LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 14 May, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Ma dam Sp eaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pres entin g Reports by Standing and Sp ecial Comm ittees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS HON. H. PAWLEY: I have a state ment, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speak er, as mem bers are aware, I met late yesterday afternoon with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Right Honourable Joe Clark.

My colleagues, the Mini ster of Indus try, Tr ade and Tec hnology , and the Minis ter of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health also attended the meeting. The main purpose of Mr. Clark's visit was to discuss with us how best to ensure that there will be "full provincial participation" in the Canada -U.S. trade negotiations, as agreed to at last November's First Min isters' Conference in Halifax. I un derstand Mr. Clark characterized our discussion yesterday as "positive"; I certainly agree.

During the meeting I reiterated Manitoba's position that a special meeting of First Mini sters should be held in the near future to work out satisfactory agreements for ongoing provincial participation. Mr. Clark undertook to advise the Prime Mini ster of our position - which is shared by most other provinces - when Mr. Mu lroney returns from the Far East tomor row. I explained to Mr . Clark that we feel it is imp erative that su bstantive negotiat ions with the U.S. ad min istration not proceed until the mandate for Canada's negotiators has been clearly worked out, with full provincial involvement.

The mandate mus t be articulated and understood as clearly as possible by the Federal Government and by the provinces, before negotiations com mence. lt is also essential that we have an "up-front" agreement on a satisfactory mechanism for federal/ provincial ratification of any new arrangements at the conclusion of the negotiations. Mr . Clark acknowledged the im portance of a provincial consensus on these issues, particularly since several key areas of negotation may relate to matters which are fully or partly within provincial jurisdiction.

During our discussions, I emphasized some of the province's specific concerns about the continuation of regional development and social progr amming, the maintenance of agricultural stabilization programs, the need for safeg uards for key services, such as transportation, and the likelihood that Canada could require dif ferent adjustment mechanisms for those required in the U.S., after new agreement, because our two economies differ in im portant respects. 91 I can advise the House as well that this morning I had occasion to brief the other Premiers on the general nature of my discussions with Mr. Clark.

I'm expecting that when Mr. Mulr oney has reached a decision on whether or not to convene a First Mi nisters' meeting, he will convey that decision to Premier Getty of Alberta, who is chairing this year's Annual Premiers' Conference in Edmonton. Other matters were discussed at yest erday's meeting with Mr. Clark as well. On the issue of possible U.S. nuclear waste dumps in Mi nnesota, Mr. Clark and I agreed strongly on the impor tance of our governments to work closely together, just as we did on the Garrison issue. Mr. Clark said he will be meeting in the next few weeks with the U.S.

Secretary of State, George Schultz, and that he expects to be discussing the nuclear waste issue with him at that time. Also, he said that the Federal Environment Minis ter, the Honourable To m McMillan, raised the matter in the last few days in a meeting with his U.S. counterpart. We agreed to have further discussions after Mr. Clark's meeting with Mr. Schultz on how best to proceed in our dealings with the U.S. Admin istration over the next several months. Final ly, I advised Mr.

Clark of our support for a proposal by the Governor of the State of North Dakota to invite President Reagan, Secretary Gorbachev and Prime Mi nister Mulr oney to the International Peace Garden for a meeting this fall in commemoration of 1986 as the International Year of Peace. Again, Mr. Clark undertook to transmit this idea to the Prime Mini ster and to the U.S. Federal Government. I want to commend Governor Sinner of North Dakota for his initia tive. As I said, it has the wholehearted support of our government and, I would hope, of all mem bers of this Assemb ly. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I thank the First Mini ster for that report on his meeting with the Right Honou rable Mr. Clark yesterday. In thanking him for the information, Madam Speaker, I'm delighted that Clark has ind icated how well versed the Federal Government is about the concerns of Manitoba and the other provinces, not only with respect to free trade and their willing ness to cooperate and seek consensus but, as well, with respect to the issue of the nuclear waste dump in Minn esota and the meetings of the Honourable To m McMillan.

Madam Speaker, with respect, particularly to the issue of free trade, I want to reiterate the comment that I made on Friday morning, in response to a similar statement by the Premier, that as imp ortant as it is for all of the provinc es and Manitoba to be consulted and to partici pate in arriving at consensus as to the position of the Federal Government on free trade, it is equally important for this Premier and his admin istration to

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 consult and to seek consensus of the various different groups in Manitoba's economy as to the position that this administration takes with respect to free trade when it goes to the table with the other provinces and the Federal Government.

I believe that it is absolutely essential that the Premier inform the House as quickly as possible as to whether or not he is willing to comply with our suggestion that he strike an all-party committee of this Legislature to go out and to meet with and seek the advice of all of the various different groups in our economy today in Manitoba , the people in manufacturing, the people in our agriculture sector and, of course, the cultura l community, because they are the ones who obvious ly will know best what effects the free trade issue might have, adverse or positive, on their communities and on their aspects of the economy.

Only by seeking consensus and by going out throughout the province to hear their views and concerns will we know that the Government of Manitoba is indeed representing the people of Manitoba and the major players in our economy when they take their position on free trade in these federal-provincial talks. So I ask the Premier as quickly as possible to notify the House whether he will indeed str ike an all-party committee and set about to obtain a consensus within the province before he goes outside the province to put forward our views. Thank you very much .

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speaker, I would like to provide the House with the most recent information relating to the concerns about possible radiation fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in the USSR. As you are aware, the Federal Government has assumed jurisdiction over mattrrs relating to radiat ion and nuclear power and has built up a substantial infrastructure to deal with these matters .

The provinces rely heavy upon this infrastructure to provide them with information respecting radiation in the environment under both normal conditions and when abnormal circumstances, such as the atmospheric test ing of nuclear weapons or the recent Chernobyl accident , occur. Air and rain water samples from the Winnipeg International Airport have been analyzed for radiation for several years. The published long-term average for Winnipeg in air is approximately .001 bequerels/cubic meter, and for rain water, approximately 1.0 bequerel/ litre.

By way of explanation, a bequerel is a unit which represents one nuclear disintegration per second. These values are much much less than federal guidelines which mark the point at which there would begin to be concern about effects on human health . The guideline for ambient air is 20 bequerels/cubic metre. There is no guideline for rain water, but for drink ing water consumed daily, over an extended period , the guideline is 10 bequerels/litre .

It is this value that was exceeded in a precipitation sample in Ottawa on May 8th that prompted Health and Welfare Canada to issue a recommendation that the public refrain from using 92 undiluted rain water as a drinking water source for the time being. This recommendation is still in effect. Rain water from the Winnipeg Airport for the period of May 1-7 was analyzed and no iodine 131, the main radiation source from the Chernobyl fallout, was detected .

A precipitation sample from the Winnipeg Airport for the period May 8-14 period has been sent to Ottawa for analysis and the results, we have been told , will be available either Friday, May 16 or Tuesday, May 19. Daily air samples are being taken at 28 stations across Canada, including Churchill and Winnipeg, Manitoba. A composite analysis is performed on all of these samples and the result for the 24-hour period of May 7-8 is .003 bequerels /cubic metre; and for the 24-hour period of May 8-9 is .1 bequerels/cubic metre , a slight increase.

Further data is being released by Health and Welfare Canada today and is being made available to us. Only in cases where high radiation levels are detected in rain water (which is so far not the case in Manitoba) is the Department of Health perfo rming daily site specific air analysis as the precipitation would reach values of concern long before air. Daily precipitation sampling has been instituted at Pinawa , Mani toba, as well. The City of Winnipeg water supply has been sampled as a precautionary measure, even though there' s no reason to believe that a radiation concern exists.

Results should be available on May 15. Milk samples have been taken on May 7-8 by Agr iculture Canad a and the results revealed no radiation concern, although I have to add, Madam Spea ker, that the specific numbers have not yet been provided to us. Again, there is no reason to believe that a problem exists, but precautionary monitoring is proceeding anyway. A question was raised in the House a few days ago about radiation levels during the St. Helen's volcanic explosion a few years ago.

I have been advised, Madam Speake r, that in fact there was increased radiation fallout associated with this event, although there is not any good data available, so I have no specific numbers , but can only add that it would not have been of the iodine 131 type of radiation. I will continue to provide information on th is situation as further informati on is available. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa . MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speak er.

I would like to thank the Minister for the information that he has just revealed to us through the process of making an announcement in the House . The only concern that I have at this time - and you have put the minds of all Manitobans at rest with the fear of radiation in Manitoba - but there has been some great fears for the last two weeks as to whether we have had any problems here. I would like to thank the Minister, albeit two weeks late, for advising as to the dangers not being in existence here. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General.

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 HON. R. PENNER: I have some reports to table, Madam Speaker. First of all, the Report of the 66th Annual Meeting of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada; secondly, a Return under The Controverted Elections Act for the period January 1, 1985 to December 31, 1985, from the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Queen's Bench - clean slate. Report under The Fatality Inquir ies Act for the year 1985. This deals with death in provincial institutions and the cause thereof. Final ly, the Annual Report of the Public Trustee for'84- 85. With respect to that document, my apologies to the House.

This was not tabled by me yesterday, but was distri buted by the House staff before I formally tabled it. That was an oversight on the House staff's part, but the tabling has now been made. MADAM SPEAKER: No tices of Mo tion Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before we go into Oral Questions, I would like to draw mem bers' attention to the gallery where there are 50 students of Grade 9 standing from the St. George School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Clint Harvey and the school is located in the constituency of the Honoura ble Member for St. Vital.

There are also 50 students of Grade 9 standing from the Ken Seaford High School under the direction of Mr. Zuk; this school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Kildonan. There are 53 students of Grade 5 standing from the Dieppe School under the dir ection of Mr. E. Ridi. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Mem ber for Charleswood. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you here this aftern oon.

SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Also, before Oral Questions, I would like to draw members' attention to our Rule 41(1) which says, "No member shall use offensive words against the Ho use or any mem ber"; and also Beauchesne Citation 359(7) which also deals with casting aspersions on another mem ber. As I said yester day, I would review Hansard. I have reviewed the draft printout from yesterday's question period and I see where some mem bers have come perilously close to contravening those particular rules, in particular, the statements from the Mi nister of Health.

Where some mem bers cert ainl y did raise some objections, I would hope that all mem bers, including the Mini ster of Health, would hereon in choose their words very carefully and give all mem bers the due respect that all honourable members in the House so rightly deserve. Oral Questions . . . MR. J. DOWNEY: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. 93 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: A point of order. The Honourable Mem ber for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, Mad am Speaker .

In you r announcements today, I believe there were another class of students of Grade 5 from the Arthur constitu ency, and I would like to make that announcement to the House as well. MADAM SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but we certainly welcome your constituents. ORAL QUESTIONS Hydro export agreements - status of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I begin by thanking you for your admonition and say that I have a question for the Premier .

