Manitoba Hansard — 10 August 1983 (Sitting 145, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-145

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. 145 - 2:00 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.A. (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, Harry 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 Ellice 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 Ross mere 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 NDP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA WEDNESDAY, 10 AUGUST, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. MR. ASSISTANT CLERK, G. Mackintosh: It is my duty to inform the House that Mr. Speaker is unavoidably absent. I would ask the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair in accordance with the statutes. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr. R Eyler: 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 ... ORAL QUES TIONS Jobs Fund investments MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy First Minister. We are given to understand by a News Service Bulletin that has reached our desk today, commenting upon what the First Minister is saying to his colleagues, the Premiers, in Toronto, that "Manitoba's Jobs Fund ... " in the words of the Premier, " . . . designed to create meaningful jobs immediately, and create investments that produce long term benefits for the province's economy ... a down payment on our future. " He goes on to say in this bulletin, Mr.

Speaker, that "There has been a significant rebound in employment growth in Manitoba. Three quarters of the jobs lost during the recession period have been restored. " And then he goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, "Manitoba's Jobs Fund," he said, "could provide a model for joint action and he urges . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. S. LYON: I'm happy to hear the accolades from across the way to the words of their now distant "leader ". He urges, " ... that a joint economic summit Conference be convened to take immediate steps on a national basis. " Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have two questions to the Acting First Minister: No. 1, can she tell us how many jobs and what category have been directly created as a result of the so-called Jobs Fund investments?

That's No. 1; and No. 2, can she - we've all heard of the carriage that turned into a pumpkin at midnight, but we have never before, except in the Jobs Fund, heard of the Manitoba pumpkin being translated into a glittering carriage once it reached Toronto - can she give us any other facts that would substantiate this kind of senseless, misinforming rhetoric that the Premier is turning out now that he's safely beyond the reach of this Legislature? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I cannot give fine detail on the total Jobs Fund, but it had three components. There were capital investments, there was skill development, and there was investment in some future capacity to create jobs. Probably the biggest area of job creation - I guess I should point out, first of all, that the total work force in the province has increased and, therefore, there is a rate of job creation going on, although the unemployment figures are still unacceptably high to both sides of the House The chief advances have been in the housing area and in the services and sort of educational field.

There are smaller gains, but nonetheless significant gains, by programs, such as, the Salary Assistance for Science and Engineering graduates, because those are key people in improving the capacity of the manufacturing sector in the future to adapt to new technology and improve the competitiveness, though not always the employment-creating capacity, of our manufacturing sector. Because often, in becoming more competitive internationally, they may actually eliminate jobs, but they do play a role in reducing our dependence on imports and, therefore, do contribute to the economy.

But the big gains in employment are not necessarily in that sector. In total, Mr. Deputy Speaker, $200 million in a variety of programs that are, as I say, infrastructure-oriented, skill development-oriented and some, such as an investment in the extension of the Food Products Tech Centre, that enables technology to get transferred through the food processing system to improve our food processing industries are examples of the types of things that are represented in the Jobs Fund. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, my further question to the Deputy First Minister, does the Deputy or the Acting First Minister actually believe that either the conception, the capital formation, or the administration and the results of the Jobs Fund would or should leave this government to ask for a national economic conference to be called to review it? Would that not be a cause of grave embarrassment, not only to the people of Manitoba, but indeed to this incompetent government? HON. H. SMITH: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is our belief that a responsible handling of the economy, not' only of the province but of the country, does require initiative by the Government of Canada; that were they to use their fiscal capacity to stimulate in a variety of ways the economy, such as we have done within our capacity in the Province of Manitoba, we would, as a nation, be able to perform better on the employment side to the extent that we will only slowly improve our relative competetive position internationally.

We could still insure that, within the country of Canada, the burdens and the benefits of that struggle were spread somewhat more equitably, and a great deal could be done by the willingness to take such an initiative. 5191

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 Indeed the Federal Government has a package of initiatives. I don't like to imply that they have not been tak ing any of the necessary initiatives, because we are, in fact, working in concert with them in quite a few areas. But it is our conten tion that, through a partnership approach and a more initiating stance, the Federal Government could create more hope and more sense of direction in the economic development in business, labour and government. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that there was only some $18 million of new bud getary money provided for the Jobs Fund this year; in view of the fact that by the most recent accounts that we've had from the provincial Minister of Finance, all of the money has been either expended or allocated, in other words that the Jobs Fund is now effectively broke; in view of the fact that it has provided, according to the plan that she mentioned, some 75 jobs for 1982 engineering graduates, but has also provided jobs for mariachi band players, for grass cutters, brush cleaners, and variegated short term, make-work jobs, will the Deputy First Minister not immediately get in touch with the First Minister and have him withd raw this embarra ssing statement before his colle ag ues in Toronto find out the real truth about the Jobs Fund?

HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I defy the Leader of the Opposition to take the list of job initiatives that are available, and were available during the Esti mates procedure, and demonstrate that there are make-work jobs in any of those projects.

I think if he looks carefully he will see that they fall under the categories of human resource development, of capital and infrastructure development, and of some initiatives and investments in the basic economy of the future of the province so that we are, as the years go by, in a better position to generate a good revenue base from which we'll be able to do all the other things we would so much like to do. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before continuing with question period, I would like to direct the attention of all members to the gallery, where we have a group of 50 members of provincial and territorial Legislatures and of the Parliament of Canada with their spouses. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, I would like to welcome the members of the Canadian Parliamentary Conference. ORAL QUESTIONS Cont'd Jobs Fund numbers MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Premier.

She has defied us to examine the list of jobs created by the Jobs Fund. I have been asking the government for the last several days to provide such a list, the breakdown of the projects, the number of people employed, and the amount of money allocated. Can the Minister table that information now? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would refer the members of the opposition to the debate on the Jobs Fund when it was here in Estimates, when we were all prepared with our material on each of the projects that were linked to our respective departments.

We had full descriptions of the type of project, the expected re sul t, and the potential empl oyment promotion. However, I will take in good faith the question asked as notice, and we will table, as soon as is reasonable, summaries and updates on the actual implementation of the Jobs Fund programs. MR. B. RANSOM: A further supplementary to the Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has nothing happened in the Jobs Fund within the last three months? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the members opposite are demonstrating extremely short memory.

They seem to forget that between the all ocation of funds to a particular program area and the actual administrati0n, hiring of people and carrying out of the work, it's an ongoing process. It's like a bud geted amount that is earmarked for certain areas for the coming year and, in fact, the programs are carried out, sometimes with ongoing personnel and sometimes with new or part-time personnel, during the course of that year. That is what we mean on this side when we say that the monies in the fund are all ocated.

It is, however, also consistent with our saying that there are job openings and expenditures of those funds going on, on a day-to-day, week-to-week and month to-month basis. Bill 95 -Pension Benefit Act MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have supplied the Deputy Premier with a copy of a letter which I received today from the Co-operative Supera nnuation Society, dated August 8, 1983.

The Society has a registered pension plan covering co-operatives and credit unions across Canada and particularly in Western Canada, and indicate that they have many Manitoba employees participat ing in the plan. Their plan has been in existence since the 1940's and has been approved over time so that it exceeds legislative requirements by substantial amounts. On Page 2, Mr. Deputy Speaker - and this is my question to the Deputy Premier - Mr. L.D.

Williams, the General Manager of the Co-operative Superannuation Society states, in referring to concerns with respect to uniformity of pension plans across Canada, he says, "I believe the government's actions will contribute to many organ izations and employee groups simply terminating their pension plan in favour of other non regulated forms of retirement income savings." My question to the Deputy Premier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this; in view of this concern, does the government not have any concerns about pushing through this legislat ion at this Session of the Legislature? 5192

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Spea ker, it's a stretch, I think, of the imagination that I should be responding on the pensions bill which is yet to be debated. However, I think a general comment is in order. That is that we have been in favour of federal reform of the pension system, but until such time comes that there is a demonstrated will and intention on that level to reform the pension system we do not think that Man itobans that do come within our jurisdiction, our ability to assist in the pension area, should have to wait.

I think we would be overjoyed if we found that provincial pension legislation had become unnecessary because of major improvements in the Canada pension plan, but that eventuality, according to my estimate, is some time down the road. Therefore, I think it's quite in order for the government to proceed with the pension bill as proposed. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speake r, Bill 95, The Act to amend The Pension Benefits Act, was not debated because this government forced a vote without allowing sufficient time for this comp licated subj ect to be referred. It is only now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that we are receiving criticisms of this bill. My supplementary question to the Deputy Premier, Mr. Speake r, is, in view of the further statement by Mr.

Williams of the Co-operative Superannuation Society on Page 2 of this letter that he has no qualms in stating that, "I fully expect a number of employers and employee groups will simply terminate their pension plans as a result of these amendments, and the door will now be opened in Manitoba for an exodus from pension plans and the subsequent loss in retirement income protection for numerous Man itobans." Are th ese types of conc erns not of sufficient importance to the Deputy Premier and the government to delay action on this bill until there's a full opportunity for it to be considered? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Deputy Speake r, I did just receive a copy of this letter once the question period was under way, and I have not had time to read it in detail. However, I submit that I, personally, have more confidence in the employers of the province to recognize that fair pension plans are, in fact, a form of deferred wages and that it is in their interests, as well as in the employee's interest, to have a sound and secure package of employee wages and benefits.

I have confidence that the majority of them, who have been consulted quite extensively on pension reforms that we're interested in, will accept the legislation we are putting forward in that spirit. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question. In view of the concluding paragraph in this letter in which Mr. William states, "I have communicated with the Minister of Labour my pleasure and displeasure and concerns. both prior to the introduction of the act and since the introduction of the act.

Unfortunately, the government seems bent on moving forward on this matter in a way which I feel will create a major disservice to Man itobans and Canadians in their request for retirement income security". Ccan the Deputy Premier at least assure us that the Minister of Labour will be present at the Industrial Relations Committee meeting tomorrow when considering this bill and we are in receipt of public comments? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a time and a place for opinions that vary or support the government proposal to be heard.

We intend to listen, to weigh the opinion and the rationale, and then come to our judgment. It is our belief that we must strive for a balance between the concerns of people who see themselves having to pay or see pension plans as a cost - a cost of doing their particular business - and the legitimate claim of workers to have some kind of future security and adequate prepara tion for retirement income. It's that spirit of balance and even-handedness that has informed us in our development of pension legislation.

