Ti me: 8:00 p.m. LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBL Y OF MA NITO BA Tuesday, 4 March, 1980. INTR ODUCTI ON OF GUESTS MR . SPEAKE R, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Bir tle-Russell): Before we proceed, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the Speaker's gallery, where we have the Red River Unit of the National Association of Parliam entarians. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this evening. TH RON E SPEECH DE BATE MR . SPEAKE R: The Hono urable Member for Robl in. MR . McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, in my co mments before 5:30, I sai<l that the official opposi tion had not put into the record their policy on energy. I wi thdraw that statement, Mr . Speaker, and apologize, because several members of the Chamber adVised me that the Hono urable Member for Lac du Bonnet did put their policy into the record the ot her aay. So I took the liberty during the su pper hour to take a look at it an<l see what the honourable member did say. It's very very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to find what that learned member did put in the record. He said here, and I quote, Mr.

Speaker, from Page 128 of Hansar<l, Wednesday, the 27t h of February: "A nd so, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind pointing out that if it was I who had to make the decision , that I wouldn't neea any more than one oil company in Canaaa, and that oil company should be owned by the Canadian people. I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to you that there should be only one oil company in Canaaa." Now, I apologize to the members opposite for no t having picked that up earlier in the debates. And right away, Mr.

Speaker, on that subject matter, many int eresting qu estions are raised as to the one oil company in this country. MR. SPE AKER: Or<ler please. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GREEN: I know that the Member for Roblin is always hospitable in letting me ask hi m a question. Would the honourable member agree that the Member for Lac au Bonnet's posi tion is almost identical to the position of John D. Rockefeller in 1890? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I must profess to my learned friend that my limit a tions of the policies of the late Mr.

Ro ckefeller are very very limit ed. However, I will take the oppor tunity in the next few days to review the statements of that great po litician. I am su re I will gain something. Bu t nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I come to the ix-oblem of the comments of the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet of nationalizing this oil industry, and first of all, where is he going to get the money? Is he just going to walk and send the troops in an<l take it over? Or <lo the NDP in tend to pay for this asset?

I ju st asked real quick for the member's - right away in this country we're facing a $3 billion subsidy for everybody that resi<les east of the Ottawa River, due to the pricing system that we have in this country today. So, th at's the first. We nee<l $3 billion there to subsidize those people who live east of the Ottawa River for the rest of this year. --{Interjection)-­ Almost three, as I gathered the other day, Mr. Speaker. The second possibility that came across my mind, ri ght away they'd raise the taxes to nationalize those oil companies; that is a strong possibility.

An<l I wonder what bigger and more taxes that the people of this province especially can bear, than they're bearing at the present ti me. So, they can borrow the money. They coula likely go out an<l borrow the capital to set up this one oil company so you go to the one gas station, you'd have one kind of oil and you'd have one oil can, one kind of grease, bu t nevertheless they coul<l borrow it likely. Now how much money, Mr. Speaker, would it require to se t up this one oil company in Cana<la today? I - 333-

Tuesday , March 4, 1980 suspect, Mr. Speaker, it would likely be in the neighbourhood of $1 00 billion, or maybe higher. Now what would happen, Mr. Speaker, if we borrowed that $100 billion or more on the marketplace today? Would that force the dollar down, or would it force it up, Mr. Speaker? I suspect the dollar would fall decidedly and very very qui ckly, and there are all kin as of indicators to show us that would happen. The oth er thing, when we have been into the borrowing market for th at kind of capital, Mr.

Speaker, what would happen to the inf lation rate that we all would have been plagued wi th - double-digit infl ation? Would inflation move up to 12 percent, 15 percent, if we went on the money market to borrow that kind of capital to set up one oil company in Canada? Mr. Speaker, there are som e fair indicators for members of this House and other learned people to take a look at. Two weeks ago, the government of Canada, they couldn't raise up $1 .5 billion on the term money market at 11 l/ 2 percent. They couldn't raise $1 .5 billion. Tha t's the money market , where it is today.

At 11 1/ 2, no t the prime rate, 11 1/ 2, they had to go and take $500 million out of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Speaker. So, I suggest to the Hono urable Member for lac du Bonne t and mem bers opposite, that system is going to have to be analyzed very very carefully, because I don't think it works. I don't think it will work. I think it is just a bunch of NDP jargon. The y have been dreami ng in the back rooms and they are making themselves believe, of course, Mr. Speaker, that that system will work in Canada.

I suggest it won't, and I suggest we'll have lots of opportunity to debate it fur ther on this Throne Speech Debate and other matters. Mr. Speaker, to get back to the Throne Speech which we are debating in the House tonight, I notice in the comm ents there is some thing about gasohol in here. My great friend fro m Minnedosa has got that as a possibility for the people. The members opposite voted against that, of course, the other night, including the Member for Inkster, who I thought at least on that one point would go with us. Unfo rtunately, he didn't see fit, and voted against it.

As a matter of fact, if you read the document it says, Mr. Speaker, "Si milarly, Manitoba's manuf acturing industries stand to gain major benefits, no t only fro m our own hydro developments, bu t from many other capital projects that will be undertaken in the rest of Canada, and particularly in Western Canada over the next nu mber of years." Tha t is in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker. Members opposite voted against it , and said, "N ay, we vote against that." Mr. Speaker, it goes on. There is a clause here for small business.

"My Ministers also inform me that the government will be making si gnificant im provements in the support of services available to sm all business." Again, Mr. Speaker, last night mem bers opposite all voted against that development and support services for small business. Mr.

Speaker, it went on here and says that, "M y government is pleased as well at the encouraging recovery that has already taken place in our mining industry." It goes on and on, and says, "Fina ncial returns in combination with approved world markets for many metals have caused mining exploration activity in Manitoba to reach it s hi ghest level in nine years." Members opposite, of course, don't believe that, don't support it . They voted against it , Mr. Speaker. So it goes on - oil exploration, mineral exploration. Let's look at agriculture, Mr. Speaker, one of our prime nu mber one indus tries in this province.

And, of course, Mr. Speaker , the governm ent has no problems in looking to the !X'Oblems of agriculture, because lu ckily our caucus has some of the most able and dedicated and good farmers that there are in the province, sit ting right on our benches here. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, agriculture gets very special si gnificance in this document. Grain handling - Mani toba will continue to press for im !X'ovements in the grain handling system. That's been awaiting for farmers of this province for years, Mr. Speaker.

Thank the Lord if the Clark government finally did grasp that problem, and maybe didn't get it wrestled to the ground, bu t at least they got started. And they have better grain deliveries in Roblin constituency last year than they have had for years and years and years, yet the Clark governm ent was only in business for a very few months. Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say. "My government will be asking you to vote for funds to support enhanced !X'Ograms to expand markets and market activities for the livestock and ot her agricultu ral products of Manitoba." Members opposite voted against that.

Put it in the record, Mr. Speaker. Put it into the record that the Member for Ste. Rose ooesn't support that concept at all. He has no idea, but at least he is opposed to it because the government is proposing it . The Agro Water Pr ogram will continue to !X'OVide water for livestock and crop production. The Member for Ste. Rose voted against that, Mr. Speaker. Strange! And I suspect, under that Agro Water Pr ogram, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose - 334 -

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 will be the first guy at the trough looking for money. He'll be the first one. And here, Mr. Speaker, two-faced as he could possibly be, he stands up and votes against that issue. Mr. Speaker, tourism, let's move into tour ism . "The enhanced programs of support to small business will be providing additional managem ent and other help to small tourist operators in the coming year.

In addition, through the expansion of highw ay transportation to corn munities throu ghou t the province, my government believes it can permi t more com munities to benefi t from that im portant industry." All members opposite voted against it, Mr. Speaker. They don't sup port to urism in this province. They don't want no tourism out in their areas, they don't wa nt it in our s either. They don't want it for anybody in Manit oba. They just up and said no. And it moves on, Mr. Speaker. Wildlif e Management.

"You will be asked to consider revisions to The Wildlife Act, bo th to facilitate better management of our wildlife resources and encourage land owners to maintain wildlife habitat." Long overdue, Mr. Speaker, that legislation. Fortu nately, the members opposite, including the Me mber for St. Boni face, voted against it , Mr. Speaker. Changes to The Clean Environ ment Act, the Workplace Health and Safety Act, and I heard enough speeches last year, especially from the Member for Ch urchill, about the Workplace Health and Safety of our province - and what do they do?.