In the Throne Speech, Madam Speaker, there was a reference to the planned and orderly development of our natural resources which, and I'll quote, "has resulted in three more export agreements with six utilit ies operating in the United States ." My question to the Premie r is: how many new hydro export agreements have actually been signed? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. HON. H. PAWLEY: One agreement has been signed. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, then I would ask the second question.

Is the one agreement which has been signed a final binding commi tment on the part of both sides for the export sale of our hydro-elect ric energy and, if so, what is the status of the other agreements? HON. H. PAWLEY: The Mi nister of Energy and Mines will provide that detail, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will be tabling the agreement before Manitoba Hydro goes before the Public Utilities Comm ittee, so that will be tabled in the Legislature. That is an agreement for a sale over four years.

The other two are longe r-term agreements and the legal work - work is still being done on them. We expect that legal work will be done by sometime in September or October at which point those agreements would be made public, as was done in the past with the Northern States Power Agreement where the prelimin ary arrangement was arrived at, that was annou nced in the Legislature, or publicly announced, and when the final agreement was finally signed, Madam Speaker, that agreement was made public for everyone to review. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , my question to the Premier then is: if there is only one agreement, why does the Throne Speech refer to three agreements?

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 HON. W. PARASIUK: The Throne Speech dea ls with the Session. We think that those agreements are in place ; there has been preliminary agreement reached on them. It is a matter of the final agreement being reached and made public. That has been known for some time to the public of Manitoba. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I'll try again to ask the Premier why he would put in the Throne Speech an indication that there are three agreements when, indeed, there is only one agreement? Why would he choose to misinform the public through such a sacred vehicle as the Throne Speech? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, those were announced to the public some time ago. It was included in the Throne Speech so that the public would be aware that it is the intention of the government to indeed make these public when they are finally signed , as we have always done . I would have thought that maybe the Opposition would have criticized us for not mentioning that we have reac hed a preliminary agreement with respect to three , and we have reached a final agreement with respect to one, and that will be tabled in due course . MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the Premier that when those agreements were announced, initially, if that is the reference of the Minister of Energy and Mines, under his news release it says, "Three new Hydro export arrangements announced," and then it proceeded to say that these were not really quite agreements, but they were in some stages of negotiation and discussion. Madam Speaker , I want the Premier to indicate to us whether or not we have three agreements and, if not , what is the status of the other two? Are they Letters of Intent? Are they Memoranda of Understanding?

Are they agre emen ts in principle? What are they and why should we be told that we have agreements if we do not have agreements? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I thought the Minister of Energy and Mines had dealt with that quite fully just a few seconds ago . There have been preliminary agreements that have been arrived at with the utilities . What is taking place now is the finalization of those agreements in final form, the legal work and other necessary work in order to ensure the proper wording of the final agreements .

The preliminary agreements have been arrived at as was announced . The Leader of the Opposition may have missed the announcement in February of this year in Thompson. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I'm sorry if the Premier didn't listen to what I said . I acknowledged that indeed there was an announcement made , but the announcement did not refer to agreements. The announcement - and I have it in my hands, if he'd like a copy of it - refers to arrangements, not agreements .

These are in some form that are not in 94 a final form that is legally binding on both parties and I'd like the Premier to tell us what is the status of these " arrangements ." Not the agreement that has been signed, but are the people of Manitoba legally bound; are the utilities legally bound ; and if not , what form are they in at the present time? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: When the processes - when the final agreement is signed by a government that has the mandate to negotiate those, they are made public .

We have done that before with the Northern States Power Agreement. We have, what we consider to be, a business deal reached with respect to three of them. One final agreement is signed; that will be tabled very shortly in the House. The other two have work to be done on them . The Opposition might want to quibble about whether this should say this or that, but the business deal hasn't even been done. We believe we have an agreement in principle but there is work to be done .

We do concede that in terms of doing the final drafting a fair amount of work has to be done, but we expect that will be done by September or October and th at will be made public for everyone to review at that time . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, if these are not agreements, and indeed , it appears from the co nfirmation from the Minister of Energy and Mines that two of them are not agreements; I would like the assurance from the Premie r that we will no longer have to have false statements in the Throne Speec h - (Interjection) - that we expect the Throne Speech to tell us the truth .

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order . Is this a question? MR. D. ORCHARD: That's right, yes. MR. G. FILMON : Will he give us that assurance? MADAM SPEAKER: I would just like to remind the Honourable Leader of the Opposition of Citation 357(

d) which says that a question should not repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I've had no assurance from the Premier that the Throne Speech in future will carry truthful statements and I am asking him if he can give us that assurance. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , it is always the intention of this government to ensure that truthful statements are included within the Throne Speech. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, just for further clarification to the Minister of Energy and Mines. The

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 details of the sale that was annou nced during the election is one that he was referring to that will be made available to us, the House, prior to the first meeting of the Comm ittee on Public Utiliti es and Natural Resources? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mi nister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: There are th ree. One of them, dealing with one of the sales will be tabled in the House because that has been concluded. The other two still require further work. When they are formally signed and concluded those other two will be tabled in the House. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker, surely the government - and I di rect the question to the First Minis ter - will enable us to conduct our affairs with some degree of responsibil ity. The Standing Commit tee of Public Utilities ought to have the information before them considering these long-term energy sales agreements that we are making with the United States. I would ask the Mi nister to rethink the impo ssible position that he's putting the memb ers of that commit tee, by having to sit to dis cuss Hydro matters, without having the details of these sales arrangements before us. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to deal with this. In 19 77 the Conservative Government of the Day signed what they considered to be - or in it ial led what they considered to be a type of agreement. They made that pub lic in an election campaign. They didn't make it public to anyone else.

We were elected as government and when we appeared before the Public Utilities Commit tee, the then Leader of the Conservative Party, the Premier of the province at the time that that agreement was announced, ind icated that he certainly wouldn't want his side to be jeopardizing the conclusion of any type of agreement, and he believed that that should be kept private and confidentia l until such time as that agreement was concluded by the government that had the mandate to do so, and then it would be made public. I, in fact, concurred with them during those comm ittee hearings.

I see now that there is a change in policy on the part of the Conservative Party. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, let's go back to Square One, the questions that were just raised by my leader. If his memory is so good, I want him to review what was put in Throne Speeches in those days. MADAM SPEAKER: Question. MR. H. ENNS: We have a statement of fact in the Throne Speech that three Hydro sales are concluded. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Does the mem ber have a question? MR. H. ENNS: Yes. MADAM SPEAKER: Question period is not a time for debate.

Would you please put your question? 95 A MEMBER: I was trying to get some honesty out of these guys. MR. H. ENNS: Im possible to do. Madam Speaker, my question to the Min ister of Energy and Mines is: which details of which sale will be available to the mem bers of the Comm ittee of Natural Resources and Public Utili ties? HON. W. PARASIUK: When I make the announcement in the House, Madam Speaker, the Minis ter (sic) will receive all that information and it will made very shortly. MR. H. ENNS: I'm pleased with the confidence my colleague shows that I indeed will be Mi nister very shortly responsible for . . .

Hydro Chief Executive Officer - status of position MR. H. ENNS: Madam Spea ker, I have a further question also relative to Hydro. Could the Mi nister confirm the present status of Hydro's chief executive officer? Has he requested early retirement? If so, who will be answering on behalf of Man itoba Hydro as the chief executive officer of that corporation during the comm ittee hearings? HON. W. PARASIUK: I think some almost three months ago, the present chief executive officer of Manitoba Hydro, Mr. John Arnason, took early retirement and he gave three months notice.

His last formal day will be on May 28th. 1 believe that his last day in the office, because he has some time coming to him, will be May 20th. He will be at the committee to make a statement and he will be there for the two-and-one-half hours to answer questions. Sub sequent to that, the remaining management or senior management of Manitob a Hydro will indeed be there, along with the chairperson of Manitob a Hydro to answer questions that come before it. Hydro Chief Executive Officers - number retired MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to put on the record and ask the First Mi nister a question: if he really feels satisfied that having the chief executive officer available to us for two-and-one-half hours, not having details of major agreements made available to that comm ittee; if he thinks that is open and fair government and fair practice to mem bers of the Opposition? HON. W PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I think it should be known that we, on this side, offered to have the comm ittee meet on Thu rsday. We were informed by the Opposition that they would like to meet on Tu esda y.

I think that we do have the chief executive officer there. But what we are talking about when we are talking about Hydro is a comp lete management structure; people who have served as dedic ated people within Hydro for tens of years. The senior management there has probably 20, 30 years of experience in many

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 instances, and those people will be there to answer questions. We have done that before. It's not only been the chief executive officer that's been there to answer questions. The chairperson's been there; the chief executive officer; there's been vice-presidents there. We have had many sessions of the public utilities committee, Madam Speaker, and I think that this government has been at least as open as any in the past, and I would think far more open than some in the past, in providing information to the public regarding Manitoba Hydro. MR. H.

ENNS: A final supplementary question, Madam Speaker, to the same Minister . Can the Minister indicate how many of these dedicated public servants, senior executives and competent executives of Manitoba Hydro have availed themselves of early retirement this year? HON. W. PARASIUK: I will take that question as notice, Madam Speaker. Equal pay for women MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to address a question to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women .

Given the fact that women still, on an average, are earning 66 cents for every man's dollar, could the Minister inform the House as to what efforts her department is making to combat this obnoxious and pressing situation that faces women today? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for the Status of Women. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Kildonan for this question and say how pleased I am that Status of Women issues are being raised so early in this Session .

I'm sure that members on all sides of the House are concerned about the wage gap and about the fact that women, especially older women, are among the poorest members in our society . To answer the question, this government has made economic equality for women a priority and taken action in a number of areas, including major initiatives in child care, pension reform and pay equity , and we are diligently carrying on the work of our former friend and colleague, Mary Beth Dolin.

Specifically, members will be interested to know that good progress is being made with respect to the implementation of pay equity in the Civil Service Commission. MADAM SPEAKER: As the member knows, a question should be brief - as well should be the answer. MACC - loans to farmers MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. 96 MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture . In recent days we've heard numerous complaints from farmers that it is very difficult to receive an MACC loan at this time.

In recent weeks have you directed , or has ther e been MACC policy changes that makes it more difficu lt for farmers to receive mortage loans at this time through MACC? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker , I want to tell my honourable friend that in terms of lending in this province, it appears that, although MACC being one of the smallest lending agencies and having between 10 percent and 15 percent of the credit, handl ing about 10 percent to 15 percent of the credit of Manitoba farmers, has in fact been inundated by requests from farmers for consolidation and debt restructuring.

