Manitoba Hansard — 10 August 1983 (Sitting 146, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-146

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 146 - 8:00 p.m. , WEDNESDAY, 10 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

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

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 10 August, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Before Oral Questions, I have a statement for the House.

On Saturd ay, August 6th, the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek moved to introduce for debate, a sub-amendment to the amendment to the Language Resolution of the Honourable Attorney-General. When the admissibility of the sub-amendment was questioned and several members had spoken to the matter, I took it under advisement in order to review Hansard and the remarks of members. I have perused Hansard and have reviewed our rules, Beauschesne, Erskine May, and past rulings.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, presently in Session in Winnipeg, has given me the opportunity to seek the advice and counsel of other Speakers and Parliamemarians. I thank them for their wisdom and advice given so generously and for their interest in the issue. Although there is considerable interest in this matter amongst members who may be anxious to receive a ruling in order to proceed, I have given this ruling the same thorough review and careful consideration given to all rulings.

I am not unaware of the deep political differences that exist on this issue and of the steps being taken to utilize the opportunities permitted within the parliamentary system. However, I have tried not to be influenced by what the consequences might be, but to consider the proposed sub-amendment on the basis of its merits. The decision has not been an easy one to make and I will freely admit to being constantly preoccupied with the problem since last Saturday. I will not review the arguments advanced so eloquently at the time of the proposed sub-amendment.

The key to the problem is the question of whether the second sub-amendment constitutes a precedent governing further subsequent calendric amendments. There is no doubt that both our rules and Beauchesne clearly prohibit consideration of a matter previously decided by the House at the same Session. A sub-amendment to an amendment is one which modifies an amendment and must refer to the amendment and not to the main motion. See Beauchesne Citation 416.

Thus, a second sub amendment was in order by this limited definition, in that it proposed a new date differing by one day to the first proposed sub-amendment, although no member objected on the grounds of reviving debate. If the proposed sub-amendment is not to infringe on the prohibition mentioned above, it is clearly incumbent on the supporters of the sub-amendment, to demonstrate that a difference of one day is substantially different in seeking to limit consideration by an intersessional committee.

I listened carefully to the debate on the December 30th sub-amendment to hear the arguments in favour of a one-day reduction in the limit on debate, but did not hear one member make that all-important point. Since it has not been shown that the one-day difference is substantially different, it follows that the value of the December 30th sub-amendment as a precedent, is considerably reduced or even non-existent.

Thus, since the supporters of the proposed sub amendment have not demonstrated the need for any further restriction of the time required for intersessional hearings, although given ample time to do so, the proposed sub-amendment amounts to substantially the same proposition which has already been decided upon by the House. I must therefore conclude that the proposed sub-amendment is not in order. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: We challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

MOTION presented and carried. MR. B. RANSOM: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is, shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Adam, Anstett, Bucklaschuk, Corrin, Cowan, Desjardins, Dodick, Eyler, Harper, Hemphill, Kostyra, Lecu yer, Mackling, Malinowski, Parasiuk, Penn er, Phillips, Plohman, Santos, Scott, Smith, Storie, Uskiw. NAYS Banman, Blake, Brown, Downey, Driedger, Enns, Gourlay, Graham, Hammond, Johnston, Kovnats, Lyon, McKenzie, Ransom, Sherman. MR. ASSISTANT CLERK, G.

Mackintosh: Yeas, 23; Nays, 15. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried. Oral Questions. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. 5218

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 MR. B. RANSOM: We intend to forego our right to ask questions, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on Bill 48, standing on the Order Paper, Page 9. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL 48 -THE ELECTIONS FINANCES ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No . 48 and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, who has 20 minutes remaining. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, when I was just finishing off speaking before the end of the last sitting, I was pointing out to the members that the brief, the notice or bulletin put out by the Canadian Labour Association refers very clearly to all of the amount of time and all of the amount of money that the Canadian Labour and the Manitoba Labour Federation had spent during the last election in support of the NDP Party. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the members of unions with their checkoff to the unions, is money from out of their pockets, and then the union has made a decision to support the NDP Party. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that's some money out of the workers' pockets for support of a political party and they do have 3ome choice, through their union, as to possibly how the money is being spent. But, Mr. Speaker, after the people in the union movement that have had to pay money already to the support of a political party, now the NDP Party, is going to make them pay twice. They will have no choice other than to support political parties, and as I was speaking earlier, there are people in this province who don't want to support any political party.

