Manitoba Hansard — 12 April 1983 (Sitting 44B, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-44b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature Leglslatlve Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XX:XI No. 448 - 8:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 12 APRIL, 1983. Printed by the Office of the O,_,s Printer. Province of M1111it0bll

MANI TOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHU K, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDIN S, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOUR LAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOV NATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MAN NESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLI PS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Bonilace Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA TUesday, 12 April, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMIT TEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - LABOUR MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: The committee come to order. At 4:30 p.m. the leading opposition critic, the Member for St. Norbert, has moved that the Minister of Labour's salary be reduced to $1 .00. The Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't let a motion like that go to a vote without making a few comments, particularly given the tenor of the comments made by the opposition critic in the half hour before we broke at 4:30. In fact I would say, Mr.

Chairman, after hearing his attempt to establish the thesis that the Jobs Fund is a fraud, I would say the only thing that is fraudulent, is the opposition attempts to discredit that Job Fund and also the opposition's attempt to di scr edit the job ini tiatives of this government. I think if one looks at what the previous speaker said as a package, I think you'll see how little credit that statement has because that previous half hour speech was full of inconsistencies and I would say, Mr. Chairman, it is nothing short of a series of hypocritical statements. In looking at it, Mr.

Chairman, I would first of all look at some of the specific inconsistencies that were in the statement. The speaker touched on the area of jobs, job creation, brought in the area of plant closings. He also brought in the area of taxation. In looking at it, I first of all see a number of big inconsistencies with what they did when they were in office. The previous speaker, in some of his comments, was trying at times to come on as if he was proposing that the government should take upon itself to be the sole provider of full employment, if necessary.

That certainly was the tenor of his comments with regard to summer employment. I mean, that's a nice position to take, Mr. Chairman. That means that no matter what a government does with its limited resources, that one can be critical because obviously it hasn't done enough. The member should know that quite fully himself because his government certainly didn't do enough in that area when he was a Minister of that previous government. For four years, there was unemployment. I know of unemployment in the North, specifically, Mr. Chairman - (I nterjection) - well, the member says, what was the rate?

Well, I saw my constituency, the constituency of Thompson, how the population of the city dropped by half, by 50 percent over that period. It dropped by 50 percent. Did his government step in and guarantee the jobs of the lnco workers when those jobs were eliminated? It certainly didn't, Mr. Chairman. But going further than that, did his government do anything to uphold the number of jobs in the public sector in the North? Hard ly, Mr. Chairman. They destroyed the Department of Northern Affairs; they cut back literally hundreds of jobs and this came only months after we, in Thompson, had faced cutbacks at lnco.

So what they did was in complete reversal of what the member is somehow trying to suggest, at least implicitly, that they do now or that we should do now. They know it's nonsense, Mr. Chairman. Let's go a little bit further. The member made some comments about plant closings. Well, I remember some plant closings; I remember some layoffs; I remember some cutbacks. I remember seven or eight days after the previous government was elected in 1977, the cutbacks at lnco. Now, did they say anything about that, Mr. Chairman? No, they said nothing.

As I said, they proceeded six months later to add to the problems for the Constituency of Thompson by bringing in their own cutbacks. So let's not forget their past record on that particular question. Going a little further, Mr. Chairman, let's look at what they've said about the levy for post-secondary education and health, at the payroll tax, as they would call it. Well, in looking at some other aspects of what they've said, what alternative do they propose? Here's a revenue source. What cutbacks would they introduce to compensate for taking away that tax as the member suggested?

What would they do in that regard? We haven't heard anything about that. MS. M. PHIL LIPS: Medicare premiums. MR. S. ASHTON: Well, perhaps as the Member for Wolseley suggests, they'd bring in Medicare premiums - (I nterjection) - Mr. Chairman, the member says, the typical kind of NOP scare tactic. I would suggest MR. CHAIRMAN: I cannot hear the member who has the floor. Please state your point of order. The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I realize that on the Minister's Salary we can wander a great deal, however, it isn't a cover-the-waterfront debate and I would suggest you might recommend to the Member for Thompson that debate still has to be relevant to the department and the Minister under review. MR. CHAIRMAN: The message is being conveyed to the Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Well, Mr.

Chairman, for the benefit of the Member for Springfield I point out that the opposition critic made various references to the levy, the payroll tax, and that he made several references to the Minister's position on that tax and I would consider my comments on that tax to be more than relevant, particularly in poi nting out some of the inc on sistencies and hypo critical statements that members opposite have been making. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, these are topics, I'm sure, that will come up in debate at a later time, I don't want 1658

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 to dwell on them too much at this point in time, but I merely want to point to some of the inconsistencies. But, let's get down to the Jobs Fund, that's been an item that been discussed rather considerably in this committee. Let's get down to the general concession of ... MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Thompson should be reminded that anything about the Jobs Fund would be out of order in this committee. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman, we have had various commentary on the . . . not the appropriations of the Jobs Fund, but of the credibility of the Fund itself. Mr.

Chairman, the opposition critic kept talking about the jobs fraud fund. I just want to point out that statement is inaccurate. I am not debating any appropriation of the Jobs Fund on any specific program. MR. CHAIRMAN : The Member for Thompson may proceed as long as he stays relevant. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I've said, they've suggested that it's a Fraud Fund. On what basis? Well, the basic thesis of their argument appears to be that not all the money in that program, not the entire program, are new job initiatives. Now that argument surprised me somewhat, Mr.

Chairman, because that's been stated quite clearly by the First Minister, by the Minister of Labour, by others who've described the Jobs Fund and its purpose and what it will be doing. So why are they arguing this? I would suggest it is because they know that this fund is a job creation fund, that it aims at two basic things, one is to create a significant number of new jobs, and the second is to MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member again talking about the Jobs Fund? The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, it is with regret that I draw to the attention to the Chairman that we did object to discussion about Jobs Fund Estimates. I agree that the Member for Thompson has a right to be concerned because the opposition critic and others did, despite our interventions and your rulings from time to time, continue to talk about the Jobs Fund in terms that were far from reasonable and that's a matter of public record, but two wrongs do not make a right. They were out of order then and we are not going to be out of order now in talking about them. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair thanks the Minister of Natural Resources.

If there is one thing that the Chair can maintain is authority, it is to make a ruling that is correct, and a ruling that is correct is that all items that are discussed in this committee should be relevant to the Budget item. We have ruled that before and I rule the same again. The Member for Thompson may proceed. MR. S. ASHTON: Well, it makes it very difficult, Mr. Chairman, whe.n one is responding to a half hour attack on the Minister of Labour, in which all these particular points that I am addressing now were raised.

However, if members of the committee want to avoid discussion on those particular areas, I have no objection to that. My basic point is to prove the fallacy of the arguments presented by the opposition critic and thereby prove, by reference to those fallacies, that this motion to reduce the Minister's Salary to $1 is nothing short of frivolous and vexatious, Mr. Chairman, a totally frivolous waste of time of this committee. will perhaps then, Mr. Chairman, turn more to the positive side.

My intention in getting involved in the debate on this particular motion was first of all, to show these fallacies and then show the positive side and why I feel the Minister deserves more than just a pat on the back at this point in time, but deserves every penny of the salary placed in the appropriations on the Estimates for her activities as Minister of Labour. That is, because she has shown a very flexible approach in regard to a number of areas, most importantly, I think is in terms of job creation because that's the No. 1 issue we're faced with in this province today.

Now I've seen that flexibility in my own constituency, Mr. Chairman. Her department, through her good office rs, co-operated with the Department of the Minister of Energy and Mines and with the Federal Government, through the Employment Immigration Commission to put into place one of the most effective short-term job creation programs that I have seen in this provi nce. That program was the Thompson Improvement Project. To give some very brief explanation of the extent to which it was an overwhelming success, it created over 370 short-term jobs.

It created $2.7 million worth of assets for the community of Thompson. It created employment on a wide variety of projects from hospital projects, school projects through to community groups and city projects in the City of Thompson. It captured not only the involvement and imagination of the 370 people employed on the project, but the imagination of the entire community.

We started off at the beginning of the program with, I would say, not even half that number of projects, not even half that number of jobs and, because of the spirit of co-operation that was engendered by, first of all, the departments of the Provincial Government sitting down and co-operating and, second of all, co-operating with the Federal Government, it spread, Mr. Chairman.

It spread to the unions involved; it spread to the companies, because INCO was one of the integral parts of that; it spread to the city council, the school district; it spread to the hospital board and it spread to the community organizations. That is the kind of thing I would like to talk about, programs like that which have worked, which could be applied elsewhere, other ideas that the members opposite might have in this regard because I'm sure they have something to contribute in this way. don't want to talk about what I realize is a traditional motion, this reduction of salary to $1.00.

It's priced for - (I nterjection) - well, Mr. Chairman, the member opposite said, it's not tradition. I have noted that it's been used in various times in this House before. It has been used at the Federal House of Commons, often as a way to highlight a particular issue or something of that nature. But, rather than do that and do it in a negative way, I would like to see some suggestions, some ideas in this regard. 1659

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 In terms of unemployment for youth, it is a crisis situation. There's no doubt about it. It's a crisis situation. I don't think anybody in this Legislature disagrees with that. The question is, how do we tackle it. Let's recognize, in terms of the Careerstart which was a subject of some discussion in general terms under these appropriations, let's realize what that kind of program is aimed at doing. It is aimed at doing what it can. It's a flexible program. That is why it's placed under Jobs Fund. It's a flexible program as through past experience.

If the jobs are there, often the deadline is extended; the program is expanded. It's the kind of program that is aimed at creating however many jobs can be created in that regard. By having it in the Jobs Fund, that only reinforces it. When you have a $200 million fund to draw on potentially and that program clearly will not draw on that entire amount, it is obviously so that you can have that flexibility.

So long as one business or one community organization creates a job, then that fund will provide the funding for it, will make sure that that one person, that one unemployed student, that one unemployed youth will have a chance at that job. Let's recognize where that's at. Let's look at where we need the help as a government. As a province, we need the help. The help is in terms of making sure that fund, that appropriation is used to its absolute maximum. That is one way in which suggestions can be useful.

I know that members of this Assem bly, whether they be opposition in government, have been very good in the past of publicizing these government programs. I hope that would be part of it, but I hope it will go a little further than merely taking forms out to businesses, as I'm doing. It will go to the point of their recommending to businesses in their area potential projects, because that is one way of tackling the problem. Of course, that's working within the confines of one particular job creation program. Other kinds of ideas are needed in terms of other kinds of programs.

If members opposite have ideas in that regard, I'd sure like to hear them as an MLA for a constituency where people are unemployed. You know I'm looking myself, I'm looking at experiences in other provinces. I'm trying to find out information from Western Europe, from the United States about other Job Creation Programs because the money is there - the $200 million is there - and we can use it if we have the right kind of ideas and I think we can come up with some damn good programs, but we have to have the ideas.

So that is basically why I have a great deal of difficulty debating this particular motion because it phrases every thi ng in a very negative sense. It phrases everything in a very personal sense. It implicitly says somehow that the Mini ster is resp onsible for unemployment in this province. Well, that clearly is not true, Mr. Chai rman. We all know the Mini ster is responsible for employment, employment services, job creation.

It should be phrased in that sense, rather than bringing in these tired arguments that the members opposite have brought in about - which I perhaps shouldn' t mention because it might create some controversy again - but which the member opposite dwelled at length with for half an hour. Let's look at the Job Creation aspect. Let's hear the suggestions for it. There is a time for debate of the broader principles, The Jobs Fund Act, the specific appropriations later.

There is time there for criticism of any particular projects which might not be considered that good, or any suggestions in terms of the general principle of the Jobs Fund. Really, under the Estimates of the Minister of Employment Services, we should be lookir.g at Job Creation and suggestions in that regard. I would therefore, Mr.

Chairman, in concluding, say that I reject these statements, not simply because they're negative because I realize that all oppositions to a certain extent have to be critical and have to be negative, but because the statements the members opposite have made are, first of all I think, inconsistent; secondly, they really are of very little assistance to this Legislature and to the people of Manitoba in terms of providing potential alternatives; and thirdly, are directed at the wrong side of things.

We should be looking not at unemployment but ways of finding employment in this province at the present time and that's why I would reject this particular motion and wholeheartedly support the initial steps that the Minister of Labour has taken in this very critical area. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Transportation. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I missed the occasion when the motion was put before 4:30 with respect to the Minister's Salary; 'and had I been here I think I would have been appalled at witnessing that spectacle because Manitoba is not the example over which such a motion would be in order and the members opposite know that. They know that it is exactly the area where this government's strength lies, at least to date, and therefore it is their desire to take the underpinnings away from the Government of Manitoba on this very important issue. It's important, Mr.

Chairman, because everyone recognizes and it's quite popular out there to talk about the vast number of unemployed and I don't believe the Mi nis ter of Labour has den ied that we have an unemployment problem. But I think that in light of the position that Manitoba finds itself in with respect to unemployment, comparatively speaking with the rest of Canada, that I would have thought the motion would have been to commend the Mi nister for having inf luenced decision-making processes within the Government of Manitoba that indeed were stimulative, in order to maintain as many jobs as possible and, Mr.

Chairman, that would have been quite in order. I want to remind members opposite that they put the arguments forward for a very constrained Budget; they put the arguments forward for lowering provincial spending. They said let the private sector do it, it's not government's role to do anything about the economy other than to assist the private sector, that they would not want to get involved too directly - all of those things which are not working in the rest of Canada. Mr.

Chairman, it so happens that Manitoba today is the second lowest provi nce with respect to unemployment in Canada, second only to the Province of Saskatchewan. Alberta is now in third place and they were usually in fi rst place and they have a Conservative regime, which has been newly re-elected and they have their problems, Mr. Chairman. So I think it's wrong to reflect in the way that is being attempted here, on a Minister whom I think has done an excellent 1660

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 job, so far, sinc e she has un dertaken these responsibilities. I think it's fair to recognize that this Minister has been extremely innovative with respect to what can be done with the job problem, innovative in the sense of being able to bring forward some reviews of existing policy with respect to in-house government employment initiative, with respect to encouragement for early retirement, all sorts of options have come out of the woodwork in order to deal with the problem of the unemployed.

I think this is not a Minister that has stood still, but has indeed recognized very much the burden that is on her shoulders, along with that of the Minister of Economic Development and others, that we indeed have a serious problem and it's a crisis that must be dealt with in some form. Now, I believe that members opposite prefer to be very good socialists when they debate Estimates, because all of their logic is on doing something through the public system about the problems in the economy.

Their Budget Addresses are very conservative, because they say you musn't spend any money, and I want to repeat the Member for Sturgeon Creek, who says you can't have it both ways, and that's right, you can't have it both ways.

If we're going to maintain a low deficit or a zero deficit position, then we know what the options are vis-a-vis the status of the employment within the Civil Service, vis-a-vis Government Services throughout the various departments, and by the way, I want to remind members opposite that they will be screaming on the other side of the ledger when we get to the Department of Highways, which has really been singled out as one where a cut has been made.

I suspect there won't be one voice raised from members opposite when we debate those Estimates, in opposition to the cuts in that department, given the logic of this motion, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking forward to a very easy debate, Mr. Chairman, in recognition of the fact that members opp osite are talking about management, and in recognition of the fact that we tried to do some of that by repriorizing, even though we had to take some cuts in certain departments. Naturally departments that are relatively Capital-intensive are easy candidates in those tough times.

But I think that this particular motion is uncalled for, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of where Manitoba stands relative to the rest of Canada; what we have been doing to try to ameliorate, to a large extent, the problem that is out there, and we haven't finished, we have only begun. I think that's a fair statement of fact. I'm not going to talk about the Jobs Fund because it is not appropriate at this time, only but to indicate that there will be an opportunity to debate that in due course.

The members opposite will be able to exercise their lungs for all they're worth on that issue and compare what we are doing there with what they have done over the years in that same area, Mr. Chairman.

I don't believe that they will be able to say very much negative about the thrust ol the Department of Labour through this Minister or the government on that issue, because that is the number one issue which we have decided must be dealt with, in recognition of the fact that provinces have very limited scope in which to func tion and cannot impact very significantly percentage-wise on the reductions that we would like to see in the unemployment scene. We can be cosmetic at best, even if we spend hundreds of millions of dollars and everyone on the other side recognizes that.

I believe it's fair, though, that we can zero in on pockets of unemployment, and we can zero in on unemployment where it is a case of expired UIC beneficiaries that are affected. There, the numbers are much smaller that we must work with. There, it's required that the Government of Manitoba synchronize its efforts with the Government of Canada, to some degree, so that we simply aren't spinning our wheels and spending provincial dollars which are, in essence, reducing the spending of federal dollars through UIC benefits.

But rather we deal with the question of those people that have nowhere to go because the jobs aren't there, but who have expired on their UIC benefits. That's the direction that must be taken. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to whoever moved that motion - and I don't know who it was - that they rethink their position and vote against their own motion because this scenario here today is absurd, to say the least, having the record of this administration in comparison with those across Canada on this very issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, I must say that as persu asive and as eloquent as the Mini ster of Transportation is, he has come just a little short of convincing me not to supp ort the motion of my colleague, the Member for St. Norbert. I believe that my colleague laid out a very very strong case for it, and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Transportation was not here from 4 o'clock until 4:30. He was obviously otherwise occupied in the other committee, because he wasn't able to enjoy the benefit of having the case put forth in a very logical, reasonable and rational manner by my colleague for St. Norbert.

My colleague, I think, laid it all out very very well for members opposite and I think that, rather, those members opposite, perhaps with the benefit of reading Hansard tomorrow, might be persuaded that there is some merit to the motion. I think it would be wise for us to carry this forward so that they have the benefit of reading that tomorrow before they vote on it, because it's a very important motion, Mr. Chairman. There is no question that we want well-informed people voting on this issue. I know I won't be able to reach the heights of eloquence that my colleague for St.

Norbert did, but I'm prepared to try and I'm prepared to give my best effort at putting the case forward, because I know the Mini ster of Transportation, being the reason able individual that I know he is, will probably want to listen at least. He may well be persuaded. But I find it interesting that so many members of the government are here now with us to listen to the debate, to jump to the defense of their Minister of Labour, and indeed she is a good person, as the Minister of Natural Resources has said. She is a person who came to the job with very great expectations.

She was someone whom, we on this side, said probably represented in many ways an improvement over what we had been experiencing before in the handling of . MS. M. PHILLIPS: Ken MacMaster? 1661 MR. G. FILMON: No. I'm thinking of her immediate predecessor at the moment, for the Member for

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 Wolseley , but the Member for Wolseley insists on naming names and I guess this is show-and-tell, so I'll have to say that the person that she replaced was someone who had a very heavy load in looking after Finance, and Labour didn't seem to be something that merited enough attention, and I realize that he had many things to look after. So this Minister came to us with great promise and great expectations. But, just as Linus has said in the cartoon that I'm sure members opposite are familiar with called "Peanuts" - there is no heavier burden than a great potential.

This Minister is finding that, indeed, it's a heavy burden that she has on her shoulders, because she has to live up to the expectations that were created by her party during the last election. So the mistake and the crime is not that she hasn't fulfilled the expectation. The crime and the mistake is that those expectations were created and this Minister has to live with them. You know, the members have made some comparisons. It is not just a question that this Minister is a poor minister.

The question is that, by comparison to the expec tations that were created by that government when they were running for office, she has not been able to live up to those high and lofty goals. That is a problem that she is going to have to live with and that's a problem that this government is going to have to live with throughout its term of office. When the public, the electorate, is made to believe by a party that they can do all those things, then the public has a right to criticize, through its opposition, that party as a government for not reaching those expectations that they created themselves.

I speak specifically when I addr ess the comments of the Member for Thompson, who said that he was aware of layoffs that occurred under our administration. Indeed, I'm sure that there were layoffs. In fact, I can remember some.

His colleagues in opposition, took great delight at pointing out and going into the kind of hypocritical grandstanding - and I'm glad that the Speaker ruled that term in order because I think it is very appropr iate for talking about some of his colleagues when they were in opposition - that they used to exercise in the House every time there was a layoff in any organization, in any business, in any industry in this province. That sort of hypocritical grandstanding now, of course, today looks so foolish when you compare it to what they're dealing with.

Layoffs in this province in the past year-and-a-half under this administration have been unprecedented. The loss of jobs has not been seen before in any time, perhaps back to the Depression in this province. This government has to take some responsibility for not meeting the expectations that it created when it said that it promised, under the now Premier's signature, the Honourable Howard Pawley, then Leader of the opposition, who said, I guarantee it, that no Manitoban shall lose their job, if they were elected to government.

Well, here it is and the opportunity is there to fulfill that promise, and this government cannot and this Minister who is, unfortunately, placed in the position of having to match that expectation cannot do it. So we have every legitimate right to deal with this Minister in the manner in which we are, and that is to say that she is not performing or fulfilling the promise that was laid out for her by her colleagues when they ran for office just a scant year-and-a-half ago. Mr.

Chairman, you know, the Member for Thompson spoke about the Jobs Fund and referred to the "fraud fund," as was mentioned by the Member for St. Norbert, when he outlined - (I nterjection) - no. The Member for Thompson proceeded well along the way and the Minister of Natural Resources gave us a criticism or at least a lecture about two wrongs not making a right, and I say, Mr. Chairman, that carrying on with that, I suppose, three wrongs don't make a right. So we will carry on with our discussion of the comments that were made by the Member for Thompson who objected to the term of "fraud fund" being used.

But it's quite obvious, Mr. Chairman, that over half the money that is in that fund has come from ongoing projects of the Provincial Government. Over half the money is not money that would not ordinarily have been spent on those ongoing built-in programs and this government MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member talking about the Jobs Fund? MR. G. FILMON: I'm talking about this government's actions in job creation.

This government is taking the tack, rather than being open and up front of having jobs created in the normal way that they would be, rather acting like a squirrel preparing for winter and hiding away from each little area a little bit of funding from this department, a little bit of funding from that department, from ongoing departmental Estimates and programs, ongoing programs, that provide long-term, full permanent jobs and taking it away and putting it into a so-called job creation initiative. It's a charade, Mr.

Chairman, because the fact of the matter is that they are just taking out of one pocket and putting into another. In fact, they're destroying. Now, we find out that there is a decrease in funding at the community colleges of $4.5 million. Of ongoing programming, we're taking aside 38 . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. We are discussing the Minister's Salary and we have the consensus, I hope, that there is a separate item for the Jobs Fund. When the time comes, that's the time to talk about the Jobs Fund. If the member will persist, I will call him out of order. The Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FllMON: Mr.

Chairman, with all due respect, we listened to a dissertation about fees being charged for medical care and all sorts of things from the Member for Thompson. In order to make my case, I may stray just a tiny bit, but I'm going to stick largely to the point at hand which is the manner in which this government is attempting to take a high profile, take a great deal of public credit . . MS. M. PHIL LIPS: It's not an attempt. MR. G. FILMON: Oh, the Member for Wolseley says it's not ,an attempt. They're being successful.

They're taking political credit for ongoing activities of the government that have been carried on by every previous government in succession that have been built into the ongoing line activities of every department and they're 1662

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 trying to take that out and somehow convince the public that this is a separate new job creation activity and it is not, Mr. Chairman. It is just what people have a right to expect out of any government worth its salt, but this government is trying to make cheap political Brownie points out of what it says is legitimate job creation activities. We have demonstrated, Mr. Chairman, that over half of the activities are built into the system and are there and this government can't take credit for them as new initiatives.

I'm sure that as time goes on and as we go through department by department we will find even more evidence of the fact that this government is doing nothing new, Mr. Chairman, that it is in fact just simply trying to change the appearance.

It's the old shell game, as the Minister of Transportation used to say when he was in opposition. - (I nterjection) - Oh, sorry, it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs who liked that that term, the old shell game, of just rearranging the pieces under different covers, but they are the same ones there and there are no new initiatives out of this whole thing and this Minister is going to have to answer for that.

I think one of the tragedies is that with respect to the administration in the job creation activity in her department under the Department of Labour she cannot tell us, or at least maybe she has chosen not to tell us, some of the specifics about the real job creation activies. She talked today of the appointment of a senior manager of the Jobs Fund from her department, and this senior manager is someone who has been hired with, I assume, good qualifications and I'm prepared to accept that, except she can't give us a job description. She can't give us a rundown item by item of his responsibility.

She can't tell us what he's supposed to do in this job and I think that is a tragedy because he has a central responsibility in job creation activities under Employment Services, and yet under questioning today .. HON. M. B. DOLIN: On a point of order. I clearly delineated the job of that particular manager and told you exactly what his responsibilities were. Perhaps the member was not present during Estimate debate at that time, but to say that I refused to do this is an inaccuracy. If the member will check Hansard, he will find the job of that senior manager clearly defined. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tuxedo.

MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to check Hansard and I'll take the Minister's word for it. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the Minister is not able to delineate criteria, is not able to delineate priorization or any numbers of things about the Jobs Fund at the present time, certainly that she hasn't been able to do that to the satisfaction of members on this side. The Minister seems to be more interested, Mr.

Chairman, in issuing news releases, in appearing at announcements, at having signs put up that say the Jobs Fund makes it happen, advertising and all those sorts of things than answering legitimate questions about the job creation activities that are under her administration and under her jurisdiction.

The members opposite have said this Minister can't be held responsible for the unemployment levels, and yet in the same breath the Minister of Transportation wants to immediately take credit for the fact that Manitoba has the second lowest unemployment rate in the country as a province; and yet they're not supp osed to have to take the respo nsi bility for unemployment per se, but they want to take the credit for it being the second lowest. Well, you can't have it both ways, to repeat his words back to him. There were times, Mr.

Chairman, when during our administration we were the second lowest level of unemployment in the country, but our Minister of Labour, a good Minister of Labour, declined to take the credit for it at that time. When people asked, well, isn't this a reflection on the wonderful programs you're doing? He said, look, the difference between second and fourth is usually not that great. Manitoba has traditionally slipped back and forth between second, third and fourth lowest. We've stayed in that bracket; we've moved very little.

He said, I would be wrong to take the credit on behalf of myself, my department, or our administration. That's the kind of sensible, sane and rational approach we would like, not the kind of approach that we get here - where looking for any opportunity for cheap political gain, people will take credit for a little statistical change. Mr. Chairman, the members opposite have talked over and over again about asking us what we would cut, what programs would you cut, where would you make yo ur savings, how would you do that? Mr. Chairman, they're in government and as a government they made some promises.

We thought they were foolish promises and right now as time progresses it's being proven how foolish those promises were. But all they have to do is compare those promises, Mr. Chairman, to what is happening today. - (I nterjection) - I thank the Member for The Pas for offering me that olive branch in a form of a glass of water. Mr. Chairman, I know that members opposite would like to divert me from the topic at hand but I won't ... - (I nterjection) - Right. We have some very interesting things happening.

We have all the outrageous and outlandish promises that were made before in the pre-election document that was signed by Howard Pawley, that no Manitoban would lose his job, no Manitoban would lose his home, no Manitoban would lose his business and all of those things. "I guarantee it", he said. They also said that they would institute a system that would protect Manitobans from layoffs requiring one year notice and all of those things. They said that they would improve the health care system. They said that they would improve job creation.

They said they would do all of those wonderful things that they're now not able to do, Mr. Chairman. Then we have the Minister of Transportation today as the stark reality of today's times of the real world hits home, he says provinces have a very limited scope in which they can act. He says they cannot impact substantially on all of the major problems affecting our economy no matter what they do. He says their efforts can be cosmetic at best. My, oh my, oh my, how times have changed. How the mighty have fallen from those grandiose promises, to come down to that kind of approach. 1663

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 Mr. Chairman, it's quite obvious that the problem is not necessarily what this government is doing. The problem is what it's not doing. It's not living up to the expectations that it cr eated. And more so than that, it's sending signals to the economy out there, to the real world, that are counter to what is happening in the economy. It's sending signals out that says, you can still spend anything you want.

They increased their spending last year by 18 percent, this year it's going to be as high as a 20 percent increase over that and they're running on borrowed capital, they're raising deficits, they're fueling the expectations out there, through their own settlements with their own employees, through their own attitude towards staffing and towards spending. They're running counter to what everybody out there is doing in the private sector, in the real world. Yet at the same time they're saying, well we can't do anything about it. Where would you cut, you tell us, you can't have it both ways. Mr.

Chairman, we are looking at programs that are under this Minister's jurisdiction and we find them wanting in a variety of ways. We look at the unemployment statistics for youth under 25 years of age, and we find that it's running very high. There are 25,000 youths looking for employment today. We find that this Minister comes forth with a program, Careerstart, a different name to a program that was offered last year, to a program that was offered two years ago.

We find that despite the fact th at unemployment in the youth is substantially up over what it was two years ago we are, in fact, putting forth no more money and our expectation of creating jobs is less than the jobs that were created under the program two years ago. Five thousand jobs were created. This Minister is saying that there isn't enough money for 4,000.

The Member for Thompson goes on to say that what we should be doing is going out and stimulating job creation by going and talking to the businesses and the employers in our area and giving them creative ideas of how to employ youth and take advantage of this program. If we were to do that, Mr. Chairman, there wouldn't be enough money in the fund to create those jobs because the program doesn't meet the kinds of levels that are out there of need.

As a consequence here you have a Minister who talks mightily about the great initiatives, and the great initiatives don't even reach the same levels that the programs that she criticized two years ago, or her predecessors criticized two years ago, did. So, Mr. Chairman, in

summary I feel badly about the fact that the onus of responsibility for all of this self created activity within the government, all of these self created expectations and problems rest with this Minister, but she has to bear the brunt. She's the lead Minister in terms of unemployment, job creation activity, all of those things and she can't meet the expectations that her own party set up for her. So as a consequence, judging against that backdrop, this Minister's record is to be found wanting; and as a consequence I must, with regret, support the motion put forth by the Member for St. Norbert. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The next on the speakers list is the Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I, like the Member for Lac du Bonnet, find the motion put forward by the members opposite to be somewhat, not only bad timing and with the wrong Minister, but also with the wrong province. When one looks - and I've put it with the Minister of Labour in the Province of Alberta, I've put it in Ontario, and I would put it in other provinces and federally as well - (Interjection) - I know we're talking about Manitoba. But let us look at how Manitoba is doing in comparison in the past year, with other provinces.

We see that in the past year across the country as a whole unemployment has increased by 3.4 percent. In Manitoba it's up amd we don't take any happiness in the fact that it is less in the other provinces and it was still up above what it was last year.

But to look at the Province of Manitoba with the resources that we have and the way we are trying to use our resources, the way we're trying to use not only revenues raised responsibly, they're going to taxation to try and maintain some levels of employment and maintain some government services in this province, instead of trying to go a short-cut route of trying to push a string with tax cuts.

We see in British Columbia, a province certainly that has historically - and I would maintain to some degree even today has greater resource strengths to build than we have here in this province being a much larger province in Britis h Columbia and being far more resource-rich at least - you have an unemployment rate there of 15 percent. That's almost about 4.3 percent higher than what ours is. In the past year their unemployment rate has increased two times the factor that we have here in Manitoba. Look at glorious Alberta, Tory-true Alberta, Tory blue and true as well.

That province has had its unemployment rate doubled and that is a province sitting on a Heritage Fund that is, I believe the last I heard, it was somewhere around $7 billion, it was growing quite rapidly - I don't imagine it's growing quite to the same extent it is now because a few years ago it was criticized as the biggest savings account in the world because of its not being invested properly within the provi nc e - the Pr ovince of Alberta whose unemployment rate, the wealthiest province in the country whose unemployment rate is above ours; ours at 10.8 and Alberta's at 12 .3. - (I nterjection) - I'm not proud of ours, no, I'm not proud of ours being as high as it is.

I'm even more distraught, for the Member for Arthur's sake; I'm even more distraught at the Province of Alberta sitting on their Heritage Fund and not having any kind of long-term planning whatsoever of trying to put that money to work for the employment of Albertans. We have in Manitoba, with our increased rate of unemployment, something we have to look at very carefully as well, in comparison to the Conservative years. During the Tory years in office from 1978-8 1, we had somewhere in the vicinity of darn near 10 ,000 people a year, primarily younger people with young families, leaving this province.

But we've had an increase in population in the past year for the first time in numerous years in this province. It's been the first time since -w hen? - 19 71, 19 61. It was the first net increase in population and it's due, to some degree, to people 1664

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 moving back to this province, fewer people moving out of this province because they don't have the golden gate to go to in the west anymore, which the previous government was more than happy to see people go through, going out to Alberta and to the oil fields and to the oil-stimulated jobs in what was really a very artificial economy and being happy about the people leaving, to a fair degree.

Never once in their four years of office can I recall them having decried the people who were leaving Manitoba, because they know if they would have stayed in Manitoba, or if they would have had net immigration in Manitoba, their unemployment rate would not have been among the lowest in the country, they would have got up into the mid and upper ranges. So for a province such as ours, in comparision with the other provinces across the country, we have done just simply remarkably in the past year in terms of job preservation and in terms of job creation.

No other province of our size, of the financial restraints that we have and the financial capabilities that we have, to move towards job creation to the extent that we have in the past year; be it in the North, to try and tide people over a long-term layoff, which they had in a co mmunity like Thompson , to try and put some infrastructure, to try and rebuild the infrastructure of the services in that community, to try and use public funds responsibly at a time when people were out of work, in need of employment, try to tide them over a bit of a crisis, and at the same time, have the community come out of the period of three or four months with something of a benefit rather than just having more people leaving the communities.

And that's something you have to recognize as well, when dealing with northern communities, in mining communities, where there is a fairly long-term shutdown for several months.

Some people, sure, can take the time and are able to withstand that and maintain their homes or stay in the community, but there's been a historic level of people with a high turnover in those communities anyway, and to have a disincentive for them to stay, by saying you're going to toss them out of work and not do anything for a three-month or a four-month period, whatever the shut-down may be, or even towards six months as they had in Sudbury - or was it nine months, I think, in Sudbury?

You lose those people and the chance of getting them back to maintain that community once the mines are back in operation, is darn difficult. And the company recognized that; lnco recognized that. Why the members opposite can't recognize it, I don't know. When you look at the unemployment rate for cities across the country as well, the City of Winnipeg has done remarkably well. Look at places like Edmonton; Edmonton's unemployment rate of some 2.4 percent higher than ours, and Vancouver, the city and capital of lotusland, it's being almost 2 percent higher than ours.

How those people are coping there with such incredibly high costs compared to the cost of living here in Manitoba is hard to imagine. But let's look at some of the scenarios that we've had, the higher unemployment rates coming in Manitoba as well. Let's look at what the Federal government has been playing around with in their tight monetary policy and the impact that has had and it's been getting tighter for several years.

They're starting to loosen up now just in he past couple of months and it's starting to turn around, there are some possibilties that you're going to start having a little bit of growth in the country again. But to look back at the years 19 79-80-8 1 when money was getting tighter and tighter, interest rates were going higher and higher, and into '82 as well, then you had companies that were able to sustain that for a couple of years. They were able to hold off the creditors for a couple of years, but as those high interest rates maintained, more and more were going to fall by the wayside.

And as those more and more started to fall by the wayside, Mr. Chairman, I would say to you that a good number of those that were just holding on by their teeth for a couple of years finally had to give up the ghost in the final year, in this past year and that has contributed, to some degree, to the increased unemployment in Manitoba. Probably not too much more than has the increase and the influx of people moving back into the province, but it certainly has been a very significant player in the factor of increased unemployment in Manitoba.

But an awful lot of people - what I get people in the streets saying, quite frequently is, what would it have been like, what kind of a position would we be in, what would it have been like if the Tories would have been re-elected in the fall of 19 81? What kind of situation would we be in now? Would we have the job creation, or would we be trying to throw money after ill-thought and uneconomic mega projects, for the basis of trying to create jobs or a symbol of creating jobs, tying us into something that we would have been subsidizing for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

And that is what the opposition members are still hollering across at me, that that is what they would have been wanting to do had they got back in office, to go ahead with Hydro projects, which are clearly uneconomic at this point in time. To go ahead, although they wouldn't have had a willing partner in Alcan, although they probably would have try and pushed them into it, to move in and expand an industry, an industry that is contracting, rather than an industry that is expanding.

As far as their other wish, and that's all they were, and the population recognized them very clearly as wishes, that the potash venture - why the companies would have moved into Manitoba if the Manitoba Government wasn't going to take all the risk in the project, and even the - what was it? - MCI, no . A MEMBER: The Nicaragua Trading Company. MR. D. SCOTT: Not quite, no. They send over coffee.

But that potash venture that the Province of Manitoba and the Manitobans, the taxpayers across the province would have been taking the total risk in the project and would have gotten a very small piece of the equity action out of it. That's something that you have to be very careful when you move into those sorts of ventures, is that when the public is going in as a joint venture, that the public isn't in there simply to take the risk for the other sector. It's got to be an economic project; it's got to be a project with a future.

So what we have had in this past year and I'd like to give congratulations, not only to the Minister of Labour, but to the whole Cabinet and the whole government, that we have been trying and we have 1665

Tuesday, 12 April, 19 83 been succeeding at a level that the members of the opposition are clearly embarrassed at, when they can see their Tory-true provinces elsewhere in the country, in Ontario, in Alberta - (Interjection) - Wel l, the member opposite from Portage la Prairie talks about deficits. Did he ever look at Alberta's Budget this year? Did he ever look at Alberta's deficit for last year? What we're talking about, Mr. Chairman, is governing in a period of a very serious recession, the most serious recession that this country has ever seen since the Dirty Thirties.

We have a province here and a government here that is committed; that is, not going to just hang the people out on a free enterprise limb and let them dry. We see a role for the Province of Manitoba, we see a role for government in getting in trying to protect jobs and getting in trying to create some jobs, and to maintain the standards of living for Manitobans and the services that they get, instead of just hanging them out on a limb to dry with the winds and the breezes or the hurricanes that the so-called free market system that they tie themselves so totally to would provide. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's been a pleasure to have had a chance to address this committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point in time, the Chair wishes to exercise its own discretion and recognize the First Minister, if he wishes to speak at this time. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to wait MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Mr. Chairman, it was almost an hour ago when the Minister of Highways and Transportation said how shocked he was that at 4:30 this afternoon the Critic from the Department of Labour moved a motion to reduce the Minister's salary to $1 .00. I would like to remind, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that Minister that he was Minister of Agriculture for an 8-year period and his first year in opposition, as Agriculture Critic, he reduced the Member for Arthur's salary to the price of one (Int erjection) - he tried to - to a rate equal to the price of a bushel of wheat. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: I cannot hear the Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: I said, Mr.

Chairman, that he, as Critic, in his first year in opposition, went on to try and reduce the Minister of Agriculture's salary at that time to a price equal to one bushel of wheat, and he sits here and has the audacity to think that we have done something that is so unorthodox and shouldn't be done and that the opposition Cr itic for Labour should withdraw his motion, or at least should vote against his own motion. I have seen hypocrites in my past, Mr. Chairman, but I have never seen a statement like that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

CHAIRMAN: The meaning of the word depends on the context The word "hypocrites" appears on both lists, parliamentary and unparliamentary, so it depends upon the context. HON. M. B. DOLIN: So what's the context? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Members opposite, Mr. Chairman, wonder why the motion was placed before you prior to 4:30. If you will recall, when we started this department's Estimates some 10 days ago, we started off with the Minister giving the customary Minister's report with a reply from the opposition Critic.

Then, for the remainder of that first day, the Minister of Finance and a few other Ministers carried the ball for the present Minister of Labour of which, I am sure, that she was most embarrassed having those people sitting in here and trying to defend the department, because I am sure that if she had have wanted to, she would have done a lot better job than the Minister of Finance did. Anyways, then for two or three days, the opposition critic did his very best to ask questions and get some answers, and he had great difficulty getting straight answers.

But until the First Minister made the statement one day that it would be kind of nice if the opposition would leave the flag-burning issue alone and talk about economic and employment problems and concerns that are facing Manitobans - and they are issues that are on the front pages of the papers every day of the week - it was about then, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister started to answer the opposition critic's questions. I imagine that someone like the Deputy House Leader said to her that you won't get very far unless you start giving a few answers, so she did come through with some answers.

The opposition critic constantly wanted to know things about that super job - you know what department - and couldn't get any answers. It was the government's use of their majority that they were going to steam roll through with the concept that the great job scheme would not be discussed in these Estimates, but would be discussed at some later date. It was often asked, well, what are you going to do about the high unemployment for the under-25 age group which, by next week, will be on the job market as university exams will be completed for most students within the next seven to 10 days?

But no, no, you can't discuss that until about June or whenever that department comes up. So, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the Minister of Transportation being surprised and shocked at such a motion being placed before the House because he, himself, has exercised such a practice in the past. I am not surprised that the opposition should choose this Minister to be the one who has a salary motion placed agains t her, because the eco nomy and employment are the two greatest concerns all members of the House, I'm sure, would admit to.

I know that, when I was present in this committee - and when I wasn't, I was reading Hansard - we were not satisfied that we were getting answers from the Minister. We were also upset and disappointed that the government used their majority to steam-roll through, so that we couldn't discuss the job scheme concept at this time, 1666

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 but wanted us to discuss it later in the year. We also felt that with the university students coming on the job market that this is the time that the matter should be discussed and, obviously, it's the time the government has chosen not to have it discussed. So I'm certainly going to support the opposition in their motion, that is, to reduce the Minister's salary to $1 .00. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I enter this debate just to indicate my concern that the opposition should endeavour to be fair in their comments.

Anyone who, like myself, sat in in the work of this committee over the previous sittings could not help but agree that the Minister was always polite, always fair, always very reasonable in answering to the fullest extent possible the questions that were put to her. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is true that the opposition were concerned to try and examine in detail not only the Estimates of this department, but also using the Minister as a vehicle for examining into every detail of job creation in Manitoba. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that was not within her jurisdiction.

She could not, under her Estimates, deal with the entire spectrum of job initiatives that the government was responsible for. So, given that context, one would have believed that the opposition members, recognizing that there was an opportunity to go into that question at length, would not have persisted, but they did, Mr. Chairman. Now let's look at the role of the previous administration in respect to job creation. We heard the Member for St. Norbert talking at some length about their efforts to fuel the engine of the private sector in the province. Well, what were the results?

We had four years of severe protracted restraint. I should say, three years, Mr. Chairman, because, as we know, the year before the election, something changed. Because the province embarked on a spending program and a promising program and a commitment program to large corporations, the like of which had never been seen with the exception of the Churchill Forest Industries promises and undertakings that were made some years ago in this province. Mr. Chairman, it was severe protracted restraint. This government curtailed all public initiative.

It decimated the planning sector of government and left this government not only without the balanced budget they had promised without reducing deficit, but with increased deficits with a public planning apparatus that was non-existent and no way to cope with the problems that would be facing, not only this government, but all governments in Canada. Mr. Chairman, you know when we went to the polls in November, 19 81, we heard on the other side a government party saying that, you know, people should not leave Manitoba, it's a land of opportun ity, we're sitting on a gold mine. Well, Mr.

Chairman, we came into office and found that there were no committed megaprojects, they were megapromises, and we know what's happened to megaprojects and megapromises throughout Canada. They have been discarded. They have been dis carded in Alberta, they have been dis carded all thr oughout and the demands and expectations of the private sector went with those promises. Mr. Chairman, we inherited . MR. CHAIRMAN: We are discussing Minister's Salary. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes.

The Minister of Labour inherited, along with her colleagues, an atmosphere of government relations so soured by repetitive attacks by the pr evious administration on the Federal Government that they turned deaf ears on pleas from our administration to ameliorate or at least to change the severe fiscal constraints that they set upon us, because as you know, they have reduced the fiscal contribution to this province by over $700 million over the next five years. That's the kind of atmosphere that we have inherited and that's the kind of problem this Minister has had to contend with in this province, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this Minister has used innovative programming. She has spent hours in conjunction with Federal Mi nisters and her federal coun terparts endeavouring to work out program, program that will have lasting benefits for people of Manitoba. We know what happened in Thompson. In Thompson, this Minister, along with her colleagues, worked out techniques to ensure that there would be employment - yes, short-term employment - and we heard, Mr. Chairman, how members of the opposition criticized the efforts this government and this Minister were making in respect to short-term work activities.

But, you speak to the people in Thompson, Mr. Chairman, speak to the people there about the benefits of the work initiatives that were undertaken and they will tell you that they have lasting benefits in their community from these activities. These activities would not have been carried out if we'd had any one of the members opposite as Minister of Labour in this province and in substitution for our present Minister. Mr.

Chairman, this Minister is involved in setting up new initiatives, training programs, looking at ways in which young people can be trained and there can be emphasis not on outmoded occupations, but ways in which to train young people for the opportunities and the challenges of the modern day, not as we've had in the past. Mr. Chairman, we've heard members opposite, and I won't use the word that they're hypocritical, that's unparliamentary, but we've heard members opposite whenever there is a plant closure, whenever there is a layoff, be concerned to standup and ask what are we going to do about it. Mr.

Chairman, I would expect that they would have some suggestions and I know the kind of suggestions they ought to make even at this committee, but they haven't got the integrity to put them forward. What they should suggest is that we should make grants to private enterprise to fuel the private sector. They haven't even made those suggestions, Mr. Chairman. The attitude of the previous administration is, you give money to the private sector to get the private sector moving. Well, those efforts have been made by governments throughout Canada. This private sector has still hung back and in this context, Mr.

Chairman, this Min ister, with her col leagues, has been ende avouring to take steps to ensure that every opportunity is exercised to put people to work on useful public projects. 1667

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 MR. D. BLAKE: Fixing fences and cutting scrub. Mowing grass. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, the honourable member over opposite is talking about cutting scrub. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, he thinks it's demeaning for the students or for the people who do cut grass in our parks system. I'm proud of those young people when we hire them to do that work in the summer. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud of the young people and the older people, the exhaustees, that this Min ister, through inn ovative programming, has put to work in removing diseased and dead elms in the Dutch Elm Disease Program.

These are not just wasted efforts, they are positive efforts to make our community better. So, Mr. Chairman, I am annoyed that this motion should be made against our Minister. I think, Mr. Chairman, it indicates the kind of contempt about the parliamentary system the members opposite exercise. MR. D. ORCHARD: Who burns bloody flags in this province? HON. A. MACKLING: Here's a new Minister who has listened to every argu ment, has answered every question, and despite all this she gets this motion to cut her salary. MR. D. BLAKE: You forget about the former Minister of Labour and what you guys put her through.

Short, short memories. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the honourable members are prone to criticize every effort that is made. They keep talking about programs, they offer no constructive alternatives. Mr. Chairman, we know that if a different Minister were in power, we would have a combination of government restraint and corpo rate giveaway, and I suggest that neither of those things are what this government will follow nor that this Minister will follow. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The next in my Speaker's list is the Minister of Transporation, but he has already had his say, so I'm going to skip him until everybody has a chance to speak. What is the wish of the committee? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. A. ANSTETT: On a point of ord er, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order please, the Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the rights of members to speak in the committee is based upon their recognition by the Chair, not upon any ordering of priority or opportunities for all members to speak before a member gets a second chance.

It's he who catches the Chairman's eye. If you maintain a list of those who caught your eye, then that's certainly in order, Mr. Chairman, but to deny a member an opportunity to speak when he's indicated his desire to speak to the Chair, simply because other members haven't spoken, is certainly a break with the precedent we've been following in our Committees of Supply, Committees of the Whole and in the Hous e itself. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not denying the right to speak. He's merely pos tponing his right until everybody has spoken. MR. J. DOWNEY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: On a point of ord er, the Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: The opposition supports you in what you're saying. You have made your decision. No, Mr. Chairman, we are supporting what you're saying. You have the prerogative to select who you want to speak and proceed. MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is the wish of the committee, the Minister of Transporation. The Honour able Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Since you have meticulously maintained a list of speakers and you've deleted the Minister of Highways and Transportation from that list and put him at the bottom, who is next on the list and who does your list have on it? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina is enquiring into a matter beyond his jurisdiction. The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, are you maintaining a list of speakers or is it just at the whim of the Chair when the speakers are selected to address the Minister?

Are you maintaining a list or are you just alternating from one side to the other? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is maintaining a list but is trying to balance it so as to focus on the points of issue in the debate, and the only reason why the Chair thought about postponing the right of the Minister of Transportation to speak is because he had already had his say once and there are other people who had not had their say. But that's only a matter still under consideration. The Chair hasn't made up its mind. MR. D. BLAKE: On the matter under consideration, Mr. Chairman. To help you make up your mind, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Natural Resources has just delivered a fairly lengthy tirade that really had nothing to do with the debate on the Minister's salary, and I would suggest now that it would be cou rtesy to recognize a member from this side and then go back to the Minister of Transportation, or whoever is next on your list. That's just for the guidance of the Chair, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Chair is to have a rule it has to be consistent. If I have to follow the list that I made 1668

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 the next on the list, if I have to postpone the right of the Minister of Transportation to speak until everybody has spoken, the next on the list is the First Minister. MR. D. ORCHARD: Are you refusing to give us your list? MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the Chair decides that tradition supports the member, an element of agreement of this committee, therefore we have to follow tradition. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Transportation. The Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

If the Chair has now decided for tradition in favour of some other method of dealing with the decision, then I would say the tradition is that you alternate back and forth, and since the Minister of Natural Resources has spoken then he should be followed by a member from our side. Since the Member for Pembina clearly had raised his hand to speak then he should be allowed to speak. He can't catch his eye if he doesn't look at this side of the table.

If he is looking at this side of the table then he will see that the Member for Pembina has his hand up and he wants to be recognized and tradition is that we alternate back and forth. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to divulge its list voluntarily. After the Minister of Natural Resources, is the Minister of Transportation, then the First Minister, then the Member for Pembina, then the Member for Arthur. There are occasions where there are two in a row, or three in a row.

So, it is because of this inequality that the Chair sometimes has to use some discretion. - (Interjection) - The Chair decided to follow tradition. It's the safest rule and it recognizes the Minister of Transportation. - (I nterjection) - HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to really give up my right to speak because it is getting near 10 o'clock and I didn't want to miss the opportunity to respo nd to the Member for Tuxedo who very erroneously tried to mislead this committee, Mr. Chairman, erroneously for his own benefit. MR. CHAIRMAN: The word "mislead" is a dangerous word. HON. S.

USKIW: Of cou rse it's dang erous, Mr. Chairman, but it's permissible. The Member for Tuxedo tried to impress upon this committee that because of the election campaign about a year-and-a-half ago, that there were expectations that were built up with respect to unemployment that this Minister is not living up to. I'm almost quoting him word for word. I'm paraphrasing but it's almost word for word and the member concurs, Mr. Chairman. Wei.I I don't know, Mr.

Chairman, where the Member for Tuxedo came from, or where he was before he came into this Chamber but I would hope that if he didn't realize it, I hope he realizes it now, that an election campaign, part of the campaign an important part of it, is to give a phi losophical ind ication of one's political bent, philosophical bent and one's asperation, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Tuxedo now would like to enshrine that into specific commitments knowing full well, and not only knowing it but saying it, that those were expectations that could not be fulfilled, are impossible of being fulfilled - he said they were impossible - but he wants this Minister to have a reduction of salary because she can't fulfil! an impossible task. That was what he had said. - (Interjection) - Yes, he said it was impossible to fulfil! but notwithstanding that it was impossible to fulfil! he wants this Minister to suffer a reduction in her salary. Well that is a crock, Mr.

Chairman, and everyone knows it including the Member for Tuxedo that this is not an acceptable rationale for the motion that is before us. One would have thought that he would have built a case on where Manitoba is relative to the rest of the world on this question and he wouldn't dwell on that, Mr. Chairman, because if he dwelt on that his case would not be supportable and that's his problem.

So he tries to say well, you've built up these expectations, no one could have delivered on them, they are impossible and therefore because you can't deliver the impossible you must resign, or you must lose your salary. - (Interjection) - That's right.

So the member overlooked one important criteria and that is that political systems have to have a direction; they have to dream and everyone recognizes that there's no point in reaching one's ultimate dream because there would be no point in dreaming - and that's a saying that goes back a long way and I don't know who it is I'm quoting - but you're never supposed to achieve the expectations and the asperations that emanate from one's desire and from one's philosophy and from one's dreams.

Those are objectives that we strive for and we always must set objectives that are beyond our reach otherwise there would be no point in having them. That's what the political philosophy, that was espoused during the campaign, was all about and the member should know that. He should know that because he was part of the same campaign. His political party talked about these great things into the future knowing that they always have to be somewhat beyond what can be achieved in a short four-year period. No one can achieve these great heights over a year, or two, or three, or four years.

You set a direction and then you try to meet your targets in that way. Mr. Chairman, what the Member for Tuxedo also refuses to ignore and will not admit to, is the fact that what we are involved in economically at the present time, is a down cycle in the world capitalistic system and that's not new. That is not new. The whole western capitalist world is now in the midst of another depression - not a first one and not a last one, but just another one - just another one of the economic depressions that is part of the genetics of the system. Mr.

Chairman, what we are experiencing now is in the genetics of the economic system under which we live. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. The Minister of Transportation has the floor. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I find it very difficult to accept the proposition that we should vote to reduce 1669

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 the Minister's Salary because of the world economy, which was not created by this Minister but which was created by col leagues of my friends opposite, worldwide. Yes, worldwide. They are proponents of that kind of system, of that kind of society, and they want this Minister who is challenging that very system that has brought upon these huge problems, to answer for those mistakes that have taken decades to get us to this stage. Decades, yes - since the 19 30s, Mr. Chairman. It isn't since then that we've had this kind of a problem or a problem of this magnitude.

But let's talk about where we are relative to those problems. Let's recognize, Mr. Chairman, that contrary to what they were doing and would have done had they been re-elected, we did put $50 million into a housing thrust and Manitoba has the record now of being a leader in new housing starts amongst the provinces across this country. Mr. Chairman, which government used the instrument of the government, which was their bor rowi ng power, their central borrowing capacity, to put up mortgage money at an interest rate far below what the market was providing mortgage money at?

Tell me, was it a Conservative Government of this province? Well, it wasn't. It wasn't because it is philosophically not within their system to do those kinds of things. Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about, the $50 million that are in the housing fund provides - (I nterjection) - Well, the Member for Tuxedo says $50 million is a fraud. I want to remind him, Mr. Chairman, that that member either voted for that $50 million or voted against it, but it was there in the Estimates a year ago. It was there in the Estimates a year ago. A MEMBER: But it wasn't used. HON. S.

USKIW: Well, the member says it wasn't spent Yes, it took some time to put it together because, why? Because there was no housing program inherited by this government, left over from the previous one, because it wasn't in their philosophy to have one. So let's recognize from where we came, Mr. Chairman. We had to start from zero and we had to put together a program and it takes quite a number of months before you can put together that kind of a program and to get it into its implementation. Mr.

Chairman, the Department of Labour, being part of the government system, obviously had to play a major role in bearing influence on the need for the program. Mr. Chairman, another $50 million thrust - members don't want to admit to it, but it was not there - another $50 million thrust was in the agricultural area, trying to bring stability . MR. CHAIRMAN: The item under discussion is the Minister's Salary. HON. S. USKIW: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about the Minister of Labour's Salary. The Minister of Labour serves in Cabinet, the same as all of the Ministers and, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Labour was part and parcel . . . MR. CHAIRM AN: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, on a point of ord er, I find it very, very difficult, although I'm sitting right next to the Minister of Transportation, to hear what the Minister of Transportation is saying. I would suggest that there be a little bit of order. MR. D. ORCHA RD: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is a point of order, the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the First Minister is complaining about not hearing the Minis ter of Transportation.

The Minister of Transporation is now talking about Agriculture and Housing in the Minister of Labour's Salary, and he's justifying it by saying that she's part of a Cabinet. Mr. Chairman, you sat in this committee while this Minister of Labour, who is one of a nine-person committee on . . . Mr. Chairman, this is a point of order. Mr. Chairman, this is a point of order. You sat and listened to this Minister refuse to ask questions regarding job creation in Manitoba, when she was a nine-person committee and now we bring in ... MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has no point of order. That's not a point of order. MR. D.

ORCHARD: ... because she's a member of Cabinet? I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Transportation. MR. D. ORCHA RD: Don't you recognize points of order, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, if you're prepared to accept as justification that a Minister is a member of Cabinet ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Stick to point of order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, all I'm saying is that if you 're prep ared to accept as ju stification for somebody being able to talk about any department in the government on a Minister of Labour's Salary, just because the Minister of Labour is a member of Cabinet, then you are violating the very principle that you set forth, that responsibility has to be commensurate with authority. This Minister does not have authority for expenditures under Agriculture and Housing, and therefore we cannot discuss it under her salary. That's a rule that you made. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Chair wishes to remind all members of committee to speak to the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion is the Minister's Salary. The Minister of Transportation. HON. S. USKIW: The Minister of Labour's Salary and the points that were made under that discussion by members opposite had to do with the employment opportunities or the lack of them in this province, as 1670

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 a result of this government's policies, including that of the Department of Labour. It's in that context that I am making my comments, Mr. Chairman, and that is that we have, as a Cabinet, as a collective government - I'm not talking about the Jobs Fund - that's against the rules. I'm talking about a regular program, Mr. Chairman, of which the Honourable Minister was party to the decision. Mr. Chairman, the $50 million that was put into the agricultural industry is a job stimulation effort. Whether the Member for Tuxedo recognizes it or not, it is creating jobs in urban communities.

Stabilization of rural incomes translates into jobs in Winnipeg, in Brandon and in Dauphin - the member ought to know that. - (I nterjection) - It's not wide open. It has to do with regular progr amming and responsibili ties of every Minister of the Crown. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield has a point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, with a great deal of respect, I would like to raise this point of order because I did raise, much earlier this evening, the question of relevance in debate, when the Member for Thompson was speaking. I raised it the other evening when the Member for St.

Norbert was speaking and, with respect, I feel compelled to raise it now with regard to the remarks of the Member for Lac du Bonnet, the Minister of Transportation. If we allow this kind of departure from relevance in debate, as the Member for Pembina suggested, the debate is then completely wide open. I realize, because of the tenor of the debate in the committee, members have been tempted to throw the debate wide open, but that certainly won't expedite the business of the Committee of Estimates. It will allow repetition on every single Minister's Salary of a totally wide open, "cover the waterfront" debate. Mr.

Chairman, I suggest that you request all members to direct their remarks, as relevantly as possible, to the topic under discussion to avoid a complete destruction of the Estimates process. MR. CHAIRMAN: The item under discussion is the Minister's Salary. Under Rule 64(2), "Speeches in the Committee of the Whole should be strictly relevant to the item under discussion." On that guidance, the Minister of Transportation may have the floor. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that. I believe that members of this particular committee have strayed far beyond that all evening.

I assume that's an accurate assessment and I am sure that there isn't one here that is going to challenge that, but I am willing to confine my remarks to a more narrow definition. The problem that the members opposite have - and I'm going to repeat this because I think it is worth repeating. - (Interjection) - One of them, yes, the Member for Virden is correct. It's �:mly one problem that they have. They have found themselves in a wanting position with respect to how to undermine and attack this government during this Session.

They recognize that the unemployment issue is indeed the uppermost 1671 issue in the minds of Manitobans and the minds of Canadians. They recognize that this government is dealing with it to the extent that we have fiscal capacity to deal with it. So they have no choice but to try to meet us head-on in our No. 1 program in order to discredit it in some way. This is basically what is being attempted, and I don't fault them for it, Mr. Chairman. If I were on the other side, I think I would play the same game, but at least recognize what it is that they are attempting to do.

To stretch that, though, to the point of asking for the Minister to take a salary of $1 is indeed stretching the point and that is something that I simply want to mention, for whatever it's worth. The debate that we heard and the resolution that we're dealing with, Mr. Chairman, the two don't coincide. The debate that was presented to us on this issue by members opposite doesn't warrant or support the motion that we are dealing with. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next person on my speakers' list is the First Minister. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, first, I am certainly not surprised at the Opposition; anything that the Opposition would do wouldn't particularly surprise me at this point. I don't think any of our colleagues should at all be surprised, because the path indeed that the Opposition have been following has been a strange and weird path and it's been winding in many different directions, mainly because of their lack of sense of direction as to where they are indeed proceeding, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first deal with the Minister and her responsibilities and her portfolio.

She has been indeed the Minister responsible for labour and for employment, dealing with labour and employment during times that are very very difficult; difficult not only in Manitoba, but throughout the whole of Canada; times that have been difficult for some number of years. Mr. Chairman, we all know that in the period leading up to the 1981 election the Manitoba economy was just about the worst in Canada by way of indices. Mr. Chairman, ther e is no di fficulty ins ofar as substantiating that. That was substantiated at great length by my colleague, the Member for Brandon East.

Though members did their best to attempt to discredit the statistics that were produced by the Member for Brandon East, they were never able to substantially demons trate any inaccuracies pertaining to the statistics. Again and again, Mr. Chairman, whatever statistic one examined in regard to employment, it was the same - it was Manitoba was not doing well. During that period of time, Mr. Chairman, we were un able to provide employment in sofar as young Manitobans were concerned, and thousands of young Manitobans were leaving Manitoba for areas west of this province.

In British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, there were substantial influxes of Manitobans and indeed the evidence will demonstrate clearly that during those years there was, in two of those years at least, a decrease in the population of the Province of Manitoba dur ing thos e Con servative years, Mr. Chairman.

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 During the period leading towards the end of the Conservative administration in this province, there was suddenly an effort to turn the psyche of Manitobans about. I remember the Budget that was introduced, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the economy and future job opportunities in the province, a reference to "blue skies" ahead. Mr. Chairman, that prediction of blue skies was indeed at the time that the . . . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Then we got an NDP Government. HON. H. PAWLEY: . . . Mr. Chairman, it was in spring of 19 80, for the information of the former Minister of Economi c Development.

In fact, many people considered him to be the Mini ster of Eco nomic Underdevelopment in the Province of Manitoba during those years. Then we remember, Mr. Chairman, that in the days just prior to the election, in a hysterical move, the Conservative government of those days placed large full-page ads in the Winnipeg Sun and the Winnipeg Free Press suggesting that we were sitting on a pot of gold, leaving the impression that we were on the verge of an employment boom in the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Chairman, what is substantially wrong with all these approaches is that the approaches that are pursued by the monetarists of this world and by the ultra-conservative thinker pertaining to job creation, has been abysmal failure. Their thinking has been a failure, Mr. Chairman. Their thinking has resulted in a bankruptcy insofar as policy development is concerned, and much of the plight that exists within the world community today is because of the bankruptcy of those ideas. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to be prepared to meet head-on.

It has been the Conservative and Liberal Gove rnments of Canada that pur sued policies of monetarism, policies of tight money and high interest rates, policies pursued by Governor Bouey, policies follo wed by Federal Liberal and Co nservativ e Governments in this country since 1975, Mr. Chairman. We have also seen, during these difficult times, the pursuing of policies that would be more reminiscent of the kind of policies that were pursued by ultra con servative Governments during the 1930s. There is an alternativ e to this di rect ion, and honourable members don't like the alternative, Mr. Chairman.

The alternative is a government that is activist; a government that's prepared to take a lead insofar as ensuring that ther e is a promoting of economic activity; not a government that is passive, but a government that is activist. Mr. Chairman, if you examine those countr ies in the world that have demonstrated the best economic development, those countries that have the lowest unemployment rates in the world today, you will note that they are countries such as Sweden, West Germany, Austria. One could go on and on, Mr.

Chairman, and do you know there is a common denominator insofar as all those countries are concerned. They are countries that during the past decade have mainly had social democratic governments. Mr. Chairman, what is needed, not only in Canada but other countries of the world, in order to turn the economy around, and we owe a heavy obligation to those that are unemployed in our midst. This is not something that we can take lightly because there are people that are being destroyed; a whole generation of young people are being destr oyed because of reckless and irresponsible policies that have been pursued. IVir.

Chairman, what is required is, first and foremost, the kind of initiative that has been undertaken and that the Minister of Labour has been largely involved in, the initiation of a program of job creation within the province throug h capital works programs, other programs that have been developed. Mr. Chairman, second to that, what is required is - (I nterjection) - well, Mr. Chairman, it seems that the members across the way find unemployment to be humorous. Mr. Chairman, I don't. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

We have repeatedly, tonight, been chastised for referring to the Jobs Fund. The First Minister of the Province, Mr. Chairman, has been talking about the Jobs Fund for the last . . . HON. H. PAWLEY: I never mentioned it once. MR. R. BANMAN: . . . and I would ask if it's good for the opposition to be held to that particular ruling then the government should also be held to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The item under discussion is the Minister's Salary. The Honour able Minister of Labour. HON. M. B. DOLIN: I wish to speak to the same point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I have consistently said over the last week-and-a-half that we have been involved in discussion of these Estimates, that it is the discussion of the programs within the Jobs Fund that is out of or der un der my Esti mates, no t the attack on unemployment that the Jobs Fund represents. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: I would like to first propose that what we require in Canada is an effort on the part of the Federal Go vern ment and all 10 Pr ovincial Governments in order to attack unemployment. There ought to be no question as to what is the principle target that must be dealt with.

That target must be unemployment. Mr. Chairman, we cannot hope for a return of investor confidence until there is a restoration of consumer confidence. Our forestry industry is in serious shape in this country; our mining industry is in serious shape; our manufacturing indus tries have been seriously damaged. Mr.

Chairman, what is required is an all-out effort on the part of all 11 governments to build the kind of infrastructure during these times, rather than put off and delay until some future date, so that we can employ men and women again to the productive utilization of the goods and services of this coun try. Mr. Chairman, Manitoba can't do this alone, but it can make a major effort in order to contribute to this total picture. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased by the fact 1672

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 that we have made some progress during the last period of time. The latest labour force survey stats that were issued just the other day indicate that insofar as Manitoba is concerned we have moved from third lowest down to second lowest. We are the only province in Canada that has less than 10 percent unemployment and I'm not happy about that, Mr. Chairman, that is cold comfort to have less than 10 percent seasonally adjusted unemployed in this country. The only other province is Saskatchewan that has a lesser rate of seasonally adjusted unemployed in this country.

Alberta has moved further up; Alberta is now 11 percent, seasonally adjusted; British Columbia is in the range of 14 percent. Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, I understand another Cons ervative Gove rnment in office, the first time apparently that it has occurred in any province, is at 20.3 percent. Nova Scotia, 13.9 percent, up from 13. 1 the month before - yes, up .8 percent; New Br unswick , another Con servative Government, increased from 15 .3 to 16 .1 percent, seasonally adjusted. Quebec remains high - didn't increase, didn't decrease - at 14 .6 percent.

Ontario did a little better but it had a bad time for months before that, from 11 .6 down to 11 .4. Mr. Chairman, the rate in Canada increased from 12.5 to 12 .6. This is a scandalous situation and it's not easy for any gove rnment, whatever politic al stripe the government happens to be, whether it's Conservative or Liberal or New Democrat. But, Mr.

Chairman, we can't afford to remain still, because we are dealing with families; we are dealing with human beings in this respect and the key word is co-operation, combined effort in respect to each and every Provi ncial Gov ernment in the countr y and the Federal Government. The efforts that were undertaken in this province, I think, have contributed significantly to that situation. The Homes in Manitoba Program, mentioned earlier, demonstrated that in January and February of this year - I don't have the March figures but I hear that they also indicate similar kinds of results, Mr.

Chairman - indicate that housing starts in Manitoba, January and February of this year, compared very well with any other part of Canada, in fact, I believe that we're ahead of each and every province in Canada by way of housing starts in January and February this year. Job retention, Mr. Chairman, we're the second best by way of job retention in 1982. We're projected by way of total investment to be the only province west of the Atlantic provinces to enjoy at least some nominal growth. Population increase, Mr.

Chairman, our record was, along with every other province in this country, every other province from Tory Newfoundland to Tory Ontario, yes, to Manitoba, was not good because of the recession, but at least, Mr. Chairman, there is some indication that Manitoba is more than holding its own. Mr. Chairman, we've moved from indices of nineth or tenth place in Canada during the time of the Conservative administration in this province to, again and again, positions of one, two and sometimes three under New Democratic Party Government, 1983. Mr.

Chairman, when I commenced my remarks, I referred to the fact that we had population decline for - I believe it was two years - under the Conservative administration.in the Province of Manitoba, we lost our young people. I remember one of the slogans that Manitobans were saying during those years 1980-8 1; it was during the time of the constitutional debate in Ottawa. They were saying, I wish we would spend more time in patriating our young people back to this province than worrying about patriation of the Constitution. What we had, Mr.

Chairman, during 19 82, was the highest increase in population in Manitoba in any year since 19 72. A MEMBER: And a loss to other provinces. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, yes, a loss to other provinces. Mr. Chairman, let me explain that. Manitoba dragged its feet during the time of the administration of the Minister of Economic Development and the former Minister of Labour in this province. We lost our young people; our population declined. At least 1982 and 1983, it's cold comfort, Mr.

Chairman, because we still have thousands of unemployed in this province that I wish we did not have in this province, but at least we've moved from the cellar, from the debts of the cellar under a Conservative administration by way of economic comparisons, Mr. Chairman, to the top of the house by way of economic comparisons during the New Democratic Party administration in the province. Mr. Chairman, I know the former Minister of Economic Development is thin-skinned, because during those years under his stewardship for Economic Development, we were moving backwards. We have no problem demonstrating that. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Wrong, wrong. MR. D. BLAKE: We didn't have a $7 million deficit. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I leave it with you that this Minister has demonstrated, as part of a Cabinet MR. F. JOHNSTON: What was manufactured . . . HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest you ask the Member for Sturgeon Creek if he wishes to put himself on the list, I would look forward to his comments. I would look forward to hearing his comments, Mr. Chairman, in a more orderly way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, this Minister of Labour ... MR. F.

JOHNSTON: You can't standing being told that you're not telling the facts. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister has the floor. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, this Minister of Labour is causing some consternation on the part of members across the way . . . MR. D. BLAKE: There is no doubt about that. HON. H. PAWLEY: . . . because this Minister of Labour has demonstrated leadership in her portfolio. Mr. 1673

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 Chairman, this Minister of Labour has demonstrated indeed that she has taken her portfolio seriously, and despite the difficult odds that she is combating, she has made progress. The opposition in this Chamber are reacting the way they are because this Minister has demonstrated the fitness and responsibility of her portfolio. Mr. Chairman, I, for one, I'm proud of the Minister of Labour. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the wish of the committee?

Those who are in favour of committee rise, say aye; those who are opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Committee rise. SUPPLY - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to ord er. We are discussing the Estimates of the Department of Health, Item 5.(dX1) - the Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The way I understand it is that this

section is divided into eight different areas in the province. Is that correct? MR. CH.AIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Regions, you're talking about? MR. A. BROWN: Regions, yes. Can the Minister tell me who is the head of this particular department of the Community Mental Health Directorate? HON. l. DESJARDINS: We have just had the approval of Treasury Board and we're opening the position now. We're still trying to recruit. MR. A. BROWN: Can the Minister tell me how long that position has been vacant? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It's a new position, it's been vacant forever and a day, I guess. It's a new position that we're just trying to fill now. We finally got the approval of the Treasury. It's a new Directorate also, to work mostly with the community vis-a-vis the hospitals because of the change in policy, or the policy direction I should say. MR. A. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is an area in which we have great concerns, especially after the

article that we read in the Free Press over the weekend, I think that none of us in Manitoba have any reason to take great pride in what we are doing as far as mental health is concerned. It was stated that we are 25 years behind Saskatchewan and way behind all the other provinces, then this certainly causes great concern, and especially if there has been no director in this particular area, then of course that explains why there has really been no policy forthcoming and why there has been really no overall direction, or why no standards have been set.

I certainly hope that once we get this new director, that this is going to come forward, that we are going to have policies and that we're going to have overall direction and that we're going to set standards, that we are going to have some kind of a goal that we will try to attain as far as mental health is concerned. What has been lacking over the past years is that we really have had no particular goal which we hoped to attain. There were two SMYs listed in the 1982-83 statistics. Can the Minister tell me who they were and whether those have been fulfilled? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, I covered that before the dinner hour. This is a new directorate. I would like to explain that. This is a new directorate that we're just in the process of organizing. It is false to say that there have been no policies, because we have created a new directorate. We haven't filled the positions yet. The policies have been under the direction of the Provincial Psychiatrist, the chief psychiatrist for the province. I am very pleased that the honourable member chose to refer to the

article in Saturday's paper, because I am not very happy with that article. I would hope that we are not going to jump to conclusions and think that because we saw it in black and white that it's the gospel, the honest truth. I think that we've admitted that we have had problems before, but that

article is certainly biased and I don't appreciate it at all. I would like to say, I am not talking about the reporting, I'm talking about the statement that was made by Mr. Martin. First of all, we've looked at the Barnes Paper - that's the one that was quoted in the Free Press - and the needs assessment were projected. There was a survey of 250 professionals across Canada, 30 from Manitoba, and all were selected by the various provincial community mental health association people. Manitoba was not, I repeat, was not identified as being especially deficient in mental health services.

That doesn't make us that much happier, but it was not the poorest and behind everybody else. All provinces are described as uniformly poor in the report - I am talking about the report, not a comment of someone else. The survey found that the Canadian Mental Health Association - they are the ones that asked for this su rvey - had a poorly defined role in mental health affairs and it was suggested that they become advocates in the mental health field. The study has not been released or distributed as yet, so I would say that they took this quite literally and they've been advocates.

Now there is something else that is stated in that press release. That's the part that I object to and this is why I had this story checked. It goes on to say that, "We have been negotiating with mental health coalitions since December of 19 82 until the present, in an attempt to resolve the issue of participation from these volunteer organizations." Community participation has been our watchword from Day One. We assembled a range of subcommittees whose members were drawn from Education, Psychiatric Nursing, Nursing, Continuing Care, University-based Disciplines, Pyschology, Social Work, Institutions, etc.

That was one of the first priorities that we defined. We instructed the Director of Planning to start looking at this immediately and this is what 1674

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 happened. We anticipate further participation when we begin to analyse some of the subreports and briefs as we intend to circulate some of them for comments and additional ideas. Now, let me tell you what happened because that same article, my honourable friend will remember, said that the Committee of Mental Health or the Executive Director said that he didn't think very much would be done, that they would not be consulted.

I think it certainly is right to say what he wants, but I think it is mostly unfair after what happened, because we had a meeting with the group, the social planning council, but they call themselves the Coalition Study for Mental Health. We met in early December and we made a suggestion to them; we told them that we wanted to study this thing together, that the government certainly had a responsibility and that we were ready to have any people that had anything to offer, we would welcome with certain briefs and so on, but we were ready to have them join us in a combined study group.

They said that it was a very productive meeting. They were very happy when they left and they agreed with the suggestion that I made. Then we received a letter that they didn't want it quite like that. We should have a chairman agreed to by the two groups and the material would be publicized and all kinds of things. We had told them quite clearly what we wanted, so we told them that we weren't interested in that, that they could go ahead and do their own, we weren't stopping them. But if there was going to be co-operation, it wasn't a thing like that.

After all, the people of Manitoba are paying the government to take a responsibility; we have a Director of Planning that we pay well and he had started his work and he was chairing this committee. We had kinds of subcommittees, as I mentioned, of all the people that we could find that had some expertise and we told them, well, good luck, we will conduct ours and you conduct yours. But then they came back and they wanted certain conditions, all conditions that were agreed to. They wanted some respresentation on there. They wanted other people for research and we agreed to that.

I'll give you the lette.r that we wrote on March 16 th. This is to Dr. Tefft, Chairman of the Planning Committee, Coalition on Mental Health Reform, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg: "Dear Dr. Tefft: This will acknowledge receipt of your letters dated February 24, 1983 and March 2, 1983 in which you will find a proposal whereby the Coalition on Mental Health Reform could join the planning process currently being undertaken by senior members of my department. With regard to the membership of the present Government Planning Committee I believe it is necessary to outline it's membership.

Under the Chairmanship of Mr. David Pascoe, the Planning Committee consists of, Dr. M. Kovacs, Chief Provincial Phychiatrist; Mr. D. Mclean, Assistant Deputy Minister of Community and Health Services; and Dr. H. Prosen, Head of the Department of Psychiatry at the Health Sciences Centre. Supporting the work of these individuals I have Mr. J. Kenny, of the Research and Planning Directorate; Mr. Gudmundson, of the Manitoba Health Services Commission; and Mr. Werbeniuk, of Community Health Services." Then of course all the subcommittees were Dr.

Bankier, Chair Day Committee and different people, the expert as I said, psychiatric nurses and everybody was involved. "Your suggestion to have three coalition members appointed to the committee is accepted. To facilitate this, kindly forward to my office the name of six individuals that you wish me to consider for membership on the Planning Committee. "Upon receipt of this I will announce the list of appointed persons as quickly as it is possible.

With regard to your request to involve an additional three persons who would be resource people to three coalition appointed members, I am in support of this, and should you decide that it is a necessary support service to your group. "H owever, I wish to bring to your attention that the process currently in place to support the Mental Health Planning Group will function as support for your group as well." It was only one group. It wasn't that you were divorcing the two sides.

"Should you consider this as an adequate system of support you need not feel bound by having an additional three persons participating as resource people to this process. "I wish to acknowledge your observation that the three appointed members from the coalition will serve as individuals representing the community and not as a representative of any given organization. I can support this approach as this will allow all indi viduals participating in the process to be without the constraint of having to adopt the prescribed posture on the issues that face the planning committee.

"Finally, with regard to the release of information I acknowledge your commitment to respect the confidentiality of the process. When the report is complete you may be assured that I will take whatever steps I feel are necessary bef()re implementation of change. "H owever, as this process was commissioned by me to provide the Ministry with timely advice on a variety of concerns, I am certain you will respect this in whatever decision I may make as regards both the release on information and the implementation of change." We sent this letter and this was the reply. MR. L.

SHERMAN: That's the committee that is known as the Mental Health Steering Committee. Is that correct? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, it is. This was the letter that I received from Dr. Tefft on March 30th: "Dear Mr. Minister: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1983, agreeing to community representation on the working group on mental health. We wish to nomina te the following six indi viduals for your consideration" - and their names. "As indicated in your letter you will appoint three individuals to the working group. We request that the remaining three nominees serve as resource people.

We look forward to beginning collaborative planning as soon as possible and hope the advice produced will be both kindly and helpful." Finally on the letter they received: 1675

Tuesday, 12 April, 19 83 "Thank you for your letter of March 30th, proposing community representation for the working group in mental health. I am pleased to annou nce the appointment of the following three individuals to the committee: Sharon Gold, Brian Post!, David Waters." Brian Postl is an M.D . "And of course, at your request, I am pleased to accept the other nominees as resource people of the committee." As I said, this was going to be ready, when they hestitated. We kept on working because it was a priority.

The report would have been in my hand sometime in May or June and at their request - I didn't read all the documents - they wanted time to familiarize themselves. I agreed with that and postponed this and said that the date that we want the document would be July. Now when I read this

article I thought it was most unfair. It's true that these people are corning as individuals. At their request, they're going to work and if they accept this, they could accept it in good faith, the same as we're taking the trouble of delaying it, to make sure that they can participate. We're treating them as any other members of the committee.

It has taken all the expertise that we can muster here in the province to bring in the best possible recommendations and the Executive Director of the Canadian Mental Health Association would make a statement like that and to say that - well, I've got the statement here somewhere. "He said a review committee which has been established to examine mental health care, would include representation from private groups. Martin, however, is skeptical. He is concerned the government will make major financial and policy decisions without public input.

That appears to be precisely what this Mental Health Steering Committee is doing, it appears to be committed to working in secret. We believe that it should be a public study." Well, I think that if they didn't want to participate in that, it was their affair. You have a group that is told that they should be more militant, that's their job. That doesn't mean that we have to go along with that. This is their job and we are working and if they want to keep us on our toes, fine. I think that we are supposed to do our job correctly and we'll see what the recommendations are. We haven't decided the next step.

It might be that we will make it public even before the recommendations, that we will have public meetings. That's possible, we'll see what the recommendations are. I doubt that it's possible to keep the findings of that very secret for very long anyway. It certainly is not my intention to do that. So I am very disappointed in this individual who, after we took the trouble of meeting with them at their request. We've had many meetings. They have met with Pascoe to sort this thing out. They make suggestions. We accept all their recommendations, the final recommendations that they make. We set up the committee.

We postpone the date that we want the report for two months and this is the kind of thank you we have, so I'm awfully glad that you brought this thing up. This is not to say, of course, we're not going through all this exercise if we feel that everything is perfect or everything is fine. I have mentioned that. We're not satisfied; we have a lot of improvement to do but, having said that, we are not any worse than other provinces. They might be better in some aspects. We might be better in some other area. On the whole, Canada is doing poorly in this field.

Let's remember also that the Federal Government could take part of the credit for that. You know, we've had medical and hospitalization here for a number of years now and at no time, no matter what the provinces tried, ther e was no participation of the Federal Government in this field of Mental Health. Now the Minister is suggesting to the provinces that, fine, they should have a new Act. They should incorporate everything. We must have a responsibility including mental health, but without any financial participation at all.

So, you know, that's very easy to wave the flag and say, you've got to do this, you've got to do that, but they have never showed us the colour of their money. As I say, when Medicare and hospitalization came in and it was a matching-dollar formula that, of course, it's the easy way and the way that the provinces went. They would much sooner spend a 50-cent dollar than a full dollar. In other words, if they can get 50 cents back, they would do it. That caused a lot of the problems, by the way, that we have now.

For instance, that's why we have had too many acute beds built probably in many of the areas like Ontario, where they were trying to close hospitals. Probably too many of the people are used to it now. It is a difficult thing to do. The guidelines are probably the most generous of any country in the world, or close to it. And we didn't have the personal care homes.

This is why we're finding trouble now, because there was no help in those areas until about '74 or '75 - oh, yes, in '77 when they changed the formula, where they said it'll be block funding and now they want to tell us what to do with this block funding. So, I got carried away a bit, but I'm giving you the idea that is probably one of the reasons that all the provinces are probably not quite as advanced. You know, we're measuring that and what we're doing in other fields and we're doing quite well.

Even the medical profession themselves have not always regarded the psychiatrists as equals and so on, so it's been a difficult thing to sell this. I think more and more people realize that there is a need for these people, a need for this care, that health is not just physical health, but complete health is medical health also. That's why, as I say, we're probably behind, but we're doing everything we can to bring in the recommendation and bring in policies, and we certainly don't need this kind of encouragement by people that are represented on our task force. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rhineland. MR. A.

BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister said a number of times that he would like to have more community involvement in the entire field of mental health, certainly in the advisory capacity and from the names that he read from that Steering Committee, of possibly 12 names or so, only three are really from the community, from what I understand the rest of them are pretty well civil servants. I wonder if the Minister thinks that these three people, is that going to be adequate to carry the message into the community and to express the concern of community?

We're talking about the entire province and certainly of those areas 1676

Tuesday, 12 April, 1983 in which we have mental institutions. I wonder if the Minister has taken this under consideration and maybe looking at appointing more people onto that Steering Committee from the community? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I wish I could express myself better in English or that the honourable friend could und erstand French. I didn't mention 12 names, I mentioned five names: Pascoe, who was hired to do research, it doesn't matter who he's paid for; Prosen, who is not a civil servant, who is the chief man here as far as the university is concerned in teaching; our own Dr.

Kovacs, the Chief Psychiatrist, it would be a hell of a committee if we didn't have the Ch ief Psychiatrist on it; we also have the two, Don Mclean and

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-44b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 44b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a1b6b6af164fb8ab4aea5233308e4bdf4b92230a

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