He stands up today and makes a forty minute eulogy to the record, and he stands up and votes against it, Mr. Speaker. Now how two-faced can he be? He can't have it both ways. He can stand over there and crit icize all day, and yet when we offer dollars here in the Throne Speech, he says no, I'm not going to take it. Let the Member for Chu rchill go back and tell the labour people or the people that work in factories and that, that the NDP are opposed to moneys being expended to im prove the conditions in the wcrkplace and the health and safety of our factories. Mine safety, Mr. Speaker.

There is money in the Throne Speech for mine safety. They voted against it , Mr. Speaker. They voted against it , and so on. The SAFER Pro gram, and we all understand it, they voted against it. Health, education, a new fee

schedule wit h the Manitoba Medical Association - of course the Honourable Member for St. Bonif ace couldn't support that one. But , nevertheless, he voted against it . Personal care homes for the people in our province, newborn infants programs for newborn infants, special dental service, self-care dialysis for the health of people in this province - members opposit e all voted against it , Mr. Speaker. Ou tpatient, physio therapy, dollars, Mr.

Speaker, for children with learning disabilities - how many ti mes did I hear members last year stand up and criticize us, stand up and the criticism received when the hearings were held on the new Education Act, about we are not doing enough for children wit h learning disabilities? The money is in there, Mr. Speaker, and the program will be documented in this Ho use and mem bers opposite said no, we do not sup port it, Mr. Speaker, we do no t support it. And it goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. There are dollars in here for increasing th e expansion of the French language in our province.

I am surprised that the Member for Inkster and the Member for St. Bonif ace, and especially the Member for Ste. Rose, vot ed against that, Mr. Speaker. And so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, does that not indicate to the members of this House and to the people of this province that this govern ment is functioning properly, that they are put ting programs before the people in this Throne Speech that they have been asking for. Mr. Speaker, no, members opposite say no, we are not of fering the people anything. They are starving to death in this province.

There are no sheets on the beds in the hospitals, they are not getting fed properly. Show it to me in that document, Mr. Speaker, where any of those allega tions can be founded. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the Socialists, the doom and gloom of the Socialist people. They go around this province wi th their scare tactics and tell us what a terrible place it is to live. It is surprising that some people do believe them. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe them, and the people in Roblin don't believe them.

So I look wit h keen interest to the next election, so we can fi ght this and other matters in that campaign. The Council for the Aged is me ntioned in the Throne Speech. The y voted against that, Mr. Speaker. There is a matter - I am an old age pensioner now - since the last session, I go t my first old age pension cheque. And, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this government put ting that into this Throne Speech, it is long overd\le in this province. I don't know what the New Democrats and Socialists were doing the eight years they were in offi ce. They never forgot about the aged.

Sure, they will yak and talk about it , but they didn't show any concrete evidence that they were serious about the problem of the aged in this province. Mr. Speaker, it is ri ght in there. - 335-

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 The Advisory Council for the Status of Women - and I heard the new member today, fro m Fort Garry, I apologize, fro m Fort Rouge , standing on her feet today and worrying about that program. All she had to do was read it in the Throne Speech and vote for it and it would have been solved that way. But unfo rtuna tely, Mr. Speaker, she voted against it , she stood up and opposed that program that is righ t in the legislation.

Now I don't know whether --(Interjections)- I don't like to be too critical of the honourable member because she is new in the House, and she doesn't maybe understand what this document means and things like that, and I do apologize to her maybe, but I am sure now she will take a look at it after I have drawn it to her attention and maybe she will ask to have her vote changed so she could sup port us on this program. Mr. Speaker, the next paragraph, crim e prevention in this province. Is there any mem ber over there that does no t support dollars for cri me prevention in this province?

The y voted against it , every one of them, Mr. Speaker. Let's look over it - Co mm unit y residences for the retarded people in our province. Are you for that or against it? You stood up , every one of you, and voted against it. That is a good program, and one that is long overdue in our province. Expanded facilities for the men tally ill, Mr. Speaker, that is in the Throne Speech. Members opposite and the great Leader of the Offi cial Op position with his new hairstyle, even he voted against that one. Mr.

Speaker, programs for the north, programs for the native citizens, programs for parks, programs for sports and recreation, and so the list goes on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, can you possibly believe that me mbers that have been sitting in this House, especially as long as the Member for St. Boni face, would have the courage and the audacity to stand up and vote against that Throne Speech? But, for some unknown reason, somet hing mu st be bothering him in the twilight of his political career, like mine. He's got his courage screwed up , and he voted against it . Mr.

Speaker, there is a program here for housing problems for the older neighbourhoodS in the city that they have been waiting for. Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy. And of course, Mr. Speaker , ri ght away they come back and they say, where are we going to get the dollars for these programs. Where is the money coming from, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAK ER: Order please. The honourable member has five min utes. MR . McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I'll ju st quote an ariticle out of the Winni peg Free Press on February 29th. Look, can you read that? "Bright er days for Manitoba". Brighter days for Manitoba.

Is that because we've got a bunch of Socialists sitting over there , or is that because we've got the Tories sitting over here? It's because we've got Tor ies here, that's why there's brighter days in Manitoba. The provincial government's third-quarter - read this, Mr. Speaker - the provincial governmen t's third-quarter financial statement may be a portent of brighter days for that province. And it goes on and shows what our projected deficit was, and instead of $1 22.6 as forecast, we're going to have an increase expect ••. where is it? • wi th a deficit of 67 3.3 mi llion instead of the $12 2.6. Mr.

Speaker, let's go through this document here and ••. MR . SPEAK ER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Inkster on a point of order. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member is reading from an article, would he read who the

article is quo ting when that statement is being made? Who is the ... MR. McKENZIE: It's from the Winnipeg Free Pr ess, and there is nobody quoted at all. No quo tations. I'll table it . MR . SPEAK ER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Roblin may proceed. MR . McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, look at this one. What day was this - the 29th, too. Manitoba plant ba5e lauded. And you're worrying about •.• It says here, "M r. John Bow man, hi mself --(Interjections)- It's February 29, 1980, from the Winnipeg Free Press and I'll table it. --(Interjection)- It's an

article from a Mr. Bow man. He said, "M anitoba has the west strongest secondary manuf acturing base." In the next paragraph of this document, Mr. - 336-

Tu esday, March 4, 1980 Bow man says,"manufa cturer s realize this", Mr. Speaker, "they can expand or establish plants here at less cost than in Saskatchewan or less cost than in Alberta." And who is talking abou t the doom and gloom of this province, that we are no t able to pay for our programs. He went on he re, Mr. Speaker, to say •.. MR. SPE AKER: Order please, order please. I realize that it 's after supper. The hours do crowd on in the evening, but we would like to have just one member speaking at a ti me please. The Honourable Member for Roblin has the floor. MR . McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, this

article says in manufacturing alone there were 4,000 more jobs in the province last year through new and expanded operations. What does it say? Shipments are up 29 percent. Mr. Speaker, there is no problem for us to find the dollars with a booming economy such as that to implement those programs that are in the Throne Speech. Mr. Speaker, Pd like to spend the next hour, with leave, if I could, to try and prove to members opposite, that they actually made a bunch of fools of the mselves last night by voting twice against programs which this govern ment has for the people of the province.

And they stood up - not a one of them, Mr. Speaker, sup ported us. Let's go through this statisti c rigmarole that we've heard here for days of population, mi gration and em ployment. Or bankruptcies. I've got reams of stuff if you want to have statistics pu t int o the record. Bu t as I said earlier in my comments, Mr. Speaker, statistics are no t that im portant in these debates in this House, because you can make them read anything you like. Mr.

Speaker, it 's much better to put the programs on the table, put the cost dollars wi th them, find out if the people want those programs, and then imp lement them, rather than stand up and argue here all day whether it 's three percent or two percent, or there's no percentage at all. So Mr. Speaker, I will finish my re marks at a later ti me in the Budget Debate. I apologize to the people of this province for the members opposite no t supporting that Throne Speech. They are the ones that are going to regret it , Mr. Speaker, not the people of this province. MR . SPEAK ER: The Hono urable Member for St. Boni face.

MR. LAURENT L. DESJAR DINS: Mr. Speaker, it 's always a pleasure following the Member for Roblin. Th ere's a lot of levity in the air after his speech. It's much bett er, it' s much im proved, over the bitterness and hate that was after the First Min ister spoke last ni ght. I'd like to quote the rest of this article. The part that was read was the part that's underlined in yellow.

The oth er part says, "the provincial" - that's the part that was left out by my honourable friend - "the provincial government's third-quarter financial statement may be a portent of brighter days, according to revised esti mates." I rest my case. Mr. Speaker, I've watched this debate wit h interest, and I must say that I feel - I didn't think this would be possible, bu t I feel scrry for the PC th is year after the speeches that rve heard.