In fact, Madam Speaker , about 30 percent of the applicants to MACC are clients of FCC and, quite frankly, we find great difficulty in fact taking clients of a federal, another public lending institution, and trying to deal with them on our own. That is not leadership, Madam Speaker, and we do find difficulty with that.

We will be trying to deal with as many farmers as we can with the limited amount of staff that we have ; but there is no doubt - I want to say there is no doubt - that there are delays and in fact one could say that, in terms of long-term credit, the only game in town, and we are deluged by applicants from producers, Madam Speaker . MR. G. FINDLAY: In preparing budgets, are MACC staff directed to use a figure of $3.20 for wheat in preparing these budgets for loan applications? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I will take that quest ion as notice, specifically .

I would want to tell the honourable member that in terms of the loan guarantees, which are aside from the restructuring loans that we do, we are trying to provide as much leeway as we can to at least give the benefit of the doubt that producers can in fact be able to meet their current commitments in terms of the loan guarantees. We've turned down very few in terms of the guarantee program and we are assessing our further needs as to whether we should be going further in that area , and that 's an ongoing measure.

The specific question , in terms of the calculat ions that the member raises, I will take as notice and try to provide him with that information. MR. G. FINDLAY : My final question then is, with the state of the farm economy, is the level of collateral that a young farmer needs in order to obta in a loan from MACC , has that level of collate ral increased in recent weeks? HON. B. URUSKI : Madam Speaker, I don't believe so. I have not given any directive as far as the level of collateral. The regulations, basically, are interpreted that MACC can loan up to 80 percent of the allowable limit .

In most instances, in terms of the assessment being

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 made by MACC, and I'm sure most lenders, is that whether or not that farming operation can in fact can cash flow the loan based on the income there. Cash flow is being used primarily as the basis and criteria tor lending by, not only MACC, but by all lending institutions. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is to the Mini ster of Agriculture. I have a young farmer constituent who made an application to MACC and was backed by his father, in terms of buying 16 0 acres.

The MACC field representative recommended to head office that the loan be approved and head office turned it down, indi cating that the price of wheat had gone down. As a result of that, a whole raft of applications have been turned down. I'm wondering if the Minis ter can indicate where do the MACC get the dir ection from to refuse these kind of loans. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B.

URUSKI: Ma dam Sp eaker, I think my honourable friends - and I don' t intend to be in the House discussing specific applications, but if the member wants to give me the information I'll certainly look into it - I want to tell my honourable friend, where does any lending institution get its dir ection, in terms of what it uses for cash flow? Precisely by his colleague, the Mini ster of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

He made an announcement across this country indic ating that wheat prices will be lowered by anywhere from 19 percent to 24 percent, precisely the kind of calculations and the kind of pressure now being placed on the farming community right across Western Canada by his own colleagues in Ottawa. Family Life curriculum - status of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heig hts. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Ma dam Speaker. My question is to the Ho nour able Mi ni ster of Education.

On June of 19 84, the Family Life component, sex education component, of the Health curriculum was withdrawn because of the controversial nature of many of its provisions. We were told that those revisions would be ready tor distribution in September of 19 84. Again, because of the controversial nature, we are still waiting tor those revisions. Can the Min ister inform the House when that revised curriculum will be available? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nis ter of Education. HON. J.

STORIE: Yes, Madam Speaker , it certainly would be my hope to have an opportunity on my own to review the curricu lum. lt has certainly undergone a num ber of revision and, I must say, rather thorough revisions, and once I have 97 an opportunity of satisfying myself that the concerns that were raised have been addressed, I will be making an announcement. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Will the Manitoba curriculum still be based on the Calgary Public School Board curriculum, despite the fact that the Calgary board has with d rawn that curricu lum in favour of a more responsible one? HON. J.

STORIE: I can tell the honourable member that the new revised curriculum will not be based on the Calgary curriculum; I can say that categorically. There were a number of legitima te concerns raised about the appropria teness, par ticula rly the level appropr iateness, of some of the material. Those issue have been addressed, I understand, by the review comm ittees and through input from various groups, and as I say, once I have satisfied myself that the concerns have been addressed, the policy of the government and any new curriculum in that area will be announced. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final supplemen tary.

Would the Mini ster guarantee to this House that mem bers of this House will see the curriculum, as will parents, before it is put on the subject matter of classrooms? HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Speaker, what I can offer the honourable mem ber is the assurance that once the appropriate reviews of the curriculum have been made, the concerns have been addressed in an appropriate and forthright way, that every opportunity will be provided to the public, to interest groups, to come to grips with the material that we hope will address a very serious issue within the curriculum education, Manitoba curriculum, and that is the question of Family Life. MACC -loans to farmers MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have a question to the Mi nister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that there are numerous loans being turned down and refused by the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, daily I am receiving calls from ind ividuals who are unable to get operating credit, will the Mini ster of Agricultur e call the Agricultural Comm ittee so that we can review the Man itoba Agricultural Credit Corporation poli cies and find out the numb ers of farmers who are not able to get the operating credits so badly needed this spring? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nis ter of Agriculture. HON. B.

URUSKI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to assure the honourable member that there is no doubt that there will be loans turned down by MACC. As 1 have ind icated to him, Madam Speaker, we have been deluged by applicants from right across this province and it appears to be the intent of the Opposition to say that MACC is the only lender in

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 Manitoba and they should be taking everyone who comes through the door. Madam Speaker, we are unab le to handle all the credit ; we have never professed that we would . We have tripled our budget in MACC to handle the amount of workload we have . But I want to tell my honourable friend that while our portfolio , in terms of number of loans, is going up the Federal Farm Credit Corporation is dropping from a loan portfolio of 500 loans a year down to 120 last year in the last three years. Is that leadership, Madam Speaker? MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker , I have another question to the Minister. In view of the fact that the constituent of mine who made application to the Manitoba Agr icultural Credit Corporation had ample security, had ample backing from his father, was refused, Madam Speaker , will the Minister of Agriculture call the Agricultural Committee so that the evidence can be placed on the table and, further to that, Madam Speaker, so those people can tell the public that that individua l left MACC and went to the Royal Bank and got the financing that he needed? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the honourable member's constituent was able to receive a loan from another lending institution. The honourable member is well aware, being a forme r Minister, that there is a process by which an applicant may appeal a decision of staff to the board of directors of the lending corporation and provide additional information , which may not have been there, and the application be then adjudicated. The honourable member is suggesting that the members of the House will now make the loans and handle all the loan applications of MACC.

Madam Speaker, I find that suggestion highly extraordinary . MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker , rather than have every loan applicant go through . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Do you have a question? MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, I have. Will he show leadership and allow the people of Manitoba to go before the Agricultural Committee and place their concerns there, rather than individually going before a bureaucratic board of NDP appointees? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker , I can assure you that with a portfolio, in all respects of MACC , of approximately 10,000 clients, there must be at least an additional 15,000, some of whom would have appl ied and been turned down. Obviously one . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . MR. J. DOWNEY: I believe - (Interjection) - the honourable members don't appear to want a reply, Madam Speaker .

I believe that the process that has been in place for a number of years has been a workable process and will in fact be in place and will be handled in that manner . 98 Churchill - grain shipping port MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood . MR. J. MALOWAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Highways and Transportation . Could the Minister outline to the House what measures he is taking to reassure the residents of Churchill that it will continue to be used as a major grain shipping terminal? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I want to thank the member for that question . I can assure this House that th e Government of Manitoba has not waivered in its support to the Port of Churchill over the last four or five years. We have from time to time received con tradicting statements from the Federal Government I have to say, but that has certainly not been the case with the province. We have been in communication with the members of the Chamber of Commerce and with other groups, the Port of Churchill Development Board , working with them closely on a number of areas; we are communicating with the Wheat Board .

We are encouraged by the recent shipment of 75,000 tonnes of barley to the port facilities to ensure that they are now at full capacity and ready for the shipping season. We have worked with the insurance companies, particularly , Lloyds of London and we expect some rather significant deve lopments in term s of the insurance rates at Churchill in the near future that will greatly assist in terms of the future of Churchill as a shipping port . We are also discussing with the CN and other federal agencies to ensure that various programs under the subagreements are being implemen ted, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . I hope I don't have to remind every Minister to keep their answer brief. Flooding - compensation for damages MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My ques t ion is to the Premier. In view of the controversial statements made by the Minister of Natural Resources regar ding possible assistance, or non-assistance, to farmers in municipalities yesterday in the press , can the First Minister indicate what kind of assistance can the farmers and residents in municipalities in the flood stricken areas of Ste.

Rose and Portage and Southeast Manitoba expect from this government? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Ministe r. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the Minister will deal with that question in quite a comprehensive manner . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the question has been raised because I was somewhat dis turbed by the

article that appeared. I felt that it did not adequately reflect the comments that were made. lt is true, in respond ing, that I ind icated that there were limi tations on the financial resources of the province, but the question that was put to me was what can the Department of Natural Resources do to aid the farmers with their immed iate problem? I said that there was, in fact, very little that could be done while the water was on the land, and it would be a question of waiting for waters to recede.

When they had the opportunity to return to the land, I indic ated that in some areas that were prone to flooding and erosion, that some consideration should be given to alternate cultural practices, meaning thereby that in some instances they should consider planting forages, rather than cereal crops. I think it was not intended to convey - and I'm glad the opportunity has been provided to me to clarify that - that for all the problems that are being faced in the area that forage crops are the solution.

Then further to that, I went on to ind icate that, after the short-term questions had been add ressed, to look at the long term, there would be considera tion, as there is already, of establishment of a conserva tion dis trict in the Overhill Drain. And let me remind the mem ber opposite that my comments, as reported in the paper, were addressed specifically to the situation in Portage la Prairie that I had viewed and to some of the erosion problems in the McCr eary and Ste. Rose dis trict; and I went on further to say that there is discussion taking place and consideration will be given to financial support. MR.

A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. After that long presentation by the Mi nister of Natural Resources, can he ind icate right now to the House and to the people that are experiencing flood damage, what kind of assistance will be available to them and to the municipalities? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Hi ghways. HON. J.

PLO HMAN: Madam Speaker, I outlined clearly the other day when the question was asked that the Disaster Assistance Board was on top of the situation and was aware of all of the concerns and was working with the municip alities to ensure that the reports would be coming in, so that we could deal with the request for compensation.

What we have today is the Cabinet has approved an inspection program, to begin the ins pection immed iately , rather than waiting till all the reports are in, as is usually the case, to be gin an inspection program imm ed iate ly, both for private damages and the public sector damages for the munici pal ity. Once the insp ection and the applications have been filled out, of course, these will then be sent on to Cabinet for the actual payment of compensation. So this is being worked out, Madam Speaker.

