Manitoba Hansard — 28 July 1980 (Sitting 130, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-130

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA Monday, 28 July, 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (B irtle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Rec eivin g Pet itions ... Pres enting Reports by Standing and Special Commi ttees . . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . · Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Sp eaker, my question is to the First Mi nister.

In view of the fact there will be a federal-provincial conference in September pertaining to the Constitution, can the First Min ister advise as to whether or not there has yet been a decision made pertaining to opposition observation at the federal-provincial conference planned, in view of the fact, that the Prime Mi nister ind icated he had no objection? I believe the First Mini ster earlier during the Session ind icated that as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mi nister. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Premier)(Charleswo od): Mr.

Sp eaker, I daresay it will be some time before there is commun ication back and forth on that topic but I will undertake to let my honourable friend know as soon as I hear anything on it, that is as to the status of observers or make-ups of delegations. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Min ister of Labour or any other appropriate Min ister. When can we expect an announcement on the appointment of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women which was promised us last February in the Throne Speech. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. HON . KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the provincial council on the Status of Women have been attempting to get this particular body recognized since 1972. They met our announcement with a fair degree of agreement and support and I haven't had any cha stisement from any women' s gr oup in Manitoba at the two or three month study that we have put into putting this body together and I expect the announcement to be made rather shortly. MRS. WESTBURY: Mr.

Sp eaker, one wonders when he spoke to the women's groups because I have been hearing from them on this. Mr. Chairperson MR. SPEAKER: Order, order pl ease. If the honourable member has a question, the honourable mem ber can proceed. MRS. WESTBURY: I do beg your par don, Mr. Speaker, I thought we were allowed to preface it with a brief statement. Mr. Speaker, will we be receiving the news of this announcement at this Session. It was promised in February and while it has been awaited for a long time, can we expect an announcement before we rise from this Session, Mr. Speaker? MR.

SPEAKER: The question has already been ans wer ed. Orders of the day. The Ho nourable Member for Fort Rouge with a final supplementary. MRS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can get an answer to another question. A couple of times I have asked the Min ister of Consumer Affairs if he would announce to the House the result of his investigation into the matter at 18 8 Roslyn Road where condominiums were being offered for sale even though they are not condominiums. The buildin g has not been converted . The Mini ster promised to look into that. Could he report to the House on that matter please, Mr. Speaker? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Consumer Affairs. HON. WARNER H. JORG ENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, that particular matter has been referred to my department. I have not as yet received any report from them. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mb er for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S.

EVANS: A couple of days ago I asked the question which the Min ister of Commun ity Services took as notice for the Mi nis ter of Government Services relating to the old Brandon jail, and I wonder if I could now ask the Mi ni ster responsible, the Mi nister of Government Services, whether the government has any plan s for the util ization of this 10 0-year-old-plus building in the city of Brandon. MR. SPEAKER : The Ho nourable Mi nis ter of Government Services. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, I am advised that the historical advisory group that makes numerous recommendations to the Minis ter of Cultural Affairs has indeed singled out that aspects of the old Brandon jail should be considered as a historical sight. The recommendations are being reviewed by the Department of Government Services. There is some ambiguity in the recommendations. They are suggesting tha t the facade or some portions of this, the first jail in western Canada, 6071

Monday, 28 July, 1980 ought to be preserved for historical reasons. I am well aware of the fact that the community of Brandon and different interest groups within the community of Brandon have reason to use the site for a multiple of uses, some suggesting that it could be used for a possible senior citizen home development; a religious group asking for the use of the site for a possible church location.

I will now be consulting with the Min ister of Cultural Affairs as to whether or not it is in deed government polic y to look at the recommendation of the advisory group that this site be considered for its historical sign ificance. MR. EVANS: Apart from the historical group to which the Mini ster refers, Mr. Speaker, have any other gr oups or in di viduals app roached the government with suggestions for utili zation of the building or indeed.for demolition of the building? MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had covered that question in my earlier answer.

Yes, the Min istry of Government Services has had at least two specific requests for the site, not the building, but for the use of the site for other purposes. MR. SPEAKER : The Ho nour able Memb er for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Honourable Min ister in a position to indi cate at what point in time he would be making a decision with regard to the utili zation of this building or a decision on the use of the land? MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could come to a decision relatively soon.

I suppose perhaps it would be somewhat difficult to consult the former alumni of this association as to their thoughts about the preservation of the Brandon Jail as a historical site, but I do appr eciate the fact that several organizations are specifically interested in the future development of that site, but I have always ind icated to the Mayor of Brandon and the City Council at Brandon that the normal procedure would be that unless we made a conscious decision to preserve part of the Brandon Jail for his torical reasons, that the order is fairly clear tha t the municipa l government, the local government would be given the first option, if they had any particular uses for it.

If that would not be the case, then other interests would be given an opportunity to make a proposal to government for the use of that site. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Honourable Mi nister of Finance if he is now in a position to let us have copies of the Mandan Agreement, signed apparently by Hydro, as well as the agreement previously negotiated but not signed in relation thereto. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi ni ster of Finance. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr.

Speaker, I have been asked that question a number of times and I'll give the member the same answer. I referred it to the utility and directed the question to them. My understanding is that they wanted to check with the other partner to the agreement to determine where there were any concerns from their end of it, which I know, Mr. Speaker, it is well known to mem bers of this House that anytime documents are tabled it is with the agreement of the others at the other end of the line.

If the member wants to formally request it through Order for Return, he can do that, but I can tell him that if the Hydro comes back and says that it's satisfactory to the other party to the agreement, that it will be done. If he wants to formalize it so he can save his breath in the question period, he can do that. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, inasmuch as the Mi nister of Finance knows full well that his response after formal Order for Return need be no different than the response he is giving us, and accepting the fact that I never found it necessary in this case to file an Order for Return because of his undertaking, could I at least ask of the Mini ster whether he would make enquiries as to whether Hydro has requested the approval or consent from the other agency and whether or not a reply has been received, or when it may be received? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the question has been directed.

If I don't have a reply by the end of the session, I will give the member the undertaking that the agreements, if they are avai lable , will be forwarded when they are received. I believe that can be done approprirately. It won't be available as a document for the House, but if in fact they are made available for this purpose, I have no hesitation in forwarding them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Mini ster of Education, and it refers to a new regulation that was in last week's copy of the Manitoba Gazette, referring to teacher certifica tion. I would like to ask the Mi nister whether this is the change in regulation that he alluded to during his estimates in the debate at that time on teacher certifica tion. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the same regulation. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Speaker, a suppleme ntary question: Can we expect any further changes in the regulation having to do with teacher certifica tion, along the same lines, or is this the sum total of the changes the Mi nister anticipates? MR. COSENS: I would expect that would suffice, Mr. Speaker. However, it may be necessary to make other changes. I don't anticipate any at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. 6072

Monday, 28 July, 1980 MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. I dir ect this qu estion to the Mini ster of Natural Resources and ask him whether his department has given approval to build a temporary crossing across the Dauphin River in the Lake St. Martin area for farmers to cross to hayl<;mds, rather than using barges? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killarney): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr . Speaker.

Can the Mini ster advise whether or not his officials have advised him about the concern to the whitefish spawning grounds in the Lake St. Martin area, that this may affect, by allowing the natural flows of water to wash the mud away that will be dumped into the river as a temporary crossing? MR. RANSOM: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for St. George with a final supplementary. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, could the Mi nister check this afternoon, as I am given to unde rstand the bridge is to be built either today or tomorrow and ther e is great concern that the whitefish spawning grounds will be affected because of the muddying of waters that this will cause, while there are alternate means of crossing the river? MR. RANSOM: Certai nly, Mr. Speaker. I thank the honourable member for bringing it to my attention. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Mini ster responsible for Government Air Services.

I would ask the Mini ster, in light of the fact that Pacific Western Airlines has indic ated they will not be landing at the Thompson Airport because of strip conditions, is the Min ister for Government Air prepared to station the MU -2 in Thompson for MediVacs which might have been handled in previous instances by PWA on a regular basis? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi ni ster of Transportation. HON. DON ORCHARD (Pembina): That matter is under process right now, Mr. Speaker. MR. COWAN: As a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, I would just ask the Minister to clarify if that is a commitment on his part to have the MU-2 stationed in Thompson for the duration of the period during which PWA has chosen not to use that strip because of conditions there? MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, that is a commitment made by myself and made by my honou rable colleague, the Mi nister of Labour, and my honourable colleague, the Mi nister of Health, for the duration of the strike in the Thompson Hospital. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Member for Churchill with a final supplementary. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Min ister if he is prepared to extend tha t commitment, and that by no means suggests that the MU -2 shouldn't be stationed there permanently, but if he is prepared to extend that commitment until such a time as Pacific Western Airlines sees fit to use that strip again because the strip conditions have been improved and not restricted to the length of the strike that is ongoing at the Thom pson Hospital now? MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, that decision will have to be made when the strike is over, based on information available and new facts available at that time. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. GE RALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Speak er, I move, seco nde d by the Mini ster of Government Services, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve it self into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report of the bills for third reading. MOTION presented and carried, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): This committee will come to order. Bill 75 is the matter . under discussion at this point.

BILL NO. 75 THE APPROPRIATION ACT, 19 80 MR. CH AIR MAN: The Honour able Memb er for Inkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a very lengthy speech this morning trying to justify -( Interjections)- Mr. Chairman, in approximately 1974, the people of Alberta had a bumper sticker printed which was very prominent in the province of Alberta. It was used throughout the province, Mr. Chairman, and the words were, "Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark." I want to tell the honourable members that when the people of Alb erta -(In terjection)- Yes, Mr .

Chairman, the people of Alberta, because I was in Alberta and I saw the bumper stickers, and they were very proud of those bumper stickers. I want to tell the citizens of this province, that when they were talking about those eastern bastards freezing in the dark, they were looking east to the people of the province of Manitoba. I want to say that, Mr . Chairman, because the First Mini ster, in a speech that had more jingoism than anything else, tried to identify the people of the province of Manitoba with 6073

Monday, 28 July, 1980 the people of the province of Alberta insofar as oil prices are concerned. Mr. Chairman, it has been said, and nowhere is it more applicable than in this particular debate, that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I would pr esume tha t the word "scoundrel" is, Mr. Chairman, an unpa rliamentary word, so I cannot apply it, Mr. Chairman, except by the use of the quotation that the First Mi nister and the Mini ster of Fin ance, having no arg um ent whatsoever to sup port their posi tion, have degenerated, Mr.

Chairman, towards waving a flag and pretending that flag flys with equal validity over the province of Al berta, the pr ovinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. He didn't wave the Canadian flag, Mr. Chairman. He did not wave the Canadian flag. He pulled up the old chestnut that was waved most vigorously by the previous Member for Wolseley, the member Mr. Asper, who tried to have it that we in the west, Mr. Chairman, have as much reason for feeling alienation as the citizens of Quebec, and got up in what I think the First Mi nister of the then day, Mr.

Schreyer, correctly described as veiled treason when talking about western alienation and what the west has to do in order to make its role in Canada. What the First Mi nister has done, Mr. Chairman, is used what has been used throughout the ages as an attempt to reconcile differences on an economic basis by pretending that there is some type of blood relationship which makes the economic relationship seem less valid. Mr.

