Manitoba Hansard — 3 June 1986 (Sitting 18A, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-18a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 3 June, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon . M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Readi ng and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Report s by Special and Standing Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , I would like to report to the Legislature the results of last evening's meeting of First Ministers on trade matters.

There was a consensus among the Firs t Ministers that provincial participation, especially at the political level, was essential to t he success of the trade negotiations with the Uni ted States . To effect this participation, we agreed on the following measures: There will be a regula r First Ministers ' meet ing on trade every three months, or sooner if the need arises, to monitor negotiations , rev iew progress and set directions . Trade Ministers will meet regularly, chaired by the Right Honourable Joe Clark, to review negotiation issues in detail and to ensure provincial input.

The continuing committe e of trade officials will be maintained and will receive full pre and post negotiation briefings. There will be full sharing of info rm ation wit h the provinces on the negotiations on a str ictly confidential basis. This formalized system of provincial consultation and input is a significant step forward. It replaces the more ad hoc input which has occurred to date and provides the opportunity for regular provincial input at the political level.

We would hav e preferred an agreement which included a provincial representative in the negotiation room to ensure that there was a presence - monitoring discussions with Manitoba's interests foremost in mind. In our view , this would have allowed for more expeditious feedback to the negotiating team of provincial concerns and would facilita te communications with the provinces. This was not agreed to at this time. First Ministers will review the negotiation process in three months . If problems develop, we may again consider this approach.

There was agreement among the First Ministers that provinces should be formally involved in ratifying a new trade agreement resulting from these negotiations . In our view, this is a very important recognition of the provincial role in making a trade agreement work . We welcome the Prime Minister's commitment on this matter .

Details of the ratification process will have to be worked out among the Trade Ministers and finalized by the First Ministers over the next number of months . 501 In recognition that matters invo lving provincial jurisdiction will arise during the negotiations, the Prime Minister undertook a solemn commitment that there will be full discussi on and provinci al concurrence before negotiations involving provinci al juri sdi ct ions are finalized. In our view, this is criti cal to a successf ul agre ement , as the provinces must impleme nt such provisions.

First Ministers discussed the mandate to be given to the negotiating team. There was general agreement on the broad parameters of the mandate. Time did not permit on all

part icul ars. At the request of the Prime Minis ter, we have agreed to maintain the specifics of the negotiating mandate in confidence. The mandate will be reviewed and refined regu larly by the Trade Ministers and the First Ministers as the negotiations proceed .

In these discussions, I will continue to advance Manitoba's inte re sts , including our concerns that: social programs not be altered; cultural sovere ignty be protected ; regional developmen t be promoted and stre ngthen ed; agricultural marketing and stabilizati on programs be maintained and our food processing industries be appro pria tely protected; and the future of service industrie s, such as transportation , be assured . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON : Thank you , Madam Speaker .

I thank the Premier for giving us that update on the proceedings with respec t to freer trade negotiations between Canada and the United Stat es. I am glad to be informed of the prov incial involv ement that has been set out as a result of the meeting last evening in Ottawa. We're glad as well, Mad am Speaker, that the Prem ier's backbone was stiffened prior to the meetings by his meetings with the western Premie rs in Swan River, so that now we know that he's back on track with respect to a comm itment towards free trad e negoti ations .

We appreciate the process that has been set forth , particularly with respect to ratific ation of any agreement, and the acknowledgement of provincial jurisdiction in these discussion s leading to the ultimate resolution of the negotiations. I thank the Premier for giving us this

summary of what has transpired , a nd look forward to continuing reports as the proces s continues. Thank you . MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before we move to Oral Questions , may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery , where we have 108 students in Grade 9 from St. Mary's Academy . These students are under

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 the dir ection of Mrs. Maria Couture, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honoura ble Member for River Heights. We ha ve 35 students in Grade 11 from the Ashern Central School and these students are under the direction of Mr. Mor oz. This school is loca ted in the constituen cy of the Honourable Mini ster of Agriculture. We ha ve 12 students from Gra des from 9 to 12 from the Morweena Mennonite Christian School, and these students are under the dir ection of Mr. Tim Reimer. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Mini ster of Agriculture.

We ha ve 23 students from Grade 5 from the Robert H. Smith School, and they are under the dir ection of Miss Kulpak. This school is loca ted in the constituency of the Honourable First Min ister. On beha lf of all the members, may I welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Free trade - Tabling of studies and reports MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Ma dam Speaker.

My question for the Premier is, I wonder if he would agree to - I believe I've asked this question before - table any reports or studies tha t have been done on beha lf of the Government of Ma nitoba with respect to the topic of free trade. In saying that, I will just ind icate tha t he has previously referred to a report tha t was done by Professor Clarence Barber, a report which we have obta ined from the Legislative Libra ry, and I wonder if there are any other reports or studies done on beha lf of the government tha t he might table. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Ma dam Spea ker, I believe tha t is the sta tement that had been prepa red or papers that had been prepared. I would take tha t as notice to ensure tha t all papers have been included. Also, the Ma nitoba position on interna tional and interprovincia l trade has also been filed in the libra ry and I assume that the Leader of the Opposition has a copy of that. Free trade - position papers MR. G. FILMON: Did the Government of Ma nitoba put forward a position paper at the Western Premiers' Conference in Swan River last week or in Ottawa last evening? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Ma dam Spea ker, the position tha t was taken in Swan River was one which was verbal in nature. lt dealt with the question of process and not the subs tance of free trade and, likewise last night, my positions were verba l in nature but consistent with the positions that are outlined in the document tha t the Leader of the Opposition has brought to have ac cess to. 502 MR. G. FILMON: Is the Premier saying tha t document to which he's refer ring ha s been ta bled in the Legislature? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Ma dam Speaker, this document contains a sta tement that was given by myself to the Annual Conference of First Min isters in Halifax, at which meeting the Leader of the Opposition was in attendance. If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have a copy of the Manitoba position in respect to international trade, I will ensure tha t one is forwarded to him. MR. G.

FILMON: Ma dam Spea ker, so the only two documents that this government has put out publicly is the position paper tha t was put forth in Halifax - and the Ma nitoba Government position has not altered since tha t point in time - and the Clarence Barber Report that was produced last fall. Are there any other documents or position papers tha t the Government of Ma nitoba has on its position on free trade? HON. H. PAWLEY: Ma dam Speaker, there are two other reports. If they have not already filed in the library, I'll see to it tha t they are filed in the lib rary immedia tely. MR. G.

FILMON: Ma dam Spea ker, I don't mean to be critical of the Premier on this matter but, for insta nce, the Clarence Barber Report to my knowledge was not distributed to members of the Legislature. We only found out tha t it was in the libra ry through questioning of the Premier. I wonder if he would undertake to provide for us any reports and studies tha t have been done for the Government of Ma nitoba leading to its position on free trade and any position papers tha t it ha s with respect to the Manitoba position on free trade. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Ma dam Spea ker, as I ind icated in respect to the first question of the Leader of the Opposition, I will check as to what studies have been filed in the libra ry, what other studies there may be that would be of assistance to the Leader of the Opposition and would be of public inte rest to provide. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'm aware tha t the Federal Government has 2,000 pages of studies and background briefings on free tra de. I didn't quite catch what the Premier said. Did he agree to sh are all of the information tha t the Government of Manitoba has had in the way of studies and position papers?

HON. H. PAWLEY: I thought I had ind icated yes. High school program - Review committee MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Ma dam Speaker. My question is to the Minis ter of Education. In Februa ry of this year, Ma dam Speaker, the former Min ister of Education made an announcement with regard to the formation of a review committee or panel to examine programs in high schools in Ma nitoba. In

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 view of the fact the commitment was made by the former Minister of Education that the review panel would meet in April of this year, could the Minister of Education tell the House what progress has been mad e by this committee to date? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker , I believe the member opposite knows that there have been some events in the intervening months which have slowed down the process somewhat.

But I do want to confirm , Madam Speaker, that a high school review committee will be in operation in very short orde r, and that it will commence its review of the high school curriculum and the operation of our high schools in the Prov ince of Manitoba. I can't give you a specific date as we have a number of groups who have indicated an interest in being a part of that process and I think I can understand that. It's an important process , but it will be some weeks before a committee is finally established .

But the process is under way and the commitment is still there to follow up and deal with that review in a very thorough way. MR. L. DERKACH: Can the Minister tell the House , Madam Speaker, if in fact the consultation papers , which the former Minister of Education prom ised the people of Manitoba, will be ready for public release in October as was promised ? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, given that we 're some two months late in commencing the review , that is unlikely . I would suggest that a more reasonable time frame may be the end of December of this year for a paper to be in its preliminary stages .

Madam Speaker , we're talking about a system that is extremely important , not only to students who are currently in our high school system, but future generations. I wouldn 't want to commit the committee to coming forward with the report before they had both time to consider input from the individuals and groups in the province who have an interest in education and until they have had time as a committee to prepare a report that is understandable and gives a sense of direction to the people of Manitoba with respect to high school education . MR. L.

DERKACH: Madam Speaker , may I ask the Minister then, is he anticipating a change in the terms of reference that have been set up for this review panel? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education with a brief answer . HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Madam Speaker, the terms of reference may be somewhat different than originally anticipated, not substantially different. The fundamental goal of a review of the high school system is relatively self-explanatory. That will be the goal. The difficulty comes in the competing interests in high school education.

I wouldn't want to establish a review committee whose mandate was so broad, so all inclusive that the report would be lacking any sense 503 of direction. I think we have to focus on a number of issues and those issues will be defined by meetings with the various group s and internal discussion amongst the different division s in the Department of Education . Headingley Jail staff cuts MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you , Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Corrections .

Can the Minister confi rm that the Manitoba Government Employees' Association is paying tor two guards at Headingley in order to bring that complement up to 21 during the night shift , rather than the 19 which she has recommended. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the complem ent of staff at Headingley is in a state of negot iati on between the MGEA and the government.

It was agreed , bec ause th e concern was a Workplace Health and Safety concern , that while the issue had been referred to them for mediation , that the MGEA would in fact cov er for two staff until that issue is resolved . MR. A. BROWN: The MGEA says that these two extr a guards are necessary tor safety reasons and the guards at Headingley feel very strongly about thi s. How is the Minister going to resolve this situ ation when we know very well that 19 guards and so on , looking after 350 inmates , is hardly adequate ? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker , there are criteri a for how many guards are requir ed and these criteria are looked at from time to time during negotiation because it is in the interests of the department to see that we get adequate coverage within a well-managed budget, and it is in the interests of the guards to see that they can do their job properly . I think it is being negotiated by the appropriate groups and I anticipate a recommendation , a decision on it by mid-June . Free trade - position papers MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister . HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I had understood a few moments ago , if we could revert back to the question from the Leader of the Opposition that he had the Barber Report from the library. I have a copy of the Barber Report; attached thereto are the other two studies which I made reference to, the Watson Report and the Duncan Wasney Report. If that is not part of the Leader of the Opposition's report, I would ask that this be forwarded to the Leader of the Opposition. That covers all three studies that have been done. - (Interjection) - Well, it may be that he only has the Barber Report from the library. I don 't know.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I thank the Premier for giving me that information. It's all part of the report that's in the library.