There are religious groups who don't want to support any political party and there are young people who work hard for their money who don't want to support any political party, and there are 48,000 unemployed in the Province of Manitoba at the present time, who don't want to support any political party. So, Mr. Speaker, what I just want to recap is that this debate on this piece of legislation will go to the people.

It will go to the people the next election because during the next election they will be informed by the Progressive Conservative Party, the monies that are in this legislation will not be paid because we will change it retroactively. Also during the election, Mr.

Speaker, all of our literature will have on it that this literature, my literature, and the Progressive Conservative Party literature will say on it, that this literature is printed on donations to a political party but the donations will be on a voluntary basis and the NDP Party will have no other choice but to say, if I get 10 percent of the vote, 50 percent of my election expenses are being paid and you will pay tor this literature whether you want to or not.

I hope that they have the guts -or let's put it this way - I hope that they will have the intestinal fortitude to be able to do that during the next election because they feel that it'll be forgotten in three years. Well, Mr. Speaker, it won't be forgotten and the people of Manitoba will know what kind of legislation this government has put through, and as I keep saying - when I say government I have to remind myself to say rulers -that this group of rulers have put through for the people of Manitoba. - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker, I think I heard the Member for Dauphin say that I should check with my constituency committee or my committee on finance or something. Mr. Speaker, I have checked with them or I wouldn't be saying it in this House. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my election expenses will be from donations from people who volunteer to donate to my campaign. Mr.

Speaker, we have another situation in this bill that is rather stupid, to say the least, stupid from the point of view that people go to a political meeting of a party that they are a member of or that they're interested in and if the hat is pas.sed, there must be somebody keeping track of how much each person put in. Isn't that stupid? Isn't that really, really something? I always remember, Mr. Speaker, when I was Chairman of the Police Commission in St. James-Assiniboia and a very distinguished person was the police chief, the man who became the Ombudsman of this province, Mr. Maltby.

Chief Maltby used to say to me, why do you pass laws or make regulations that cannot be enforced? Mr. Speaker, this type of legislation cannot be enforced. There's another area in this piece of legislation that donations in kind -that if somebody during an election campaign decided that he didn't want to go to any political meetings and he wanted to send a brochure out on behalf of the Member for St. Boniface . A MEMBER: Heaven forbid. MR. F. JOHNSTON: . . . well, Mr.

Speaker, if the gentleman decided, without speaking to the campaign manager or the official agent, decided to send out a brochure on behalf of the Member for St. Boniface and had it distributed or even had his family distribute it, or on his own decided to distribute it within his area in support of the Member for St. Boniface, nobody knows and he doesn't want to reveal where it came from -nobody knows where it came from -and, Mr. Speaker, that piece of literature is regarded as donation in kind and must be taken into the election expenses. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's almost impossible to police.

Here is somebody who has decided that I'm not the member of any political party and I want to support somebody; he does it quietly on his own and all of a sudden the member that's running has a problem if he can't produce the person; he can't produce the amount; he can't produce anything. Mr. Speaker, that gentleman could go to court and he'd win the court case. He'd say, I can spend my money any way I like; I can spend my money any way 5219

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 I like. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not allowed according to this bill and the Minister of Transportation is going to show the Minister where that particular

part is. How do we have somebody that writes legislation that can only be described as stupid? Mr. Speaker, then we have the situation, going to the other part of the legislation where anybody that has five members running will be part of the committee that will decide the rules and regulations of how elections will be run in the Province of Manitoba. As I said earlier, I don't think the Marxists and the Communists should have any right whatsoever to be part of that committee because, Mr.

