Time: 2:30 p. m. LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NITOBA Friday, 29 February, 1980 THR ONE SPEECH DEBATE MR . SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle-Russell): The Honou rable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just before lunch I had been indicating that this government was perpe trating a sh ell game on the people of Mani toba, and I was indicating that there was no real feeling for the human benefi t. All they were in terested in was creating a balanced budget on paper, irrespective of how it affect ed Mani tobans.

And I had been discussing the educational aspects in respect to the fact tuition fees had risen, that costs to people who were interested in a higher education were rising, and that they were the ones who could least afford it, since many of them were in the non -earning bracket even though they were adults. And I opened up today's Tribune and right there on the front page, in the left- hand corner, very prominent, it says: "Fee rise, cutbacks foreseen at U of M, Un iversity of Mani toba". And the

article is by Carol Picard of the Tribune, Education Reporter. And the first paragraph says: "Un iversity of Mani toba tuition fees will increase about eight percent this year and program cuts are inevi table because of inadequate provincial funding, university president Ralph Campbell said Thursday". He said: "This is not a threat, it's a prediction of what things are going to be. We are on the brink of it right no w." And that just further buttresses my point that this governm ent says one thing and really does ano ther; the old shell game.

It doesn't commit itself to anything, it just gives a cosmetic appearance of doing something. Mr. Speaker, that is not the only department that carries on that way. You can take a look at Urban and Municipal Affairs. The Ho nourable Attorne y-Gene ral hides behind the fact that he's got block funding , and that is sup posed to give them some self-government or some home rule. But I recall when he was on the Council, he was one of those who was indicating that there should be some form of growth taxes provided to the City Council. Today he has changed his tune; it's just block fundi ng, no more growth taxes.

Now, maybe he'll look at it in the future, but at the present time the block funding is inadequate. It has created higher taxes at the municipal level. It is creating transit cutbacks, higher trans it fares. And the other day he was asked the question, what about the DA SH bus, and he said, oh, that's the city's problem. But he's the one who is creating the r:x-oblem, no t the city. The city has no other resources except that which it can collect on property taxes, which are no t a very fair form of taxation, and that which it can receive from the r:x-ovince who created the city.

And so therefore , he has to accept the respons ibility that when there are cu tbacks at the municipal level, he is part and parcel of that r:x-oblem. His government has done nothing towards the property tax credi t inc rease which is necessary because the cost of living has been con tinually rising. That r:x-operty tax credit increase would help those who are living on fixed and low incomes. It was a form of transfer payment. This governm ent has no heart for those people at the bottom of the econo mic ladder.

Yes, its prepared to make tax adjustments on those who are going to get a wind fall in the estate field of half-a-million dollars or more. But for the ordinary citizen at the lower level, there is no relief, no t from this governm ent. In the health care field, the same thing applies. Mr. Speaker, this government is prepared to negotiate and say it has got to raise the fees for the doctors. They have raised it by some 22 percent for the ne xt ne gotiated term. What other group of people in Mani toba did they raise it 22 percent for an equal term? Did they do it with the civil servant s? I know they haven't .

Have they recommended for anybody else an increase of that size? No they haven't. But what they have done, they have cut back the grants that are nece ssary in this field. They have increased the deductible for pharmacare, again hitting those people who have the least resources with which to fight this government , except at the ballot box. And, I think that they will find out about that at the next election. They have cut back on dentic are to a degree. There are a numbe r of areas where they have done that, Mr. Speaker. - 219 -

Friaay, 29 February, 1980 In the health care fiela, for instance, there was an ar ticle just recently in the Letters to the Eaitor, ana this gen tleman elucidatea quite well the numb er of areas where they have cut back. They have cut back 100 staff in the Manitoba Mental Hospital in the areas of housekeeping, diatary maintenance ana aides. Not per, se bu t by refusing the aoequate grant s that have been ne cessary because of the cost of living ano because of inflation.

On e hundl'eO staff positions eliminat ed in community and personal care service s; buogets for the three Win nipeg Commun ity Health Cl inics frozen; Glaastone Commun ity Health Clin ic cut by $60,000 - I wonder what the Member for Gladstone thinks about that - the Churchill Clinic cut by $1 00,000; provisions for Home Care Services for Elaerly cu t f rom 70 0 people to less than 600 people; subsidization of elderly slashea from $2. 2 million to $550,000; 1,770 taken off programs of health service assistance to elderly. Mr.

Speaker, these are all humane services that this governm ent , with its ap proach to governm ent , which it follows blinaly, has denieo service to Manit obans. Health care bea closures; hot lunch and nu tritional programs. --(I nte rject ion)-- When I am done the honourable mini ster can have his question. MR . SPEA K ER: Order please. The Honou rable Minis ter of Health with a point of order. MR. SHERMAN: On a point of oroer and a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The re port and the accusa tions that the Member for Kilaonan is recoun ting are utterly ano totally without foundation, and have been repud iated by me factually in letters to those publications, such as the CU PE publication, which have carriea them. MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, as usual the honourable minis ter didn't have a point of order. MR . SPEAK ER: Order please. The Honou rable Member for Kilaonan. MR . FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pll just repeat. The honourable minis ter only had an opini on; he didn't have a point of order, and that is debatable. I would suggest that my facts are just as correct as yours.

This person is involvea in the health care fielo. He supervises many many people who are working at the level of health care where it's delivered, not at the admini strative level like the Minister, who is half the time not aware of everything that is going on at the administrative level and at the health care services level. Much as I appreciate the fact that he is trying hard, I also have to aamit, and he has to admit, that he canno t be aware of everything that is going on.

The people at the bottom of the ladder who are working the field are more aware of where aenial of service is occurring than he is, because his administ rators, many of them, al though well-intentio ned , have to justify their jobs and cann ot indi cate eve rything that is going wrong. They must pu t a good front up. That is what is occurring. Anyway, we can leave that, and we can say this: "Concordia says facility pluggea". Again a large headline, Mr. Speaker. Ana it's been indicated that hospital staff ano administrators complained about the overcrowding last summer to the Health Min ister.

Ano it's been admittea that Conco rdia's problem, and that the hospital neeos ano ther 160 beds for fundamen tal primary care by Dr. Krahn - this also has been aamitted. But Dr. Krahn says, "But they could not give us any commitment" - and that is going on continua lly, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of sham, a lot of shell game, bu t when you lift up the shell there is never any substance or essence there. And that is what is happening continua lly. Le t us switch to another field. The Honourable Minister of Labor has left, bu t I would like to say that he, too, provides us with a shell game.

In the Throne Speech, the governm ent has indi cated that they are going to do something about in austrial processing strategy for Mani toba in conjunctio n with the agricultural development that is supposed to also take place in Mani toba. Now, I am sure that our farmers will oo their utmost to keep Manit oba's ec onomy going strong , in spite of that governm ent. Bu t what is also occurring , Mr. Speaker , is that we've had the opportun ity - this governm en t has had it - to ao something about indu strial processing. Swif t's closed. What did this government do?

They sat on their hands ana said, we can't do anything else except be present at the funeral of those people who lost their jobs. --(Inte rjections)-- I see I'm getting to them. They're starting to squeak and squawk. Mr . Speaker, I am in the same packing house indus try. I know that many of those people - I know a lot of them personally - haven't got jobs ano they are not going to get jobs for a long - 220 -

Friday, 2 9 February, 1980 time through the ef forts of this governmen t. Because this government is not capable of providing human services. It doesn't try. All it wants to do is balance its books. Let us go to a little other area of the Labor Department. The Workplace, Safety and Health Act. You know, what happened? This government sat on its hands when it first came. The Act was there, a director was there, everything was prepared to go when the change of government took place. But no, this government put a freeze, a restraint, on it and not hing occurred for over six months.

Then eventually they got started that they were going to do something about it. But to aate there has been no real development . But another face t of that kind of attitude is the fact that this government, as soon as it came into office, con travened one of the acts of this Legislature and then had to backtrack in respec t to The Power Engin eers Act and give an exemption. First of all they wer e going to stop prosecutions which were already in process but then they changed their minds because they realized they were getting int o a real can of worms. But ever since then, Mr.

Speaker, they have been carrying on in this fashion and this is an unfair way of operating. All other ind ustries have to comply with the Act and have qualified engine ers to operate their plan ts. These two plan ts, who have a fairly poor track record down in the Uni ted States, especially Hooker, where it's being, I believe, su ea by a nu mber of citizens in an area where they have polluted the total environment of a community and where they want to accept no responsibility. These companies are operating and saving themselves mone y by no t having to pay for qualified engineers.

The Minister says he is prepared to take that onus in respect to safe ty. But that's no t good enough, Mr. Speaker. There are other individual corn panies in this province who have to adhere to the letter of the law ana have to pay the higher wages. That's an unfair competition he is providing through the exemption he has placed on those compan ies. Furt her, he says they have engineering staff. Well, I would concur with him and I have a great respect for some of the engine ers at Hooker and at Simplot.

But the fact is that if they are engin eers, qualified professional engin eers, then they shoula be able to write a Manitoba Power Engineers Act and qu alify to run that plan t. And if they can't write it, then they are not qualified in spite of the fact that they've got an engin eer's title. And that's what is wrong with the exemption that the Honou rable Minister of Labor provides. An electrical enginee r is not a mechani cal engin eer. A chemical engin eer is not a mechanic al engineer. Whether they know the dif ference or not is beside the point.

What is important is that they are not qualified as power engineers or to do the job of supervising power engineers. And that's why I say, again the shell game; one thing for some and ano ther thing for others but ne ver the right thing. So that is part of the shell game that is going on, Mr. Speaker. It was ment ioned before that we have created through this governm ent a numbe r of Commissions of Inquiry; we bring them in and we take then out. That's part of the shell game.

The Member for Inkste r mentions the Spivak Task Force, he ment ioned the Burns Commission, I think there is an inquiry int o the liquor sales; half a dozen of these things are going on. All of these things are going on. All of these things are part of the shell game. They are really indic ating that this government has no intention of doing something on its own. It hasn't got the courage to put itself on the line and say we will do this or we will do that. You must have someone else fronting for them, flying a kite, creating a scam, so that they won't have to accept the respons ibility.

And I think the people of Manitoba are on to that. Let me indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest thing they have perpetrated on the peop le of Mani toba is the hoax of the hydro rate freeze. I don't hear a peep from them because they know it's so. You know why, Mr. Speaker, simply because what they have done is something that they have no reason to take credit for. It takes five to six years to produce hydro energy from the plans, to the constr uction, to everything else. When they came in to offi ce all of that was there in place and it became operable within a short per iod time when they were in offi ce.

And so, conseque nt ly, they can't take credit for that. Freezing the rates at that time was the result of the previous governm ent's plann ing and previous governm ent' s organizing. Let me go a step further, Mr. Speaker. Let me indicate to you why else this is a scam, because the transfer of the. differe nce in respect to the money exchange rate to the Consol idated Fund, which all Mani tobans will have to pay, is part of the scam, because they are exporting energy to other provinces and to the south and that cost is no t reflected in the rate that is being created for the export of that energy.

So again, it's a part of the shell game of now you see it, now you don't and it's treating the people of Mani toba unf airly. Mr. Speaker, there are many areas where this government has just got no heart in respect to the ordinary Mani tobans. Consum er Affairs, the numb er of times the Minister of - 221 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 Consumer Affairs has been asked to conduct studies, research int o the rising cost of living, he has had no part of it. He want s no part of it, he is going to leave it all to private enterpri se, irrespective of the fact that every so often we get indica tions where the i:rofits of some of the corp orations, including the supermarkets, are going up contin ually. Prices are going up but the ordinary fellow citizen cannot get the same kind of wage increase. Let me say, Mr.

Speaker, that in respect to the compu terization of pricing at the supermarket level, I think that this is a dangerous thing. I believe that it's a major concern to many ci tizens because it will eliminat e com parison shopping. You will no t be able to compare one i:rice versus another on the shelf. You will have to carry a code along trying to decifer it, and that is just beyond most people's ability. They al.so have indicated that they are going to have an inquiry int o the sale of liquor in private stores. Now, I think that, too, is a dangerous thing.

I think that it will conno te higher prices because if the i:rivate entrepr eneurs are going to be involv ed in it they will have to have a profit margin and probably one that is not con trolled , so therefore it would be greater. Second ly, I believe that there will be less revenue for the governm ent and, consequently, it will probably serve their purpa:;e of no t having to grant mone y here or there where it is essential, bu t at least it will give them a weak or a lame excuse for not spending in some areas where it is essential.

And, of course, taking li quor int o the i:rivate sector there will be less con trol of minors who wish to purchase liquor, whether they are enti tled to it or not. Mr. Speaker, I co uld go on for a long ti me co mparing the things that they say and the things that they do and the things that really eff ect Mani tobans. But I think it is sufficient to say that all they have been doing to date is they scam, all they have been doing to date 1s the shell game, pretending there is something under the shell when, in essence, there really isn't.

The substance has been pal med and the shell ga me has gone on. -(Inte rjection)- Yes I do, I am totally aware of it. The Member for Minneda>a, probably with his fluency in PR work is one of those who is helping to create this shell game, this sham. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, what this indicates is that there is a deterioration of quality in our life in Manit oba. The person the street kn ows the quality of this provinc ial governm ent and he knows also the quality of his life is deterioration. Just st and on the street, surrounded by the for sale signs, and every day you see it one way or another.

The other day there was a TV program in respect to the nu mber of forecla:;ures; they are getting greater and greater every year since this govern ment took over. Now, I am not going to attribute all of it just to this govern me nt but they are creating part of the climate as it exists. And , let me say that this tale of wow is inevi table as long as this government is going to stay in office; and forttmately for Ma ni tobans, who are catching on to the shell game, I am confident that they are not going to be in office very long.

I can just say this to the First Minister who is absent from his chair that there is going to be a loud and collec tive voice come the time when he has the courage to call the ele ction and it is going to say, we don't want to stand and watch your shell game an y more; you and yo ur colleagues are carnies but you're not professional enough at it, we've se en through your shell ga me; the public is fully wise to your game and they will not continue to be taken in any more. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPE AK ER: The Hono urable Minister of Economic Development. HO N. J.

FRANK JOHN STON (Sturgeon Creek): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, my co mpliments to you and cong ratulations for taking over the leadership of this House; and I know that you job is very very tough at times but you have shown, over the past three years, that you are very capable of handling it. Mr. Speaker , I would like al.so to cong ratulate the new members that have come into the House; the Member for River Heights who is no question that in time, af ter hearing his speech, moving of the Speech from the Throne, has proven that by that speech he will be a credit this Legislature and to his cons tituency.

My congra tulations to the Lady from Fort Rouge. I have no doubt that she arid I will have some discussion about grocery stores and different things of that na ture from ti me to time, but I would like to say to the lady from Fort Rouge, or the Hono urable Me mber for Fort Rouge, that she mentioned the SAF ER Progra m being a program that was suggested by the Liberal Party. You know, in the middle of 1978 , Mr. Speaker, I sent two people to Vancouve r to look over the B.C . SAF ER Program that was then in B.C . We examined it closely and in 19 79 during my Estimates, when the - 222 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 Me mber for Fort Rouge was si tting there, I happened to mention that this was a possibility and something that was being looked at in the Province of Mani toba to bene fit senio r citizens in Manit oba, and when we got it all ironed out we would certa inly try to put it int o practice. It wasn't more than about a month later we had a resolu tion from the Liberal Party saying that we should have it put in immediately. Well , the resolution had much more than the SAF ER Progra m and we weren't prepared to go that far at the present time. But , Mr.

Speaker, I can only say that I know I have the sympathy of the members of the NDP Party because there is no question, no question, that they are very very used to having the Liberal Party steal all their programs. That has been said by the leader of the NDP Party federally and there is no question about it that that is what happens federally. The Liberal Party does steal the NDP policies, unfortunately, bu t I know I have the sympathy of the NDP members in that case. Mr. Speaker, I can only co mpliment the Hono urable Me mber for Rossmere.

He pu t up a gri m battle, and a real battle, as much as I cong ratulate him and welco me him to this Legislature, I can say that I don't think that he will have a very long stay. There is no ques tion that in the next elec tion in Rossmere I am sure the Conserva tives will overcome that small majority that we have. Mr . Speaker, there has been a lot of debate so far over numbers. Mani toba's nu mbers from Statistics Canada, Mani toba's nu mbers from the Confe rence Board.

There has been, to my mind, too little discussion in the debate of real substance , too little discussion about the facts, the actual eff orts being put forward by the Province of Mani toba and the govern ment of Manit oba and the people of Manitoba to develop economic development in this province. Mr. Speaker, you are, as well, well aware that I'm not a person who really likes to go on a lot of statistics. We are more concerned for concr ete development s in the economy and, Mr. Speaker, I will leave the statisti cs to Statistics Canada and the Confe rence Board of Canada and the media.

The media have been publishing statistics and if they want to go ahead and just grab figures without any real reason of doing the research that they should do on the figures I leave it to them all. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this. Before I turn to the matters of more substance, I would like to briefly say something about numbe rs since they have been so emphasized to possibly mislead this House. Mr . Speaker, there is a lot of talk about comparison with the Province of Manitoba and the Canadian national average. Such a com parison is really no t worth much as an indica tor of perf ormance.

Because of the resource boom in the most western province economic growth in the count ry is very une ven and I'd like to just give some facts. As a result , the overall average in Cana da isn't that typical of the i:rovinces which aren't enjoying a resource boom. Nor is it all that typical of the provinces whooe growth is on the border and built on industrial basis. For example, Mr. Speaker, looking at the inves tment data, the share of the total investment - that's for the total of Canada - inve stment in the three western provinces rose from 29 percent in 1975 to 37 percent in 1979.

The figures for private investment only show that it increased fro m 31 percent in 1975 to 41 percent in 1979. When one area accounts for ne arly half of the countr y's private inve stment, the so-called average is bound to be a poor reflection of what is typical and what is reasonable achievement for other pro vinces. Mr. Speaker, anybody, anybody that has any ability to read figures whatsoever , any econo mist or researcher, can point out immediately that the balance investment in Canaaa is weighted to the three western provinces and it is not a very good co mparison when you take the whole of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, Onta rio, an

article in the Globe and Mail, "Lag in industry in On tario seen as a national drag". Mr. Speaker, the Onta rio Govern ment is having the same problem because of the inves tments that are going on in western Ca nada. Mr. Speaker, we know that the total investment in the Province of Mani toba is down, mainly because we have no t been doing our hydro construction, bu t the other reason, Mr.

Speaker, is for sure, f<r sure we know that the cons truction indust ry is down and it is concerting bu t the reason for it being down is we are overbuilt on housing; we are overbuilt in apartment blocks; we are overbuilt in office buildings; and we are very overbuilt in retail service space in Manitoba. We have much more percen tage than most provinces as far as square footage of retail space in Mani toba than other provinces. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say though that the cons truction industry is moving up, and I'd read a little note here from the Winnipeg Cons truc tion Association.

It says, "the construction indus try is experiencing its seasonal slowdown for the wint er months; however, there is more carry-over of w<rk this winte r than last and the total figures are not expected - 223 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 to reach the high of 34 percent but is antici pated to be only 26 percent this year". That's an inc rease of construct ion workers of 10 percent, Mr. Speaker. In 1977 the public investment in Manitoba accoun ted for 40 percent of the total. In 1979 that percentage was 32 percent. That's still 2 percen t above the average for Canada, Mr. Speaker, bu t it does show a substantial progress towards restoring so me semblance of balance in our econom y. But no w when you look, Mr.

Speaker, at i;rivate inve stment, the picture masked by the total figure harped on by the opposition, the picture becomes a li ttle clearer. Our private inv estment increased over 1978 and 1979 a to tal of 26 percent. Those are facts, Mr. Speaker. This is above the average of Canada and we exceed the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Bruns wick, Quebec, Ontario and even Saskatchewan. If you separate manuf actur ing, and I know, Mr.

Speaker, members on the other side, especially the Member for Brandon East, does not really think manufacturing is all that important in the province of Manitoba, bu t we all know, in this House that manuf acturing is where it begins, manuf ac turing of your resources, man ufactu ring of i;ro<lucts that can be shipped all over the world or North Am erica, and thooe are the places where the jobs begin. That is where it's important an<l, Mr. Speaker, if you separate out manufacturing you find that we were 37 percent up in manufacturing over the last two years, 37 percent up.

That's more than 50 percen t better than the Ca nadian average and we were above the provinces of Prince Edward Islan d, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, those are some of the facts regarding the growth in the province but I would like to say now that, Mr. Speaker, we have had facts present ed to us by the Leader of the Oppos ition. His facts are as creditable as his statement he made the <lay he was elected the Leader of the Opposi tion party in this province. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from page two of his speech.

On the second page of his speech, after he finished congratulating everybody, he said: Only this morni ng a gentle man ap proach me at the rear of this convention, who arrived here from Tokyo yesterday, and advised me that four co mpanies, four co mpanies that had been located in Mani toba <luring the period of the New Democratic Party governm ent had withdrawn from Manitoba in the past two years, Sony, Sekine, Misawa, Yamaha.

He indicated to me that the reason of their departure is that they aia no t like the env iron ment, the envir onment gener atea by the Lyon governm ent; an<l I am angry that some 250 em ployees directly or indirectly in volvea in these corn panies must now see k new job opportunities. Mr . Speaker, I would like to read, just to talk about the credibility of the honourable member's stateme nts, "The Honou rable J. Frank Johnston, Minister of Economic Develop ment, Legislative Building, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Dear Sir: Date, December 12th, 19 79. We refer to the recent speech made by Mr.

Howara Pawley to the Mani toba New Democratic Party Leadership Convention in which speech he stated that a gen tle man, who ha<l arrived from Tokyo haa advisea him that four companies haa witharawn from Manai toba in the past two years, ana that the Ya maha Canaaa Music Limited was one of these com pan ies. As we believe, we indica ted in a telephone discussion to Mr. Pawley, Yamaha's head offic e was changed from Winnipeg to Toronto in 1976, which resultea in the reauction of employees in Winnipeg from 13 5 to 11 0. However, far from having witharawn from this province, Yamaha is seeking to expand in Manit oba.

Ya maha now holas 16,000 square feet of leasehold space in the city of Winnipeg in conne ct ion with its music school operation; ana there are approxi mately 2,500 Ya maha music students in the city of Winnip eg. Ya maha has an active retail ou tlet on Po rtage Av enue ana leasehold retail operations at The Bay . The National Education Division and the National Ser vice Depar tment both are located m Winnipeg. Yamaha presently employs 100 people in Winnipeg. As you can see from the afore mentioned, Ya maha maintains an active i;resence in the province of Mani toba. Signed, Hiroshi Oka, President. " · Mr.

Speaker , af ter they made that statement he had a phone call ana I never .heard a retrac tion. This compan y is doing business in this province, Mr. Speaker, they really aon!t need that kina of help. When they're trying to grow in this i;rovince, and rm here to say that behalf of this company, Mr. Speaker; that company is a credit to this province. We want them, we want them to stay and we want them to grow. Mr. Speaker, this letter is to the Department of Economic Department, Legislative Building, Winnip eg. The Honou rable J. Frank Johnston, Minister of Economic Development. " Dear Sir: Re Sekine Canaaa Ltd.

I am please to advise that the refinancing and management takeover of SCL is near co mpletion. The manage ment agree men t bet ween Acklan<ls and CJS - 22 4 -

Friday, 2 9 February , 1980 Development Ltd. was just signe d last mont h with documentation, banking, shareholders, hand-over and take place on January the 18 th. A shareholder agreement in]ecting $500,000 new in vestor capi tal has been finalized changing the ownership to 25 percent Japanese, 75 percent Canadian; this with a banking lin e of credit of $4.5 million should give the company a sound financia l position in order to re-establish its base. We would like to go on reco rd, at this time, of thanking your department for the assistance given SCL fro m its concept in '73.

Most of the co mpany's problems of the past can be attributed to the federal govern ment's poli cies with respect to the existence of secondary indus tries, and especially if competitive to manufacturing companies located in eastern Canada. Our consid erable neg otiations wi th ITC Revenue Canada DREE have been given extensive assistance by your department and we are no w looking for expertise assistance in breaking into the U. S. market whi ch is presently in a bicycle boom.

We believe that SCL's problems of the pas t have now been resolved; an interesting ne w one is now taking place, to that of material procure ment. North American and European bicycle factories like CCM and SWI M man ufactured bicycles using mainly steel co mponent s are changing to light ally-class compon en ts. This com ponent , such as a handlebar, seat posts, handlebar ste ms, chain wheels and mudguards, etc., labour costs and energy costs in France and Italy have resulted in Jap anese manuf act uring becoming overloaded this year causing problems for SCL.

Once SCL has managed to get its own house in order we will certainly have a look at some of the aspects of com ponent ma nufacturing in Mani toba, because Manitoba's energy , labour and material sourcing in this field has a considerable advantag e. I would like to extend to you and your colleagues the very best in 1980 and thank you, again." That's signe d. Mr. Dennis Scott, Director. I'd like to say, Mr.

Speaker, last November, when the Leader of the Opposi tion was making this statement, almost the second thing he said when he became leader, which midled the people of this province , we were negotiating with Ottawa at that time to get that loan and support for that company. And I can tell you his babbling didn't help. Mr. Speaker , letter numbe r three. This one is addressed to Mr. Donald S. Rogers, Deputy Min ister of Industry and Com merce: "Dear Mr. Rogers: It has come to our attention that Sony of Canada was named at a political meeting as a company that had moved its office fr om Winnip eg to Toronto.

Sony of Canada is one of a num ber of companies that are administered by General Distributors of Canada. We have no t now or any plans in the future of moving Sony of Canada's head offic e from Win nipeg. During 1979 seven individuals were transfe rred from Winnipeg in the course of reorgan izing Sony's marketing syste m because Toronto represents the major market we serve. Sony's principle distribution center continues to be in Vancou ver and its accounting and personnel services continue in Winnipeg.

We should also point out that coincident with the transfer of certain Sony personne l to Toronto we established a new division of our company , an elec tronic marketing field, Jana Electronics, in Win nip eg. This ne w company employs a staff of eight and is expected to increase in size depending on the marketing succe ss. Signed: Mr. Albert D. Cohen. " The fourth co mpany, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I requested the secretary of the board of the Mani toba Housing and Renewal Corpora tion to contact the execu tive of Sony of Canada here in Winnipeg, se t up an appointment with him; the day came for the appointment, I waited in my office, I cancelled a luncheon engag ement I waited so long. A phone call was made to the offic e and it was said that they were on their way over but they never showed up. Mr.

Speaker, as late as last week, because Misawa of Canada have got an option on a very large nu mber of lots in our In kster Park and we are having some problems getting people started because of mortgage money , we want to make new arrange ment s with thooe compan ies that are in there, we have called them and said, would you please let us know what your intentions are because of the statement of the Member for Selkirk, the Leader of the Oppo sition. We have not yet been able to have any contact with Misawa, they have not attended my of fi ce to find out.

But if they are having problems we are willing to help them, we are willing to make some arran gements in our In kster Park if it's possible to do so but they have not co me forward to talk to us. Mr. Speaker, that's the type of research, that's the type of stuff, just absolute babble that is coming out of the Leader of the Opposi tion. There was absolutely no research done. Some guy in the back room of the convention who just arrived from probably a holiday in Tokyo tells them this and he stands up in front of the people of Mani toba and misleaas them. Now, Mr.

Speaker, you wonder why Manit obans are walking around qu estioning the econo mic development of the province when you have people from that side of the House giving them that kind of nonsense and that kind of impression. - 225 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 Mr. Speaker, the 1980 growth rate is expecteo, accoroing to the Conf erence Boaro ana these are facts, the Minister of Finance touched on them this morning, Manitoba is expect ea to exceeed Ca nada, exceeo Canada's average in 19 80; 1.3 but, Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous increase over 1979, going to be one of the highest. Mr. Speaker, the Confe rence Board is only predicting Manit oba ano Saskatchewan to have an average higher than the national average next year.

Even with all that weighteo invest ment that I'm speaking of in the western provinces we are still expecteo, the way they work out the figures, to have a higher increase. Mr. Speaker, our growth will exc eeo and has exceeaeo ouring 19 79 accoroing to the Conf erence Boaro, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, ano Ont ario, ano it will be six times what On tario is in 19 80. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as far as statistics are concernea, we can't overlook the Labor statistics.

In 19 77 we had an increase of 3,000 jobs, that was in 19 77 ; in 19 78 ano 1979 the increase was 11 ,000 and 13,000 for a total of 24,000 new jobs in two years; the percentag e figures were 2. 6 in 19 78 and 3 in 19 79. The perfor mance in the past has been exceeaeo only in 1965, 1968 , 19 73, 197 4, 1975, in the last twenty years. Now, Mr. Speaker, really. I know, I know very well how the Confe rence Board ooes their work. The figures that the Honou rable Mini ster of Finance gave this morning were very clear. We have the whole graph here right back to 1971 and these are fact.

The constant figures he referreo to: in 1977 were 4.39 2 million; in 1978 , 4.528 million; in 1979 , 4.567 million, ano we're predicted to go up 1.3 to 4. 642 million in 19 80. You know, that's the constant figures we're tal king about. It's movea up every year, and we're expecteo to move up even with all that weighted investment to the west of us. They touched on retail sales, Mr. Speaker. Only four times since 1961 were we above the Canadian average in retail sales in Mani toba, ano he brings up these figures. Mr. Speaker, he brought up anot her figure. Mr. Speaker, he mentioneo another one. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we're talking about the four years ano I can only say thank heaven we have four years, because different than our people in Ottawa, if they'd have had four years, they'd have done it. We've hao two years to clean it up ano now we've got two years to oo it ano we will do it MR. GREEN: What four years were we aheao of the national average? MR . JOHN STON: What four years? I'm quite willing to give him the figures, in fact, it's wasting my ti me but I coulo table them. It was '70, '72, '73 ano '74. MR . GREEN: Four New Democratic years. MR. JOHNSTO N: Now, Mr.

Speaker, let me get back to the other situation of the ••. --{Interjection)- I'd like to be able to speak; I dion't interrupt you, but that's fine, I'm quite useo to it, rm quite useo to it. I wish, Mr. Speaker, if you coulo move me further away I wouldn't mind. But, Mr. Speaker, rd like to say this, that the Leader of the Opposition ano I won't be detracted from ano ther figure that he gave. He gave the IT&C figure of being - it was printeo in the paper from a report from IT&C - that we were oown 7 percent. Mr. Speaker, they oo no t do a big survey, they oo it with large compani es.

There were approximately eight or nine large co mpanies approached in this survey. One of them was a public co mpany in this province and I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, it's very obvious that the private compan ies were up because the public co mpany was down in its spenoing. Mr. Speaker, we know that they have changed the IT&C intention, they have removeo it down from a decrease to 6.8 and they had originally saio that Manit oba would be 13. 3. So, you obviously have to conclude that if the public company is down with these aajustment s, the private companies have to be up. There's no question in that. Mr.