Chairman, all over the world they got working men to fight working men on the basis of nationalism, because they knew that the interests of those working people crossed the boundaries and therefore, Mr. Chairman, in order to get them to kill each. other, they lifted the blood of nationalism in order to justify, Mr. Chairman, what could not be justified. Mr. Chairman, everybody knows except the First Mi nister that the differences in oil prices are not between the east and the west, there are between vendors and purchasers, Mr. Chairman, not between the east and the west.

The fact that the Mi nister chooses the province of Ontario and does not choose the province of Quebec as being one of the groups who are concerned with the price of oil is very sign ificant because the province of Quebec has supported the Lougheed position not because of self-sufficiency in oil but because they believe in a separate state and so does Mr. Lougheed. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, and this is on the record . . . -(I nterjection)- Mr. Chairman, I will deal with Mr. Blakeney but this is on the record - (In terjection)- yes, I will. Mr.

Chairman, the only provincial Premeir to send Rene Levesque a letter of congratulations and identification at the election of the Parti Quebecois in 1976 was the same Peter Lougheed. He said, Mr. Chairman, to Levesque, and I am now paraphrasing, that the things that have bothered the province of Quebec have also the bothered the Premier of Albe rta, who not only wants to be a Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, but would like to have kingdom, and that all of his constitutional proposals, Mr. Chairman, can be read

chapter and verse as echoing the secessionist positions that were taken by the United States southern states, Mr. Chair man , in 1856 to 1860 and in deed, Mr . Chairman, I believe that Mr. Lougheed uses those speeches in order to put his constitutional position, because that's what he believes in. What the First Mi nister would like to do, Mr. Chairman, because he has no position with respect to oil prices, except a position which is totally contrary to the interests of the people of Manitoba, he congra tulates, Mr.

Chairman , the Premier of Ontario, for doing what is in the interests of the people of Ontario, and, Mr. Chairman, I say that Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Blakeney do what they think is in the interests of the people of the province of Alberta, and which I think in the long run, but I admit that they have more right to speak than I do on these questions, that in the long run are not. But he, Mr. Chariman, has identified not with the people of the province of Manitoba but the people of Alb erta. Mr. Chairman, take one simple fact. I've explained, Mr.

Chairman, when I came back from a federal provincial conference and they said why are you opposing what Mr. Blakeney wants as an increase oil prices; isn't he your friend? I said, yes he is my friend, but when my friend wants to take 30 million out of the pockets of the people of the province of Manitoba and put them into the pockets of the province of Saskatchewan, I cease to identify him as my friend and have to identi fy with people of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, what is the figure?

If we went to world prices which was the original argument; if we went from the existing 14 to 38 or 39, the figure would be astronomical. But if we only went from 14 to around 20, which is what they are asking for, is it not correct that 60 million a year, Mr. Chairman, one percent of sales tax every year, would flow out of the provi nce of Ma ni toba in to the provi nce of Saskatchewan and into the province of Alberta, and mostly into the province of Alb erta? Mr. Chairman, that is not so. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that Canada was producing two million barrels of oil a day and roughly, Mr.

Chairman, using two million barrels of oil a day, I am saying "was". And what happened, Mr. Chairman, is we said that those that we sell we will sell for the world price, and it has always been sold for the world price; and the Uni ted States pays Canada the world price for the oil that goes out export and the amount that is collected, in terms of the export tax, is used to provide Canadians from coast to coast with a level of energy costs which is reasonable in accordance with what prices were being charged. And that is used, Mr. Chairman, to subsidize the oil that is bought. Mr.

Chairman, that was the way in which the export tax originally was conceived and how it was used. The money that was collected on export taxes was used to provide a relatively stable price for the people throughout Canada and we still use it that way. We still sell oil on the export market at the higher price, so we are charging that price, and we still use mone ys tha t come in from the export tax to subsidize the citizens who have to buy off-shore oil because - not because we were not self-sufficient in the amount of oil - but because some of the oil that we were producing was being sent out.

And what could be more sensible than that the money that we got sending it out should be used to subsidize the cost of what is coming in. Mr. Chairman, what has the Mi nister proposed? What has he proposed in suggesting that we are 6074

Monday, 28 July, 1980 looking for self-sufficiency in oil. Nothing - only that we wave an Alberta flag, Mr. Chairman. If the Minis ter would have proposed something sensible saying that the west is a unit and that for the purpose of the west we require this; and if he would, Mr.

Chairman, have shown his willingn ess to abdicate and say that for the purpose of making sure that Alberta and Saskatchewan oil, and the price of it, accrues to the benefit of the citizens of Manitoba, why did he not propose that there be the boundaries between Al berta and Saskatchew an, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba be broken down, and that the west, which he talks about as if it is one political and economic uni t, be the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. Then at least, Mr. Chairman, what he is saying would have made some sense in terms of the money that is being used to pay for oilj.

Because, as it is now, when the people of Alberta, or when people in the province of Alberta, bought the bumper stickers and said let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark, that's the kind of attitude that prevailed in that province with regard to the price of oil and still prevai ls because it is stimula ted by Premier Lougheed. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that in the past seven or eight years, over 5 billion has been paid by other citizens in Canada to the province of Alberta with the increased price of oil, for oil which did not have an incr eased cost of production and no in creased labour costs. Mr.

Chairman, that's a lot of money, but do you know how the Premier of Alberta deals with it? He doesn't say 5 billion was paid by the citizens east of the province of Manitoba into the province of Al berta; he says, I, Peter Lougheed and the people of Alberta, we haven't ripped you off for 5 billion, we have given you a subsidy of 7 billion. He runs around this country, Mr.

Chairman, saying that you citizens of the province of Manitoba, you citizens of the province of Ontario, through the goodness of the hearts of the people of the province of Alb erta who have taken 5 billion from you over the past or four or five years, have really not paid us anything; you have been given a subsidy if 7 billion because instead of getting 14 for that oil, we should have been getting 22 and 23.00. Not only, Mr. Chairman, is there a price which is not - my honourable friend says that it is a price for self-sufficiency - it is not a self-sufficiency price.

Nobody has ever demonstrated that to be a self sufficiency price and nothing that Alberta has said, or that the province of Manitoba has said, gives one iota of self-sufficiency to the price of oil. None of that money is designated as an imperative to produce oil and to provide self-sufficiency. And when it is produced what's the difference, Mr. Chairman, if the price of oil goes up to 80 and we pay 40 to produce it, the next step will be to pay 80 for the oil.

Self sufficiency will not put us in any different position; if we are going to pay for the world price of oil, we could pay for it, and pay it to Kuwait, like the mem ber says, and be no di fferently off, Mr . Chairman. Now that's not entirely correct because, of course, there would be the revenues from the government and the revenues from those companies that happen to stay here, but there is not guarantee that the revenues from outside wouldn't come in here, Mr. Chairman. So if you went to do it on that basis (I nterjec tion)- Mr. Chairman, that's what my honourable friend has dealt with at all times.

In any event, my friend the Member for Pembina made a speech, Mr. Chairman, in this House, and said that when the price of oil goes up to 30 and we produce it at 30 and the rest of the world is selling it for 60, we will be self-sufficient and we will sell it for 30. That's what he said, Mr. Chairman, and it's the closing end of his remarks. If he could do it ten years from now when the price goes up to 60, and we could hold it to what my friend calls a hothouse price of 30, why can we not hold it to hothouse price of 15 , when the price is selling for 30 and there is no increased cost of production. Mr.

Chairman, the member says it is not being produced. The oil that we are using now was selling for 2.75 a barrel. The oil that we are now paying for at 15 a barrel was produced at that cost. We are paying for it now. When the price goes up to 18 .00, which my friend says we have to pay in order to get it produced, will be then get it free since we have already paid for it? If my honourable friend says that we are now paying for the barrel that's going to be produce five years from now; when it is produced, is it going to be sold for nothing? Because it it's not, Mr.

Chairman, and I presume that it won't be, then Tommy Douglas best described this practice that is being foisted on the province of Manitoba better than anybody else could describe it: It is a pay now, pay later policy. That's what it is. The Honourable the First Mi nister, with all his flag waving, saying that if we spend money in Alberta, they are going to be the benefactors and create industry and there is going to be a pendulum swing to the province of Manitoba, hasn't shown anything, Mr. Chairman, which would cause that to be the case. Therefore, when he gets up and says that Mr.

Davis is very cleverly defending and looking after the interests of the province of Ontario, he is right. When people say tha t Mr . Loug heed is very cleverly defending and pursuing the interests of the province of Alberta and that Mr. Blakeney is doing the same for Saskatchewan, they could well be right. Certainly that's what they are doing. What we want to know, Mr. Chairman, is who is cleverly and well repres enting the people of the province of Mani toba? I suggest to you, Mr . Chairman, nobody, nobody.

That is what the Mi nister has left out of his remarks, the fact that he has identified, in the same old style that there used to be the identification, "What is good for General Motors is good for the people of the Uni ted States "; what my friend says is that what is good for Premier Lougheed is good for the people of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, that just won't wash. Mr.

Chairman, it happens to be that if one looked at the identity of interests in this case, that the citizens of the province of Manitoba are much more iden tified in their interests as purchasers with the province of Ontario, than they are identified with vendors, which the people in the provinc e of Saskatchewan and the province of Al berta are. And I said that from the outset, Mr. Chairman, there is no flag which in this issue waves with equal benevolence over the people of the three prairie provinces, and that for the people of Alb erta and the people of Saskatchewan, if they will have it, but the bumper 6075

Monday, 28 July, 1980 sticker originated in Alb erta, the saying was, and my friend will have to realize it, "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark", and when they were looking east, Mr . Chairman, they were looking straight at the citizens of the province of Manitoba, whom they are asking to pay 60 million, 70 million, and 100 million a year out of the economy of the pr ovince of Ma ni toba into the pr ovince of Saskatchewan and Alber ta. And my friend, the First Min ister, says that is consis tent with the interests of the people of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, that will be his Achilles Heel.

The Conservatives in Ottawa went to the people on the basis that they thought they could get through a budget providing for an 18 -cent increase in gas, not for, Mr. Chairman, any purpose - and if it was for a purpose it would have got through - because the people will accept a tax which will provide them with something but this particular tax was to finance an il l-conceived , useless scheme of mortgage tax deductibility on mortgage documents, which would have helped the rich far more than the poor, and in the long run would have helped nobody. Mr. Chairman, the Conservative government fell on that 18 cents.

That was the basic issue upon which they lost the election, the basic issue upon which they government seems willing to commit suicide, which will come as no regret to most of the people on this side, Mr. Chairman, and I believe most of the people in the province of Manitoba, is trying to tell the people of the province of Manitoba that it is in their interest to pay 10 0 million a year out of this provinc e in to the coffers of the pr ovince of Saskatchewan and the province of Alberta. And more importantly, Mr. Chairman, into the hands of oil companies who are charging, not a self-sufficiency price,· Mr.

Chairman, but a cartel price which, if a couple of companies got together in Canada and decided that they would set prices in that way, then the law would say that they would go to jail. Now, the law would say it; they never do go to jail because they have long court cases, as the sugar company did, and fought them for years and years, and after it was all over they are acquitted. But the law says if people get together for that purpose, for the purpose of advancing a price and stifling competition, they are subject to fine or impr isonment. That's the price that we are talking about, Mr. Chairman.