Th ere is no doubt that this is a party in complete panic; it 's a group of desperate people who are now, after only their third year - the first year was blame the for mer government , then blame the feds - that was taken away from them, and now they're on the defence. For, if they attack, it is to personal name�alling, personal ridicule and so on, like we saw last ni ght. Mr. Speaker, it would appear that there is a co mplete reversal of their position.

I say "appear", because I am sure that you will find when the next election co mes that many of these programs that my honourable friend read will be found on the drawing board, or will be being studied by comm issions and task forces and so on. Since 1977, we've heard no thing but restraint. It wffi cost first, and then need. How many ti mes did we hear that? We heard it from the Minister of Health so many ti mes. And this was done, they wanted to have this restraint, they were wi thholding money from Ottawa, especially in the health fi eld.

Bu t then on February - well, let's see if there is no t a complete reversal? On February 2nd, the Pr emier of this province said, and I quote from the - I think that is the Free Pr ess, I am not sure - it is Jim Burgoyne, Sun staff write r, "Pr emier Sterling Lyon said Saturday that it' he had any crit icism of the proposed Federal Pr ogressive Conservative Budget, it would be that it is no t tough enough". Tha t was on the 2nd, the Federal Budget wasn't tough enou gh.

On the 2 lst of February, we were given this panic-inspired document, and all of a sudden there is no more restraint , and all the needs will be answered. Now this is what? There were 19 days. Well, what happened during these 19 days that would make this government change so fast? Is it that inflation has been licked? Well, Mr. - 337-

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 Speaker, is it that we no longer have these high interest rates? The Min ister of Finance told us today, not today a few days ago, that we can expect more of the same. Is it that the fight against un employment is finished? Is it that the deficit has been wiped out? In fact the deficit since 1977 has increased over $800 for each man, woman and child. It went fro m $3,130 to $3,968, Mr. Speaker.

This is the government that said that they were going to reduce the de ficit; and the deficit has increased since they took office, and especially after getting mu ch more money from Ottawa than we ever received. Over 21 ,000 people left Mani toba, and we are not going to play wit h woras on that. They say that more people left Manitoba, bu t more were coming in. Bu t the fact is that there are less people now residing in Manit oba than we had before. And you remember the joke when we were on the other sioe, and they were telling us that the people woul<l leave because of our party, because of our government.

Well, you know what they used to say, let the last person tur n out the lights. I wonder if the Pr emier will turn out the lights. If they say, well, it is not that we are not getting any more people, there are no t more people leaving, bu t there are more coming in. Well, they have been a failure in so many things and they are even a failure as the great breeder as they were telling us. They were telling us that they were going to be the great breeders and now there are less people in Mani toba. Well, Mr. Speaker, why? Why this complete turn-around? Why, Mr. Speaker, from the 2n d to the 2l st?

You saw that things aren't any better, things are worse. Well, Mr. Speaker , between the 2nd and the 2 lst, there was a <late of the 18 th of February. That explains the panic, Mr. Speaker , ano that explains why this is such a mishmash, this speech, they only ha<l three oays to change it and to wri te another speech. They clai m that they are concerneo, that they are confident, but it is quite obvious that they are full of panic. First, there was the May election, and what was suppose<l to be a PC sweep from 11 to 14 instead went down to seven. That was the first thing that caused a bi t of concern.

Then the First Minister was saying that "I am 100 percent convinced that we are ooing it right , I don't regret what we are doing for one second." There was no change at all. The Min ister of Housing also today told us during the Throne Speech, was chastizing us for that, and said the opposi te - he was quite incensed during the last election when the NDP showed that they were quite happy with the results and he said, "If you read the newspaper, the newspaper said the Conservatives are in power. Do you understand that?" he asked, taunting the opposi tion. Well, I guess he can't say that now.

Bu t that was in May. --{Interjection)-- That's right , you can't. Then the Provincial Election also was a decline in the vote, that wm the second step. You know, you had in River Heights, where you had a very good candidate, a very popular man who still, I think, lost about 16 percent of the vote, had a reduction of 16 percent of the vote. And the NDP lost 1. 75, the Liberals gained about 18. In Ross mere, the PCs were about the same. In fact , it was practically the same all over - and this was a seat that only Schreyer coul<l keep apparently.

And that, agai n, was a very popular well-known councillor that ran for the PCs and he di dn't imp rove anything. In Fort Rouge , again the Conservatives had three well-known good candidates. Mr. McDonald, who ran previously against Mr. Axworthy, lost 6.48 percent of the vote, and there the NDP gained over 6 percent. Well, Mr. Speaker, that wm the second step. The First Minister then said, "W ell, there is still a Liberal, a Conservative, and an NDP, it doesn't matter. " But he knew better than that, and he wm quite concerned.

Then finally, on February 18th, there was Clar k's crushing defeat and Manit oba lost two se ats and nearly six percent decrease in popular vote. Well, they were still unconcerneo. It didn't mean that much. And they tried to make the public believe that they weren't concerned, but their credibility will su ffer if they keep on trying to keep this atti tude or this pretence. The PC doctrinaire policies fail miserably, bu t they still won't admit it , and they'll do anything to sur vive, so this is why we see this apparent change.

Now, as was said this afternoon, Clark went down to defeat because of his harsh and unfair policies over the working people in this country , and his lack of leadership, but in defeat he was still very much respected, Mr. Speaker. He wm respected because he had the courage of his conviction. He went down swinging and fight ing for some thing that he believed in, something that we do not find here in Manitoba with the Conservative Part y. They talked about restraint and all of a sudden they are ready to give everything away.

I dare say that we will see probably very close to what - to $2 billion in the Esti mates in an hour or so when we get this infor mation. - 338 -

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 Now the Pr emier is the same arrogant self. He dism isses all opposition as stupid. If they don't agree wi th hi m, he is stup id, and that worries me. That worries me very much because, first of all, as I say, it is his personal and name-calling, he talks about the appearance of the members. It was a speech last night that very seldom have I seen any speeches in the House in my 22 years here, especially I have never seen it coming from the Pr emier of the province, where there was so much hate and venom. You could feel it in the air, you can feel it all over.

It wfl:. just McCart hyism at its best, the accusation and everything that we had. Reaa Hansard and you will see what happened. He was just a wild doctrinaire paranoid egomaniac th at wfl:. fight ing for his politi cal life and fight ing, also, to try to stay in power, insisting that whoever would dare try to wrestle this God-given mantle of Pr emier fro m his royal shoulders should be punished. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that he is the least popular of all Pre miers, ana that he was invited, or at least suggested to him, encouraged, to stay away during the last federal election.

And now, after insulting everybody, he has the gall to appeal to Liberal-minded Manitobans to support him to beat the Socialis ts, which is the lowest for m of hu man beings - he, the most doctrinaire of all Manitobans. rm worried, Mr. Speaker. rm worried to see how many stupid, ignorant people there are in Mani toba. After listening to the First Mini ster last ni ght, I am worried very much. In 19 74, there wa-e 52 percent of those people in Manit oba that were stupid, ignorant, that didn't know any better.

And then an increase, in 1979, to 56 percent , and finally, there are 62 percent of these stupiO people in Manit oba who will not support the PC, either federally. It's enough to make people worry. Well, Mr. Speaker, rd like to see - I think it would make a good choice for the people of Mani toba if we still talk about the restraint a bit. There's no thing wrong wi th restraint , and there is no doubt in my mind that we should have some restraint during a period of devaluation of the dollar, of inflation, and so on, we should have some restraint.

But a fair restraint, a restraint applied fairly, not restraint for only the less for tunate. It reminds me of the words of John Paul II when he vi sited the United States, and I think that we should think about this, and that makes a lot of sense. He said, you must never be content to leave them just the crum bs from the feast. You must take of your substance and not just of your abundance in order to help. When you said tighten the belt, it was always ti ghten the belt of the guy at the bottom of the ladder, or the middle. It wasn't the top, it wasn't the people that wa-e saying tight en the belt.

They were all right, they kept on drinking their Crown Royal, driving their big cars. There was no problem there at all. Here in Manit oba, we're talking about Socialists, they're worried that we are Socialists, and it' s said wi th so much, as I said, venom and hate, and despises us so mu ch. In Manitoba here we have a bunch of plutocrats on this side that are governing, this is it , it 's govern ment - I mig ht explain to the stupid members on this side of the House that it is the government by wealth and also a controlling class of wealthy people. Ana this is what we get, Mr. Speaker.