I have every confidence that we will continue to apply those criteria when listening to input in the hearings. Speakers at constitutional hearings MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General, and ask him whether he has a current update on the number of persons wishing to appear to speak on the constitutional resolution. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney General. HON. R. PENNER: The last figure I saw was 52 individuals and organizations, but it may have increased since then. Just, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, while I'm on my feet, there may have been a misunderstanding with respect to the hear ing of the pension legislation that I'd like to clarify. It is not intended, and that was made clear, that it be heard at committee tomorrow. The Minister won't be here. It will not be introduced until the Minister is here, and it may be some time next week. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speake r, given that the current update indicates that there are now 161 delegations wishing to appear, including 104 muni cipal representatives; and given that the previous record for hearings was 1970 when 116 delegations appeared at the Legislature and that took some 75 hours or more of committee hear ings; and given that these hearings could take well over 100 hours, which might be some three to four weeks of hearings on bilingualism, will the government consider holding these hearings after the Session? HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I have never been able to accept the premises of the Member for Elmwood with respect to his mathematics. We've had some strange mathematical formulae come out from him from time to time. There are so many variables - one has to do with the length of briefs, the length of submissions - that to think that the matter may be determined as to whether or not the hearings are to 5193

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 be sessional or intersessional simply on the basis of a calculation, in any event, is too simplistic. There are other considerations to be taken into account and which we are considering, and which I expect to be discussing with the opposition in the very near future. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, given that there are now 161 submissions and the final figure may reach 200 or more from everywhere in Mani toba, and that the government should serve the people, is the Attorney General considering a greater number of locations for public hearings than the four indicated?

Would he now, for example, also consider centres like Roblin and Russell and Dauphin and Pilot Mound, etc.? HON. R. PENNER: We are considering all possibilities, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Me mber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct my question to the Minister of Co-operative Development and would ask him; in ligh t of this government proceeding with The Pension Act - really ramming it down the throats of people in Manitoba at a time when we are seeing a lot of public objection to this particular bill - will he, as Minister of Co-operative Development who is responsible for the Credit Union system in Manitoba, ask his fellow colleagues in the government to undertake a lengthier survey of what the public opinion is really with regard to this bill, so that we won't see the type of things happen as has been forecast by the Co-operative people in Man itoba?

Bill 95 -Pension Benefits Act MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Consumer Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First of all, I disagree that we are ramming this down the throats of the Legislature. I have not yet seen that cor resp ondence. It will be given due consideration, and the Co-operative group has the opportunity to make their views known at the committee stage. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in light of the fact that the individual from the movement has corresponded with the Minister of Labour and has put forward that organization's concern with this bill, will the government not now undertake to withdraw this bill, make sure that there is proper private sector input to this, or is this an attempt by the government to move into that life insurance and pension field which they have a tendency of wanting to get into?

Is this the back door approach, and will the Minister not stand up for the co-op system in this province to ensure that monies aren't driven out of the province; rather that the system is strengthened here and that that system can grow? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I think this government has shown itself to be very supportive of the co-operative movement. I can assure you that I have comments from people within the co-operative sector expressing their appreciation of the support that we have shown compared to the pre vious administra tion.

I could indicate that we have had, and I've said before, more co-ops formed in the last year than have been formed in any of the previous five years. That letter has not been brought to my attention. It will be considered when I receive a copy of the letter. The co-operative group has the opportunity to make its views known at the committee stage, and they will be considered. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Co operative Develo p ment who is now lauding his government's approach to the co-op field, will the Minister confirm that there are fewer people working in the retail co-op and the fishing co-op system in this province this year than there were three years ago? In other words, what he calls the expansion in the co-op system has resulted in the closure of such things as Red River Co-op and the loss of some 200 jobs in that one co-op alone. So, can he confirm that there are fewer people working in the co-op system in Manitoba today than there were three years ago?

If he calls that expansion, Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba, I know, are sharp enough to not agree with ihose type of figures. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The Member for La Verendrye has again displayed his myopic view of the co-op system. In fact, it may well be that there are fewer people involved in the retail co-op or Red River Co-op system. That's fairly obvious, and I will certainly obtain the figures to indicate that there are probably , by far, more people involved in the co-op sector today than there were five years ago.

But we have to take into consideration all the various co-ops, whether it be fishing co-ops or day care co-ops, utility co-ops, the various mix of co-ops that exist. So I don't take that as any indication of lack of support by this government. I should also indicate that, thanks to the previous administration, their concern about the co-operative development was so deep that many co-operatives barely know that our department exists, and that knowledge is so lacking that Red River Co-op never came to our government until a week before they decided to close down their stores.

Return of Minister of Community Services MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Fort Gar ry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Community Services and Corrections.

I don't begrudge the Minister of Community Services Correct ions a richly deserved vacat ion, Sir, particularly in view of the bombs that have been falling around him lately, but in view of the new controversies boiling in his department at the present time, Sir, and in view of the Acting Minister's assurance this morning that the Minister would be returning to the Chamber shortly to answer for his department, can the Acting Minister give us a progress report on the Minister's progress down the Trans-Canada Highway east from Brandon?

Can the Acting Minister advise the House whether the Minister has reached MacGregor yet, 5194

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 whether he is coming by plane, train or hitchhiking, and when he will arrive to answer for his department? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Economic Development. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. I hope that all members of the House will assist the Minister of Economic Development in giving her answer by affording her a cordial and considerate hearing. The Minister of Economic Development. HON. 1111. SMITH: Mr.

Deputy Speake r, the gentleman in question is on holi day, and it is an unwarranted inference to suggest that he is on his way in from Brandon. He will be back, as far as we know, at the beginning of next week. Public safety at Headingley MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr . Sp eaker , that's qu ite accepta ble. I said, I don't begrudge the Minister a vacation. The Acting Minister gave us the impression this morning that the Minister was on his way. Let me then put a question. Let us say then, Mr.

Speak er, that we are not at the moment awaiting the breathless arrival of the Minister of Community Services and Corrections, who I expected to burst through one of the Chamber doors at any moment on the basis of what the Acting Minister said this morning. Let me put this question to the Acting Minister. Mr.

Speake r, in view of the very disturbing findings of the MGEA into conditions at Headin gl ey Jai l, including a warning by guards, Sir, that public safety is at risk, can the Acting Minister assure the House that steps are being taken by the department today to act on those warnings and to head off any potential danger to security personnel at Headingley and to the public? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speak er, as I said this morning, I have not had time to read in detail the MGEA Report, so any comments I make are not based on a detailed knowledge of what is in that report.

I have been assured by the department that the handling of the situation the other night was responsibly done. Extra staffing was retained after the 11:00 p.m. distur bance. Police were called in to encircle the institution on the outside in case there should be any further escape attempts. None were, in fact, attempted. By talking with the prisoners, the disturbance was quieted. By 2:00 p.m., it was felt that conditions had returned to a reasonably stable condition, and the extra staff were permitted to go home. A senior person did go out to Headingley to be on hand should any further emergency arise.

We have, as well, received a detailed accounting of damage to the premises, and the precise total is under $10,000.00. Allowing for the fact there may be a little inaccuracy or whatever, it doesn't seem likely that the total will go higher than $11,000.00. We are, however, concerned about conditions there and will be monitoring the situation and ready to act should there be any emerging situation. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, will there be an interim report available? Has an interim report been prepared by the task force investigating Headingley Jail?

The Minister has advised the House that report will be available in September. It is my understanding that there have been interim respon ses deli vered to the government with respect to that overall question. Can the Minister advise whether there is an interim report ready on He adingley Jail from that task force at the present time? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'll have to take that as notice. I did indicate this morning that the expected date of filing the general report is September.

As yet, I have had no confirmation as to whether that report will be ready, or whether there will be an interim report, but I think I did take that as notice this morning. labour liaison officer MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speak er, in view of the fact that we have had a news release that Mr.

Fullerton will be the liaison officer between the government and business, and the Minister confirms that it's $85,000 a year, and the First Minister confirms expenses and the Minister confirms a car, I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development if he will have an office and a secretary. If so, where will they be located? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the gentleman will have an office in Lakeview Square where the rest of the departmental offices are, and he will have access to support services in that department. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr .

Spea ker, the Minister of Finance indicated that the agreement had not been signed. When we asked for the agreement to be tabled, he said, they would be happy to table the agreement when it was signed. Can the Minister inform the House whether the agreement has been signed yet? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the agreement has now been signed, and I will see that it is tabled tomorrow. MR. F. JOHNSTON: I didn't hear the Minister. Did she say, it has not been signed? HON. M. SMITH: The agreement has been signed, Mr. Speaker. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that manufacturing is down, investment is down; in view of the fact that manufacturing shipments are down; in view of the fact that certain areas of the construction industry are in desperate shape; and in view of the fact that the Minister is supposed to be the top liaison officer with the bu siness community in the Pr ovince of Manitoba, has the Minister hired an $85,000 a year 5195

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 person with a car, with expenses, with office, with secretary to do the job that she hasn't been able to do? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in case the members opposite haven't noticed, many of my hours are filled by being tied to the House. However, I accept a prime responsibility of making contact with the business community and visiting plants and coming to understand more acutely the difficulties and the opportunities that the business community are facing. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is a task that is much more efficiently done if there is someone busily involved in organizing and setting up those meetings and I look forward very much to working in concert with Mr. Fullerton in a more efficient form, if you like, ol being in regular consultation with an ever-widening circle of business people in Manitoba. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MFI. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, who is recognized? MR. DEPUTY SPEA KER: The Member for lnkster. Safeway store closing MR. D.

SCOTT: Well, how many supplementaries is he allowed? Mr. Speaker, I have a question tor the Minister responsible for Consumer Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I just got some very sad news today and that is in reference to another community Safeway store closing, this one in the community of Weston and right adjacent to Brooklands. We have two senior citizens bl ocks kitty corner to the store and it's just another example, I think, of Safeway's indifferenc e to the smal ler communities and the collection of communities in the City of Winnipeg. I am wondering, Mr.