It is a price set by a criminal cartel. It is not a self-sufficiency price and nothing that the Conservative government is doing will see to it that there is self-sufficiency in oil, no matter what price is charged to them. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr . Chairperson. This morning we were treated to a full-fledged rhetorical discussion on behalf of the Conservative Party of Manitoba in the sense that I would term of a reactionary nature, harkening back, it seems to me, Mr.

Chairman, to the days when there were big fights about tariffs, about maintaining your own protection with a tariff barrier. And now we hear the Leader of the Conservative Party speaking again with a sort of reactionary demonology which now includes in its description, not only Socialists but the Conservatives of Ontario, and Bill Davis in particular. That form of demonology is part of the consideration given by the Conservative Party and its leader as to which dog's tail it wants to attach itself to. Talk about short-term political advantage, Mr .

Chairman, the leader of the government is clearly showing what side he wants to be on as he watches that pendulum swinging. He told us the pendulum is swinging from the east to the west. Can you see, Mr. Chairman, how the whole Conse rvative Party is building a pyramid, standing shoulder on shoulder, trying to grab onto the pendulum as it swings past Manitoba, because that's exactly the picture that I got from the First Mini ster, and that's what is happening; he told us that.

The onl y amu sing thing is that one sees the Premier of Newf oundland, one of the poorest provinces, maybe the poorest province of Canada, trying his best to swing the pendulum somewhat in his dir ection with a promise of offshore oil and concurrently with his enactment - didn't he enact that Newfoundlanders get Newfoundland jobs and they don't want import labour. That's his attempt to pull the pendulum to him. But the First Mini ster of Manitoba is indeed trying to grab hold of the tail, or that portion of the pendulum within reach, so that he can swing with it in a westerly direction. Mr.

Chairman , Manitoba, I bel ieve, has always been just below average of Canada and I think that's a pretty healthy position to be in, because it has prevented Manitoba in the past from feeling that its interests are, lik e the Member for ln kster said, attached to that of General Motors or whatever, because the interest of Manitobans happily has always been the int erest of Canada, because as Manitobans, to put it bluntly, as recipients of an equalization formula, Manitoba's need for Canada is greater than Canada's need for Manitoba, and so it should be, Mr. Chairman.

The First Mi nister talked about, "We must protect Mani toba, but Cana dians firs t". Mr. Chairman, everything he said denies that. Everything he said, except the phrase, "Canada first", everything he said is, "We protect the parochial in terests of Manitobans, and we have attached Manitoba's future and Ma nito ba's vested in terest to the western provinces". But as the Member for ln kster pointed out, and I believe it's self-apparent, Manitoba is in the middle of Canada, Manitoba is not part of the western provinces in the sense of its economic future being that closely related to the west; and if it were, Mr.

Chairman, I am glad, that Manitoba would still, I would like to think, take the position that it is conc erned about Canada and not abou t the parochial interests of any part of Canada. I know, in the demonology of all of us, and in particular now the reactionary demonology "that golden triangle of Ontario has too long controlled Canada", and it is time it was changed. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to see that pendulum swing so quickly past us that we start talking about, and we are talking about, what do they call Lougheed? - the blue eyed sheik. Mr.

Chairman, there is no reason in the world to say, Trudeau or Lougheed, and one or the other, we must go either way. And there's no reason in the world to say, Davis or Lougheed and we must pick our team. Mr. Chairman, Ma nitoba should be speaking on behalf of 6076

l Monday, 28 July, 1980 Manitobans. When the First Min ister says, why? There will come a time when someone will try to interfere with the export pricing of hydro - beware. I have to remind the First Mi nister that the waters of the Hydro start way out in Alberta, at the divide between Al berta and B.C., and th e waters of Manitoba Hydro stem from other provinces and it is only the fortuitous geographical ci rcumstance of Manitoba .that its waters empty into Churchill at the low level, so that the waters flow through Manitoba, and we ther efore have cheap and renewable resources of energy.

I stress the word renewable because we know that oil is not renewable and we know that the production of oil is one which is not 'in the hands of the public as is that of Manitoba's hydro power and that makes a big di fference. Because, Mr.

Chairman, regardless of the price, at which oil is sold, the moneys that come from the oil, being the difference between cost of production and sale price, are moneys that are controlled by a group that have not the interests of Manitoba at heart, that have not, to a large extent, the interests of Canada at heart, not even Alberta at heart but are that part of a large cartel which is controlled on a worldwide basis. Mr.

Chairman, I remember sitting with officers of one of the mining companies, well of International Nickel, and they were talking about further investment and further exploration for the minerals that they needed to use in their production, and the name New Caledonia and the name Manitoba, to them was just a choice of geography as to where they would plant their research dollars, their search dollars, and it was usually Canadian dolla rs that was going to be spent in New Caledonia or in Manitoba, or in Ontario or wherever. And to them it was just where do they get the best deal, that's all it was, Mr.

Chairman, where do they get the best deal? So where is the money going today, from the excess profits, the windfall profits of oil? Yes, they're going to Kuwait and they're going to the emirs of the other countries and they're going via the multi nationals, you know, that's another demonology involved in the reactionary lexicon. In the multi nationals, where is the exploration going on?

In the North Sea, in pl aces outside of Canada, of course, because it is where they get the best deal and where they can see the most profit is where the money goes and that is a legitima te enterprise on the part of those to whom has been given the power to use the oil extracted from Alberta, and to redistribute it in such a way as will redound to their best benefit. Mr. Chairman, it is not who is Lougheed, and it is not who is Trudeau? It is the interests of the people that I am concerned about.

I am concerned that the only gov ernment that can represent me, as a Manitoban, is the Manitoba government and a Canadian government, and I do not want that the governments of the other provinces of Canada should be able to say, in their discretion, whether or not what they will do will be of benefit to those provinces or to Canada and thus to Manitob ans. Mr. Chairman, we saw, and I was part of the meeting of Finance Ministers that were contesting with John Turner the decision to remove windfall oil prices from the equali zation formula.

And we fought it because we said that if Alberta benefits from these windfall increase profits, then indeed that should be redistributed in Canada. And John Turner said, but we can't afford it, we in Canada cannot afford it because the money stays in Alberta and the money goes to the oil companies and we cannot, out of other revenue, other than oil, we cannot include it in the equaliz ation formula to create greater equity and greater redis tribu tion of the wealth of Canada amongst Canadians. And I unde rstood his problem, Mr.

Chairman, because the resources of Canada, large as they are, are still limited; and if the province of Alberta, and to a much lesser extent the province of Saskatchewan, control and manage the resources of those provinces, the natural resources of the oil industries, then they will retain the benefits to be derived therefrom from Canada, to prevent Canada to play its important role as the confederation of all provinces and in the interests of a greater form of equalization. And that to me is important, Mr. Chairman.

I have heard no one say that they want to freeze the price of gasoline at the pump, except the First Mini ster who didn't say he wanted to do it but claims he heard it said in this House. I did not hear that said. I heard that there was a thought that it should be related to the cost of production. I know the cost of production of old oil is a lot less than the cost of production of new oil, and I know also that the cost of exploration and the cost of production of the newest oil in the tar sands is great, but I do not believe, Mr.

Chairman, that we should put ourselves in the hands of the international oil companies for them to decide how to develop the production of oil; and I do not think that we, as Man itobans, should put ourselves in the hands of anybody in the province of Alberta, be it Peter Loug heed or his successor, and let them decide what is good for Manitoba. That, Mr. Chairman, is what we should be concerned about in Manitoba; and that, Mr.

Chairman, is the attack I want to make on the Manitoba Cons ervatives who, by watching th at pendulum and assuming that it swings one way and the other way it cannot be controlled, because they happen to like the analogy of the physics of a pendulum, they refuse to fight for the battle of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, I repeat again, I think it is healthy not to be in the wealthier group; it is healthier not to be in the control group; it is healthier for the rest of Canadians that Manitoba is in a position where it is absolutely dependent on the rest of Canada.

I think that we do more for the people, not only in Newfoundland with its short-sighted policies - and if ever I saw a short-sighed policy that was the one developed by the Conservatives of Newfoundland - Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick. Those are provinces that need a great deal more concern than does Manitoba, and I think that they have blindly followed a leader who is not a leader leading them in their interest. That's my concern, Mr.

Chairman, and I do think that Manitoba need not swing all the way to Trudeau, which of course it wouldn't do and I don't want them to, nor all the way to Lougheed, and I don't want them to. The members opposite say, well, which way do you want to go? Mr. Chairman, I want to go on the basis of discussing what is the way that Canadians can adapt to this crazy controlled pricing of oil. I think that it is important that we recognize that the policies son

Monday, 28 July, 1980 are made here in Canada and that the control of the distribution of oil is such that it is not there to the benefit of any one province. I think it should be done in a way that can be worked out. I think it must be done with relation to the cost of production but, most of all, whether the money leaves Canada to go to Kuwait or whether the money leaves Canada to go to some company which will carry out its exploration or its development outside of Canada, they are both wrong, they are both wrong, Mr. Chairman.

And that, I think, is where the short-sighted Conservative policy is working to the detriment of Manitobans and that, to me, is a matter of serious concern. I believe we should reach for self-sufficiency. We should do so with the recognition that prices are going up and with the recognition that there must be gr eater incentive to conservation. I think we have agreed with that principle . but what we do not agree to is that Alberta shall determine for us what shall be the oil policy for Canada.

That, to me, is the important feature and I believe that the Conservative policy, as espoused by its leader and as a throw-back to what I call reaction ary days, is blindly following another leader and not working on behalf of the people of Manitoba and the people of Canada, in general, and that I deplore. It is not a bad thing for Canada that Bill Davis is finding out that where he represented the province that used to say: "We are contri butors to the equalization and the redistribution of wealth, and we don't mind one bit", which is what he and his predecessor, John Robarts, used to say.

That was magnanimous of them and they were sincere. Now they are in a position of realizing what was the situation then and what may be the situation in the futur�. Which ever way it swings, if it goes east or if it goes west, the people of Canada are not helped by that kind of attitude and one which the Manitoba Conservatives have accepted and one which the Manitoba Conservatives appear to believe is in the best interests of Manitobans. I tell them it is not, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAMUEL USK IW: Mr.

Chairman, one of the things that has not been alluded to by members who spoke in response to the First Mi nister is, of course, the windfall benefits that the Treasury of Manitoba would enjoy from those high oil prices that are now being asked for by our First Minis ter. Mr. Chairman, just recently we passed a tax measure in this House which gives the province of Manitoba a percentage, a 20 percent margin, on all new oil price increases. Mr.

Chairman, we should recall the debate on that very bill because it was at that time that I had ind icated to the Mi nister of Finance that this was the sleeper in his financial affairs for this province, as far as new taxation was concerned, and that this will inevitably result in huge financial windfalls to the province of Ma ni toba if, in fact, the Canadian government, along with the oil-producing provinces, agree to world oil prices or near world oil prices.

That there was no other way, other than to assume that the province of Manitoba would add to the burden of Ma ni toba taxpayers by imp osing an additional charge on them, not only the fact that the oil price would increase dramatically but that there would be an additional tax added on each time the oil prices went up, Mr. Chairman.

So that, contradictory to their position, or at least their posturing with respect to how to hold down spending in order to hold down inflation, the fact of the matter is all of these things are pushing inflation more and more and is the main problem in the western world insofar as inflation is concerned , Mr . Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, we do not accept that the First Mi nister is somehow just wanting to align himself with Lougheed in Alber ta, but rather that he has looked at the figures and has done some calculations as to what a world oil price would do for his treasury here in Manitoba if he could reach that stage fairly soon. Mr.

Chairman, the fact of the matter is that there is no truth in the fact that high oil prices have something to do with self-sufficiency, unle ss there is absolute control of the oil industry; unle ss there is absolute control as to where the revenues from higher oil prices are going to be channeled and as to whether they are going to be channeled into new oil finds, Mr. Chairman, or whether they are going to be siphoned away by oil companies for other things, such as real estate, such as mining, a whole host of other investment opportunities that are available to them. There is no guarantee, Mr.

Chairman, that a higher oil price is going to find its way into more wells being developed or, it's not true, Mr. Chairman, that the oil companies cannot siphon off half, three-quarters or all of their new profits right out of the oil indu stry and into other ventures. So the First Min ister today talks about the need for high er oil pric es and tries to link tha t up somehow with the fact that we will be served well in the future with an abundant supply of oil, if we are only prepared to pay for new researc h, new development, new exploration. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is not one iota of truth in that. Now, Mr.

Chairman, if we had a Canadian oil monopoly operated by the people of Canada for the people of Canada then, Mr. Chairman, we would have at least a handle, no matter what the price was. We would have a handle on the pricing of oil; we would have a handle on the exploration of it, on where the profits of that oil would go, and how that would relate to self-sufficiency. We don't have that, and we don't expect it from Cons ervative governments, Mr.

Chairman, but it seems to me that the minimum that a Conservative government would advocate would be at least to have a measure of control on where those new revenues are to be spent and for what purpose. At least there should be accountability as to whether there is a need for those price increases if it's supposed to be related to self sufficiency, Mr. Chairman. Maybe there ought to be a cost of production formula that would benchmark at what price oil can be produced and what has to flow into new energy projects and new explor ation programs. But, Mr.

Chairman, we are supposed to accept those things as a given. We are supposed to accept the fact that oil companies in the last number of years, the last few years, have gener ated profits on top of pr ofits in the extreme, Mr . Chairman. 6078

Monday, 28 July, 1980 Percenta ge increases in profit taking by oil compa nies have been horrendous over the last couple of years, Mr. Chairman. How are we to be satisfied that those profits are indeed needed in order to generate greater supplies for the longer term; how can we be satisfied that the oil ind ustry isn't channeling those dollars into other ventures that are totally unrelated to the needs of the Canadian people with respect to oil supply in the future?

None of those things are in place and yet we are supposed to de bate this as if this Legi slature and this parliament in Canada, the Parliament of Canada, ha ve some say in wha t happens to all thos e revenues, Mr. Chairman. The fact is they don't have a say as to the major part of those new revenues, other than what is siphoned off by taxation. They don't have a say, and so the whole argument is absurd , the whole argument, Mr. Chairman, is a sham.

There is no connection whatever between our alignment with Saskatchewan and with Al berta on oil price increases as somehow having to serve the best interests of Mani tobans in the years ahead. As a matter of fact a case can be very well made that Mani toba happens to find itself on the other side of the ledger as a consuming, importing province who cannot afford to align itself with those who wish to extract every penny out of the Canadian people in new oil prices and new profits and additional profits, Mr. Chairman.

The First Min ister alluded to the fact that there will be a shift of indu stry from eastern Canada westwar d, that there's going to be a trem endous surge, movement of factories and people from Ontario - he didn't mention Quebec but I presume he means Quebec, as well - into western Canadian provinces because of the oil question. Mr.

Chairman, if you look at Manitoba's position, even if he was correct about this huge out-migration of people from Ontario to Sask atchewan or Alberta or British Columbia, the most he can claim out of this whole business is that we might have to build a few more hotel rooms in Winnipeg in order to sleep them over on their way west. This is the sum total of the spinoff effects of that, Mr . Chairman.

And to somehow suggest that if we can get that oil price right up to world levels that will find its way into Manitoba's economy as an advantage, while costing the people of Ma nitoba hundr eds of millio ns of dol lars in additional oil charges per annum, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that a case can be made. The Premier hasn't made the case on that argument and neither has the Minis ter of Finance or anyone else on that side. So, Mr. Chairman, I, for one, cannot accept that Manitoba has an interest in lining up with Premier Lougheed on Canadian oil policy for one moment, and I'm prepared to fight that position.

Mr. Chairman, the Mi nister of Finance is in his seat and I would like to pursue a number of other thin gs, and perhaps he might want to acquaint himself with his most recent report, the prelimi na ry fina ncial report for the end of the last fiscal year, in which case, we end up the year with a deficit of some 45 million, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the Min ister of Finance whether or not he would agree with me that if it had not been for a very substantial increase in equal ization payments of some 138 million over the year before, whether or not Manitoba would have not have ended up the fiscal year with a deficit of 15 3 million? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. R. (Pete) ADAM: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the Minister this morning, the First Mini ster, it is obvious, is desperately grasping for an issue. - (Interjection)- My colleague says he is looking for a life jacket.

He is looking for an issue, an issue to go to the people in the next elec tion. Also, Mr. Chairman, he wants to cover up the failur es of the performance of this government in the past three years. The First Mini ster, when he arose in his place this morning, said he was reacting to the comments made by my leader and the comments made by the Member for Brandon East. Mr. Chairman, it was obvious that the Premier has been preparing and mulling over this speech for several weeks.

He was mulling over his comments for today and regardless of whether my leader had spoken on energy, or the Member for Brandon East, the First Min ister would have made the same speech that he did, because he is desperately searc hing for an issue to cloud up what's happening in Manitoba, Mr. Chairman. And what better issues to go to the people with, as confrontations with Ottawa; what better issues to go to the people on, on the Constitution, Mr. Chairman. That is all the First Minister has left and that is all this government has; it has nothing else. Because, Mr.

Chairman, he has seen the results the same as I have and everybody else in the province, the results of the past two federal elections. Mr. Chairman, he has also been read ing some polls. He has been looking at some polls that have been taken in the province of Manitoba. Mr . Chairman, there have been a nu mber of polls and I kn ow that the government is concerned about the results of these polls. Mr.

Chairman, you know the First Mini ster was trying to make the point that New Democrats were somehow siding, taking sides; taking sides with the federal government; taking sides with the Trudeau government he never says the federal government, he always says Trudeau. He never says the Lib eral gover nment, he says the Tru deau government and the NDP, bedfellows, he says. Mr .

Chairman, I believe it was only last week that there were bedfellows in Ottawa on a recorded vote on the construction of a pipeline in Alberta, whether that should proceed or not, without any guarante es that the balance of the line would be constructed or that ther e wou ld be any tr adeoffs. Who were the bedfellows? There was a recorded vote last week in Ottawa on that particular issue. Who were the bedfellows? The Conservatives and the Liberals, Mr. Chairman; those were the bedfellows, Mr. Chairman. They are the bedfellows, Mr. Chairman.

Let not the First Mini ster come in this House and start talking about bedfellows. They showed their colours; they showed their true colours in Ottawa last week. The First Min ister has al ready forgotten that, Mr. Chairman. He has already forgotten that. When the chips are down in Ottawa it doesn't take long to find out who are the bedfellows, Mr. Chairman. 6079

Monday, 28 July, 1980 Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, as I mentioned, the Min ister is looking for an issue to try and divert the people of Manitoba. He knows that the people of Manitoba are upset with this government. He has read the polls, and he doesn't like what he read and he wants to divert the attention of the people of Manitoba on the performance of this government, and he is looking for larger issues and he is going to be a big hero when the next conference is held. He is going to try and take the stage away from all the other Premiers, and that is what he is going to do.

He is going to take the same tactic as the government of Alberta when they had their provincial election. They want a mandate to deal with Ottawa, and that is the same tactic that was used by Bill Bennett in the last provincial election, they want a mandate to deal with Ottawa, and that's what this government is trying to do, because that's the only thing that they can fall back on because they have nothing else to fall back on. But the weakness of the argument that was put forth this morning is that the Min ister, in committee, the Mi nister responsible for energy in committee, I posed two questions to him, Mr.

Chairman. Could he assure me, could he assure the committee that the money that we're going to have to pay out for incr eased energy costs, could he assure me that would give us self-sufficiency? The answer was no, I cannot give you that assurance. My second question was to the Mi nister: Can you assure me that if we pay out this money to the oil companies that money will be used to find oil? He said no. That's it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman. That is the answer: Two noes.

No, they will not find oil, he cannot guarantee it; no, he cannot guarantee that the money that the Canaoian people are now being asked to put up will be used for that purpose or whether it be spent. I said I would be happy if he could at least assure me that the funds that we are being asked to put up at the present time will be spent in Canada; and the answer was no, Mr. Chairman. We have seen what has happened in the past in that the oil companies will not spend that money to find oil. Oh yes, they will look for dribbles of oil and they might find a little puddle here and there.

They will spend money in other countries, Mr. Chairman, because it makes no dif ference to Im perial Oil whether they pay Imperial Oil in some other country or whether we pay Imp erial Oil in Al berta or whe rever they are; it makes no di fference to Canadians. And the First Mi nis ter says, what country? What country subsidizes their consumers on the price of oil? Well, Venezuela does, Mr. Chairman; Venezuela does have a lower price for their citizens than do their export prices. Mr. Chairman, the First Mi nister is trying to, I would say, divide Canada today.

He said there are sides to this issue, there are two sides, and he put the proposal to us that we had to take one side or the other. I say, Mr. Chairman, there must be a Manitoba side. It does not necessarily follow that we have to have a confrontation with the federal government or that we have to side with Alberta. There has to be a Manitoba side, but the Min ister has not come out with that Manitoba side, Mr. Chairman. I suggest to you that his speech this morning was inflamma tory for the cause of unity in this country.

It is an inflam matory speech and it is a speech of a desperate man, a desperate government that has run out of steam, that has mismanaged this province for the last three years, that got us into debt to about 1, 10 0 more than we were three years ago, and a dismal performance in the last three years. It's a desperate Min ister who stood up this morning and was trying somehow to extricate himself from the mire that he has dug himself in. For a moment , when I lis tened to the First Mi nister, I said, well is it possible that I am in the House of Commons in London, England, listening to Mrs.

Thatcher making a speech? Mr. Chairman, what we heard this morning was Thatcherism, and the disaster that she has created for her own country and the disaster that is going to happen here; that is what we heard this morning. Of course, we know that Mrs. Thatcher is not going to be there very long, the business community there is even turning against her because it doesn't work, it will not work; it hasn't worked in the past and will not work in the future. Mr. Chairman, where are the profits going on the price of oil today, where are they going?

We are selling oil that, well, the Member for lnkster said is 3.00 oil that we're now getting 15 .00 a barrel for. There is a profit of 12. 00 a barrel at the present time on the oil that is on stream now. In fact, there are wells that have been drille d 30 years ago that have never been opened, they are still capped; oil that was brought in at Z.75 a barrel. Are we going to go and tap that oil and sell it at 35.00 a barrel, Mr. Chairman, or 50.00, or 60.00? Mr. Chairman, I got a report just recently from a Czar, Czar Inc orporated or Czar Petroleum, or whatever they call themselves.

