Manitoba Hansard — 6 December 1977 (Sitting 14, 31st Legislature, 1st Session)

31-1-14

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-First Legislature Of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Vol. XXV No. 14 26 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker 10:00 a.m.Tu esday, December 6, 1977 Printed by P. N. Crosbie - Queens Printer for the Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Tuesday, December 6, 1977 Time: 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPE��ER, H��ourable Harry E: Graham {Birtle-Russ.ell): Presenting Petitions ... Reading and Receiving Pet1t1ons ... Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees .. . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minis ter of Fina nce. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK {Riel): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make to the Ho use with respect to the unemployment statistics for November which were released by Statistics Canada this morning.

Accord ing to Statistics Canada, the national unemployment rate increased by one tenth of a percentage poi nt, from 8.3 percent in October to 8.4 percent in November. Actual unemployment went up from 7.3 to 7.9. For Manitoba, the seaso nally adjusted unemployment rate for Novem ber was 6.5 percent com pared to 6.0 percent in October. The actual rate increased from 4. 7 in October to 6. 1 last month. The actual nu mber of unemployed in Manitoba in November was some 28,000, up 6,000 from the previous month. Actual employment decreased by 10 ,000 last month to a total of 434,000.

On a seasonally adjusted basis the number of unemployed rose by 2,000 to 30,000 whil e the number of employed decreased by 4,000 to 434,000. Accord ing to Statistics Canada all ten provinces experienced an increase in their actual unemployment rates. On a seasonally adjusted basis, four provin ces' rates went up and six provin ces remained unc hanged. Manitoba's relative positi on, that is th ird lowest, remained the same. I'm sure there is no di sagreement among members of the Ho use that both the national and provincial unemployment figur es are very serious.

I believe the Premier will be dis cus sing them with the Prime Min ister at their meeting later today. Our government has already annou nced measures to help restore confidence in the provi ncial economy and to encour age investment and consu mer spend ing. We will be very interested in learning what further acti on, if any, the federal government may plan. It is obvious now that the measures annou nced in the recent federal mini-budget are not likely to have a signi ficant impact on national economy in the very near future. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon our able Leader of the Oppositi on. MR.

EDWARD SCHREYER {Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, the one point upon which there can be agreement is the last sentence of the first page which reads that there is, I am sure, no di sagreement among members of the Ho use that both the national and provinc ial unemployment figur es are serious. Certainly we cannot agree with the implied sugge stion in the last paragraph that measures are being taken to restore confidence in the economy.

If my hon ourable friends who now have the responsibil ity of monitori ng and more important, attempting to do something about levels of unemployment, are putting their eggs in the basket of comple te dependency on private sector investment, then I have to point out to them, Sir , that a statistical analysis will show them very clearly that there are some provinces in this cou ntry, not just Manitoba, that have fou nd it necessary to use more rather than less, the instrumentality of publi c sector investments in order to stabilize the economy as best as they can.

My rough calcula tions tell me that there are at least three, and possibly four, other provinc es in this cou ntry that have a hig her ratio of public sector inv estment to priv ate sector than does Manitoba, even unde r a social democratic government.

Now, if my honou rable friends are intending to follow a course of action in which there will be some reducti on in public sector investment, and therefore job stimu lation, and an increased reliance on priv ate sector investment, I wou ld ask them and those in their backbenches of an analytical mind to look at the levels of private sector inv estment in our provinc e in the decade of the 19 60s and see to what extent reliance upon private sector investment alone was adequa te.

I think I can gi ve them a start by suggesting that private sector inv estment in Manitoba in the last full year of Conservative admi nistration was somewh ere in the order of $500 milli on. They will find that today it is somewhere in the order of $1 billion, 200 milli on. Make adjustment for inflation, it is still something more than holdin g its own. So that there has been no seri ous cur tailment in priv ate sector nvestment, but then that is just the point, Sir. It, by itself and of itself, is inadequa te to the task in our :lay and age.

That being the case, we look forward not only with academ ic interest but with a sense of ·eal serious urgency to ascerta in whether unemployment levels in our prov ince will get still worse in he months ahead or whether they will attempt to do something about it by dropping the trappings of 1i neteenth century laisse-faire exclusive dependenc y on the private sector. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bil ls. 385 f t s i d r t n

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to dir ect a qu estion to the Fir st Minister. I unde rstand the Fi rst Min ister will be meeting with the Prime Min ister of Canada this afternoon.

Will the Fir st Min ister conv ey to the Prime Mi nister the substantial opinion of Manitobans that we do not wish to have a constit utional form change which wi ll result in Canada consisting of ten semi independent states, in order to salvage the dis astrous polic ies of the Li beral administration in Canada, which have resulted in the near separation of the province of Quebec? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Fir st Minis ter. HON. STERLING LYON, Premier (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, thi s is one of those happy occasions in the legislature when I can respond to the Hon ourable Member for lnkster - 1 presume speaking on behalf of his leader and on behalf of all the members of his cauc us -t o say that we, too, subscribe to the idea that Canada one and indi visible should be the outcome of any discussions that are held between the gove rnment of Manitoba and the government of Canada. And we will of cou rse keep in mind his exhortation and his admonitions in the cour se of the very prelimi nary di scussions which I expect will be taking place today. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, in order to make assurance doubly sure, which is one of my honourable friend's ph rases, wou ld the honour able member indic ate that ten semi-autonomous provinces, which is the objective of Premier Loug heed of the province of Alberta, is not in our opinion Canada one and indi visi ble. MR. SPEAKER: I would like at this time to recog nize three gue sts we have in the loge to our right: Senator Molgat, Senator Hazen Argue, and Senator Sparrow. On behalf of all members, we welcome you here. The Hon ourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to dir ect a qu estion to the Min ister of Mines and Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minis ter whether he would check with his department and in the records of his department to see whether at any time the previous administration through its minister in any way influenced the contents of a public health officer's report with regard to matters contained in that report with regard to health matters. Would the hono urable minister agree to check his records in that con nection? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mi nister of Mines. HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killarney): Mr.

Speaker, if the honourable member would provide me with a specific case to do that. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, to enligh ten my honou rable friend, the Member for Rock Lake ind ic ated that I dir ected public health officers as to the contents of their report. You can check with the member for Rock Lake as to when this was done. I would like to ask the Min ister a su bsequent qu estion.

Does the Mi nister intend that ministerial responsibil ity on his part will mean that he agrees with every word that is cont ained in a professional opinion of a person operating within his department? MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I think the hono urable member well knows the answer to that question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Leader of the Oppositi on. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, a que stion to the Minister of Fina ce, who has been dealing with this matter.

Can the Mi nister of Finance indic ate whethe r a definite time and place has been set as yet for the purpose of meeting with Co-operative Implements Lim ited and others associa ted with it, in an effort to determine definitively as to the possibil ities of putting together a financial package in whicti the provinc e of Manitoba's obligation would be someth ing in the order of one-third or possibly ever less of the total risk? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Fina nce. 386 s r n h n

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's que stion, my understanding is that the CCIL people are dealing with some of the people in other government departments other than finance. We haven't any specific time or date set for another meeting with them, but I assure the Leader of the Opposition that when somethin g develops and there is a proposal developed bz them, that we will be will ing to meet with them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I wou ld like to add ress a question to the Fir st Min ister.

In view of the very bad news regardin g the unemployment situa tion in Manitoba, and in vie w of the fact that most fo recasters are predicting a very bad wi nter in Canada and Manitoba, therefore, in terms of unemployment, will the government now reconsider its policie s regarding job crea tion programs? Will you recons ider the polic y of withdrawing from the job cr eation program such as jobs in small busi ness? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Fir st Minister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, we'll be looking atthe whole spectrum of poli cies that were inherit ed from the previous administration and poli cies which we are ini tiati ng our selves to try to insur e that those actions taken by the government of Manitoba are consis tent, fir st of all, with the unemployment rate that the country and the province finds itself in at the present time, and sec ond ly, that are cons istent with fiscal responsibil ity in the province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Brandon East with a supple mentary. MR. EVANS: Yes, a supple mentary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Ho nou rable Fir st Min ister can indic ate when he expects their new ec onomic polic y th rust will have an impact in terms of levels of employment in Manitoba. I say that, Sir , because there have been various tax cuts mentioned and other econ omic and financial measures taken , cutbacks in government spend ing, freezes, etc., and this is a legitima te position for the honour able .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I believe the member has already asked this que stion. The Honourable Member for Brandon East with another qu estion. MR.

EVANS: Very specifical ly, when does the Honour able Fir st Mi nister expect their ec onomic and fina ncial policies to result in an improved unemployment situation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Fir st Mi nister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, of cou rse, no one can set a time frame on improvments in an economic situation in a province. I think we've been in office something like seven weeks. Some would say, some who are unkind er than I, that it wo uld take longer than that, I would imagine, to undo eight years of mismanagement of the economy. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Oppositi on. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, in add ressing my que stion to the Minis ter without Por tfolio, responsible for task forces and projections, it flows from his speech of the other nigh t in which he was indicating that they intend to do a better job of projecting. Could I ask him what his projections are therefore with respect to the level of unemployment, not for four years from now, but for next month and the month th ereafter? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister. HON. SIDNEY SPIVAK (Minister without Portfolio)(River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader :Jf the Opposition for the qu estion.

I should ind icate to him that I am not in a position to furn ish that information, but I am in a position to indic ate to him that the mechanism for devel oping that nformation in an appropr iate manner is in the process of being set up. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if unemployment has incr eased by one and a half percentage )Dints actual in 30 days, would the Honour able Min ister without Portfolio attempt to gu arantee this -louse that it will not go up another one and a half percent in the next 30 days? MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot guar antee the Leader of the Opposition anything but to ndic ate to him that I think it's just simply a reflection of the past polic ies of the previous 1dministration. "11 R. SCHREYER: May I then in light of that reply, ask my honour able friend if he could confirm or leny that total levels of employment, the size of the labour force, growth in gross provincial produc t, n constant and in real, a nominal dol lar, is all increased at better performance rate than when he had 387 o i i p H i a d in M

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 some responsibil ity for these matters. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Burrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to di rect my qu estion to the Honour able Minis ter of Industry and Commerce. I would like to ask him whether he or his department in appearing before the Transport Commissioners in line with his philo sophy as to the private sector's ability to run busi ness as opposed to the public sector, whether he cautioned the Transport Comm ission ers against allowin g PWA to take over Transai r on that very basis. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Industry and Com merce. HON. ROBERT {!Bob) BANMAN {La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, in reply to that qu estion let me say that yesterday we dealt with that particular matter in the Ho use and I think this governm ent's position was very clear at that time. MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the th ree concerns which the honour able minis ter had ind icated, that he and his department had articula ted to the Transport Commissioners.