Speaker, unless they have in this House the number of members which makes them an official party -the number that makes them an official party in this House, Sir, is four -and if they are not capable of having four members elected to this Legislature, I say they don't have the right to make the rules and regulations of what governs this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I'd even relent a bit, as we did for the Liberal Party when they only had three. We gave them concessions. We recognized them as a party, we did listen to them but they were not an official party of this House. So, Mr.

Speaker, I think that under those circumstances I don't know that they should be on the committee, but I think out of courtesy they should be listened to and their opinions should be brought forward, then the committee should take their suggestions and listen to them, and when they make their decisions they will have talked to all members in this House. But if they don't have any members in this House, Mr. Speaker, I can see no reason why those parties should become the decision makers. - (Interjection) Mr. Speaker, we have two parties in this Legislature at the present time.

I hear the Member for Dauphin say I'm being heckled by my own people. I prefer that rather than yours. Mr. Speaker, I would say, Sir, the people that were there, what I'm saying, Sir, there are five. You could have 10 parties run five candidates, or if it were three or four parties that had representation in this House, still would not be making the rules and regulations as to the decisions of how elections would be run. Now, Mr. Speaker, is that democratic?

Is it democratic to have a group of people who aren't even elected into this House with one or two or four, which makes an illegal party in this House, making the rules and regulations? Is it democratic to have people that are not elected making those rules? Is it democratic to have people that we wouldn't even see them from one end of the year to the next after an election's over, and they would come in and sit on the committee and make the decisions as to how elections would be operated within this province. Mr. Speaker, that's NOP democracy.

The only reason I feel at all, that they would want to go for this, is that they must have some connection with these other parties. They must have a close liaison with the Marxists or the Communists or the Rhinos or whatever, or else they wouldn't want to do this. It's very, very logical. So, Mr. Speaker, we now have an indication, the very thorough final indication because of this legislation, who the allies are of the NOP Party. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Province of Manitoba has got its largest deficit ever, and going to be larger.

We have a Minister of Finance saying that he's going to hold the line and cut back and keep things at 5 percent. We have a situation where there's unemployed in this province. We have a situation where the manufacturing is down considerably. We have a situation where the manufacturing shipments are down. We have a situation where the cost of living in the City of Winnipeg is rising faster than it is in any other area -and that's the main one - a situation in Manitoba where the cost of living is rising faster than in other provinces, and certainly that's happening in Winnipeg.

We have a government that has decided to take the people's money to support members running in an election campaign, to support a political party when they might not want to, to support a political party that they have no choice to do what they want to do. Mr. Speaker, I just can't for the life of me understand where democracy has gone in this province. As I have said, the federal situation is bad and I know that many people in the other provinces are saying maybe we'd better take a look at this.

Since when, when we have an economy as bad as we have at the present time, do we start to spend this kind of money to support members who decide to run for a political party or run for the Legisature? Since when wouldn't the money be better used in this great Jobs Fund that we're talking about? Maybe, just maybe we could have that situation, but this government doesn't think of those things.

This government just decided that because of the bad job that they did, because of the literature that they put out which misled the people of Manitoba, that we probably couldn't collect enough money again to be able to put out something like this, so we're going to force the people to pay for our propaganda literature. Mr.

Speaker, I sincerely wonder at the thinking of a party that would make this type of a decision with the economy of the province the way it is, but would make this kind of an undemocratic decision to rule the people and to tell them that you don't have any choice, you just have to support political parties. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party, in the next election, is going to give the people a choice. They're going to give them a choice in the next election to support the party that they want to support.

We're going to give them that choice and we're going to let the people know that we're giving them that choice, and this piece of legislation, if it passes this House this Session -and I assure you that we're not sure that it's going to -if it passes this House this Session, I can assure you that it will be debated during the next election very widely. Our Leader has said that that will happen. I assure you that when we have a new Leader, as we're going to have, that the caucus has made that decision; I don't think that I would support a new leader that didn't agree with it.