I can assure the residents that we are concerned about the occurrences in their area, a numb er of areas in the province, and the Disaster Assis tance Board is working very closely in those areas to ensure that compensation will be received for those who have suffered damages. 99 MR. A. DRIEDG ER: Madam Speaker , a final supp lementary to the Minis ter responsible for EMO. In view of the statement that he made, can he ind icate how - when the process has just been set up - how come areas of Dauphin, Ochre River, Swan River, Ste.

Rose, Arborg and Selkirk and Selkirk East have all been told that there will be assistance forthcoming, and other areas that have not got NDP representatives have been ind icated that there might not be? HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's not the case, Madam Speaker . All of the areas that were affect ed, including Portage la Prairie, the R.M. of McDonald, the R.M. of Grey, there are a num ber, the R.M. of De Salab erry, there are a numb er that have been included on the list that will be considered , will be insp ected by the Disaster Assistance Board, both for the municipal damages and the private sector damages.

Tha t is contained in the information that will be released to the public today. So, certainly, there has not been any official statement that there would be aid forthcoming. We have ind icated, through the news media, that we would be taking this matter to Cabinet for consideration of an im mediate in spection program so that the amount of damages could be determined. MR. A.

DRIEDG ER: Madam Speaker, I hate to take advantage of having one more supplementa ry, but I would just like to ask the Minis ter, for the benefit of all the people that are being affect ed, why would the Minister not make a public statement to that effect so the people know what it's all about, ins tead of sitting back there wondering after the statements made by the Minis ter of Natural Resources? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, that's exactly what I'm doing is making a public statement, I would say.

We have issued a news release containing this information. lt has been given to the news media and the decision was made only two hours ago, so certainly, Madam Speaker, the information is available as qu ickly as possible to everyone. Anstett , Andy - conditions of contract MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Last Friday I asked the Minis ter of Ind ustry to provide me with a copy of the contract with one Andrue Anstett and he sent that over to me this afternoon.

I would ask him, Madam Speaker, to explain to the House and memb ers of the public why the amount of $55,000 is paid in this manner: $1 5,000 upon signing; $20,000 upon presentation of interim reports; and $20,000 upon presentation of mutually acceptable final reports? I've heard, Ma da m Speaker , of signing bonus es for professional hockey, baseball, and football players, but never for a defeated politician. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mi nis ter of Ind ust ry, Tr ade and Technology . HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 In the past few weeks, I have examined a number of these kinds of contracts . Going back a number of years, and looking at this one , because that thought crossed my mind after this had been negotiated by our staff , and I find that the Member for Sturgeon Creek and others have signed similar kinds of cons ulting contracts with people who have important work to do for the province , and there tends to be payment in a number - usually two or three times during the course of the contract depending on the length of that consulting contract .

So it's not an unusual term with respect to consulting contracts . MR. G. MERCIER: A supplementary, Madam Speaker. Hansard of Friday indicates that I asked the Minister whether Mr. Anstett would be paid expenses, provided with a car, an office, and secretarial space, and the Minister indicated that the contract does not include vehicle expenses or secretary or that sort of thing.

However, the contract in Sections 4 and 5, provides for payment for expenses associated with this contract, reimbursement is provided for in the general Manual of Administration and office space and clerical support as may be agreed upon betwee n the parties. Could the Minister not acknowledge now that Mr. Anstett will be paid car and other expenses in accordance with the Manual of Administration, and provided with office space and clerical support? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, I can assure the members that Mr.

Anstett will not be provided with a car, nor will he be provided with transportation costs, unless he is going from the City of Winnipeg to different parts of the province in the course of his activities as a consultant, because part of the consulting role, Madam Speaker, was a request . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . The time for Oral Questions has expired. HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I think it's conventional that we normally make inquiries about Hansard at this time and I'm wondering if I can - this isn't a criticism, it's simply a clarification. In reading the Votes and Proceedings, which are now printed in both languages in the House, for Thursday, I note that in presenting the Throne Speech, the sections that were read by the Lieutenant-Governor in French appear in French in the English

section and they appear in French again in the French version of Votes and Proceedings. I'm just wondering, is there an explanation as to this , or will it be that should anyone speak in the House in French that there will never be an English version appear in Hansard? Is that part of the rules or how will it be? MADAM SPEAKER: I'll check into that and return with an answer at a subsequent sitting.

ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Ellice, and the amendment 100 thereto proposed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, standing in the name of the Honourable Minister of Finance who has 25 minutes remaining. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I'm pleased to continue my involvement in the Speech from the Throne and to indicate that I am proud of the speech that was delivered by Her Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba.

I believe that it is a very significant document , a very significant blueprint for the future of our province . I think it indicates the mandate and is indicative of the support that this government, our political party, received from the people of the province during the last political election campaign. As I indicated in my remarks last night, I would just like to reinforce the fact that we did receive a significant mandate from the people of the province. As was indicated by previous speakers, four out of the last five provincial elections , people have chosen the New Democratic Party.

I note that the Member for Lake side is now here and he referenced the fact last night in debate that he was one of the Class of 1966; and when members opposite talk about the fact that this government doesn't have a mandate, that this government has only the support of 41 percent of the population, he will recall the time when he was part of a government that had 39 percent of the popular vote of the people of this province but nobody at that time questioned their mandate or his mandate to govern.

So I think that this whole approach of members opposite to suggest somehow that we are not the government of the people of this province is false. I'd also like to spend a couple of moments talking about the economic direction that this speech provides for the people of the province because I think that is still the critical issue facing the people of our province. I believe the Throne Speech does indicate further economic direction, further economic growth for our province , further economic and job opportunities for the young people of our province.

If one looks at not only what's in the Throne Speech but what others are saying about the economic future of our province under an NOP administration , you will see that the future does indeed look very bright. I would just like to quote, Madam Speaker, the recent report from the Royal Bank of Canada, one that is not the usual source of glowing reports of an NOP social democratic government, but let me quote to you that the Royal Bank predicts Manitoba's economy will grow faster than any other Canadian province in 1986 and 1987.

They say that the real GDP growth is expected to be 3.8 percent in 1986 and 4 percent in 1987, which is well above the growth rate that 's forecast for the rest of Canada. Also, the Royal Bank has looked at the longer term economic forecasts and predicts that Manitoba is going to lead the nation in terms of real growth during the decade all the way through to 1994. I can also talk about the Bank of Montreal and their projections for our province. It's even more signific ant, I think , and this was reported in the Winnipeg Free

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 Press at the end of January of this year, where the Royal Bank said - and I quote, this is a specific quote - that the Pawley's gove rnment's policies have played a significant role in the province's relatively good fortune over 1984-1985. So there are many that have indicated that our province is projecting good economic growth over the next number of years and I think this Throne Speech indicates furthe r directions, further opportunities that we're going to provide for the young people in our province , Madam Speaker .

There's one other point that I just want to touch on briefly in regard to debate that has taken place to date , in the Throne Speech , before I resume my seat and let others have the opportunity of entering into the debate , and that is this big lie that the Progressive Conservative Opposition is attempting to perpetrate with respect to the last election , again saying that somehow we stole the election and that we won the election on false pretences. They've indicated a number of areas that fall into this general line of thinking .

One is the tabling of the third quarter financial statement, suggesting somehow because these statements were tabled subsequent to the election that if they were tabled before the election that somehow the results of the election would have been somewhat different. Yet they take these contradictory positions with resp ect to the deficit . We heard very clearly from the Member for Lakeside last night where he took a position opposite to his leader with respect to deficits and government spending.

If you look at what was said during the election campaign by his party, by his leader , you would see a deficit in this province that would increase by $300 million to $400 million because of the kind of things they talked about in the election; and his leader also said that the deficit was not of major concern to them and they would see a reduction over one to two terms of the government.

Yet we see again a contradiction with the Member for Lake side suggesting that his leader was wrong in the election campaign and that now the deficit was a major issue and could have been a major issue in the election campaign that would have changed the voters' intentions when they voted . I think that somehow defies any kind of reasonable logic . The other issue that they 've raised in this context in that same line of thinking is with respect to the sale of Flyer Industries. That one I even find a bit more difficult to understand.

On one hand they criticize the agreement that was entered into with respect to Flyer and the divestiture to den Oudsten of Holland, saying the agreement is not good for the Province of Manitoba; and yet one of the reasons it took so long to consummate that agreement was because the province continued negotiations, attempting to get the best deal possible and it would have been much easier - in fact, some would even argue it would have been even more politically expedient for us to conclude that agreement prior to the election at a time when we would have had to agree to an agreement that would be not as good as the one the government entered into and could have taken the credit, saying that we've brought an end to this prior to an election campaign.

If we would have done that, I'm sure as I am standing here facing you, Madam Speaker, those same members 101 opposite would have said that they're rushing to get this deal signed before the election so that they can say Flyer is sold prior to the election. Those same members would have switched their tune, did a flip­ flop , as Conservatives are apt to do, and would have said the government is selling it just so that it could be sold prior to an election campaign . What took place, Madam Speaker , was a conclusion of a sale under the best arrangements possible , given the situation that existed with that company.

I just want to add one further word with respect to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. Before I say what I'm going to say, I just want to point out that our government recognizes that Flyer Industries has been a very difficult situation, that successive govern ments , including a couple of terms of our government , have had to wrestle with the long-term future with Flyer Industries; and there has, Madam Speaker, been mistakes made with respect to Flyer Industries.

We heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest to this House and suggest to the people of the province that for the four years they ran Flyer Industries they ran it as a good company, that it had a good product, that they ran it efficiently and business-like and all of that. Let me tell you a little bit about that business-like aproach of that government . During the years that they were in government, they set aside $500,000 for warranty claims for Flyer buses . Do you know what we had to do, Madam Speaker?

Set aside $7 million to $8 million for warranty claims for buses that were built during their time in government , when they set aside their appointees, their management of Flyer Industries set aside $500,000 for warranty claims . Some of the buses that are being repaired now , with the extraordinary warranty claims we've put in place , was during their term in government ; but the Leader of the Opposition gets up and says, "Well we managed it good for four years." Five hundred thousand dollars for warranty claims. You ask anyone in manufacturing if they set aside those kinds of funds for warranty claims .

It was a bit of quick shift bookkeeping to make the balance statement appear that the company was making a profit, but we've had to pay the price for that because that product was inferior; there were problems with it and we had to put extraordinary warranty claims in, all of the last four years , to make up for those Tory mistakes .

There were mistakes, as I said, Madam Speaker, made during our term in government , with respect to Flyer Industries , ones that we have to face, but for the Leader of the Opposition to sugges t that for those four years everything ran good and they ran it efficiently and they were such good businessmen does damage to the truth, Madam Speaker. Let me just add one othe r thing with respect to Flyer Industries. They had the opportunity when they were in government to divest of Flyer Indust ries .