Does it fol low then that he regards the Alberta Cons ervative public administration as being more com petent at running a busi ness than the Manitoba Con servatives? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I wou ld like to add ress a que stion to the Min ister without Portfolio, responsi ble for the Task Force on Government Organ ization and Economy, and ask him if it is the intention of his task force in its review of organ ization and government economy to tour various government offices throug hout Manitoba, various regi onal centres, etc., to obtain information, or do you intend to strictly conduc t your study in review in the City of Winn ipeg? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, the various review teams will make their own decisions as to what should be und ertaken to be able to comple te their review, and I have no doub t that there wil l be some visitation to certain areas. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple mentary to the honour able minis ter. Could he indic ate whether of those on the private sector portion of the task force as opposed to the government portion, whether any of those members are from rural Manitoba or are they all from the City of Wi nnipeg?. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, they are from rural Man itoba and from the north. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the honour able minister co uld ind icate approximately what percentage are from outside of Winnip eg. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've ind ic ated that when the names are known and the list is available, at that point I think the honour able member will be able to figur e out the percen tages for hi mself by simple schoolboy arithme tic. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Jo hns. MR. SAUL CHIERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to add ress a que stion to the Honour able the Min ister responsible for the Civil Service, to ascertai n whether she now has an answer to ty que stions I asked relating to the termination of employment of certain civil servants. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Labour. HON. NORMA L. PRICE {Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I have a dir ection being prepared right now and as soon as I have it I will respond to the member. MR. CHERNIACK: As a supple mentary qu estion, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister if she is prepared to look into the notice that has apparently been given to a number of civil servants from the same group of the planning secretariat, to the effect that at the end of the fiscal year they may face a redundant position where their services may be disp ensed with, includin g secretaries of longstanding who are of secre tarial qual ifications only. Would she undertake to look into that as well, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Poin t Dougla s . 388

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 MR. DONALD MALINOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Mi nister of Ind ustry and Com merce. In the light of the fact that $1 milli on in loans was made to the Lord Selkirk, the ship, can the honour able minister inform the Ho use if that $1 milli on of taxpayer8s money came back to the government treasury? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Ind ustry and Commerce. MR. BANMAN: I wonder if the member could be more specific. I really can't answer the qu estion, or MR. MALINOWSKI: Then I would like to repeat agai n.

I'm asking if the honour able minister informed he Ho use if the money which was loaned for the Lord Selkirk ship came back to the government treasury? MR. BANMAN: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, for more cl arifi cation, if I could ask the member, does he mean the MDC loan or is he talking about the operating loans that have come from the Department of Tour ism? MR. MALINOWSKI: No, the loan. MR. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware the repayment, as far as the Ventur e Tour s to the govern ment, as far as any capital expenditu res, was not made, no. MR. MALINOWSKI: A supple mentary, Mr. Speaker.

Is the government of Manitoba prepared to make again loans to the prospective buyer of the Lord Selkirk, which is on sale? MR. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have advertised the boat for sale or lease, and we're now anticipa ting recei ving dif ferent proposals from people, and when those proposals are in we'll be looking at all of them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, a supp lementary to that qu estion.

Would the minister confirm that $750,000 loan advanced to private sector people regard ing the construction and operation of the Lord Selkirk, prior to 19 69, advanced by the people of the province of Manitoba through the Conservative government, is unrecove rable and was lost? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Industry and Commerce. MR. BANMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's a fact. The other fact that should also be poi nted out is that the last five years of operation have cost the taxpayers of Manitoba another $1 milli on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to add ress a qu estion to the Honour able the Mi nister of Labour, and ask the minis ter whether the Manitoba Government Empl oyees' Association has approached the mini ster requesting that tue new government consider placing the Civil Service unde r the Labour Relations Act? For the minister's information, there was conside rable di scussion and debate about this in the past year. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honour able Member for Burrows. MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a que stion for the Hon our able Min ister of Mi nes.

I believe that he had indic ated a nu mber of days ago that he would check into the pros pects of placing the nine new careerists who have comple ted their trainin g programs as environme ntal aides, has he had any su ccess in finding employment with in the publi c sector for those nine new careeris ts? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Mi nes. MR. RANSOM: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Speaker, I have a qu estion then fort he Honour able Minis ter of Continuing �ducation and Manpower, and I would like to ask him whether he, being in charge of the program, is naking any attempt at placing gradu ates from his program? And a supple mentary to that, Mr. 3peaker, I wou ld li ke to know what the job prospects are' for new careerists presently enrolled in the )rogram and about to comple te thei r training program before the end of their fiscal year. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Education. 389 E m S p

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gi mli): Mr. Speaker, in replying to the honour able member, as far as the new career program is concerned, it's carrying on with the present trainees that are in the program now. The problem just mentioned and referred to the Minis ter of Mi nes is a small part of the larger problem. As far as I know, all other new careerists are carrying on and will be employed in the areas they were designa ted to be employed in. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My qu estion is directed to the Attorney- General.

Has he had an oppor tun ity to meet yet with representatives of the Coalition on Family Law? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, yes. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Lac du Bon net. MR. SAM USKIW: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Mi nister responsible for the Envir onment-o r the lack of it, I suppose - indi cated to the Ho use that ... MR.SPEAKER: Order please. I must remind the member that que stions are not meant to be satirical. A MEMBER: Ho w about the answers? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I was only trying to have a bit of fun with members op posite. I would again put the qu estion to the min ister responsi ble to the Ho use for the environment; let's put it that way then. He ind icated that he was unable to conti nue the employment of environme ntal aides. I wonder whether he could explain to the Ho use how it is that he is unable to fol low through with respect to investigati ons on envir onmental problems, and at the same time not find work for some eight envi ronmental aide s? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Mines. MR. RANSOM: A couple of things , Mr. Speaker.

One, the person in charge of environment doesn't report to this Ho use. Seco ndly, with respect to his specific question about the environ mental aides, the whole que stion of those envir onmental aides was tied into the devel opment of a new program, whe reas some of the environ mental aides in other departments were going into established programs where positions were already avai lable.

And there is no con nection between the envir onmental aide program and the problem at East Selkirk to whic h he refers and I do not accept hi s statement to the effect that it is not being dealt with, that we are unable to deal with it. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would then like to pu rsue the broader que stion and that is the question of the thousands of environ mental problems that the honour able minister indi cated exist but which he has no capacit y to deal with. Wha t is he going to do with respect to those problems? BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. SPEAKER: .

Orders of the Day The Honour able Government Hous e Leader. HON. WARNER JORGENSON (Morris): Before we proceed to the Orders of the Day - (I nterjection)- Well I will still make the annou ncement since I am on my feet; it takes no more time- 1 would like to advise honour able members that it would be our intention to go into Law Amendments Committee this even ing. The Hous e will meet and will proceed into Law Amend ments Committee and deal with the bill that passed second readi ng last nig ht, and if we're through then we'll come back into the Ho use again. Mr.

Speaker, if I may, while :ou'r e cal ling the order of the business will you ca ll Bill No. 6, and then No. 5, then 3, 4 and 8. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Opposition Hous e Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, just on the order of busi ness, it is generally the case that people who have an interest in bills hear about it at least one day beforehand. I'm just wondering whether the Law Amendments could n't be annou nced by our adver tising agencies in the gallery so that people will know about it, and that the earliest time would be tomorrow.

I just wonder whether that isn't fair to anybody who has an interest in the bill. 390

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Government Ho use Leader. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, there are several people who have indic ated an interest in presenting something before this comm ittee and they will be notified, in addition to the public announcement that will be made through the press. ORAL QUESTI ONS {Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for The Pas. MR. RON McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether we have used up the time left for qu estions or not. I assume that we haven't, and the reason I was so slow in getting up was I thought the Mi nister of Mines was going to answer the que stion. Maybe the minister could answer a que stion for me; maybe I didn 't unde rstand him right. Doe s he not report to this Ho use on environmental matters? - (I nterjection)- Yes, Mr. Speaker, he does, so I'll address the qu estion to him.

I wonde r if he's found the memo alluded to by the Member for lnkster that was left to explain how he could do what he wanted to do anyways in relation to the New Careers envir onmental aide s. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Ho nourable Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that he's found the first envelope. I'm not sure that he's found the memo yet. Mr.

Speaker, my question to him would be, cou ld he confirm the fact that the environm ental aide that has not been hir ed at Cross Lake wi ll receive as much from Health and Social Development in terms of welfare payments as she would have been paid if she had been maintained by the department as an environme ntal aide? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, my que stion is to the Mi nister of Indu stry and Commerce and it flows from his statement of last week which he "gue sstimated" that there had been a movement of some, I believe he said, $1 billion in capital.

I should just like to ask the minister if he has been able to obtain any docume ntation with respect to that as yet and whether such do cu mentation incl udes specifical ly the statistical data on private sector investment on capital equi pment and plant for each year of the last 15 , 20 years; whether it inclu des bank deposits and whether it incl udes the cred it union bank deposit or savi ngs deposit docu ments? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon our able Minister of Indus try and Com merce. MR. BANM AN: Mr.

Speaker, in reply to that ques tion, No. 1, when I was speaking on that partic ular subject I said it was a gue sstimate from the department. The department had done the research and I would advise the Leader of the Opposition along with the former Min ister of Indus try and Commerce that they were apprised that capital was definitely leaving the province and all you have to do is check with a few acco unting firms, they wi ll verify that. MR.

SCHREYER: Would the Ho nourable Mi nister of Ind ustry and Commerce care to guesstima te and insinua te, as indeed he did last week, whether there was any movement or fligh t of capital in the 19 60s, at which time private sector totalled agg regate inv estment was much less than it is today? Whe re was the capital goin g then? MR. BAN MAN: Mr. Speaker, al 11 can say is that PHO M ic key Mous e people that drew up that report for my friend from Brandon East stipul ated clearly that it was a gue sstimate. I've said that time and time again, but it was done by com petent people in the department.

And I know from personal experience that there has been an exodus of capital from the province. The previous administration knew that and that's why we're correcting that problem. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I am not comme nting now on the guess timate - my honour able friend refers to the gue sstimate - I'm not commenti ng on that, I'm asking the honou rable minister if he is presuming to imply that there was no movement of capital out from Manitoba in the sixties. - (I nterjection)- Well, about the sixties for now. Is the hono urable member presu ming to say that there was no flight of capital in the sixties?

Would he care to gue sstimate on that? MR. BANMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, all the other provinces had the same type of legisla tion. You're not comparin g apples and oranges here. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the honou rable minister if he is aware and wou ld he care to produce the relevant docu ments and statistical data with respect to the level of priva te sector nvestment. Would he care to do that or at least make a gue ssti mate on it? MR. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, they can do the ir own research on the other side if they want that 391 t i

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 particular information. MR. SCHREYER: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that we are being treated to "gue sstimates" but not today. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Jo hns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr9 Speaker, I'd like to ask a qu estion of the Min ister of Indus try and Commerce. Si nce he apparently is not willin g to accept ministerial responsibil ity for his statements but rather refers to his department for authority, I would ask the minister, Mr.

Speaker, whether he is prepared to gi ve to the Hous e the information which he has received on which he bases the statement that he made, si nce it is departmental information accord ing to his own statement. MR. BAN MAN: Mr. Speaker, the former administration was advi sed of the declinin g invol vement or the decl inin g amount of investment in the manufac turing sector in the province. It started to slide in 19 75. They were told by the department at that time there were a number of series of tax cuts and the change s to the succession du ties as far as the effect that they were having on the economy.

They were advised of the problems and we're going to do something about them. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, again to the Honour able, the Min ister of Indu stry and Com merce. In view of the fact that there are a number of members of this Ho use who were not part of the last admini stration, is he prepared to make avai lable to them the information which he claims he received from his department which justifie s the statements that he made? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. SCHREYER: Oh, I'm sorry, did my honour able friend want to answer? -(I nterjection)- Yes, Mr. Speaker.