Speaker - (Interjection) - Well, the members of the opposition obviously are not very concerned about the people in that area having a major store to be able to shop and get their groceries at. Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Consumer Affairs, is he aware of this in the first instance, and is he involved or is he doing any kind of an investigation into the situation of the retail food marketing busi ness in Manitoba, because it seems to be coming more and more concentrated into a few very large super stores? MR. DEPUTY SPEA KER: The Minister of Consumer Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for lnkster for making me aware of the closing of the Safeway store. I should indicate to this House that we have been concerned for some time about the apparent concentration of the retail food industry into what appears to be two large retailers. This matter is under consideration by my department. We will be conferring with the Federal Minister of Consumer Affairs and it will be under 5196 consideration by other departments, as well. I thank the member for that information. Paint damage claims to MPIC MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My question is to the Hon ourable Mi nister of Corporate and Consu mer Affairs resp onsible for the Manitoba Insurance Corporation. Would the Minister inform the House how many claims the corporation have received tor paint damage to automobiles as a result of the recent aerial spraying with Malathion? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thi� Minister of Consumer Affairs. HON. J. BUCK lASCHUK: Yes, Mr. Speak er. understand that there have been six claims that have been received. Three have been confirmed and the other three are still under review. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes. supplementary to Minister.

I wonder if the Minister could submit whatever data might be available to him, the scientific data on the dangers of malathion spray to certain paint surfaces, if he could give us that technical data that he may have? HON. J. BUCKlASCHUK: The MP IC is obtaining an analysis of the paint that was n»mR""'r1 My understanding is that in certainly one situation that the paint that was damaged - and that's the one that was referred to on the Peter Warren program - was a repainted vehicle. The paint was not the original type, it was a softer paint. That is being analysed to definitely confirm there was malathion damage.

Facilities at lake of the Pr�Hr1,l!lf1L Shellmouth Dam MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources regarding the barbecues, picnic tables and the outdoor toilets at Lake of the Prairies, Shellmouth Dam. I wonder, could the Minister advise the House and the campers of that area, are the picnic tables and the barbecues and the toilets back in place, finally? DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Na!ural Resources. HON. A. llllACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

I expect that in the matter of a couple weeks, I should be able to get out of the House and go up there and have a look. MR. W. McKEN ZIE: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Honourable Minister for that class answer I've been getting for about a month now as to where those picnic

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 tables went? Can I ask him, Mr. Speaker, now that he's indicated he's going to travel in the area, while he's there will he check with the farmers around the periphery of the Duck Mountain Provincial Park and the Riding Mountain National Park regarding the water problems they're having with beavers, their crops and hay losses in the area? Would he be kind enough to - and at the same time take his federal counterpart with him and see if they can compensate those farmers in the area for the loss that they've sustained through no fault of their own? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Order. Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr . Spea ker , one of the interesting physical attributes of the beaver is that its teeth never stop growing and it's similar to the questions from the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell - they never stop growing. I have responded to those concerns in the House on innum era bl e occa sions and I kn ow th at the honourable member has some concerns about pit privies.

Some of my colleagues, a few friends of his, and he, are distrubed because, I gather, a pit privy that was highly used by the honourable member, perhaps, and a few frie nds, has bee n moved . That's my understanding. Mr. Speaker, we respond to the totality of need for those kind of facilities in that area and we don't look at the particular needs of just a few individuals. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The time for oral questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: I have committee changes, Mr. Speaker.

On Industrial Relations: the Member for Ste. Rose will su bstitute for the Member for Seven Oaks; the Member for Logan for Kildonan; the Member for The Pas for Burrows; and the Member for Wolseley for Flin Flon. On Statutory Regulations: the Member for Radisson for Burrows; the Member for Flin Flon for Wolseley, the Member for Riel for St. Johns. On Law Amendments: the Member for Interlake for Kildonan; the Member for Lac du Bonnet for Brandon East; and the Member for Churchill for Osborne. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on Bill No. 48, on Page 9, standing in the name of the Member for Arthur, who has 16 minutes left, that we're all anxious to hear. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING Bill 48 -THE ELECTIONS FINANCES ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 48, with the amendment thereto, standing in the name of the Member for Arthur, who has 16 minutes remaining. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In my remarks this morning I pointed out to the Assembly and to the people of Manitoba the lack of support that the gov ernment have put forward in debate for this particular piece of legislation, and I will again go back over some of the points that I made so that the Ministers and members are aware of what our position is. No. 1, Mr. Speak er, of course is the principle which is involved in this particular piece of legislation. We, Mr.

Speaker, believe firmly that it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers to have funds unwillingly taken from them to pay for any political party, whether it be of their choice or whether it isn't; that it's just not right th at the tax paye rs be subjecte d to tha t kind of extraction of money or for those kinds of purposes. We will fight, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of principle for a long time. In fact, as I indicated in my comments this morning, as has been indicated by our Leader, that we will in fact repeal this legislation and make the funds repayable by those political parties, Mr.

Speaker, and that will be retroactive. So there's no question about how committed we are to the principle of not taking money unwillingly from people who do not want to support any political party if they don't want to, from the wishes of th ose taxpayers. So the people of Manitoba can rest assured that this law will be changed. Another important point that I think one has to look at, Mr. Speaker, and as I indicated this morning, that when we look at what is happening throughout the world, we're seeing a shift from the left to the right with the whole philisophical approach of people.

A good indication was that of the government in the UK, Ma rgaret Thatchers recent victory where, in fact, she has really shown the world what they believe in is the way in which to resolve the economic problems and the way in which the world has to go. I have pointed out that Ronald Reagan, Mr. Speaker, has a very successful program, and that the people are abandoning the left-wing philosophical approaches. So really what is at stake here, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is the New Democratic Party's concern that they will slide into oblivion, and without this kind of taxpayer funding of their party, then in fact they won't be able to go out and voluntarily muster the funds that they will need to operate as a political party in this province. It's evidenced again by what is happening nationally when we see the New Democratic Party slip to an all time low within the popularity polls that have been taken. The message is there for the New Democratic Party in Manitoba that their days are very numbered.

Their days are numbered in this province because of the kinds of legislation that they're trying to impose on the people of Manitoba. Question Period today was another example of that kind of legislation. I as well have some questions for 5197

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the conflict of interest act which, in fact, will drive local people out of the responsible roles of acting as munc ipal councillors. I know he is getting letters day after day telling him that they don't want that legislation. I would suggest that he reconsider it and withdraw, Mr. Speaker. One has to ask the question when a government introd uces legislation - why change? What is the purpose in what they're doing?

To this point, the only answers that I have received have been the weak arguments that came forward from the Minister of Health this morning, and he indicated that it would remove any particular concerns that they have for people influencing government by putting money in place. Well, his argument doesn't hold water because what they are saying is that 50 percent of the election costs will be paid through the taxpayers funds, and 50 percent will have to be sought through public donation to their party.

So if they're going to accomplish what he's saying they're going to do, then they're only going half way and it won't do it. He talks about being against lobbying, that if a person puts money into a political party they're subject to the lobby of those individuals that have put funds forward. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that hasn't happened to any great degree that has been able to be proven by this government. They haven't pointed out any examples of any magnitude. In fact, they haven't pointed any examples out, Mr. Speaker, of those kinds of cases.

They haven't been able to justify the need for the funding of the taxpayers of Manitoba through the taxation system of political parties, and I would suggest they make a change in this act, so that it doesn't force people to unwillingly put funds into a political party. It doesn't matter whether it's NOP, or whether it's Progressive Conservative. I use the example of me going out to an NOP in my constituency - I'm sure there aren't many New Democratic supporters want to fund a Progressive Conservative Party through their tax money.

I don't blame them if they don't feel that they want to, that they shouldn't be forced to do so. I don't believe that should be the case. And I don't believe that a Progressive Conservative, or an individual who doesn't want to participate and support any political party, that they should be forced to do it through their taxpayer. Why should anyone through their daily work activities be taxed? Goodness knows, they're already overtaxed. The weight of government spending has got most people on their knees as it is.

Why would they add more to it to force people to contribute to a political party, not by choice, but by force? It's wrong that they do that. I made reference to the fact that any government that passed this kind of legislation v•as on the verge, or could be considered to have a direct conflict of interest. They could put any kind of imposition of charges on the taxpayers that they want. Yes, if they've generated enough money, the y could al most, Mr . Speaker, go to the point of passing any legislation in this regard. Why start in this direction in this province?

I believe that there are enough people committed politically to support the political philosophy of their belief to fund it. The system through the tax incentives, and the tax write-offs that are in place now, are as fair for one person as the next, and it shouldn't have to be changed in the direction in which they want to go. What does this all lead to, Mr. Deputy Speaker? What does this all lead to? Mr. Speaker, this leads to, if a person says, no way do I want to support a political party with my taxation money, and withholds their taxes, they will be subject to the penalt ies of the taxation laws.

Yes, I'm sure the eventual law would put those people in jail. Is that what we want to subject the iaxpayers of the Province of Manitoba to? Do we want to make them criminals because of bad legislation that the New Democratic Party are forcing through this Legislature? That's what we're doing. That's what we're being asked to do.

We're being asked to force the people of the Province of Manitoba, if they do not want to pay their taxes and fund the political party, then they will be subject to the laws and penalt ies that fall within the Income Tax Act of this country; fully disclose and to put them in jail or heavy fines. That is not right. As Jack Benny would say, it's maybe not so much the money, but it's the principle of the thing. That's what we stand up for, for the constituents that send us to the Legislature. We stand up to protect the rights, freedoms, and privileges of those people that live within a democratic system.

We will continue to debate with that objective in mind to protect those people. The Minister of M•Y•icipal Affairs, I am astonished at him; I' m astonis hed at him support ing such legislation. I cannot believe him. Why does he not stand up for the constituents of Ste. Rose? Why doesn't he stand up for the municipal people which he represents? But everything he has done as a Minister has been against the wishes of thosEl people that he is supposed to be representing. The Municipal Act, which is imposing conflict of interest on them, they don't support it; the bilingualism, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they don't support it. What do they support that he and his government are doing? What are they doing? Well, believe me there's a Main Street Manitoba Program that they support, but at the rate that it's proceeding, I think that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be long gone before the full impact of that program is in place. really would wonder what the full impact will be, whether he'll get three Main Streets done for two since he introduced the program almost two years ago. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when we stand and when we debate, it is our objective as an opposition to make our points and make them very clear. I think that we have been able to do that on most subjects that we have stood to debate on. This one is not unlike it. My colleagues who have spoken on this particular issue have been very clear on how they feel. I would, in my concluding remarks, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, go back to some of the comments that the Member for Lac du Bonnet made a few years ago when the Livestock Producers Association in this province were given legislation which gave them the opportunity to 0rganize and fund their own organization; a free 0rganization which was one which they could participate through a direct checkoff of their livestock at the time of marketing, and at a particular time, if they were not desirous of participating in that organization, didn't participate by having funds in; they could apply and get their mon ies back.