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 Telephone exchanges - Springfield constituency MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System.

Given the fact that the vast majority of the people on the main Dugald exchange and its sub-exchanges of Oakbank, Hazelridge, Anola and Lorette work and/ or do most of their business in Winnipeg, much if not most of it by telephone, and the Minister being a resident of the Dugald area is well aware of this; and given the fact that many people living in some of the forementioned communities are on the Winnipeg telephone exchange, therefore my question is how soon can the people of the Dugald exchange and its sub exchanges of Oakbank, Hazelridge, Anola and Lorette expect to become a part of the Winnipeg exchange?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the former Member for Springfield had made vigorous representations to me, as Minister responsible for the telephones. As a result of his representations . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A.

MACKLING: . . . a meeting was held with the directors of the Telephone System and an announcement was made that there would be a study by the Telephone System of options to consider in respect to improvement of telephone service for Manitobans generally, and that work is under consideration by the board at the present time. MR. G. ROCH: That really doesn't answer the question I asked . I said, how soon can we expect it? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . The honourable member has not the right to demand an answer. The answer does not have to be satisfactory. Would you like to rephrase your question?

The Honourable Member for Springfield . MR. G. ROCH: I have another question, a new question to the same Minister . Can the Minister assure this House and those people outside Winnipeg who currently have or have had Winnipeg telephones, especially those who some 20 years ago or more paid $1500 and up , in some cases, plus very high monthly rates over the years and who were promised in writing by MTS tha t they would retain those telephones as long as they remained resident owners at their current addresses , can the Minist er assure them that MTS will honour its commitment and at a reasonable rate? 504 HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker , for the edification of the honourable member , the former Member for Springfield expressed concerns in respect to the needs of not only his constituents in the R.M. of Springfield , but evidenced a concern about the needs for telephone subscribers throughout the province; and a consideration of those issues will be take n by the board and by this government and announcements will be made in due course. MR. G. ROCH: Those commitments were made in writing. Why is the Minister ... MADAM SPEAKER : Order please. Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

ROCH: Yes, I do, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER : Question period is not a time for debate. The Honourable Member for Springfield with a question . MR. G. ROCH: Will the Minister be defending MTS ' blatant breaking of those written commitments, or will he be requiring them to honour their commitment? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the honourable members opposite know that the Manitoba Telephone System has been in operation in this province for many years and operates on the basis of providing effective and fair telephone service to all residents in this province.

If the honourable member has any specific about any alleged wrongdoing , then he should furnish it to me, and I will inquire from the Telephone System if there is any substance to his rumour . Tilston School - closing of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you , Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education . Tilston School , a K-6 school, is the only school in the Albert Municipality and is in danger of being closed by a decision of the division , the Antler School Division , on June 19, 1986 .

Has the Minister had any consultations with the Antler School Division? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education . HON. J. STORIE: No, Madam Speak er. I have not had any discussion with the Antler River School Division . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker . Would the Minister, in light of the quickness of this decision , undertake to have such discussions? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge , neither the school division nor anyone else within the school division has requeste d the involv ement of the Department of Edu cat ion . In keeping with , I think the

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 fundamental principle that school divisions conduct their own affairs in a manner which is in keeping with the interests of their constituent gr oups , I would be somewhat hesitant to interfere. I'm assuming that Antler River has approached this particular problem, and I acknowledge that whenever you're about closing a school, it is a problem in the best manner that they can. I would certainly not want to interfere in their deliberations on that matt er.

If, on the other hand, a group wished to meet with me on that matter, I would certainly not be opposed to that, although reco gnizing their legitimate authority in those matters. MADAM SPEAKER: On a supplem entary , the Honourable Mem ber for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister not concerned that because of the increased .. . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Whether or not a Min ister is concerned about something is not an appropriate question. Would you like to reph rase your question? School divisions - increasing of taxes MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Would the Min ister not accept some responsibility for the Department of Education in the fact that many of the se school divisions, including Anther School Division, have had to incr ease their tax rates by 15 and 25 percent ? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite is perfectly aware of the contribution of the province to funding of education. We have seen a major increa se over the last few years including a 5.1 percent inc rease in this fiscal year. The decision to incr ease special levies is a decision of the school board.

I recognize that school boards are faced with some difficul t decisions based on changing enrolments in particular areas within school divisions. That's a matter that has been faced by school divisions for some time. lt's not something new. lt is never easy, and although we have provided support for small schools in a varie ty of ways through the Department of Educati on, we cannot accom moda te all the eventu alities. In some unfortunate instances, schools are closing. I am not familiar with the details of this particular school, nor its circumstances.

If someone from the division or someone representing parents in the division would care to meet with me to inform me of the particulars, I would be more than happy to do so. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member of Beauchesne Citation 357 (

y) that a question should not "raise matters under control of local authorities not responsi ble to Government or Legislature." Farm Lands Protection Act - Divestiture clause MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Vir den. 505 MR. G. FINDL AY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Mini ster of Agriculture regarding The Farm Lands Protect ion Act. Sub ject to

Section 3(2) of that act, I would like to ask the Min ister, how many credit institutions now have land in excess of the maximum allowed under the act, and how many acres of farm land will be forced on to the market prior to September 26, 1987, when the three year divestiture clause, Clause 3(6), comes into force? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI : Ma da m Speak er, I thank th e honourable member for his question.

I would suggest that kind of detailed information, if he would like to pose it during the Estimates debate, which will be coming up shortly, and there will be people from the board available to discuss this. If he wishes, I will be pleased to take it under advisement, get that information and provide it to him. But there will be an opportunity for him to debate. I want to tell the honour able member that any institution is free to come before the board and ask for an exemption from the legislation. If in fact the circums tances warrant such an exemption, it will be granted.

In fact, there have been cases where the board itself has heard evidence from institutions where they may have in certain instances exceeded their limit. They look at each case on its own individual merits and they were granted exemptions. MR. G. FI NDLAY: A supplementary question, Ma dam Speaker. Does the Min ister agree that any forced dumping of farm land onto the market . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. A question should not seek an opinion. The Honourable Member for Virden, if you'd like to rephra se your question? MR. G.

FI NDLAY: The forced dumping of farm land onto the market will decrease the market value of farm land and ther efore probably increase . . . MADAM SPEAKER : Order please. Does the honourable member have a question? The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FIND LAY: Yes. MADAM SPEAKER: If you can ask your question without seeking an opinion from the Mi nister? MR. G. FI NDLAY: My question is, Madam Speaker , will dumping of farm land force the financial situation of farmers into a worse situation than what it is now? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I can tell my honour able friend that there is no intent to dump any land on the mar ket. There are provisions on - (In terje ction) - Madam Speaker, I believe that . . .

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: I believe that my honourable friend should have some discussions with the fi nancial institutions in this province as I have , Madam Spe aker, and there are options for them to meet the requirements of the legislation. The situation in Manitoba is no different than it is in our neighbouring Province of Saskatchewan vis-a-vis the legislation. Madam Speaker, there are some calling cards announcing themselves in this Legislature . If they don 't want to hear the answer, they can obviously pose their own questions .

Madam Speaker , there is no intent at all on the government's part to deal with this question which in fact would artificially depress the price of land . Madam Speaker , the honourable member well knows that land prices have been depressed all over North Americ a in terms of the financial crisis regardless of any legislation or not, and they have far exceeded in certain areas more than here in Manitoba . MADAM SPEAKER: Orde r please . I'll remind Honou rable Ministers that answers should be brief . The Honourable Member for Virden . MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A final supplementary then, technically the three-year divesture clause is still in the act and will cause the effects that we've m entioned . When is the Minister going to introduce amendments to the act to prevent this dumping of farm land? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , I do not accep t the premise that my honourable friend makes at all. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, there are ample provisions under the legislation for financial institutions to meet the requirements of the legislation .

A similar type of legislation has been in place in the Province of Saskatchewan a number of years beyond ours , and clearly the financial institutions have been able to operate under that legislation and I see no difficulty for them operating there . They have been told, and I have met with members of the financial institutions, that they have options in which to meet those requirements . MR. G. FINDLAY: Then I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture , have any exemptions been given to date to the financial institutions? HON. B. URUSKI: Yes. Payment of claim re statements of Mr.

Ron Keenberg MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker , I have a question for the First Minister, or the Minister responsible for the Horse Racing Commission, or the Attorney-General. Could the First M inister indicate whether the government has paid some $80,800 plus costs to Foster Advertising Ltd. as a result of what the court judgmen t 506 described as blatantly misleading statements and negligent and reckless comments by Mr. Keenberg , the former Ch air ma n of the Manitoba Horse Racing Commiss ion, who was appointed by this government?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speak er, I'll take that question as notic e on behalf of the Ministe r. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, could the First Minister indicate whet her the government has paid any other claims, or is considering payment of any other claims , as a result of this judgment and the statements made by Mr. Keenbe rg? HON. H. PAWLEY: Likewise as notice , Madam Speaker . MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, in accepting these questions as notice then, could the First Minister also inform the House as to why the taxpayers of Manitoba should be responsible for payment of this money as a result of this jud gment against Mr. Keenbe rg? There is no indemnification provision in the statute, could he table a legal opinion , which the government may have recei ved, in support of payment of this claim and any other claims? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I und erstand the Acting Minist er responsible for the Horse Racing Commission can provide some informat ion with respec t to the question .

MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Minist er of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Than k you. As Acting Minister responsible, Madam Speaker, I believe, if I'm not mistaken , that decision is going to be appealed. I do not know what stage that is at, but I understood that was the direction that the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission was prepa red to take . So I think it's somewhat premature for the member opposite to base his questions on what obviously , at this point , are uncertain facts . Child abuse registry MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker , yesterday the Honourable Member for Brandon asked me whether the review of child abuse procedures would be province wide. Madam Speaker, at that time , I indicated that it was. That was not , strictly speak ing, accurat e, Madam Speaker . Because of the time frame and the quantity of work involved in the Winnip eg area, the review will focus on the Winnipeg area .

Should there be recommendations that have wider application, we would certainly look at them provinc e-wide and , should it become necessary to carry on a province-wide review at a later date , we certainly will do so, Mada m Speaker .