My qu estion flows from the last reply. I would like to ask the Honour able Min ister of Indus try and Com merce if he is aware that we were also advised, by departmental staff in the early �eventies, that the level of private sector inv estment per capita in Manitoba in the decade of the sixtie s was below the national average and remained so. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Hon ou rable Member for St. John s. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add ress a qu estion to the Honour able Min ister of Indus try and Commerce.

Will he accept an Order for Return to produce the docu ments he's referred to in connection with his $1 billion gu esstimate? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Indus try and Com merce. MR. BANMAN: I would sugge st that the member file it and we'll see. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Transcona. MR. PARAS I UK: Mr. Speaker, my qu estion is directed to the Min ister without Portfolio, responsible for the Task Force.

In light of his statement today that he is setting up a mechanis m to forecast unemployment, would he also unde rtake to set up a mechanism to monitor venture capital formation in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I must try and make my answer clear. The mechanis m will be set up within the government structure and that mechanism itself, I hope, will be capable of prod ucin g the information that the honour able members did not have before them when they made their decisions.

I would indic ate that the sugge stion will certainly be consi dered that has been gi ven by the Member for Transcona. ADJ OU RN!;!:) DEB ATES - $ECOND READINGS BIL L NO. 6 - THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT (OVERTIME RATE) MR. SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honour able Min ister of Labour on Bill No. 6,

an Act to amend the Emplo yment Standards Act. The Honour able Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, when the Hous e last dealt with this bill I was discussing the circu mstances under which the previous government was invol ved in when it enacted time and three qu arters for overt ime, and those cir cums tances, Mr. Speaker, were particula rly important in lieu of 392

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 the reference made by the Member for St. Matthews, who I regret is not here, because the Memberfor St. Matthews du ri ng the course of the previous debate when the words "G riffin Steel" were mentioned, the Member for St. Matthews from his seat shook his fi nger at us and said, "Don't you people talk about Gr iffin Steel. " And, Mr.

Speaker, I don' t know exactly what was intended by that, but wtat occur red to me to be the implication of his remarks was that this govern ment in some way did not behave properly or had a problem which they di dn't handle satisfactory with regard to Griffin Steel. And I was indic ating, Mr.

Speaker, to the Mi nister of Labour for wh atever my gratuitous advice is worth, that she not regard herself as being capable of maintai ning con tinuous ind ustrial relations in the province of Manitoba without any di fficu lties as between employers and employees and more particu larly, in the hope that we could ever operate withou t an ind ustrial breakdown or what is co mmonly referred to as a strike.

The right of an employee not to work, or the right of an employer not to hi re, is germane to the democratic system that we live in and if the minister su cceeded in stopping that, I sugge st it would only be by autocratic means which are foreign to the democr atic system and to the con cept of freedom in our socie ty. The Member for St. Matthews referred speci fic ally to Grif fin Steel. I want to bring to the honourable member's attention what happened in the legisla ture last year with regard to Griffin Steel. The company decided that it was going to try to re-employ people.

I ind ic ated in my last remarks that it could be a repreh ensi ble thin g. It cou ld result in long and adverse results to the company. It's not someth ing which can be condoned in many circu mstances, but it's not something which can be legislated agai nst in my opinion. One jurisd iction is claiming to legisla te agai nst it. The provi nce of Quebec is claiming that they will legislate against a company hi ring people when there is a strike in existence. The y do so very careful ly, Mr. Speaker. They start by saying a whole group of people do not have the right to strike.

And of course if you don't have the right to strike, then there is no problem in legislating that you cannot hi re people to work when a strike is in existence. Nevertheless, this government looked upon that di spute as being an indus trial di spute between employers and employees, which is best resolved without state intervention. The member for Fort Garry, on an emergency debate, Mr. Speaker, in an emergency debate - and I wish the member for St.

Matthews were here - made a speech indic ating that someho w our government was in default with regard to Griffin Steel; that here an employer was hi ring employees during a strike and we were not doing anything about it; that here people were standing on the side walk threatening and preventing and obstruct ing people from walking into a plant and we were doi ng nothing about it. He impli ed, Mr. Speaker, that if he was in gove rnment, if the Con servative Party was in gove rnment, that problem would be resolved in a dif ferent way than it was being resolved. Well, Mr.

Speaker, our government looked at the problem and we found that there were three problems. One was that there was an ambiguous phr ase in the Emp loyment Standards Act which appeared to gi ve the employer a righ t to requi re an employee to work overtime. And although I never took the position and never believed that that gave the employer a right to com pel compuls ory overtime, we said that the ambig uity shoul d be removed and we took out that sec tion.

We said the question as to whether overtime will be worked is something whichha s to be agreed to by the employer and agreed to by the employee, and can be a subject of colle ctive bargai ning, and both sides have to come to agreement before over time can be worked. That was problem number one. We resolved that. Problem number two, Mr. Speaker, was to make abundantly clear that where there is colle ctive bargaining taking place, the qu estion of overtime would be on the table without a state dir ection, one way or the other.

And 99 percent of the employees in this provinc e and the employers in this provi nce have been able to make satisfactory arrangements with regard to overtime. We were not going to legislate for this small one percent in pecul iar circu mstances where the qu estion of overtime may have arisen in a way that was comple tely foreign to those circu mstances which guid e other employers and employees in the province. So we said problem number two, we will recog nize overtime as being vol untary and sub ject to colle ctive bargaining. Problem number three, Mr. Speaker.

We found that the previous premium with regard to overti me, namely time and a half, which - and I ask my friend the Mi nisterof Labour to now listen -w hich was desig ned with the express intention of di scourag ing over time employment, that that premium no longer di scou raged over time employment because with fringes, time and a half, which di dn't include fringes was not a deterrent to an employer, that he could hi re people at time and a half and that it was as cheap or cheaper or vir tually the same as taking on new people.

Therefore the origi nal intent, not of a doct rinair e socialist government, but of all the con servative and liberal administrations throughout this count ry who legisla ted time and a half to dis courage overtime, was no longe r being fulfil led and we said that in order to di scourage it, we would go to time and three qu arters, that this needn't cost the employer one cent, that yes, it wasn't the request of the Trade Unions that the :>roblem be resolved by time and three qu arters. But Mr.

Speaker, that is irrelevant, the request of the rrade Unions was that we either proh ibit over time- and I don't su ppose that my honourable friend is JOing to do that - or that we make it the case that over time would be volu ntary on the part of the �mployees but that they would be able to negotiate it every time the que stion arose, even dur ing the �xistence of a colle ctive agreement. That was our threefold solu tion to the over time question. Now the honourable the member for Fort Garry, the present Min ister of Health and Social )evelopment got up in this Hous e and implied , Mr.

Speaker, that if the Conservatives were in power, hey would deal with this que stion of overtime in a way which would be satisfactory to the employees 393 f n p T g e e D t

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 and which would solve the que stion of an industrial di spute at Gr iffin Steel. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are in power today. The strike at Gr iffin Steel is still on. They are still pic keting at Gr iffin Steel. The employer is still hir ing people who have walked through the pick et line.All of the cir cu mstances which the honour able member for Fort Garry implie d would be taken care of by a Conservative administrati on, and which the member for St. Matthews indi cates we should be ashamed of, they haven't change d.

The only thing that has changed is that there are less people on the pi cket line, there is less obstruction - and that has nothing to do with the Con servative admin istration - that has to do with the tact that this government said the law has to be obeyed and that although you have the right to walk down the street with a sign and persuade people, you have no rig ht to obstruct a person wanting to walk into another person's property and thatunybody who does that will have to be subject to the normal civil and qua si-cri minal and crimi nal remedy. Bu t nothing else has changed.

Now where are the magic solutions of the Con servatives? Wha t are they doing with regard to the Gr iffin Steel strike which they implied they would do in opposition? What is the Member for St. Matthews going to do to wipe this stai n of Gr iffin Steel from the records of the province of Manitoba? Whe re is the Member for Fort Garry's proposal? Well I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker.

The Con servative administration has demonstrated that it approves and regards as being the only cou rse, all of the steps that we have taken with regard to Gr iffin Steel except one, except one; and the one that they are undoi ng, Mr. Speaker, migh t be the most effective one, because ultimately the Gr iffin Steel di spute arose because of scheduled overtime and people being asked to work fo rty hour s a week.

And you cannot di scourage the forty hour overtime week, other than making either a prohibi tion - which nobody was prepared to do and the Conservative administration is not doing - or making premium time so expensive that the employer would not engage in it. Now the minister says, well some of the employees would complain. Of cou rse, Mr. Speaker, some of the employees would com plain. We knew that. We know that if you make time avai lable at additional hour s, that there will always be some people who are much more anxious to getthat extra money than to try to standardize terms and conditions of employment.

That has been the conti nual his tory. There were people who comp lained whe n you elimi nated child labour, because certain parents depended tor their addi tional income on child labour. Th ere were people who complaine d when you instituted a minimum wage, because they wanted to work at no matter what the price is. Doesn't the honour able minister know that the reason that a col lective agreement specifies that two thi ngs shall be incl uded, two things shall be includ ed; one is rates of wages and two is, hour s of work.

Does the minister know why those are the only two thin gs that have to be includ ed, other than the statutory provision with regard to arbitration? Because they are two side s of the coin. Rates of wages are inextricably woven with hour s of work. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the labour people know and the his tory has shown that wages tend to subsis t. Wages tend to say that a man's weekly or monthly wage will be that amount which a man needs to exist reasonably well tor that week or that month, and Mr.

Speaker, if you worked forty hour s that would be the wage, if you worked eig hty hour s, that would be the wage, and there are some people who think that if only I cou ld work eig hty hour s I would make twice as much money. That's not what would happen at all, what would happen is that you would get the money in eig hty hour s that you would get in fo rty hour s, and that's why labour unions have for years and years worked as hard to reduce the workweek as they have to incr ease the rate of pay, because what will happen , Mr. Speaker, is that a man doesn't look at his hour ly rate.

Ho w many times have you heard, when you spoke to a man, "Ho w much do you make?" He says, "With overtime, I make $8,000 a year, or with over time I make $200 a week." Wha t he is getting is $200 a week because that's what he needs to live on and the employer can't hir e people un less he pays them $200 a week.

And what the uni ons have learned, is that if they reduce that workweek to forty hour s, and the man needs employees and an employee needs $200 to live on he is going to get $200 in forty hours or he is going to get $200 in fifty hour s, and the honour able minister, by saying that she wants to incr ease that workweek so that the employee can make money is doing nothi ng more than redu cing wages, because inc reasi ng the workweek is the reducing of wages. And I, Mr.

Speaker, did not know that the honour able minister would come and so blatantly admit that the reason she is reducin g this time and three-quarters is because it is effective, because all of the employers told us that it would not be effective. They came in and said it was going to cost them more money, and it will, Mr. Speaker, it will cost some more money. I figur ed out, M r.

Speaker, that on a paycheq ue of, I believe it was $5 an hour but it doesn't make any di fference - the hourly rate doesn't make any dif ference - if an employer employed a person over time 4 hour s a week, every week in the year, every week in the year, and that's not the intention of overtime, that the cost would be between I and 2 percent of his wages, and that's i1 it was every week of the year, in other words if they had a regular forty- have tour hour week, whic � means that they effect ively destroyed the forty hour week.

But that is what it would cos t, it would cos1 on a $10,000 salary roughly $200, but it needn't cost that, Mr. Speaker, if they employed them only� hour s overtime a week. It would be less than I percent . And if he employed them no overtime anc hir ed an additional person he would save money. So, the reason tor this bill is not so that the employees will make more money, it is so thE employees will make less money, Mr.

Speaker. , because once the workweek is extended and th1 competition tor employees is to hir e people on the basis of what they can live on, what will happen i1 that people will work tor forty-four hour s tor what they would have got for forty hour s, and that yo1 have effect ively and are effect ively reducing the wages of every worker in the province of Manitoba and you have said so. You have said so. Mr. Speaker, this time and three-quarter legislation was never intended to and will not result i1 394 s f h t 2 d e e s u a n

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 increased cost to the employers of Manitoba. This time and three-quarter legisla tion will result, yes, in some shari ng of the employment oppo rtu nities that exist in the province of Manitoba, and we knew that and the enligh tened employee knows that.

The enligh tened employee will say, "Yes, I will get a little less overtime, more people will be hi red, as a result of those more people being hir ed it is possible that there wi ll be more purcha sing power avai lable to more people, more hous es will be bui lt, more su ites will be rented, more furniture wi ll be purcha sed, more trips wi ll be taken and the economy will, therefore, be a little better and as a resu lt of the economy being a little better my job will be more secure.

And , therefore, it is better that I not get the immediate advantage of having the overtime hour s, than that employment oppor tun ities be di stributed on a more equitable basis through out the prov ince." So that's what this bill is all about, and I want the ho nourable members who are voting on this question to know specific ally what they are voti ng on. Fir st of al I, Mr. Speaker, they are endorsing 100 percent the basis upon which this government legisla ted with regard to Gr iffin Steel. They have found it entirely commenda ble; I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, that that makes me feel that good.

The only reason that I cou ld accept the commendation of the Con servatives in this con nection is that I believe that it will be short-lived . I believe and I predict, and let the records show, that this government will start state intervention in ind ustrial relations, that it will prejudi ce colle ctive bargaining, that it will do so on behalf of the employer by bringing in legislation, Mr.

Speaker, which will limit the right of employees to appeal for publi c support as we permitted in the Grif fin Steel and in every other case no matter what the circu mstances, except when it amou nted to cr iminal acts, that it will inh ibit the right of employees to say, as every farmer can say, as every doctor can say, as every lawyer can say, as every car dealer can say, "If I don' t like the deal, I won't work, and I will tell other people that it's aa bad deal and they should n't work." This government, Mr.

Speaker, to true to its colours, true to what it did in 19 69, when all of them got up and voted that a cour t should be able to order a man to work or go to jail, that that legislation wi ll come back. So this temporary acknowledgement that what we did in the Griffin Steel case is agreed to by the Con servative government as dist inc t from what the Member for St. Matthews sugge sts, that they would do something dif ferent or that we have someth ing to be ashamed of, Mr. Speaker, our proude st moment, because under extreme provocation we held to the pri nciple of free coll ective bargaining. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourable Member has five minu tes. MR. GREEN: There is absolutely noth ing to be ashamed of, and the ind ication that we did the right thing is that the Tories are not changing it. They have no improvements on it, and when the improvements come, Mr. Speaker, in their view, the y will be state intervention on the side of the employer.

When I was in opposition between 19 66 and '69, I sug gested that what the New Democ ratic Party was pursuing was a policy of equal ity between management and labour, and between citizens who are workers and ci tizens who did other tasks with in the communi ty. I asked for no preferences, I said all they want is equal treatment, and the other side laug hed at me. They said he is here representing Trade Unions ' that he is not seeking equality, he's seeking a preference.

But every proposition that we put forward was for equal ity, and I sugge sted in to 19 66 to '69, and it is on the record, that the day will come when you will start electing governments on the basis of them helping labour or helping management, and that will be the worst type of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because when the labour groups come in they will have state intervention on the side of the employees, which was what was requested by many people who are ostensibly friends of ours dur ing the Griffin di spute, that they were asking us to legisla te against the employer.

And when the employer representatives come in, the Tories and the Li berals, that legisla tion will be undone and you wi ll have state legislation for the employer, and I pred ict to the Torie s that, when the time comes that you have that type of seesaw and people are enacting restrictive legisla tion against employers, you will come to me and say why can't we have the type of thing that you were talking about. Not favouritism, not special laws, but equal treatment. But Mr.

Chairman, equal treatment means that the state wi ll not intervene, and I pred ict that this government will, to enact legisla tion or permit the existence of cour t decisions which involve the state bringing its influence and power onto the side of the employers in any labour dispu te. That's what this government is going to do. They have adopted the Grif fin Steel proposal as far as it goes, but the moment, Mr.

Speaker, there is a di spute in this prov ince affect ing the builder's exc hange, affect ing the public servant, affect ing somethin g that they say can not be left to colle ctive bargaining because of the great public di fficu lties that wi ll ensue, we will have this government bringing in restrictive anti-employee legislation. To our cred it, Mr. Speaker, when we were in government we never brought in restrictive anti-employer legis lation. We never did it.

We made changes in the Labour Relations Act which I said were really not the best way of dealing with it, that we should do away with the whole act and let the parties be equal and free citizens like everybody else, but those changes merely fol lowed the philo sophy of the act and, for the most part part, the change s went in the di rect ion of removing state interve ntion. Now the honourable minister is red ucing time and three-qu arters. This is plank No. 1 in the declaration of dependence.

Wh at the Tories are saying is that we know it won't cost {OU any money, we know that it will result in a reducti on of wages in the long run, but we depend on rou to provide us with our bread, our butter, our lodging, education for our chi ldren and everyth ing �lse, and therefore we are saying to the busi ness com muni ty, as

Article 1 of the decla ration of jependence, there will be an inc entive to employ people for more than forty hou rs a week in this 395 c y y e d

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 province, there will be a reduction of wages and we are com ing to the side of the employer in all employer-employee relations. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Health. HON. L. R. {BUD) SHERMAN {Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, before I begin I have not had an opportunity, Sir, to congra tulate you on your elevation to the hig hest office and the hig hest honour that it's possible for any member of this Ho use to attain, and I would like to con vey those cong ratulations to you at this ju ncture, Sir , and sugge st that I have confidence that the deg ree of interest and conscientious applic ation you have always brought to the work of the legislature will be reflected in your work in the Chair, Sir , and all of us can have faith and confidence in your performance of your duties. Mr.

Speaker, it is an interesting chr onologic al and transpositional development that has taken place here for the Honour able Member for I nkster and for myself, ad of cour se a great many other persons in the Ch amber have partici pated or are partici pating in the same transpositional adjustment, but there is a particular sign ificance, I think, for the Honour able Member for lnkster and for myself, and for the Honour able Member for Logan because of the legisla tion that we are di scussing at the present time.

Almost the last time I was speaking in this Cha mber, with the exception of question periods, si nce I'v e entered the Ho use as a Member of the government, almost the last time I was speaking in this Cha mber I was speaking on the over time legislation that was introduced by the previ ous admini stration, and I believe that was on the night of Ju ne 17 th, 19 77, when we were windin g down the last session of the Hous e, Sir, in the small hour s of the morning.

There were two or th ree pieces of crucial legislation that were proceed ing through thir d reading stage, at that time, and one of them was the Marital Pro perty Act and one of them was the Family Maintenance Act and one of them was the legisla tion dealing with time and three-quarters and com pulsory overtime generally, and there were some exchanges between the Hon our able Member for Logan and the Hon ou rable Member for I nkster and myself, at that time. So six or seven months later, whatever it is, we have come fu ll-cir cle , but we are on the opposite parameters of the cir cle.

However, our positions have not changed. I want to say to the Honour able Member for I nkster, whose knowledge and expertise in the field of labour I respect very deep ly, that I have not been and my party has not been, in any way inconsis tent in the legislation that has been introdu ced here before us in the form of Bill 6, in any way inc onsistent or unfaithful to the position that we took on this que stion of over time and over time pay rates from the day the debate on the existing legislation started in this Ho use dur ing the past session. A MEMBER: What are you doing about Gr iffin Steel? MR.

SHERMAN: What I am doing about Gr iffin Steel , Mr. Speaker, is irrelevant for the moment, but I will come back to that. Wha t I am dealing with at the moment is the concept of time and three quarters as an overtime rate and the remarks just placed on the record by the Honour able Memberfor lnkster. The Honour able Member for lnkster, in the fashion which his party adopted and maintained throug hou t the election campaign and certainly sinc e, is engag ing again on an exercise in predictions and an exercise in prognostications, and an exercise really infor mative accusati ons.

He is suggesting the dir e consequences that are going to flow, and declaring in a rather decl amatory fashion that they are certa in to flow from the election of a Con servative adminis tration and from our addressing ou rselves as government to this type of legisla tive field. That was a tactic that was employed unsu ccess fully I migh t remind the Honour able Member for lnkster, Mr.

Speaker, by his co lleagues, not necessari ly hi mself, but by his party throug hou t the most recent election campaign in this province, when the fund amental election campaign cry of the New Democr atic government of the day, seeking a renewed mandate, was that the Conser vatives were going to turn the clock back, turn the province back, elimi nate all the benefits that had ensued under eight years of New Democratic adminis tration and shun t the province back into the 17 th Century.

That was thei r cry through the eight weeks of the sum mer, through the five weeks of the election campaign, and it's obviously still the cry of the prima ry spearcarriers on the NDP benche s today. Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba did n't buy that scare tactic on October 11 th, and I think that the record is substantial enough to indic ate that there may be some dou bts about the dir e predictions that the Member for lnkster is putti ng forth at the present time.

Once again predictions are being tossed out for the edification of the electorate in order to stampede people into taking specific political positions, and we'll have to see what effectiveness those pred ictions have. I sugge st to you, Sir , that they are likely to have no more effect than the scare predictions that were trumpeted wide and far by the New Democr atic Party, generally, in the election campaign we've just come through. There is no declaration of dependence being formu lated here, or carved out here by the government, where this legislation is concerned. There is a declaration of consis tency.

There is a declaration of concern. Th ere is a declaration of appreciation for the economy - the economic condition of this province. The argum ent that we used through out those comm ittee heari ngs where the overtime legi slation was di scus sed was that neither the labour movement, nor busi ness, nor socie ty , nor indi vidu:oi.ls 396

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 gener ally with some few exceptions, but non e of those parties gener allyusked for, requested, or expected legislation of this kind or a time and three-quarter overtime rate and in fact were astounded, Sir , when the previous government brought in a time and three-quarter rate. And I'll go farther than that, Mr. Speaker, without fear of contradiction.

I want to suggest to the Member for In kster that officials in the Department of Labour of the day were not in favour of introducing a time and three-quarter overtime rate. -(I nterjection)- Of oourse they're not making policy but they're dealing with the application of that policy in the mecha'nical sense every day and they could see, they knew that time and three-quarters was going to be harmful, if not destructive to the economy of this province, which was al ready in trouble. We've all had lots of evidence of what trouble we're in, in that respect. Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, the argument was raised in committee at the time that was raised again here today a few moments ago by the Ho nour able Member for In kster that the way the package was put together there was going to be no increased cost to the people of Manitoba. I think to quote the Honour able Member for In kster, "that time and three-quarter rate as the package was put together will not result in increased cost to the people of Manitoba." I don't think I'm mi squoting hi m.