They could, in fact, not participate in meetings of any choice. That, I think, wasn't an unfair approach. What he is now supporting, is saying - and is even better - is that now those same people who produce 5198

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 livestock can, through their taxation, pay funds into the New Democ ratic Party, pay funds into the Progressive Conservative Party, and yet, unless they go and buy a membership in those parties and go to their annual meetings, they can't have any part of the decision making. Now, if that isn't force feed, I don't know what is.

I would dare say it'd be difficult - and if I'm wrong, the Minister of Highways can correct me - that if you're going to pay for your parties, Conservative, or from your New Democratic Party, if you're going to participate in an annual meeting, that the first thing you'll be subjected to is the payment of those taxes to pay 50 percent of the election funds , but to als o buy a membership into that party to have a say in what goes on in that particular organization. So, you're getting to be hit twice by this kind of legislation. It's not fair.

I believe if you want to contribute with the financial support that you feel is within your limits, that you can do so without that kind of forced legislation. If you want to buy a membership and participate in a political party and be a part of that supporting organization and give them directions through the mechanism of annual meetings and meet ings that are held by tho se organizations, and become a voting delegate at certain conventions, then that's available to you. But why force the people of Manitoba to pay for something that they have very little control over, in fact, no control over?

It isn't right, and we will continue to try to convince the government th at th ey·: ..i going in the wrong direction. Reference has been made to other provinces and the other jurisdictions in this country where they do carry out this kind of legislation. Mr. Deputy Speak er, two wrongs don't make a right. For us to follow other jurisdictions in this particular area I don't belie ve is necessarily right for the people of Manitoba, and I wanted to clearly put that on the record and I do not support this legislation and will continue to debate it at every opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Housing. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speak er. I would like to make a few comments, some in response to my honourable friend from Arthur who made some rather derogatory remarks about my commitment to the farm commuity. I don't think that those remarks were (

a) justified, or (

b) accurate, by any means, by any stretch of the imagination. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Arthur, and a number of his colleagues, continue to make the argument that it doesn't matter that other jurisdictions have Elections Finances Acts similar to the one that's being proposed in Manitoba. He says, "two wrongs don't make a right." Mr.

Speak er, it's rather strange that this legislation where many other jurisdictions and certainly their federal counterparts, the Federal Tories, have used and have accepted public funding for their election expenses and have not seemed to have any deep principled philosophical objection to that, and yet we have that kind of objection here. I say it's strange that the Member for Arthur can stand up and say, "two wrongs don't make a right." It seems that only this particular opposition is right, because we have The Farm Lands Ownership Act.

The members opposite said, "Well we don't care if they have the same thing in Saskatchewan; we don't care if they have the same thing in Prince Edward Island; we don't care if they have it in Saskatchewan, two wrongs don't make a right." Mr. Speaker, the irony is that what we have is Conservative Governments, Conservative regimes in other provinc es, and Cons ervative regimes, the opposition in the Federal House, and I should say the Clark Government, who used this financing mechanism, who have had no opposition, no principled objections, and all of a sudden only this particular group are right, and we are wrong.

There is an irony here in that we have a New Democratic Party Government who is introducing what is in effect Tory legislation in other jurisdictions and all of a sudden it's all wrong. Mr. Speaker, I think their objections are patently absurd. I think the y're inconsistent. I think that many of their objections border on the hypocritical. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J. STORIE: I said many of their objections border on the hypocritical. MR. F. JOHNSTON: We don't care about other provinces, and we don't care what you think you do. HON. J.

STORIE: The Member for Sturgeon Creek says, "We don't care about other provinces, and we don't care about what you think." I know that's possible, because I know the Member for Sturgeon Creek doesn't think. So that resolves that small problem. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic that what we're talking about in this piece of legislation is a process that is fundamental, that is the grassroots, that is the crux of our democratic system. We're talking about elections. We're talking about how those elections are financed. Mr.

Speak er, recalling some of the remarks from the Member for Arthur with respect to the fact that there is no other area where it's so important to rely on voluntary funding. I find that a very difficult idea to put up against the notion that a democracy is something in which all people participate, all people have an equal voice, all people have an obligation and a responsibility. Because, clearly , the demo cratic process, a vital process, requires and expects that each citizen will do his

part in that process. Mr. Speake r, despite what members opposite have said about this particular way of financing elections, The Elections Finances Act brought in in 1980 does fundamentally the same thing, only with some serious flaws, and I'll get to those flaws in a minute.

I want to get back to the suggestion from the Member for Arthur that I somehow had made some unflattering remarks about the farmers and the farm community when I suggested that his particular statement that we were supporting some kind of left-wing, lunatic fringe by way of this Elections Finances Act - I want to indicate to the member that what I said, in effect, was that the Manitoba farm community is very heavily subsidized 5199

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 by Manitoba and Canadian taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I wrote down a number of ways that the people of this province not only support farme rs, who are free enterprisers and whose objective and purpose in life is to operate at a profit, to operate their farming operations in a profitable way; the public not only supports them directly, but indirectly in hundreds of ways. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources spends literally millions of dollars providing drainage for agricultural lands from which individual farmers can make a profit, millions of dollars. Mr.

Sp eak er, the taxpayers of the Pro vince of Man itoba and this country pay hundreds of millions of dollars to support the farmers in the transportation of their grain, hundreds of millions of dollars. We are talking about an infinitesimal amount when you compare the cost of election finances with the cost of - (Interjection) infinitesimal. However, Mr. Speaker, the amount of money we're talking about is outrageously small. compared to the subsidy that we are providing to Manitoba farmers so th at th ey can make a profit. Certa inly we ail acknowledge the importance of the farm community.

I have not said, despite what the Member for Arthur might have implied, that it's not important that we do that. It is not important that we protect that industry. Mr. Speaker, the members will also recognize that there any number of tax benefits to be had, fuel tax subsidies. The Department of Agriculture provides countless - not countless, they're countable - a number of services to Manitoba farmers; services to increase production, services for soil testing, services of - you can imagine the kinds. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and this government have introduced a Beef Stabilization Program that has cost tens of millions of doll ars. Mr. Sp eake r, thi s gover nment has made available millions and millions of dollars worth of loans and loan guara ntees so that the farmers can survive. Mr. Speaker, this government has provided funds for disaster assistance, funds for farmers that have been flooded out, as the previous government did. Mr. Speaker, we have a Hog Stabilization Program which is operating to subsidi2e and to support farmers. I say this, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, only to disabuse the Me mb er for Arthur of the notion th at Mani toba taxpayers are not supporting farmers. In fact, they are. Mr. Sp eaker, Mani tob a tax payers are not only supporting farmers. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba taxpayers support many small businesses by way of Enterprise Manitoba, by way of the Department of Economic Development, by way of incentive grants. Mr. Speaker, there are any number of interest groups who are supported by taxpayers' money, by money collected by way of taxes from individuals in this province, not by their free choice. Mr.

Speaker, no one in llford, no one in Brochet, specifical ly, gave this Provincial Government the authority to go ahead and introduce a Beef Stabilization Program. But, Mr. Speaker, we are spending taxpayers' dollars on any number of what we believe are publicly desirable programs, public support programs. Mr. Speaker, we have cries of outrage, I believe phony cries of outrage, about a bill that proposes to support the democratic process, which asks individuals to support the democratic process as opposed to a system - and, Mr.

Speaker, the Attorney-General commented that it was a way of preventing politics and the political process from becoming the preserve of the wealthy. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is a danger that the tax credit system that was implemented by membe rs opposite falls into that category, whereby the people who benefit most from donating to political parties are those people who: (

a) have the largest disposable income; and (

b) are in the highest income tax bracket. I haven't heard any member on that side dispute that fact. Mr. Speaker, there are some clear inequities in the present tax credit system. Mr. Speaker, senior citizens, students, single families, low-income families who have no taxable income get no benefit whatsoever from that particular system. Yet, Mr.

Speak er, because there are tax credits, because there are tax expenditures given out by the Provincial Government and the Federal Government to those people with high disposable income, to those people and corporations, I should mention, who have disposable income, they, the people who cannot get any benefit from the tax credit system, pay. They pay. Public funds go indirectly to political parties so that they can carry on the functions which serve the purposes of all of us. Mr.

Speak er, the principle here is that the democratic process is a fundamental process, and it should be funded in a way that requ ires all people who pay taxes according to their ability-to-pay to donate to thal process. Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative that we move away from a system where - well ii isn't a direct correlation - it relates to your ability to enter the process and remain in the process, and I can understand why there are cries of objection.

We can understand, because the Conservative Party is funded, by and large, through large corporate donations whose donations are tax deductible, and the tax expenditures related to those credits come from the backs of the senior citizens and the other people in our society who cannot benefit from that particular election financing mechanism. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that we're on the right track, and I understand that this pains them. However, I think, in principle, they must recognize that the democratic process is each of our responsibility, and that we should pay for its costs. Mr.

Speaker, I think that in closing, I would just say that I think the contributions from members opposite have, by and large, been I think misinformed about the intent. I don't know whether we can attribute that misinformation, that lack of understanding, wilful! desire to misrepresent what this bill is all about, or whether we can attribute it to ignorance. In either case, Mr. Speaker, it's deplorable, and I wc1.1ld like to see someone of principle stand up and acknowledge that the democratic process needs to be funded by all individuals who have a stake in it, and that is all of us. Thank you. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it extremely interesting today. At least we've got two 5200

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 government front benchers to their feet finally to stand up and try and defend some of this terrible legislation that this House is trying to wrestle with and deal with in a rational manner, and hopefully get it in a perspective that we can finally prorogue the House. But, Mr. Speaker, unless some of this legislation is removed from these records, I dare say, we're going to be here until Christmas. This is another example. A MEMBER: Of what year? MR. W.

McKENZIE: Well I'm not sure what year, but I see we have now set a record in this House, and I see us bei ng here weeks and weeks un less the government backs off some. I do thank the Attorney-General for standing in his place this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and recognizing the problems that we see and the public sees with the conflict of interest legislation, and stood in his place this morning and pulled back from that position that they had stood with so long in this House.

Think of the hours and hours of debate that could have been saved if the Attorney-General of the government had seen fit to pull back weeks ago on that subject matter. That is the problem we've got with this and other bills. My God, one only has to look at the blistering letter that the Minister of Ed ucation got today from the President of MAST to show how bad this government is managing the affairs of this province.

