal with the problems of regions; I do not want to weaken this national government's ability to manage the economy, to deal with the threat of multinationals to our economic independence, to deal with the whole question of regional disparities; for those very difficult and major challenges we need a strong central government.

So I think the challenge that we face is, can we give sufficient cultural powers to Quebec to make it feel that it can retain its cultural identity while protecting the whole country's ability to manage itself, manage the economy, transfer wealth from the rich to the poor provinces, introduce or help provide social services, because we haven't fin ished the range of health and medical services that indeed could and should be provided to Canadians as Canadians. What I wish for Manitobans, I wish for other Canadians.

So when we have a nu rsing home program that we introduce in Manitoba, I want Canada to pick up our lead and bring it about for all Canadians, and that will only happen if we have a strong country. I believe that we should not allow resource rich provinces to use the accommodation of Quebec as an excuse to extract economic powers from the central government, which will make it virtually impossible for the country to carry on effectively. It reminds me of the story of the American officer in Vietnam, who said that in order to save the village from the enemy, they had to destroy it.

We have chal lenges, some very severe major challenges facing us. We have to give the country strength and instruments to govern; we have to look at what provincial aspirations are, in fact, thwarted by the division of powers in the Constitution, and I think we should look at some cases specifically. I think that is a challenge that would face us as a Committee, that is the challenge that faces the various groups that I hope come together when dis cussing renewed feder alism.

Let's look at whether in fact the division of powers in the Constitution thwart a province's ability to do something or the federal government's ability to do something. I think we should determine whether inde ed the Constitution is being used as a smoke screen. I say we don't have all the answers to these questions. I am pointing out some preferences on my part.

I am pointing out some approaches that we, as a Committee, can take, things that we might ask of people coming forward before the Committee, people who are citizens of this province, who I think want to participate in the process of renewing a commitment to this country. I hope that we have the opportunity to pursue these questions and other questions in the Committee creatively, as I said was done with the Northern Task Force, was done with the Committee of Family Law, and that we act positively and sincerely to take this opportunity.

It is a ripe one and we should take it to try and build a better country, because I think that this - I hate using now or never situations, but I think that this is one of those times where the onus is surely on us and we are willing on this side of the House to try and meet that challenge. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many comments have been made on the Budget that is under debate here today. Most of them have been complimentary. One thing that has been lacking is 3906

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. criticism of the Budget. In fact, the previous speaker spoke of everything but the Budget items, and this seems to have been the case with many of the members opposite. This is the third Budget that our present Minister of Finance has brought down, and they are getting better each time. A MEMBER: Give it to them again, Albert. MR. DRIEDGER: I say they are getting better each time. Last year the highlight of the Budget was the Hydro freeze. which was a very dramatic effect.

This year we have been fortunate to be able to increase the tax rebate, but basically the whole Budget this year, which makes it so very good, is that it is a Budget for the less fortunate and low income people. Over the past three Budgets, the Mini ster has covered pretty well all aspects of society, with steady improvements and changes. I have to agree with the Member for Minn edosa and Radisson in their reaction to the opposition. Prior to the last election various statements were made by members running at that time for the NOP about how they were going to kick the elderly out of their homes.

That aspect of it we have solved. - (I nterjection)- The Member for St. George says we kicked them out. We finally have solved the problem. The members opposite have also set themselves out to be champions of the poor. The Budget that has been presented this year kicks that one out from under them. I am just wondering whether they are going to vote against this Budget. They refuse to discuss the Budget and -(I nterjection)- If you are going to vote against it, let the people know what you voted against. As I mentioned before, many of the members opposite even refuse to dis cuss the Budget. The Member for St.

Vital yesterday was talking basically of the federal election. The Member for Transcona was talking about federal issues. The only one that actually criticized the Budget to some degree was the Leader of the Opposition, and he criticized the Budget for not doing anything for the farmers. I find that sort of ironical. The members opposite have only three agricultural rural members on their side of the House and they are criticizing that this Party is not doing enough for the farmers. I doubt whether they were even aware of the dramatic drought effect we are having until it was brought up in the House here.