And that argument we heard last Ju ne and last May, and it's the same kind of smoke screen today that it was in May and Ju ne. -(I nterjection)- We ll, I'm telli ng the Honour able Member for In kster what I think and what I'm saying, and I had some exposure to the question and the problem and to the issue. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there is no ju risdiction in No rth Americ a, with the possi ble exception of the state of Kentucky, and I'm not qu ite certain whether they still have it, where they pay you time and three-quarters for overtime.

But this province of our s is so prosperous, this island of Manitoba, this island of prosperity in a sea of economic difficulty is strong enough, is powerful enough, is independent enough to be able to fly in the face of all those ju risdictions with �- �· whom we compete in an economic sense and offer time and three-quarters as an overtime rate. 'Jif Now, Mr.

Speaker, that ju st does not make sense regardless of what the Honour able Member for In kster may be able to apply in terms of theory, in terms of idealism, in terms of the abstract, all of which make tor admirable points in debate but the reality of the thing, Sir - and that's the point we were trying to make to him last May and last Ju ne- is that a time and three-quarter overtime rate is a discouragement to business and to empl oyment. That's the reality of it: that busi ness people are discouraged by a time and three-quarter overtime rate.

It makes it more difficult to operate a busi ness or a man ufacturing enterprise. It makes it less competitive with the jur isdictions with whom we have to compete and, as a consequence, there is not the growth, there is not the expansion, there is not the interest, there is not even the mai ntenance of normal busi ness operations that wou ld flow from a competitive position- a .competitive overtime rate and a competitive position generally, that is the basic fundamental error in a time and three-quarters overtime proposal.

If the continent of North Am erica were going to a time and three-quarter rate, or even ifthe states of Min nesota and North Dakota, and South Dakota were going to that kind of rate, and the provinces of Al berta, Sas katchewan and On tario were going to that kin d of rate, I want to tell the Honou rable Member for In kster, the former Min ister of Min es and Environmental Management, that I would not be standin g on my feet opposing a time and three-quarter rate in Manitoba.

But we cannot afford, in the condition of our economy today we cannot afford -(I nterjection)- See, the Member for Ink ster keeps saying it won't cost me mon ey on the basis of his mathemathical figuring, on the basis of his arithmetic, when he calculates in the fringe benefits, etc., etc. It wi ll cost us money when busi nesses that would otherwise expand or be inclin ed to open, or be •. inclin ed to move, or be incli ned to grow here, are discouraged by the psychological impact of a non - competitive overtime rate.

That is the reality that we have never been able to get through the mi nds of the theorists who operate on the level of abstraction and doctrine on that side of the House, and I'm sur prised that after some qu arter century in the trenches of labour negotiations, law negotiations and political in fighting, and having achieved the prominence and the recognition that he ju stly deserves as a leader in all three of those fields, that the Member for In kster is still parroting this theoretical nonsense. He has seen the world in action.

He knows there's a difference between the theoretical calculations he can make on a piece of paper and what the guy in the trenches, what the guy in the street is prepared to do and act on, and respond to. He must know that and he mus t know that a rate of that kind has a psychological impact which can't be measured by all the theory and all the chapters of all the texts which he comm ands so well, no matter how hard he tries, because he is dealing with abstractions that have no relevance to the reality of the marketplace.

And the reality of the marketplace is that Manitoba cannot afford to be out front, if it is being out front -I dispute whether moving in to a time and three-quarter overtime rate represents being out front, anyway - but if it were, I say we cannot afford to be out front in a competitive North Ame rican economy in an area such as that. We'r e having enough difficulty without the psychological blockade that is created by socialistic idealism that articulates itself in the kind of legislation and the kind of argument thatwe're dealin g with from the Member of In kster here. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for In kster has su ggested that whatever improvements we make in the field of labour legislation wi ll take the form of state intervention on the side of the employer. And he went on to say that the NDP government never brought in restrictive anti-employer legisla tion. , We ll, I dispute both those alle gations. There will be no state intervention on the part of the employer practised by the Cons ervative government as long as I'm a member of that government. We're not interested in state intervention one way or the other.

I know of no colleagues of min e on the government benches in the government caucus who are interested in state intervention. State 397

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 intervention is anathema to us that flies in the face of our whole phi losophy, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're in government today, because we believe in indi vid ual freedoms di stilled to the ultimate degree. We don't want any state interventi on. To sugg est that we' re going to be proposing or intr od uci ng legislation that would in any way expand the size of government, or extend the reach and impact of government ... MR. GREEN: You be careful, now, because you're going to be resigning in a year. MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Ho noarable Member for lnkster is making his predictions again ... MR. GREEN: That's rig ht. Ju st be care ful of how deep you dig your feet into the cement. MR. SHERMAN: ... but I say to him that if he knows anything about Cons ervatives and anything about New Demo crats at all, he knows that they are the state interventionis ts. They are the state intervention ists. They are the ones who wanted to control peoples' lives and moved so far in that di rection that they lost the confidence of the people. -(I nterjectio n)- Well, yes, I will at the end, Mr.

Speaker, I will but I don't propose to gi ve up the floor for the moment. I sat and listened to the Hono urable Member for lnkster. Si r, the Member for I nkster sugge sted as a cor ollary to his suggestion that all our improvements would take the form of state interventi on on the side of the employer, that the New De mocratic government never brought in "r estrictive anti-employer legislation." And he said, "It 's to our credit", meaning to the credit of hi s party, his government, the previous government that they never brought in restrictive anti-employer legislation. Well, Mr .

Speaker, I gue ss it depends on semantics and I gu ess it depends on wha t paragraphs you read and how you read them, because I'll tell the Member for lnkster there are very few employers in this province today who would agree with him on that statement, very few. MR. GREEN: Because they want state intervention for them. MR. SHERMAN: They don't want state intervention.

Wha t they objected to was the kind of legis lation that was being forced, pus hed through in amendments to the Manitoba Labour Relations Act in a new Manitoba Labour Relations Act, which was cutting down on various freedoms of employer and employee oppor tunity, whic h was encroa ching in the very area of freedom of speech, for example, which was a su bject of debate in this Hous e, which was reducing the right of the indi vidual employee and worker to act acco rding to his or her own conscience with respect to uni on memberships, which was dis cr iminating against peop le who were operating in areas of busi ness where they had two or three or more dif ferent enterpris es but were operating with sort of mutually dependent staffs, and which generally were making it increa sin gly di fficult to ope rate busi ness in this province at anything resembling a reasonable and viable return to shareholder s and entrepreneurs themselves.

And for the former minister, the Member for lnkster, to sugge st that there was no restrictive anti-employer legislation is lud icrous. Wh at does he think we were on our feet for eigh t years arguin g about with the amendments to the Labour Relations Act? With the Workpla ce Safety and Health Act, which is good in principle but again incl udes and embodie s restrictions and di scri minatory practises in the heavy hand of government where enterprise and employer rig hts are involjed?

Wha t does he think we were arguing about with respect to the conscience cla use when we sat in Industrial Relations Comm ittee two years ago hour after hour dealing with the complai nts of indi vidual workers who felt that the rig hts of their own conscience were being trampled? What does he feel the argum ents of those years were all about? They were about our di slike for, and our unwi llingness to accept, the kinds of impo sitions thatthat government was placing on the rights of employers and employees.

Not only was there restrictive anti-employer legis lation, there was to an extent some restrictive anti-employee legis lation, because, Sir , you cannot have a New Demo cratic government ... You cannot have a government that hews to the socialis t political approach and not be restrictive of peoples' rig hts and freedoms. That's part and parcel of the kind of philo sophy that is embodied in the New Demo cratic Party. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't repudia te the right, or reject the right, of politicia ns and philo sophers to operate at that level, but I don't su bscribe to it.

And none of us on this side of the Hous e subscribe to it, and a good many Manitobans obviously don't subscribe to it. The argument was always about the kind of restrictions that the previous government was imposing on the rights, and the freedom of choic e, and the freedom of movement, and the freedom of conscience o1 ind ividual Manitobans, whether they were employees or employers.

Ther e was a heavy hand o1 government intervention, of government contr ol, of gov ernment imposit ion, of government theory in all the labour legislation that was introduc ed in this Ho use dur ing the lifetime of the previous administration. It was not as bad as it might have been but it was certainly heavy-handed governmen t-orientec control-motiva ted legisl ation, and that di scou raged busi ness. And I know the honour able memben opposite don' t accept that, because they say, "Pr ove it. Sho w us what went. Sho w us what businessei departed the province.

Sho w us how much money we lost." Well, I can tell you, Sir , that those - and honour able members opposite know it - are extreme!) 398 t f f n s d s s y

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 di fficult specific statistics to obtain but anybody working with and moving in the commun ity generally exposed to the attitude and the atmosphere of the busi ness com munity generally knows that busine ss was badly di scour aged , badly frustrated, by the labour legislation and other legislation of the previous govern ment, and as a consequence withdr ew into a somewhat passive role, ceased to be as expansion-m inded, as dynamic, as interested in being part of Manitoba and in growing with Manitoba as is necessary to maintain a dynamic eco nomy, and we all suffered as a result.

Now those are psyc hological thi ngs. They are hard to measure in a tangible way but I am absolutely convi nced that they were there, because of the hundr eds of people I talked to and who talked to me, and who told me - and I assure my hono urable friend for lnkster of the voracity of this statement - that they would leave Manitoba. Th ey would pack up their busi nesses and leave Manitoba if they had to go through another four years of NDP government.

And many of them were small busi nessmen - the backbone of the province, the backbone of the economy. - (I nterjection)- Yes, and I'll tell the Honour able Member for St.

George that if he wanted to walk down Pembina Hi ghway with me, on both sides the length of Pembina Hi ghway in my constituency, and talk to those small busin esses, those small enterprises that line that artery, that he would find that to be the case: that one out of five or two out of five of them said to me that they were in a position where they were going to have to clo se the ir doors and pack it up, and qui t business and qui t Manitoba if there was another four years of NDP government.

Now, I know that my hono urable friends opposite find that hard to believe, but I inv ite my friend the Honour able Member for St. George to walk down Pembina Hi g hway and ask those merchants with me. I'm giving him a truthful acco unting of what I fou nd. And what do you think created that situation?

The legislation of the past eight years introd uc ed by the previous government, members opposite, who were not interested in encour aging initiative, were not interested in encouraging private operations, private entrepreneu rialship or profits, to whom all those terms were bad terms, to whom all those concepts are unacceptable, who felt that the affairs, the destiny and the futur e of the people of Manitoba cou ld best be con cocted and determined in an NDP caucus room without regard for those operating in the field and in the fields where expertise was avai lable and always rejected.

The result was a psyc holo gy and an atmospher e and a clima te that was devastating to the economy of this province. All of that stemmed and emanated from the kinds of legislation introduced by this government in the labour field and the kinds of attitudes gene rally reflected by - when I say this government I mean the members opposite, the previous government - and the kind of attitude reflected generally by that government towards busine ss, towards profit, towards enterprise, towards indi vidua l operations, towards professionalism.