He says, George Marshall, .;uly 26th, "If you choose to proceed to the House with this ill-conceived proposed legislation, I will be obliged and at liberty to convey to every community in this province, by any and every means, the tragic consequences of what appears to be an arbitrary, political move and a cave-in to the pressures of the Teachers' Union." Mr. Speaker, when you get the people of this province riled up. not only on this, but all this legislation that we're trying to resolve through debate, you've got yourself a real handful of problems.

We have problems coming out of our ears in this Order Paper that's on my desk. This bill that's before me is another classic example, and I don't know how we're going to settle it. I've been here in this Legislature a long time like the honourable member sitting across here, the Minister of Transportation. I have never seen the House dug into such an impasse, and there's no resolution or no way that it's going to be solved that I can see, except that the government backs off. It's their legislation.

I just, in response to the remarks that the honourable member that just spoke on this bill that's before us, and ... A MEMBER: Fine speech. MR. W. McKENZIE: Yes, it was, but he forgot one thing. Democracy around the world, as we know it, will never survive if it has to be propped up by government dollars, never. That's state control. Fifty percent of the elections in this province now will be state - it's a 50 percent product from the government. So the government is involved in the elections of this province. I only ask the honourable members to take a look around the world.

The thin edge and the fabric of democracy in this world is so thin. It's a veil that can be hardly seen. I tell my friends and members of this House, once you start monkeying with the democratic system which is so tender, and we're so dedicated to democracy in the western world that I believe in but, when the day arrives that we have to stand in and prop that system up with government dollars, show me where that isn't government intervention in the democratic process that's been so sacred to everybody in this country for so long.

While the honourable members argue opposite and raise these various points as other jurisdictions doing it and on and on, those arguments are not worth even considering, because when you sit back in your place, Mr. Speaker, and just take a look at what's happening to the democratic process as we know it around the world, and whether it's done by government intervention, by dollars, or we see what's going on in Chad today where the military forces are moving in, is again a thrust to destroy the democratic process.

Why can't we leave it in its tender state that it was when it arrived and built this country to what it is, the greatest country in the world. Why monkey with it? Why try and change it? It's worked well over all my political career and my ancestors and those before me, worked very, very well, the democratic process that we practice in this province.

I don't know why the members opposite want to tinker with it, because I have never in all the years, and I ran through five elections, had one elector, one man, woman or child have ever come to me in any political meeting or walking down the street and asked me to prop up the election process in this province by the taxpayers' dollars; never had a soul ever even think of it, because it's ridiculous, actually ridiculous. Why should my supporters be taking 50 cents out of the dollar in their pocket to go down and support my opponent? That's not a contest any more; it's not.

It's the state intervening in the democratic process of this country, and it should never happen. What's the next step that will come once you start this ball rolling that the state is going to fund the elections in this province? What's the next step that we're going to do? Are we going to take some more rights away from the people who have historically elected good governments all across this country, stable governments, honest governments. As I said earlier, we enjoy the most freedoms of any country in the world. We enjoy more luxuries than anybody in the world, and they want to change the system.

Where did you get your mandate? I've never heard of the electors or the taxpayers or anybody in this province asking for this type of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Minister of Health rose in his place today, and he said, it's to stop politicians from buying votes. Now he's a good one to talk on that subject matter because, when I arrived here, he was a Liberal. Then he switched over to the New Democratic Party. First of all, he's suspect. He's been sitting here under two governments but, Mr.

Speaker, if he wants to use that argument that you want to stop politicians from buying votes, now just let's take a look at this garbage that went out in the campaign of the last election. Is that what you want the people of this province to pay? Half truths, qua rter truths, garbage propaganda? I'm sorry. 5201

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Minister of Transportation on a point of order. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speak er, on a matter of privilege. I believe the member was reflecting on a member of this House in a way that I don't believe is proper. Perhaps you would want to rule on that, Mr. Speaker. The member was alluding to the fact that the Minister of Health was indeed a bought person by the New Democratic Party. I don't believe that's within our rules. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the the Member for Roblin-Russell wish to respond to that point of order. MR. W. McKENZIE: Well certainly, Mr.

Speaker, I have no allegations or suspicions against the honourable member. I only said, who is he, a member that has belonged to two political parties that sat in House, lecturing to us over here about this legislation before us. When he went out with his caucus and preached all this garbage around this province, which is filled with half truths, quarter truths . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Could the Member for Roblin-Russell restrict his comments to the point of order. The Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Yes, on the same point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the same point? HON. A.

ADAM: Yes, on the same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell distinctively say, who is he, the Minister of Health, to talk about buying votes when he was a member of two parties. First of all, he was a Liberal and then he was a New Democrat. I distinctly heard the Minister of Health also say that the Con servatives have tried to buy him out, they had invited him to go in. I mean to say that the honourable member had better not cast stones because for they who live in glass houses MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Mem ber for Roblin-Russell care to clarify his comments?

MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Deputy Speak er, the lecture I got from the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, I withdraw any allegation that related to the Honourable Member for St. Boniface and say that he was a member of the Liberal Party, he is a member of the New Democratic Party, and as the Minister over there of Municipal Affairs says, he at one time was offered money or whatever to join the Cons ervative Part y. - (I nterjection) - He was offered a Minister's position. This is all news to me. Anyway, it's all in the same political process.

As I said, he lectures us today about our integrity on this Bill 55, and yet let's that kind of literature be spread across this province.

I ask the Honourable Minister ol Municipal Affairs, can you assure me and the people of this province that this bill that's before us will eliminate propag anda, qu arter truths, ha lf truths, misleading the people - they're going to be bribed with their own money, you're going to pay half the cost - can you guarantee me that you'll set up a board to screen every piece of literature that's going out from the political machines of this province, because if you can't pull that out, you'd better pull the bill. I can show you the difference between the two political parties.

We told the people of the province in the last election, if you vote NOP, the NOP would scrap the mega projects. That was a fact; that's true. If you elect an NOP Government they'll scrap the mega projects. We also said that if you elect a New Democratic Party, there'll be no new jobs, there'll be no new opportunities, there'll be no growth for Manitoba. Fact, absolutely fact. There's been no new jt1bs, there's been no new opportunities, there's been no growth for Manitoba; that's a fact, that is a fact Wr:i said taxes would go up if you elect a New Democratic Government Is that a fact?

Absolutely, taxes have gone up. We said hydro rates would soar again if they elect a New Democratic Party. And they did, that's fact We also said the opportunity to build a decade ol prosperity would be lost; that's a fact. Yet, they come out with this kind of garba ge. Now, there's two J:'C'1itical parties campaigning in the same election, Mr. Speaker. One is telling the truth and the other is misleading the public. Do you think that the public should pay 50 percent of that kind of politicking and propaganda that's been cranked out That's not in this bill.

The honourable members opposite are very scared of this piece of paper and they don't like to discuss it. Do you think the people of the province should pay 50 percent of that? If you do stand up and say so. There you are. So there is the honourable member who thinks that we should support that kind of propaganda which has misled the people; it's quarter truth, half truth, some of it is a stranger to the truth. It's unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, but that's the thinking of these social tinkers over there who think that we should move in this way. As I said, Mr.

Speaker, misinformation, propaganda, that certainly is a problem today. That's how that government got elected, and there's not a word about that in the bill in any way, shape or form. I wonder if the Minister of Health will come back in his seat, and stand up and say that if we pass this Bill 55 that this kind of campaigning and this kind of political literature will stop in this province. He won't come back. That's another reason why I'm opposed to it. I can ask the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose or the Minister of Transportation where is this mass of people across this province who asked for this legislation?

Where are these great hordes of citizens? It's got to be half of them at least, because they're asking them to pay half !he election expenses. Where these people that have asked for this? Mr. Speaker, they're not there; they don't have a 'nandate. It was never in one of their elections pledges that they were going to bring this bill in. They don't even have a consensus. Same on the bilingual package, they don't have a mandate, they don't have a consensus from the people that they were going to bring forth this kind of legislation. So, Mr.

Speaker, what's the problem with our friends across the way, wha t's the pr oblem with this government? Well, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that they're 5202

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 very very unhappy. They're sick about where they're showing in the national polls today. They're down to what? - 15 percent. At one time they were 24. In the last year - was it? - they were as high as 24 on the national ratings. So, they're down, they've got to change leaders, they've got to change their Premier. We're going to have to change the government. So, as a last straw when they're being forced out of office, they said at least we're going to take something with us, we're going to make the taxpayers pay for half the election expenses in this province.

Isn't that a terrible thing, as they grab that last straw, because they see their party falling into ob livion, nationally and provincially - they'r e the only New Democratic Party as a Provincial Government in this country, and they hav en't got a hope of ever forming a Federal Government, because they don't have the right policies - they are somehow, through this bill, trying to influence us and the people of this province we're going to get the public to pay for our elections, at least we can hang on for another couple of years, or maybe another 10 years if we get the taxpayers to at least pay half our bills.

I don't know what's wrong with their system, the union checkoff system, that they've been so successful with up to now, what's wrong with that system? Is it going to be wiped out in this bill? Is that system going to be taken completely out of the system, where any political party in this province will not be allowed to take money from a union checv-off. I don't hear very much about that subject matter. Or what's wrong with the little old lady, the old age pensioner in my constituency, coming over to a political meeting and giving me $20 for my campaign, which she's done five times?

Now, I've got to get somebody to run around over to her house after, and get a receipt to her. Then she has to send that receipt into this central office, and they will know who's voting for who. That's what they want with this social tinkering, social mending, snoop er cl aus es. The y are in all their legislation. If you look at it either underhandedly or over top, you'll see this snooper clause in everything, because socialists are an eager beaver bunch of people, Mr. Speaker. If they don't get you on one way, they like to get you in another.

They want to get the masses to get up in the morning, and bow to them when they rise out of bed. They all take their same blue or pink-coloured toothbrushes, put on their green overalls, work hard all day for the state. Then when they go to bed at night, they bow down to the state again because the state is supreme. Here the state is going to be more supreme, because it's going to muck around with the democratic process in this province, the first time ever.

First time ever, democracy in Manitoba that stood the test of time for some 116 years is going to be meddled with and changed, unless they back off, by this government that we've got across the way. Mr. Speaker, they don't have a reason for doing it. They don't ha ve a mand ate. They do n't ha ve a consensus and, like all this other legislation, I said, that's before us, we are going to oppose it. You come here and show us you have a mandate and you have a consensus from the majority of the people in this province. Then I'll stand up and support your legislation every time. That is one of my rights here.