They did not , even though they spen t over $1 million on consultants specifically trying to find a buyer for Flyer and other Crowns. They spent over $1 million of the taxpayers' money trying to find a buyer, and they didn't. Yet now they criticize us when we brought about an end to the very serious situation that has existed with respect to Flyer Industry for over 12 years, at the same

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 time providing some future for that important industry in the Province of Manitoba. I know, Madam Speaker, that we'll have other opportunities to discuss Flyer Industries once we get into the Econom ic Committee and have the report of the development corporation with respect to Flyer Industries , and I look forward to a good discussion and full disclosure of the facts regarding Flyer Industries and the present situation and its long-term future . With that, I would like to just conclude my remarks by saying that I look forward to the further debate on the Throne Speech.

I look forward to further debate and action by this government during this legislative Session, action that we will be commencing in continuing to implement programs that are of concern and meeting the real needs of Manitobans, particularly in the area of econ om ic development and socia l programs. So I conclude by saying I look forward to continued debate here and to continuing to have the opportunity to represent the constituents of the Seven Oaks constitutency, and to implement the policies of the New Democratic Party in government. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, Madam Speaker, I would wish you well in you r position that you have undertaken at this Session of the Legislature . I know other members have reminded you of your important responsibilities and to treat the Assembly and the members in a fair and equitable and impartial manner. I know how difficult it must have been for you to accept the position, Madam Speake r, particularly in view of the manner in which the prev ious Speaker was treat ed by this Premier and this government.

I'm sure you're well aware, if you watched during the last Session of the House, the pressure that was on the former Speaker as he in fact challenged the Premier and his government in a very difficult matter that was before the House, and how the Premier and members of this government berated him in the position he took , and then went so far, Madam Speaker, as to send someone out from the Premier 's Office to challenge the former Speaker for the nomination in his constituency because they weren't happy with the way he had conducted himself.

So all of those things, Madam Speaker , I'm sure, were on your mind as you considered accepting these impo rtant responsibilities. We hope that you will , in the same manner as the previous Speaker, Madam Speaker, carry out your responsibilities with the same integrity and honesty that he did. Madam Speaker, I would certainly extend my own personal welcome and congratulations to all members of the House, particularly those on this side of the House and also to the members on the government side of the House. One particu lar member, Madam Speaker , I would welcome to the House , the new Minister of Urban Affairs.

He spoke with great gusto and enthusiasm in the Throne Speech the other day. Perhaps it's time, Madam Speaker, that he was reminded of some of the 102 positions he took in his former role as Presi dent of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association, where he, in his study of that association, found that senior management ranks had been stead ily swelling during the four years the Pawley Government had been in power. He said in Septembe r, 1985 - that's not so long ago either, Madam Speaker - that there is just a wholesale creation of Assistant Deputy Minister positions consistently .

He went on, Madam Spea ker - he has made numerous comments and perhaps fortunately for him, I haven 't brought them all with me today . But back in March of 1985 - and that's not so long ago eith er - he acknowledged that the increase of over 10 percent that the Premier's staff had received was an extremely bad example in times of restraint, an incre ase in the Executive Council office when they are supposed to be providing the leadership is totally inappropriate . That was the adding of some $260 ,000 in last year 's Budget to the Premier's Office for political aides and communicators, etc., Madam Speaker .

I wanted to remind the Minister of Urban Affairs of a few of these comments . He has made many more, many that I'm sure the former Minister of Finance will recall, in which he was extremely critical of his behaviour and his position and the government's position, Madam Speaker . I hope this will be a message that he will carry through with the government. I fully expect, with these kinds of statements on the record, Madam Speaker , that we will see a reduction in Assistant Deputy Ministers and senior political staff and a reduction in the Premier's Office, because I'm sure he is a man of conviction.

He certainly spoke with great con viction the other day, Madam Speaker, and no doubt he will bring this influence and this position to bear in Cabinet deliberations. When we see the Budget next week , we will see these kinds of cuts in political staff that this government has brought in over the past four years, Madam Speaker . Although, Mad am Speaker , we fin d just today that it is highly unlikely. The Minister of Industry and Technology, in response to my ques tion s last Friday , provided me with a copy of the con tract for the former Member for Springfield .

We find out that the $55,000 salary is paid by way of a $15,000 signing bonus, Madam Speaker. Incredible, absolutely incredible! Not a day's work, not a day's work, Madam Speaker , and he, in contradiction to the Minister's statement, will receive expenses and transportation expenses, contrary to the answer I was given on Friday, transportation expenses and other expenses.

That will include meals , etc ., as provided in the general manual of administratio n and, also contrary to the information I received the other day, will be provided with office space and clerical support as may be agreed upon between the parties. So, Madam Speaker , the Minister of Urban Affairs is obviously going to have a great deal of difficulty in maintaining the positions and the principles which he enunciated as the President of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association in Cabinet deliberations .

Being a man of such convi ctions and principles , he will , no doubt , resign if those positions he has taken are not upheld in the deliberations of Cabinet , Madam Speaker. Again we find out today , Madam Speaker , incredibly the Throne Speech that we were presented with, Page

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 3, after talking about Limest one : " . . . that same commitment to the planned and orderly development of our natural resource s to the benefit of all Manitobans that led to the success of Limestone and the Northern States Power sale has resulted in three more export agreements with six utilities operating in the United States ." That's a specific clear statement in the Throne Speech, and we find out today, Madam Speaker, that there is only one agreement , not three agreements . There is only one agreement. It is simply and absolutely astounding.

Madam Speaker, can anyone believe anything that anyone in this government says? Madam Speaker, I want to move on to another area that related to a matter that indicates once more the fact that this government deserves no credibility whatsoever, Madam Speaker .

Last November, last fall, in a series of statements and letters to the Minister of Community Services regarding the child protection policies of this government, Madam Speaker , I wrote a letter to the Minister on November 22, 1985 setting out 12 specific and detailed questions in regard to child protection policies because of very serious concerns in that area . The Minister did not respond at that time, and has not responded to date to my letter of November 22, 1985, Madam Speaker.

Then, in early January, I received an invitation from the inner core agency , a group of professional child care workers in the city - social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, interested in child abuse matters , child protection policies - to speak at a public debate , because they were extremely concerned with the inadequacies of the program of this government . I accepted that invitation, Madam Speaker , but the Minister didn 't. She refused to attend, and she was not busy on that even ing, Madam Speaker , something akin to the Minister of Health sending a Deputy Minister and saying he couldn't get a pair.

She wasn't busy on that occasion , Madam Speaker . They tried to set up another meeting for late February . I accepted the invitation to attend, Madam Speake r. She refused once more to discuss an extremely important issue, and during an election campaign . What better opportunity, Madam Speaker , than to have an occasion to defend the policies of this government on such an important question during the course of an election campaign? For the second time, Madam Speaker, she refused to debate that important public issue. Now, Madam Speaker , she has not responded to my letter of November 22, 1985.

She refused to debate on two occasions during the election. And now what is happening in this whole field , Madam Speaker? I have to say it is a very difficult field to try to get information from , because this Minister and her staff , and particularly one of her Assistant Deputy Ministers, has put the fear of God into social workers not to make any public statements about the inadequacies of the policies and the resources provided for this government in that field , Madam Speaker . Now, Madam Speaker , what is happening? From the informatio n I have obtained, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there are still children, infants being sent and returned into very high-risk situations . If one reads the newspaper during the past two weeks, one will see that in two 103 particular cases - and I'm not in any way commenting on the guilt or innocence - children have been killed and murder charges have been laid. I can advise the Minister through you , Mr. Deputy Spe aker, that there is presently a third baby in the hospital which I learned of today, who is brain dead, who is going to die, who is another victim of child abuse. All of this is happening, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, through inadequate resources, for one thing , in adequate resources in that area; for a second th ing, the policy which this Minister and her Assistant Deputy Minister and her government have of trying to keep the family together at all costs . They are returning children to dangerous situat ions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we have seen the result in three particular cases that I have referred to, two that have been reported and one not yet reported ; also, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because of their policy of making the social workers what they call generic social workers, dealing with all of the problems and doing away with the specific child abuse units. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, members on that side of the House stand up and say that they have a great socialist vision for our society, for Manitobans . Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have the most helpless , indefensible situation occurring, infants and babies returned to high­ risk situations as a result of the policy of this government and as a result of the lack of resources that this government has provided in that field.

As a result , we have in the last few weeks two deaths and one baby lying in hospital brain dead, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I'm not saying and I'm not going to suggest for a moment that some of these situ ations will completely disappear . You simply can't prevent every one. I don't expe ct anyone to be perfect. But what I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that it is clear that there is a lack of resources in that field, and that the polic ies of this government are inadequate, and that the social workers are being muzzled by her and her Assistant Deputy Minister and her staff not to speak out.

She won't even go and discuss it in a public forum before or during an election campaign, and she won't even respond to a letter of November 22, 1985. Now to all those new members on the other side who have this great socialist vision for Manitobans, the Member for Thompson or the Member for Elmwood , he's more concerned about government going into the life insurance industry. What you had better start doing is dealing with the real needs of people, the real needs of these children who are being abused in our community and for which you are providing no resources.

That 's what needs the attention of this government , Mr. Deputy Speaker, not the government going into the life insurance industry or Andy Anstett needing a $55 ,000 contract with a $15 ,000 signing bonus or with all due respect, in an unprecedented way, the Speaker of this House requir ing an executive assistant which is completely unprecedented. This type of behaviour of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, comes as no surprise to members of this side of the House who have watched this government, particularly since September, 1983 when they adopted that infamous Cabinet minute .

I wonder, is it still applicable to the existing Cabinet . Avoid all controversial decisions; embark upon a massive advertising program; spend thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money to try to sell the government, like cornflakes or something else,

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 somebody doing a good job when actually nothing was happening. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Never in such a few weeks has the credibility of a government, if they had any, been destroyed so much . The election was March 18th . It's not even two months and in those few short weeks . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, C. Santos: The members will have their chance to speak . MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Deputy Speaker , they chose to embark upon an election campaign at an unprecedented time of the year, in March - the last one in March was in 1907 - a particularly inconvenient time for the public . But most impo rtantly, they did it because they didn 't have to come to this House to present a Throne Speech, present the Estimates and present a Budget , Mr. Deputy Speaker, no public information or as little information to the public as possible on what is going on . We talked about The Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

But most important, and we can recall the Minister of Education, the now Minister of Business Development and Tourism, spending all her time last fall avoiding making public statements on any issue. She spent all her time avoiding saying anything about important public issues that were occurring . But, most importantly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the most significant matters is this matter of the deliberate withholding of the Third Quarterly Financial Report. When we look back, Mr. Deputy Speaker - and I would expect you particularly, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I reread your speech in the Throne Speech of 1982 when you talked about public morality, public decency and responsibility, and you rep eated much of it the other day - I would like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to particularly examine this record . What were the dates that the Third Quarter ly Financial Report were issued on in previous years ?