So during the next election, the Progressive Conservative Party will give the people a choice on whether the people will have the opportunity to support the political party of their choice or even if they don't want to support any political party, they will have that choice. Mr. Speaker, this party has really lost the confidence of the people and we will show that during the next election. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Are you ready for the question? 5220

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to say I find it unbelievable what has been happening in this House in the last month. I find it unbelievable. Our Leader , from time to time, has made comments about this government not being competent, that they couldn't run a peanut stand. I always thought possibly he was a little harsh, but after what I've seen in this House in the last six weeks our Leader has been complimentary to the Government of the Day, because this is the most incompetent organization I've ever seen in my life.

I find it embarrassing to be in this Session, the way the House is being run. I'm embarrassed because of the government that cannot run this place; they cannot run their own affairs; they made a total hodge-podge of the democratic system, and we've seen it again today. We're talking of a government that cannot even make an agreement with their own caucus when we come up to some kind of terms that we want to submit to them. It's embarrassing. A submission was made this morning to this government. They've been fighting ever since on that and they can't come to a reasonable agreement.

They can't even give us an alternative. It is embarrassing at a time when the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is having their big fling here in town, when parliamentarians across Canada and across the Commonwealth are here in Winnipeg, and we have a disgrace, a display that is really shameful. I'm wondering what is happening, who's actually running the government? We have so many diversified versions in there; we see caucus meetings taking place in the loge and no decisions ever being reached.

It is an embarrassment to be here this time of year, and that is why we're here, because you're an incompetent government, each and every one of you, you're an incompetent government. The Minister of Health says we're obstructing. If your government had an guts you would do what you have to do. I've said this many times, you cannot govern, you're incompetent. If you believed in what you're doing you know what you have to do. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Wolseley on a point of order. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, my point of order is that I understand there's a rule pertaining to relevance in debate. This member's been speaking for about five minutes. I've not heard him refer once yet to Bill 48 which I believe is the topic of conve; sat ion. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question before the House is, shall Bill 48 not now read a second time but be read this day six months hence. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't think it was a point of order at all because what I'm doing is giving a preliminary as to why we're opposing this bill. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 5221 MR.

A. DRIEDGER: They can laugh all they want but I'm illustrating that Bill 48, as well as all the other legislation, or much of it, is drawn up incompetently; it is slanted all one way. I have great difficulty with that. I'll tell you something, if this government, in 1981, had gone out and campaigned on the issues that they're presenting to this House in this Session you'd have never got elected; you wouldn't have half a dozen members in the House. That's what will happen, hopefully, after the next election because you have no mandate to press these things on us. I think it is a cover-up basically, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because they could not follow through on the commitments and promises that they made when they got elected. They fudged everything away; they come up with other issues. They're trying to hide the fact that they cannot deal with economic matters. They won by default and they will self-destruct. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they might think it's funny. I don't think it is that darn funny sitting here at this time of year, and you are the people that are doing it. You say, we're obstructing.

You are government and after the display of what we saw here tonight, you know that it is up to you to run tt>e affairs. You couldn't run . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Is the House ready to proceed with the business before it? A MEMBER: Shape up, you guys. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm addressing the bill and the incompetence of this government that has presented this bill. When we talk to this bill we have to look back at the history of politics in this country of ours.

We're a very young country; 116 years we've had a political system, a democratic system that has worked well, worked reasonably well, it's never been perfect. The democratic system will never be perfect, but what are you doing with it now? What is this government trying to do with this thing? What you're doing, you're legislating yourself a licence to steal out of the pockets of every individual in this province that pays taxes, and that is what it's all about. Mr. Speaker, I was proud in 1977 when I got to be the candidate for my party and subsequently managed to win the election in that fall of 1977.

I was very green, very naive, when I came into this House. We formed government at the time, sat on the backbench, patiently, for the years that we were in government and learned a little bit and observed. The older members, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Transportation who have been here for many years, I can feel they're not happy with the way this government is running things. We can see the embarrassment on the faces of some of the members opposite, as much as on anybody else's. It is because you are out of control and the legislation that you've brought forward, the licence to steal out of every

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 taxpayer that pays income tax, to take money out of it to fund election expenses is stupidity. I don't know who's the brain child that thought that up, or much of your legislation, for that matter. When I ran my election in 1977, my organization, the Emerson Association at that time, had $24 in the kitty and that's how we started off the election. We set up an organization; we established a campaign chairman; we established a finance manager and we started off.