It's a junior company, and they assess their reserves a couple of years down the road at 60.00 a barrel, their oil reserves. There is no stopping at 50.00 or 35.00 dollars, you people there are deluding yourselves. They are asking us to invest in Czar Petroleum, in drilling funds; not to drill in Canada, Mr. Chairman, they want to drill down in the Uni ted States and in other countries. In 19 79, oil companies have invested, I believe it was 300 million dollars, and tha t's only two compan ies Mr. Chairman. I only speak for two companies. Two multi-nationals in Canada last year spent 300 million.

They sent 300 million back to the Uni ted States to do some exploration in the United States. Mr. Chairman, the Canadian public is being creamed; we are being creamed with the support of this Premier and this government. We are being creamed, and good, so that corporations can go down and explore in other countries. You are still going to have to pay for the oil, because if it's found in the Uni ted States it will be a deal between Imperial Oil and Exxon, Standard Oil and so on, and Gulf and Texaco, Gulf U.S. and Gulf Canada. So we will be still importing the oil.

It will be bought with your money and our money, and Canadian money, farmers money, fishermen's money, the travelling public's money. Mr. Chairman, tha t is what is happening. That is the scenario that is happening right now; that is what is taking place. It's the biggest swindle in the history of this country that is being perpetrated with the support and condolences of this government and tha t First Min ister. That is what is happening. 6080

Monday, 28 July, 1980 Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen is that all this money that we are being asked to pay out to the multi-national oil companies now is not to find oil, Mr. Chairman, where will that money go? Well, Mr. Chairman, it will go to buy up coal reserves, uranium reserves. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is 1.8 billion last year, in 19 79, was used to buy up other sources of energy, non -petroleum ener gy. That is what is happ en ing. The mul ti-na tional corporations are gobbling up the next set of energy resources. That is what the money is being used for.

The bulk of it will be used to buy up the next set of resources. This money will be taken out of the pockets of Canadians; gouged out of the farmers; gouged out of the fishermen; gouged out of everybody; gouged out of industry; gouged out of the homeowner who has to heat his oil. Mr. Chairman, a few years down the road, when we finally realize that we no longer have any oil and we have to go and move to another source of energy, we will find out that these guys own it and that they bought it with our money.

They bought it with our money, and I say that if we are to pay for it in the first place we ought to develop those resources in such a manner that we'll own them and that we don't have to pay for them twice. I submit to you that is the scenario that is taking place, Mr. Chairman, and it's unacceptable to us, it's unacceptable to the people of Manitoba and it's unacceptable to the people of Canada. There is absolutely no reason. The Premier is wrong when he says that there is no country that will shelter their citizens. That is incorrect, Mr. Chairman.

The price at the pump in Venezuela is about 35 cents a gallon, Mr. Chairman. They are protecting their citizens, not their export. They're bleeding us, Mr. Chairman, to subsidize their ... Mr. Chairman, we do not accept the position that this government takes. They have not given us one item, or not even one iota of proof, not one iota of proof has been giv en , either by the Minis ter responsible for energy or the First Minis ter, that paying the world price for oil will give us, somehow, self-sufficiency.

In some way, he has hinted, he has given us a hint of what is going to happen, because he mentioned the Uni ted States. The only self-sufficiency that they envisage is that they want to put the price of oil high enough so that a large percentage of the motoring public will have to turn to bicylces; that is what they would like to see. They want the people to start driving cars. They want the person who has to drive 20 miles to get to a factory job in Toronto, through no fault of his own the factory plant is built outside of Toronto, they want that fellow to somehow get on a bicycle and ride to his work.

That is what they want, Mr . Speaker. They want the lower income people to get rid of their cars, get rid of their automobiles, that's what they want. Just let those people who can afford to pay 2.00 or 3.00 a gallon, let them drive, let them drive. That is what this government would like to see. They want to remove a large percentage of the public from dr iving automo biles. Then we will become self-sufficient. If you can't afford to buy it, you won't use it; you will stay home. You don't have to go to work. You could take a bicycle and drive to work.

That's what they want and it's unacceptable, absolutely and totally unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, I could dwell on this for some time, but a lot of it has been covered by some of my colleagues. But a couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Min ister is he could advise if they had contacted Ottawa in regard to a study that had been made on the entire oil industry and the Minis ter, in his reply, said that he was unaware of what study I was speaking of, and that unless he could have more information there was nothing he could do about this. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I can't guarantee that there was a study made but I did attend a convention in Ottawa last March, I believe it was. One of the speakers at this convention was none other than Tommy Douglas, one of the speakers, along with some other people. I think Mr. Mazankowski was there. Mr. Douglas referred to a study on the oil ind ustry that had been made by the previous Liberal government and that study had been tabled or brought back, had been gi ven back to the government just shortly before the election, the election that elected the Clark admin istration.

They had been pressing the Clark government to table this report, but I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that report has not been tabled to date, as far as I know, and I suspect, Mr. Chair man , tha t it is a scath ing condemna tion of the oil ind ustry and how oil is developed in this country. Mr. Chairman, I don't mind paying for oil; I don't mind paying for oil if we, as people collectively, through a Crown corporation, are going to buy up those coal reserves and those uranium reserves and that we're going to develop the resources for the benefit of the people and not for multi-nationals, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, the present policy will create serious problems down the road for Canada, and Canada stands to lose heavily to foreigners in any increase in oil prices towards world level. We will be transferring billions of dollars out of Canada. We will transfer billions of dollars in dividends and oil companies will be em barrassed. They will be embarrassed to have to transfer billions of dollars in dividends to parent companies in the states. In fact, it will be so great that it will be throwing our balance of payments out of kilter, Mr. Chairman.

They will either be requir ed to make these massive payments to the parent companies or else they have to invest those profits into non-petroleum resources or companies, and they will be diverting the petro dollars, the petro profits, the money that you and I will have to pay for high er incr eases, they will be buying up other ind ustry. In fact, one oil company bought into a circus last year in the Uni ted States, a Canadian company. Now, this is the scenario that we're watching; this is the scenario tha t is taking pl ace. And, Mr .

Chairman, this government supports that kind of policy and I want to go on the record that I do not support that our farmers are going to be gouged by the policies of this government; the fishermen of this province are going to be gouged by the policies of this governm ent; and the general public, the travelling public will be gouged by the policies of this government; I don't intend to support that position whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Hono ur able Memb er for Winnip eg Centre. 6081

Monday, 28 July, 1980 MR. J.R. (Bud) BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the Member for Brandon West that I haven't got a handle on it, I don't know if my colleague from Ste. Rose has or not, but that isn't the point. We were hopeful in the three-quarters of an hour presentation the First Min ister gave us this morning that we would find some glimmer of light that the government had a handle on it. If my colleagues opposite won't listen to us, listen to the model that your First Mi nister has established in his speech this morning.

Premier Lougheed, hims elf, in opening the Legislative Assembly in Alber ta this spring said, and it's on the Hansard of that province, he told the private corporations, bring your inv estment capital; don't bring your de bt capital , bring up investment capital. We expect you to reinvest your profits in the province of Alber ta and, if you don't we will look at our tax structures. That is not the saying of a New Democratic Party; that is Premier Lougheed himself. We have heard much about the Heritage Fund.

For gosh sakes, wouldn't it be much better if we had a Canadian Heritage Fun d, rather than an Alb erta Heritage Fund or a Saskatchewan Heritage Fund? We are at a very important crossroads in our history, Mr. Chairman, and all we are asking on this side is you pause and think. Think of some of the mistakes that have been made in our negotiations at this level, in this magnitude.

All we have to do is look at our own history in the city of Winnip eg, where 12 5 ratepayers, because they were the only people who had the power to vote at the time, negotiated with the CPR tax exemptions in perpetuity to get them to move that line from where Selkirk is today to where Winnip eg is. (I nterjection)- Into the floodlands, right .. But all of the ramifications of it.

And if they had said at the time that all of these things that they gave the CPR, all the mineral rights, all the moneys which you get for this right to build a railway across the country, will be reinvested by those people that give you the right in the first place. That's what we're talking about from this side and that's what the Member for Lac du Bonnet mentioned, 1.8 billion already has gone into industries outside of energy by these corporations. What did Mr. Lougheed say? If you don't reinvest your money in Alberta we'll look at our tax structures. Why, in heavens name, Mr.

Chairman, can't we learn from the mistakes of history? Because it has been said that those people who are unfamiliar with them are doomed to repeat them, and here we are again. The First Min ister thinks he has an election issue. I think he has got an election issue, to the benefit of this side because I don't think the people of Manitoba will fail to see through what he is doing. He is negotiating away our imm edia te situation and putting generation after generation into hock, Mr. Chairman. As the Member for Ste. Rose said, 60 a barrel they're taking in inventory in two years.

So I, for one, was most disappointed in listening to the First Mini ster's rhetoric and poemics in this regard, because he didn't say one word - and I was listening attentively of what he was doing to negotiate to protect the int erests of Manitobans, today and in the future; not one word. The idea of, you know, pay now and pay later, well the former First Mi nister used the expression, "it boggles my mind".

It does boggle my mind how those people opposite can sit and applaud the man when he talks the way he did, that he's giving everything away to Alberta and Saskatchewan, or anybody else that has oil; and he says, well wouldn't you rather have the mone y in Albe rta's pocket, than Kuwait, or somewhere else. What he's proposing is not going to stop it because they take it out in another route. I'm no economist and they'd never make me a Mini ster of Energey or the Finance Min ister, praise the Lord, but nevertheless as an average person I can see how the cash flows out of this country.

And they're compounding it by supporting the position that they are. So, Mr. Chairman, until the First Min ister starts standing up and negotiating with it at this level, or whoever is the Min ister of Energy - I don't know who is responsible for the negotiations because it was the First Mini ster hims elf who stated the government's positio n.

But un less the Min ister responsible for energy in the province, or the First Minister himself or the Conservative party en masse, starts telling people that we're going to negotiate at the federal level, relative to energy in the future, in the interests of Manitobans now, and in the future, and we're going to support policies which will put in place a control on the moneys which are generated so that they will be reinvested in energy. The idea to come out with a nice catch-phrase and say that Canada has to strive for self-sufficiency; excellent.

All we're asking is that you build into it some guarantee that this will occur; some guarantee that it will occur. If they're taking 2.75 a barrel oil and selling it presently for 14.5 0, and they're going to take it up to 60, what is going to happen to that money? Is it going to accrue to a relatively few number who own stocks and shares in those particular companies or is it going to flow out of the country under the aegis of the multi-nationals once more.

This is what we, as citizens, are asking, and I don't think that the needs of people in Winnip eg Centre is any different than anybody else in the province of Manitoba, we're all consumers as far as oil is concerned. I understand that the stuff we produce in Virden is a low grade of oil so we, in Manitoba, are all consumers. So, for heavens sake, Mr. Chairman, it is only reasonable that we expect this government, because nobody has told me that we haven't got responsible government.