The PC have never understood this need - they never did for the last years - the need of the sick, the aged, the underprivileged, of the handicapped. Cost first, then need. It's too bad , but we must ti ghten the belt. Tighten the belt all the ti me. But the poor people, who leave in excess of a quarter-of-a-m illion dollars, their need mu st come first. We haa a special session to take care of their neeas. Tha t was more im portant, the large corporations, their needs came first. The employment, the people on minimum or marginal income, the welfare recipient, the old age pensioner - cost first, then need.

Tighte n up that belt, Mr. Speaker. The high income group, the "Pre mier, the Cabinet Minist ers, the MLA s, we'll take care of their needs. The MLA s and the Cabinet Mini sters, we abuse so much when we're in power, we haa too many Cabinets, there is the same nu mber of Cabinet me mbers. I think there are more Executive Assistants, and I don't think they do anything for their money. They don't know what's going on their department, they have to ask qu estions in the House. That's one thing. Ana then they're on the same board and everything. And there was a show-off play, a ridiculous play.

We were pegged, the salaries of the MLA s were indexed and the first year, that is frozen. What a show-off play. If that's ever played for the •.• what a ridiculous thing, and you all know it , and you all agree wit h me. And it's going to take you a long ti me to get back. Tha t was ridiculous. It was a fair salary. -{Inte rjection)- Yes. Ana now they're talking about more pay for the MLA s. The rural me mbers got $40. Even the Cabinet Mini sters, who have a full-ti me job, last year received $40 more. Mina you, the year before was frozen. And all of a sudden, $40, they're creating Deputy Chairmen, and - 339 -

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 all kinds of things. Everybody's got a job. Everybody's got a job on this side. When they were sitting on this side, what did they say to us about that? And it 's worse, and now they wa nt an increase, not only for the Cabinet Ministers, bu t even for the MLAs. And the pension has been increased, and so on. And these are the people that reme mber, cost first , need after. Well, the people that are in this bracket, I guess need a li ttle more.

Oh yes, and then we're going to cu t down to a four day week, cut down a Question Period , the rest of the Qu estion Period, have all these members ask qu estions to try to take away from the opposi tion because they don't want to hear what we have to say. The need, then cost, that has been the doctrine, th at has been the policy of this Conservative government , except when it comes to a selected few. Don't rock the boat, they tells us. Don't disturb the pecking order. Be good, abiding citizens. That's what we hear. You know , when you're in the driver's seat, it' s very easy to say tha;;e kind of things.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we should give credit where credit is due. If the Conservatives failed so miserably in so many things, I must say that they have no equal in their lack of leadership, in their flying of kit es, in their indecision and also in taking undue credit. Since 1977, this government has ruled by task force, by comm ission, by stuaies, by flying kites. Invariably the public is made to expect the wcrst. Then the measures are toned down a bit, bring so me form of relief to tha;;e expecting the worst , bu t they're catching on to that also.

The Minist er in the Department of Health has been misleading the public more than anybody else. You know , they're talking about two -faced, there are two faces to that Minist er. He is polite, he's well-dressed, he's neat, he's sm iling all the ti me, he's the best PR man on this - in fact , he's the best PR man in the House. He can wring out the last orop of publicity out of anything. I understand that they're talking about, I think about 17 or 18 off icial openings for Seven Oaks, every floor and every wara will be opened separately - more ribbons to cut. And this is the place they didn't want at all.

But on the other side, he also is full of these personal attacks. Mind you, he's a litt le different. He will come to you after and sm ile and kind of excuse him self until the next ti me, then he will hit you again below the belt if he can. He certainly can't make a decision, he hasn't made a decision since he took over this portfolio, and now he's taking credit for every thing. --(Interjection)- No, he went in a co mplete circle. You want slander, okay let's see. He went in a com plete circle.

Remember, Sir, in 1977, (1) this department had been mismanaged, we had thrown money away, there were all kinds of horror stories. During the Esti mates we asked them to show us that, but no, there were no horror stories, no, certainly no horror stories in that department. It hao not been mis managed - in fact it was very mis managea - he didn't mean that depart ment , it was other departme nt s. Tha t was No. (2 ). No. (3), the cost, then the need.

He froze the construction, first of all, fired anyone suspectea of having supported the NDP, he reduced the health services, ano he can say what he wants, and the first Minister can say wbat he wants, and the Member for Roblin can get up and tell us about the wonderful things they do, read the paper. Read what Dean Naimark has to say. Read what Victoria Hospi ta1 has to say. Reao what St. Bonif ace Hospi ta1 has to say. Reao what Concordia - and tha;;e are people that are so afraid that they'll be cut a little more, but there's a limit, ano they are saying, what's going on?

They are saying the oanger that we see now. Now all of a sudden we've had - and everything cent ers on the eighteenth of February. Now all of a sudden the purse strings will be loosened. They are going to be big spenoers. The Member for Lakesiae said awhile ago, "just im agine a few years ago I was throwing money away as the for mer Minist er of Health" - and he sat in his seat a few oays ago and he said that I was a piker corn pared to the now Minister of Health, who is doing all these wonderful things and they applauded. They thought that was wonoerful. Now, Sir, as I said, he went the complete circle.

Now he's approving the policies that we had, our own policies and he's not even trying to change them that mu ch. And this is what you think is so wonderf ul. So the policies, the decisions that were made and announced here as policy, things that were no t dreams, things that were going to be done im mediately and things that we started im mediately and this was done just a few years ago. rve got some of the list here. Take the Seven Oaks Hospit al.

How many ti mes woula they run this thing down and now you hear what the people fro m Concordia are saying that they need more beds and you'll be very pleased to see that hospital, the Seven Oaks Hospi tal. It makes a lot of sense. I don't know exact ly what you 've changed out there. I know that there were going to be some personal care ho mes, som e rehab beds that you haven't got now. These people are taking the place of ot hers in acute beds. You've got some thing that can't be managed at the Health Sciences Centre. It is too big. That could have been reduced a bit. - 340 -

Tuesday , March 4, 1980 The whole thing was going to be fixed. You' re going to spend money at the Municipal Hospi tals also. Those are things that we had started. Day care. You rui ned the day care and now you're starting - I don't blame the present Ministe r - it is obvious that he doesn't understand that pro gram of day care, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious when he said that maintenance grant would make it difficult, if he increased that, would make it difficu lt for the people attending these places. It doesn't make sense at all. Well all right, that is going to be ru ined.

Then they are saying they are putting in the Throne Speech and we hear a bi g announcement , big press conference, day care for the elderly. Tha t was a new concept. That was something that we had been doing for years. We had it at the Tache Hospi tal in St. Bonif ace and we had it in Winnipeg and it was working qui te well. Then they talk about the lotteries. When they were on this side of the House they did every thing to defeat that lottery, to kno ck that program down wi th their friends, the middleman, who is still there and making more money than ever.

And now they are going to take that money for the sports programs , the programs that we had and they're giving a partnership to the Sports Federation, the greatest saviour ana they are reducing by the same amount the programs that they were doing and sponsoring and financing ou t of their own Esti mates. That 's no t there any more, so what have you done? And then the sports and cultural facilities, they are going to help wit h the maintenance. We built those places or the lottery funds built those places.

Whether they are out to destroy the children's dental program, a program that was going very well, that's going very well in Saskatchewan. The y made all kinds of comm it ments to the dental nurses. What are they doing? And some of the members sitting on that side know what I am talking about. The y don't dare stand up but they know that in their constituency the people are mad because of this change. Because they had to deliver to the dental profession that didn't need that at all. Home care, well hom e care is just a shell of what it was. The best hom e care program in Canada, what is it no w?

You haven't got the staff. It takes weeks and months to send somebody to find out what is needed and then you are sorry you haven't got the staff. And as I said the day care, pharmacare - you 're putting it in there, you're reducing certain taxes ana then the people that need it the most, the people from personal care ho mes, they're the ones that you increase their taxes or increase the per diem also. And the day care, the people in the middle-class, read the editorial that was in the paper not too long ago. Pharmacare, well who's going to - very few now will get anything out of pharmacare wi th this change.

Now we've talked about propriety nur sing ho mes and they tried like they always do. They tried, the Minister and the Conservative Party tried to say we're against private enterprise. We're no t against pri vate enterprise. We don't blame private enterprise. We're not saying that they can't do a good job. We are saying that there is no place for pro fit making, for salary, it is not the same thing as profi t making, at the expense of somebody. Of course nobody is going to work for no thing when they can't afford it. The y have to live.

That is assinine and ridi culous to make a statement like my friend from Dauphin made this afternoon. We are talking about profit. Why? Because what is private enterprise? Private enterprise and the system would collapse completely if it didn't work like that. What is it? Prof it, making money and then also you've got to look at what you have to pay to borrow that money. That 's another thing. Ana of course that comm itment was made that we were going to go ahead in Selkirk. The need was there. My hono urable friend the Mini ster knew it bu t he gave it to private enterprise.