Wh at they did, they went out and promoted the candidate, the party, sold memberships and solicited for funds, and those that did not want to support the PCs, or myself, did not give a dime, and that was their choice. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Member for Emerson made a previous reference to "licence to steal." I would like to advise him that "steal" and "stealing" has been ruled unparliamentary on previous occasions. The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if the word "steal" is unparliamentary I will withdraw "steal" and I will say the Jesse James approach, the Robin Hood approach, and that is exactly what you're doing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just trying to illustrate when we started off my campaign in '77 the difficulty we went through, how people had the choice to support financially and vote-wise if they wanted to, and those that did not want to did not, they could support the NDP; they could support the Liberals; but it was everybody's own choice.

What is happening here now, what is happening with this bill, we're going to take 50 percent -if this bill would pass, I can envision the spending escalating by a tremendous percentage, to the limit in all cases, because you want to get half of it paid back. Why? Who's asked for this? Who's been concerned? Like much of the dumb legislation that is coming across the floor, who's asked for it? A bunch of radicals are pushing this thing and this is what's going to defeat you. Go out there and listen to the people. I'm sure the Minister o! Transportation gets a gut feedback out there.

We can all influence people to some degree with comments and statements but I'll tell you something, those members that are out there listening know that you are unpopular as poison right now. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm having great difficulty keeping my train of thought with all these continuous interruptions. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Minister of Transportation on a point of order. HON. S. USKIW: I'm asking whether the member would submit to a question, Mr. Speaker. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I will not submit to a question at this time.

I'm being continually interrupted and when I'm through, if I have time, I'll submit to questions. The reason the Minister of Transportation is getting up and asking whether he can have a question is because he knows I speak the truth and he's feeling uncomfortable about it. Why this approach, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why really this approach? Do you know what? We're putting shame on all politicians. You are putting shame on all politicians. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Speaker, over the years, the reputation of politicians has not always been the big idol in everybodys' minds, and why? Because, I think, basically most people are relatively sincere about their responsibilities. But if you think that politicians' reputations have been tarnished even slighly till now, if you bring this legislation in, it's going to look awfully bad. The Member for Sturgeon Creek already illustrated this, when he's going to be campaigning next time, he's going to have a big item on there indicating, not paid for by public funds or taxpayers' funds.

That's going to be a platform for us in the next election and we will use all this stupid stuff that you're trying to pass at this stage of the game, we'll use that as our platform and defeat you next time. - (Interjection) - We don't need any luck. You are self-destructing with this bill as with many others. They always say the opposition doesn't win; it is the government that defeats itself and, my gosh, are you doing a super job.

Yes, we made a mistake and you capitalized on it with false promises that have been totally ignored and come up with a bunch of -because of the Rules of the House I cannot use the words that I think about some of these things. But seriously, why are we fighting for these things? Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we believe in this country, in this province, in the future and we believe that our children should have opportunities to come forward and I have no argument with the past. From the time that we joined Confederation, I have no argument with what happened. It's been tough; the country has developed well.

Now we're hitting the point where we're hitting a snag and we're going the other way. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had the privilege of being grandfather for the first time to a grandson today, earlier this morning. - (Interjection) - Thank you very much. But that kind of thing is what makes me all the more convinced that we have to fight for what we think is right and to do it with conviction and that is something that many members opposite are not doing.

They're being false in their approach to many of these things, they go en bloc, the whole works, on things that they do not believe in as many of them do not believe in this bill and I could name another 12 bills that they do not believe in. I have no fault with the Minister of Transportation when he fought Bill 90 through because that is his conviction, and he was going go get even, he was going to get even with the livestock operators. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he did get even with them, but that is how he believed. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Minister of Transportation on a point of order. HON. S.