These people were elected to discharge that responsibility for all of us, including us on this side, so if they wonder why we dig in our heels, we want them to do their job. They're responsible for negotia ting a position in the in terests of all Manitobans and we're asking them to ensure that the moneys which are being accrued, whether they are being accrued to Alber ta Heritage Fund, or the Saskatchewan He ritage Fund, or the Canada Heritage Fund, or Texaco or anybody else, that this money is, in fact, being represented. Because we're being sold a bill of goods, that we're all striving for self-sufficiency.

So if that is the case then for gosh sakes build in something in the negotiation that guarantees it. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Ho nourable Min ister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a very int erest ing hodg e-podge or gr ab bag full of 6082

Monday, 28 July, 1980 comments with regard to the energy policies of the province. Mr. Chairman, the Premier this morning presented what has been con sistently this government's energy policy. It was stated extremely clearly at the national First Min ister's convention in 19 79 and, Mr. Chairman, looks even more solid policy basis with the events that have taken place since. What we have from across the way is a demonstration of how bereft the Opposition in the province of Manitoba is of an energy policy. We heard, four, if you include the Member for lnkster twice this morning, five, six seven.

Seven speeches now. All of them are different, none of them have given an energy policy by the Opposition, the thing that keeps coming out of it is what the First Mi nister here has referred to as institutional ized envy. They keep coming back to it, they have still not to come to grips with developing themselves an energy policy. They've told us what they're against; they haven't told us what they're for. Mr. Chairman, maybe one of these days, after they've had enough chance to give another seven dissertations on the subject, they'll go into a back room someplace.

Hopefully, when they do, they'll take somebody in their party that maybe is taking on a little different perspective, in the name of Tommy Douglas, who can now maybe see himself in a little mor e ratio nal position of telling the mem bers opposite what the facts of life are regarding energy in Canada. Obviously, Mr. Douglas, has seen to the fact that it takes more than a doctrinaire position to bring about energy developments in Canada, by himself recognizing the role of the private sector in this total picture.

But the mem bers opposite keep coming back , they find no difficulty in Canada exporting 2.5 to 3 billion a year out of Canada, directly, for the purchase of offshore oil. Venezuela, all the other countries that are selling to Canada, it doesn't bother the members across the way at all, not at all. They're so hung up that a multi-national might make a profit on this thing that they can't see the total picture. There was only one allusion that I heard across the way, gr udgingly, in all those speeches that have been given today, that made reference that they too supported self-sufficiency.

It finally came out grudgingly. The members opposite, if its self-sufficiency it comes out way down the line sort of as a, you know, well we've got to say that too. But having said it, they don't say how they're going to do it. Mr. Chairman, they are bereft of an energy policy. I challenge them to come up with a clear-cut avenue that they would follow to try and protect the interests of Canadians and the interests of Manitobans, both. They haven't done that. They keep repeatedly saying what they are against, they won't say what they are for.

They've got all sorts of things they can punch away at; they pick a name out, they don't like the Premier of Alb erta, so one single one they can pick out, he's the greatest target, of course. They pick out all the old punching bags that they can find, set them up and wham away at them. They allude to the fact that they too believe in self-sufficiency but they haven't laid out a policy where Canadian interests are protected. And the thing is that it is all there for Canada to do and it isn't tha t di ffi cult an achievement.

The only thing that makes it difficult is the mi xed-up sort of opposition-cha racterized approach that is coming out that they're stuck with. No solutions, just attacks, just what they're against not what they're for, not a policy of how they would intend Canada or Manitoba to get there and in the final analysis be protected. So, Mr. Chairman, let's finish it off.

The most telling comment and observation that can be made out of all the seven contributions that were made is that the institutional ized envy is just as deep now as it ever was before and until they get over that, until they start seeing that there's more to it than their straight doctrinaire approach, they're not going to come up with a policy that's going to wash with the public of Manitoba either. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Hono urable Memb er for Winnip eg Centre. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairma n , we just had an example of their abdication of their responsibility for them having a policy.

Because every member that spoke on this side criticized an aspect of their policy. If they want a policy from this side, I suggest that your First Mini ster call an election today and they'll have a policy and they'll impl ement that policy. All we have to deal with, at this point in time, Mr. Chairm an , is th ree years of this government's attitude, of how they negotiate on behalf of the citizens of the province of Manitoba.

They were left with a heritage, with Tantalum Min es, that for 25 percent that we bought, we had an option on another 50 percent, but their attitude is they just flip it away to the private sector. If they think that this pol icy, this self-sufficiency pol icy, tha t their contribution to it is going to ensure that, it is not. It is not, Mr. Chairman. Let Alb erta, who has been in the vanguard putting forth this policy, take their Heritage Fund and put a pipeline from Montreal down to Newfoundland at no interest.

When the Member for ln kster got into the pay now and pay later, that's just exactly what we're talking about. If we're moving toward self-sufficiency and all of these steps are supposed to implement that policy, show us how? Because when you give it over to the private sector entirely, as the Member for Lac du Bonnet pointed out in his criticism of your policy, not the helping of you establish one; if you want help we'll help you.

But nevertheless, your present policy has allowed 1. 8 bil lion to be trans ferred out of energy into other areas in the economy the same way, and I tried to show briefly the case, what the CPR did with transferring their profits into hotels and real estate and everything else that you can imagine, rather than the operation of a railway which was their first mandate. So if we're coming around once again in history and using exactly in the same way, Mr.

Chairman, in my mind, the same type of negotiations which sold the city of Winnip eg into perpetuity tax forgiveness with the CPR, this is the same thing that this government is doing with energy. We're asking, on behalf of the people of the province of Manitoba, a guarantee that the moneys which are being accrued and increasing expediently the amounts are not being di rected by any government into self-sufficiency for Canada. They're accruing to the Heritage Fund in Alb erta who will lend this money out - in fact, I think they lent 6083

Monday, 28 July, 1980 Newfoundland some money at a relatively high interest rate. Sure they'll lend that money out, but that's not taking the price increase and moving this country toward self-sufficiency, that's strictly in the interest of the province of Alberta and it's strictly in the interest of the province of Saskatchewan. We're asking this government to accept their responsibility to build into these negotiations a guar antee on behalf of the province of Manitoba, who will be paying these higher prices, that those moneys are being directed toward self-sufficiency.

And they can abdicate their responsibility as much as they would - I wish they'd abdicate the government and then the people of the province of Manitoba would have a chance to vote on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: . The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: I didn' t want the comments of the Mi nister responsible for Energy to go unchallenged because he says that the government has a policy. I say they do not have a policy. I asked the Min ister two questions in comm ittee: can he guarantee that the increased price of oil will provide self-sufficiency? And he said, no; a simple answer no.

I said, can you guarantee that the money that we're giving over to the corporations will be used to develop and explore for oil? He said, no. And that in a nutshell is the issue here. But the First Min ister is trying to create an issue for an election and that is confrontation with Ottawa and he has nothing to go to the people with and he's desperate, a drowning man trying to look for a lifebelt. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to just add a word or two to that which has already been said, in particular, reference to the devious reasoning that we've heard from the Min ister of Finance. Mr.

Chairman, what we have from the Minis ter of Finance is some strange quirk of reasoning to the effect that if you do not agree with the demands of the province of Alberta, and the First Mini ster, as well, adopted this position, if you do not, in some way or form, concur with the demands that are being made by Lougheed of Alb erta, that the price of crude oil be increased to 37 and some cents per barrel, then indeed, we are opposed to self-sufficiency. Mr. Chairman, the self-sufficiency is not to be equa ted with Alb erta demands.

Self-sufficiency comes about as a result of pricing structure, though that is minimal, but basically is a result of exploration due to other measures that are undertaken by way of conservation, altern atives to the use of oil by way of energy resources that we have, non- renewa ble energy resources. There is a wide area of policy and development that can contribute, Mr . Chairman, toward self-sufficiency.

And what I disagree with, and the Opposition disagree with sharply, is the simpl istic type of rhetoric which we hear from across the way that self-sufficiency is to be equated with Alberta, that because Alberta is demanding prices near world level, then if you oppose what Alberta is demanding, then in some way, shape or form we're not speaking in the national interest. Mr. Chairman , their thinking is unsound; their thinking is cock-eyed; their thinking is not in the interest, you know, the First Mi nister made a great stance this morning about the inte rests of Manitobans are not the interests of Ontario. Mr.

Chairman, by way of conclusion I want to say to the First Mi nister, certainly the interests of Alberta are not necessarily the interests of Manitoba. And the First Min ister and the Min ister of Finance are not serving Man itobans well when all that the First Mi nister and the Mi nister of Finance can do is to parrot the position of the government of the province of Alber ta in the discussions that are under way. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: No, if you're going to speak on energy, you go. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnks ter. MR.

GREEN: I thank the Member for Fort Rouge and I'll try not to abuse the privilege that she's given me. The Min ister of Finance has said there has been nothing proposed, that it had been proposed time after time. Mr. Chairman, that is false. Mr. Chairman, that is false and just to restate it, the member, first of all, can look at the documentation that went from the New Democratic Party government to Ottawa when these things were being discussed in the past. We said that there should be a price to Canadians based on oil being a public utility and having some resem bla nce, Mr.

Chairman, to the cost of production, plus the amount that is necessary to provide a return on investment; that the price for oil that we export out of the country be the world price; that the amount that we make on the world price be used to subsidize those Canadians who have to buy their oil offshore. And that we, Mr. Chairman, pay for new oil, continually, on the basis of what it costs to produce it. Now that's the policy, Mr. Chairman, and you know what, Mr. Chairman, the mem bers over there have the policy; the members over there have the policy.

Last week they introduced into a bill The Milk Act, and they said that this is what the milk producer should get, cost of production, reasonable return on in vestment. What's good enough for the milk producers is good enough for the oil companies, Mr. Chairman, and we'll have to pay for the new oil as and when they produce it. Now, Mr. Chairman, it has trade-offs, it does have trade-offs. Once you decide that you are going to be of your own with regard to oil, you have to accept the day that some day oil will be more expensive inshore than offshore.

And if you've gone ahead and produced the money and spent that oil, then the Canadian people will have to buy that inshore oil, even though it may be more expensive than what they cost to get it elsewhere, unless they decide to get it elsewhere until its depleted elsewhere and until the price goes up and then start using it inshore again, but nothing hap pens one way. But Mr. Chairman, you said, they all said, cost of production. They put it into a bill, they said there will be a formula. We have said, Mr. Chairman, and what I'm saying now is not new, I'm not presenting a new policy.

This was the position of the New Democratic 6084

Monday, 28 July, 1980 Party government when we were - I shouldn't say we - when somebody was repres enting the interests of the people of the province of Manitoba with regard to oil prices, in the same way as somebody is representing the people of Ontario, somebody is repres enting the peop le of Saskatchewan, somebody is representing the people of Al berta but nobody is now repres enting the interests of the people of the province of Manitoba. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Ho nourable Mi nis ter of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, I really just wanted to ask a rhetorical question as to whether or not, if the argument presented was at one time the policy of the NOP, whether it is still the policy of the NOP? It was said by the Member for lnk ster, I don't know the policy of the present NOP party. Secondly, that with that policy, which isn't a bad one providing your exports are equal to your imports you can at least break even, what does the member now proposing that policy do when the exports fall short of the imports to the extent that it costs the country 2 billion to 3 billion a year to pay the deficit?

Are we now suggesting that, despite the fact that the whole scene has changed, which evolved at the time when we were essentially self-sufficient, now that we are in deficit by some 20 percent, on our crude oil supply, are they not going to change their policy? Are we to now assume that they still have the same policy and that they're going to pick up the 2 billion and 3 billion out of the taxpayer's pocket otherwise? MR. GREEN: Mr . Chairman, the Ho nourable Mi nister doesn't have any imagination, and he has to ask these questions. And I notice, Mr.

Chairman, that the government, who came to this House, in the Throne Speech, and said we need your help. I thought the Mi nister was really patronizing, but, Mr. Chairman, they have been vitally in need of help from somewhere. They have been vitally in need of help. It wasn't a patronizing question. It wasn't a rhetorical question, they put a bill in the other day, apparently which 37 amendments came from the Opposition, 37 amendments. Now the Min ister says, what do you do? What do you do? Does the policy change? Mr.

Chairman, the policy doesn't change, you still have to get, for the price of oil, you have to get the cost of production, and if its necessary, Mr. Chairman, to add to that the amount by which there is a shortfall between the export tax and the amount that you have to subsidize; then you build that into the cost of what the Canadian people are paying for oil. Nobody would object to that, Mr. Chairman, and it's not a change in the formula. -(I nterjection)- That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I'm willing to pay what it costs us to buy oil, it's as simple as that, I'm not willing to pay more than it costs us to buy oil. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I didn't hear you call me, there was a lot of debate continuing. Mr. Chairperson, this has been a most interesting debate between two demonologies, and that's a new word I learned today. Looking in the dictionary I'm interested to see that it means the study of demons, belief in demons, or a catalogue of enemies. Now we all know what demonology means, Mr. Chairperson.

You kn ow, I heard earlier in the day some speculation as to what the voters of Manitoba would do, in view of their disillu sionment with their present government and, of course, they'd prev iously demon strated disillusionment with the government that. I just wanted to remind the members of the House, as well as the voters of Manitoba, that there are many people in this province who are looking at the other option, Mr . Cha irperson. And - (I nterject ion)- it won't take very many mor e mem bers for us to double our representation, an increase of 100 percent or more, Mr. Chairperson.

But what we're really looking at, what I think everybody in this House is reconciled to the fact that there is probably going to be a general election within the next 15 months. Probably going to be. I'm sure that the First Min ister isn't going to rush into this because, if I were he, I certainly wouldn't be rush ing to the voters on the record of this government as it's been demonstrated in the past five months, Mr. Chairperson.

But, what I'm looking at for the Liberal Party, and what a lot of people are starting to talk about, in this Ho use and outside this House, is a mi nor ity government next time around, and I'm not going to predict which side of the House any party will be on but we're looking at the possibility, seriously, of a minority government and of the Liberal party holding six to nine or more seats, Mr. Chairperson, and being a situation such as the New Democratic Party federally has enjoyed not too long ago. Mr.

Chairperson, I didn't want to allow this session to end without express ing my disappointment in some of the lacks in policy as presented by this goverrn:nent; some of the serious omissions of their platform and some of the areas which they seem to neglect altogether. First of all though, I must refer back to my question earlier in the day and also of a couple of weeks ago, and deplore, Mr.

Chairperson, the way of putting something that's being much called for in a speech from the Throne, in the particular case I'm referring to, an Advisory Council on the Status of Women, something tha t was welcomed by women's groups all over the province, women's gr oups, even thos e gr oups tha t this government listens to, such as the Provincial Council of Women. And when I asked about it today the Mi nister said, he hasn't had any complaints from the Provincial Council of Women.

Wel l, surely the Min ister knows that people are inclined to believe what is said in a Speech from the Throne; they believed them when they said there was going to be an appointment of a council. There has been no appointment and to me that is a broken promise, Mr. Chairperson, and there's no way you can whitewash that, with huffing and puffing and blowing; that's a broken promise to the women of this province. And I'm very disappointed because I believed it too. Now, Mr. Chairperson, I want to refer to the question of student aid.

I had a resolution on this matter which is about to die as we conclude this session in the next day or so. I'm very concerned about a trend that seems to be developing here. 6085

Monday, 28 July, 1980 There has been no increase in student aid in the past three years; no increases in loans and bursaries; no in crease in the salaries under the student emp loyment program of this government for the past three years and what I'm afraid is going to happen, Mr. Chairperson, is that we're going to return to those bad old days when only the childr en of privileged will be able to afford post-secondary educa tion. -(I nterjec tion)- The Min ister of Highways says I sound like that socialist crowd. Well, Mr.

Chairperson, I thought that government believed in encouraging hard work and labour, and the ability of people to do the very best that they can, and I am suggesting, Mr. Chairperson, that that is the criterion on which we should decide who is able to go to university or other post-secondary institutions. This government, apparently, is not prepared to use that criterion because when only the children of privileged can afford to go to university there are a great many hard-working students for whom this is no long er an option, for whom this is not a possi bili ty, and I am worried about that, Mr .

Chairperson, and I hope that before they come back to another session of this House this government will come forward with some better system of dispensing student aid. There has been no policy enunc iated at all by this government. In a Un iversity of Manitoba bulletin issued not too long ago, in July, President Campbell made certain recommendations, and I'm sure the government has received them. Among them were these: That the maximum limi ts on fed eral student loans and provincial bursaries be elimi nated and that part-time students be more favourably treated in student aid regulations.

We're all aware of the fact that many people are going back to un iverity, mature students, very mature students. We see a lot of housewives going back, housewives for whom this was not an option. Before the Second World War, Mr. Chairperson, it was not very often that women were able to go to university. Families had rather old-fashioned ideas about the place of women. The times have changed and women now are trying to take up the opportunities that they should have had when they were 18 or 20, growing up before the war, in the depression.

If there was money for universities the money went for the boys to go to univerity, Mr. Chairperson. During the war opportunities were limited for boys and girls. The Student Senate caucus has called for setting of student aid maxima to reflect students' actual cost of living and they have called for a program that does not presuppose dishonesty among applicants. They have called for establishment of a separate student loan plan as a lending agency of government, with loans to be repaid through a surcharge on income tax.

I think one of the things that the students most resent is presupposing of dishonesty, because the application forms certainly take that attitude, that of suspicion that somebody is trying to cheat the system. There are a great many honest young people in our province, of course, a diminishing number as they are driven away in their desire to get summer jobs and jobs, and they are dr iven away from university because of the summer job situation, also.

The paper continues to describe two groups that have a much lower success rates in obtaining awards and these two groups are students living at home but relying on their own resources. You know, in the Student Emp loyment Program, Mr. Chairperson, the students are encouraged to leave their homes and to move into strangers homes because they are treated differently if they are living at home with their parents, and I think that's wrong; I think it's morally wrong to hold out a financial inducement to students to leave home in order that loans will be available to them.

There are families where there is no financial assistance at all available for the young people qualified for and wanting to go to post-secondary institutions. Dr. Campbell has also suggested that an allowable limit be set for cash value of gifts which are treated as income now and he has expressed concern, as we all must, about the 50 percent drop in applications for assistance from un iversities in the past four years.

One of the reasons suggested for this decline incl udes the increased stringency in regulations and admi nistra tion, di scouraging publ icity relating to student aid and attitudes of admin istrators. Mr. Chairperson , I am calling on the government. I have a great many students living in my constituency and some of them are li ving in the worst accommodation. The very worst accommodation is that which is used only by those students who are prepared to suffer almost anything now in order to attain the education to which they aspire.

I hope that the government will, before the next sess ion, come up with a better student aid program. The other area, Mr. Chairperson, in which I wanted to speak and which I feel the government's track record is deplorable is the area of housing. It just seems that I can't get enough opportunities to talk about housing, because nobody on the government side talks about it; nobody introduces anything on housing or provision of housing, or the needs of those in public housing. I have to again talk about the need tor the grocery store.

Isn't it strange that one grocery store can become such an impo rtant issue in one constituenc y? I can only sup pose tha t the government, in part, has just completely written off the Fort Rouge constituency in the next election because their attitude towards the needs of the people who live on this side of the river and, under redistribution this building is going to be in the Fort Rouge constituency, people who live on this side of the river and their need for living, for everyday living, for going to a grocery store; the only land that's available in this area, Mr.

Cha ir per son, is government-controlled land. Whenever I talk about this the Min ister rants and raves and talks about subsidizing a grocery chain. The reason grocery stores have found it economically unfeasible to invest in a grocery store in this area is the high cost of land, the land which is controlled by the government. And there is no reason why this government can't tree-up some of this land for development. We've got all those parking lots near the Convention Centre, pr ovincial govern ment parking.

Now, we need parking, I'm not saying that we don't need parking, but I'm sure there are developers ar ound, I know there are developers around, who would be pleased to incorporate as 6086

Monday, 28 July, 1980 many parking spaces into their development as there are parking spaces now in existence, and who would be happy to use the air space above and the space below for further development, Mr. Chairperson, but no, we've got to sit there with unproductive land being taken up in a very expensive area with cars.

The government, being responsible for Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation and for all the many MHR C and Winnip eg Regional Housing properties in this area, should negotiate with the grocery chain and with the developers in order to achieve a development with commercial on the main floor and with provision for parking above and below, or both, and lease the parking out to one of the parking firms, and still retain the air above for future housing. I know that there are development companies that are willing and anxious to go ahead with such a proposal. The Mi nister is so firmly committed against it, Mr .

Chairperson, and he is committed against it because he has no sensitivity to the needs of the people in this area. - (Interje ction)- They have come forward. Mr. Chairperson, the Mi nister has said on more than one occasion that we should not be in the grocery business, even though nobody has ever suggested that government should be. It could be said that we shouldn't be in the farm business either, but when the people on the farms needed help we properly, we rightly went to their assistance.

We have people who live in housing who need help just as much as the farmers of Manitoba have needed help in. this dreadful drought season and who have not been listened to by this Min ister or his government, Mr. Chairperson. It could be said, and has been said, that the government shouldn't be in the insurance business, but this government found it financially rewarding to stay in the insurance business, even though they had said they would not. But it could still be said, as they said it before and as I must admit I said it also in the years of the Autopac debate. But what we need, Mr.

Chairperson, is somebody in government who will plan for the needs of people and who will do that planning conscientiously and compassionately; if necessary, if the needs of people call for it, Mr. Chairperson, to economically adjust the picture, to make arrangements, in the particular case I am talking about, for land to become available to those who have been trying to talk about it with this Mini ster for the past couple of years.

Because when the Mini ster says that we would be subsidizing a gr ocery store if we allo wed the development that was proposed at the corner of York and Garry, he om itted to mention the fact that for the past num ber of years the people of Manitoba have been paying tens of thousands of dollars in rent to CMHC because that property is undeveloped as it was intended to be developed. I think it's about 70,000.00.

Now, when he is talking about subsidizing the grocery store, what he really means to say, I think, is tha t the taxpayers would be paying 70,000, less whatever the developers were prepared to pay for leasing that property. That's not quite the same thing as the Mi nister has been indi cating to us. Codville wanted a lease paying less than that. It was not feasible for them to pay 70,000, the full amount that we're paying for undeveloped land and we will continue to pay to CMHC. In other words, the taxpayers would be paying something between that amount and the 70,000.00.