In 1978-79, it was February 9; in 1980, it was February 22; in 1980- 81, it was February 20; in 1981-82, it was February 26; in 1982-83, it was February 25; in 1983-84, it was March 2; in 1985, it was March 22, but he deliberately withheld it then in order to presen t it at the same time as his Budget; this year, April 2. When you examine those dates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you particularly, Sir, as a responsible, moral, honest politician would clearly come to the conc lusion that the figures to be used in the Third Quarte rly Financial Report were available well before the end of February of this year.

Anyone can see that, Mr. Deputy Speaker , in looking at those figures. This governme nt deliberately withheld that information, about the increase in the size of the defic it from the public, during the election campaign. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would like you to respond one day and give the Assembl y your view on how responsible and ethical and honest that was. It was clearly a case of deliberately holding that information from the public, just like they've done with so many things. But that was essential; that is absolutely irresponsible. 104 Now, Mr.

Deputy Speake r, obviously they hope that, for whatever length of term their government is, the public will have forgotten once again. Mr. Deputy Speaker , that is totally irresponsible , unethical , dishonest, deliberate deceit and misleading of the publi c of Manitoba, and they can't deny it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, did they tell the people of Manitoba that they were going to have to pay - well before I leave that subject of the Third Quarterly Financial Report , I want to say to the former Minister , no doubt, he will agree with this. He says, no, we never did that. That's the position they've taken .

The figures weren't available , etc . No doubt, he will agree with me and our leader and members on this side of the House when we present a Private Mem ber's bill, which is No. 6 on the Order Paper, which will simply confir m the existing practice into legislation of providing for the Quarterly Reports and pro viding that they will , as they did up until the Second Quarterly Report, estimate the deficit, will simply legitimize that existing practice and procedure; only it will add one important item , Mr.

Deputy Speaker , so that no government in the future - I know we wouldn't - but particularly no socialist government in the fut ure, which is more interested in retaining power than in being honest with the public , will ever again be allowed to do that , because it would require that the Quarterly Financial Reports be released to the public within 60 days of the date of the end of the quarter . That's the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which our caucus has come to and we will be presenting in terms of a Privat e Member 's bill. Now how could they disagree with that? I'm sure they won't , would they, Mr.

Deputy Speaker? But it will come up shortly and we look forward to the support of the former Ministe r of Finance and others on that particular issue. There 's another issue, there's another exampl e of their misleading information, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Did they tell the public of Manitoba, or present the sale of Flyer to the public before or during the election? The Minister , who is now the Minister of Finance, said they were going to do it by the end of 1985. He gave committee and members of this Legislature solemn assurances that would be done before the end of 1985.

Even though he didn't do it, did he tell them that the taxpayers were going to have to pay to get rid of it? Did he tell them , Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they opposed the sale of Flyer when we were in government , when it still had a significant value, when it was making a profit; that, through their opposition and their obstructionist tactics of that time this cost the taxpayers millions of dollars of money because it could have been sold for some value at that time instead of now having to pay someone to take it over after four years of their incompetence in managing the affairs of Flyer? No, they didn 't, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. Did they tell the public during the election campaign that they were going to eliminate 200 Civil Service positions? No, they had a great socialist vision of society, no equality, qual ity of life, unless of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were a single parent or a low-income family or a rural family in financial crisis and you depended upon the home economics

section to provide you with some assistance . Now isn't that a great priority? Hire an executive assistant for the Speaker in an unprecedented manner ; hire a defeated politician

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 and give him a $1 5,000 signing bonus; but get rid of six home economics posit ions, don't provide any resou rces in the child protection area. What priorities does this government have, Mr. Deputy Speaker? They never told the people of Manitoba anything about that prior to the election, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Did they tell the senior citizens of this province during the election campaign that they were going to increase their Pharmacare deductible by some 50 percent ? They talked about this great concern about the increase in the supplement, and then they go, within a matter of days, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and announce the increase in the Phar macare deductible for the senior citizens of this province. Did they say that they were going to have the greatest, largest Cabinet that has ever been assembled in the Province of Manitoba just to keep everybody loyal, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Because we know that's the real reason for having, in an unpr ecedented way, the Legisla tive Counsel Office on the main floor that has been there for years and years to provide a service to mem bers of this Assembly , and particularly members of the Opposition, moved out to provide room for yet another suite of ministerial or deputy minis terial offices. Twenty-one Min isters, absolutely incredible, Madam Speaker , at a time when resources are supp osed to be in greatest need. There is great need for social programs in the health field, services are deteriorating every day.

We read about psychiatrists leaving the province because of inadequate programs; cancer specialists refusing to come to Manitoba because of a lack of adequate programs, a lack of CAT scans, North Dakota setting up programs to attract Manitobans. lt is everywhere in the health field, people lined up outside of the emergency sect ions of hospitals on stretchers, Mr. Deputy Speakers.

Yet we are going to have at the same time 21 Cabinet Min isters, 21 Deputy Min isters, 21 Cabi net Min isters' offices, and they're all going to have executive assistants and special assistants and communi cators, and hire their defeated candida tes as consultants, and hire an executive assistant for the Speaker. At the same time, there are all of these other needs in society. The Mini ster for Urban Affairs - I guess that's what he was talking about when he was President of the MGE A - about the lack of leadership in Cabinet.

Now surely we're going to again see him take some leadership in the Cabinet delibe rations and, no doubt, when the Min ister of Finance presents his Budget, we'll see those cuts, won't we, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Not li kely, Mr. Deputy Speaker , because we've seen their record and they're not going to change. They're at the public trough and they're going to stay there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that's what is most im portant to them. We've seen a government at the same time, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in a way of trying to assess the priorities of this govern ment, we're going to invest $5 million of the taxpayers ' money in a potash mine. That's quite something - $5 million or is it more than that? - (I nterjection) - $5 million? Just think of what that could do in health care. Think of what $5 million could do in the way of child protection resources to avoid some of these terrible situations that are occurring, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why should the taxpayers be risking their money in that venture?

The market is down. it's just incredible 105 when there's a need, resources are rare, there's such a demand on them and we're investing in a potash mine. Leave that to the people who want to take those kinds of risks, leave that to the private sector. Do what you can to encourage them through legislation, or whatever, but leave that to the private sector, don't waste the taxpayers ' money in that area. That's surely not a prio rity, but they're ignoring the true priorities of the people of Manitoba.

Then, Madam Speaker, we had, very interestingly, too, another issue - and there are so many of them. lt's going to be in teresting to have the Mini ster responsible for the telephone system before the comm ittee with the officials of the Manitoba Telephone System, you kn ow. lt was an election year, for them power is everything, don't ever be honest with the people - that's not the way you get elected , that's not the way the socialis ts get elected.

What you do is apply for a 3 percent increase in telephone rates, when actually what is required is an 11 percent increase, but you wouldn't want to do that in an election year. And then the embarrassing result is that the Public Utility Board orders an independent review of the telephone rate structure. That's amazing, Madam Speaker.

Surely to goodne ss we have, in the telephone syste m, and I'm sure we do have in the Telephone Syst em, confident, qualified admin istrators, but their bosses, this great NDP socialis t government, tells them in an election year: don't apply for what is required, you limit it to 3 percent because this is an election year. That's dishonest, that's absolutely disho nest and they got away with it, the result came down after the election.

Another instance, and obviously there are dozens of instances of this government supplying mis information, no information, false information, to the public of Manitoba, and they did it, regrettably, for the people of Manitoba. Mr . Deputy Speaker , they got away with it. They obviously didn't listen to you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in 1982 when you deliv ered that speech and you're too late in delivering this one during this Throne Speech. lt should have been deliv ered to them a couple of years ago, about September 1983, when the Cabinet made all of those decisions to simply develop a public relations campaign in order to retain power. Mr. Deputy Speaker, these are some of the issues that demon strate that we will have to do everything we can in our power as an Opposition to try to maintain some form of honest and responsible and confident government. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it will be a difficult job to do because they have not performed in that way, but we will continue to bring out these messages, these errors, lack of information, the activities, the manner in which this government has handled the public affai rs of Manitoba, and try to point out to them, once again, that it is their respons ibility to act in the interests of Manitobans, not just in the interests of retaining socialists in power, and keeping information from the public, but in areas, for example, of child protection, to provide proper resources, establish the proper priorities.

Fire Anstett, fire the executive assistant for the Speaker and put that money where it's supposed to be, in prov iding appropriate resou rces in that particular field and other fields, in the health field. I would urge this gov ernme nt to examine its conscience, go over every one of these individual items which are examples of pure deceit and misleading

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 information or no information to the people of Manitoba. lt is reprehensible conduct, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it very difficult to see how they can live with themselv es after having conducted these kinds of activities, particularly for the last two-and-one-half years. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the chickens again will come home to roost on May 22nd, when the Minis ter of Finance presents his Budget. This government has run up tremendous deficits over a period of four years. They have caught thems elves in an extremely difficult position.

They did not talk during the election, nor through the Throne Speech, about the financial crisis that is facing Manitobans. lt's an extremely serious one, Mr. Deputy Speak er. The public debt incr eased nearly threefold in just four years; the credit rating reduced twice. We keep hearing some rumour s, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we want to know the answers. In fact, is the deficit for 19 85-86 just going to $550 million, or is it going to be $40 million or $50 million higher? Have we indeed, Mr. Deputy Speak er, received all of the information, even at a late date? That will be an interesting point to receive. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, could you ind icate how much time I have left? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five mi nutes. MR. G. MERCIER: I have to make one comment in one final area, Mr. Deputy Speak er, and the Member for Lakeside referred to it yesterday and I, once again, did the statistics, because I've done it the last four or five years and I'd like to do it once more, with respect to taxation in the City of Winnipeg on real prop erty.

When one examines the figures, one finds that in the four years - and this is a message I hope somebody will relay to the Minis ter of Urban Affairs - the 19 77 to 1981 taxes in this city on an average home in the Member for Ellice's dis trict in the Winnip eg School Division were incr eased a total of $78.33. That's in four years; that is the total increase. In five years, under the New Democratic Party, that home and its taxes have been increased by some $470.26. I noticed last night on television a group of people appearing before the Winnipeg School Division.

They were finally becoming extremely concerned about the increase in taxation. Hopefully they will know, these figures will ind icate who to blame. You blame this government, these great socialists, because that is the comparison. That is what happened. That is because we suppl ied a great deal of money in those areas to keep those taxes down. Now you have senior citizens, people on low income, families having a great deal of difficulty in even maintaining their home. What did this government do with its tremendous relationship with the city? The Memb er for Ellice must be very disappointed.