If you weren't part of the sort of NDP com munity and if you di dn't sort of operate from NDP motivations you were di scou raged and generally dism issed as being of no value, no worth, to the improvement of the state of socie ty or the state of the economy in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. That was a feeling that came through very strong ly, very loud and very clear to Manitobans in busi ness and Manitobans in the profess ions. And it was as a result of that that the electorate reacted as it did on October 1 1t h, and I don' t think that my frien d, the Ho nour able Member for lnkster should forget that.

When he talks about Bill 6 and our attitude with respect to over time legislation and overtime pay rates, I don' t think he should forget that we are speaking and he knows it probably better than any man in thi s Hous e, he knows that we are speaki ng for people who expressed a point of view and an opinion on October 11t h. We are reflecting a general attitude that happened to be the consensus attitude at that time. MR. GREEN: Fine. MR. SHERMAN: Now he asked me about our position on Gr iffin Steel.

I want to remind him that the basic position I took on Gr iffin Steel was that the gov ernment of the day sat almost motion less while permitting two antagon ists to go head to head and resolve the dif ferences that have been si mmering between them for years while some 12 0o r 13 0 people's jobs were on the line. -(I nterjection)- It isn't still there. Most of those people are working in other jobs and honour able members opposite know that, Mr. Speaker. Most of those people are working in other jobs and members opposite know that.

What I would have done was what I sugg ested at the time, that the antagoni sts who were head to head as a result of long-sim mering di sputes and contr oversies between themselv es over the years should have been removed from that particular arena . A MEMBER: Would you have removed them? MR. SHERMAN: They should have been removed from that particular arena so that a calmer, saner, more rational and reasonable approach to mediation cou ld have been taken. A MEMBER: Would you remove them? MR. SHERMAN: And I want to remind the honour able member . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

May I sugg est that members have the right to speak. If they di sagree with the remarks of the gentleman who is speaking, they have the right to enter debate. I regret very much to see this cross tal k occu rring in the chamber. The Ho nour able Mi nister of Health. 399

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your admonition, Sir . I don't mind the crossfi re, but thank you for your admonition. I want to remind the honour able member, before the ligh ts go out, of one other thing, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down.

That the strongest - that the strongest - most excited reaction and position on the Gr iffin Steel strike was taken by a member of his own caucus, one of his own backbencher s, the former Member for Thomps on, who sat back here on this side of the Hous e and made public via television and other media, the gut -wrenching agony that the NOP caucus was going through over that particula r issue and on which there was no agreement, and on which fi nally there was a compromise, because half the NOP, half the government caucus wanted a total ban on compu lsory overtime.

The other half, led by the Honour able Member for lnkster, felt that that was totally unacceptab le, and I gi ve him credit for that, and so there was a saw-off, there was a compromise. They decided to come in with the saw-off of time and th ree-quarters for over time, and that was no solution to anything.

All that did was complic ate the economic cond ition and the eco nomic situation for the province because regard less of the impact or effect of the fringe benefit ca lcula tions employers were bound to be dis cou raged by the time and three-quarter concept and as a consequence employees were bound to earn less money. Th ere would be less overtime available to them - that's the reason why most factions in the labour movement never asked for time and three qu arters. That was a saw-off.

It was a compromis e agreement that enabled the fractured, fragmented government caucus of the day to knit itself tenuously together between the hawks on the one side, who wanted to ban all compul sory over time, outlaw it, and the doves led rather dubiou sly, I would say, by the Hon our able Member for I nkster who was realistic enough to apprecia te and understand that you cou ld not take a hard -line position like that on over time. So what did we get out of it? We got what you usual ly get out of compromises of that kind.

We got a half-baked hybrid kind of proposal that was unlike any in existence anywhere in North America, that was unwanted, that was unasked, that astounde d all sides of the eco nomic coin wheni t was introduced, and that was bound to reduce the opportunities for busi ness and reduce the opportunities for workers to have the right to work over time and make extra money in their wage packets. So we op posed the principle and the concept strenuou sly at that time. We have been totally consis tent in our position on it.

We signal led the government of the day at the time that any Conservative adminis tration subsequently elected would repeal that kind of legis lation, and that's what we're doing. And we're not doing it with any devious, si nister motiv es ca lcula ted to pave the way for state intervention on the side of the employer such as being sug gested by the Ho nour able Member for I nkster.

We're doing it because we said can didly and honestly and openly to honour able members opposite and to the people of Manitoba last Ju ne, that time and three-quarters was unaccept able in a jurisdiction like Manitoba, in a com petitive ec onomic environm ent such as the one in which we live, and that if elected we would repeal it on those grou nds. That's what we're doing. That is consistent, that is ho nest and I reject out of hand the attempts of the Honour able Member for lnkster to read sin ister philo sophy and abstractions into the position that we have taken. He can make all the predictions he wants, Mr.

Speaker, but they do not wash with the position we took on this legislation from Day One. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for lnkster with a qu estion? MR. GREEN: Yes. I think the honour able member indi cated that when hi s remarks were comple ted he would permit me to ask him a que stion. The honour able member stated that the employer group s all came down opposed to restrictive labour legislation.

Would the honour able member not agree that the Conservative administration, the previous administration and the employers and the Conservatives in opposition voted against the state being prevented from intervening to requir e employees to work or to go to jail: No. 1, that the employers di sag reed with that legis lation, and the employers and the Cons ervative administjtion and the Conser vatives in opposition voted against legislation which gave emplo yees the right to walk down the streets the same way as other people can , and that was opposed by the Cons ervatives and by the employers, and was that restrictive anti employer leg islation?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd practically have to read that qu estion in Hansard to grasp it in its entirety. But my answer to the honour able member would be, no, it was not opposed by the Conservative Party. But you'r e as king me whether we opposed the position that was taken with respect to the rights of ind ividuals to walk down the street and not have to face the issue of work or go to jail. MR. GREEN: You voted no. You voted against ... MR. SHERMAIN: No, we don't op pose that positi on.

I've never taken a position where it's a case o1 work or go to jail. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for lnkster with another que stion. 400 f

I I Tuesday, December 6, 1977 MR. GR EEN: Would the honour able member not check to see then- on the records and I'm glad that he doesn't take that position - you'll find that he voted against both pieces of legislation. (I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, there were two pieces of legislation intrOduced, two resolutions introduced, when the Cons ervatives were in opposition. MR. SPEAKER: . Order please. Order please. May I remind the member that he can ask a question. MR.

GREEN: Did the member and the Co nservatives in opposition and the employers not all oppose legislation which gave the employees freedom to walk down the streets li ke everybody else and also opposed legislation which stopped courts from ordering people to go to work or go to jail? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: I wonder if the honour able minis ter would submit to a que stion. MR. SH ERMAN: I wi ll, but I'm still thinkin g about the qu estion from the Honourable Member for Ink ster.

In terms of the vote in the Ho use, yes, that's the position that was the vote position that we took. I don't agree with the Honour able Member for In kster that that was necessarily the principle that I was concerned with in the leg islation. � ·t MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, as I un derstood the Hon ourable Min ister of Health, he in ferred that in the Gr iffin Steel case some action should have been taken by government in view of his concern that there be no state intervention, but in matters of this type that there should be as li ttle - in fact no state intervention whatsoever - yet the honour able min ister infers that the government of the day should have taken some action. Could he suggest what action which we did not take, what action should the government have taken? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Health. MR. SHERM AN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, and I sugg ested it at the time. I said that the princi pal antagonist, one on the side of the company, one on the side of the uni on had been deadlocked in mortal battle in the ind ustrial arena for about eight years, and the Honour able Member for In kster knows what I'm talking about. And there was never going to be an opportunity to have the twain meet and as a consequence the 120' 13 0 jobs of the workers were always jus t pawns in a chess game. The one thing that the govern ment could have done, I think, that would not constitute state intervention in my

interpretation of state intervention, would have been moved through the Department of Labour to remove those head-to-head antagonists and perm it others more moderate, more amenable to discussion and consu ltation to negotiate. -(I nterjection)- No, I would n't have requi red it, but I certainly would have suggested - I did suggest it. • MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, ju st as a supplementary, and again I'm trying to seek clarification from the min ister. When he suggests, Mr.

Speaker, that the government should have moved to remove those protagonists, does he not consid er that a form of state intervention, the action of a government to remove in dividuals ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. May I sugge st to the Mem ber for Br andon East that if he wants to get involved in the debate, there is an opportunity for him to do so. The Honour able Minis ter of Health. MR.

SHERM AN: The question that was raised, the state intervention that we were talking about, the concept was raised by the Honour able Member for In kster, who said in the course of his remarks, that any Cons ervative improvements "so-called" to this overtime legislation or to any other labour legislation that we will see in this Ho use in the next four years, will take the form of state in tervention on the side of the employer. And what I said wasthattherewill be no intervention of that kin d, as far as I' m concerned, as long as I' m a mem ber of this government.

If there is state intervention for both parties as a means of resolving an imp asse, I think that's an acceptable form -(In terjection)- Sur ely that's an acceptable part of our economic system today. That isn't what I was accused of, Mr. Speaker. What we were accused of was bringing in or operating from a motivation where we would bring in amendments that would im ply a state intervention, or incorporate state intervention on the part of the employer. That is what the accusation was. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Flin Flon. MR. TOM BARROW: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Member forSt.

Vi tal that debate be adjourned. 401

Tuesday, December 6, 19n MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Before the lights go out may I ask the Go vernment House Leader if he wants to revert to the . . . MR. JORGENSON: Call Bill No. 5. BILL NO. 5 - FAMILY LAW MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Sp eaker, I intend to speak on this matter, but I would normally ask that it be stood. But if there is an honourable member who wishes to speak on it I would ask that the usual course be followed, that it stand in my name, the honourable memb er speak. MR. SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) The Honourable Memb er for Transcona. MR.

PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had not been a member of the House in the last legislature when these two particular acts were brou!;Jht forward and developed after a th ree-year consultative process with the entire community and wtth all institutions with in that community. So I am a newcomer to this particular Act.

I find myself in a situation somewhat similar to the Attorney General and I find it rather unfortunate that the Premier in establishing his cabinet put this type of ,. responsibility onto an Attorney-General who didn't have the oppo rtunity to be acquainted with the three-year process of developing this Act. Because I think what's happened is that the Attorney-General has been called upon to speak and to explain the position of the Conservative Par ty with respect to this legislation, and he has been particularly silent in so doing.

I don't really blame him that much because he hasn't been acquainted with what's gone on. I'm surprised however that the Prem ier would have put him in that type of position. The Premier surely must have been definitely opposed to this legislation and realized what he would be doing in this session and has made things such that we really haven't been able to debate this bill. The Attorney-General has made a very short state ment with respect to this bill. People on this side of the House have got up, they have made statements.

There have been interested parties outside the House who are against this legislation that the �overnment is bringing in. They have got up, they have made statements about this legislation but I ve heard no-one else. I've heard no-one from that side get up and state their position on the issue. I find that really surprising because if they felt so strongly about this legislation, then surely there wo uld be more than one newcomer to this House speaking on this particular Act from that side of the House. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I've had a chance to look at the legislation and to look at the two supposedly horrible Acts that the New Demo cratic Party administration brought in, in the last legislature. I've noticed that most people have said that these two Acts, that is, The Family Maintenance Act and The Marital Property Act, are related, they are a package. Mr. Speaker, in looking at this further I think that they are a package. I agree with them. They are a package with respect to principle. They follow the same principle. They follow the principle of equality. I find, Mr.