You know, it 's going to look good on the books. They won't owe any money. The defici t will go lower. You know what they're going to pay? They 're going to pay by the heavy per diem rate for the rest of their life in that place. Bu t then even at that, even if they knew that they would get what? Construction costs, all the costs, the capital costs, the cost of borrowing money, the profi t and then lastly the money if there was anything left to run that place. Of course they couldn't build wit h the rates of interest being so high, so they waited. So the need was there but we had to wa it for private enterprise.

And I don't blame private enterprise. You or my friend to my left here or myself, if we had ventures in a profi t business of course we would want to make our prof i t. This is aimed at the govern ment and read the books that were written about the abuse that you have in the States about those personal care ho mes. Th ere is no room for that. You know, we say okay, even those that don't believe in socialism say well at least those that can help themselves, the underprivileged, the older people and so on, let's take care of them.

You know what they do in some of those places because they have a shortage of staff, they keep them so drugged that they don't move. It's quiet. You can go there, they're all - 341 -

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 sleeping. They are drugged. They are drugged because they haven't got the staff to take care of them and they can then st art feeding them only two meals a day. That's easy. Tha t's what good .. . You laugh but you wouldn't want your relatives to be in any of those places. You wouldn't want that. And why not, somebody asked him? That was sup posed to be a big joke. Why no t have (rivate hospitals? They have it in the States. It 's exactly the same thing. It's for profi t. You know, I was in Hawaii with my daughter and my grandSon jus t a few weeks ago. My grandson developed an earache.

My daughter who is a nur se, knew exactly what it was. She needed some kind of medicine, som e drops. She didn't have any (rescr iption. She had to go to the hospital. She told them what it was. The doctor said, yes, you are right, $55 please. Then she had to go and get the drug. Do you want this in Canada? Well this is what you are going to have.

This is why we are saying that there is no place - this is not an attack on the free enterprise, on the (riv ate sector, bu t certainly ••. what we did, we accepted these no n-profi t organizations such as the Odd fellows and such as these ot her groups, we weren't trying to own these buildings at all. We didn't, we were having those non-profi t organizations - and you and my friend were talking abou t volunteers. What a better way than that than to have these people run these things? You know, talking about my friend the Minist er of Health, - and rm envious, ru admit it .

I've never seen anybody in this House get the press coverage, the good press that he's had over the years. You can look in the paper any ti me, his picture is there three or four ti mes a week, if no t more. The same rehashed, you see the same thing, and it is always well-wri tten. One person dare say so mething, you saw the way he reacted. He is getting to be just as much an egomaniac as his boss. And tha t is when they start insulting people, when things don't go well. Let's look at •• there was a big day the other day, and everybody clapped. The Minist er gave us his capital program.

You want to look at this, you want us to look at it together? Okay. First of all, there was Phase 1 of the Health, at the General Hos pital, I guess. There was the Phase 1 there and we have had Phase 1 announced. I don't know if it is exactly the same amount of money, and they did the same thing as Roblin did a few years ago. They announced that the Health Science Centre was going to become the hospital in North America, more research there, everybody would come fro m there. It would be another Mayo. Of course, the government changed. How could government say we are going to do Phase 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

You can plan, bu t you should announce the first phase and when you are ready, maybe the second phase and so on. Tha t never happened. So they announced Phase 1 and we did the same thing, and that was being done, except they had to call somebody else to look at it when we had spent enough ti me trying to sort this thing out. It was very diff icult, and it is difficult because it is a real concrete jungle out there. Ther e was no planning when this was done, or very poor planning, and we are paying for it now. Now the five-year plan, the five-yeflr program, that I announced, besides the Health Centre.

There was Dauphin - that was in our plan. That was announced by me in 1976. Hamiota, MacGregor, Rivers, Rossburn, Ste. Annes, Selkirk, Winni peg Municipal Hospi tal, Misericordia, the Odd Fellows, St. Vi tal, psychiatr ic beds for children - all of those. You know, what wasn't in there that were mentioned? There were three of them, Lundar for one. Well, Lundar - and my friend will deal wit h this - that we had Ashern and Er iksdale, now they have got Lundar in the constituency of Lakeside, which doesn't make any sense at all. The Minister of Health in Ontario closed those sm all hospitals.

We haven't even got acute bedS, and we are going·to have a personal care hom e when it is only a few miles from this. If this is not political, I haver never seen it. I can say that that five-year plan, that wasn't one of these places even suggested by any me mbers on our side. This was the Comm ission and the experts of the Comm ission, their reco mmendation, and I would like to know why. I wouldn't dare ask the Chairman of the Commi ssion, he would be fired, no t the Chairman, but the General Manager, but I would like to know why and I would - well, I know that they didn't change their mind.

I know that was a direction from the Minister. So that leaves - you know what was left and I don't know, there was Elkhorn and Reston. I can tell you that we had a lot more. Let's go back to the last year's program. In the fiv e-year program, there were the Interlake, Carman, St. Claude, Pilot Mound, Crystal Cit y, St. Joseph's Home. Th ey were all there, they were all there, and the big announcement. Gosh! You know, we sure missed a bet.

If I would have known that we would have got these kind of press conferences for these things, I would have had to have a couple of assistants just to be at the conference like my honourable friend is. - 342 -

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 What about those that they were too far gone and they weren't affected by the freeze when the Minister took over? Well, he is taking credit for that, such as Arborg, Birtle, Boissevain, Deloraine, Emer son, Flin Flon, Lac du Bonnet, Melita, Portage la Prairie, Teulon, Meadowood, Holy Family, Tache Nursing Ho me, and yes, Seven Oaks. Tha t was too far down the pipe, and that was all in the plan, Mr. Speaker. That five-year plan would be practically completed by now, it would be practically fin ished.

Bu t then it was bad management, where with bad management they had this five-year plan, and the need was there. Well, they waited, they froze everything. Tha t distur bed the economy, it didn't meet the needs of the people, and now they are announcing it and God, there is the Saviour1 What did he say? The y are going to do it wit h vigour . What was it? Wi thout delay, vi gour, what were his words? I had them here somewhere, wi th vigour, compassion - com passion, and speed. Oh yeah, "We are moving wi th vigour , co mpassion and as fast as possible." Why no w, after three years?

Vigour, compassion and speed, what was the matter wi th speed, compassion and vigour in thooe days? What was the matter in meeting the needs? I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and mention these others projected in our five-year program that so far have been left out , and there are some. You know that the government waited, they waited for inflation to add to the costs, and that is approximately 10 percent a year, added on and on and on. You know, that you had, I am not, I don't want to exaggerate things, there are certain things that we had started that have continued.

The Minister started a few things last year and he is talking about some now. Bu t if that been started, if there hadn't been February 18th, this wouldn't be started. You know, what you would pay , you would pay now $197 million instead of $135, and then you would have to add more and more every year of the incompleted portion. And this five-year program would be fini shed this year, maybe a few things next year, that was the whole thing would be finished. I am including only Ph ase 1 at the Health Science Centre. Besides that, how much did we lcse of this $19 million under The Federal Health Resources Fund Act?

There was a limit on that, and I suspect that maybe we lost $3 million or $4 mi llion. Well, what's a million, you know ? Also we had good reason to believe that we were going to receive extra allocation on the project under the program, Projects of National Significance, and I dare say that you lost that also. You know that is good management, and that is exactly what you did. The re is no thing new in that government. If there is something new, 1t was some thing was being developed like this special care for inf ants, and so on.

This was done, this was being worked wi th the MM A, and it diff icult because they had problems between the, they had internal political problems also. MR. SPEAK ER: The honour able member has five min utes. MR. DESJARD INS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My honourable friend mentioned Deer Lodge also, as if this was all set. There is the change and apparently there is no thing settled ou t there, they are still negotiating. They are still wcrrying about the Legion, and this is one concern that we had.

But when we talked about the Legion, I mean when we talk about Deer Lodge, tell us, don't just say this is going to cost so much money. Tell us what the deal is and how much money, because we were negotiating pretty good. We were getting - I don't remember exactly what the amount was - but we were getting a fair share of funds from the Federal Government to take over Deer Lodge. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that, rm no t going to exaggerate and say that everything, no thing is new , bu t there is very little. There are no policies, new ideas, I think that was the only thing that was said partly.

Ri ght in the Throne Speech it said that you are keeping on the wcrk of ot her governments, like succeeding governments do to a point. But you froze everything, it cost you millions of dollars more, the needs of people weren't met, people left the province, the const ruction worker had no work at all, and all of a sudden, you are still saying that you have restraint - No, you are no t saying it too loudly. I haven't heard the word "res traint " ment ioned from that side of the House not once this session, not once.

You know, and we know , and you know we know, and we know you know that the 18th of February caused all that, because inflation is the same, the high cost, the hi gh rate of interest is the same, everything and you owe debt. And I am very anxious to see the Esti mates. And I think I'm not too wrong if I say that you're going to be pretty clooe to the $2 billion, in there. And this is an idea - the Minister said okay, the way it is written, the press release, he is talking about, the government said, we are going to reduce the deficit. Period. Now, they - 343 -

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 are talking about the yearly defi cit that they created themselves. They say that they inheri ted that deficit fro m us, but they are pleased when they reduced the deficit that they created themselves. That has nothing to do with us. And they received more money, Mr. Speaker, way more money, much more money, than we ever received from the federal government under this block funding, that they are not spending on health. Mr.

Speaker, we can go on and on, bu t when I say that this government has panicked, and if they argued ideas and policies and said you're wrong, and fight for that, but it's not that, it s a personal vendetta. It's McCar thyism at it s best. Thank you very mu ch. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. DA VID BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be nice. Its a pleasure to have an opportunity to take part again in the Throne Speech debate. As customary, Mr.

Speaker, I congratulate you again on being appointed to the responsible position that you occupy in that Chair and to keep order in this House and keep things moving as smoot hly and as im partially as you do and have done over the past several years. I also congratulate the Mover and the Seconder of the Speech from the Throne. The new Member for River Heights accredited himself very well in his moving of the Address from the Throne, and the Member for Em erson suitably seconded it . I would also, Mr.

Speaker, welcome the new members to the House, the Member for Fort Roug e and the Member for Ross mere, in addition to the new member on this side of the Ho use for River Heights. I know that they will soon learn the ways of this Chamber, and I'm sure before the session is finished, will have some doubts maybe as to why they fought so hard to gain offi ce. But I'm sure they will do well in this House and do a job for their constituents th at they are capable of doing, because the confidence has been shown in them by the voters and I know they will respect that confidence and do their constituents proud.

To the · Member for El mwood, I have been elected three ti mes in hard-fo ught battles against innum erable odds on each occasion, and I have been victorwus because the people in my area are free-thinking, Conservative-mi nded people that know right from wrong, and elected me wi th a large majority on each occasion. Mr. Speaker, I would also be remiss if I did not congratulate the new members in Cabinet fro m among our ranks.

I know they will do an excellent job in the responsibilities that have been given to them, and we look for ward to many years of good governm ent under their Minis tership in the various portfolios that they have been selected to carry. I know that they join a strong team under the leadership of our Pr emier, Sterling Lyon, and will do well to keep the ship of state in a strong position and show the forward thrust that's been so evident in the _past two years in the province. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to belabour the Throne Speech.

I don't want to thrash old straw, it 's been gone over and over many ti mes in the past two or three days, but I cannot help, Mr. Speaker, bu t mention the positive steps that have been taken in the various items outlined in the Speech from the Throne. There is no ques tion that the responsibility has been brought back into government and the finances have been brought under control to a very large degree.

We are still facing a small defic it, but that is mini scule in the eyes of what was faced by the Pr emier of this province and the Cabinet when we took over the reigns of government in 1977. --{Interjection)- Yes, Mr. Speaker, it 's been mentioned by the Member for Rock Lake, in 1969 the Budget showed a surplus of some $40 million. There was $40 some million left in the pot for them when they took over and then, in a short eight years, Mr. Speaker, it didn't take them long to whi ttle that away and leave us with a deficit throughou t the years of some $191 million, or is it $221 million?

Tha t question has been debated before, and I won't get int o that, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I'll say it 's $191 million that we inherited. It's a terrible burden to be faced with, Mr . Speaker, when you take over the reigns of government and have been led to understand that the deficit was such and such a figure and then you call in your people, as the Pr emier mentioned in his address the other night, and find out that you're just in a terrible financial bind.

The cui::Doard is literally bare, and you have to pull yourself together and say, how are we going to get this province back into some strength financially? That is the problem that the Premier of this province was facea wi th when he took over government in Oct ober 1977. -{ Interjection)- When I'm finished my rem arks, Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to accom modate the Member for Inkster, because I know he enjoys debate. - 344 -

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 Mr . Speaker, th at was the problem faced by the Pr emier of this province in 1977. There was no question about it , that some form of fiscal responsibility had to be returnea to government, if you call it restraint, you call it financial management, call it what you will. It happened to be called restraint at that particular time. But there was no aoubt, Mr. Speaker, that that was necessary. The province was floundering in a sea of debt. The country is floundering in that sea of debt toaay.

Ana I don't know all the answers, and I'm sure the honourable members on that side don't know them all. They might know some of the m, bu t I'm not too sure they know as many as we know on this side. Bu t something has to be done to right this country of ours, ana parti cularly this Pr ovince of Mani toba, because we have been on a wild spending spree. The previous speaker talked about hospi tals. My God, it 's no wonder they didn't buila them, Mr. Speaker. They ran out of money. I don't think they could have borrowed any more money.

They borrowed money for Hydro, they bcrrowed for this, they had the capital debt fi gure so high, they had the province so far in debt, we just didn't know which way to turn and they didn't know which way to turn. And that was the problem, Mr. Speaker, facea by the Pr emier when he took over the reigns of government in 1977, and it was an extremely diff icult task to try and get the message to the people of this province that we had to tighten our belts ana stop this wila spending spree. An effor t was made by the federal Pr ogressive Conservative Part y.

The people in this country apparently, just aren't ready to accept that. I know auring the election I saia to friends of mine, you know I'm getting the message that people are saying on the street, my God, the government wants to start paying their bills. If they st art paying their bills they're going to ask me to pay mine and I can't afford it . I've been living on credit for so long I want to keep living on credit. Well, Mr. Speaker, the great economi st from Brandon East will understand that. At least I think he will, that you cannot keep spending forever. You cannot keep spending forever.

You have to put governments in the same light as your househola and you can not spend your way to prosperit y. And I don't disagree with deficit financing to a degree. I don't disagree with bcrrowing money because I've been involved in that particular operation for some years. And there are many, many responsible people that it's been the lifeline to the better life. They've haa to borrow on certain occasions and they've been able to turn that into good for tune and they've been able to pay back their borrowings and gone on to greater profits, - th at I know is a very bad word over there.

But if you've got pro fits, you're able to pay your bills and you're able to put a little bit away and some aay if you are fortunate enough to live long enough to retire, you can look after yourself wi th some help from government , if it 's needed. There are some of us that hope we can get along without being helped by the governm ent, bu t there's no question about it, that there are tha;;e that cannot do that and they have to be looked after and rll tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that there is no government more receptive to helping those who can no t help themselves than tha;;e on this side of the House in the Conservative Party . Mr . Speaker, there are so many things in the Throne Speech, as I say my colleagues before me on both sides of the House have gone over them. I think the Member for Roblin aia an excellent job on highlighting what we feel was an excellent Speech from the Throne.

The members over there have done a great deal to tear it apart, no t too successfully, I might say, but they have made their effor t, no doubt and being in opposition that's their prerogative to do that. Bu t you know, Mr.

Speaker, one of the things naturally that is near and dear to my heart is the plant in my particular constituency they were trying to get operating again and I was glad to see in the Speech fr om the Throne that there'll be an effor t maae to promot e the practical use of gasohol ana other renewable energy resources as well as other conservation measures to preserve the energy or the petrol problem that we have in this country today. This is an extremely lucrative business apparently across the border to the sou th of us. There are plants being built in Gr afton, North Dakota, which aren't very far from here.

They're able to get ria of every bit of their product. We have a plant in my particu lar constituency that is capable of producing a gasohol product. We've been encouraging the people involved with it or the government to take some further stei:s to encourage this either as a viable plant in production or as a method of researching the product to see if it woula be particularly useful in our agricultural industry or in whatever other vehicles it may be practical to use it in. Mr. Speaker, I feel the Speech from the Thron e was a very worth while aocument ana I support it wholeheartedly.

There are great measures in there for small business, research, health care, education. I can go on and on. The document was well put together, well delivered, and I am sure will be sup ported unquestionably by tha;;e on this side of the House - 345 -

Tuesday , March 4, 1980 and I think if the members on that side reflect on what the Member for Roblin just told them a short while ago, that they will have some second thoughts on the final vote tonight ana we may see several standing up on that siae of the House and supporting the Speech from the Throne, particularly , Mr. Speaker, the one independent member over there that is free thinking. And I mu st say, Mr. Speaker, on looking across there Pm always reminded when I look at the new Member for Fort Rouge, I can't help but think of the old song , the Lonely Little Petunia in the Onion Pa tch, because, Mr.

Speaker, I just would give her a word of warning no t to be taken in by all of the info rmat ion and sug gestions she's receiving from that side of the House because it may tend to sway her jud gment to some degree, Mr . Speaker, and I know that she came in here wi th her mind made up to be a good strong sup porter of her party wi th one foot firm ly planted on either side of the fence. The members across the way, Mr. Speaker, mentioned that there wasn't very much in the Throne Speech on agriculture.

Well I don't think there's any qu estion about where this par ty stands on the sup port of our number one indust ry in this province. The Min ister of Agriculture has made some great strides forward I think in bringing agriculture to the fore. The re is no question that the Beef Stabilization Plan, for one, that was brought in by the me mbers opposit e when they were in governm ent has been a disastrous plan for the livestock indust ry in this province. It has divided the farmers, especially the livestock people. It was a disastrous plan. The Member for St .

George, the agricultural critic, had the audacity to stand up the ot her day and say to the Minister of Agricultu re, what has the decline in the beef population got to do with the feed grain problem? Well, Mr. Speaker, there's articles co mi ng ou t of the USSR today. They're having a declining population in agriculture over there, a declining livestock population. They've got a feed grain problem. So it 's very, very basic and I'm surprised that the Member for St. George would make such a statement that declining livestock population had no thing to ao with the feed grain problem. Mr .

Speaker, it was mentioned by that same member about the high interest rates, that the Minister of Agriculture had driven farmers to mortgage their soul<> to buy farmland and we know that's not true. They have the option of buying it or not buying it . If they've bought it we know they have a problem. Interest rates are extraordinarily high. But I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what would they do about int erest rates. I don't like high interest rates either. I think they are terrible.

But what are you going to do abou t high interest rates? -{I nterjection)- Pve told him that but what are you going to do about high interest rates, Mr. Speaker? What would they do about it? You've either got a 60 cent dollar and a ten percent int erest rate or you've got a 16 percent int erest rate and a stable dollar at 84 cents, if that's a stable dollar. It's one way or the ot her, Mr. Speaker. You can't have it both ways. You have to have it one way or the oth er. -{Inte rjection)- Mr. Speaker, when I'm finished my remarks there'll be all kinds of questions I'm su re. Mr.

Speaker, I want to know what they're going to do about high interest rates. They can yell and scream all they like about it . I don't like high interest rates either, I'm paying them too and I think it's terrible. Bu t when you walk into a bank today and say, Pve got a few thousand dollars I don't need for a while and they of fer you 13, 13 1/2 percent , you don't have to be a genius to know that they're going to lend that money out again and they're going to cover their overhead and they're going to charge you 16, 16 1/2, 17 or what ever they can get.

It's very very simp le and I think it's just a terrible thing. I don't think our country can sur vive on the interest rates the way they are. But I don't know how they are going to salve it and I am sure the members over there don't know either. So they can stand up and scream all they want about the hi gh interest rates and what a terrible thing it is, bu t I don't think they have any answers any more than we do over here. I just get a litt le tired of it, Mr.

Speaker, when all of these people are screaming about high int erest rates and I don't think they have any more answers than they have on this side of the House, or the new Minis ter of Finance is going to have in Ottawa. Just wait and see. --{Interjection)- Mr. Speaker, the great economist from Branaon East says, "W ait and see". You want a 70e dollar and low interest rates or what? It is going to be one way or the other, believe me. You are no t going to have it both ways. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem wi th my honourable friends on that side of the House.

They want to have their cake and eat it too, and you can't have it both ways. They think there is a free lunch over there, Mr. Speaker. The re is no free lunch in this country. The Federal Government tried to tell them that. There comes a ti me when you have got to shape up, you have got to take an accounting of yourselves and you find out you are in debt um pteen billion dollars, you - 346 -

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 have to pull up your socks and say, we are going to qu it spending money, we are going to start paying our bills. But the people aren't ready to accept that in this country just yet. But they will be, Mr. Speaker, before too long, you mark my words. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is affecting agriculture in this country, and we all know, is rail line abandonment.

Today I had an opportunity to visit in my consti tuency and the adjoining consti tuency of my colleague fro m Vi rden on a Rail Line Abandoment hearing - the Forest-Lenore Line - which is slated for abandonment December this year, but they got some reprieve because of a slow down in work construction on a new elevator. It is no t ready for delivery of large quanti ties of grain yet, so they have some reprieve and they were able to get another hearing. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, the hardships that rail line abandon ment is presenting to those of us representing rural areas.

I was amazed at the reaction of the National Farmers Union at the Speech fr om the Throne, when it came over the news that they felt that, when we menti oned in the Throne Speech that we were going to provide for a road system in order for farmers to get their product to market, what a terrible tragedy it was that we wer e shifting the blame for transporting the farmers' products to market from the railways onto the backs of the taxpayer because we were going to build roads. Well, if we listened to the Member for Transcona, Mr.

Speaker, we might be able to build a bit cheaper, but they wouldn't have any shoulders on them. And I don't know what might happen if we should happen to slide off the shoulder in an icy condition, because we would be in the ditch wit h the loads of produce attempting to get to market. There is no qu estion, Mr. Speaker. I was amazed at the atti tude of that particular group when we said in the Throne Speech that we were going to provide money for roads, because in my area I have been faced with rail line abandonment.

The rail line has gone, it has been closed, the tracks have been torn up, the ties have been sold, I think to the United States. There is no railway there. I have to have roads in that area to truck that grain another 15 miles either way to the delivery points to allow those farmers an elevator to deliver their product to. There has to be a road system that would deliver that grain. And when they stand up and say that we are shifting the responsibility onto the backs of the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, that is the most ridiculous claim that I have ever heard of.

Because there is no question about it, that the farmers have to have proper transportation arteries to get the grain delivered. I want to say a word, Mr. Speaker, because the Member for St . George, in his remarks earlier, touched on the Autopac Burns Report. And I am sorry that he is no t here, because I am not going to belabour the Burns Report or the problems or the non-problems facing Autopac, but I do want to me ntion one of his remarks. He said, "We had an opportunity to separate the Chairman of the Board from the General Manager's position." That came out on the report.

He said, "W hat did we have to spend the money for , because they had already done that?" Well, we know that, Mr. Speaker. The present Leader of the party and the Member for St . George were both Chairmen of the Board of Autopac. We know what happened when they were in that position, Mr. Speaker. This is the political interference that was referred to in the Burns Report. The re is no question about political interference when they were ensconced in the same building as the Autopac offices. There is weeping and wringing of hands because we have done this, or we haven't done that. Mr.

Speaker, we increased some increase in benefits, announced some increase in benefi ts a while back, and the response from tha t side of the House was unbelievable. Mr. Speaker, those benefi t increases were recomm ended to the Cabinet when those gentlemen opposite sat in Cabinet and decided on that recomm endation from Auto pac, and they decided against increasing the be nefi ts. When the Member for St . George is back in the House, I want him to stand up and deny that that is not a fact. Those benefi ts could have been in three years ago; they turned them down.

Now they crit icize us and say we are grabbing onto the Burns Report. There was, I think, 89 recomme ndations in that report. Certainly 60 of them can be insti tuted without any great problem as far the corporation is concerned. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into a lengthy debate on that, bu t I know the Member for St. George is capable and honest enough that, when he is confronted wi th th at, will admit that those recomm endations were brought before them in 1977, prior to this party taking over the reins of government , and they were turned down. Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to end my re marks without saying a word or tw o about the last speaker, the Member for St. Boni face. You know, Mr. Speaker, it distu rbs me when people - 347 -

Tuesday , March 4, 1980 that have been in this Ho use as long as he has stands up and talks about hate and venom and bitterness, referring to the speech of the Pre mier of this province. He has been in this House long enough, Mr. Speaker, to know better than that. He can crit icize the Pr emier all he wants, bu t there is no bigger hypocrite in this House than the Me mber for St. Bonif ace and he knows it. He has gone back and forth in this House ... MR. SPEA K ER: Order please. Order please. May I suggest to the honourable member that he is using unparliamentary language, and if he would ... MR. BLAKE: Mr.

Speaker, I will wi thdraw the unparliamentary remark that I used in reference to the Me mber for St . Boniface. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, he has paraded around this House saying that I am really no t a Socialist, I am an F.d Schreyer Socialist, I am really no t a Socialist. Well, that gentleman has left this Chamber now, Mr. Speaker, and I still see him si tting on that side of the House. So I just don't want hi m walking around here talking about venom and hate when he is referring to the Pr emier of this province, because he knows better than that, he has been in this Chamber long enough.

He has been in this Chamber long enough to know better than that, Mr. Speaker. --{Interjection)- Ana he has ample opportunity, he doesn't have to cross very far, Mr. Speaker , he doesn't have to cross very far to sit next to his friend on his left, because he is si tting as an Independent, there is still roo m there. We can move another chair in or 1XJt a litt le divider up next to the Me mber for St. Johns, because I doubt if he will be crossing over. Mr.

Speaker, I just want to say that I am very nearly finished the remarks in my notes, and I will just be thrashing old straw, but I can do it for anot her two minutes, unless you want to call it 9:3 0. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that the Throne Speech has been well-delivered, it has been well-debated, and this is the final throes of it now; we are going to have one more vote. There is stil l ti me for those that have seen the light to repent on that side of the House. They can vote wi th us. And if I am stuck for the next couple of minute s, Mr.

Speaker, I have some notes on the Tri tschler Repor t, and I am sure the mem bers on that side of the House don't want me to get into that, because I am sur e we would be running overtime, and we wouldn't want to do that. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I support the Speech from the Throne, and I will be voting for it in the next few mintues. The re was forw ard thrust in there, there were benefits to a large segment of the population of Manit oba, particularly for the agricultural industry, the elderly.

There were even benef its in there for the mining indus try, and I know the Me mber for Flin Flon is going to be extreme ly happy wi th that. The care hom e in Flin Flon, Mr . Speaker, and I am happy to report it is ve ry nearly completed. In spite of what the Member for St . Boniface says, the care hom e in Hamio ta, the care home in Rivers, are mu ch needed in that particular area. The Member for St . Boniface said it is ridi culous building care ho mes in areas where there are no hospitals.

I want hi m to go into Sandy Lake and tell the peop le in Sandy Lake that they can't have a care hom e because they have got no hospi tal. Mr. Speaker, we know that care ho mes are needed in larger nu mbers throughou t this province; there is a declining enrolm ent that the members on that side ju mp up and scream about. If there is a declining enrolment in the schools, there is an increasing enrolment in care homes, and we need more care homes. Maybe we can convert som e of the school rooms into care ho mes. MR. SPEAK ER: Order please.

According to our Rules, Rules 35(4 ), on the eighth of the eight days at 30 minut es before the ordinary daily adjournment, the qu estion shall be put . The Motion we have is the Motion of the Hono urable Member for River Heights, that an Humble Address be presented to His Honour the Lieu tenant-Governor as follows: We, her Majesty's duti ful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in Session assembled, hu mbly thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has been pleased to address us at the opening of the present Session. QU ESTIO N pu t, MO TIO N carried. MR.

SPEAK ER: The Hono urable Minister of Finance. HO N. DON ALD W. CR AIK (Riel): Mr . Speaker, I have a message from His Honour, the Lieu tenant-Governor. - 348-

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 MR . SPE AK ER: Th e Lieut enant-Governor transmi ts to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Esti mates of su ms required for the service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 3lst day of March, 1981, and recomm ends these Esti mates to the Legislative Assembly. The Honou rable Minister of Finance. MR . CR AIK: Mr . Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minist er of Health, that the said message, together wi th the Esti mates accompanying the same, be referred to the Comm i ttee of Supply. MO TI ON presented. MR . SPE AKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR . CRA IK: Mr.

Speaker, while copies of the Esti mates are being distributed to all me mbers, I would ask the permission of the House to make a brief statement on the government's expenditu re proposals for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1980. The Esti mates have been compiled from the Treasury Board review of departmental submi ssions under the cha irmanshi p of the Minister of Natural Resources. Members will see that the main Esti mates for 1980/81 reflect the re-organized aepartme ntal structure, which is now in eff ect. For comparability, the 1979/80 Esti mates have been recast on the same basis.

The 1979/80 departmental figures also incl ude amounts from enabling votes, su ch as the authorization from General Salary increases. As has been the practice in the last two years, the detailed inf or mation on each department inc ludes a reconciliation statement, showing the adjust ments which were made in the 1979/80 figures. In total, the main Esti mates for the 1980/81 fiscal year amount to $1 ,990,915 ,800 .00 . This represents an increase of approxi mately $1 78.8 million, or 9.86 percent over the combined main and supplementary Esti mates approved by the Legislature at our last session.

To gether, the three major social p rogram departments, Health, Education and Commu nity Services and Corrections, will account for combined expenditures of almost $1 .2 billion, or nearly 60 percent of the province's total expenditures in the coming year. In absolut e terms, the largest single increase in the Esti mates for 1980/81 is in the Departme nt of Health, wi th provision for additional expenditures of $65. 2 mi llion, or 12 .6 percent. The increase for the Departme nt of Education is second largest, at $29.5 million, or 8.0 percent.

The expenditures of the Department of Comm unity Services and Corrections will rise by $1 4.2 million, or 7.6 percent. The Department of Economic Development and Tou ris m shows the largest departme ntal percentage increase at 37.9 percent , or $1 3.9 million. This reflects an $8.7 million increase in the Esti mates of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal. Corporation, including provision for the new SAF ER program. Most of the many increase is required for programming under the tour ism and industrial development sub-agreements wi th the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the federal department.

Adai tional. amount s for the tour ism and industry agreements, along wi th ot her federal-provincial agreements which are in place, or pending, including the wa ter development agreement with DREE , and the energy agreement with the federal department of Energy, Mines and Resources, are included once again under an enabling vote to be administered by the Department of Finance in accordance with the cash requirements of the depart ments delivering the programs. The overall Esti mates of the Department of Finance show a 4.3 percent increase in 1980/81.

This relatively low percentage growth rate reflects a substantial reduction in the cost of the hydro rate stabilization, a reduction of about $1 7 .2 million, or 55 percent from the $31.3 million estimate of last year. The actual cost in 197 9/80 will, of course, be higher, at about $37.1 million for the rate stabilization program, as was indicated in the third quarter financial statement.

This reduction in the cost of the Hydro rate freeze off sets, to an extent, two major increases in the Department of Fin ance Esti mates, an increase of $1 6.3 million, or ll.6 percent for property and cost-of-living tax credit payments, and an increase of $1 1. 8 million, or 17 .3 percent in public debt charges. As members are aware, both the public debt and Hydro rate stabilization it ems are statutory. In aggregate, our Esti mates for 1980/81 represent the largest annual increase in Esti mates yet proposed by this government. Because of our success in securing the province's budgetary - 349-

Tuesday, March 4, 1980 and economic base over the last two years, we are now in a sound position to begin im plementing si gnificantly larger scale im prove ments than have been poss ible up to now in the (,X'ograms and services provided by our governm ent to the people of Manitoba.

The Esti mates reflect our success in ensuring that adequate resources are available to finance a balanced set of priorit ies, wit h em phasis, of course, on the top priority programmi ng of the Departments of Health and Education, as well as on our new and ongoing economic development init iatives, ranging from crop development in the Departme nt of Agriculture, to northern programm ing through Northern Affairs, to the tourist promo tion and industrial programs of the Department of Economic Development and Tour ism. These programs will play an im portant

part in creating productive new employment opportuni ties for the people of Manitoba in the years ahE!fld. In addition, I wish to ex(:X'ess my appreciation, and that of my colleagues, to all of the departm ental staff involved in preparing the Esti mates. Mr. Speaker, I th ank you for that opportunity to briefly address the Assembly. I would like to make a furthe r mo tion. MR . SPEAK ER: We have to dispose of the mot ion on the floor before we can entertain a second one.

The mo tion on the floor at the present time is the moti on of the Ho nourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the Ho nourable Minist er of Health, that the message, together wi th the Esti mates accompanying same, be re ferred to the Comm i ttee of Supply. MO TIO N presented and carried. MR . SPEAK ER: The Hono urable Minister of Finance. MR . CR AIK: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister Wi thout Portf olio, that this House will, at it s next si tting, resolve itself into a Comm i ttee to Consider of the Supply to be Granted to Her Majesty. MO TI ON presented and carried. MR .

SPE AKER: Th e Ho nourable Minist er of Finance. MR . CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services, that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Commit tee to Consider the Ways and Means for Raising of the Supply to be Granted to Her Majesty . MO TIO N presented and carried. MR . SPEAK ER: The Honourable Govern ment House Leader . HON. GE RA LD W. J.M ERCIER (Osb orne): Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a disposi tion to call it 10 :00 o'clock. I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minist er of Government Services, that this House do now adjourn.

MOTI ON presented and carried. MR . SPE AKER: Th e House is accordingly adjourned and stands adjourned until 2:30 tom orrow afternoon. (Wednesday) - 350 -