The people of Roblin-Russell constituency would say, I would be a very poor ML A if I didn't stand up when the government of the day shows me they have a mandate, and shows me that they told the people of this province, during the last election campaign, they were going to do that if you elect them, or they went around and got a consensus of the majority of the people and lay the consensus on the table and say, there you are, McKenzie from Roblin, there is the consensus we got from the people to make these changes in our democratic system. They don't have that, Mr. Speaker. They don't have the mandate.

It's not in there, look, show me. I've gone through all the literature, it's not there. There is no consensus there, and that's the problem with all their other legislation. Do you mean to tell me the Minister of Education has got a consensus from the school divisions in this province, when she gets this dastardly letter daily that she got and we got from Mr. Marshall. That is a blistering letter. No mandate, no consensus, and they're talking about democracy. Mr. Speaker, you think we should trust this government with our democratic process. As I said, Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad the Attorney-General is back in his place because when I opened by remarks today, I said, democracy in this province and around the world as we know it will never survive if we proceed with state intervention, state control of the free democratic process like we're doing here in this bill. It won't, it can't survive. What's been wrong with it up to now? What has been wrong with the democratic process in our province? A MEMBER: Served us well. MR. W. McKENZIE: Sir, the people of this province enjoy some of the greatest governments that the country has ever seen, good democracy.

A MEMBER: Including this one. MR. W. McKENZ IE: Absol utely. They've got their problems. They are learning the hard way that you can't make all these changes without a mandate and without a consensus and against the wishes of the major ity. It's that simple. This is another bill that I know the people in Roblin constituency do not suppport, and don't want me to stand here in my place, Mr. Speak er, and support in its present form. It has got to be changed. Mr. Speaker, let's go through some of the clauses in this legislation, and just see how ridiculous it really is.

It's unbelievable that a bunch of dreamers would get in a back room and come up and think they can make this system work. That's what scares me. This advisory committee, let's just talk about this advisory committee tha t they are proposing, one representative appointed by each registered political party. Where goes democracy then? Where goes the rights of the elected people in this province, which historically has been run by elected people? They elect the people they want. Now you're going to have some people on this advisory committee that were never elected. All they have to do is get 2,500 people on a 5203

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 petition and say, they're a political party, and they're on the advisory board. MR. H. ENNS: And then start changing the rules. Your advisory rules will be changing. MR. W. McKENZIE: Right. Poor old Manitobans. People in the province don't know this is going on in here today. The press do report some. I just asked the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, how is that going to work. Supposing three new political parties get 2,500 signatures each, and so the advisory committee is set up, so we arrive at - we'll have Liberals likely. We'll have the New Democratic Party.

We'll have the Conservatives, and we'll have three others. So there are three known political parties in this province and three unknown, and they're all sitting there at this advisory committee, guiding the destiny and the future of this province; guiding the democratic process that has been so tender to this people and this province, and they're going to change it. They are going lo move the state into the system, and the s, ate is going to now pay half the shot and the state is going to - as I said, if we let them go and carry on with this kind of legislation, we will all have to use pink toothbrushes.

We will have to bow down to the state in the morning and bow at night, and ain't supporting that kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker, even though we're hillbillies out in our country, some ol us. We still see some problems with this kind of legislation. Let's talk about these contributions made at a political meeting, and all the members have been around here. The Minister of Transportation, we've been through a lot of political battles, and you know what it is to go to th ose political meetings. They've got nuts and washers and wild oats in their pocket, all kinds of change.

Now we've got to get some guy to run along behind those farmers and write down what they give. What an insult to a man's political rights in this province. Whether he gives a buck, whether he gives five bucks or whether he gives 10 bucks or 50 bucks, the government and the state of this province doesn't have the right to go and say, you've got to give a receipt to me because you contributed to that political party. Poor old democracy, Mr.

Speaker, will be wiped out if we allow that to continue, because the government of the day can right away - they've got the receipts from all these people - start riding herd on them because you gave so much to a certain political party. Where does the secrecy of the ballot start, and where does it end in this bill? Wh ere does the whole democratic process start, and where does it end under this kind of legislation? It's a can of worms, this bill. It's frightening; it's scary. It really is scary, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs sits there and chuckles. Yes, he does.

Well we heard him talk about the conflict of interest and earlier, when the Attorney-General wasn't here, I congratulated and thanked him this morning for his comments on certain matters that the House has had disagreement about because that's the only way we're going to settle these disputes. These debates will go on, as I say, until Christmas. I'm not going to back down on this issue, never, never, because the people of Roblin Constituency, I'd be an insult to the people out there if I allowed this kind of legislation to proceed. Mr. Speaker, the other thing.

Here are the old girls that bring the cakes and the sandwiches to my political meetings. Now we're going to have to have somebody run behind her and get the receipt whether the cake was more than 10 bucks or less than 10 bucks, and you can hardly bake a cake today for 10 bucks or 20 bucks. The nosey socialists, Mr. Speaker, are going to determine to find out who bakes cakes at political meetings in this party because there it is.

"Where the persons in attendance at a meeting held by or on behalf of a candidate, constituency association or registered political party make contributions to the candidate, constituency association or registered political party, the name and address ol each contributor, and the value of each contribution, shall be recorded." It's none of our business if that lady belonged to the New Democratic Party. It's none of my business whether she belonged to the Liberal Party. It's none of my business ii she belonged to the Rhinoceros Party.

She's a free citizen; she has the freedom of the franchise; she has the freedom to support whatever political party she likes without us cciming here and running with sheet behind her and "You were at that political meeting old dear and you a cake, and now we want to know your name because we want to tie you into that whatever political party you belong to." That's an insult to the voters of our province, it's an insult to democracy. Mr. Speak er, democracy around the world, as I said earlier, as we know it, will never survive if we proceed with state intervention as we are in this election.

State control of the free election process in this province is so sacred, so tender and has worked, worked beyond reproach since Day 1, and these guys and these ladies in the New Democratic Party want to tinker with it, want to change it, want to throw it out. They don't have a mandate, they don't have a consensus. It's just NOP socialist tinkering and I'm not going to stand for it. I'll tell the Attorney-General, tell the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we'll be here until Christmas unless you back off some of this bad bad legislation. Mr. Speaker, here is another one. These

definitions of a donation in kind, and that's a hooker. We're going to have to have lawyers now, running around these political meetings to an alyze who is who and what's what. I suspect that maybe was another reason why the Attorney-General put all these hookered clauses in here because, who at a political rally can make a decision on a donation in kind, whether in fact it is a donation in kind? Who can make that decision? We people in Roblin Constituency are not known to be able to make those kind of decisions or to put a pr:C;e on it.

Who's going to put a price on it, because 0:1ce they eat the cake, it's all gone? You can't price i: then. That's the kind of legislation they're trying to bring into this province, Mr. Speaker, to tear out the heart of our old democracy that's worked so well in this province for so long. Let's read some more of the things. "the market value of goods or services at the time of donation." MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The debate on second reading is restricted to the 5204

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 principles of the bill. Specific reference to the clauses would be left to committee stage or third reading. The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I well understand that ruling. I've been through it time and time again. Just for the record, I read it back to show you how bad this legislation is, and if you're going to take issue with me about raising that, I'll have to sit down and take my place. All I did was read it and start paraphrasing and now I'm going to speak on it.

If there's anything wrong with that, you make the ruling and I will sit down, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about the bill, or the amendment that is a six-month hoist resolution presented by th e Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park, Mr. Speaker, but who is going to go out there to this political meeting in Lac du Bonnet or Beausejour where my long-time friend, the Minister of Transportation, is espousing on the platform al great length and these donations in kind are coming in? Who's going to stand at the door and analyze whether they need a lawyer or they need an appraiser?

And, likely, because there are government dollars, you'd have to have somebody from all political parties there to decide, is that, in fact, a donation in kind that's coming in the door at that political meeting? That's how bad this legislation is, Mr. Speaker. That's how bad it is. You could go on through it. There are all kinds of problems in there that the people in Roblin Constituency find with this legislation. There are some good points in the legislation, Mr. Speaker.

When I see a government, anytime, that doesn't have the mandate from the people and doesn't have the consensus like this government has been, week after week, ramming this legislation through here, that they don't have the mandate the people. They never told them they were going to do these things. They don't have the consensus and they still proceed. You're going to head into a road over here and it's going to be a big high one and rough tough one, because we ain't going to allow it. We're not going to allow it. I will, if you bring me the manda te.

I will, if you bring me the consensus of the majority of the people that this is good for the people, then I'll back off. But I don't see that kind of thing happening, Mr. Speaker, on this and other bills. Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member for Flin Flon just speaking about the fact that there's some great big wealthy people in this province that have got to be influencing elections. Now, who are they? Who in Roblin Constituency, or in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Transportation, comes with these big $5,000 and $10,000 donations and influenc es us and gets us elected?

I can tell the honourable members opposite, I think the most I ever spent on an election campaign was $4,000 and I remember one time it was 600 bucks. It was all the money I had. I remember one time it was $900, every cent I had, that's all I could raise and that's all the people had. I still got elected. It was tough times. The people don't need 50 percent of my election expenses to elect me into this House. II they do, the New Democratic Party need it, then maybe we should pass it only for the New Democratic Party, because I know they're in trouble.

They're a way down in the polls ; th ey owe a lot of money; th ey owe about $600,000.00. They owe a lot of money. I've never seen their financial report, but I have heard that they owe a lot of money. So they now admit that they can't go out and fight an election under the rules that we've had in this province for what, some 116 years or more. They can't raise the money to pay their bills, so we're going to go and take it out of the taxpayers' pockets. That's what they're telling us. That's what they're saying.

We can't play under the rules that this province has enjoyed for 116 years in elections, because you guys always get the advantage. You get the big donations. That's not true. I don't get any big donations. The Min ister of Mu nicipal Affairs doesn't get any big donations. The same with my colleague and friend, the Min ister of Transporta tion, we don't get any big donations. So where is all this influence? Where is all this big money that's coming in the door?

The Minister of the Treasury over here, many people had you knocking on your ministerial doors with these big donations and deals they made the last election campaign, saying either in through or else. They don't have it. It's never a problem in this province. Have you ever heard of a conflict interest by ML A in this House, maybe the Member for Pembina one time over the rent on that - he had to pay back $35.00. had to pay back close to $1,000 one time because - (Interjection) - Yes, on the grocery store thing, but that legislation was changed.

Certainly, maybe it was conflict of interest, because I had a store, They came there and the welfare officers take the goods from McKenzie's store and take it out to the family. So, I've paid it back. - (I nterjection) - Well, that's been changed. There was nothing wrong with the conflict of interest and The Legislative Assembly Act that we have in this province, Mr. Speaker. I just wonder how many political parties that we're going to create in this province from now on.

I've no quarrel about political parties coming out of the wishes of the people, getting into the arena, but this is going to make it pretty easy for some of them, because if they get 2,500 names on a petition, it's pretty tough, and who is this crowd that's going to check all these petitions to see if those are real people? MR. D. SCOTT: You guys had that set up. That was in your legislation. MR. W. McKENZIE: Yes, sure. If they get 2,500, or there's other ways they can do it, then the state is going to pay half their election expenses. Do we need that in this province? Do we need that?

Is Manitoba in such a terrible state today that we need to interrupt that system that's been a treasure and a godsend to the people of this province? Do we need these changes as proposed in this legislion that's before us, Mr. Speaker? I say no. I tell you the people of Roblin Russell constitutency say no, because they've never ever asked me, no man, woman and child has ever asked me to bring in this, or even think about this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker, where they, the taxpayers of this province, are going to be locked into a new form of democracy, a form of democracy where the 5205

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 state is going to put in half the money for elections. That's not the democracy that I was born and raised with. It's not the democracy the Minister of Municipal Affairs was raised with and brought up with, nor the Minster of Highways and Transportation. They weren't brought up in this country, nor do they live under that kind of a democratic process. Our system is a treasure, it's a gem, don't monkey with it. Let's leave it, and God bless Manitoba, if you'll leave it alone, we'll have a great province for a long long time. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Fort Gar ry. MR. L.

SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not unlike Bill 77, The Public Schools Act, the amendments to The Public Schools Act. They're both terrible. It's not unlike many other pieces of legislation that have come before us in this Session, Sir, a number of which I've referred to in comment and debate in this Chamber in the last few days. This bill's not unlike the amendments to The Cattle Producers Association Act, both bills are terrible. It's not unlike The Farm Lands Ownership Act, they're both terrible.

It's not unlike The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act, Mr. Speaker. The one difference between this bill, perhaps, and some of those that I've mentioned is that rather like Bill 77, and this is where the similarity between those two measures is more strongly apparent, rather like Bill 77 there is one good feature to it. I had indicated in speaking to Bill 77 a few days ago, Mr.

Speaker , that I felt that there were two good provisions in Bill 77, the rest of it was largely unacceptable, and unless the Minister and the government were prepared to make some amendments, it would not win favour from this side of the House. I did acknowledge there were a couple of good provisions in it. I can say that with respect to Bill 48, the hoist motion on which we're addressing at the moment, there is at least one good provision in it.

There may be more than one, but there's one recognizable one that deserves identification in debate, and I intend to identify it, Sir, and I intend to lend my personal endorsement to it, and that is the provision in the bill which proposes a virtual total prohi bition on government advertising during the course of an election campaign.

I note that when the Government House Leader, the Attorney General introduced the legislation, he made the point that that provision represented an important new reform in this field, and that only the Province of Saskatchewan, I think, of all provinces in Canada has similar legislation.

I think that provision is a good one, the provision that prohibits government advertising during an election campaign, because, in fact, Sir, there is a tendency, and I think there have been some examples on the record in the past where government initiatives and communications related to government initiatives came fairly close to transgressing the line between information and advertising, and issues that should have been objective in presentation - in view of the importance of the period, the importance of the time, the election that was in the offing - became issues that were distorted by pol itical conside rat ions and partisan considerations to the resulting disadvantage, I think, of the electorate in total.

That's a kind of a difficulty that is devoutly to be avoided, if it's possible to avoid it. Therefore, I say that this provision in this legislation commends itself, I think, to us, and is one that strikes me as being a good one. Beyond that feature, though, Sir, I find very little in Bill 48 to commend it to any of us in this Chamber. I find very little in it that the average Manitoban of responsibility, good will and objectivity would find acceptable, particularly at this point in time in our struggle to win through against the ravages of a very serious economic recession.

So, Sir, I give it credit for that one good feature, and I say that otherwise Bill 48 reminds me of the title and the message of a recent Woody Allen movie that was entitled "Take the Money and Run." That's what Bill 48 amounts to, Sir, from the perspectiv e of the government that has introduced it, the Government of the Day, the New Democratic Party that concocted it in its backrooms; take the money and run. Bill 48, in fact, Sir, is a companion bill to Bill 55,

An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act in my view. Many of us have had some strong things to say about Bill 55, myself included. I think I described Bill 55 when I was speaking on it, Sir, as the constituency office bill, and the political answer to the community clinic. It is a piece of legislation that provides for NOP style storefront politics and is ideal for that party, not necessarily conducive to the kinds of political practices and activities that other political parties and supporters of other political parties endorse and favour. This Bill 48 is a companion bill to that, Sir.

Both of them are designed to extract from the taxpayer, from the citizen, as much money as can possibly be extracted, short of highway robbery, to provide for NOP style politicking. I say NOP style politicking, Sir, because it is an NOP Government that has introduced these measures and a Progressive Conservative in this province has not introd uced , has not pr omoted such measu res. Therefore, it is not unfair to describe it as legislation that is designed to introduce, implement and favour NOP-style politics. Both bills are of that nature, of that philosophical bent and thrust, Mr. Speak er.

The redeeming feature of the system that we have in place at the present time for election financing permitting limited direct public financing is the tax credit system, Sir. The redeeming feature of that system, introduced by our government, the tax credit system, in comparison to the system being proposed in this legislation is that with the system that's in place for election financing in this province right now, you have to go out and raise the money to fight an election campaign.

Candidates, parties, supporters, finance chairmen, official agents, all those personnel involved in the front line democratic process of getting people elected have to take the initiative to go out and work together and make the effort to raise money which lends credibility to that candidacy and lends credibility to that campaign. That is the strong and unarguable and indisputable feature that so redeems the tax credit system, Sir, in comparison to the system being proposed here.

The system proposed here, to a very substantial extent, absolves the individual political candidate and his or her people of the responsibility of having to go out and do that 5206

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 Certainly there is still a requirement to raise money to fight an election campaign. I'm not saying that that responsibility, that requirement is removed in total. I say that to a very substantial degree the election candidate and his or her team is absolved of that burden, of that responsibility, of that very necessary democratic challenge. I think, Sir, that represents a distinct loss to the parliamentary system, to the process o! democracy, to the process of getting elected, as we know it, and practice it in this province and in this country.

Now, members opposite are going to say, but in other juris dictions in Canada the very kind of elect ion financing, as is proposed in Bill 48, is already in place and that federally it is in place. I know that, Sir, and I'm going to come to that point in a moment or two, I know that.

We're addressing this from the perspective the Provi nce of Manit oba and the Progr essive Con servative Party in Manitoba and the current Pn1m·essiv·e Conservative Opposition in this Legislature, there can be no mistaking, Sir, surely there can be no mistaking our position on the subject, regardless of whether this kind of system is in place federally and whether it's in place in other provincial jurisdictions in this or not.

We've acknowledged that to be we have said we don't agree with that We have said th at our party, our opposition, our approach here in our province is distinctly different from that which is described and implied in Bill 48 and may be in place in some other Canadian jurisdictions.

We believe, and certainly I, personally and individually, believe, Sir, that there is a very important ingredient in the political process and in the electoral process that is delicate and should not be buffeted and should not be compromised, and that delicate component is the commitment and the tangible commitment that exists on the part of a candidate's supporters and on the part of a part y's suppor ters to make every reasonable effort to get candidate and that party elected. That is a very vi!al and crucial component in our system and I think it is a delicate component.

It is a commitment of sincerely, a commitment of depth and, as I say, a commitment of tangibility. If you take that away and you say to those people, be they the candidate or be they the candidate's supporters, that it's really not necessary to make the total commitment and the total effort that heretofore has been required to win an election campaign, because we can turn around and pick up most of our expenses, offset most of our expenses just through tapping the taxpayer; then, I think, Sir, you do two things.

No. 1, you rob the taxpayer, but equally importantly, you rob the province, you rob society, you rob the democratic electoral system, as we know it of a very fundamental component and a very fundamental institution. You rob it of its truth, you rob it of a great deal of its integrity. I don't think that the process can be trampled and manipulated and comprom ised tha t way. Cer tain ly, it can't be manipulated and compromised very long or very often and expect to survive with any deg ree of worth, any degree of honour and any degree of integrity.

I believe that the existing system, as we know it in this province, which requires that tangible commitment and effort to be made, is a fundamental safeguard of democratic freedom and the proven res ponsible, accountable electoral process that we practice here. I see the kind of legislation proposed in Bill 48 and, indeed, accompanied in Bill 55 and acknowledgedly, Sir, in place in other jurisdictions in this country as highly undesirable for us here in Manitoba.

I would think that I'm not wrong in suggesting that some other commentator, some other critics and observers in some other jurisdictions are looking at that precise system of financing, which they have recently put in place, and asking qu estions about it and re considering the advisability and the desirability of it. In other words, let us acknowledge th at to some deg ree the implementation, the introduction of this kind of election finance in other jurisdictions in this country represents an experiment, a trial up to this point in time. I think the jury is still out on it in those other jurisdictions.

It may well be that the comes in in the next few years with a res ounding ringing verdict in favour. If that happens, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge it and perfectly to rethink the question and the issue, but it hasn't to this point in time.

Like so many other measures society that are introduced in statute form as result of initiatives that perhaps have been taken various legislative arenas across country, something that requires experience, requires of time, req uires the oppor tuni ty for understand and identify its ramifications its before final decisions and final verdicts are rendered, I submit, in all sincerity, that the final verdict on that type of election financing remains to come in yet Before rushing into ourselves, I believe it only reasonable, Sir, and only prudent to re-examine the concept, rethink it and reweigh it, and if possible permit a longer period of experience to take place in those jurisdictions that are trying it That really is what lies at the root of the amendment to the motion that has been proposed, and which we are now debating; the amend ment put forward by my col league, the Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park, proposing that Bill 48 be not now read a second time but be read this day six months hence.

That six-month hoist, in effect, Sir, is a deferment that, as all members know, says, pigeonhole the bill. Let us not rush into it. let us not deal with it at this Session. let us give the process time to work its way through our minds, to work its way through our study, to work its way through our individual and collective process of evaluation. leave that kind of questionable initiative, perhaps precipitious initiative, to another Session. If there is a will and a consensus to proceed with it at another Session, all well and good.

But prudence dictates that we would be acting hastily and perhaps very unwisely were we to proceed hastily with it at this Session. That's what the six-month hoist or six-month deferral says. It does not say that the idea is not and never will be worthy of any consideration. It does not say that it is such an unacceptable or such a reprehensible suggested legislative initiative that it's not even worthy of consideration or comment. All it says is that now is not the time.

Let us think on the process and on the proposal and on the concept longer, at greater length E.nd at greater depth, and let's look at it again at some later Session. Mr. Speaker, when one looks at that motion put forward by my colleague from Kirkfield Park, one I 5207

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 think appr eciates or, hopefully, one should appreciate the wisdom contained in it, for it is not the time, in my view and in my colleague's view, to proceed with this kind of proposal. It is not the time to proceed, because we are not satisfied that it is in the interests of the integrity of the democratic, electoral process as we know it. It is not the time, because of a very practical and a very realistic economic fact of life.

It is an economic fact of life, Sir, that has been referred to in virtually every debate in this House this Session, and is on the lips and on the minds of every Manitoban. That is the difficulty that Manitobans are having at the present time in coping with the economic recession, in coping with unemp loyment, in coping with the downturn in economic activity, in coping with the special economic problems that we've been having in this province; in short, Sir, in coping with the cost of living at a very trying time in economic terms.

In those circumstances and in that environment, it becomes doubly unwise for any government and any Legislature to try to turn around and featherbed its nest in any way by plucking more dolla rs, more funding and financial support from the hard-pressed electorate, from the hard-pressed citizen; the man and woman on the street who is working and carrying the burden on his and her back of maintaining this province's services at the present time. So for th ose two reasons, this hoist motion is eminently justifiable and responsible. For those two reasons, it is simple and, I think, obvious, Mr.

Speaker, and I think evident to argue, to claim that now is not the time to proceed with proposed legislation of this kind. When one looks at the principle contained in the bill, one concludes, Mr. Speaker, that a very key question about the proposed legislation has to do with the control that might be provided by the legislation or might be missing in the legislation with respect to the kinds of campaigning and the kinds of election expenditures that can be financed this way.

Is there any meaningful control provided in the proposed legislation over that kind of campaig ning exp enditur e, th at kind of electioneering cost? Or are we opening the doors here for carte blanche public funding, public financing of all kinds of election campaigning activities, of all kinds of electoral expenditures? Where is the meaningful control which dictates the fair, responsible and reasonable par ameters within which elect ion campaig n expenditures can be offset by the public funding that is to be made available?

Or is the public purse to be pillaged and compromised through an indefinite and imprecise piece of legislation that provides no such parameters of control? If you look at the provisions in the bill, Sir - and I know that I cannot do that in detail at this stage of the debate; I can only refer to the principle involved - you are forced to come to that very crucial question. Are there specific parameters which would keep that kind of funding, that kind of financial commitment on the part of the public under control?

Or can political parties and candidates, in effect, run wild in terms of the kinds of campaigning activities that they can get into and for which they can turn to the public for recompense and financial support? I think that this is a question, Mr. Speaker, that should logically and responsibly trouble everybody in this House. I am not sure that there is proper protection provided in the legislation for the taxpayer.

I believe that there is a possible opportunity here for irresponsible parties to ride on the backs of the taxpayers to pay off their deficits, and that, Sir, is a travesty of democracy and a travesty of the process as we know it, and certainly a travesty of public accountability. There should not be a doorway, an escape route provided and sanctioned by legislation, by legislators in this Chamber, for irresponsible parties or candidates to hit up the taxpayer, to clamber onto the back of the taxpayer to pay off deficits. And I think that kind of opportunistic opening may be there, Sir.

I think that the necessary protection for the taxpayer against that kind of exploitation may not be there in the legislation, as it is currently worded. At least, those concerns and worries spring to my mind as I review the various components and sections of the bill. Mr. Speaker, colleagues of mine speaking in this debate have raised the question as to the reason for this legislation. Earlier toda y my colle ague, the Honourable Member for Arthur, I think identified a reason that stands very clearly and very disturbingly in the minds of many Manitobans.

Members opposite, members of the government have not dispelled the suspicion in the minds of many Manitobans, Sir, that the reason for this legislation is to save an unpopular political party from the difficulty of raising money to support itself in the next election campaign.

The suggestion that many Manitobans have made, and it was articulated by my colleague from Arthur and it's certainly shared by many of us, Sir, is that in short, the fundamental reason for this legislation is that it provides a means of assuring members opposite, despite their increa sing un popular ity, of some considerable and some significant source of funds for themselves and for their party and for their next election campaign, whether they stand in the favour of the public or not. Sir, if that accusation is unfair, let the government say so. Let the government demonstrate it.

Let the government satisfy us and other critics in the province of its unfairness. We have not been convinced or persuaded otherwise. The government spokesmen in this debate have not met tha! criticism, that suspicion head-on, and I tell them that suspicion exists out there.

I tell them that a great many Manitobans are saying th at the New Democ rat ic Party ha s fum bled its opportunity at administration; that this government has fumbled its opportunity at government, and is in deep trouble with the electorate; that this current government will not be re-elected and will have difficulty finding support, both in terms of energy and in terms of finances for its next campaign. If that is not the case, Sir, let us hear from government members that demonstrate that such is not the case, but that is the suspicion that exists in the minds of many persons.

As a consequence, they look at a piece of proposed legislation like this, and they see ulterior motives behind it. They see it precisely the way my colleague from Arthur described it, as a means of helping them finance their next election campaign, when those funds that they normally would have raised through the normal processes of fund raising will be shut off to them. Over and above that consideration, Mr. Speak er, let me say that this legislation, in my view, represents 5208

Wednesday, 10 August, 1983 another intrusion and a very serious intrusion into the privacy of the individual. Many of my colleagues have made reference to the reasons for my putting such an argument and putting such an accusation on the record. Many of my colleagues have made reference to the picayune difficulties and the picayune requirements with respect to fund raising and fund raising events that are contained in this legislation.

Sir, I think that any reasonable person with any reasonable interest in freedom for Manitobans, freedom for our citizens would have to concede that, in many of its provisions, the legislation represents a very extreme and a very abhorrent interference and intrusion into private lives and into private decision-making at the level of political party activity.

Why should Manitobans be subjected to those kinds of picayune questions and interferences in what they want to do and what they want to offer in the way of small tokens of financial support at fund raising events for their candidates and for the parties of their choice? It just bureaucr atizes the process and the system to a point that, as I said earlier in my remarks, threatens the integrity the democratic, electoral process, as we have developed it and defended it here in this country and in this province.

Like so much of the legislation that's before us at this time and th at ha s provoked stren uous and legitimately strenuous debate in this Chamber in this Session, Mr. Speaker , this bill represents another invasion of individual freedom, another shackle on the individual man and woman in Manitoba, another assault on the principle of freedom of choice.

Now I know that members opposite, and I made reference to this earl ier, are going to say, and they have said and they will say again, well this type of election financing is already in effect legislatively in other jurisdictions in this country, and it's already in effect at the national level. Mr. Speaker, we have tried to argue in debates of this kind that we on this side, in this party do not particularly care that some other jurisdiction, whether it be a jurisdiction that has a Progressive Conservative administration or not, should undertake some course of action that we think is a mistake.

We do not particularly care that, because they have done it, it therefore becomes arguably a symbol of something that all Progressive Conservatives should do. We say that in this party, in this province, we want the best for Manitobans, and we want to put forward that best and try to defend that best as the opposition in this province. We don't believe that this kind of election financing for the reasons I specified earlier is desirable, or certainly is a good idea at the present time.

Whether other jurisdictions - and whether they be Progr essive Conservative or not - whether other juris dictions ha ve it in pl ace does not affect our argument. Those other jurisdictions can be wrong, those other jurisdictions may well be wrong when the verdict comes in on the impact and the effect of that kind of legislation, and whether or not such a verdict comes in, we do not subscribe to that approach of election financing at the present time, so that we say that at this point in time in our thinking we regard those measures in that particular area by those particular jurisdictions as being wrong.

We do not subscribe to them and we do not want to copy them here. Members on the government side expect us to follow robo tlik e wha t othe r Pr ogressive Cons ervative Governments have done in other areas simply because we're Progressive Conservatives. Well, we don't operate that way, Mr. Speaker, and the Progressive Conservative Party has never operated tha t way.

We think for ourselves, we have as many reasonable and legitimate disputes and arguments with other Progr essive Conservative colleagues in other parts of Canada as we do with anyone because our arguments are based on what we think is right for our society here in Manitoba. It may be applicable and right somewhere else, but if it isn't applicable and right here, we are opposed to it. That's the position we take on this question.

The government's position on it to me is highly confusing; it represents the same old inconsistency to which I've referred before in legislative positions taken by the current administration particularly in this Session, Mr. Speaker. The current government straddles two three different horses all at the same time in legislative matters, and I made reference to that earlier this week in speaking on the hoist motion on Bill 3, The Farm Lands Ownership Act.

They profess in the government benches opposite to be interested in the welfare of the nation, to be interested in the concept of a whole and a united Canada and in the preservation of some of those greal legislative institutions that we have built in Canada like Medicare.

As a consequence, profess to be strongly opposed to any individual initiatives that separate or individual provinces may take where health-care funding is concerned, but, Sir, they then take the position on legislation, such as, The Farm Lands Ownership Act that Manitoba is an empire unto itself and its doors and walls are cl osed to other Canadians un less members of the NOP Government of Manitoba say it's okay for those other Canadians to come in. So, on the one hand, we have them preaching Canadianism; and on the other hand, we have them preaching isolationism.

They bring that same kind of inconsistency to this argument when they say to us that other jurisdictions in the country have got this type of elect ion financing. Th erefo re, the Ma nitoba Progressive Conservative Party should not be so terribly opposed to it. Well, we say to them then why do you take the position with respect to ownership of land and property that you take on measures that you have introduced in this House, such as, Bill 3, The Farm Lands Ownership Act?

We say that other jurisdictions do not take that isolationist approach and you are taking it on that legislation, so you cannot pursue these arguments with us because you offer and pursue no consistency. We have made it abundantly clear, Sir, that we do not think that this government or any government should have the right to turn around and tap the taxpayers of this province excessively for election campaign financing. There are reasonabl

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-145
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 145.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c8c7fc48ee4a8787b2fc29722a8589185d5b3b12

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