Sp eaker, that all parties in this House supposedly agree with that principle with respect to this legislation, because the only spokesman on the other side so far, has said "We agree in principle with this legislation; we agree in principle with it." II So, with respect to principle what they are saying is that they agree with it. � Mr. Speaker, these two Acts surely aren't a package when it comes to agreement or disagreement on their drafting merits. If you look outside the House and within the House, there are some people who say that perhaps the legislation could have been drafted in a better way.

Perhaps there are some technical difficulties with one Act, that's with the Marital Pr operty Act, but Mr. Sp eaker, that's a disagreement as to a difference of degree and that's something that surely we should be able to discuss here in this House and that's surely something that we should be able to discuss and certainly we will in Law Amend ments Comm ittee. Mr. Sp eaker, I've heard no-one, I've heard no-one come forward and say that the Fam ily Maintenance Act is badly drafted . I've heard no-one come forward saying that there are te chnical difficulties with it.

In fact, what I heard last night was that a legal association had said that the Act is good, that there are no technical difficulties with it and that it should proceed. Now, Mr. Sp eaker, if that's the case then I think that we should proceed post-haste with this Family Maintenance Act, because what it does is that it provides for interim maintenance. Let's withdr aw it from this particular act and let it proceed because surely we agree with the principle, not only of th is legislation but the legislation that it ties into at some future date, namely, the Marital Proper ty Act. So, Mr.

Speaker, their position is completely illogical unless they follow that course of action. If they don't follow that course of action, and it wo uld appear that they might not, then that means that they don't really agree with the principle of both pieces of legislation. That's quite serious because they are telling us that they do agree with the principle. No w, why wouldn't they ag ree with the principle of greater equality in a marriage? I don't know why, because out of the House they say they agree with those things. They agree with greater equality of opp ortun ity. They say that we need more of that.

The Member for Pem bina gets up and says "I pay tribute to the women who help the farmers in 40

Tuesday, December 6, 1977 my constituency, who through their hard work develop the good types of farms." Wel l, Mr. Speaker, that tribute is not acknowledged in cour t decisions like the Murdoch decision. Sur ely that is something that the Member for Pem bina wo uld want to change, if indeed he ag reed in principle with the legislation that was brought forward in the last legislature. You see the legislation that this replaces is in fact - to use the words of the leader of the Conser vative Party - "a dog's breakfast." All lawyers acknowledge that.

They say "this is a dog's breakfast." Yet the people on the other side are willing to suspend legislation replacing that "dog's breakfast" because they say there migh t be some minor difficulties with it because they agree in principle with it. They do so in a very, very suspicious manner, because if anyone came to me and asked me "how would you really scuttle this bill?

How would you scuttle these Acts?" I would say, "wha t you do is you suspend them indefinitely, let it slide, don't commit your self to bring it back next session, don't commit yourself to bring it back ever, put it off into the long term." There might have been perhaps one person on the other side who has read Keynes, because Keynes said that in the long term, we are all dead. So, perhaps there's one person on the other side who has read Keynes and has taken that advice and has passed it on to his col leagues - put it off to the long term because we won't have to deal with this legislation.

We will live with the present "dog's breakfast" and we'll try and hide our desire to live with the present "do g's breakfast" behind supp osed technical difficulties. Well I challenge people on the other side of the House to get up, to point out what the technical difficulties of the Family Maintenance Act are. What are those difficulties? I' ve not heard them yet and I've been sitting in this legislature for over a week and a half, but I'v e not heard anyo ne say what those difficulties are. Do they bel ieve ther e are any? That's not with respect to the Family Maintenance Act.

That's with respect to the Marital Proper ty Act and we should be able to hear more about that because we haven't heard it explained ful ly. The Member for Fort Rouge has used his su pposed contacts in Ottawa to determ ine that if that techn ical aspect is a difficulty, the federal government will change. So why not have an open mind on this issue seeing as how we have, through the instrument of tflis legislature, developed better knowledge with respect to that legislation and we have cle ared up those sup posed minor difficulties and we should be able to proceed. Those few statements that the .

Attorn ey-General who, I admit, is not that wel l acquainted with this legislation, has put forward, have been refuted by people on this side of the Ho use of all persuasions. Those argum ents that have been put forth by the Attorney-General have been refuted by the Coalition on Family Law and all those rep resentative group s tying into it, representing all segments of the commun ity. I thought that the Conservative Party in the last election, made a pitch to the commun ity at large we will listen to the community. The first thing they've done is turn their backs to the commun ity.

The first thing they've done is label the commun ity "fronts of the NDP." I don't mind if they label the com munity, "the front of the New Democ ratic Party." The community of 25 gr oups that related to the Coalition on Fam ily Law, including many Conser vatives, those with principle, those with hone sty, those who wouldn't hide behind

definitions of principle and techn ical niceties, they came out full square in favour of this legislation. In fact, I gathered, and I was told by some of my colle agues, that the Member forWols eley indeed, despite suspicions otherwise, actually did have some principles. He actually voted for the Marital Proper ty Act. Now having voted for it, I wonder if in fact, in his caucus, he has said "Look, I voted for this legislation, I am a man of integrity, I am a man of principle, I don't think it should be suspended because I agree with it." I don't kno w if he has been saying that.

He has not spoken in this Hous e .. There have been five people I gather, who voted in favour of the Marital Prop erty Act on the other side of the House, and not one of them has go tten up to state his position on this Act. I find that amazing. If that's the respect that the Member for Wolseley has in the democratic system and in the legislature, that he doesn't want to speak on it in the Ho use here but he has sent out a lot of letters, I find that amazing as a newcomer to this leg islature.

I see that the Member for C rescentwood is also a member who voted in favour of the Marital Proper ty Act and I invite him to speak on this. It 's a very important item. I' d like to determ ine what particular segment of the commun ity his party's position now represents. What segment of the commun ity are they representing? I' m sorry that the Minister of Health has left because we now kn ow, having had him give his Throne Speech in the debate on the Overtime Bill that he actually does believe in the legislation and will participate in the deba te.

But the others haven't haven't yet and I find that very very surprising. I wonder in fact, if they have been told the reasons why they are now oppo sing this legislation. Perhaps they haven't been properly briefed. Maybe they can't get up in the absence of the First Minister. If ttie First Minister is out of the leg islature, maybe they can't get up and exp ress themselves. -(1 nterjection)- That's right. My col league for In kster says they can't get up In his presence either. ! find that very surprising. You know, we used to have comments about the past administration being a one man show.

I never saw anyone mu zzled in the last administration in the leg islature. I' ve seen a lot of people muzzled now. I find that very sur prising. -(1 nterjection)- Even they weren't that muzzled, even they weren't that muzzled. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to fighting and back stabbing and squab bling within a political party, 1 think we are getting advice from the experts. I can recall I think the most humo urous statement inthis respect made in the last legislature by the Member for Lakeside.

When he was looking at the New Dem ocratic Party resolutions from the last convention he said, "These are too watered down; in fact the onl y difference between your conventions and our conventions is that our leader comes out of our convention with a lot of kn ife wou nds in his back." What's been happ enin� is that we've been hi? in� behind,some legal niceties, although we have supp osedly said �e agreew1th this legislation in pnnc1p le. We ve not proved to anyone, we've not shown any ev1dence at · all that the Family 403

Tuesday, Decemb�r 6, 19 77 Mai ntenance Act should be suspended; not at all, not a shr ed. That's why I argue that you can' t lump these two together in technic al terms as a package. You can lump them together in pr inciple but you can't lump them together as a technical package. It's a device on the part of the people on the other side to lump them together both as a package in princi ple and a package in technical terms because their intent is to scuttle both bills . The argu ments they have put forward don't relate one bit to the Family Maintenance Act. . We have been treated, Mr .

Speaker, to the establis hme nt of a so-called independent comm ission. The interesting thing about this so-called independent commis sion is that its most notorious member is a person who has opposed this legislation that is presently on the books waiting to be proclaime d and is in one instance officially proclaimed al ready in another, both in princip le and in detail. In fact, this person has indicated he opposes this Act completely. I have never ever come across a situation where you would establish an impartial body to review the legislation with that biased a member on it.

I have not seen situations lik e this anywhere else in Canada. Bu t, perhaps, in Manitoba now, we are turn ing a new leaf. We are defi ning terms lik e "im partial ity" in completely new ways. The only comments I heard from anyone in this House that mi ght in fact have some relevance to why the people on the other side are against this legisla tion was a muttering that in the dis cussions last legi slature, some person made the statement that there were six businessmen who said they would leave the province along with one thousand jobs, if these acts relating to fam ily law were allo wed to stand. No w, Mr .

Speaker, in terms of the statements made by people in this Ho use so far MR. SPEAKER: Or der pl ease. The Honour able Me mber for Wolseley on a point of privi lege. MR. ROBERT G.

WILSON (Wolseley): The Memb er for Tr anscona has all uded to a numb er of t things that are absolutely untrue int his House and I thi nk it is a point of privilege that number one, we are not voting against the bill - I' m talking about myself pers onal ly- Num ber two, l am not mu zzled in this Chamber and I have mai led the member for Transcona a draft of my letter expla ining the reasons why and we will be supporting this bill in the next sess ion. MR. SPEAKER: Or der ple ase. I don't beli eve the mem ber has a point of privilege at all. The Honourable Member for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr .

Speaker. I'm Qlad that you are in the Ch air , because you in fact have been making a whole set of rather fair de cisions when I' ve been getting a lot of advice with respect to points of order and points of privilege from mem bers on the other side. I will take advice from anyone with respect to legis lative procedu res, even people on the other side of the Hous e. (Interjection)- And I, in fact, am in a position to offer some counter-advice to the Mem ber for Wolseley. Anytime he wants to get up and speak, I invite him to do so. In fact, I challenge him to get up and speak when I conclu de. He has that right.

He can send me draft letters, ! gather. Fi ne, draft letters are one thing; I would prefer to have a person, as a legisla tor, get up here and state what his pri nciples are and what his position is. You know, there are a lot of letter-writers, and if he wants to write letters he can feel free to write them to the letters to the ed itor colum n; that's fair enoug h. ! do n't know if he was elected to repr esent the people of Wolseley jus t to send out letters. And he's free to get up at any time and state his t position on it. Now, Mr .

Speaker, getting back tothat statement that I made whereby six busin essmen supposedly were going to leave this province with their 1 ,000 jobs, if their legislation was brought in. To me that is the only substantive reason that has been pu t forward but we have no proof that that would have taken place. Bu t we have to take the honour able mem bers on the other side's word for it. you know, come walk with us down Pembina Hig hway and I'll find some of these people with you. You know, I have those people. Wel l, who are they? And if in fact they threaten us that way, do we want them?

Do.-we want them in Ma nitoba? Is that going to be the valid type of argument that is going to be put forward by the people on the other side, that I can be intimidated, that I can be th reatened into doing thi ngs which we don't agree with in princi ple but I'll be threatened into doing them if the economic forces in this provi nce tell us to do so? That, in. fact, confir ms the type of dependency relati ons hip that the Member for Inkster is talking about, and I've heard nothing from people on the other side that counters that type of arg um ent.