This government never met with the City Council official delegation for - what? - eight months. Then at the very last moment, the day the Council was setting the mill rate, that's when they told them how mu ch the pr ovince was going to contribute to the City of Winnipeg budget for this year. In fact, I think the meeting had to be delayed one day because of the lack of information. That's an incredibly poor relationship with the City of Winnipeg.

We always felt that information had to be supplied to the city, and it was always done in either late 106 December or early January so that the city could plan its budget. That's the way we handled it, and it gave the local government an opportunity to plan its aff airs proper ly. This is the way they were treated and this is the urban-domina ted party with great urban interest. This is the party that has done nothing with regard to assessment, and we'll be dealing with that particular subject by way of reso lution and through the Estimates.

That's an area where this government has taken no reform whatsoever, even though they were presented with a report from former Premie r, the late Waiter Weir, back in 1981 or 1982, and no action has been taken. So the people in the City of Winnipeg, particularly now as they have been getting their tax bills this week, should know - and we'll make sure that they know - the incr eases in taxation that have occurred under the New Democratic Party as compared to a party that was concerned about homeowners and about taxes and about financing for education and for the city.

Madam Speak er, I thank the members for their attention and the opportunity to dis cuss the Throne Speech. I look forward to the day, Madam Speaker, when the chickens are really going to come home to roost and that will be May 22 when the budget is brought in. Madam Speaker, thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minis ter of Indus try, Tr ade and Technol ogy. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to begin by congratulating you for having taken on a very difficult job, one that I have to admit occasionally in the past I have not made easier for Speakers.

I will do my best in the upcoming Session and I wish you well. I would like to welcome all the new members to the Legislature. There are a number of people on both sides whom I have met before, and I think they will certainly provide some positive im provements to this House. I am looking forward to their contributions and I hope they don't become too jaded too quick ly. I noticed one of the thin gs they are doing is recognizing that jus t because we have a limit of 40 mi nutes on a speech doesn't mean you have to speak 40 mi nutes.

I'm not sure that I will be able to keep my speech down to a reasonable level, but that's something that I think is to be commanded of new members. I don't think there is anything necessa rily good about going on when you have nothing to say, as the mem ber just finishing before me did. Just shortly after an election, one does want to reminis ce a little bit. I want to say that I had my best election campaign ever.

We had the best group of workers we have ever been able to ass em ble: volunteers, senior citizens, working people, small busi ness people, in a very enthusiastic team which worked well together, and I'm very appreciative of that. lt is certainly the best campaign I have been involved in and I have been involved in a numb er. I' ve won some and I have lost some, and it is obviously more fun to win than to lose, but this was a very good campaign. We had many young people working on our campaign. We had more than several dozen people under 20 years

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 of age who worked hard. I think they learned something and we learned from them. I got a chance to campaign across the province. I got to see some other ridings - (Interjection) - Minnedosa. I rode through Morris . It's a great desert down there . I kept going. But it was enjoyable. In fact, I was on the campaign trail, you might say, from even before the election was called . The day before it was called, I was in Winkler.

And I'll be coming back to that a little bit later because, you know, one of the things that new members should be especially careful of is to not get an attack of sanctimony from the Member for St. Norbert . He tends to just make it appear that he and his party has some kind of monopoly on truth, justice and light. I give cred it to the Member for Lakeside. At least when he puts forward his positions, he puts them forward in a somewhat more humorous, light-hearted fashion, not saying that everyone else who disagrees with him has to be immoral because they disagree with him.

But that's the way that particular member tends to come across, and I would hope that new members especially look at issues rather than at personalit ies. But having said that, I do have to follow on some of the statements made by the Member for Lakeside last evening, dealing with issues such as budgets. I'm not going to talk about that too long because the Minister of Finance has already taken that on, pointing out that here is a party suggesting we should have a lower deficit at the same time that they suggested during the campaign we incre ase expenditures on health and education by $120 million.

At the same time, they suggested we eliminate the health and education levy for more than $100 million, and so on and so on. Incidentally, that health and education levy, for the benefit of the Member for River Heights, was recently increased in Quebec to 3.2 percent which is more than double the amount here in Manitoba . As we're discussing deficits, I can't let pass the fact that we do not live in a vacuum . We're not all on our own in this country and one government moving up in terms of deficit. Let's just look one step west where, in early 1982, we had an NDP Government and very little provincial debt.

We had a surplus in terms of the Budget for that year, a surplus , and had been running surpluses on the current account for many years . You know, in 1985-86, the deficit in Saskatchewan was close to $600 million. They started out that year predicting somewhere around a $300 million deficit. They are up to $600 million, 595. For this coming year, they are predicting, as an example, something like a doubling of liquor revenues without increases in taxes in that area. Those are the expectations down there which drop them down a bit for '86-87, in terms of the defic it.

You go through every province in this country and they have all experienc ed those kinds of increases.

In Saskatchewan, by a much larger measure than in Manitoba, proportionally , they 've gone to a higher deficit now than we have, and when we started off we had just under a $300 million defic it from the previous Tories - and incidentally - for those who preach such sanctimony, you will recall that in the 1970's it was Sterling Lyon stumping this province saying that Ed Schreyer was spending us into bankruptcy and we have to cut deficits and in his last year in office, Sterling Lyon had a larger deficit than the last year of the 107 Schreyer Government, even with all the manipulations to change the numbers for the 1977-78 fiscal year.

On their own basis , on the basis of their own judgments as to whether things are good or bad, the Tories had a larger deficit in their last year in office than in the last year of the NDP Government which they replaced on the basis that they would be fiscally responsible. So much for the deficit , Madam Speaker, and I'm sure we will be coming back to that time after time and after the Budget Address . We can look in other countries - the Reagan deficits , and so on . They are not unique to Manitoba nor are they uni que to social democratic governments .

The Member for Lakeside referred to Tory accomplishments and he mentioned that he was from the class of 1966, so he was in the House when the Progressive Conservatives brought in Medicare. There are some people who may not be up on their Manito ba history who might say, well, my goodness, the Manitoba Provincial Progressive Con ser vat ives really were wonderful people; they are the parents of Medicare.

They will forget entirely about the vicious, vicious fascist red baiting that was going on in Manitoba when the CCF were bringing in Medicare, who had the guts to bring in Medicare in Saskatchewan just a few years before that. They were led kicking and screaming , the Manitoba Tories, kicking and screaming into Medicare . I have here the 1969 Budget Address of the Honourable Gurney Evans and I'm quoting from it. He's compla ining a bit about Federal/Provincial relations and that just demonstrates those things go on over the years.

I'm quoting direct, " A parallel situat ion is found in the field of shared responsib ilit ies. In the past year alone, after little or no prior warning or consultation, tt)e Federal Government has announced its withdrawal from a long list of such undertakings .

The obligations relinguished included the National Health Grants Program at the very moment when a universal federal Medicare scheme was being imposed." I go further, "I have noted that Medicare, on federal terms, is now a fact in Manitoba." And he goes on to say, "The Prime Minister's recent assertion that there will be no more Medicare offers little comfort in respect of the problems we must now carry. " And of course there was a Premier's conference. It was forc ed on Manitoba .

They were dragged kicking and screaming, and Premier Walter Weir, in his opening statement at the Federal/Provincial Constitutional Conference in Ottawa in February of that year, "We have now forced on the taxpayer a major new share d cost program, Medicare, although the terms were strenuously objected to by a majority of provinces, including Manitoba ." That's how they got Medicare into Manitoba; and to revise history in any way that would sugge st they are the fath ers or mothers of Medicare is simply, not in one way, fair. So I say, be careful about history lessons.

When we listen to speeches about drainage ditches and the wonderful things the Conservatives do with drainage, we've heard about the Portage flood . When was that ? '78,'79? And nothing happened between'79 and '81, and it's true, nothing has happened since then, apparent ly; but something did happen in'79. I have the 1979 Manitoba Flood Recove ry and Protection booklet - thousands of dollars spent by the

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 PC Government on red, blue and white pictures. Here's a picture of a combine in the water - efforts to save grain become extremely di fficult. They have pictures. Here's a picture - flooded farm at sunset. This is the kind of response the Cons ervative Government of Sterling Ly on had to serious flooding problems - flooded farm at sunset. Remem ber, the Member for Lakeside referred to nursing homes. Madam Speak er, in 1977, the Leader of the Conservative Party stum ped the province saying that the lineups for nursing homes are too large.

I recall that very vividly and I in fact agreed with him, but I was shocked at his solution. His solution was to stop building them so there was no point in being in the lineup. He froze construction for a considerable period of time. That was his solution - to cut down the nursing homes. MR. H. ENNS: We not only doubled, we tripled what you did. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Wel l, the Minis ter of Health has indic ated that he will be discussing that and that response again is . . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I missed one item Medicare.

I found a quote here from the leader of your national party when he was still on the other side of the House and sometimes we do change our minds when we get across the fences. Fortunately , in Manitoba, four out of five vote for the NDP, four times out of five in the last five elections. Four of them, the NDP has won and that's an indic ation that over time they know whom they can trust to look after the interests of Manitobans. This is what Mr. Mu lrone y said when he was the Leader of the Opposition. On Medicare, Mr.

Mul roney enlarged on statements he made in British Columbia when he visited the West Coast recently to help To ry candidate, Gerry St. Germaine in the August 29 Mission­ Port Moody by-ele ction: "The Conservative Government," he said, "would cover a portion of the shortfall provincial governments are experiencing in meeting rising health care costs. When a program starts out at 50-50 and five years later it's 60-40, with the provinces paying the greater share, there's obviously been a change in the rules. lt just doesn't make sense to vilify the doctors. They are the motor of a quality system and when Mrs.

Begin attacks them she's pouring sugar into the gas and it's going to frig up the motor." That's what your Prime Min ister said about assistance to the Med icare system; that's what Mr. Mul roney said. Of course, we know that he is currently, with Bill C- 96, not only not extending the Li beral program which he criticiz ed as being too little, he is cutting it back further. That's what your Prime Mi nister is doing after having said precisely the opposite when he was Leader of the Opposition. We're going back into hist ory.

The To ries said, "We will bring our young people home," and the day they left office in 198 1, the first government to have been defeated in Manitoba after one term in office, the day 108 they left office there were fewer people left in Manitoba than the day they took office. They voted with their feet. They got out of Ly on Manitoba. There were fewer people left in Manitoba when you people left office than when you had come in. Since then we have had strong population growth. Under the NDP, our children are coming home; our brothers and sisters are coming home.

There were good reasons for us winning four out of five, very good reasons. We'll be going over them, I'm sure, over the next 10 years fairly frequently . I want to go back to Wink ler. The Leader of the Opposition suggested the other day that I had used a slow news day to raise the SR TC business. I've got the quote here in case you want it, but that's what he said. What were we doing? The Min ister of Agriculture and I had a news conference. When was that? lt was in response to the federal Budget, and it was done after a Federal-Provincial Conference on Finance.