I think one of the reasons for the strong rural representation that we have on our side of the House is because of the previous Minister of Agriculture. Many times during the election we were debating the issues of the then Min ister of Agriculture. his land buying program, the Beef Assurance Program, transfer of quotas. even issues like Crocus Foods, which was put to rest prior to the election, but they were already collecting money off the dairy farmers for that plant at that time. Unfortunately, the member for Lac du Bonnet is not here, because I would like to dir ect some of these comments to him.

One of the reasons why the farmers of Manitoba did not accept the policies of the previous Min ister, was that we are a very young country. Our fathers and our forefathers fled Communistic countries in some cases to get away from what we were starting to do here, develop a socialistic program whereby the state owns everything - the buying of land. The Member for Lac du Bonnet ind icated in Committee that farmers did not have to pay money back on the Beef Program, they had to give the cattle to the government. It is this kind of thing that actually soured the farmers of Manitoba off.

I would like to just make some comments about our present Minis ter of Agriculture and the consideration that he has given to the people in my area, specifically the southeast area, certain of the policies that have taken place, and I would like to enumerate a few of them. For example, the sale of Crown land policy, where I have in some of my areas 80 and 50 percent of the land owned by the Crown, a lot of it leased by farmers. We have given them the opportunity to buy this land. Why is this so important? I will tell you, that even supporters of the ND Party are in favour of the sale of agricultural Crown lands.

And it's ironical. Why is it that important? It is a good lease program, it costs very little money, why would they rather own the land than lease it? It is because of in stability in governments, they never know how long they will be able to have it. I, for one, have also leased Crown land. I have no compulsion about buying land; I want to buy the land, because it gives me security, security of tenure.

In conjunction with this agricultural Crown land sales policy that we have, the Minister has ind icated a Brushing Program for the eastern region, and this is taking off - I think we have something like close to 5,000 acres being applied for already for interest rebate under the Brushing Program. These are the kind of things that help in my specific area. Jus t two weeks ago, our Agricu lture Mini ster signed an AgriMan Agreement with the people in southeast Man itoba, the SP ADA gr oup. SP ADA means Stuartburn-Piney Agricultural Devel opment Association.

This group is a self-organized group comprised of farmers throughout the whole south east. They have set up their program; they have presented it to the federal and provincial people; they were accepted and the agreement was signed for 184,000.00. What they have done with this program - they have set up 20 various projects which are all off and running, regard ing spraying - these are projects which adjust or adapt to the south east corner. They're just, like I said, brush breaking, special crop projects, and all done by the people themselves there. 184,000, Mr.

Speaker, is not a very big amount when you consider that millions were spent un der the FRED program and the ARDA program in the Interlake just a few years ago. But this 184,000 is going to go a long way towards getting the initiative going of the people in the southeast, and they have been virtually overlooked for many years. They have never really had a chance to really get themselves motivated and they are now. I'd like to make special mention of the SPADA group here in the House because that's the kind of dedication that I think has built this country and will continue to build this country.

I'd like to just make a few comments and support the Min ister of Fitness and Amateur Sports views on the opposition members, the conflicts that they appear to be having and I think I possibly can find a reason for that. When you don't have a boss that 3907

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. can give dir ection then it is very difficult to show strong leader ship and in this particular case, I think the affiliation of the ND Party with the unions has a big bearing on it. I'd just like to make a li ttle com ment here regarding the Canadian Labour Congress convention that was held here a little while ago and make reference to a grant that the provincial government gave to the convention, a grant of 8,000.00.

A grant of 8,000 was given to the convention and within 15 minutes after receiving the grant they informed the Premier that he was not needed to make opening remarks at the convention, and the statement that was used was that they wanted to be non-political. Mr. Speaker, from the day that convention opened till it closed it was nothing but political, with all the members opposite there, the national leader, Mr. Broadbent, Tommy Douglas, all these people were there. They wanted to be non-political. That's why our Premier was asked not to come but they did it only after they got the 8,000.00.

Their affiliation with the unions is what's going to hurt them in the long run, in fact my feeling is, Mr. Speaker, that in the next election a vote for the NOP will be a vote for the unions running the province. I would like to read, Mr. Speaker, Support for NOP prompts protest., this was in the paper during the week when the convention was on. The Canadian Labour Congress was accused of pushing the NOP down union members throats as delega tes adopted a policy Wednesday of on-the-job canvassing for NOP politicians.

Vancouver delegate Tony Cereldi said an NOP membership card could become a qualification for attending future CLC conventions. These are the things that we want to bring out to the people in the next election. The Member for Minn edosa says you can't blame the Member for ln kster for leaving the Party and I think he's the only one that had guts to stand up and state the issue the way it was. I would hope that there are others that can take the same position. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to compliment the positive action taken by the Cons ervative government in last year's spring flood, and again the position that is being taken during the present drought conditions. It's approximately exactly a year ago when the Red River crested in this area here and we were fighting flood problems, and now we are faced with a drought situation. I think we all have to pray for rain or else our political dif ferences in this House will be very meaning less in view of the economic dis aster that will be hitting the province, and I think, Mr.

Speaker, that it is very pertinent, it is not of our doing, but we have to have rain within ten days or there is going to be dramatic change in this province. Farmers have been squeezed to such an efficiency over the years, cost-priced efficiency, and I think we are the best producers in the world, bar none. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that at the present time the farmers are stretched tight financially, and if this dr ought continu es we are going to have proble ms that will affect, not just the farm ing community, but everybody in the city as well. Mr.

Speaker, referring back to the Budget, I believe the last three Budgets have been the best this province has ever seen. I mentioned this before and I anticipate that the Minister of Finance will be presenting many more, because unle ss strong leadership can be shown by the opposition, we will be here for a long time. I find it interesting, very often, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the Member for Brandon East. I think he has been referred to as flip flop number one. He's the economist that supposedly gives dir ection to the party, and I hope he's around next election because it's going to make it a lot easier for us.

I'm looking forward to being a part of the team that will make this province gain it's proper place in this great country of ours. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. Order please, when I was talking about turning on, I - (I nterjection)- My apologies. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: Don't explain, don't explain. Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. For three months I' ve been listening to debates in this House and I have been troubled by the name cal ling that seems to be acceptable here.

At the same time I have hoped that I would never become a part of it. Unfortunately last Friday, in my pain and anger, I did engage in name cal ling and in doing so I failed to maintain the standard that I expect of myself. I deeply regret that I do so fail, and I will try doubly hard to ensure that I do not do so again. MR. DESJARDINS: But you were right. In your case, you were right. MRS. WESTBURY: Being right, doesn 't justify it. Mr. Speaker, some government members have sugge sted that I have supported the official opposition.

What I do is support, and I will continue to support, Liberal policies even when they are adopted and presented by the New Democratic Party as if they were their own. Mr. Speaker, in the federal election we saw the federal leader of the New Democratic Party defen ding and presenting PetroCan as if he had invented it. We regularly hear Mr. Stanley Knowles taking credit for those social security measures which have been introduced by the Li beral Party over the many years. Mr.

Speaker, before I speak on the Budget I want to join those others who have expressed gratification at the results of the Quebec referendum on Tuesday. At the same time, I have to deplore the fact that the Premier of our province offered such lu kewarm support to the no position, that some have suspected that he wanted it to fail in order that the federal Libe ral Party may be embarrassed. Isn't that a terrible attitude for our government to take, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that the First Minister did not report to the House today on his meeting this morning with Monsieur Chretien on this very subject.

I had expected that some statement would be made to this House on this very important subject. The same time as I deplore the First Min ister's position I must also express concern with the non-participation in the whole referendum debate of the federal New Democratic leader. I was moved by some of the introductory remarks made by the Member for Transcona today. He was very sincere in expressing his provincial party's 3908

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. position. I didn't agree with everything he said but certainly I und erstood the concern that he expressed. But on Tuesday night we watched Mr. Broadbent make instant demands of the federal government, after the vote was in, when he had demonstrated that his dependence on Quebec union movement was more important to him than the future of our country. Without him and without Manitoba's First Min ister, however, the result was good for Canada and for Manitoba. Now the Budget itself, as the Throne Speech did, leads to more questions than it provides answers, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask is this the kind of Bud get that the Fina nce Mi nis ter and his Conservative government colleagues think is what is needed to do the job for Manitoba? Have they presented a clear blueprint of their government's policies, which gives an ind ication of the guidelin es for future economic performance in this province? Have they thrown a few ad hoe bones to the people, asking them to bask in a few vote getting favours rather than looking at the total Budget as a whole? After several kicks in the. head, a mere slap in the face is a refreshing change.

Is the government attempting to cloud the bulk of their Budget by throwing out a very few tax benefits for a small segment of the population? I suggest that they are. Do they think the public can really be led to believe that a smaller increase in taxes is better than a small decrease? Does this Budget accurately reflect the economic realities of the province? Are we really facing all the issues, or only those few the government has chosen to face? Will the tax measures and program proposals put forward by this Budget really have the impact upon the economic conditions of this province that is desired?

I can recall our present Premier's immed iate predecessor being qu oted as saying that his government was so conscious of social service needs that they had introduced every necessary type of program to meet their needs and he couldn't for the life of him think of what more his government could do. Mr. Speaker, I get the distinct impression that the present Premier and his Ministers are as naive as the last group. A token effort to approach a problem does not constitute a solution to that problem.

It is totally frustrating thatm in this day and age, lip service can be misconstrued as serious effort to resolve society's problems. What the government says it is doing and what it's actually doing often seem to be poles apart. It is a burden for the opposition, the ombudsman, the media, and the public, to drag out of the government, what they are actually accomplishing and what they are merely spouting off about. I think perhaps the Min ister of Finance learned something from the former federal Mini ster of Finance, Mr.

Crosbie, a few months ago, in his fiasco, but it sounds as though our present government is falling over backward to avoid making the same mistakes the federal Conservatives made in their Budg et. It seems they're throwing their Conservative caution to the wind now that they have seen a recent national public reaction to Conservative reactionary policies.

I think we have to ask, in light of the Premier's statements regard ing the Throne Speech and how now that government affairs have been straightened out a little after the NOP years, is this the kind of Budget the Conservative Premier of Manitoba really thinks is good for Manitoba? This is probably the last Budget that this government will ever present in this House, and I have to say thank goodness for that. But is this the ultimate in Cons ervative Budgeting?

Nearing the end of his government's term in office, he is still blaming the former government, the former provincial government, and the federal government and world conditions in general for his own Ministers' inability to respond to the actual problems that are facing Manitobans. I have to admit that I wasn't enamored of the NOP Budge ts over the years any more than the present Finance Minister was, but there are those who would prefer that as the only Liberal in this House I take no stand on the issue.

Even as the one Liberal, neither the Premier nor the Leader of the Opposition, this Budget is one that is leading us into the next general election, which will undoub tedly increase the number of Liberals and they shouldn't have to face the present Finance Minister's mistakes of today. Speaking of Liberals, where would this government be without the federal government equi lization payments, Mr. Speaker. Manitoba exceeds every other province in receiving federal government handouts.

The Fin ance Min ister's budgeting has managed to turn Manitoba into a have not province in a few short years; clever bookkeeping, if you can get away with it. The Finance Minister suggests that his statistics show that Manitoba is in no worse position than any other province in Canada. It is small comfort to have company at the bottom of the barrel. This govern ment's attitude seems to be one of not rocking the boat, reacting only to what cannot any longer be ignored, refusing to take any initiative, or to provide leadersh ip, taking false comfort in not being alone.

It is sign ificant that the Mani toba Premier's soul mates at the bottom of the barrel are also Conservative Premiers in other provinces. I have to note that it is still the midd le-income taxpayer who is bearing the brunt of Manitoba taxes. The government continues to talk about ways to take the money out of the taxpayers' pockets, but refuses to talk about ways to put money back into their pockets before taxes. Now Budget speeches, it seems to me, have to be about more than taxes and expenditures, they have to be about real issues, issues that individual people can relate to.

Such speeches should have an underlying purpose, a statement of policies, and a meshing of policies. The Finance Mini ster here alludes to cooperative planning and national-wide policies and goals when there is no clear-cut policy in this House on most issues. Ottawa can be used as a scapegoat only so often. The re is a continuing erosing of many of our important economic in stitutions. We must be adapting to a new economic system to provide stable economic group to this province. Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal Party is gratified at the removal of the sales tax on certain safety devices, equipment, apparel, including equipment for the hand icapped, and on energy related items, farm related items and trapping equipment. We welcome also the incentive to the thrifty, who sew family clothing at home, and simplification of the remittance 3909

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. procedu res, the sales tax and the incr ease in commission paid to busine ss men, especially on behalf of the small businessmen. The changes in the Property Tax Credit for senior citizens are welcomed, and the extension of the School Tax Assistance Program to senior citizen tenants. However, the Minister failed to mention what impact, if any, this might have on the SAFER Program. Tenants who now qualify for SAFER may find it no longer available to them. Un fortuna tely, in analyzing this Budget, Mr .

Speaker, we find on several occasions that where measures seem favourable to Manitobans in need , there is an offsetting of the gain which in some instances will result in little or no net gain, and I will come back to that later. We Liberals also welcome extension of the SAFER Program to low income families with children and to pensioners over the age of 55, but again we are afraid that it will be balanced out with reductions in other programs. The Day Care increase, 4 million, would be most welcome if we could beli eve in it.

I just cannot accept or believe, in view of the answers that we have received in question period, that this government means to spend 4 million after the 1st of September as opposed to something under 2 million previously estimated. I am very concerned about both Ministers, the Finance Mini ster and the Minis ter of Community Services, both of them referring to Noon and After School Programs as opposed to Lunch and After School Programs.

The Mini ster of Communi ty Services ind icated in his estimates that he feels that parents should and would supply lunches for their children, and, of course, they should, but the sad reality is that some parents will not and do not. Are we going to continue to punish the childr en for the errors, mistakes, and omissions of their parents? In reply to questions on this 4 million dollar item, the Mini ster said expen di tures will depend on applications, depend on the demand, and later on, it will take times for groups to come forward and to become organized. Really, Mr.

Speaker, this is going to be available in September and it will still be depending on groups coming forward. This is a cruel joke, I suggest. Where is the assistance that School Boards desperately need? Especially School Division No. 1. Where is relief for School Division No. 1 in the matter of the Foundation Levy, which discriminates against the inner-city. Apart from senior citizens, no attempt has been made to shift the school tax from property taxes to income taxes. There is nothing in this Budget for the city of Winnipeg.

There is no provision for either rail relocation or the overpass or preliminary preparation for either. No incentives for rehabilitation of older neighbourhoods, nothing for transit corridors. I am extremely disappointed that no encouragement or incentive is provided to the city for energy saving transit measures, such as Park and Ride or electrically operated transit buses. There is nothing for small inventors to encourage them to develop and produce their inventions here.

We saw a couple of weeks ago the Minister of Economic Development presenting as wholl y designed and produced in Manitoba products, three of which did not meet the criteria, while our own inventors are going south to the Dakotas and Min nesota to have their inventions produced and developed and marketed. Good to see you, Friendly Manitoba made in USA, and he says that it is not possible to get them made here. Why not? If we have a need, why isn't he going out and filling the need. There is nothing in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, for students, jobs, salaries with those jobs, tuition fees.

No changes in three years for students. Of course, the First Min ister made a statement, I believe last year, to the effect that virtually, who cares, they are all socialists anyway. All students are not socialists, Mr. Speakers, they are our sons and daughters, the sons and daughters of the taxpayers of this province, and they deserve the same consideration as any other people in this province. There is nothing for employment, particularly nothing for employment of minorities, natives, hand icapped, women, or youth, nothing.

In a supplement put out by the Institute for Research on Public Pol icy, I would just like to read a brief excerpt: For a number of years now the unemployment rate of those under 25 has been more than double that of those over 25. In 1978, for example, the rates were 14.5 percent and 6. 1 percent respectively for these two groups. What makes this problem special is that the effects of youth on employment may be largely irreversible, since experience has shown that youth excluded from making contributions to society have frequently estranged from the society in the longer run.

Morever, during the current long period of high unemployment, many youth are missing their normal opportunities to acquire skills and work experience. Youth being denied this opportunity during the present period may very well be condemned to a la ter life of low paying and un stable job opportunities, and even a full economic recovery five years hence is likely to largely bypass them. There is nothing for young people in this Budget. There is nothing either to improve portability in pensions in today's transient and moving society; surely this should have a priority.

The assistance to the very poor was welcome, but again there are so many variables. Provincial welfare rates now are going to included CRISP, SAFER, and Property Tax Credit as income? If so, the programs will pay for themselves to a large part. My party does approve the use of the combined family income as a basis for income. This is realistic and fair. The target groups of the aged and those over 55, and those families who are below the poverty line, the Liberal Party does agree with the emphasis on these groups. Mr.

Speaker, I have four different instances here now that I have calculated, four different instances of family income of about 10.5 thousand, quite a bit below the Winnipeg poverty line, where the results of this Budget will be vastly different. The first instance refers to a husband earning 7 ,OOO and a wife earning 3,500, two children, so she gets 436 for the two children. They will have a magnificent increase over the year, and this does not include the SAFER Program, that their increase will be 19.00. The second instance is a husband who earns 10,500, the same amount of gross earned income.

The wife is employed in the home, she does not have an earned income, and still two children, so there is 3910

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. still the 436 for those two children. That family, again without the SAFER being taken into consideration, because we don't know wha t that is going to constitute, that family will have an incr ease of 11 0.00. The third instance, if you have a single ind ividual who is a homeowner, as a result of this Bud get they are going to increase by 48, that is 29 more than the husband and wife both working with two childr en.

The fourth instance that I want to discuss, is where the husband working and earning 7,000, the wife earning the 3,500, no children, and they will be 7 4 less than they have been under the previous situation, pre-reform in other words, pre this Budget. Ob viously cla rification must be made by the Minister, because some of these figures are just not fair. For a family where the wife is outside the home earning one-third of the income of 10.5 thousand, the gain is 19, and if the husband alone is working outside the home with a gross yearly income of 10, 500, the gain is 11 0 .00.

A single indi vidual homeowner gains 29 more than the first couple, but a married couple without children loses 7 4, still as I have to say without SAFER being taken into consideration, so there is a penalty on marriage here. Mr. Speaker, perhaps my greatest disappointment in this Budget lies in the fact that there is nothing whatsoever in the provision of housing. I have already referred to the fact, no in centives are provided for rehabilitation of older housing, and I include that in my disappointment. But there is also an obliga tion on the part of the provincial government, Mr.

Speaker, to provide adequate housing for all of our citizens. The Progressive Conservatives, Mr . Speaker, recognized this obligation in 19 77, when they were seek ing votes, when they released a paper called an Ur ban Strategy, programs and policies for addressing the problems of the city of Winnipeg prepared by the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party, released the 5th of October, 19 77, stating: The priorities of the Progressive Conservative Urban Strategy are as follows: 1. To reverse the deterioration of older neighbourhoods; 2.

To provide a variety of housing options with a strong emphasis on the promotion and facilitation of home ownership. 3. To provide a specific and socially sound series of responses to the housing problems of senior citizens. 4. To assure that local governments have sufficient resources and authority to meet their responsibilities and to provide normal and acceptable services and to maintain those services. 5. To provide special financial support to local government in dealing with high priority items. 6. To assure sufficient local control and flexibil ity to permit local government to be responsive and efficient.

So there was a clear commitment to urban action; a commitment which has been tossed aside with a celerity and cynicism of which this government is sometimes capable. The question is, when is the Minister of Housing going to do something, anything, any thing, about the abysmal state of inn er-city housing? When will he acknowledge that provision of housing, even that NOP housing that was completed by his government after they took office, also requires provision of support and service ind ustry?

When will the Minister make a statement to the effect that his government will assist his tenants and others, to remain in dependent in government provide d housi ng, and other housing in the neigh bourhood, by allowing a grocery chain to operate on government-controlled land? When will this govern ment move to meet any of its acknowledged obligations in donwtown Winnipeg? Mr . Speaker, another major omission in this budget was in the area of medical research.

There's no item in the estimates for a medical research fund; virtually every other province has a provincial health research fund, why hasn't the Manitoba government moved in this dir ection and set up a research fund for health? Manitoba doesn't even have adequate applied policy oriented research departments because of cutbacks.

I suggest that because of the cutbacks, because of restraint, the Minister of Health has lost the ability, firstly, to monitor health changes in the province; and secondly, to evaluate health programs in a systematic and effective way because of the lack of the research that's been going on. Ma nitoba has not gone in the dir ection of preventative programs to change and improve health care. Mr . Speaker, I have to say that both the amendment and the sub-amendment, I find rather mild and negative. Neither of them offers any positive suggestions towards a better province.

Neither one of them is particularly offensive. I regret that they do not suggest some positive methods, make some positive suggestions for a better province, a better budget, a better government. I don't think it's enough that we sit back and criticize everything that government is doing - as I have tried to do in the estimates - without making suggestions that would improve the situation.

In conclusion, I have to say that this budget makes me think of a man covering a decrepit building with a coat of paint in the vain hope that the dilapida tion and deterioration of the building will not show; in the vain hope that it might be declared an important historical structure, when in fact it's only a decrepit old building painted over. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Springfield. MR. ROBERT ANDERSON: I rise with pleasure to participate in this Budget Debate. The bud getary process, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most important features of the parliamentary system of government.

The government puts before the Hous e, and therefore the public, its broad intentions with respect to spending and finance, and by so doing invites scrutiny, comment and criticism. It imposes, Mr. Speaker, a discipline on the government that would otherwise not be there, and brings about, I believe, a more efficient and effective use of the public's scarce financial resources. Indeed, the process serves to make the government, any government, aware of whose funds it is spending, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my government feels this very deeply and acutely.

My government has never lost sight of the huge responsibility it has been charged with in 3911

Thursday, 22 May, 1980. redistributing, allocating and spending the public's funds. A budget, Mr. Speaker, should not be brought down only in the context of what is happening right now in the economy. While those issues should not be minimized, a budget should be and do more. It should be consistent with long-term economic and social realities and, as well, should be but one more step for the government on the way to achieving the communities' objectives. A budget should, the refore, grow out of previous budgets and depart of a long term plan in philosophy. Mr.

Speaker, where budgets are too short-sighted or too geared to immediate problems, what we end up with is uneven economic progress, social and economic in stabi lity, unnecessary pain and dislocation for the citizens and a wasteful use of resources. Are these not some of the consequences of the previous adminis tration and their budg etary practices? Some illustrations are appropriate. Did the previous admin istration not develop the Nelson too rapidly, far ahead of the capacity of the market to utilize what could be supplied? And did this not cause pain and dis location for Manitoba citizens?

For example, a 15 0 percent increase in Hydro rates; uneven economic growth; and according to Mr. Justice Tritschler, a wasteful use of resources. Did the previous admin istration not develop spen ding plans based on the unr ealistic and unsustainable boom years of the early 19 70s? And did not retrenchment from these plans cause havoc for Manitoba's economy and her citizens and, in the end, force us to adopt the painful policy of restraint, from which we are now just emerging? Did not the previous admin istration bring in social programs far ahead of their capacity to properly manage and implement?

And did this not create all kinds of problems for Man itobans? Finally, Mr. Speaker, had the previous admin istration had any kind of a consistent and realistic long-term plan in philosophy, would we have faced the deficit we did when we came into office? And would we have been as limited financially, as we were in our efforts to manage creatively and di rect the provincial economy in the interests of its citizens? The answers to all these questions are obvious, Mr. Speaker, and this government is not making the same mistakes.

We und erstand the realities of Manitoba, what we can afford and when and what we cannot do. We appreciate, for example, Manitoba's demographics and how they are likely to unfold over the next decades. We understand how the Manitoba economy fits in with the national and international economies. We have, in short, given great thought to and have a good feeling for what is possible and what is not; what can and cannot be sustained; what Manitobans want and do not want. This budget, Mr . Speaker, reflects all these considerations.

It is more than just a casual response to what is happening in Manitoba and Canada today. It is but one more step on this government's road to stable economic growth, an equitable distribution of resources, the highest level of social and economic freedom for our citizens, and a standard and quality of living that is not only high today but can be sustained indefinitely. Let us look, Mr. Speaker, a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-63a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 63a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	957acce669a6bf2bb865eaf898bd93ed27a7bcf5

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