In fact what we've had has been evidence from people on the other side that they in fact belie ve that, because they have nvited the Honour able Me mber for St. George, "Come with me and I'll have you listen to the threats, too." I wouldn' t mind to have the Honour able Member for St. George go with them because, you see, the Honour able Member for St. George can't be inti mi da ted by threats li ke that. He can' t be intimida ted by threats lik e that but it would appear that th ere are people on the other side of the Hous � who can be intim idated by threats li ke that. And obviously they have been.

And what they've done 1s they've gone ou t and hir ed a gun who will mask their intim idation ... -(I nterjection) - The name of what- the gun ? The hired gun in this instance, obviou sly, is Ken Houston. He is the lawyer who opposed this act both in principle and in detail, and he has been asked to sit on an im partial body 404

Tuesday, December 6, 19n that will review it. Now, Mr. Speaker, if in fact they weren't intimi dated they would get up and state their reasons why they agree in princi ple with this legis lati on, but they have never indicated whether they agree in princip le with this legi slation, apart from five people who voted in favour of the Ma rital Prope rty Act in the last legislature.

Those are the only ones who suppo sedly have princip le, al though it has .been poi nted out to me that I shouldn't be that confident of theiradherenceto princi ple, and thateach one of them had a woman runnin g against him in the last .ele ction. · Ma ybe it was princip le, or maybe it was expediency, or some type of intimidation that made them vote in favour of this particular bill. But, Mr.

Speaker, it's almost hypocrisy for them to sit in their seats right now and not state that they are in favour of the pri nci ple of the Ma rital Property Act, and not state that they are in favour in princip le of The Fam ily Main tenance Act. But they wil l not do that. They wi II not do that, Mr. Speaker, because they can't. They have been chall enged; they have refused to get up; they have refused to speak; and I conclude on that basis that they have been muzzled. And I get a member �et up and say, "That's not true; I' ve not been muzzled, I can send letters.

That's not muzzling. ' -(I nterjection)- The Mem ber for St. Bonif ace comments that maybe even that privil ege will be taken away soon. We talk about heavy-handedness, Mr. Speaker. The most heavy-handed ap proach has been demonstrated by people on the other side - the leade rship on the other side - that won't let those five people who spoke and voted in favour of the Ma rital Property Act get up and reaffirm their princip les. And they won't do it. Mr.

Speaker, we have some time left I will in fact sit down and give them that challenge and see if they will take up the challenge to speak on The Mari tal Property Act. I ask them to reaffirm their agreement in princip le with The Mari tal Proper ty Act. I ask them to point out the technic al details that prevent them from voting for it now. I ask them to speak in favour of the pri nciple of The Family Mai ntenance Act, and I ask them to point out the technic al difficu lties, which no one in this House has yet been able to point out, with respect to The Famil y Mai ntenance Act.

And I conc lude that The Family Mai ntenance Act must proceed. I conclude that in the interim we can still proceed with The . Mari tal Property Act, if in fact we agree in princip le with the·l egislation as the other side, and we certainly do affirm. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Member for Wolseley. MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this matter and I do so because my ind ication is one that again I do suppo rt the princip le. I listened to a num ber of the presentations and I sup ported then and 1 support now the princ iple of eq ual sharing under The Marital Property Act.

Bu t one of the things 1 didn't know as a layman busi nessman was that there were 500 lawyer s who sat down and decided that maybe there was something wrong with this and I' ve been known to fight with lawyers in the past but 1 figured taking on 500 of them was possibly maybe a little too much, and maybe I should lis ten to some of their particular arguments.

It seemed to me that when someone indicates that we have a hired a particular I'! ired gun I must rememb er that under many of the discussions on past Throne Speeches that it was an indi cation and a plea from many mem bers of the legal profession that they were sorry the way things worked out, but they were hired guns . So it isn't derogatory for the Memb er for Transcona to stand up and say a particul ar one member of this comm ittee is a hired gun, because he is going to do the best job that he can do reviewing the facts.

And it seems to me that when these particular lawyers get together- 500 of them, and they all have opposing views - and the people are going to have a family asset of $20,000 that is goirig tobe depl eted to maybe $5.50 because the legal fees are goin g to be $19,000 plus, then I think the legislation has to be looked at. We're not creating no windfall for the lawyers and I think that if there are problems that are going to inc rease the litigation that they should be stopped.

And I think that if I can do anything else but remain slig htly qu iet to the extent that I am going to let the lawyers decide, if we can slow down the litiga tion, I' d like to see this session repeal 1 00 laws a year ins tead of passing 10 0 new ones. I think every year that there's a sitting there's another four or five laws go through that create nothing but work for the lawyers in this provinc e, and I think we should be repea ling some of them that are on the books that are certainly redun dant. I wanted to talk about the comm ents about when they talked about the pens ion plan of a railway worker.

It may be the only asset of which they divide. The lawyers have decided that this is an area worth look ing at- the tax im plications that they have talked about. And so I did, yes, I prepared a draft letter with the help of some of my colle agues. One can't sit qu iet while the Me mber for Transcona stands up and says that we have been muzzled, that we're against the family and Marital Prope rty Act. If that was for no other reason than to get me to stand up and say that I supp ort the princi ple, yes I do support the princip le.

I voted that way based on the evidence that was before me at that time and I do not have the legal mind of 500 particul ar lawyers who sat down and said, "There are problems with this." The new member and the Attorney-General from this particular party is getting in to this thing and I'm sure that he will stand up himself and indic ate the princip le of equal sharing under The Marital Proper ty Act will probably come forward in the next session and be passed. And I'm not worried about whether the gender of any one who is runnin g ag ains t me is going to .

Strange and very interesting that the Memb er for Transcona should talk about it, bu t I did have a 405

Tuesday, December 6, 19 77 woman run ning a�ainst me and it di dn't affect me � all because I found out that she was more left than the particular candidate that was running against me for the socialis ts. So it's going to be interesting when she doesn't run because maybe some of those left votes will come back to that hir ed gun that ran as a candidate for the NDP. And certainl y the record is there that this parti cular gentleman in eight years, between himself and his law firm, made over $1 90,000.00. Now, if that isn't a hired gun, I don't know what is.

Well, what's he going to do now? -(I nterjecti on)- The Member for St. Boniface says he'll travel now. Wel l, I sat here look ing to the former Min ister of Tou rism jus t opposite to me and I smiled at him and I said, "I guess you won't be going to Ghana this year." Bu t anyway those are my remarks to tell the Member forTr anscona I am qui te prepared to support the principle of equal sharing when the bill comes through for passage in the next session, and I'm sure the women, and for that matter the familie s of this province, will be very happy with the leg isla tion that is passed. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I appreciate the comments of the Honour able Member for Wolseley. Would he please inform me, thou gh, whether any or all of the 500 lawyers condemned The Marital Property Act - that's one- and did all or any of the 500 lawyers condemn or criticize The Family Maintenance Act? Becaus e, Mr. Speaker, to my recollec tion, no one has criticiz ed The Famil y Mai ntenance Act. And is it true that the Legal Aid Lawyers Association has said that the The Fa mil y Maintenance Act is an emin ently workable act? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Wols eley. MR. WILSON: Wel l, in answer to part of the qu estion, I would sug gest that if there was a particular meeting of the legal minds of this province and they couldn't come to a consensus of an opinion, then one as a layman would have to respect that there is that type of mental capacity there to say, "Hey, there's something wrong with it." I wasn't privy to the meeting because I'm not all owed to attend but I would suggest that there mus t have been some merit to the particular qu estions raised.

As far as the legal aid lawyers coming forward with a stand when you were government, you know he who pays the piper calls the tune. Those people were working for you; they woald do as you tell them to do. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Transcona with one more question. MR. PARASIUK: Ju st to cl arify ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. MR. PARASIUK: I will ask the que stion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Government House Leader. MR.

JOR GENSON: Wel l, my point of order is we are now in second reading of these bills and on • )second reading of a bill each member is allowed to make a speech on one occasion dur ing the course • of that debate, unle ss there is an amendment to the bill. This is not the time for qu estio ns. Tha t opportunity will be provided when the bill is in the comm ittee, and we're now beginn ing to get into the habit that was the habit prior to the time that the government chang ed. And that is the members asking a series of questions at a time when they are not sup posed to be askin g qu estions.

I sugge st, Sir , that questions shou ld be lim ited only to clarification of a point that was made during the course of the speech and nothing else. The kinds and types of qu estions that are being asked are, in my opi nion, Sir , entirely out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. On the same poi nt of order, the Member for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: I would like to cla rify for the Member for Morris my questions in relation to statements made by the Member for Wolseley, who has sai d that 500 lawyers critici zed the family law legislation. I asked him for clarific ation. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I must say to the Member forTr anscona that he is asking a qu estion; he is not talking on a point of order. I believe the remarks of the Government House Leader are very valid points and I will attempt to control the qu estioning that occurs on second reading on debate so that only questions of clarifi cation on statements made will be que stions that will be all owed. The Honour able Member for Transcona. MR.

PARASIUK: Yes, the cl arific ation with respect to the statement by the Member for Wolseley I was: Did he have knowledge that the statement made by the Legal Aid Lawyers Assoc iation with . respect to family maintenance law was made yesterday ... 406

Tuesday, December 6, 19n MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is not a qu estion of clarification. Does the Hon ourable Member for Sel kir k have a que stion on ... MR. HOWARD PAWLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in relationship to the honourable mem ber's indication that 500 lawyers questioned this legisla tion, is the honour able member suggesting that 500 lawyers at this meeting voted or in dicated a desire to suspend or defer this legisla tion, that that was the consensus? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Wols eley. MR.

WILSON: Wel l, the gentleman asking the question, the Member for Sel kir k, if he was there he could possibly enl ig hten to me as whether a vote was taken. None of the mem bers attendin g - approximately 500 - could agree, so one wou ld have to assume that if tuere was no vote taken, one would have to say that they all disagreed with one another. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Member for St. John s. MR. CHER NIACK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Honour able Member for Wols eley would agree to answer a question for clarification of what he has already said. MR. SPEAKER: Is it then agreeable that the debate stand?

MR. CHERNI ACK: Mr. Speaker, I asked if the Member for Wolseley would agree to answer a 1; question which I would lik e to ask hi m. A ME MBER: He said no. MR. CHER NIACK: He did not say anythin g to my knowledge. The Ho use Leader attempted to make an answer. A MEMB ER: Muzzl ing, muzzling. MR. CHERN lACK: Muzzling, yes. So I asked that question. The time does permit it, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the Member for Wols eley who of course has a right to refuse. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Wols eley. MR. WILSON: I have never refused to answer a question; yes, by all means. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Member for St. John s. MR. CHERN lACK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Member for Wols eley could clarify his statement that seems to support all of the princi ples of the legislation, of both bill s - could he clarify how he distingu ishes his attitude from that of the other 20-odd members of his ca ucus . • MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that the bill continues to stand in the name of the Honour able Member for In kster? (Ag reed) The Hono urable Government House Leader on a Poin t of Order? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, no, on a Point of Privil ege. MR. SPEAKER: Point of privilege. MR.

SCHREYER: Before we leave the subject matter of the bill that's jus t been under debate. The Point of Privi lege is this, Sir , that the Honour able Member for Wolseley has referred in his remarks to a sum of $180,000, I believe, as having been paid to a law firm. He didn't ind icate the s

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-1-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 1st hansardpdf 14.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d7c9bc241aad7e95586c10234acb1af03b075339

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