I had come back home, and we had an opportunity to look at the effect s, the impact of that Budget on Man itoba. I would hope especially that rural members, both new and old, would listen very carefully to the response we had, because there were some very serious imp lications in that Budget. We'd had a chance to examine it. We pointed out - and there were a number of things not carried by the press, and that's something that I don't criticize them for. They sometimes pick out items that they get more excited about.

We pointed out that the 6 percent variable mortgage which rural members would be familiar with, the commod ity-based mortgage, was not, in the form it was at that time, working. Our Min ister ind icated that changes had been made because of our constructive criticisms, I'm sure. Our constructive criticisms work with the Federal Gov ernment. Occasional ly, they do. We also pointed out that farmers were going to lose, not all Canadian farmers but Manitoba farmers and Saskatchewan farmers, the 10 percent investment tax credit over a period of two or three years - I think it's three years.

When that is in full effect , it will cost Manitoba farmers - and this is based on farm definition of $1 0,000 or more income, farmers with a gross income of $1 0,000 or more in 19 81, and that's roughly 20,000 farmers. lt's the same definition used previously by Provincial Conservative Governments. On that basis, the cost of that elimina tion on average will be $2,000 per farmer in Manitoba per year, $2,000 per farmer per year. lt works out to about $40 million a year. We pointed out as well that this was being done at the same time that this was happening to sugar beet farmers.

This was not happening to people who were doing some research - (In terjection) - at 20 percent. They were getting an investment tax credit of 20 percent, plus 100 percent write-off of the remainder. That's what we were talking about. We said that's not fair; that doesn't make sense. I think there isn't a member in this House who di sagrees with me. Yet that 20 percent is being retained, and the 10 percent is being elimi nated here and in Saskatchewa n, not in all parts of the countr y. lt is not being elim inated in the Maritimes, and I don't criticize the Federal Government for that at all.

We recognize that there are some very serious problems in the Maritim es, although we also believe that there are some serious problems

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 in Western Canada. It is not only in the farm sector , because that credit also means that farmers had the opportunity to purchase farm equipment, and that means jobs for urban workers. But we were not particularly pleased with that kind of a hit. I should, just as we're talking about that hit , point out that there has been some amelioration of that, that the benefit of the Mulroney statement of April 30 on the same basis to Manitoba farmers would work out to roughly $600 a year per farmer.

However, the bulk of the benefits given back to farmers on that $600 per year are of taxes which had not been in existence or had been raised after the Mulroney Governm ent came int o office. That is, an example, all the excise taxes on fuel including farm fuel was rebated, as you know, prior to September of 1984. So now you were paying the tax for awhile . He took it off you for a short period of time so it feels good, but you're really only back to where you were in 1984 before he added stuff on to you .

So your net result is you're still down $2,000 per farmer as a result of that Budget and the previous Budgets of the Federal Conservative Government without calculating some of the other items the Minister of Agr iculture could point out to you . There are a lot of user fees and so on. Now, there have been suggestions by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, and I believe other Conservatives, that the SRTC's were being wiped out by the Mulroney Government, that shortly after they came into office they too k them out. I want to point out to those people that's not quite correct . There was an attempt made; that's true.

To the extent that it is going to cost us an awful lot of money, it is not correct. They in fact - and if you read the prospectus of Organic Research Inc., you will find that they state in their prospectus that the Mulroney Government's change with respect to the capital gains tax sweetens the pot considerably. Rather than being something that wasn't as good under the Liberals - or it wasn't as good under the Conservatives as it had been under the Liberals - these people made it even worse.

The first $25,000 of the $29,000 paid out in January of 1986 to those particular investors was tax free because of Michael Wilson's elimination of the capita l gains tax - (Interjection) - $25,000 for 1986, complete elimination of the first $25,000 and , as it goes on, it continues and gets worse. The point we were making at that conference was that there were approximately a dozen other comp anies with applications before the Securities Commission of Manitoba who have other great research ideas, things from jojoba beans to taking oil out of sand .

There was a total of several hundred million dollars worth of these kinds of res earch ideas before the Secur ities Commission. When I met with Mr. Wilson after his Budget which grandfathered those again - and keep in mind that these are companies that had not even been in existence when Marc Lalonde was Minister of Finance. These are companies that have been formed in the last number of months , six months, some of them. These companies are being grandfathered again past 1986. So we said to Mr. Wilson, at least give us the option to prescreen for the Manitoba income tax portion.

It's none of our business what you do with the federal 109 portion, but this is hurting us here provincially and we would like the opportunity to look at them. We're not saying that they're all bad. A MEMBER: When? When did you say this to him? HON. V. SCHROEDER: I said this to him before the news conference. In fact, at the news conference, I said very specifically that we don't criticize them overall. We want the right to intervene on the basis of looking at them first to determine whether they make sense. Four times during that press conference I said I do not blame the investor, I criticized the system.

I do not criticize the investor; I criticize the system. I was asked, after the press conference, to name investors and I said that's not the game I'm in, I'm trying to fix the system. There is a group though who have called The Elections Finances Act pickpocketing . They have called it robbery, they have said it is offensive , and let's see what they will do when it comes time to collect on it. Robbery by the Leader of the Opposition , that's what he called it. He didn't say it was legalized, he said it was robbery . You had one of your members say it was pickpocketing.

You had a form er finance minister saying it was offensive, and you are now telling us . . . . We've never criticized the investors; we have criticized the system . You or the people, Madam Speaker , as indicated - (Interjection) - oh, that's okay. You're going to pick people's pockets according to your defin ition. You're going to rob people, according to your definition. I've said all along - and we're consistent here - I've said all along that, Madam Speaker , that that kind of view of life is one we tend to expect from some of the older members, not the Member for Lakeside, I think he would be consistent.

I don't think he would play that kind of a game, but some of them clearly do. Madam Speaker, you did throw me off. Mr.

Ransom , Monday, June 20, 1983: "Does the First Minister intend to withdraw such offensive bills as The Elections Finances Act?" The Leader of the Oppos ition : "They are willing at every turn to rob from the taxpayer for the good of themselves." That's the kind of thing they say, and the Member for Minnedosa referred to it as "pickpocketi ng ." Well, quite frankly, you people have come along here and you've said to us, when we say that a system needs changing, that then we can't take advantage of that system . We've never said that; you're saying that , you people are saying that.

We said the system should be changed but , as long as the system is the way it is, it should be the same for everyone , and I believe it should be the same for you with respect to The Elections Finances Act, but don't tell us that you can take advantage of that and we're supposed to sit back here and pretend that somehow you people - (interjection) - Madam Speaker , he says, "Do away with it." We believe that The Elections Finances Act makes a lot of sense for the taxpayers of this province .

We believe that it is good for the province that Hyundai does not finance our elections, or lnco, or the Royal Bank, or people like that; we do it directly. The taxpa yers of this province have no problem with the notion of paying about $2 or $3 apiece to have clean elections that are not influenced by outside large corporate forces

Wednesday, 14 May, 1986 who tend to finance the Opposition to serve the party. We believe strongly that The Elections Finances Act was a good piece of legislation and they couldn't take us off of that. In principle, we said it was right; we say it is right today. You said it was wrong; you said it was wrong then. - (Int erjection) - You're going to steal. I see the Member for River Heights is here. I was pleased with the comments she made the other day, they make sense. I think they bear some reading by mem bers of the Opposition. lt's true, as I say.

I said in forceful terms what I believe, but as I have ind icated other people have said in forceful terms what they belie ve. They're perfect ly entitled to do that. We're perfectly entitled to di sagree with each other as to which legislation is right and which legislation is wrong and those sorts of things. One of the things that annoyed me with the speech of the Leader of the Opposition is the impr ession he left that I was naming investors. I'm quoting from his speech.

He said, "The taxpayers were bilking the system and even led to the naming of some promin ent Manitobans who had particip ated in the particular schemes that he identifie d." There were three different times during the particular press conference I held when I said I do not criticize the investors. I used one example where I said I talked with one investor who said, oh, I didn't invest in that particular one, I invested in organic resea rch.

He didn't even know what he had invested in and I didn't criticize him. - Why should he examine it when he's been told by his professional accountant to put the money in, get the money out the next day, no problem, the rest is owed to you by the Mini ster of Finance. That's not a criticism of the taxpayer, it's a criticism by me of the system. What we had asked for was the right to prescreen. We weren't saying they were all wrong, we were saying we want the right to prescreen for the Manitoba tax portion.

We still want that right and I would hope that members opposite would agree with us that that right should be there. We fight for days over decisions on development agre ements to assist busi ness in Manitoba, be it Heritage Foundaries, or To ro, or Westeei- Rosco, or dozens of them with much less money overall than is spent on one of these projects where we have no right to say anything or examine the project or determine whether our money is going to disap pear. That was what we objected to. We said, let us look at them first and if they're okay for Manitoba, we're prepared to app rove of them.

I think that makes some sense; I'm prepared to support that. But to suggest, as the members opposite do, that because we don't like something about the system that we have to get into the moralizing, that some members and some of the media - not most of the media, some of the media - something that really stretches it, and to suggest that the Conservatives closed the loophole simply is not accurate histor y. Th ey, in fact, fi rst of all opened it wider; they opened it wider, made it easier to do it.

In fact they enla rged the definition of research and development which also assisted the particular project I was discussing. That's what they were doing. What we are now asking for is a system where we can prescreen, just like we do any other spending we do in the province. Now I am looking forward to the next four to five years in the Legislature. I think that a couple of people 110 who have been somewhat feisty in the beginning will cool off and I'm sure we'll hear though from some of them that they will predict again they will win the next election; that we're dead in the water; that we'll never return.

I had the Member for Sturgeon Creek tell me a couple days after I arrived in this Legislature, in 1979, that I would not be here very long after the next election, it's too bad, I'd be gone. I've had many predictions of my demise, as had the Member for Lakeside. I tend to stay away from those kinds of predictions. They may very well come true sometime for all of us. The Member for Emerson has survived a numb er of those predictions. Who knows, maybe next time all my work in Emerson will pay off. We increased our support considerably in Rhineland.

Madam Speaker, I spent quite a bit of time in Rhineland where we had an excellent candidate and we came up, believe it or not, in an area where we - when I was a child, if there was a vote for the CCF, people used to wonder whether it was a joke, a mis take or a Communist. You know, now, we had more than half as many votes as the Cons ervatives had in Rhineland. We're catching up to them and who knows maybe in the next election we'll get that seat . I would look forward to that very much because we do need more rural representation on this side.

We've got some good new members and we could always use some more after the next one. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank