Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 20 (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-20

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. James Walding (St. Vital): Pres enting Petitions ... Rea ding and Rec eiving Petitions ... PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Flin Flon. MR. JERRY T. STORIE (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of Sup ply has adopted cer tain reso lu tions, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again. I move, seco nded by the Honou rable Mem ber for Ri el, that the report of the co mm ittee be received.

MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Muni ci pal Affairs. HON. A.R. (Pete) ADAM (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speake r. I have copies of the statement I wish to ma ke today, one for Mr. Gourla y. Mr. Speake r, I am pleased to annou nce that the provincial and muni ci pal tax sharing payments will amount to some $28.9 million in 1982 - an increase of more than 15 percent. The amoun t estima ted to be availa ble for distribu tion this year represents an increase of $3. 8 mil lion over the amount distr ib uted in 198 1.

Manit oba was the first province to introduc e growth tax revenue to relieve local property taxpayers. These payments are made throu gh the allocation to local governments on a 2. 2 poi nts of perso nal income tax and payments will be made on the basis of $24. 30 per capita to all organiz ed mun icipal ities and to the Min ister of Northern Affairs on behalf of unorgan ized terr itories.

In addition , there will be an urban services supplement payable to cit ies, towns and vil lages and urban local govern ment districts amounting to $3. 75 per capita for centres up to 5,000 popula tion, and $5. 25 per capita for centres of more than 5,000 popula tion. As well, there will be transitional adjustment pay ments made to some nine mun ici pal ities to ensure that there 1982 entitlement will not be less than the amou nts that they received last year. The basic per capita payment has been increased by $3. 30 or 15. 7 over the amount paid in 197 1.

Whereas urban services supplement have been held at the same level as last year; payments will be made in Jul y of 1982 and will be based on 198 1 census popu lation data. I am pleased to be able to mak e the announcement at this time when mun icipal ities are prepa ring their 1982 budg et and my departmental staff will be advis ing muni ci paliti es of the entitleme nts whi ch they 799 may expect in 1982. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for Swan River. MR. D.M. (Doug) GOURLAY (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would lik e to thank the Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs for making this informa tion avai lable at this time. Normal ly, the annou ncement has come much earlier in the year, but I am sure that the variou s mun icipal ities will be pleased to have this information and certa inly they will also be pleased to see the increase of some 15 perce nt. I believe this would indi cate that as this is a growth tax, or a part of the growth tax as well as a portion of income tax sharing, it would indicate the very buoyant condition that was in exist ence in the province in 198 1.

In spite of the repeated com ments by mem bers who were then Opposit ion, indicating the very depr essed state that the eco nomy was in the Province of Man itoba, I think that this statement can only indicate that the situa tion was not that bad at all with the growth of some 15 perce nt in the provi ncial-muni cipal tax sharing payment s. Bu t, nevertheless, I am very pleased with this annou ncement and again I am sure the mu nicipa lities will be very happy to get this information even though it is a few months later than normally expected. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Agricultur e. HON. BILL URUSKI (Interlake): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Spea ker, I would lik e to table the report of the Department of Agricultu re for 1980-8 1 and the Nin th Annual Report of the Manitoba Water Services Board ending March 31 st, 198 1. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of North ern Affairs. HON. JAY COWAN (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the 198 1 Environ mental Accident Report for the Environ mental Management Division. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bi lls .. . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Ques tions, may I direct the attention of honourable mem bers to the gal lery where we have 36 students of Grade 9 standing from the Lorette Collegia te School under the direction of Mr. Norman deau. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Mem ber for Spri ngfield. We also have 50 students of Grade 9 standing from the Ken Seaford Ju nior High School under the direc

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 tion of Mr. Freed and Mr. Will iscroft. This school is in the constitutency of the Honourable Mem ber for Kildonan. There are 55 students of Grade 11 standing from the Oak Park High School under the direct ion of Mr. Oswald. This school is in the constitutency of the Honourable Mem ber for Charleswood. On behalf of all of the honourable membe rs, I wel come you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Me m ber for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. BRIAN RANSOM (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker. my que stion is for the First Min ister.

Will the First Min ister confirm his earlier statement that the reserves of Man itoba Hydro have been fattened by what he termed a needless Hydro rate freeze? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable First Mi nister. HON. HOWARD R PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my statements are as they were yesterday.

Because of the very imp lications and the very consequences as indeed has been indicated by the Min ister re ponsi ble and so indic ated by technicians with Man itoba Hydro over the last year or two, there is a clear need for a review as to the direc tion in which we proceed in regard to rates in regard to Manitoba Hydro as to whether it be extended beyond the five years, whether indeed that freeze ought to continue for the five-year period. It's time for review. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, but my qu estion was, will the First Min ister confirm his earlier statements to the effect that Hydro reserves have been fattened by what he termed a needless hydro rate freeze, and I simp ly refer the First Minis ter to the document which I tabled yesterday which app ears over his signa ture and makes such statements that the Cons ervative Government has wasted mill ions of tax dollars on the needless Man itoba Hydro rate freeze. Hydro did n't need the freeze. It fattened Hydro rate reserves. I simp ly asked the First Min ister if he'll confirm those earlier statements. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, if the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountai n had listened yesterday he would have noted that on the basis of the two years of very low water levels that indeed there is a situation that certainl y reflects up on the present course of acti on. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain should also keep in min d that indeed the mon ies that have been used in regard to the Hydro rate freeze have indeed come from the pockets of the taxpayers of the Provi nce of Man itoba.

There is no mo ney to be found unless it does indeed come from the taxpayers of the Provi nce of Manitob a, so let the honourable memb er not for a mom ent fudge this issue by sugge sting that there's a Hydro Rate Freeze that isn't paid for by so meone. That is being paid for by the taxpayers in Man itoba. There is an obvious qu estion that mu st be asked, and that is whether or not that is indeed the mo st equ itable means of providing for a di stribution 800 of wealth in a equi table means MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speake r, that may well be the qu estion the First Min ister wants to ask but it wasn't the question that I placed to the First Min ister. The record will show that the First Min ister has not ans wered the qu estion which I asked him , to gi ve the information that I asked he gi ve the House. As a suppl eme ntary, Mr. Speaker, then my qu estion to the Min ister of Energy and Mi nes. Would the Mi nis ter of Energy and Mi nes advise the House what he expects the approximate reserves of Man itoba Hydo will be as at the end of March 19 82. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order si nce the Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain asked that the record be cl ear, let the record be clear that que stions that are being posed by mem bers of the Oppos ition need not be answered precisely as the y want those qu estions to be answered. The Hono ur able Mem ber for Turtle Mountai n's qu estion was indeed answered. He may not lik e the answer that is provided but that is a matter that is a concern for the Member for Turtle Moun tain. MR. RANSOM: On the same point of order, Mr.

Speaker, the First Minis ter is indeed right that he need not answer the qu estions that are placed. I was si mp ly placi ng it on the record that he had in fact not ans wered the qu estion which I had asked. He had responde d to que stions which he had in his mi nd, not to the qu estions which I asked, Mr. Speaker. Fur ther to my que stion to the Min ister of Energy and Mine s, could he advise the House as to what he expects the reserves of Hydro will be at the end of March, 19 82? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mi nes. HON. WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, I don't know exactly what the reserves will be at the end of this fiscal year. We're near the end of the fiscal year. I know that in the last fiscal year that Manitoba Hydro suffered a loss of over $16 mill ion; that for this present fiscal year they projected they could be suf fering a loss between, oh, I don't know, $28 and $32 million, Mr. Speaker. That'll be known at the end of the fiscal year and when I have that information I'll cer tainly make it avai lable to the Leg islature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for La Verendrye. MR. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendrye): Mr.

Speake r, a qu estion to the same Min ister, I wonder if the Min ister could confirm that in the Annual Repo rt of Man itoba Hydro as of March 31 st, 19 78, the reserves of Manitoba Hydro were $50,350,000.00? MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Spea ker, I'll have to take that qu estion as notice. MR. BANMAN: Mr. Speake r, that was March 31 st, 19 78. I wonder if he could also confirm, and maybe come back with the answer, that the surplus in reserve

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 as of March 31 st. 19 81 was $1 25,348,000.00? MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker. those qu esti ons are more su itably asked in an Order For Return, but I expect that we'll have opp ortu nity to discuss these matters in the Public Utili ties Comm ittee of the Legis latu re where these types of qu estions regardi ng Crown corporations are mor e appropr iately asked. MR. BANMAN: I wonder if the Min ister of Ener gy could then confirm that since the rate freeze has come on, that these reserves of Mani toba Hydro have indeed inc reased rather than decreased? MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, there has been an increase in reserves. but the point is that we are suffer ing. we are into a dr ought cycle or a two-year dry cycle, Mr. Speaker. We have had 15 percent less than average snow cover. Unless we have a tremendous change in the weather. Mr. Speaker, we will have low water levels again whi ch do have a very serious effect on Hydro, not only in the shor t term. but in the long run. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker. a qu estion to the Mi nis ter of Energy and Mi nes.

In his response to the qu es tions yesterday the Minis ter indicated that the qu es tion of Hydro rates is a very technical. indeed he used the term "technical" 13 times in his three answers to qu estions that have been raised. He said that those qu estions of setting rates should be taken out of the pol itical arena and placed before a commit tee of the Leg isla ture. the Standing Comm ittee of Public Utili ties and Natu ral Resou rces. for consideration as well as perhaps going to the Pub lic Util ities Board evenutally. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that there are few things having mor e im pact on Hydro rates than the scheduling of construc tion and the borro wings for Manitoba Hydro, will the Min ister of Energy and Mi nes commit to bring the plans for Hydro construc tion and borro wing to the Standing Commit tee of the Leg islature prior to any final decisions being made with respect to those matters? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Energy and Mi nes. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker. the normal discus sions and reviews that take place in the Pub lic Utilities Commit tee will indeed take place agai n.

I don't expect that my col leagues. Mr. Speaker. will try and use clo sur e or any unde rhanded devices to try and cut off debate in the Pub lic Utilities Com m ittee. I can recall that last year the Cons ervativ e majority, Mr. Speaker, tried to cut off debate. We certainly don't intend to do that; we expect that the Pub lic Utilities Commit tee will indeed be called and that it will pur sue its natural cour se of action. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Turtle Mount ain. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker. in view of the fact that these qu estions are so technical and in view of the fact that the go vern ment 's opp osit ion for im mediate 801 orderly com mencement of construc tion on Li mes tone, which could have a tremendous im pact on Hydro rates, I'm si mply ask ing the Min ister for his assurance that before that commitm ent is made he will submit those very technical qu estions to the Standing Comm ittee of the Legislature for review prior to a final decision being made? MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker.

I believe that it's im portant for the integrity of Hydro that the technical matters in fact can be raised in Pub lic Utilities Com mit tee and I expect that there will be an oppor tuni ty at the Pub lic Utilities Commit tee to rais e techn ical mat ters to technical people who come before the Pub lic Utilities Com mit tee. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker.

I recogn ize. of cou rse. that the Min ister doesn't have to answer the qu estion, but the qu estion was not whether we could put tech nical qu estions to the comm ittee, but whether or not he woul d bring a report; the qu estion of the schedul ing of construc tion and financing to that commit tee. as he pledged yesterday to bring a technical report relative to the Hydro rate freeze to be placed before that comm ittee for discus sion. That was my qu estion and I ask the Min ister once mor e if he would care to respond di rectly to that very di rect qu estion? MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker. the Member for Tu rtle Mou ntain. I think, is tryi ng to make a moun tain out of a moleh ill. The point is that when the technical people appear before the Public Utilities Committee. memb ers on all si des of the House have the oppor tuni ty to ask qu esti ons relating to rates. They have the oppor tuni ty to ask qu estions relating to borro wing; they have the oppor tuni ty to ask qu estions relating to construc tion; they have the opportun ity to ask all of those qu es tions.

As I said, it is not the intention of the go vern ment. unlik e previous actions. to cur tail that type of qu estions to technical people who come before the Public Utilities Com mit tee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Eco nomic Developmen t. HON. MURIEL SMITH (Osborne): Mr. Speaker. last week I was asked whether a memb er of our depart ment had been invited to attend the bankru ptcy hear ings for the Metro Dr ugs and the answer to that is no.

The department was not app roached by any of the creditors to attend that meeting and I'd lik e to take this oppor tun ity just to expand and to say that the department normally does not have as cl ose a rela tionship to the retail sector of the eco nomy as it does to the industrial and small busi ness sector and the reaso ns for this are many.

The retail field req uir es a mu ch smaller type of investment for someone to get started than the industrial sector does and conse qu ently an active role for govern ment in partner ship has not been as well developed so that we don't have any di rect relationship to the retail sector. However, we are distu rbed at the situation that has developed. We see the bankru ptcy problem and the large numb er of people going out of work as a symptom of the overall eco nomi c problems relating to the high interest rates and the unwillingn ess of the Federal

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 Govern ment to move into a sound economic plan for Canada. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G.W.J. (Gerry) MERCIER (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, in view of that answer by the Min ister of Eco nomic Dev elopme nt, my qu estion is to the First Min ister. In view of the statements made by him as leader of the N.D.

Party during the election campaign that an NOP Governme nt would take action to prevent the loss of busine sses by Man itobans due to high interest rates and in view of the statements by officials of Metro Drugs that they could have survived if the interest rates had not been so high, wou ld the First Minis ter advise what action the NOP Government is taking to prevent the loss of a busine ss lik e Metro Drugs? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, if the honourable mem ber would have studie d closely the statements that were issued duri ng the period that he's made reference to, the reference to busin esses, indeed small busi nesses and medium sized busi nesses that are going under duly and solely through interest causes. Now, it's my understan ding in regard to the statements that I've seen that the Metro Drug situation involves a numb er of factors; interest being one, but from all the informa tion that I have heard there are indeed a numb er of factors that are involved in respect to Metro Drugs. Mr.

Spea ker, I want to also point out that it would not be the intention of mem bers to discuss individual case files before the Legislatur e. If it is the intent of the honourable mem bers across the way to discuss indi vidual case fi les that may or may not take place in regard to applic ation for interest rate relief, we would not be incli ned to enter into that kind of discus sion. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speake r, the officials of Metro Drugs have ind icated qui te clearly in their statements to the med ia that they could have survived if it had not been for the high interest rate. Mr.

Speake r, in view of the statements made by the now Premier of Man itoba during the election that in spite of gains made by the working people, many Manit obans still live under the threat posed by plant shutdo wns. In the last three years such major empl oyers as Swif ts, Maple Leaf Mill s and the Win nipeg Tribune have all clo sed their doors. The Mani toba NOP beli eves that working people deserve job security in a workpl ace; Man itoba New Dem ocrats would prov ide security for layoffs. In view of those statements, Mr.

Speake r. wou ld the First Min ister advise this Ho use what action he is taking to prevent the loss of 350 jobs with Metro Drugs? MR. PAWLEY: I'm delig hted at the oppor tunity to respond to the Honou rable Mem ber for St. Nor bert. Mr. Speaker, what we have been dealing with is three years of accumula ted difficultie s; difficulties as a result of federal and provincial policies pertainin g to -(I nterjection)- well, I'm sorry, Mr. Speake r, if the 802 honourable mem bers don't want to hear - Mr.

Speaker, what we are contending with is mone tary pol icies that indeed have been of such a nature that it brought about difficulties from one end of Canada to the other. mo netary policie s in respect to interest rates that were sup ported and endorsed by the pre vious government in the Province of Man itoba. It was the previous governme nt of the Province of Manitoba that sup ported the Federal Govern ment of Canada in regard to mo netary policies pursued by the Trudeau governme nt in Ottawa si nce 19 75. Mr.

Speaker, at least this is a govern ment that is attemp ting to do what it can with in its lim ited resour ces in order to ensure that the busi ness people and others in this province can enjoy some job security, so me security in their economi c futures. It is some what ama zing, Mr.

Speaker, to suddenly receive que s tions that, -(I nterjection)- well, I don't want to use those terms in this Hous e, but in the first three or four months of the period of government on our side to receive qu estions from a governme nt that cared less about co min g to the grips with the economic prob lems confro nting Man itoba and indeed the whole of Canada. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speake r, in view of the fact that the First Min ister is acknowle dging that he's not going to take any action to live up to the gua rantees and the prom ises that he made and signe d in election docu ments during the last election, would he now adm it, Mr. Speaker, that he lied, deceived and mis repres ented his Party's position to win office in this governme nt? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I'm sure that the honourable mem ber rea lizes that the words he has just used in his qu estion are comp letely unpar liam entary.

I'm sure if he wishes to consider those words he wou ld prefer to use others and perhaps withdraw those words. The Honourable Me mb er for St. Norbert. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speake r, I'll consider the use of those words in the ligh t of the stateme nts and the prom ises and the guarantees that were made to Mani toba and the fact that truth is always a defence. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I believe I sug gested to the honourable memb er that he withdraw those words and I mak e it, perhaps a little firmer now, that he should withdraw those words and apologiz e to the House. The Honou rable Member for Turtle Mountai n.

MR. RANSOM: On a point of order, Mr. Spea ker, the words that the Member for St. Norbert used were not made in reference to anything that has been said in this House, they were made with reference to docu me nts that were circulated to the pub lic during the election and are not related to anything said with respect to this House and the memb er may well wish, of course, to respect your reque st, Mr. Spea ker, but it has nothing to do with this Ho use. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Mem ber for El mwood wish to speak to the same point of order?

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 MR. RUSSELL DOERN (Elmwood): It is qu ite clear that the former Attorney-General, who sup posedly knows some thing about poi nts of order, made an unp arliamentary statement. His statement was made in this Parlia ment; it is unp arliam entary. It doesn't matter what the reference is; he has to withd raw that statement or withdr aw from the Chamb er. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, in view of the position you're taking I'm prepar ed to withdr aw the use of those words and let the people decide for thems elves. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Fi rst Min ister. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm delig hted to have the oppor tuni ty now that the Me mb er for St. Norb ert has indeed withd rawn those remarks to answer the origi nal qu estion from the Ho nour able Me mb er for St. Norbert. Mr. Speaker, what we have seen in that past three or four months on the part of this -(I nterjection)- Mr.

Speaker, it's interes ting the honour able memb ers are having some difficu lty listening to information that they particularly don't lik e to hear and it does, I'm su re, ma ke them somewhat uncomf ortable to indeed discover what this govern ment has done in three months as oppo sed to what the previous admin istra tion had done in four years. Mr. Speaker, numb er one, this govern ment dis as sociated itself im med iately in regard to the supp ort of the mo netary policies in Canada that had given rise to many of the fina ncial problems that indeed have been created from one end of this cou ntry to the other.

That was a major and signif icant move, a poli cy that indeed the Honour able Member for Tur tle Mountain full y associated himself with during his term in govern ment and still associates himself with the mo netary policies of the Federal Government. Numb er two, Mr. Speaker, this governm ent initiated an Interest Rate Relief Program to assist homeowners and busi ness people and farmers in this province. Mr. Speaker, where were the memb ers across the way for four years when indeed interest rates were sky rocket ing througho ut Canada and in Manitoba? They sat on their rears, Mr. Speaker. Number three, Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member asked me a compr ehensive qu estion. I want to pro vide him with a compr ehensive response. Numb er three, this govern ment, unl ike the previous admini s tration, did not return to a process of acute protracted restraint, did not freeze construction in this provi nce si mply because of the bur den of the deficit and fiscal transfer cutbacks that were im posed up on this admin istra tion. Mr. Speaker, we contin ued with the program of conti nuing of construc tion in this province to the extent that it was possible for this go vernment to do so. Mr.

Speaker, we are proceed ing with other areas of program assistance which are bei ng outli ned and which will be annou nced as we proceed, but the Hon our able Member for St. No rbert should reflect for a few mo ments in the kin d of statements that he is making in a somewhat ir respo nsi ble manner in this Chamb er after three-and-a-half months, when he sat on a Treasury Bench that did absolutely nothing for four years to help those in plight in this provi nce. 803 MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Stur geon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr.

Speak er, after that palaver I have a qu estion for the Min ister of Eco nomi c Development and Tou rism. - (Interjection)- I heard the request to smil e, it's very hard after that nonsense I ju st heard. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Min ister of Economi c Devel opment and Tou rism -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, obviou sly they don't want to hear the qu estion. I've been used to the chil dishness of the NOP for years, but neverthe less, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Min ister of Eco nomic Development and Tourism if she has had any technical discussions and has requested a technical report from her developm ent officers that work with in her department on the effect of remo ving the Hydro freeze from the point of view of attracting new busi ness to the Provi nce of Manitoba? Will we be receiv ing a report from the Min ister on that su bject, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Eco nomi c Development. MRS. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I can sy mp athize with the memb er opp osite in wanting to advertise conditions in the Province of Manitoba that would attract new ind ustry. I think we're all interested in doing that, but we also have a comm itment to pres enting the real facts in terms of what the costs are li kely to be not just today or tomorr ow, but over a sus tained period of tim e. We would lik e to advertise a rate that we can live by and that mai ntains a balance in our hydro opera tions. We're comm itted to being very realistic in the information that we offer and not attempti ng to gi ve false lures to busi ness. MR.

JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the disease is spr ead ing; we're sti ll not getting answers. I've asked the Min ister if we will have a technical repor t from her department analyzing the consequenc es that may happen if we take off the Hydro freeze as far as attract ing busi ness is concerned. I would have a sup plemen tary, Mr.

Speaker, in askin g the Min ister will there be a repor t, a technical report, from her developm ent officers working with busine ss in Manitoba at the present time, small and large, as to the effects it ma y have on the present busi ness in Man itoba seeing that they have now started to analyze their budg ets and forecasts of expens es wh ich are presently there in front of them. What effect will have if the Hydro freeze comes off to the present busi ness in the Province of Man itoba? MRS. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, techn ically spe aking we are very interested and concerned about the profit and loss statements that confront the small busi ness people and the ind ustries of Man itoba. We're also concerned about the profit-loss picture that con fronts the ordinar y citizen and what we're looking for is the balanced appr oach. We want an eco nomic situation where everyone's concerns get taken into acco unt. We don't want to look at only one sector and expect full salva tion from that qu arter; we want a realistic and bala nced appr oach to eco nomic devel-

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 opment both at the cost end and at the benefit end. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, will the Min ister have a report from her department presented to the mem bers of this House or the Commit tee of Eco nomic Develop ment as to the conseq uences of rem ovi ng the Hyd ro freeze on ind ustry to be attracted to Manit oba or pr esently in Man itoba, the same as the Mi nister of Industry and Comme rce in the third month of 19 77 received a report from his Deputy sayi ng that manufac turing had been dropping for three years in this province and ma de sug ges tions on what to do about it?

Will we get a report, Mr. Speaker, that gi ves us that information in this House? MRS. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, there will be reports being presented from time to time , but we have no intention of bringing one factor and measuring it and looking at its im pact on one sector in the economy. We're looking at a package of factors; we're not going to advertise Manitob a as a low-wage area or as a low-power area if the costs and benefits at the other end don't make sense. We're not prepared to sell the people or the province at any price. We want a bal anced and sane respo nsible appr oach. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mb er for Arthur . MR. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Fir st Min ister and the Gov ernment of the Provi nce of Man itoba have continua lly prom ised to the livestock indu stry, particu larly the beef producers of the province, could the Minis ter of Agricu ltur e tell me when he is going to introduce the Beef Stabi lization Program for the beef produc ers of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Min is ter of Agricultur e. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, let it be known to the mem bers op posite and to the farmers of Manitoba that the comm itment was to sit down and have mean ingful dialogue to develop a program for livestock prod ucers in this province. Mr. Speaker, we have been doing that, unlik e the former admin istration who two weeks before the elec tion ended decided to set up a comm ittee to study the problem, while dur ing the election the former Min ister of Ag ricult ure ind icated to the farmers that the best way for them to stay in busine ss was to liquid ate their herds. We're not doing that, Mr. Speaker.

We have sat down, we have been wo rki ng with producers and we will be making an announcement as sson as we can. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the only election prom ise that they lived up to so far is the fact that they have been sitting down. Mr. Speaker, a second que stion to the Min ister. When will he be announci ng the stabilization or the level of stabil ization under the old Beef Income As su rance Program that was a carry-over from their admin istra tion? When will he be annou nci ng the sup port level for the final quar ter of that program? MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'll take that qu estion as 804 notice, and as wel l, that program would have been a very viable program to the farmers of Manitoba had it not been poli tically scuttled by the Con servatives when they were in office. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Min ister has taken the qu estion as notice but has seen fit to add a little bit mor e.

I would ask him at this particular time, seei ng that the fact that the producers had an option whether to stay in or out of the program and there were some 6, 700 producers that initially entered into it, how many produc ers are sti ll left in that program, if in fact it was such a gr eat program as he tells the people of Manitoba, how many are left in his gr eat program from a carry-over? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are very few prod ucers at this point in time left in the program. There were some -(Int erjection)- Mr. Speaker , the memb er doesn't want to hear the answer.

There were appr oximately 4,000 producers left until the year 19 80, Mr. Speaker, at which time they were, in my opinion, coerced into leaving the program because they were fed the carrot that they wouldn't have to pay back some of the funds that were owi ng under the progr am, so they opted to get out in the easiest way. Now those same producers are in the process of goi ng broke, Mr. Speaker, when the program would sti ll be available to prod ucers until the end of March of this year. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Gla dstone. MRS. CHARLOTTE OLESON (Gladstone): Thank you , Mr. Speaker .

My que stion is to the Min ister of Agr icu lture. Could the Min ister of Agricultur e tell this House and the people of Manitob a how many farmers have received assistance through the Interest Rate Rel ief Program? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agr icultur e. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there have been appr oxima tely 1, 500 inqui ries. In terms of the actual assistance paid out, assistance can not be paid out at this point in time because the Bill is before the Legisla tur e. The honourable memb er should real ize that, Mr. Speaker.

There have been, and I would be only gu essing, a couple of hundr ed that have been accepted for fur ther informa tion and ar e in the process. MRS. OLESON: In that case, Mr. Minis ter, how many people have been turned down for assistance? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, don't believe anyone has been turned down for assistance. MRS. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What does the Min ister propose to do to assist those farmers who will eventually be turned down?

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker. when we get to that point. we will have to look at that if so meone will be turned down. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Pembi na. MR. DONALD ORCHARD (Pembina): Thank you. Mr. Speaker. My qu estion is for the Min ister responsi ble for the Manitoba Telep hone System. and I ask the Mi nister. can he inform the House that the Man itoba Govern ment did instruct the Man itoba Tele phone System to install a satellite dish in Thomp son? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Com muni ty Services. HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Brandon East): Mr.

Speaker. the honourable memb er persists in asking the same que stion. I think this is about the fifth time that he asked it. I think he's jealous that the people of Thomp so n have received and are about to receive better television under our gov ern ment than they received under his gov ernment . He's ju st a little jealous. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. and once agai n. I received no answer from the Min ister. I would ju st lik e to ask the Min ister. can he confi rm that Thomp son residents have been informed that the govern ment has instructed MTS to install that satellite dish in Thomp son? MR.

EVANS: Mr. Speaker. the way the mem ber put the qu estion. I don't know whether I can confirm or deny the way he put this particular qu estion. I would add. Mr. Speaker. that the MTS is engaged through out this gr eat provi nce of our s installing devices. removi ng devices. making mod ifica tions. expan ding day by day. week by wee k. and I trus t are continuing to do a good job and they've obvi ously done a very good job in Thomp son or are doing a very good job because the honour able memb er is cer tainly very sensitive about that. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

I did n't detect that I was particu lar ly sensitive about the qu es tion. The Min ister has been sensitive about his answer. but I wou ld ask the Min ister. did he receive a copy of the press release by the MLA for Thomp son which I had hand delivered to his office last week? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker. obviously that is a face tious qu estion. It's a qu estion that's out of order. Cer tainly the Member for Pembina sent me. with an urgent sticker on it. a copy of that particular press release. and I gather he's anxious that everyone on both side s of the House be aware of that particu lar press release.

That's fine. but I would sugge st that that kin d of qu estion is sim ply out of order anyway. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Now that the Minis ter has confi rmed that in fact he has seen that press release of so me two weeks old, would he be prepared to confirm that that press release states that the government did instruct MTS to install the satellite 805 dish in Thom pson? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the qu estion is out of order. and I've said two weeks ago that I am not responsible for any press release issued by any member of this Legislature. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

Then could the Min ister confir m for the House that the statement released by the MLA for Thomp son is not factual? MR. EVANS: It is entirely out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Govern ment House Leader. HON. ROLAND PENNER (Fort Rouge): On the same point of order. and I've hesitated because I'm min dful of your wish that the Opposition have the full use of the qu estion hour. which they have now wasted. "A que stion" - I'm referring to Beauchesne. at 13 2. "A que stion ought not to refer to a statement made out side the House by a Min ister." That's obvious.

Seco ndly, as I understand it. a qu estion asking for confirma tion is not a proper qu estion and is out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honour able Me mb er for Pem bina wish to speak to the same point of order? MR. ORCHARD: Indeed. I wish to speak to that point of order. Mr.

Speaker. througho ut the cou rse of this shor t-lived Session we have found on a numb er of occa sions that statements have been made by depar tm ental staff. as in the case of the Mini ster of Natur al Resou rces. which the Min ister had no knowl edge of and in this case it app ears that the MLA for Thomp son has made a statement which the Min ister has no awareness of. In that statement. Mr. Speaker. it is very clear that the MLA for Thomp son indicated the govern ment instructed MTS to undertake the installa tion of a satellite dish. If the government instructed MTS to do that. that is what we want to know.

If the gov ernment did not instruct MTS to do that. then the statement by the MLA for Thomp son is not factual and the point of order qu ite si mpl y. Mr. Speaker. is - does the Min ister know that MLAs in hi s backbench are making statements of government pol icy without his knowledge? MR. PENNER: That's not addr essing the point of order which I have raised.

A qu estion to a Min ister can be made with respect to statements made by the Min ister in the House or in any offi cial docu ment, but what is being asked is with respect a statement made outside of the House in a press release that I haven't see n. but it doesn't matter. it's the pr inciple whi ch is not that of the Min ister. Therefore it is out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Tur tle Mountain to the same point. MR. RANSOM: Yes. Mr. Speaker.

I believe that it is entir ely in order for mem bers of the Opposi tion. indeed. for any memb er of the Legislature other than a memb er of the Treasury Bench. to seek clarifica tion respect ing gove rnme nt policy. The Member for Pem-

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 bina has been attempting to seek information respect ing the gov ernment 's pol icy having to do with its instructions to MTS conce rnin g television signals in Thomp son. The Min ister declin ed to answer the dir ect qu estion, and the Member for Pemb ina simp ly placed the que stion in a dif ferent manner to try and confirm whether or not what the backb encher had said actually reflected gov ernment pol icy. Mr. Speaker , I submit that the memb er is simp ly trying to determ ine what is govern ment policy. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Governme nt House Leader to the same point of order. MR. PENNER: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a memb er in Opposition asking a question of a Min ister is not satisfied with that qu estion, it does not gi ve that same memb er - in this case, the Me mb er for Pembina - the right to breach the ru les. That does not create an excuse for breachin g the rules; the ru les are the ru les and with respect, the qu estion was out of order , no matter what moti vated it.

If the member opposite could res pond to the point jus t raised by the Honou rable Memb er for Tur tle Mou ntain, if the memb er wants to know what the policy of the parti cular Mi nister or his department is with respect to a poi nt, he asks the Min ister that qu es tion. That qu estion was asked of the Min ister, the Min ister replied; that's the end of the matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Vi rden to the same point of order. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

Que stions of the Min istry have always been accepted in any Legisla tur e as being que stions seek ing dir ection, seek ing the pol icy of government. If we find that suddenly qu estions seeking the policy of gov ernment are to be ruled out of order, what is going to happen to this Assembly? Is the Honour able Attorney-Gener al telling this Asse mb ly that we can no longer ask qu estions seek ing policy of govern ment? I ask you to consider that very care fully in making your ruling. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank those honour able mem bers for their advice who have spoken to the point of order.

As mem bers are aware, I've tried to gi ve a que sti oner as mu ch latitude as possible in asking a qu estion. I find that most of the qu estions asked by the Honour able Member for Pembina seek ing inf or mati on as to gov ernment pol icy, as it refers to MTS, have been in order and as such I've allo wed those qu estions; except that the last qu estion that was asked by the Honour able Memb er for Pembina had to do with asking the Min ister as to a govern ment back bencher's press release, which is not within the Min is ter's department or within his sphere of influence.

I hesitated on that poi nt, that the Minis ter stood up to speak in reply to the qu estion, which is why I allo wed it to happen, but if the Minis ter does not want to reply to it, that is his pr ivi lege; the matter is out of order in any case. The Honour able Member for Pembina. 806 MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to take this oppor tunity to table the press release stating gov ernment policy issue d by a back bencher of the gov ernment not the Treasury Bench. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Robli n-R ussell. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin-Russell): Mr.

Speaker, I have a qu estion for the Honou rable Min is ter of Co-op Developme nt. I wonder can the Honour able Minis ter advise the House if anything new has taken place, or is there any new prom ises or pled ges to the cheese plants at Ro ssburn and Pilot Mound regar ding the disp osal of the surplus cheese and the date that the plants lik ely would open again, and what futur e the dair y ind ustry in those communi ties have as far as the Minis ter and the government is concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Mun ici pal Affairs. MR. ADAM: Mr. Speaker.

I would advise the Honour able Member for Roblin, that the Manco people have not appr oached the Mi nister of Co-operative Devel opment to discuss any of their concerns at this point in time. I underst and that they have met with the Min ister of Ag ricu lture and he probably would be the proper Min ister to add ress that que stion to since he is in char ge of the dair y prod ucers in the Province of Manitoba. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, I've another ques tion then for the Honour able Minis ter of Co-op Develop ment who naturally should be in charge of the devel opment of these co-operatives at Rossburn and Pi lot Mou nd. I'd ask him if he or the gov ernment can gi ve the 25 or so em ployees who are out of work any assura nces when they may be able to go back to work again? MR. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, we can't gi ve any indication when those pla nts will reopen again.

It's a decision that was ma de by the board, the Board of Manco. to close four cheese factories in the Province of Mani toba, and subs equently have reversed that decis ion and kept two of them open. It is strictly up to the board to decide whether they want to reopen these plants or not. I think hopefully that some way will be fou nd to dispose of the pr oduct that they produce and they will be able to open up as soon as possi ble. MR. McKENZIE: A final sup pleme ntary qu estion, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Honour able Min ister cou ld advise the House or the dair y farmers at Rossburn and Pilo t Mo und as to what futur e they have with their dair y herds at this time or for the future. MR. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, again, I would advise the member that when it come s to dair y pro ducers, that qu estion should be addressed to the Min ister of Agricultur e who is responsible for dair y prod ucers. MR. SPEA KER: The time for Or al Que stions has expired.

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Government House Leader. MR. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would you please call the adjou rned debate on the propo sed motion of Mr. Uskiw, Bill No. 11 ,

An Act to amend The Hig hways Department Act. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL N0. 11 -AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I took the adjourn ment on behalf of the Honour able Me mb er for Pem bina. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Pem bina. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have perused The Hig hway Departments Act and we find nothing that is of a major change in policy with the except ion of the one item, and that bei ng the im plement ation of the interest on the hold back, the 15 percent holdback that is part and parcel of our major construc tion contracts in the department and that is a move that I presume has come upon the advice of the investigation over the past year or so and it's a move that we endorse and would have been making the same kind of mo ve had we been on the Min ister's side of the House. So, we would, at this stage, Mr.

Speaker, recom mend that bill to commit tee. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (Agr eed) The Govern ment House Leader. MR. PENNER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed to the next order of govern ment busi ness, if it would be in order then, on the notice of the co mm ittee meeting, with respect to law amend ments, note that the bill now passed on Second Read ing wo uld be added to the list for that particular meeting. I would now ask, Mr. Speaker, that you call the adjou rned debate on Bill No. 13,

An Act to Am end the Pub lic Trus tee Act. BILL NO. 13 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for St. Norb ert. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this Bill proceed ing to Comm ittee. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the Hous e to adopt the moti on? (Agr eed) The Gove rnment House Leader. 807 MR. PENNER: Yes, again, if I may, Mr. Speaker, if it's in order ask that notice be gi ven that Bill No. 13 will also be on the list for the Commit tee Meeting on Law Am endm ents next Thursday, April 1st in Room 255. I would now ask, Mr. Speaker , that you call the Interim Su pply Act No. 14?

BILL 14 - THE INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT 1982 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Garry. MR. L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to speak on this Bill at this ti me, but if anybody else wishes to speak on it I yield the floor, Sir . MR. SPEAKER: I am not sur e whether the mem ber was taking the adjourn ment for another memb er or whether he was not spe aking to this. The Honour able Member for Fort Gar ry. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On that point of order, if I could just have your dir ection on it, Sir , or the House Leader's.

If I advise you, Sir , that I adjourn the debate for my col league, the Honour able Member for Tuxedo, I think I lose my turn to speak. I don't wish to lose my turn to speak, so I simply want to advise you that I don't want to speak at this time. MR. SPEAKER: One mo ment please. Order please. I am advised that the Honour able Member for Fort Garry does not lose his right to speak on the debate; if he so wis hes at a later time, the floor is open. The Honour able Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the motion of Interim Supply with great concern about some of the critical issues that are developing in terms of funding in this provinc e,

part icular ly in view of the information, or lack of information or incomple te information that is bei ng su ppl ied to this House by the Min ister of Ed ucation. The Min ister of Ed ucation over the past numb er of days si nce the annou ncement for suppor t for publi c schools in this province in a news release of March 5th, has done some unusual and amazing things.

Upon the announcement of her suppor t for pub lic sc hools in the province at that time, and under qu es tion ing , it became evident very qui ckly to all of us and to mo st Man itobans , I think, that what she was indeed doing was offload ing a great deal of the costs, the expected increase in costs this year, in education financing onto the property tax rolls.

Under qu esti oning in the Hous e, the Min ister had difficulty with this particular concept and in a move that's unusual, if not unpr ecedented, about a week later, perhaps it was two weeks later, as a res ult of, I suppo se, adverse com ments in the editorial pages of both newspapers; as a result of a numb er of

article s; and as a result of debates here in the Hous e, the Min ister called another news conference to clarify what she said was a misun derst anding of her

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 announcement on March 5th. The Honour able Minis ter indicated that indeed she was doing much mor e than most people thought she had been doing or most people assessed she was doing by vi rtue of the announcement of her suppor t for educa tion financing in the province and the Hon our able Min ister issued a five or six page release, which I understa nd took a gr eat deal of time and energy to try and clarify it in the eyes of the media who cover the Legislat ure ju st exactly what she really mea nt and what she was doi ng for the provi nce.

She said there was a great mi sund erstanding of how mu ch she was expending and how much suppor t she was gi ving to public school financ ing in the province. Wel l, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the Min ister and I have to tell mem bers of this Legisla ture that the prob lem was not that there was a gr eat misunder standing but the problem was, and it's her problem, that the public understa nds full well what she is doi ng. She is offlo adi ng a su bstantial portion of the respo nsibil ity for educa tion funding in this province back onto the property tax rolls.

After a progr am that had been well researched, well docu mented, well developed by the former government with the specific intent of taking the load off the prop erty tax roll and was very suc cess ful in do ing so, Mr. Speaker, by vir tue of the fact that only 5 out of 58 school divisions in this province last year experienced an increase in their total property tax mill rate for school pur poses, this year she is going to see vir tually every school division in this province having an increase in its prop erty tax mill rate for school purp oses, as a resul t of her under-fu nding.

I can't unders tand how the Min ister could possibly not have understood that when she issued her news release on March 5th. I find it unbelievable because at that time she annou nced just precisely what the total projected expe nditur es by pub lic schools in this prov ince would be; $6 11 million would be expended and that, Mr. Speaker, is $66 million more than was spent last year by all the public schools in this province.

Yet, when their Estim ates were released very shortly thereafter and placed on the table of this Leg islature, they showed that despite all of the increases that she said she was giving in special gr ants here and in gr ants desig ned to remove certa in inequities that she says exist and so on and so forth, the total amount that she was intendi ng to spend out of the provincial gen eral revenues was only $40 million mor e. So, the shor tfall is very obvious .

If the increase is $66 million in pu blic sc hool spendi ng and she's only going to provid e $40 mil lion out of general revenues, $26 mil lion has to be added on to the property tax rolls. That $26 mil lion, Mr. Speaker, taken on the total prop erty tax assess ment across this province averages out to eight mill s; eight mill s increase right across the province. I recog nize and we talked about it before, it's been confi rmed that the Min ister is givi ng special treatment to cer tain divisions. There's a handful of divisi ons across the provi nce that she is giving special treat ment to.

I indi cated before that I thought there migh t be some pol itical motiva tion behind those particular divisions that are going to get special treatment, so so me will not suf fer as badly as others, but ma ny right throughout this province are going to suffer worse as a resul t of that because the average has to make out to 808 eight mi lls across the board throughout this province for educa tion taxes because of the underfunding of this Min ister.

Now, this Min ister has told us about how wonder ful her program is and how it removes so many inequ ities and what a great im provement it is over the previous program and I repeat to you, Mr. Speaker, right across the board throughout this provi nce, there's going to be an eigh t mill increase in property taxes for sc hool purp oses as a result of her progr am

whereas last year, there was a decrease across the board. Only five out of 58 experienc ed increases; the rest of them were all either frozen or reduced and the net result was that there was an average decrease across the province in all property tax mill rates for school purp oses. She says that her program is better.

She says that her program has removed all sorts of inequ ities and is going to be better and she's so smug and excited about this progam that yesterday in qu estion period, she said in response to earlier qu estions, she brought forth a prepa red statement that took probably close to ten minu tes to deliver in the House during qu estion period, she indicated in response to my sug gestion that she was only helpin g out her polit ical friends in cer tain divisio ns, she said and I qu ote, "I have friend s on every school board in the Province of Manitoba." I have a little advice for the Min ister of Education.

I'd ju st lik e her to check back with those school boards after they have to release their prop erty taxes and after they realize just exactly what the net result of her financing and underfu nding is. Check back and see how many friends she has after they find out how much it's going to cost them and just how they've been abused by her changes in educa tion financing in this provi nce. Mr .

Speaker, agai n yesterday in qu estion period in the cou rse of the lengthy statement that she made, she said, "We raised the $469 million requir ed and we put in an additional 54.4 percent of di rect provincial dollar s." I'm qu oting from her statement. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you put an additional 54.4 percent on $469 mill ion, you'd have to come up with a total expendi ture of $724 mill ion, but her press release says that the total expendit ures throughout the province are only going to be $611 mill ion.

I sug gest that the Min ister is conf used; I sug gest that the Min ister is mor e than confus ed, she's totally out of control with respect to her understa nding of educati on financing in this province. Some body's writi ng very good sounding news releases for her. Somebody is writi ng information that she comes forth in statements here, but she doesn't understand it and she is giving it to us wil ly-nilly with a gr eat deal of political posturing about how gr eat everything is and the bottom line is everybody's going to be paying mor e on their property taxes. I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that this is a critical situation and one that is going to have to be addressed by this govern ment and one that they're going to have to answer for when the prop erty tax bills come out this year. Agai n, fur ther on, the Min ister in her respon ses yesterday said, "we put in mor e provincial money than the previous governmen t put in before." Of cou rse, if you examine that statement, Mr. Speaker, if she had put in one dollar mor e than we had put in last year, that would have been mor e mo ney. The point is

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 she did n't put in near ly as much of an incr ease as we had the previous year. She increased it by $40 million from the dir ect prov incial expenditur es from gener al revenue. Last year, we incr eased it by over $70 mi l lion, so in fact she's fudging the issue a bit; she's coveri ng the facts with a lot of rhetoric.

The fact of the matter is that it wasn't nearly as much of an increase as the Estim ates had put forward last year under our government and as a result, prop erty taxpayers are going to suffer. -(Int erjection)- The Member for Riv er East says, not in Ri ver East and that's precisely the point I'm making. Everyo ne of those mem bers opposite are sitting very smugl y and grinning from ear to ear because they've gotten special treatment out of this Min ister and a lot of other people throughout this province will suffer as a result of special treat ment to a small hand ful.

That's okay because that special treatment has transla ted into a mi ll rate increase throughout this province that they will have to pay for. -(I nter jection)- Not very many people paid last year. There were only five out of 58 who experienc ed an increase and of those they were very mi nor. There were only two that were of any sign ificance whatsoever. - (Interjection)- The Member for Spring field says 11 mi lls is min or. I'll sug gest to you that there will be 20 divisions that will have 11 mi lls or mor e this year as a result.

If the average is eig ht, translate that very qui ckl y and you'll find that there are probably 20 of them who will have 11 mi lls this year. -(l nterjection) Agai n, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Spring field who wants to debate with me will have ample opportun ity and he can get up and debate when it's his turn, but I sug gest to you that at this present time, he's getting very sensitive about the fact that they are offload ing costs on the provincial ratepayers in all ways to make up for their il l-conceived plans and their ill-conceived spen ding oppor tunities. I'll tell you, Mr.

Speaker, those chi ckens will come home to roost and they' ll have to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, as part of all this we see a numb er of things evolvi ng. We see the govern me nt's prior ities bei ng all fowled up, as far as I'm concerned, and obviously it's their decisions. But we take a look at the Estim ates, Mr. Speaker, and we find out wher e the pri oritie s are bei ng gi ven - educa tion 12 .9 percent increase. Well, the average increase of expen ditu res this year in the Estim ates is 16 .9 percent.

Ed ucati on, which is presumab ly a pri or ity, which they are presumably interested in suppor t ing to whatever extent they can is only getting 12 .9 percent and that breaks down into several di fferent areas.

It breaks down into an increase of about 16 percent to universities, an increase of only three per cent to commu nity college s; despite five references in the Throne Speech to the fact that techn ical trai ning and co mmuni ty colle ge-type trai ning is very im por tant to the needs of Manitobans because it provi des people in the skill -shortage areas and it provides peo ple for jobs that are there, and so on and so forth. Five references in the Throne Speech, but a three percent increase. Which, as we well know, will result in a prog ramming decrease at the communi ty college.

So, okay, the universities fared wel l, why? Perhaps there is some reason for that: perhaps it is because there is a hig h-profile initiative involved with that. The 809 Min ister is freezi ng tuition fees by giving that extra amoun t of mo ney and she can take a great deal of pu blic cred it for it because it's a dir ect hand-in -hand coer cion that's involved between the acceptance of an increase that's larger, perhaps than, other areas are getting and the freezing of tuition fees. And I won't argue on the merits of that because we've already had some discus sion s about who pays for it ultimately.

It's the taxpayer who pays for it ultimately. So, we won't get into the details of that, there'll be another time during the Estima tes for mor e discussion of that. But that one she's getting some di rect high profile treatment on and so, therefore, that one takes prece dence. But the pu blic schools, she says that she's tied into a progr am that was des igned and put forward by a Cons ervative Gove rnmen t. Well, I want to put on the reco rd, Mr. Speaker, that the Educ ation Suppor t Pro gr am does not requir e that gov ernment opposite to put one cent on the property tax mill.

It could all be taken out of general revenues. The Min ister boasted in her press release about the fact that she gave spe cial gr ants of over $14 mil lion for a wide variety of causes to a wide variety of different school divisions. I can tell you that if she had gi ven $14 million, she could have given all the increase necessary to take care of the full 66 million increased expenditures this year in pu blic school financing out of general revenues.

The power was there for her to do it but she chose instead to offload a sign ificant portion of it on the property tax rolls and the people of this province will not be very happy. There will be a ratepayers' revolt and they will let her know, and this will let this gov ernment know that all their postu ring and all their rhetoric dur ing the election campa ign amou nts to nothing in terms of thei r ultima te cred ibilit y because it's their actions that they'll be jud ged upon, Mr. Speaker.

She boasted a gr eat deal about the special grant s and said this was a new initiative and these are - well, last year the Estim ates in reviewing them had $1 3.7 mil lion in special gr ants for a variety of di fferent issues and initiatives that the former govern ment was taking. It's nonsense to argue that she co uldn't do anything else, that she was restricted, her hands were tied by the program that was put in place.

Everyt hing was in her hands; everything was in the gove rnment 's hands; the Cabine t made the deci sion: the govern ment sup ports it; and it's in the Estim ates and they have to answer for it. Mr. Speaker, that is the situation as it exists on education financi ng. There are many other problems that occ ur. Th ere are many other thing s that this gov ernme nt is not handling very well, I'm afraid.

We heard today in qu estion period about the total lack of appr e ciation and underst anding for the problems that exist today in the marketplace: the problems that busi nesses are facing as a result of high interest rates, whi ch that gov ernment said as an election prom ise they were going to take care of whi ch that govern ment said they were very sy mp athetic to, they came out with a program that was totally inadeq uate.

It did n't understand the problem whatsoever and the Min ister of Economi c Developm ent today gave us a clue as to why: They really aren't involved with the retail sector; they really geared their program, pre su mably to small investors and small busi nesses that are not involved in the retail or wholesale busi ness.

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 Yet, if you examin e that area very carefully, Mr. Speaker, you find that it's precisely those areas of the marketplace today that have to be hit hard by high interest rates. It's the retail and wholesale sector who have to carry inventory. Inventory is generally carried on a demand loan basis from the bank, inventory relies on turn over in order for it to be increased again and brought back to scale but they always have to carry inventory, because if they don't carry inventory in the retail or wholesale sector, they can't be in busi ness.

When people come shopping they have to see the merchandise in order to buy it. So, it's those areas that are prim ari ly going to be affected and I know from discussi ons with people in the busine ss commu nity, from discussions with bankers, from discussions with investors, that there is a great deal of concern, that there is a great deal of fear of what the consequences will be of prolonged high interest rates to those precise busi nesses. Today, the Min ister of Economic Development said they are not involved with the retail sector.

Her depar tment looks only to the industri al sector where there has to be a major investment to get busine sses going. She cons iders that the retail sector has a very small initial investment and therefore doesn't need the involvement or the assista nce of her depart ment. That's true in terms of setting up busi nesses, but in terms of the oper ating consequences of high interest rates, they are precisely the area that needs to be helped and she says, they're not really invovlved with that area.

Wel l, I sugge st that Mi nister had better redirect her priorities, that that depart ment had better sit up and take notice, because the retail sector is a very high portion of the em ployment in this province. In fact, it's one of the largest job creation sectors and if the retail sector is having difficulty because of high interest rates and she's brought forward a program that doesn't help them whatsoever, we all have a problem, Mr. Speaker. We've already got the first evidence with the Metro Drugs' collapse.

All she has to do is start walking down Portage Avenue in the downtown retail sector, or into the shopping centres and she'll find that doors are closi ng, that busi nesses are going out and the reason is that they can't carry the inventories that they need to stay in busi ness. But her plan has no regard for that and won't help them.

In fact, if they have $350,000 of gross income, and I tell you that isn't a very big busi ness, you don't have to add up, as the Min ister of Co-operative Development said not too long ago, you'd only have to sell two or three pieces of farm equip ment if you were in the farm ma chi nery busi ness. They're that big these days and that costly. If you were in any type of equip ment busi ness, Mr. Speaker, you wouldn 't have to sell too many items of equip ment to get up to $350,000.00.

I tell you that people who are selling jeans today and clothing and other thing s are all above the tidel ine of $350,000 that she said and the reason is that the Min ister of Eco nomic Development didn't know who she was helping when the program was set up. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are all in difficulty because all of the very busi nesses who needed assis tance are excluded by virtue of the ground ru les that she put on the progra m. Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about that and I hope that 810 others are concerned about that. I'm also troubled today, Mr.

Speaker, when I hear from the Min ister that her depar tment hasn't done any research or hasn't looked in whatsoever to the possi ble adverse effects of the lifti ng of the Hydro rate freeze in Man itoba on indus try and busi ness. She says that they don't have any technical backgro und data; they haven't done any research; and she's not sure of what the effects will be. I don't have to tell you that has been over the past four years one of the best sel ling features that Manitoba has had for bringing in new investors, new industry and new busi ness, the fact that there was a fi ve-year Hydro rate freeze.

I don't have to tell you that, Mr. Speaker, because I'm sure we're all aware of it and I know that the people in her depart ment would tell her that. That's one of the top things that they put on the list of advantages for Manitoba when they talk to people about coming here to form new busi nesses and new industry. However, people in her government are merrily work ing towards lifting the freeze for reasons which we can only gu ess because it doesn't appe ar to be related to the stability of Manitoba Hydro.

The Mem ber for La Verendrye just put on the record today that since the Hydro rate freeze, Manitoba Hydro's reserves have gone up from 50 million to 12 4 million from 19 78 to 19 81, so it's obvio usly not in financ ial dif ficu lty as a resul t of the freeze. It's obvio usly got reserves that will enable it to be stable and continue to operate as a public util ity for the benefit of all Man itobans , so it can't be related to any financial difficultie s. It has to be related to some funny priorities again that this gov ernm ent opposite has with respect to Hydro and I'm at a loss to understand. Mr.

Speaker, this government did a lot of plan ning and a lot of discussion and investigation into that Hydro rate freeze and there's no qu estion that the Hydro rate freeze was put on because people were bei ng adversely affected by the rates that had gone up as a result of a totally chaotic plan of buildi ng hydro electric pla nts on the Ne lson Riv er and up north, built before they were requ ired, built before the plans called for them as far as the load growth rate in Mani toba was going and they're sitting em pty, many of them.

The taxpayers are payi ng the interest on the debts that are invested there and not pro du cing Hydro and that's why the Hydro rate freeze was put on because Manitobans should not have paid for the ill-conce ived planning and decisions of the former govern ment.

More so than that, the fore ign debt exchange that was occur ring which amou nts to some thing in the order of 38, 40 million a year or so ago probably is in a simi lar category this year because they borrowed in for eign currencies and because those for eign curren cies have been stronger than the Canadian dolla r, the debt load increase for Hydro, for all of our utili ties that resulted in increases in the rates that Man itobans were paying in Hydro that were unfair and unreaso nable, so the rates were frozen.

Those frozen rates have not affected as I de mons trated earlier Man itoba Hydro's economic stabil ity and yet this govern ment oppo site wants to take off the Hydro rate freeze. I don't understand it. From an economic developme nJ viewpoint there doesn't seem to be any realistic policie s, any realistic

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 dir ections. Again, it's not a high pri ority of this government. The Min ister talks in terms of, well, we'll be very selective about who we let into Mani toba. We'll be very selective about what ki nds of jobs; we won't advertise low wages; we won't advertise low Hydro rates; we won't advertise any of our advan tages. I don't think she wants to attract people to Manitoba for economi c development, for job crea tion, for ind ustry.

I don't think that she cares about that and agai n, if we want to examin e her prior ities because her prior ities are best put forward by the information in the Estim ates, all she has achie ved is an additional $2 million in the Budget this year which amou nts to 8 percent which is half of the average of all the Estim ates and that $2 million is totally in increased returns to the horse-r aci ng ind ustry. That's where the two million lies, so in fact in the true sense of eco nomic deve lopment initiatives, in the true sense of the work of the department, she has a zero increase in her budget this year, Mr.

Speaker . That's tragic, but it's understandable given the kind of information that Minis ter has put before this House in the past few weeks. It's understandable because it's obvious that her priorities and her government's prior ities are not job crea tion, are not economic develop ment unless they involve governme nt-owned enter pris es and there's an even bigg er problem. There, the storm clou ds loom on the horizon and I think that Manitobans will suffer for a long tim e in futur e because of these il l-conceiv ed pol icies, Mr. Speak er.

More so than that, we have a problem of under standi ng of fina nces totally over there that's been evident in the last few qu estion peri ods. We have the Fir st Minis ter making a speech in Br andon in which he says that the shor tfall in the expected transfer pay ments and revenues from the Federal Govern ment to the Provi ncial Govern ment will be at least $1 00 mi l lion.

We have a fi rst sort of blush look at it with a lot of confus ing facts and figur es bei ng put forward by the Min ister of Fina nce that indicates that ma ybe it will be about a third less than that, someth ing lik e $68 million and then we finally have all the figur es put on the table. Incidentally, the Min ister said that he was going to try and get together on the wee kend with the Fed eral Minis ter of Finance, Mr. MacEa chen, and hamm er out a better deal with him . Well, he didn't get together; Mr. MacEachen refused to meet with him or decli ned to meet with him , we'll say that.

He didn't get together with him, Mr. Speaker, but on Monday the annou nce ment comes out that the expected shortfall that the Fir st Min ister has ju st announced three days earlier has been reduced by two-thirds.

I want to sug gest to the Fi rst Min ister that if his Min ister of Fin ance can achieve a two-thirds reduc tion in the expected shortfall in trans fer payments by not mee ting with the Min ister of Fin ance from Ottawa that he shoul d recom mend to his Mini ster of Fin ance here in Mani toba that he stop corr esponding or speak ing to him over the telephone and then we'll get an even better deal because that's how effective he is by not meeting with someb ody. -(l nterjection) That's the problem. The Member for The Pas says that it's because we're being as tough as we can.

It seems to me that the co-operative federalism is wor kin g only one way. The Man itoba Govern ment is co-opera ting and the Federal Govern ment is doing exactly what 811 they please and Manitobans are suff eri ng because this Min ister of Finance, as his Fir st Min ister and probably all his Cabi net, doesn't understand fina nce, doesn't understand the problems, doesn't understand the magn itude of the difficulties that this province is facing and chooses instead to say, we're going to be nice gu ys because we love to get along with every body and they're going to get stepped on.

They've already been used as a doormat by the Federal Mini s ter of Fin ance; they've already been used as a door mat in terms of discussions on other issues Health for one, and Ec onomic Developm ent for another - and it's because they don't know how to negotiate. They don't know how to discuss financ es. They don't even understand the figur es that their own depart ments are prepa ring for them, Mr. Speaker. All of these things are of gr eat concern. All of these thing s need addre ssing, Mr.

Speaker, and all of these thing s are not going to get the proper attention that they deserve gi ven what we've seen in the fir st few weeks of this Session. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak ju st for a little bit on the prioriti es. I know that we on this side were crit icized for maybe payi ng a little too mu ch attention to the Expenditur es side of things, and the gove rnment opposi te is taking a gr eat deal of pride in the fact that they have increased Expenditur es by 16.9 percent this year across the board.

That's their figur es, and we know that it's going to be higher, but we don't know where they're going to raise it from. We've heard about increases in sales tax; we've seen already the off loading in terms of what will probably be happen ing in Hydro; what already has been announced in a 16-percent increase in telepho nes, what is happening with respect to a very very drast ica lly increa sing mill rate for school tax pu rposes; and in fact an across the-board increase in mill rate for muni cipal pu rposes anticipa ted througho ut this provi nce.

So we know they've increased the park fees, they've increased all sorts of things, and this is only in the first three months. I don't think we've seen half of what they have in min d for this year alone. It's ju st the tip of the iceberg because the rest of it's going to be co min g in the Budget. When that Budget comes down, Man it obans will rush for cover and will let this govern ment know, I'm sur e, jus t exactly what they think about the spendi ng prior ities of this govern ment, because I could even supp ort the increased spending if I believed that their pri orities were right, Mr. Speaker .

If I believed that the areas that really ought to be loo ked at seriously were looked at seriously, but I've said before - Economic Develop ment, 8 percent incr ease, half of the average of the overall Expendi tures; Education 12.9 percent, ju st about four poi nts below the average of their increase and expenditu res. Now, No rthern Affai rs, Environ ment and Workp lace Safety and Health on a combi ned basis, O perce nt increase over last year in expenditu res. Those are areas of need. Those are areas of imp ortance pre su mably, I think we all believe.

The Envir onment, as I said earlier to the Min ister in our discuss ion on the Esti mates, the Envir onment did not fare well gi ven the fact that we are in a catc h-up position as all provi nces and even the Federal Govern ment, wel l, all governments are, with respect to tryi ng to clean up years and years and decades of

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 waste and lack of knowledge in terms of the decision s we made that have resulted in adverse effects on our enviro nment, those have to be addressed by whi chever gover nment is in power. Those were being addressed by our governme nt, and as the Minis ter acknowle dged the other day, they are not bei ng addressed with as many dolla rs as we had planned to spend in environ mental issues, in environ mental pol lution control programs.

So I am concerned about their priorities because when I see that they cut back on areas lik e Envi ron ment, lik e Education, lik e Ec onomic Development, Communi ty Services and Correct ions, and so on, and gi ve them mu ch less than their average increase across the board, and they place prioriti es on things lik e ManOil and having a different form of security service in pub lic bu ild ing s that costs an additional 1. 5 million and other initiatives of this nature, I have to say where are their priorit ies, Mr.

Speaker, and I have to qu estion exactly what they believe is im portant to the future of this province. I'm not very pleased with the results that I see because I don't think that their priori ties are in order. I think they're right out of whack and I think they're not in line with the needs and the desires and the hopes of Manitobans for the future.

And that's some thing they're going to have to face because I believe that Manitobans will tell them and they'll tell them very strongly when the tax rolls start comin g out; not only their property tax rolls but when the sales tax goes up, when they have to pay more for all sorts of items because of the initiatives of this govern ment, they'll be told and they'll be told strongly and they won't be able to duck that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker. How much time do I have?

Five min utes, thank you. -(Int erjection)- Well all I can tell the Member for El mwood who asks about the deficit is that it's not nearly as much as it will be when your Bud get is put forward. We know exactly, even after incre asi ng all of the taxes that you plan to for all Manitoba ns, you'll still prese nt us, I predict, with a greater deficit than we've ever had in this province. You'll do it because your First Minis ter said we're not going to shy away from spen ding ; we're going to keep oiling the machi nery of govern ment to spend more mo ney regardless of what the taxpayer wants, regardless of it. Mr.

Speaker, this governme nt op posite has so me sort of funny idea that the people that they are going to be helping are in some way in confl ict with the big corpo rations or the busi ness commu nity of this pro vi nce. They do not realize that they are totally intert wi ned, that it's as much the small bus iness of this province that keeps the wheels and the machi nery of govern ment going as anything else.

Three-qu arters of the firms in this province are classified under the Federal Income Tax Act as small busi ness and they represent 80 percent of the empl oyment of this prov ince and they are the peo ple, some of whom voted for you. They know they've already made a mi stake and that mi stake will be confir med as soon as they get the tax conseq uences of the ill-conceived plans of this govern ment, but they don't realize that they're not dealing with faceless mul tinational corporat ions in this province.

The vast majority of these people that they are going to be affecting are their friends and 812 their neighbou rs, brothers and sis ters and parents and people -(Int erjec tion)- yes, you're right. The Mem ber for La Verendrye says their ex-friends and that's true. They're not going to be friends much longer when they underst and exactly the cons eq uen ces of this governme nt's priorities. They don't like to look up on it that way because they like to paint all of those people as the faceless mul tinational corporate giants, but they're not. They're the people who live with you in your com muni ty.

They're the people maybe who coach your son's hockey team or who are on the parent-teacher coun cil or all of those things. They're the people who con tribut e to the United Way and the Heart Fund and Cancer Society and Manitobans on a per capita are the most generous givers in Canada, I want you to know that, in terms of all of Canada. In fact, they may well be the mo st generous giv ers in North Am erica on all of those major charitable works, and they're good people, oka y.

They're wage earners, they're hard working people, they're emp loyees, they're labo ur, they're ma nagement people and they're all involved in our busi ness communi ty in one way, shap e or form. And you're going to destroy them by all the things you're doing , and you will. You'll destroy their initia tive. It's happe ning already. Bank ru ptcies are up 24 percent over a year ago, and you were telling us at that time that they were too high, but I tell you that they'll be even high er, because we have already de mon strated your Interest Rate Rel ief Program will not help the people who need to be helped.

The bankru ptcies, the busi ness fail ures will con tinue only because they know that they don't have anybody in governme nt who understands their prob lem . So, when the final word is in, when the final decision has to be made as to whether or not they'll pull out a little more mo ney out of Canada Savi ngs Bonds and try and invest a little further and try and keep an enterprise going, they'll do what's already bei ng done in other busi nesses - we heard of one of 350 jobs today in jeopardy because this govern ment provid es them with no incentive and no encour age ment whatsoever.

In fact, this gover nment tells them that they can't look to them for any help. They don't unders tand their needs because they're looking at some other priorities and those other priorities ap pear to be massive govern ment intervention, massive gov ernment expendit ure, in fields that they ought not to be involved in. I sugge st to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's all wrong and the people of Manitoba will tell them so very, very shortly. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elli ce. MR. BRIAN CORRIN (Ellice}: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, for the past week or so the Mem ber for Tuxedo has attempted to wax eloquen t - I say only attempted, I'm not sure he succeeded -w ith respect to the su bject of our treatment of educa tion taxes and sup port for local school boards across the province. Mr. Speake r, he's wound a very cir cu itous route, he's foll owed a very devious and cir cui tous route. Today I heard him in his remarks - I hope he's stayi ng, I've listened him and I hope he does the same for me - I heard him in the cour se of his remarks talking abou t cutbacks, or the amount of mo ney that we have pro-

vided to the univer sitie s. He's very concerned that a roug hly 16 percent incr ease was exceptional and, in his opinion, ind icated simply a manipul ative and opportu nistic pol itic al attemp t to popu larize the gov ernment by way of freezing tuition fees. Wel l, Mr . Speaker , it should be remem bered that, fi rst of all, there was no condition im posed on that increase; there was no condition im posed whatsoever. The universities, when they received those fund s, were free to allocate those funds as they pleased. We, on this sid e, did n't impo se conditions.

Notwithstand ing what the Fi rst Min ister said when he made his Throne Speech reply, notwithstanding what today the Memb er for Tuxedo said in his presentation on this Interim Supply Bill, notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, and all the talk about our restrictions and our im pos ing condition, it's not true; ther e were no conditions attached. You can't have it both ways, you can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that pr obably the amount of mo ney that we have pr ovided to the universities will enable them to forego a tuition fee increase in the up comi ng year. That's probably, Mr .

Speaker , the net effect. But it wasn't desi gned to be an opp ortu nistic effort to attract that sort of resul t; it was a cooperative and volu ntary effort with that particular sector of society. Now, Mr . Speaker, before I go on to the next point, I also want to draw the honour able mem ber's attention, sin ce he was complaining about the extraord inary increase and the disparitie s between university fund ing and general publi c school funding, I want to rem ind him that such di sparitie s existed under his govern ment as well. Although I don't have the figur es here Mr .

Speaker, this afternoon because I didn 't know that he was going to addr ess this issue di rectly at this time, my memor y serves me well enough to remember that univ ersities were dramatically cut back during the term of restraint of his gov ernme nt. Mr. Speaker, my memor y serves me well enough to remember that the effect of that, those unconditio nal restric tions on the universities, was to raise tuition fees and was to raise tuition fees in an excep tional way and pres um ably to cause sign ificant hard ship. Now, Mr.

Speaker , I want to talk as well about the level of su ppor t for the public school system which we have pr ovided. Memb ers opposite are going on about potential increases in the mill rate. Fi rst of all, Mr . Speaker, I would lik e to remind tho se mem bers that in most cases that rate hasn't even been struck yet. Local boards haven't ma de decisions relative to the level of service that will actually be provided in their areas at this poi nt.

So, when people specu late on the extent of mill rate increases that will be caused by this govern ment they have to look at it from a particu larly im portant perspective, and that is the perspective of their own Ed ucati on Su ppor t Progr am and the effect that is having, in most cases, on the local boards and areas that they represent. The truth is, Mr.

Speaker, that syste m, that particu lar program put into place - here I will be fair because I think that it was an effort, I would lik e to think I've always been fair but I think in fai rness to the other side - I think it was an honest effort to im pose gr eater equit y with respect to the funding of the school sys tem. However, it didn' t succeed with respect to all poi nts. There was an inherent defic iency. The inher- 813 ent defic iency, Mr.

Speaker, was simply that it didn't take into consid eration areas where there was a low tax base, a low assess ment base, or wh ere, for one reason or another, it was polic y of local school boards to expend fewer dollars per pupil. Now going into that, Mr. Speaker, that caused con side rable hardship. It is true that those areas last year did not suffer dramatic mill rate incr eases; but it is also true, Mr .

Speaker that those areas would if we continued to proceed under that particular pr ogram, would have most certainly been locked into inordi nately restricted situati ons vis-a-vis their abili ty to provide services to the students they service in their areas. It was because those inequ ities were frozen in, they were frozen, as I understand it in the 19 80 year. That was the base level in which everything was put. Now, as well, Mr.

Speaker, on the other side of the ledger, there were commun ities such as Transcona, Ri ver East, where I belie ve there were dramatic increases in the mill rate last year - 11 mi lls, I am told by the Memb er for Ri ver East, Mr . Speaker. So, I think we can say that there were inordina te disparit ies that were, in fact, buil t into that prog ram. The program may have worked with respect to a lot of divisions in the middle but it wasn't fair, it wasn't jus t with respect to situations at either end. So, what we have done, Mr .

Speaker, is we have tried to im pose a deg ree of equit y by way of levelling through an additional contribution which, I guess, essentially works out the problem by equalizing the disp arity between the two ends. We did that by provid ing roughl y $26 million and we provided that money in a way that was targeted for the use of divisions where there was going to be some hards hip as a result of the former deficiencies, the defi ciencie s in the former program. So, in doing that, Mr .

Sp eaker, we ac tually - and I think it should be appr eciated by mem bers op posite we actually caused a red uction in the mill rate increase for many of the constituencies on the hon our able mem bers opposite side in a very sign ific ant way. I want to use some of the figur es that were related to the Hous e yesterday by the Min ister of Ed ucati on; the supp leme ntal gr ant, for instance, to the Seine Ri ver School Division of $338,000 -odd. We calcula te that we provided a benefit by way of reduc tion of the school taxes in that area of some 8.3 mill s. That, Mr . Speaker, is very sign ifi cant. Mr .

Speaker, again, the Moun tain School Division 7.2 percent of mi ll rate relief; Whitehorse Plai ns, 6.9 percent; Pin e Creek , 6.7; lntermou ntain 5.8. Now that's an attempt, Mr . Speaker to gr apple with a problem. We also pro vi ded a mea sur e of rel ief to Ri ver East and to Trans cona; we leavened the dispar ity. Now, I ask you, Mr . Speaker, in fai rness, how would mem bers opposite have asked us to cope with this pr oblem? We provided the same level of funding as you did in terms of the total percentage of pro vincial allocation; we main tai ned the 65 percent contribu tion. In doing so, Mr .

Dep uty Speaker, we assured people of this provi nce that there would be no reduc tion in provincial suppor t for this im portant area. We also contribu ted essentially what should be called an equaliza tion gr ant of some $26 mil lion, which is a sign ifi cant increase; and we dis tri buted it in a way that would prove soci ally benefi cial to the peo-

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 pie who liv ed in the areas where the im pact of the former program was most harsh and unfair . In fact, most of the school divisions that benefited were in the areas that were represented by honourable mem bers opposite. Now, they're talking about a mill rate incr ease, Mr . Speaker. They're alarmed because school taxes may be rising inordi nate. Well, Mr. Speaker. we can't uni laterally im pose on school divisions the level and extent of progr amming that they are going to prefer to their public. And. Mr .

Speaker. some of those divi sions who formerly were maint ainin g very low levels of per pupil spending realized now. in retrospect, gi ven the fact that they were disadvantaged by the former Educ ation Funding Program of the Conserva tive Gover nment. that that was a very im prudent cour se of conduc t to follow. Mr . Speaker, it would sur pris e me not in the least to find that those who had mai ntained those restrictions, and probably, Mr .

Speaker, largely because they di dn't have a proper tax base, they didn' t have an adeq uate sec ure tax base upon which to develop their pr ogr amming, are now bec oming some what mor e adventurous havi ng learned the hard lesson of what that sort of restra int meant in terms of the treatment they received from a government which was largely suppo sed to be repre sentative of them. So, Mr .

Speaker, if their mo ve to be mor e pr agma tic and their move now to appropria te mor e funds and increase the mill rate in order to do that one really que stions whether that is n't a rational sort of response to the situation that they've encou ntered over the years. But, Mr. Speaker, that message is not in yet; that message, in terms of the total rate of mill rate increase, we don't know to what extent that will be based on indi vidual autonomy and to what extent that will be affected by pr ovi ncial poli cy.

We do know that. as a res ult of our incr eases, we were able to leaven the rate of incr ease and we were able to withhold th ose increases, generally, to some 4.2 mill s across the prov ince which, in terms of past increases and inequi ties - we've had examp les in the past four to five years, Mr. Sp eaker, of increases up to 30 mill s, we've had them raised in this Ho use - in terms of those former standards, I would say that 4 mill s on average sounds very very reaso nable.

I think when mem bers oppo site are, as I said earlier, waxing eloquent about the dis ad vantages and the injustices they should remem ber, in perspective, historical perspective. what actually occurred under the former foun dation - I think it was called an Educ ation Suppor t Program as well. I have difficu lties. I mu st say, with the distinctions between the Foun dation Program and the Ed ucation Su ppor t Program. I think it was the Fou ndation Program.

But they should remem ber what the inequit ies under the former program were and the fact that they didn 't move to redress those inequ itie s in three of the four years they held power in this prov ince. So, I would ask mem bers oppo site to temper their rather self-ser ving enthusiasm for criticism of our meas ures in this area.

What we have essentially done is simpl y provide the level of funding which was put in place by their legisla tion; we've maint ained the same provincia l school di vision form ula, cost-s haring for mula of 65-35; we've provided relief to school divi sions on eac h side of the ledger , and we've attempted 814 to do that in a manner that wou ld maintain overall the lowest increase in appr eciation of the mill rate across the province. Now, in perspective.

I find it dif ficult to establish and understand why mem bers opposite find this so repug nant, why they find those sorts of increases in any way inconsistent with the general area they said they were moving in a year-and-a-half or two years ago; really, I can't under stand it. There had been no conditions im posed, notwithstandin g the fact that mem bers opposit e now are saying that funding is someho w attached to condition s, there have been no conditions im posed. Frankly I'm not sure that in some cases that we shoul dn't have im posed co nditio ns, but we didn' t.

It was a pol icy dec ision on this side to leave locally elected representativ es some deg ree of auto nomy, some flexibil ity so they could add ress the the needs which they thought were most imm edia te and im portant in their areas. So, what more could be done; what mor e could you do in terms of demo crat ic pro cess, in terms of dealin g on a short-term basis with a long-term problem - and the whole problem of educa tion financing will be the sub ject of task force review over the next year.

And we're going to have to deal with the very diffi cul t problems of dimi nishin g enrol ments and bilingu al pr ograms and all those things which really are im pacting the school system in a very dramatic and someti mes devastating way. So, if I'm forced day after day to sit here whil e I hear mem bers going on and on about inordi nate high incr eases in the mill rate, I'm finding it to be rather unpr oduc tive, I'm finding that to be a comp letely pur posele ss exercise. If they wish to be constructive they can deal with the real issues.

They can deal with the inequ ities of their program, they can deal with the real problems caused by de clining enrolm ent which, by the way, was on the table in 19 78. People are pre sumed not to have mem orie s. In 19 78, there was a report gi ven to that government on the problems that were bei ng caused by decl ining enrolment and part of the problem was identif ied as being a financial one. There was talk about the im pact of dec lining enrol ment in terms of per pupil costs and ratios. Now, where are we? In 19 80 they brou ght in the new fin anc ing program.

They didn' t addr ess that; they didn' t deal with it. We were somewhat critical of that. We raised it, I don't think we attempted to over embellish the poi nt, we didn' t try and exploit it but it was menti oned in the cou rse of debate; it wasn't dealt with. Now. member s have the audacity and the gall to come back some two years later and raise it as if this government was unattendant of the needs of school divisions in this situation. Pur e unadu lterated hog wash. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

They were the ones in 19 80 who failed to address the problem and fortui tously, now that they're in Opp osition - and I say fortuit ously from the point of view of the taxpayer and the citi zens of this provi nce - fortuitously they're now able to arg ue in a rather opp ortunistic and very pol iti cal fash ion that this problem has someho w been caused by us. It's simply not true. It would have been better, Mr. Dep uty Speaker. if they came here with clean hands and they made con structive sug ges tions in this respect.

And I've heard, in the course of the debates in Pri vate Mem bers' Hour , I've heard vir tually no thing constructive sug gested

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 with respect to the general que stion of edu cation financi ng, no thing. Whining and compla ining about an incr ease that was nowhere as extraordinar y or dramatic as several of the increases that they perpe trated when in office; but nothing construc tive as to how to deal with it. So, they can't have it all ways, Mr. Speaker. What would they have us do? Would they have had us pro vide mor e than 65 percent propor tionately? We did, in the sense that we did an equal ization grant, but would they have changed their form ula because if they would have, Mr.

Speaker, they didn't tell us about it. I did n't hear about it dur ing any of the debates or qu es tions or any exchange in this Ho use on that sub ject, so we don't know whether they would have done that. Would they have mai ntained the inequ ities? Do n't know. Would they have im posed conditions on fund ing; would they have impo sed conditions on the uni versities or school divisions? Would they have said to the school di visions tha t had low per pupil expendi tures that they could only spend the mo ney on x, y, and z? Would they have done that? Their constituen cies, Mr.

Dep uty Speaker, wou ld they have done that? I ask memb ers op posite to be candid and join the debate. If you want to debate, let's find out where you stand. It's easy to be self-se rvi ngly critical but very diffi cult to be construc tively critical. Mr. Speaker, if we're to hear muc h mor e of this I would sugge st that mem bers oppo site dir ect them selves to the real problems which are conseq uent as a result of their legisla tive revision of the education funding program of this provinc e. Mr. Speaker , I'm not going to fur ther belabou r the House with this particular sub ject.

I look to member s opposite to construc tively partici pate in this debate if it's to proceed any fu rther. I thank you for the time of the Hou se. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Pembina. MR. MERCIER: Ju st for the record, Mr . Speaker, the Member for Fort Ga rry indic ated, and I think the Speaker agreed that debate could stand in his name and it was left open to anyone who speaks, so if there are no mo re speakers, as I unders tand it, it would stand in his name. SECOND READING - GOVERNMEN T BILLS Bil l NO. 6-T HE EQU ALITY OF STATUS ACT MR. PENNER presented Bill No. 6,

An Act to Ab olish Certain Actions Conc erning the Status of Individ uals. Loi abolis sant certaine s actions relatives aux dr oits de l'indi vidu for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Attorney-General. MR. PENNER: Yes, Mr . Speaker. This bill is a short bill but an im portant bill. It's a bill proposi ng

an act to abolish certa in very archaic common law and statu tory acti ons relating to the relationships between 815 husband and wif e, parent and child, and master and servant. The intention of this bill is perh aps best expressed in the Act's shor t title which is The Equal ity of Status Act. What the bill does, Sir , is abolish the righ ts that a spous e had at common law to bring certain actions for monetary damages where there had been an inten tional interference with the relationsh ip between a husband and wife. The causes of action to be abol ished are commonly gr ouped together under the heading of "actions for ali enation of affec tions" and consist of the fol lowi ng: One, is

an act for dam ages for what is called "cri mi nal conversa tion," an ar chaic term in itself. This action can be brought at common law by a husband agai nst a person who comm its adu ltery with his wife, but this action is not availa ble to a mar ried woman. Secondly, an action for dama ges for enticement can be brought against any person who has induced a wife to leave her husband with the intention of inter feri ng with the relatio nship between the spous es.

One Ontario case in 19 46 perm itted a married woman to bring this action and, aside from that instance, ttlere does not app ear to be any reported cases where women have exercised that right. Thir dly, includ ed in this grou p, an action for dam ages for harbour ing can be brou ght by a husband agai nst a person who gi ves shelter to his wife where she would not otherwise have left him. Again, a mar ried woman has no right to bring this action. So, Sir , we can begin to see that these all relate to the notion of women or persons as property.

Fou rthly, includ ed in this gener al group some time s referred to as alienation of affect ion, an action for loss of consor tium, another archaic term, can be brou ght by a husband as head of his household where the actions of another party have dep rived him of his rig hts to have his wife's services and companionship. Once mor e, a ma rried woman cannot sue for loss of consor tium. Now, this bill, in addition to pro posi ng to abolish the above actions, will also abolish the right to bri ng an action for damages arisi ng from adu ltery or an action for what is calle d restitution of conj ugal rig hts.

This latter action is an appl ication to a cour t for an order req uir ing a spouse who has left the matri monial home to return. Here again we can see that it's vir tu ally not only a qu estion of the woman being proper ty but vir tually a chattel slave. As can be clearly seen these actions are based on an outm oded view of the ma rriage relati onship, a view which confers propr ie tary rig hts on one person in another person. Fu rthermore, most of these actions can be brought by a husband only, which is a blatant contr avention of the principle that all persons are to be equal before the law.

The bill, Sir , also pro poses to abolish the commo n-law righ t of a parent to bring an action for damages for the enticement or harboring of a child, for the seduction of a child, or for the loss of the services of a child. This prov ision also aboli shes the common -law right of a master or emp loyer. to use the mor e common term or the mor e modern term, to bring an action for dam ages for the seduction or loss of services of an emp loyee. Once again these actions, which are archaic, common -law acti ons are based on the assu med proprie tary right of a parent in his or her

Wednesday, 24 March, 1982 child. that is. not a qu estion here of a status relation ship but as if the parent owned the child; or the prop rietary right of an em ployer in his or her emplo yee which hearkens back to the days of chattel slavery. Such a concept is a comp lete anachronism in this day and age. The bill repeals. consequently, The Seduc tion Act of Man itoba. a Statute origi nally enacted in the 18 90's. Mr .

Speaker, an informal study by the Man itoba Law Reform Comm ission com pleted on October 22. 19 79, ind icates that from 18 90 there were only three repor ted cases in Man itoba brought under this Act; the last bei ng 20 years ago in 19 62. The Act would further perm it a father or mother. where the father is dead . of an unmarried female that is not the bill being proposed but the old Seducti on Act - to bring an action for damages where the unmar ried female has been seducted.

Clearly, as I pointed out with respect to the other provi sions. the Seduction Act is based on a paternal istic and sexist view of unma rried women and has no place in the 20th Centur y. A fur ther provision of Bill 6 simp ly amends The Queen's Bench Act. or proposes to amend the Queen's Bench Act. to remove any reference to the actions of crimina l conversa tion or sed uction. The overall intent of this legisla tion is to elimi nate certain discri mi na tory and outmo ded concepts which still exis t in Mani toba. and to fur ther the efforts to provide equal ity of status before the law of all Manit obans.

No provision of this Bill. let me make it clear. unless there's some undu e concern. affects federal legislation such as The Di vorce Act or affects The Juvenile Delinquents Act. So that. let me be clear and let memb ers of the Hous e be clear , it would still be possi ble to charge someone under

Section 33, for exam ple. of The Juv e nile Delinquent Act for doing

an act contri buti ng to the deli nquency of a child. That's sti ll obviously untouched by this pie ce of provinc ial legisla tion. so that those statutes which do exist for chil d protect ion. such as our Provi ncial Chil d Welfare Act. such as The Juvenile Del inq uents Act. remain untouched by the proposed Bill. I. therefore. reco mmend that this bill be enacted as written and in due cour se. when I re-type these notes. we'll send the notes across to my friend opposite. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker. I have a qu estion for the Honour able Attorney-General.

I wonder if he could indicate. Mr. Speaker. whether he has developed the pract ise. as I did with respect to a bill li ke this and all other bills, of arrang ing for imme diate di stri bution of them. up on bei ng tabled in the Legislatur e to the Bar Assoc iation. in order that their appr opria te comm it tees of the Bar Ass ociation can review them and, on the basis of that review. may make su bm issions to Law Amendme nts Comm ittee. MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker.

I can't speak with respect to this parti cular bill. other than to note that it arises fro m a recommend ation of the Law Reform Com mi s sion which consu lted with the Law Society and with the Family Law

section of the Man itoba Bar. I have had corre spon dence from various women' s gr oup s 816 suppor ting the notion of this bill. They have seen the Law Refo rm Comm ission Repor t and the Saskatche wan Law Reform Commi ssion Repor t, both of which raised the same issues. But I thank the Honour able Member for St. Nor bert for his sug gestion.

I have. in terms of the Family Law bills which are in prepara tion, or have been introduced. mem bers of my department are mem bers of the various comm ittees of the Law Socie ty and, parti cu larly, of The Man itoba Bar Asso ciation and have made it a practise to dis cuss this legislation with those mem bers. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honour able Mem ber for Pembina that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill NO. 12 -THE FAMll Y MAINTENANCE ACT MR. PENNER presented Bill No. 12 ,

an Act to Amend the Family Mai ntenance Act for second read ing. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney Ge neral. MR. PENNER: I ma y explai n that - and here I do have a copy of my speak ing notes for the Honour able Memb er for St. No rbert. Mr . Speaker. Bill No. 12 is a draft act intended to amend certain pro visions of The Family Mai ntenance Act. The bill attempts to respo nd, and I hope it does so success fully, to the deci sion of the Supr eme Cour t of Canada in the matter of the reference re

section 6, of The Family Relations Act of Br itish Columbia, the so-called Polgla ze decision. which had the affect of depr iving. and indeed has the affect of depr iving, our provi ncial cour ts of ju risdic tion in family matters in a couple of spe cific instances.

In this decision the Supreme Cour t held that a prov ince cannot gi ve a provi nciall y appoi nted judge the jur isdic tion to make an order de aling with the occu pancy of a family resid ence; the use of the contents of the fa mi ly res idenc e; or an order pr ohib iting a person from entering prem ises which are occup ied by a spous e or a child. These have been removed from the ju risdiction of provinciall y-appoi nted jud ges.

In the light of the decision it is necessary to repeal and amend The Family Mai ntenance Act to specify that these remed ies can only be obtained in the Cou rt of Que en's Bench or the Countr y Cour t. that is the Federal Cour ts. and not in the Provincial Jud ge's Cour t. The other amend ments propo sed relate to the enforcement of Orders of Mai ntenence.

As the legislation presently stands, that is as The Fami ly Mai ntenence Act presently stands. the enforce ment procedures. that is once an order has been gi ven how do you enforce it. these procedu res. which can be taken by designa ted officers - and that term is used in the Act - are limited to proced ur es set out in certai n spe cific sections of the present Act. The additional rem edie s which are set out in a fur ther part of the present Act are not available to de signa ted officers and. in addition. only apply to Orders of Mai ntenance made under The Family Mai ntenance Act itself, so

we,dn,es<11 ay, 24 March, 19 82 that there is a problem of a limit ed reach of the author ity of desig nated officers. So that where an order - jus t to ill ustrate the point - is made under The Child Wel fare Act, the reciprocal enforcement of Mai ntenance Orders Act, or is ma de in a forei gn jur isdiction but is being enforced in Man itoba, the full range of enforce ment procedu res are not presently available. To remedy this situation a defin ition

section has been added, or it is proposed that it be added, to the beginning of

Part IV of the present Family Mai nte nance Act, which provision would pr ovide that all enforcement procedu res in that

part can be taken by desig nated officers and that these proc edur es apply to Orders of Mai ntenance made under The Family Maintenanc e Act, The Child Welfare Act and also to orders reg istered for enforcement or confirme d under The Recipr ocal Enforcement of Main tenance Orders Act The limiting words made under this Act, referri ng to The Family Main tenance Act, where it is presently found in the enfor cement provis ions would be repealed allowing these enforcement procedu res to apply to all order s such as those tha t I have mentioned: The Child Welfare Act, The Remo Act, and so on.

I am. therefore, Sir , reco mmen din g that Bill No. 12 , a bill to amend The Family Mai ntenance Act in the particul ars that I have mentio ned be enacted as proposed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St Norbert MR. MERCIER: Mr . Speaker, I move seco nded by the Honour able Me mb er for Tuxedo that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Govern ment Hous e Leader. MR. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, I would li ke to propose that, in view of the time, that we call it 4:30 and, in view of the fact that I believe there's no one prepar ed to speak on any busi ness in Priva te Memb ers' Hour that, if I'm not mi staken, the Opposition would agr ee to a motion of adjou rnm ent MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, it's not that we're not pr epared to speak but, in view of the hour and in view of the fact that the Min ister of Educ ation isn' t here. we would be prepar ed to forego Pri vate Mem bers' Hour today. MR.

PENNER: I said, "no t prepared," I meant it in that sense. MR. SPEAKER: The time then being 4:30, the Ho use is adjou rned and will stand adjou rned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon (Th ursday) 81 7

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-20
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 20.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9d0582f433175ee720e2e60df83285c3cacd911e

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