USKIW: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I believe the member is now imputing motives to a member on this side. 5222

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will leave it at that because the actions speak for themselves as to what he did, so the public can draw their own conclusions on it. HON. S. USKIW: The member stated that in some way that I was personally settling some score with respect to a piece of legislation. That, indeed, is suggesting that there were motives other than the public good and were personal to myself, and I would want him to withdraw that. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that was my opinion, my view on it and I will not change my opinion on that because I can state my opinion in this House as anyone else, and you very often interpret it, say it's a matter of

interpretation. If he wants to interpret it whichever way he wants, I feel strongly that that was what he was doing and I will not change my position on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health to the same point. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the member did impute motives to the Minister of Transportation and he is admitting that, Mr. Speaker. Anybody can have opinions, but it is quite clear that you don't impute motives. An opinion is something else than imputing motives; nobody has the right in the House to stand up and impute motives.

A MEMBER: He was just expressing an opinion. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I indicated that I thought the Minister of Transportation was getting even with the livestock producers and I still believe that, and that is my opinion. He can take it whichever way he wants, but that is not imputing a motive. I believe that he was getting even with the livestock producers and I maintain that he did. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, this is definitely imputing motives. He is stating that as far as he is concerned, the reason why this bill was brought in is to get even, and if that's not imputing motives nothing is imputing motives.

That is not allowed in this House. You can say that it is wrong legislation; it is not correct; it is not fair, as far as you are concerned, but you can't say that anybody in House brought it for something different than the good of the people of Manitoba. You're not allowed to say that. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain to the same point. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the same point of order.

There clearly is a distinction between an honourable member accusing another member of undertaking an action for a certain motive, as opposed to saying that they believe something as an individual. Surely what an individual believes in is his right to believe, and that's what is the case with the Honourable Member for Emerson. He has stated a belief, he has not made an accusation against the Minister of Highways and Transportation. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed in the House Leader of the Opposition because he knows that is not correct.

If that was the case, you know, we've made a mockery of Parliament this session, and if this was the case all you have to do is preface your remarks by saying "I believe he's a damn crook or he steals money , but I believe it's all right, I believe it." It's not an accusation, I believe he's a crook. Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the Opposition knows that that's wrong. The way we're going now there might be a change one of these days, and what are you doing, what have you done this Session? You've made a complete mockery of this House; you have made a complete mockery of the God darn House.

A MEMBER: You had nothing to do with it; you had nothing to do with those acts. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, what we have with the Minister of Health is somebody who likes to accuse other people of debasing the decorum of this House, and he's got the nerve to sit in his seat and snipe away at members on this side of the House, and then stand up and demand that members listen to him without interruption. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, that's fine, I have the right to ask and you know you can do what you want.

We're talking about something completely different, and I've had my share of heckling. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Minister of Transportation rose on a point a privilege. He did not have a point of privilege since he did not have a substantive motion. I will, however, accept his comments as a point of order. I will the issue under advisement and review the transcript of Hansard and rule later on the validity of the point of order. The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the comments that you made, and I'd like to continue my remarks on Bill 48.

I've been called to order a few times, I suppose, because of the comments, and I don't know how you can say it nicer when you get into taxpayers' pockets and take money out of there - I used a Jesse James version -but this is what it is all about. Mr. Speaker, what I find most interesting is that a party, the Government of the Day, the levy that they have through the labour unions where there's compulsory money is being taken off to sponsor the NOP Party, that isn't enough. Now they have to come and say we're going to take it out of the taxpayers' money and make them pay for half the election expenses.

Show me one individual candidate that's not going to run up the maximum allowable to get half of it paid for. They were talking of buying votes. Well, if this isn't buying votes, what is? But you're taking away freedoms; you've done it with a lot of your legislation in this Session. You take away peoples' freedoms and right to choose. You've done that with the seat belt legislation; 5223

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 you do it with almost every bill you pass. Every time we pass a bill here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we lose more freedoms. Here again, regardless of how a person feels about supporting maybe any candidate, maybe he doesn't like politics, but we're going to take out of his tax dollars and for a party that is always concerned about getting the big guy and getting him -he's the one that's going to be affected least. You're going to hit the small guy with every tax dollar he pays, you're going to take 50 percent of your election expenses out of it.

One can be led to think that with the deficit that you have and the performance of this government that you can't even cover your deficit, and you're looking at your next election because possibly some of your candidates won't be able to raise the funds to run a campaign. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have great difficulty in the logic of this bill as well as many other bills. What is the point? Where is the crying need?

At a time when we've cut back on the expenditures; we've cut back on highways; we've cut back on agriculture; we've cut back on natural resources and drainage because there aren't funds when the spending of government was still up 19 percent or something like that. Now, in a time when things are tough for many people out there; jobs are tough; the farming community has problems, we're going to say in the next election you will pay out of your tax dollars 50 percent of the election expenses. Why? Nobody has told us why. Why is it important?

Why is it not more important to try and get things going in this province, to get the economy rolling. There's great difficulty with that. We've been fighting about the Jobs Fund or the "fraud" fund here for weeks on end. We've criticized some of the activities but at least that is in one direction. I don't know whether somebody has done the calculations based on the last election, of how much money would be involved. Regardless of how much money is involved 50 percent of the election expenses is going to get more, dramatically more the moment you bring this in, and taking it away from the average individual. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is this kind of logic, this kind of incompetent thinking on the other side that creates the acrimony here. They cannot govern. In cases where there's been a reasonable approach, things have worked well. We've passed bills; we're dealing with 150 bills. How many have we been fighting hard on? Many of them we've just moved right through. But it is stupid, controversial legislation that is creating the problem, and I don't know what the logic is of government. Do they feel that if they bring it all in in the second year, that the next year people are going to start forgetting?

They will not forget that they have to buckle up; they will not forget the bilingual issues; they will not forget election expenses because we are going to tell them. We'll keep reminding them of the incompetence of this government. This government has trouble running the day-to-day operations. We saw a good example of it the other day when we moved an amendment to the bilingual issue; nobody in the House could challenge it; three days later they decided to challenge it. Disorganization. This is a government that is supposedly listening to people?

That is the selling issue that you had, we will be open government and listen to people. Well, if you want to just look at the approach you had two years back, and look at what you're doing as government at this stage of the game, you would be embarrassed. It is embarrassing for members on this side with the incompetence that is being displayed. Our Government House Leader virtually has had to run the House for the first year and a half, and the time when he doesn't help run the House it goes into chaos.

The group iself there - I don't know whether there has been a unanimous approach in any one bill that you've presented of the controversial ones. We know for a fact that bills like The Farm Lands Ownership Act must rankle some of the members there. The Elections Finances Act must rankle some of them, except those that possibly feel they can't afford to run another election based on their performance that they can't get the public to support financially and otherwise. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can go down the list. And they say we're blocking progress in this House?

I should hope so; I should hope that we would block some of this dumb legislation that you're presenting, Bill 48, among many others. I do say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is trying and it is disheartening really in a sense, you play the numbers games. I can recall a year ago when they said, give us suggestions when we're critical of the financial positions, economic conditions; give us suggestions as to what to do. Well, if you had listened in this Session to all the suggestions, and you don't have to take them all, but you don't even listen to them - (Interjection) - in some cases, yes, you have.

I have to retract that, I want to be fair, because on the issue of Bill 107, the 5 percent down payment that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs brought in, a lot of debate took place on it, the Minister got up and he says we will remove that

section -bang! -the bill was gone, no problem. That kind of co-operation can be there; it can be there on most bills, but there is no sense of co operation because I illustrate again, the Acting House Leader, the Minister of Natural Resources, has created much of the problems in here. He says, we are government; we have the numbers; we will do as we please. That is why I say the democratic system is beautiful because it allows the system to function. It is not a dictatorship that you will take and force us to do everything.

We have provisions there to illustrate the things that we don't like and to make it known to the public the things we don't like. The listening aspect of it that you've always sort of heralded for yourself, that is a fallacy. We've seen a good example. I received a

summary of the school trustees and their position with the bill that the Minister of Education is bringing forward. It is not listening; you have a preconceived idea of what you would like to see happen and regardless of public sentiment, you proceed to hammer it through -or try -and that is why we are so convinced. We have to stay here and we'll talk and debate, and try and raise the issue until you get embarrassed to do some of these things. I thought really, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I really feel a little down today, because I thought we had a situation developing this afternoon where we could come to some agreement, and I think there was a certain amount of willingness on both parts to try and resolve it, so that we could maybe still salvage something. I don't even know whether members opposite all realize what 5224

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 happened, because of the situation within their own caucus. A proposal was forwarded to us and vice versa, and then all of a sudden we run into a snag, and there can be no agreement again obviously. We've had this before where the House Leader makes - I don't want to defend your House Leader because I don't have necessarily any love for him -but I'll tell you something, when your House Leader has made certain commitments with our House Leader, we honour our end of it, but your caucus does not honour his commitments. It's happened a few times.

I think your House Leader must be ready to throw up his arms because we thought we had an agreement going. Where is your caucus? Do you ever accept leadership from some of your responsible people? God knows, we don't have any from the Premier himself, but your House Leader making a deal -can you never back him up? It's a fight the moment he comes up with something and that is the problem in this House, you cannot agree on anything, and you cannot honour the responsibilities that you give to some of your people. You cannot agree.

As I indicated just a little while ago, I thought we were on the way to maybe packing up this House within a reasonable period of time and I think again, like always, you cannot agree. We would allow a lot of this legislation to pass, we'd raise the objections we have. We have debated diligently on many of the things we don't like. We would allow these things to pass. We'd have a chance to get out there and hear the people on many issues, to allow them to get into committee and move things along. What happens? Snafu. That is because I don't know how to really describe the performance of this government.

Individually, I have no problem with most of the members of the government side. I think most of them are out to be sincere. I think the Cabinet Ministers -especially with this long Session -must be under tremendous stress and would like to get things moved on, but I wonder whether the Cabinet has ever had the guts to get in their caucus and state their positions? The Minister of Health was always very vocal in this House about his positions. I wonder does he get into caucus and talk to them the way he talks to the House once in awhile? I doubt it, because I don't know whether he goes to caucus meetings or not.

If the older members on that government side would assert their authority instead of hanging their heads and letting it go, I think things would move along well. In my opinion, we have some hotshot radicals that are trying to influence the thing and getting away with it. When the House Leader makes an arrangement, I just wonder who disrupts it. I would like to see what happens in your caucus meetings. It must be like a den full of cats fighting over each other. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question before the House is that Bill No. 48, The Elections Finances Act be not now read a second time, but be read this day six months hence. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I was trying to illustrate by deviating a little bit is the incompetence of this government in bringing in this bill or many of the other bills. I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my comments will be through shortly. What I want to indicate is that we're doing ourselves, as politicians, great harm in passing this bill.

We're bringing shame down on our heads by having to go into the public pockets of people. I can't use the word "steal," but certainly it's against the people's wishes, taking money out of their pockets to run our propaganda and our political campaigns. That is wrong and you know it is wrong. I'd like to know - I have my suspicions -but I'd like to know who is the big push on this issue? It is surprising how much of legislation has actually been slanted toward personal gain of politicians at a time when things are tough. This isn't the only bill.

We have a few more bills that are giving personal advantage to us as politicians. Why ? Everybody that ran knew what the situation was before they got in. Is it a matter of feathering your nest at this stage of the game because you know you won't be there next time? Mr. Speaker, this bill as well as many others leads us, as I indicated before, to doubt the competence of this government. I personally feel that they are an incompetent bunch, that they're making a charade of the way they run the government here because they can't even agree on how to run this House. They can't agree on how to push bills through.

With those remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to indicate my opposition to this and to many of the other bills, because it is a government that will not listen, that doesn't care, and I think they must, in their minds, be accepting the fact that they will not be around next time, and it is because you are self-destructing. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation that the House be now adjourned. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for La Verendrye. COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. R.

BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn the House, I'd like to make some substitutions on committees. The Member for La Verendrye for the Member for Gladstone, on the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations. QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House adjourned and stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday). 5225

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-146
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 146.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c59211ed82eec94f380eda005d556f889677597a

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