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, perhaps I'll have an opportunity on another occasion to deal with the answer given by the Minister of Community Services just now. Brandon University - funding to MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Min ister of Education, and it has to do with funding for uni versities in Manitoba and, specifical ly, Brandon University.

In response to a question by the Member for River Heights a few moments ago, the Min ister talked about major incr eases in the Department of Education for public schools. Madam Speaker, the funding increases for the Universities Grants Commission this year is to be 3.8 percent, and the inc rease for the Brandon University, excluding new programs, is to be 2. 7 percent. My question to the Minister is: why does Brandon .University get 2.7 percent when the Universities Grants Commission receives 3.8 percent this year? MADAM SPEAK ER : The Hono urable Mini ster of Education. HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Spea ker, of course, the member has chosen to break out the statistics as he sees fit, or as is convenient. The fact is that, on a year over-year basis, Brandon University's increase has been substantially more than 3.8 percent. The memb er correctly pointed out that is partially because of some additional funding for the nurses' program , I believe, and some capital funds for the music building. Those two projects are obviously very important to Brandon and very important to Brandon University.

So if you look at a global basis, I believe in Brandon's case, the overall increase is more like 5.5 percent or 6 percent on a year-over-year basis. I would point out to the member opposite as well that, in terms of our ability to fund post-secondary education in this province, the case has been made time and time again. We received $7 .5 million in transfers from the Federal Government in cash transfers this year - that is for both health and post-secondary education. We have passed that on and more to the uni versities alone, never mind our contribution to the health system in this province.

Madam Speaker, we are attempting to deal with the priorities of the university in the most expeditious manner possible. MADAM SPEAKER: I'm sure the House would app reciate if answers were dealt with in the most expeditious way as possible. The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, is the Min ister taking issue with the President of the Brandon University who says that Brandon University is being asked to do the same, or even more, with less resources?

Is he di sagreeing that student tuit ion fees at Bra ndo n University - the Minister is an alumnus of Brandon Universit y, and should be inte rested in this - but does he take issue with . . . 507 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Could th e honourable member please rephrase his question briefly so that it does not seek an opinion? lt is not in order for a Min ister to be asked whether he agrees or does not agree. MR. J. McCRAE: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. What message, Madam Speaker, does the Minis ter have for the students at Brandon University? HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Speak er, I have two messages for the students of Brandon Universit y. One is that we need no lectures from members opposite about the commitment that needs to be made on the part of Manitobans to our un iversities. The second thing that needs to be said to members opposite and to the students of all of our un iversities is that post-secondary education is in perilous times. Unless we get some commitment from the Federal Government to maintain the 50-50 cost funding to our institutions, they are going to be jeopardized. Safety shields - taxicabs MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR.

H. SMITH: Madam Speak er, my question is for the Mini ster of Highways and Transportat ion. With the slaying of a cab dri ver on April 6 and 14 robb eries of cab drivers since in the City of Winnipeg, and bearing in mind the Department of Workplace Safety and Health Regulations passed in 19 84 that require that there be an emergency safety plan agreed upon by the employer and lone worker, will your department investigate standards and consider the option of man datory protective shields for all taxis? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of High ways. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, we are obviously very concerned about the safety of cab drivers in the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba. This is within the jurisdiction of the Taxicab Board, and they are currently reviewing and considering the safety matters relating to the issue of safety shields. I will be exploring that further with the Taxicab Board in the near future and looking at the possibilities of mandatory shields. No decision has been made at the present time on that, Madam Speaker. MR. H. SMITH: A question.

When do you consider a date that you will, in effect, be able to report some prog ress and some decision either for mand atory shields or against manda tory shields in taxicabs? HON. J. PLOHMAN: As soon as possible, Madam Speaker. McKay, Bill - response to letter MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister responsible for Native Affairs. HON. E. HARPER: Last week I took as notice a question from the Honourable Member for Arthur regarding Bill -

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 McKay's letter. I wish to advise the member now that I have responded to the letter and it took some time because I had to collect some facts to make sure that the issue was resolved. Document, tabling of - Indian Mental Health Research Report HON. E. HARPER: Also, at the same time, I would like to give the member a document which he referred to - I think it was two Fridays ago - on Ind ian mental health research.

I would like to forward the document to him now and I wish to advise the member, also, that the Chiefs from the Brotherhood of Indian Nations and from the First Nations Confede racy, that they have reached an impasse in trying to reach dollars from the Federal Min ister of Health and Welfare to conduct the negotiations of transfer of health services to the Indian Bands, and I wish that he would convey that same message to the Mini ster of Health in Ottawa. Thank you. Child abuse - terms of reference of inquiry MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, a question to the Minister of Community Services. I believe last week she ind icated that she would table in the Legislature today the terms of reference for the inquir y into child abuse. I wonder if she could do that. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I am finalizing the cont ract today and I hope to be able to table the terms of reference and the names of the consultants tomorr ow. St. Boniface Hospital - Labour-management disputes MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is for the Min ister of Health. Amid allegations of labour-management disputes at the St. Boniface Hospital, could the Min ister ind icate to the House whether he and his department have investigated those allegations and are working with the hospital and the unions to make sure that those allegations of poor relations don't affect patient care at St. Bonif ace? MADAM SPEAKER : The Ho nour abl e Minis ter of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, this is an internal matter to be resolved and there is a way to resolve it.

There has been a joint council established between management and labour and this would be the normal place to bring in any problems that they have at this time. 508 As of this time, we don't expect to int erfere. MR. D. ORCHARD: Could the Min ister of Health indi cate whether the se allegations of labour manageme nt di sagreements were in any way responsible for the recent restriction of admissions to St. Bon iface Hospital? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No. Census forms - Native communities MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arth ur. MR. J. DOWNEV: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have a question for the Min ister of Native Affairs. Do he and his government, Madam Speaker, support the Native community of Manitoba in not filling out their census forms? MADAM SPEAKER: I think the honourable member knows that he is not to seek an opinion. The Hono urable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEV: Madam Speaker, with all respect, the question was, does he and his government support the Native community in Manitoba in not filling out their census forms? MADAM SPEAK ER : The Ho nourable Minis ter responsible for Native Affairs. HON. E.

HARPER: Yes, I have stated publicly that I support the census because it is very important that Native people have statistics to base their decisions on in terms of taking over control of education and health issues. Liability coverage - government boards, commissions, etc. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: My question is for the Attor ney General. .. . (inaudible) ... question of the Member for St. Norbert, what is the liability situation of people who, for their expertise, serve on government boards, commissions, etc.?

Do they have to take responsibility for personal liability or is there some protect ion for functions by these people while performing their tasks as volunteers for the government? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. As the member well knows, a question should seek information and should not seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise. MR. M. DOLIN: If I might, Madam Speaker, I'll rephrase the question. MADAM SPEAKER: am afraid the time for Oral Questions has expired.

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 HANSARD CORRECTION MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: A Hansard change on Page 485, Monday the 2nd, fifth paragraph, last line. The city will not "hoard" instead of "aff ord." MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urabl e Mi nister of Cultural Affairs. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Spea ker, I rise on what I believe to be a matter of privilege. Madam Speaker, as I said, I am rising on a matter of privilege but I seek your advice on this matter.

On Frida y, the Member for P9rtage la Prairie, in speaking during the Budget Debate, stated that I have a single portfolio, but getting a salary 'On the basis of a shared portfolio. This is not true. I have thr ee responsibilities but, more critical ly, he said I keep my baby in the office and therefore suggested that I might just need a hig h-pric ed babysitter . Madam Speaker, this is obviously not true, given my heavy responsibil ities. If the member had cared to check, he would know that I have a playpen in my office in order to spend more time with my son, whenever possible, in the evenings and on weekends.

I wish it was as easy as the member suggests and that I could see my son more often. Madam Speaker, the comments of the Member for Portage la Prairie are a reflection on all working women who are trying to combine job and family responsibilities and are therefore cause for gr ave concern. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member might have a case to bring before the House in terms of a grievance but it does not constitute a matter of privilege, nor did the member conclude her statement with a motion to that effect.

ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the adjourned deba te on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minis ter of Finance, and th e prop osed amend me nt the reto by th e Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose has 21 minutes remaining. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When we adjourned last night, I was beginning to comment on the farm portion, the agricultural portion of the Budget Add ress. I commented, Madam Spea ker, that what we see is, in real dollars, a $1 2 million increase in the budgetary cost to the province.

First of all, let me say, Madam Speaker, that the total of $70.3 million that we see within the agricultural budget this year does not come anywhere near the emergency increases that we saw back in the 1981 year. However, as I said previously, I compliment the Mi nister on the incr eases that are there, given the fact that I did not think his fellow Cabinet members would even give that far in the pressures of the agricultural communi ty. 509 We see an incr ease of 5.3 percent in the support to Manitoba's insur ance funds.

I would like to spend a moment commenting on that, Madam Speaker . lt seems to me that we have a situation where the one part of the agricultural community is not being treated with fairness in comparison to the other part because many people went in to the Hog Stabil izat ion Program believing it was actuarially sound. The costs have now been written off and I, of course, have to bow to those in the hog indus try who were able to persuade the Mini ster that this was a good way to go.

I have to say, however, it creates two classes of hog producers out there, the same manner as I believe we are going to see two classes of cattle producers before too long in this province. In fact, we probably have them now. I guess I touched on this during the Throne Speech because I felt that at that time we could not predict what the actions of the department would be.

I note that under Farm Start, Madam Speaker, and MACC, that the comment is made that one of the main criteria, and the important criteria, under this program would be monies would be di rected in particular to individuals who had demon strated production and financial management capabilities.

If that has all of a sudden become important, I wonder what has happened to the loan portfolio of MACC this last winter, because that has been a problem with many of the applicants who have been dealing with MACC, who have suddenly found that their cash flow problems were restricted because of the present financial difficulties that we have.

Unfortuna tely, if they had been considered in the light of demonstrated production and financial management capabilities, their applications for loans would have probably been dealt with in a more favourable manner; and I have to hope that this is an indication on the part of the Min ister and the Department of Agriculture that we will see some humane changes in that area of granting loan portfolios to some of the young farmers in this province. - (I nterjection) - Well, I gave him a little credit. We don't want to be too hard on him because we want him to keep working on behalf of the farmers of this province.

I mentioned last night, Madam Speaker, that for every 1 percent drop in the interest rates at the bank, that this could approach the level of $1 000 per farm in saving in inte rest costs. I guess what bothers me about this Budget and about the agricultural policies that we have in place is that we saw an extension of the present system and programs.

But we saw also is that we have really not had a reaction from the government to what is possibly an emergency and certainly a crisis in the area of agricultural polic y, nothing that would touch those people who are outside of the MACC loan portfolio, except - and I say except - for the fact that we will now be eligible, the lower income farmers will be eligible for CRISP benefits under the qualifications which I believe should never have been removed in the first place.

If the Min ister had been able to include in this Budget, if he had been able to persuade the Minister of Finance that taxes for educational purposes on agricultural land could be removed at this time and provide some immediate benefit across the broad spectrum of the agricultural commun ity, then I would have felt much more complim entary about the actions that we see throughout this Budget.

TUesday, 3 June, 1986 (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) Mr . Deputy Sp eak er, mem bers op posite have challenged us several ti mes to talk about what alternat ives there might be. They have talked long and hard about how the fact that we have been criticizing not only the deficit expenditures but we've also been criticizing some of the expenditur es not being high enough. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's a case of reallocation of funds; it's a case of priorities that I think are not being addre ssed throughout the Budget.

I have to say that, in terms of actual dollars of percentage increase, the amount of monies that are allocated for health and education in this Budget do fall within the guidelines that we had establ ished for ou rselves during the election; but I don't see the priorities in many other areas of the Budget as being priorities that are good for the rural parts of Manitoba; I don't see them as being priorities that are good for the constituency of Ste. Rose.

I have mentioned before, and I would like to remind the House again at this time, that if we have drainage ditches that are not being maintained, if we have severe drainage problems that cannot be add ressed because of lack of funds in municipal and natural resources areas. then we have problems that are not being addressed, and probably we should be considering those sorts of problems rather than the riverbank reconstruction that we see at this particular time that is not a priority in terms of the impor tant needs of this province, in my opinion. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I look at the amount of money that is going into the Jobs Fund; I see $1 70 million going in there and I say that borders on being obscene. If we were to take $60 million out of there and put it into the agricultural portfolio, we would have virtually doubled that portfolio and we still wou ldn't have exceeded 3 percent budgetary costs in this province, and it still would not exceed or would still not be providing a real significant increase with an impact of an offsetting amount for agriculture which is an indu stry that puts 20 percent of the gross productivity into this province.

So I say there are lots of areas for reconstruction of this Budget. Certain ly, I think that if the members on this side had had the opportunity to have put together the Budget for this province, we would have seen dir ections that would be considerably different than what we presently have before us. I mention the Jobs Fund again, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because I see it as being part of the artificial economy that the government of this province is beginning to generate. 1 see the programs associated with Limestone and several other areas, but I would single out the one in the Limestone project as being, to my mind, a textbook example of how we can redirect funds through other areas and not reveal the true costs to the taxpayers of this province in the areas that the money is being spent.

I've identified municipal expenditures as another area where programs are aided by the Jobs Fund but the true cost is not laid out in a very understandable fashion before the public of this province. Mr . Deputy Sp eaker , all de partments of our government should be able to be responsible enough to handle the funds that are allocated to them without 510 having another fund wher eby we can plump up programs here and there throughout the year.

If we cannot plan at the start of the year what the costs will be and what the programs will be within the various departments of the government, then there is something sadly lacking in the planning and the projections of government. I maintain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Jobs Fund has become abused.

While the concept may have had some social benefits, and I'm sure that is the ground upon which it is being sold, it has now gotten to the point what we are looking at is a situation where the Jobs Fund is not being used for its original intent. lt is becoming a rather convenient and poorly planned salve to the profile of the government who would wish to put money into one of the most politically sensitiv e areas that it has identified at that particular time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me say that when looking at the public debt of this province, we see it has risen by almost $6 0 million.

We now have a total responsibility of $322 million, a substantial increase, and it seems to me that we are looking at the signs of the direction in which the government is leading us; the signs of the dir ection in which we are slowly being immersed in a quagmire of debt. I quote from the Budget Speech when the Mini ster says, "Would a family be better off selling its home to pay its mortgag e"? I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that may very well be what we are doing.

Debt, if it produc es long-term results, produces long-term stabil ity, if it produces long-term benefits for the future of this province, can be justified . Extreme debt that only gives short-term results cannot be justified . Our future seems to be slowly being mortgaged away, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think it's time for us to face reality . lt's time for this government to stop avoiding the inevitable and start dealing with the monetary problems that it has created and start dealing with the monetary problems that I see being ind icated down the road for this province.

Therefore, I am speaking on behalf of the amendment, and I believe that is the only correct way that we can vote in order to show our disp leasure with the priorities of this Budget. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I'd just like to take a few moments to talk about the agricultural component of the Budget. I don't want to take enough time to cover the waterfront as many members did, but nevertheless I would like to make a contribution at the present time.

I suppose the mem bers opposite will probably accuse me of fed bashing, but I want to say to them that my tune has not changed for the last 20 years. I call it like it is. When the Liberal Government was in Ottawa, I always pointed out at various farm organ iza tional meetings, their shortco mings, and I see no reason to change my criticisms just because we have a present Conservative Government in Ottawa. I want to say, first ly, I think the 21 percent incr ease in the agricultural component of the Budget is a very modest increase.

To some, it might seem very large, but in terms of the crisis in agriculture, I think it is a

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 very modest increase. Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to say, I think under present economic circumstances, we are probably doing about as much as we can in Manitoba without having to come up with a major tax increase. Ins ofar as the school tax relief on farm land is concerned I think it is something that us agricultural people in this House will have to keep working on because I believe it is very necessary to remove those iniqui tous burdens that fall on people without having relationship and the ability to pay.

Whereas we didn't get any satisfaction in this present Budget, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that in future budgets this will be given consideration. In talking about what we can do for agriculture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one has to turn obviously to the Federal Government. I say that not as one who wants to provoke debate from the other side of the House insofar as calling us fed bashers again, because we're not the only ones who say that the Federal Government has to do more. I would like to quote from the spokesman for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

He was quoting after the announcement of the Prime Min ister in his agricultural initi ative. He said, "The announcement doesn't give us all we want but it helps," and I agree. Of course, you have the rebate on fuel taxes of 5.5 cents per litre but we shouldn't forget that tax was also put on by the present government. So, really they put something on and now they're taking it back. But nevertheless, I want to express that I appreciate that effort. They also propose, and I think it's probably going to be law, that the domestic price for wheat go from a $7 regime up to $1 1 regime. That also is a good move.

It'll put much needed money in the pockets of farmers.

Ted Turner, head of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool said, "These moves are good, they're moving in the right direction, but there's still a gap that has to be add ressed some way or the other." Turner has called on Ottawa to make a $2 billion deficiency payment to prairie grain growers to keep their income at least at last year's leveL Charlie Swanson, first vice-president of Manitoba Pool Elevators said, "Mulroney is finally taking the western farm situation more serious ly, but farm groups will continue to press for massive government payments to compensa te them for falling world prices." More recently, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Conference of the Premiers, Premier Devine, who is not known to be a fed basher by any stretch of the imagination, he expressed satisfaction before he left the success of the Conference, particularly with the resolutions on agriculture which recommended a $1 billion infusion into the Western grain economy . So let it not be said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that to talk about more federal input into agriculture is somehow treating our senior government unfai rly. I want to also quote the National Farmers' Union president.

He concluded, "If Canadian farmers are to survive the current price between the U.S. and the EEC, the Federal Government must implement additional measures. Then, if you will continue to press for the Deficiency Payments Program to compensate farmers for the dr astic decline in grain market prices." He explained, "The Western Grain Stabi lization Program 511 was not intended to deal with this kind of a crisis that we are currently faci ng. What is needed is a national, uni form policy appr oach that will deal equitably with all farmers across this countr y.

" He said, "The drawbacks of the Western Grain Stabilization Program are numerous. The program currently provides maximum payments only to those large farmers who have been able to maintain maximum premium levels as a result of good crops in previous years." He noted, "The plan provides less support to those enrolled in the program who have experienced shortfalls and provides absolutely nothing to the 30,000 or so producers who are outside the plan comp letely.

" Noting that the Eastern producers are equally hard hit by the world grain price he said, "The decline of farm income is a national problem that requir es a national policy solution". Mr. Deputy Speaker, I certainly concur with some of the criticisms he makes of the Western Grain Stabilization Program. You know, we talk about a program that the Federal Government has to institute to bail the farmers out of their present economic circumstances, and ther e is such a program in place, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We have two stabilization programs in this count ry, first ly, we have a program that was introduced, I believe it was in the first year of the Diefenbaker Government back many years ago - and it was a good program - unfortun ately, it was never activated; it was never used; it languished for years and years. lt wasn't until the western agricultural sector of our agricultural economy in Canada was boxed into, was singled out and put un der what we call the Western Grain Stabilization Program, that they started activating the other program to benefit the rest of the farmers in Canada.

If you make a comparison with the two program, the first program, the one that was introduc ed under the Diefenbaker Gove rnm ent, is a far more generous program than the Western Grain Stabilization Program. lt has no limits, Mr. Deputy Speaker, insofar as your production is concerned. For instance, this year corn prod ucers and soya bean producers will be getting an interim payment, and if you permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'll read you the

article so that members in this House will know that I am speaking from facts. "Canadian soybean and corn farmers will receive an interim payment between 17 million and 20 million for their 1985 crops, Federal Agriculture Min ister John Wise announced. In his statement, Wise said: 'The payments were needed to help farmers with this year's planting expenses.' He said: 'Producers were facing serious income losses from falling prices caused by a record corn crop in the U.S. and above average yields in Canada, and reduced demand for corn from the Soviet Union.

Corn producers will receive $5 a tonne, and soybean produc ers will receive $9 a tonne on their production for last year. "' Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you compare that to what happens in the Western Grain Stabi lization Program , you don't get paid on all of your production. You get paid on the maximum input that you have, and it's controlled by the amount that you pay in. I believe it's up to $7 50 that you contribute on a yearly basis, and that's your cap.

If you produce twice as much grain as what you have paid in for, you will not get it, you will just get paid up to the amount of the cap that's on the program.

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 If you consi der, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact tha t the payments made under the Canadian Agricultural Stabil ization Program are made on the basis of no participation at all, all the Mini ster does is name the particular commodity and the farmers get a payment without making one red cent of contribution. On the other ha nd, un der the Western Gr ain Stabilization Program, you are taxed 2 percent of your payments - last year it was reduced, but I believe with the payments that are being made it will be raised up again. You pay in constantly until you have reached that cap.

Now, if you choose not to belong to the Western Grain Stabilization Program, you get absolutely nothing; you contribute nothing, you get absolutely nothing. On the other hand, under the Canadian Gr ain Stabil ization Program, you contribute nothing; if the Mi nister names your crop, you get compensated to 90 percent of the last five-year average index for the cost of production. Just think of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

If we would be covered under the Canadian Grain Stabil ization Program, 90 percent of the last five-year average inde x for the cost of production, the Crow rate debate would be redundant because it wouldn't matter how much your freight rate would go up because it would be included in your cost of production. So, therefore, the taxpayers of Canada would pick it up.

So let them not intimate to us that they're doing us a big favour by giving us a Crow benefit payment, whatever that will be and at whatever time we get it, because if we were covered un derneath the Canadian Grain Stabi lization Bill, th e freig ht rate would be redundant. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is far more that I could say about these two stabilization programs, and I will be doing so in speaking under various farm resolutions that are introduced in this House in the coming weeks or months, perhaps.

I would like to talk about another tax that I think was inequitous and treats farmers unfairly, not just farmers, but Western Canada as welL I'm talking about the energy tax that we have in this count ry. A few years ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't believe it was this gov ernment, I think it was th e pr evious Lib eral Government, decided that they were going to tax energy because, after all, prices were rising in the world . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: lt was called the National Energy Program, called in by Trudeau. MR. C. BAKER: Right on, right.

But I want to just say to you how that tax affects farmers, and particularly at this present time.

For in stance, the United Grain Growers, which produces a paper called the Grain News, there was a report done by a commi ttee on the effect of the energy tax on agricultural production. lt concluded that, if you farm intensively in Manitoba - for instance, if you were farming in the Red River Valley or the Portage Plains or any other place that has the capability of going for a maximum yield - you use a maximum amount of fert ilizer, make sure that you spray to control every weed, that you kill every insect; in other words, you're farming intensely to get the most production out of that acre that you possibly can, that you could be paying up to $1 1 an acre in energy tax. 512 Just think of it, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. If you were driving down a country road . . . MR. J. DOWNEY: In this count ry, that would be pretty rough. MR. C. BAKER: Not in the R.M. of Brokenhead, we have good roads, Jim. If you were driving down a country road and you were looking at a good crop on either side, if you were looking at a 70-bushel an acre crop on one side of barley, and a 50-bushel crop of wheat on the other side and, every time you moved 16.5 feet with your car, your odometer would kick out $22.00.

That is the amount that farmers that are growing those crops on either side of the road would be paying toward the national treasury in the form of energy tax to produce that crop, Sir. There is another unfair burden that energy tax puts on, not just western farmers, but on Westerners and Northerners as well. Just think, who have the furth est distances to travel in this country? Westerners, all Westerners do, and Northerners do. Who have the furth est distances to get their crops to market, to get their produce to market and to bring in their supplies and their equipment? Again, West erners and Northerners.

Who have the coldest winters and has the biggest heating bills in heating their homes? Again it's Westerners and Northerners. I say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that energy tax is grossly unf air, and treats westerners in a second-class way, as it does treat Northerners. I think the rebate of 5.5 per litre, as far as fuel tax is concerned, is a move in the right dir ec tion, but it has to go much further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, than that. lt has to remove much more of that $1 1 an acre that I alluded to. If you look at the extra costs for the average westerner, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we are more than paying for our Crow benefit; we are paying for it ourselves in Western Canada. The other discrepancy or injustice that I see that is perpetuated on the West that I want to talk about is our present tariff structure. That becomes more acute now that we are discussing so-called free trade talks with the Americans because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the present situation that we have now - I'm not one to say that we shouldn't get involved in free trade talks, I think that we should, but I think we should be ho nest. We shouldn't talk about free trade.

What we want is probably fair trade and a more orderly trade. I think that's what we're talking about. But I think free trade is a myth. Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about the situation that we're in now.

In the Canada West Foundation, which I belong to and our municipality belongs to, a good organization, an organization that is dedicated to articulating the injustices that are perpetuated against the West and trying to bring them to the forefront so that political parties, such as ours and members across the way and all political parties, have an unbia sed collection of material and data to work from so that, when they are referring to something, they can do so without being tarnished by being politically motivated in any way.

They also did a study , and that study concluded that it was costing westerners in 19 83 approximately $6 0

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 per capita, the tariff protection for Central Canada. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you take $6 0 per capita and you take that back thr ee years, again I say to you, that the so-called benefits that are bestowed upon Western Canada are being paid for by Western Canada. In conclu ding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would just like to say that I appreciate the fact that there are many res olutions put forward de aling with some of the situations that are facing the agricultural situation in Manitoba and in Western Canada and I will be looking forward to making my contribution in those debates.

I would like to thank you for your time. And I would like to thank you, too, the Member for Arthur . I would like to thank him for sitting in and listening to me. Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Mr . Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the Budget. lt is my second occasion to speak in a rather short ·period of time, and I can assure you I feel a little more at ease this time. I began shaking days before my maiden speech, but only hours before this one. So there has been some improvement.

I'm beginning to feel at home here and part of this 33d Legislature. But more impor tant ly, I'm beginning to feel comfortable with and I'm very proud to be a part of this Progressive Conservative caucus. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will concentrate my remarks on the th ree major areas that concern me. Firstly, it's the growing provincial deficit. This Budget did not include any strategies, plans or actions that will substantially reduce our provincial deficit. The growing provincial deficit is shackling the productivity and creativity of all Ma nitobans.

The overall deficit is incomprehensible to many Manitobans who can relate to their personal cash income and cash flow but have difficulty un dersta ndin g the macroec onomics of government. The debt that future generations will have to bear is mind-boggling. If every ordinary Manitoban were to realize where this government is leading us economically , there would no longer be an NDP Party. I might note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Premier has almost been granted exclusive licence on the word "ordinar y," and I seriously doubt if in reality he has any concept of what ordinary really is.

To me, the word "ordin ary," in the human context, represents intelligent people who do not need a government that controls their everyday lives. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can tell you who really does understand. it's the lending institutions that this government must approach to fund their large deficit, and we're all aware this go vernment has been responsible for two successive declines in our credit rating, to further burden the taxpayers of Manitoba. Ma y I sugges t tha t if this current large deficit continues to be maintained by this government, we can expect further reductions in our credit rating.

In short, Mr. Deputy Speaker , not only will Man itobans be financing a large debt with their tax dollar, which we all know gives them no tangible results for their taxes, but we will soon be borrowing at even higher rates. Mr. Deputy Speaker, how long will it take for the lending 513 institutions to lose confidence in this government as I know many Manitobans have? lt is interesting to note that the former Minis ter of Finance, in his response to the Budget, stated, "I'm very proud of what our government has acc omplished over the past four years, where we are heading." May I suggest, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that we are heading further and further into debt. Is that something to be proud of? The First Mini ster in his response to the Budget stated: "I asked mem bers across th e way to demonstrate a little consiste ncy ." I agree, the NDP have demonstrated consistenc y. This NDP Government is consistent in misleading and misrepresenting the people of Manitoba by establishing an all-time record, caring enough to sit only four out of the past 22 months. This NDP Government is consistent in maintaining deficits of half a billion dollars, putting Manitobans deeper and deeper into debt.

The cumula tive total debt in Manitoba is now $7 .3 billion, and our province's total debt per capita is the highe st in Western Canada. The annual inte rest on the provincial debt also continues to grow at a runaway rate. In 19 86 to 19 87, this government indicates that $328 million will be spent through the Department of Debt Service - up to $59 million more from last year and about 8.3 percent of the total spending budget.

On a per capita basis, an average family of four will be paying about $1 ,300 next fiscal year just to meet these provincial debt payments, the highest debt service payments in Western Canada. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this socialist government has been consistently bad in the management of this province, but the NDP Government is inconsis tent in their opinion of the economic condition of Manitoba. Let me give you just one example of this inconsistenc y.

On the one hand, we have the Minister of Finance in his Budget Add ress sa ying: "M anitob ans have witnessed the turnaround in our province's economic perf orma nce from nation lagging un der the Conservatives to nation leading under the NDP." On the other hand, let's hear what the First Minister in his Budget response has to say about the condition of Manitoba's economy. He says that Manitoba is one of the smaller, poorer provinces. Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, I agree with the First Mini ster that Mani toba is a poorer province, but I think it is important to note that we have become a have-not province under five years of NDP mismanagement and excessive deficit budgeting.

How can this government constantly cry about how badly the Federal Government treats them on the funding formula when just over a week ago, with the introduction of the Budget, they deprived the City of Winnipeg of $4 million, thus putting the city in a position where they may have to pass on a 3 percent additional increase to all the citizens of Winnipeg in order to regain this lost revenue? To further compound this injustice, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it appears that the Min ister of Urban Affairs was not made aware of the inclusion of the hydro water rate incr eases in the Budget, nor was he aware of the impact on the City of Winnipeg taxpayers. No wonder Ma nitobans doubt the sincerity of this government when they try to convince them that we are being mistreated by the Federal Government, when this government is in the process of fatten ing the Provincial Treasury at the expense of Winnipeg municipal taxpayers.

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 Mr. Deputy Speaker, a single phone call to the Budget Bureau of the City of Winnipeg would have provided this government with the information that the so-called hydro water rate windfall that the City of Winnipeg receives from Winnip eg Hydro go directly into general revenue to support the tax base of the City of Winnipeg, thus keeping municipal taxes lower than they might be. Talk about consulta tion and di alogue between governments.

How can this Provincial Government lead us to believe they are inter ested in consultation with the Federal Government in Ottawa when they cannot consult and reach agreement with the Muni cipal Government in the City of Winnipeg? Perhaps we'll be hearing that the Federal Government should reimburse the City of Winnipeg the $4 million they have sneakily taken from the city . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it is obvious that the old adage, action speaks louder than words, could be applied to the example just cited.

Contrary to what this Provincial Government preaches, their actions do not suggest they are capable or willing to consult with other levels of government. My second area of concern is the non-produc tive fedbashing that seems to be this government's favourite pastime. Not only is it non-prod uctive, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it does very little to enhance the relations between the Federal Government and the province.

Many of the statements made and the manipulation of statistics are misleading and are not giving Manitobans an accurate presentation of the facts. lt is further obvious that this government continues on one hand to almost bite the hand that feeds it, and on the other hand, holds its hand out, palm up, tor more money. Perhaps this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will become known nationally as the new Manitoba handshake. Let's give credit where credit is due. Manitoba has benefited from a wide variety of initiativ es taken by the Federal Government.

The Manitoba economy has been showing signs of strength since the election of a federal Progressive Conservative Party . Unemployment is down significantly , job creation is on the upswing, and the overall investment climate has improved dramatically . The following facts and figu res illustrate the size and magnitude of the improvements in the economy . A total of 23,000 jobs have been created since September of 1984. More jobs have been created in Manitoba in the 19 months since September 19 84 than were created in total between February 19 80 and September 19 84.

The Manitoba unemploy ment rate has fallen from 9 percent in September 19 84 to 8.2 percent today - federal jobs. The value of building permits in 19 85 was up $1 68 million, or 31. 8 percent, compared to 19 84. Building permits in the first two months of 19 86 were up 81. 7 percent compa red to the same period last year. Retail sales have inc reased by 9 percent in the past year and by 15 percent since the September 19 84 election. Housing starts in Manitoba rose by 24 percent last year to reach their highest level since 19 78. Housing starts in the first four months of 19 86 were up 50 percent.

Manufacturing shipments in Manitoba were up 5 percent in February 19 86 compared to the same month in 19 85. 514 Capital spending is estimated to have inc reased by 12.8 percent last year and is forecast to increase by a further 8.9 percent in 19 86. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the improvement in the economy in Ma nitoba is directly coincidental to the election of the Federal Progr essive Conservative Government whose commitment to Canada, as quoted by Prime Min ister Brian Mulroney, is jobs, jobs, jobs.

Manitoba is reaping the benefits of the Federal Government's job creation initia tives, but we have a Provincial Government that is critical of the Federal Government as stated a minimum of 14 times in the Budget Addr ess, but who has the audacit y to claim credit for the imp rovement directly resulting from the economic init iatives they constantly criticize. Manitobans will not be fooled or not be misled by a smoke screen of mi sleading and in accura te statements about the condition of our econ omy. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, may I suggest, based on fact, that the economy of Manitoba has not improved as a coincidence of the Federal Progressive Conservative Government but has improved as a direct result of the election of a Prog ressive Conservative Federal Government. The income and corporation taxes, which Ottawa collects for the provinces, will provide this government with a handsome increase in revenue.

Contrary to what our Ho nourable Min ister of Financ e has said, equalization payments will be up a healthy $50 million, and that does not take into account the additional $4 million they will take from the City of Winnipeg. Even contributions to health and higher education, the ones that this government always says Ottawa is cutting back, are going up some 6 percent, which is almost the same rate of incr ease as this government plans for its spending in those areas. The NDP's theme in the last election was "Stand up for Manitoba." I think it's time, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that Manitoba tried to stand on its own two feet. Why can't we be more self-reliant by encouraging busi ness and industry to come to Friendly Manitoba? The payroll tax is an insult to a businessman's intelligence. The punitive taxation and pro-labour , anti busi ness legislation of this province is the biggest dis incentive to any business that might otherwise come to Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the third area I would like to discuss is health care. I must congratula te the Mi nister of Finance for the 6.4 percent general increase in the health care area. I was also pleased, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, to hear that dashing Mi nister of Health, in his response to the Throne Speech, say that there is too much partisanship in this House, that certain things SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! A MEMBER: You can use "debonair" also, if you want. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Well, I considered that; I considered it. This dashing Minister of Health, in his response to the Throne Speech, said there is too much partisanship in this House, that certain things should be above partisan politics for the good of Manitoba. I hope he was referring to health care.

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 My questions are: is he is serious about cooperation; is he is serious about better health care? If he is, I welcome his intention, but a promise is nothing unless it is fulfilled. I might note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during my response to the Throne Speech, the dashing Min ister of Health was observed thumping his hand on his desk, shaking his head in a negative manner , shouting "no way, no way" when I indi cated that Concordia Hospital needed more acute care beds, not extended care beds.

Gi ven the fact that Concordia Hospital has only 13 6 acute care beds to service 11 0,0 00 people while every other community hospital has approximately twice the number of beds, Concordia Hospital does need acute care beds to meet the needs of the ever-increasing population in the northeast quadrant of Winnipeg. In my opinion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Min ister of Health's response in no way ind icated he was willing to cooperate with or consult with myself or, more important ly, with his colleague who represents the constituency of Concordia to ensure the needs of our community are met. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is a point of order being made? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, would my honourable friend permit a question? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: lt is up to the member. Does the member allow the question? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: When I am finished. One of the bigg est issues of the health care is increasing costs; about one-third of our Budget is spent on health care. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in my pr ofes sion, health care, ma ny nur ses and nu rse admi nistrators are concerned about providing quality care within the financial realities of the day.

I believe that quality and productivity will be the buzzwords of the Nineties. The problem is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when one looks at product ivity, there is very little being done to determine whether health care people are being productive. Let me be absolutely clear on this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not criticizing the productivity of the individual health care workers. What I am saying is that this government must find ways and means to ensure prod ucti vity by means of res earch, educ ational pro cesses, workshops and current technol ogical advancement particularly in the computer field.

Additionall y, another major concern is the funding formula to hospitals, which is based to a great extent on volume, without taking into consideration the level of patient illness and the type of patient care required. We all know that the level of patient illness determines the cost of individual patient care, yet our financial formulas do not take this into considera tion . Does this government know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it is over funding or und er-funding certain hospitals or certain areas within tho se hospitals? There are systems avai lable to look at utilization and productivi ty.

They must be further enhanced and developed. Another concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that much of the health care research funding is in the basic 515 science area. This is very definitely necessary but in addition to this we need good patient care studies to look at the best and most efficient ways and methods of patient care. I realize we cannot have quality health care at any cost because our economic realities must be dealt with.

I am prepared and willing to work together towards priorizing the spending of our health care dollars in a productive way for the benefit of all Manitobans, by consulting with and working with all areas within the health care system. In conclusion, Mr . Deputy Speak er, in itially this government has made a strategic error in not dealing with the deficit, and the people of Manitoba will suffer now and in the future. I find it particularly disturbing to have to burden my children with a debt of this magnitude and expect them to ultima tely assume responsibility for that.

Second ly, to rely entirely on Big Daddy in Ottawa, without developing economic strategies and plans to stand on our own two feet and make decisions on our own, seems immature and shortsighted. lt is almost an admis sion tha t this Provincial Go vernmen t is incapable of governing this province without massive capital intrusions from Ottawa. A MEMBER: Right on. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Third ly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cont rary to the belief of the opposite side of the House, you do not have to be a socialist to care.

I care very much for the quality of life of all Manitobans and I care very much about the quality of our health care system; and I am willing to work together to have an improved system for all Manitobans, provided that the principles of fiscal responsibilities and responsible health care are maintained as a common objective. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for River East has ample time remaining. Will she permit a question now from the Mini ster of Health? She has 15 minut es. The Member for Elmwood has a question?

Will the Member for River East yield to a couple of questions from the Member for Elmwood? She will. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Well, I ind icated I would answer a question from the Mini ster of Health. Let's take one at a time. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Mem ber for River East will yield a question from the Min ister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: My colleague also apparently asked if he could ask a question to the last speaker. I would like to ask the member who spoke last, because it is a bit confusing, ask for cooperation from the Min ister of Health.

Are you talking about coopera tion, trying to reduce the deficit or in providing beds to help in a partisan way in your constituency? What is it, to inc rease the cost or to try to reduce the deficit? Could you enlighten me on that? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'd like to indic ate to the Min ister of Health that I know or I •

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 feel and I know definitely that we should be able to consult together and work together towards making the northeast quadrant of Winnipeg a better place to live, as far as health care goes. You are adding beds on to Concordia Hospital. They are extended care beds. Concordia Hospital needs acute care beds. Comparing the size of Concordia Hospital to the size of other commun ity hospitals, Concordia Hospital originally was to be larger; it was cut back under this current NDP Government.

So I am saying to you that for the numb er of people that the size of the area that Concordia Hospital serves, that we require more acute care beds to make it a viable hospital for the people it serves. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I guess what the member is discussing could be discussed in the Estimates, then we could cooperate. I guess the member is saying, to hell with the deficit, I guess, we're not talking about that. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Can I answer? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is question period, after the speech.

The Member for River East has agreed to entertain a question after her speech and she answered one question. MR. J. DOWNEY: A point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There's a point of order being raised. MR. J. DOWNEY: A point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You raised the comment or you made the comment that it is now time for question period. Is that the time that the government questions the Opposition? Is that the process in which we're now going through? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

On the point raised by the Member for Arthur , I said question period in the context only on the permission of the Member for River East. To the Member for Elmwood - are you insisting on asking a question? - (I nterjection) - Order please. Under the Rules of the House, Rule 24 7, it is entirely up to her if she would entertain the question or not. Would the Member for River East entertain questions from the Memb er for Elmwood? MR. D. ORCHARD: A point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order is being raised by the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Deputy Speak er, the Min ister of Health in his capacity of Health Mini ster, did pose a question which he asked permission to do so, during the speech. Backbenchers have adequate opportunity to ask their Min ister of Health questions during question period. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point? Is it on the same point. 516 The Min ister of Health. HON. L DESJARDINS: Well I hope not the same point of order, but on a point of order, yes. On a point of order, it is always permissible immediately after a speech to ask the last speaker if they would accept questions.

Of course, it is the privilege to accept or reject questions. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Min ister of Health is correct. That is the rule. it's entirely up to the discretion of the last speaker whether to entertain a question or not. I'd like to find out from the Member for River East whether or not she's willing to entertain questions from the Member for Elmwood. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will entertain questions from the Member for El mwood. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Elmwood. MR. J. MAL OWAY: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Yesterd ay, the Memb er for Pembina ma de a statement about "ordi nary" people when he said that he don't like tha t term because if you read "ord inary" in Webster 's, you'll find it describes people as vulgar, common, etc. I don't like calling people "ordina ry" and calling them "vulg ar." Now today, the Member for River East gave her definition of what an ordina ry Manitoban was and that was at odds with the one we heard yesterd ay. lt was a much nicer definition. I'd like to know, has she caucused with the Member for Pembina or other mem bers of her caucus to de termine a proper definition? MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'd be delighted to answer that question. I think the Member for Pembina yesterday when he was speaking was using the dictionar y, or quoting from the dictionary when he was describing "ordinar y." If you 'll look at Hansard or if you had listened closely to what I had said, I said, "To me, the word 'ordi nary' in the human context represents in telligent people. We do not need a government that controls their everyday lives." I'm talking about the human context. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. it's my pleasure today to be able to open my remarks by offering to you - and I see that Madam Speaker is now entering the Chamber - and to offer to her, as well, my sincerest congratulations on your election to the hig hest office in thi::; Cham ber, that of Speaker. I've been most impr essed by the competent and the exemplary way you have handled the difficult duties which you have been assigned over the past few weeks. I have every confidence that you would continue to do SO.

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 (Ma dam Speaker in the Chair.) Ma dam Speaker , as Ho use Leader for the government, I've suddenly taken perhaps a greater interest in the rules than I did in the past. I've certainly taken a greater interest than most in the rules and I can tell you that I have rapidly gained a far greater appreciat ion, if not really a better unders tanding, of the rules and parliamentary procedures and their fair and impartial and firm application.

Having done so and having realized the difficulty of your job, I wish you well, sincerely , in your tenure as Speaker, and offer to you my commitment to do that which I can do to make your job easier. No doubt there'll be some days of di sagreement, certainly no reflect ion, but some days of disagreement; perhaps even some days of discontent within this Cham ber.