All we get from the Min ister is sneering, you know. When he sneers at the things I say, as a representative of these people, he doesn't hurt me, but he hurts these people that I am talking about. He hurts the handicapped people who are living at, what is it, 375 Assi niboine Avenue and who can't get downstairs at Eatons to do their shopping, and who are being ripped off in the small stores in the neighbourhood. And he is hurting the older people who are living in all the senior citizens housing in the area. Those are the people who are the objects of this Mi nister's contempt, Mr. Chairperson.

The Mini ster also pointed out another obvious statement of fact, which is that the York and Garry site is not the most desirable site. Of course, it's not; it just happens to be one of those on which nothing is happening and which could be used. The ideal site would be the Broadway and Donald site where the Safeway store was before, and which was torn down on the decision of the owners, who believed, naively, that the economic situation was going to be such that they could erect a commercial development there and they have abandone d that. They have abandoned that and it is now a fenced in parking lot.

Tha t site could still be a gr ocery store if the developer hadn't believed the government who said that things were going to be economically good for commerce in this city. That is in private hands. If this Min ister had a feeling of responsibility towards his tenants, I suggest, Mr. Chairperson, he would be negotiating with those people to put an alternative grocery store back on that land.

Another excellent site, perhaps better than the one at Broadway and Donald, but at least comparable, would be the development I have already suggested in the parking land near the Convention Centre, which is central to the area, which is not too far from Assiniboine Avenue, and which would be ideal. Now, Mr. Chairperson, I want just to draw the attention of the House to a document which was issued in October of 1977. It's headed, An Urban Strategy Programs and Policies for Addressing the Problems of the City of Winnip eg, prepared by the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party, released 5 October, 19 77.

It includes something called the Uphill Neigh bourhood Program. Ma ny older neighbourhoods are going downhill, they say, in the City of Winnip eg. They ma ke a numb er of commi tments. "There will be three distinct but mutually supportive elements in the uphill program. A program of loans and forgiveable loans will be made available to first-time home buyers to permit to purchase older homes in uphill neighbo urhoods and to renovate these homes. The maximum total loan available under the program will be 5,500 per unit, based on approved renovation plans". Much more is said.

I have anothe r secti on, Rent Control and Decontrol. And they said it; we knew they said it but they didn't say it very loud in my constituency, Mr. Chairperson. They said rent controls must continue and they have lived up to their commitment there. They say, "In the meantime and during the decontol period, a Progressive Conservative government will work to influence the supply, the demand and the cost factors of rental accommodation so as to ease 6087

Monday, 28 July, 1980 the upward pressure on rents". Nothing done there, Mr. Chairperson. The Rental Accommodation Retention Program is another promise applying to older apartment blocks. "Under this program, low interest loans will be made available to apartment owners for necessary repairs to older apartment buildings. In accepting the loans, the landlord will also accept a regime of controlled rents with respect to the renovation costs that will apply until the loans are repaid". How nice it would have been if they had lived up to that commitment.

The Rental Acc ommodation Energy Efficiency Program, another promise. Under this program, "low interest loans will be made to the owner of any apartment building for improvements to that building that will increase its energy efficiency". Mr. ChairpersoA, we have had 11 5 bills in this session; why nothing on housing? How could they make all these promises to their candidates, to their voters in 19 77, and no thing has happened, Mr. Chairpers on?

Why can't we have a Mini ster of Housing who has some sensitivity and knowledge of the Inner City of Winnipeg, of our major city in this province; why can we not have a Mi nister of Housing who is receptive to the positive suggestions that are made by people on this side who have more experience in this particular area and who are genuinely anxious to help with making proposals? I have made suggestions. I don't just knock what he is doing, although he is a very easy man to knock, I don't just knock what he is doing, Mr. Chairperson, I have made positive suggestions and he won't even discuss them.

He turns his back. Sometimes he picks up blank sheets of paper and reads them when I'm talking, but he won't even come forward. He has got no positive proposals hims elf, Mr. Ch airpers on. We've had no policy; we don't even have a golden girl for housing; nothing, not even that. Mr. Chairperson, we're leaving here, I think, they tell me within a couple of days, because the session will be over and in some of the most important areas we have done very little or we have done nothing or, as in the case of rent controls, we have done poorly.

I am di sap poi nted , as a new memb er, tha t government will not accept positive suggestions very often. It has happened once in a whil e in the condominium part of the rent control legislation; some suggestions were accepted. And there have been a few others where suggestions were accepted at committee but, generally speaking, the attitude is negative and if somebody else suggests it, it has got to be bad. I think, if they were to open their minds and listen, and their hearts, and feel that perhaps they would be a better government and perhaps their situation may not be as bleak as it now looks, Mr .

Chairperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairperson, this morning lis tened to the Attorney -General respond to a question by the Member for Transcona, giving the impression that the government was in the process of making a study. Mr. Chairman, I want to read into the record a motion that was passed something over 16 months ago, on March 26, 19 79.

The motion reads as follows: WH EREAS the question of citizen access to governmental in formation is a ma tter of concern to all Manitobans; and WHERE AS the question has arisen as to whether means of access to such information are presently effective; and WHE REAS this Legisla ture feels that the examination of this question is in the public interest; TH EREFORE BE IT RE SOLVED tha t the governme nt consider the advisabil ity of referring this matter to a committee of the Legisl ature to study the question as to whether or not there now exists suffi cient availabili ty of in forma tion desi red by any citizen, and to make recommenda tion to the Legislature as to how the legislative process can be imp roved to make such information available where a means of access are deemed to be unavailable or insufficient.

That motion, Mr. Chairman, was agreed to and belie ve it was unanimo us. I believe that it was spoken to in such a way that everybody was open to consider what was available and, if not sufficiently available, how the information access could be impr oved. It was a motion which should be considered non-partisan since it was proposed by the NDP and it was amended and then approved by the government and, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that it has been ignored for 16 months. The Attorney-General today said, we are still looking at it, and he suggested there was federal legislation which was being looked at. Mr.

Chairman, I tell you that I believe there wasn't the slig htest intention by the government 16 months ago to set up the com mit tee and, if there was and if the government took seriously the motion whic h it amended - or I believe it amended it but, in any event, which it accepted - it would have had the courtesy to come back and say, we have considered it and we are not proceeding with it. That, of course, would have brought a reaction, Mr.

Chairman, and that is probably why the government did not have the courtesy or the courage to make a statement about this issue, althoug h questions have been asked about it in the past. To think now the record of this government, especially in this last session, is abominable, and one can therefore say, well, then the record of their failure to respond to a motion passed 16 months ago is on par and consistent with the record in other ways; that has been the management and lack of management in this session. Mr.

Chairman, I don't think the impression should be left with anyone that the government is seriously looking at this resolution, because it would have been the simplest thing, the simplest thing, for the government to either say, we thought about it and we refused to do it; or, Mr. Chairman, indeed to take it seriously and to do what it said in the resolution. There is nothing, no from of commitment as to policy, no undertaking as to di rection that that committee would take.

The committee would be, as always, in the control of the government and the government, as I say, did not have the courtesy to carry out its own underta king, as supported by the 6088

Monday, 28 July, 1980 government, on March 26th, 19 79. It is a further ind ication of bad faith, Mr. Chairman, and an affront to the Legislature, of which Conservatives are part and pr esently a ma jority. For them to pass a resolution and for the government not to act on it is, as I say, a further disgrace, another mark against the government and its ineptitude in dealing with affairs of the people of Manitoba. MR. CH AIRMAN: Bill 75, page-by-page, Page 1 pass; Page 2 - the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKI W: Mr.

Chairman, there are a number of questions that I wanted to put to the Minister of Finance, one of which I did put to him which he has not responded to, and that has to do with the fact that, according to his figures, we ended up the last fiscal year with a 45 million deficit. The question I put to him is, this is the year before, Mr.

Chairman, and the question I want to know, if it was not for an additional 138 million - I believe it nets out in terms of benefits from the federal system of some 11 8 million - that we would have actually had a deficit of 15 3 million, had it not been for those windfall benefits under the equalization formula. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I think we're dealing with the estimates for 19 80-81, not 19 79-80, so Mr. Chairman, I will ask your discretion in this matter but I don't think we should get into details. I don't have all of the 1979-80 figures with me; I do have the 1980-8 1. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that it's in order to discuss the fiscal year which ended Ma rch 31s t, 19 80, because we had just received this a few weeks ago and what we are doing is comparing it with what is now being proposed for the current fiscal year. That particular question is most revealing, at least, I think the answer would be most revealing, Mr. Chairman, because I notice that the government for the current fiscal year is proposing a reduction of equal ization payments for 366 million to 317 million, and those two things go together, comparing one year with the other, and I'm wondering why that is taking place.

MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I don't have all those facts with me. This has been pointed out by the government on various occasions, that there was substantial increase in the equalization payments, particularly, that made the major difference in last year's outcome. So I can neither confirm nor contest what the Member for Lac du Bonnet is stating at the present time, but I again repeat that we're dealing with 19 80·8 1, not 1979-80 today, I believe. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Pages 3 to 14 were each read page-by-page and pass ed.) Pream ble pass; Title pass; Bill be Reported pass. BILL NO. 11 2 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT (MANITOBA) MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 11 2,

An Act to amend The Income Tax Act (Manitoba). Page 1 pass - the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Yes, I wanted to get clarification from the Mini ster, and I'm not sure if I can discuss this in general terms on any page, I think I can. It has to do with the new policy with respect to only allowing one person to claim, as a principal resident, any tax rebates that are allowed.

My question to the Minis ter is: What protection does one have where one is sharing a residence with another person who is named or applies as the principal resident and then does not share in the tax credits that accrue for that residence.

The Mini ster, I believe, has left that up in the air and if it's his intent that there be a division of th ose benefits between two people who share accommodation, then perhaps there should have been some thing in the bill to make tha t a requirement in law so that, in essence, we don't have a situation where two people sharing the costs of a residence, one ends up receiving the tax credits and the other one is out of pocket, or in fact is discrimina ted against by virtue of this legislation. MR. CRAI K: Mr.

Chairman, it's based on joint income, in which case then there has to be some internal sharing arrangement worked out if you have the two occupants sharing the accommodation. There is one factor, though, I think I may have not given the correct answer on one earlier occasion, in the case of board and room. I think I said, in general, that they would have to do their own sharing. That's only the case if it's immediate family.

In the event that it's a board and room occupant, the same claim can be made by a board and room occupant to apply 20 percent of their board and room char ge if they are not mem bers of the imme diate fam ily, in which case that does not change. MR. USKI W: Ju st for further cla rificati on, Mr . Chairman, in a situation where two people are sharing the same apartment and one only can claim the tax benefits, what is the legal mechanis m provided in law for the other person to receive his share, or is there any provided in legislation? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, in that case the government cannot make provision for resolution of internal matters, internal to that household. So they will have to make their arrangements. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I have a problem with that, because the government, by law, is in fact setting the rules by which people in Manitoba may claim their property tax rebates and what they are not providing for in law is the fact that there are many thousands of people, in particular tenants, who share accommodation and in which case now only one can make the claim and the government is resting its hope on the theory that there will be some sort of a mutual agreement as between the two as to how that property tax credit is to be shared, not withstanding the fact, Mr. Chairman, that they

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-130
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 130.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	dc7a864bc03bf737d51c51c74ff15feb8cce7755

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