But I am certain that your fair and im partial in tervention will maintain the necessary decorum and the ord er, so that this Legislature can function effectively and efficient ly, and we can serve those who elected us through progr essive legislation and the new policies and the programs that will be developed by the di alogue in the de bate in this Cham ber. That brings us to the matter that is now before the Legislature, and that is the New Democratic Government Budget and it's consideration by members of this House.

This Budget speaks to a vision of Manitoba and brings us all closer to our goal of a province where there is room enough for all Manitobans to reach their full potential. lt speaks to the opportunity for each and every person to ha ve gainf ul and productive employment and to be, more impor tant ly, secure in the knowledge that health and education and other social services are being maintained and enh anced wherever possible. lt is a Bud get tha t rec ogni zes and affirms our longstanding belief that economic prosperity and social pr ogress go hand in hand. lt is a Bud get th at acknowledges a changing world and seeks to respond to new challenges in a comprehensive, but much more importantly, seeks to address those new challenges, di fficult choices, in a compassionate way, a way that reflects our ongoing commitment to the human person and the betterment of their condition.

We are, in fact, right now, in Manitoba as elsewhere, a society in deep transition. I believe that we are privileged to live in times of great change, but on those winds of change come some very difficult challenges. No province, whether it be Manitoba or Ontario or New Brunswick or Saskatchewan or any province at all, is immune to the global forces that buffet all of us now; that force that transition; that force that change; that force governments to take up difficult challenges. These challenges are common property.

They confront all of us as elected officials who sincerely seek, each and every one of us, to shape a responsive society and by doing th at and thr ough our work as elected representatives, to build a better tomorr ow. I believe this Budget responds to those changes and those challenges, and in doing so, illustrates our vision as a New Democratic Party Government. lt builds upon the hard work of all Manitobans throughout the past four and a half years.

When you reflect on what happened during those four years, and I've heard members on this side do so and I've not yet heard members on the opposite side ind icate that tho se four 517 years were not much better in quality of life, much better in economic progress when compared with what's happening in the rest of the count ry, than were their four years when they were in government. The facts are that, indeed, we were able to better our province significantly during the past four years, and they had failed to do so under the Sterling Lyon Government. We have accomplished very much by working toget her.

There is much more yet we must do. You know, we've consistently had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the count ry. However, it's not the low rate or the percentage figures that are important. lt is the fact that comparatively more Manitobans, more young people, more Northerners, more women, have a chance to be a part of our common vision. They have a chance to work, to help produce the wealth that fuels our economy and contributes to our gr owth. Our record of job creat ion is one of the prou dest stories of our government over the past four and a half years. But that's not the real story.

The real story is actually thousands of stories; thousands of stories of Manitobans, young and old, male and female, through all parts of this province, working at productive jobs. The facts are clear and the facts are irrefutable. In April of this year, 27,000 more Manitobans were working than were working in the pre-recession period. That's the success story of the government of the past four years. Unemployment in 19 86, in 19 84, in 19 83 on average was second lowest among all the provinces. That's the success story of the province.

Whil e we have accomplished much, and we've accomplished it through it that collective effort of all of us, I said there was much more yet to do. As long as there is one individual, one single solitary individual in this province who wishes to work, who seeks work, who cannot gainful employment, then our work as legislators is not done and the goal still stands before us and the objective is still unr eached and the potential is still there.

As long as we have individuals who cannot find work no matter where they may live and no matter what their skills, if we can't have in place the policies and the progr ams that can provide employment to them and provide training to them, then we have work yet to do in this Chamber and work yet to do as a government. The other economic ind icators that have been used throughout the course of the debate, I think, are illustrated as well. More Manitoban sons and daughte rs are coming home. Our population growth during the period, 19 8 1- 85, was stronger than it has been since the 1920's.

More Manitobans are coming home to more employment, to a growing econo my, to an economy which will provide them with the opportunity and the security which they require.

One only has to compare that to what happened during the years when Sterling Lyon was Premier and the mem bers opposite, many of them were in government, and we saw the population loss year after year after year in this province, to know that turnaround is a substantive one; to be able to compare what it is that a New Democratic Party Government does that brings people back to this province to jobs and to their families and to their homes, as compared to what it was that a Conservative Government did that had exactly the opposite effect.

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 You know, more employment, Manitobans coming home, a growing economy have resulted in more housing starts and more Manitoba families owning their own homes, to the extent that last year housing starts reached a seven-year high in this province. So we see confidence in the future of Manitoba being expressed by Manitobans coming home; we see confidence when they return, being expressed by the purch ase of homes, long-term investments because they feel secure in their employment opportunities; and we see confidence overall th roughout our province as our economy approaches record growth.

When speaking of housing, and as Mini ster of Cooperative Development, it would be somewhat remiss if I didn't mention, Madam Speaker, that in the area of housing co-ops in the Province of Manitoba, we have reached record levels of growth in the last couple of years as well. As a matter of fact, last year in Manitoba - (I nterjection) - Well, unfortunate ly, I'm going to have to digr ess, because the Member for Riel suggests that we would have had a better record of cooperat ion, I believe - he can correct me if I'm wrong - under the Conservatives.

Madam Speaker, last year in Manitoba, we had over 40 new co-ops incorpora ted in the Province of Mani toba. That was the hi gh est record of new cooperatives incorp orated in one year in this province since the central registry was kept. The year before, we had over 30 new co-ops incorporated, and that was the high est record at that time. The year before, we had over 15 incorporated. Do you know how many we had incorporated under the Conservatives? Do you know how many we had in the Eighties? Two a year, three a year, five a year. Compare that to 40 and 45 a year, and there'll be more done this year.

And he has the audacity to tell us that cooperatives survived better and gr ew better and pr ospered better under a Conservative Government. That's balderwash! it's interesting that, given the statistics ... A MEMBER: You weren't there Gerr y, J. Frank was though, it's his fault. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's right, I was. And I'll tell you about the co-ops that they did. HON. J. COWAN: Well, the Member for Stur geon Creek says, "That's right, it was" - and to what I am not certain he is referencing - but he does say he'll tell us about the co-ops. He tells us about the co-ops.

Perhaps, he'll have an opportunity to put on the record why it was th at the gr owth of coopera tion and cooperatives in the Province of Manitoba was so dismal under a Conservative Government and has risen to such great heights under a NDP Government. I believe there is a reason for that.

I don't believe that just happened, because things got better - (I nterjection) - the Member for Riel says, let's go back to 19 76. 1975, '76, '77, I can show him the facts. lt went maybe 15 a year, roughly 15 a year in 1977, roughly 15 a year in 19 78 and then, in 19 79 and then in 198 0 and then in 1981, you see the plummetting off to the low level of two or three co-ops a year, and then back up 15 again, 15 again, up to 30, up to above 45 and up beyond that in years to come.

So don't let him suggest that 518 the records don't ind icate anything, but very clearly that, under a Conservative adminis tration in the last 10 years in this province, the cooperatives have done the worst that they have ever done in the history of this province, and it shall never happen again that way. So the entire economy approaches record levels of growth from the cooperatives to the public sector to the private sector.

Capital investment and spending in Manitoba is expected to increase by 8.9 percent in 19 86 (I nterjection) - Perhaps the Member for Riel has a comment to make as well because, if the Member for Riel would look at the facts, he would realize that from 1978-8 1, the Conservative years which members opposite like so much to brag about, capital investment growth was one-quar ter of the national average. In the NDP years, the last four years, capital investment in this province was seven times the national average and, indeed, in this year is expected, as I said, to grow by 8.9 percent.

Our record of total investment in the economy , total capital investment growth from 19 82- 86, is the strongest among all the provinces. So when we talked about nation-lagging under that particular party when they were in government, and nation-leading under this particular party, the New Democratic Party when we're in government, we know ab out tha t which we talk, because the facts are irrefutable. Think about that for a moment.

Capital investment is the strongest of among all the provinces. it's not the capital investment percentage gr owth that's important; it is not the fact that we increased by seven times the national average that's important; it is not the fact that they grew at one-quarter the national average that is important; but what is important is that capital investment, that growth in capital investment, means more jobs for young people. lt means more jobs for Northerners; it means more jobs for rural Manitobans; it means more jobs for individuals who have normally been kept from the mainstream of our economy and not been able to pursue productive employment and wasted their lives through no fault of their own, but because there was not opportunity for them, and that is the tragedy of the Conservative years. lt means a stronger future for our small business. lt means new opportunities for working people.

If I were to talk about capital investment and not mention Limestone, I would be somewhat remiss. Li mestone, now fully under way, will provide approximately 19, 000 person years of direct and ind irect employment, jobs for Manitoban, Madam Speaker. This $1. 9 billion project is fuelling the economy in such a way as to provide new opportunities, new chances and a fair sharing of employment for many Manitobans, particularly for Northerners.

You know, we've heard many criticisms from the Conser vative Party and from the leader of the Conservative Party and the others about Limestone, generally, and about our hiring and training programs, specifical ly. I want to acquaint them a bit more with the facts so that perhaps, if they approach it from an unbia sed perspective, they might gain a better understanding of what is actually happening in Northern Manitoba, but I'll do that a bit later in my speech, Madam Speaker .

Suffice it to say for now, that Limestone and its spinoff benefits, with over 80 percent Manitoba content, is helping to strengthen the entire economy . That brings

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 us to Northern Manitoba because the North with its vast natural resources, with its Hydro, with its forestr y, with its mining, with the Port of Churchill, with its traditional economies of tr apping and fishing and hunting is indeed a large part of the future of the province. This Budget and the spending plans of this New Democratic Government reflect our commitment to ensuring that the North remains a large part of the future of our province and prosperous under our admi nistration.

Nowhere in the entire province is the New Democratic Government vision of our future more important and more clearly defined than in Nor thern Manitoba. Limestone, while it is the cornerstone of economic development in the North, does not stand alone. Jobs Fund projects in every community in the North have employed hundr eds of Northerners, indeed, thousands of Northerners working together to build a stronger North. Whether it's Granville Lake, or it's Churchill, more Northerners are working today because there is a Jobs Fund in place.

Let us not forget for one moment the criticisms and the constant carping about the Jobs Fund tha t we have consi stently heard from Conservativ es throughout the elec tion, throughout the last Session, throughout this Session, and on and on and on, and as the Minister of Finance indic ates, even tod ay. Let us not forget what the Conservative Leader, the Member for Tuxedo said just a few days ago in this Budget Debate.

He would cut the Jobs Fund by $40 million. - (I nterjection) - it's not the $40 million that's important, just as it's not the record and the percentage incr eases in investment and the percentage decreases in un employment that is important, but it's the effect.

The effect of cutting $40 million of Jobs Fund money will cut jobs throughout this province. lt will mean that Manitobans who want nothing more than a lair chance to work will not have that opportun ity, and that is why they're on that side of the Chamber as Opposition, and that is why we are on this side because we know those jobs are crucial. - (I nterjection) it's interesting to hear them, particularly the ones who were here in '77 to '81, speak from their seats because the Tories have not changed at all since the Conservative Min ister of Northern Affairs, at that time the Member for Swan River, in those dark days from '77 to'8 1, said that welfare in the North gave better value than job creation programs; that was their philosophy; that's what they said then; and that's what the y believe now if you listen to them and the Leader of the Opposition say how they would cut back the Jobs Fund by $40 million.

Back to welfare, get away with the jobs, undo the jobs, better to have people in the North sitting on welfare and wasting away than to have them gaining new skill s, building stronger comm uniti es, im proving in frast ructur e through productive work; that's a Tory philosophy. The construc tion of Lime stone is creating new opportunities for thousands of northern workers and hundr eds of northern businesses. We listen to them talk about how our policies, our training and our hiring policies are failing the North. A MEMBER: They don't like success. HON. J.

COWAN: Well, the fact is tha t since construction of Limestone began, over 50 percent of 519 the workers on site have been northern residents, over 50 percent have been northern residents since the start of the construction.

The majority of those Northerners have been of Native ancestry, many of them having received job ready training through Limestone Training and Employment Agency Programs at simulated training sites in Thomps on and Lynn Lake, and thr ough commu nity-based programs from communities all over the North; from Split Lake to Shamattawa, to Tadoule Lake, throughout the entire North, communit y-based programs are training people to work on Limestone and beyond Limestone to gain productive employment elsewhere or to return to their communities with those skills tha t will be put to use building stronger communities throughout the North.

No longer will they have to call in the electrician; no longer will they have to call in the plumber; no longer will they have to call in the ski lled worker because there aren 't skilled workers in the communit y. They will have those skilled workers there and through that development of skilled trades and skilled workers, where none existed before, more will come. Over a period of time, we will see the type of change which all of us, each and every one of us yearn for for tho se communiti es in Nor thern Manitoba. That's why what we're doing is so important toda y.

Not only the fact that we have over 50 percent northern residents on site now working, but the fact is we're buildi ng for the future. As I said before, the economy in Northern Manitoba go es beyond Lime stone. Our repayable loans to Sherritt-Gordon Mines; that meant that hundreds of workers in Leaf Rapids are working tod ay, are feeding their families, are building their future. They might not have been able to had it not been for an NDP Government of the Day that provided them those loans.

Those are the same loans that the Conservative Deputy Leader in 19 83 said were wrong, said we should not be doing and publicly opposed. Had we listened to them when they provided us with that alternative suggestion, where would Leaf Rapids be today? - (I nterject ion) - What about Lynn Lake where we have massive exploration ongoing right now with some very good potential finds in the area because Manitoba Mineral Resources is there working with the private sector co operatively to find mineral resources to continue economic activity in that part of the province?

What did they say about Manitoba Mineral Resources in the past? If we had listened to them in the past, where would Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids and the other communit ies that are ultima tely going to prosper because of that work be, not only tod ay, but in years to come? Our commi tment, the New Democratic Government commitment, to the future of Northern Manitoba goes beyond job creation today and training for tomo rrow. lt speaks to a secure and a healthy future as social services and health and education programs are maintained and enhanced.

From the nursing station in Pikwitonei to the hospital addition in Gillam that's being completed now, acce ssible health services are an important part of our vision for the North. The air ambulance which I believe is one of the proudest achievements of the northern MLA's, each and every one of them that worked so hard on it in the government during the past four years, it is now fully operational,

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 and it's saving lives, and it's making for better health care and more accessible service for Northerners, and it's doing so by providing the type of service which we knew all along was crucial to Northerners , and whe n in Opposition spoke for four years straight attempting to have members opposite take the action which was required and they refused to do so. MR. D. ORCHARD: I wonder if the member might permit a question. HON. J. COWAN: Several if necessary. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Could the Honourable Minister go into his extremely good memory bank to the days when he was in Opposition, approximately 1979, and recall after the crash of the MU-2 which was then the medical air evacuation aircraft, what action he himself personally supported the then Minister of Highways and Transportation in purchase of a citation air ambulance, jet-powered, faster, safer, and much better at providing life support to northern Manitobans? Could he indicate why he supported that then?

MADAM SPEAKER: Could the honourable member please check Beauchesne 357(1), "Seek for purposes of argument, information on matters of past history"? The question is out of order . HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , I accept your admonishment that the question is out of order, but I would like to perhaps tell a bit of history. The Member for Pembina suggested that we supported their action.

The fact is that there was a Private Members' Resolution introduced in this House by myself calling upon the government to do several things, one of which was to purchase an aircraft , but beyond that was to staff it with a fully -tra ined complement of nurses and pilots that would be on call all the time , stationed with the plane , to have a plane that was suitable .

He knows full well the criticisms he received on the Citation that was originally purchased, and he knows full well the congratulations that we have received on the new Citation, and the fact that it is much better suited to perform the service and, as a matter of fact, has been written up by Cessna and other air magazines as being one of the most inn ovative and one of the best services in the entire country, if not on the hemisphere. MADAM SPEAKER: The Member for Pembina on a point of order. MR. D. ORCHARD: Since the member is so generous with accepting questions, I wonder if he might accept another question .

MADAM SPEAKER: Excuse me, the Member for Pembina, you do not ask a question on a point of orde r. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, Madam Speaker, would the Honourable Minister mind if I asked him another question since he is so cooperative today? HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , could you indicate how much time I have and that would certainly . . . 520 MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has 12 minutes remaining. HON. J. COWAN: If I have enough time, I would accept a question; if not , I'd be pleased to speak privately to the member and refresh him on the history of the day.

So that air ambulance is now fully operational , it is a New Democratic Government initiative, and we're very proud of it. We know that northern Manitobans are very proud of the work they did to make it a reality under a New Democratic Party administration. New school additions in communities like South Indian Lake are improving educational opportunities for Northerners. Major construct ion activities on northern road systems have brought about improve d and safer roads in the past four years .

New day cares , expanded recreational facilities, innovative educational programs , new water systems, a new future for the Por t of Churchill, the list goes on and on. These are all part of the New Democrat ic Government vision of the North, a North wher e the economic prosperity of today results in social programs and a brighter future for tomorrow , a North where each and every Northerner, Native and non-Native alike, young and old, men and women , can reach their full potential.

Yes, we have accomplished much over the past four years , but there is much more yet to do, and this Budget and the expenditure plans of the government for the upcoming year chart that course. I'd like to talk a bit about the evolution of the Conservatives over the past several years , because it's been quite interesting to watch . Leading up to the election and throughout the 35-day campaign, they played the role of the great imposter. They spent a lot of time and a lot of energy telling us that they were not really Tories. Remember that, Madam Speaker? We're not really Tories .

We're more like New Democrats than Conservatives. Now there was a reason they were saying that. They were saying that because the New Democratic Government had done such a good job of governing the province for four years, that they knew they would never be elected as Tories because people remembered Sterling Lyon and what they did from 1977 to'81 . They felt that if any gamble was worth the risk at all, they would try to be pseudo New Democra tics instead of neoConservatives.

Now, the y spent all this time and energy telling us that they were not really Torie s, at least they weren 't really like the Tories that we all knew Tories to be. They weren't like the Ottawa Tories - no, not at all. They weren't like the Toront o Tories , the big blue machin e, they weren 't like that. They weren't like the British Columbia Government. They wanted the public to believe that they weren't Torie s at all. They wanted us to believe that they were really New Democrats in waiting, born again New Dems, the Conservatives opposite. But they could not fool Manitoba; they could not fool the electorate.

And so after the election, from the great imposters before the election, they turned into the great apo logists after the election. They are not particularly discriminating about whom they apologize for. The Leader of the Opposition spent the bulk of his Throne Speech reply apologizing for th e Federal Government; so did members opposite . Do you hear

Tuesday, 3 June, 1986 them? Time after time they rise in their place and what do they say? Everyt hing that happens is because the Federal Government is doing things right, and every thing tha t goes wrong is because the New Democrats in this province are doing things wrong. A bit of a difference in what they said in the elect ion, from the gr eat imposters to the great apologists. But they didn't stop there. No. The Leader of the Opposition, in his reply to the Budget speech, went from apologizing for the Federal Government to apologizing for the banks and the large corporations.

So they apologized for their friends in Ottawa, and then they apologized for their friends on Bay Street, and the y had just one more transformation to make to come around full circle to the old-line Conser vatives we always knew they were. You know, it's interesting, I have to digress for just one moment, Madam Speaker. I thought that they really outdid thems elves when the Member for Brandon, the Conservative member, stood up and apologized for, came to the defense of, those who were going to be hit by our inc rease in the personal license plate fees, said we shouldn't be doing that.

Now they said we should raise all sorts of money to do all sorts of things - and I'll get to that in a moment. But they even stooped to apologizing for those who would have to pay more for their licence plates. So they came around full circle, and they started suggesting, finally, after the election, that what is the most important issue in Manitoba? A MEMBER: Expo. HON. J. COWAN: Well, not Expo, not health care, not the educational system, not social services, not jobs, not employment, not job creat ion, not investment, but the deficit. The deficit is the most important thing in Ma ni toba.

Cons ervatives say the deficit is mo re impor tant than the creation of jobs; Conservatives say the deficit is more important than the expansion of social services; Conser vatives say the deficit is more important than all of those things that government has to do, except for the things the y want government to do. lt's interesting to listen to their speeches on how they are going to eliminate the deficit and, at the same time, inc rease government spending, because now they are the true Tories. Decrease, slash, gone with the deficit, but increase government spending to those areas where they want it.

These are the magic moments of the Budget Debate. Int ersperse-like political pixie dust throughout their speeches, their individual contributions they say: the deficit is horrible. Conservatives would eliminate the deficit by spending more on agriculture. A MEMBER: That's a good trick. HON. J. COWAN: That's a good trick. Little magic moments, Madam Speaker. The deficit is horrible. Conservatives would eliminate it by cutting taxes and inc rea sing spending. The deficit is horrible. Conservatives would eliminate it by spending more on southern roads.

I've heard that Doug Henning, when he is visiting Winnipeg, is asking for a personal meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and the Caucus to find out 521 how it is they would expect to make the deficit disappear by spending more. Because if they can tell him how they are going to do it, he's going to include it in his act right after the tigers disap pear. So they have come full circle. The deficit is horrible; they're going to reduce it. They're going to reduce spending, just like the great magicians of old, the court alchemists that make lots of smoke and puffery but produce little results.

You know, I think they honestly believe what they are saying. I think they honestly believe that they can have it both ways. As a matter of fact, they hav

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-18a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 18a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ae46fa310b2687cf3f371c33dc5149d3f009b4e0

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