Speaker, the Con ference Board, again, in 1977, for 1977, do you know when the Conference Board stops making adjustment s and int entions for the Province of Manit oba? Their last one for 19 77 was April of 1979, where they said that the - and this was the figure the Honou rable Me mber for Brandon East kept harping at me in Estimates last year, he kept saying, "Your only .7 . Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conference Boaro figure for 19 77 was 0.7 ano that came out April of '79. 1978, the last Conference Boaro int ention for 1978 ca me out in November of 19 79.

In November of '78 we were 2. 2, but we enaeo up at 2.9, that's what the Conference Board said. The Conf erence Board keeps aajusting their intentions as the figures come out from Statistics Canaoa. In 1979, in November, they have us at .08, the figure that - 226 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 my Honourable Minister of Resources said we're not that happy about it. But, Mr. Speaker, let me just ask this Legislature to think seriously about something. The last figure we have is .08 in November. We know that their intent ions will change all this year and maybe even part of next and in August we were 2. They dropped us in three months to .8 , Mr. Speaker, yet our employment went up, our manufacturing went up, more people were working in the province, more shipment s were going out of the province.

We've had an incr ease in shipment s out of this province of 20 percent in '7 9 over '7 8 and they tell me, well, you know, I'm not going to say it's going to happen but I'm pretty hopeful that when we get the final in tentions from the Conf erence Board on 1979 , we might be in a very different position. Mr. Speaker, I have to co mment and I know my colleague, the Minister of Consumer Affai rs commented on the outmigration. And , Mr.

Speaker, as the Minis ter of Finance said this morning these are no t future figures, they're fact from Statistics Canada, and the average outmigration between 19 69 and 1977 was 33,911 ; 34, 34, 37, 35, that's people leaving Manitoba and there is the figures. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the people. We can talk about the people that are coming into Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, we know that we're off balance with the other provinces. Now let me tell you, in 1978, Mr.

Speaker, one thing that happened in 1977 and 1978 , immigration went to zero in this province; and as my colleague me ntioned, people are not moving from Ontario to Manitoba. We haven't been losing to Ontario , we have to Alberta. Ontario has been losing to Alberta. Right in your report by the - it was published in the paper by the Canadian Association of Movers - we are losing people, yes, Mr. Speaker, to the resource development provinces, because the construc tion is there and we've admitted that our construction is down but it's co ming up and constr uction workers have to move where the work is.

Construc tion people that were working on hydro have to move where the work is. Bu t there is an in teresting statistic, Mr. Speaker, we know, we know that there were people that moved from Manitoba, but our manuf act uring is coming up as I told you. Where else do you produce new jobs? What's the reason for having a car salesman ? What's the reason for having a waitress? What's the reason for havin g somebody working in a retail store, an insurance man or anybody if you don't have a manufacturing base and that's what this govern ment is building .

If you get the movers' report, if any of the hono urable members want to get the co mplete report, there is an interesting figure. We did lose a percentag e, we were 33 percent higher migra tion to Alberta in 19 78-79 , but did you know, Mr. Speaker, according to the movers, Saskatchewan had a 50 percent increase to Alberta '7 9 over '7 8. --{In terjec tion)-- Yes, '78. Now, Mr. Speaker , let's no t listen to the members from the other side. rve ne ver heard of such doom and gloom in all of my life. Mr. Speaker, I have here and I'd like to lend the honourable members know, that in 19 79, Mr.

Speaker, we had DREE gran ts; we are a DREE province, we use DREE because we are able to take adVan tage of it and we do. We have tremendous co-operation with the federal DREE people in Mani toba. In 1979 , Mr. Speaker, the amount of money, the amount of money that w� approved for DREE grants was $70 million , $70,900,000, nea rly $71 million . Mr. Speaker, that is the amount of money that DREE on any expan sion would approve but the amount of money that is paid or actua lly spent is much higher, probably in the neighbourhood of $100,000.00.

DREE supported these applications to the tune of $1 5,704,000, bringing into a total of 2,1 27 jobs in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, when you apply for a DREE application you don't apply and say, 11rm moving to Onta rio." When you apply for a DREE applica tion you apply and you say what street , what address and where you're going to build; and those applica tions were made by people who want to expand in the province of Manitoba. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr . Speaker, rd just like to say that in our small plan we have made, 11 0 offers have been approved.

We have created 357 jobs in the rural area of Manitoba with our RSCI Program. Mr. Speaker, it's going to be very interest ing how they vote on the Hono urable Me mber for In kster's resolu tion. In tha t resolu tion , he says because the govern ment is using public money to help private co mpanies, I haven't got the exact wording. Mr.

Speaker, rm very interested in what the Member for Selkirk would do because this paper says we helped four, there's been ano ther two since in Selkirk, and Selkirk has had $400,000 Selkirk projects approved as far as infras truct ure is concerned. --{In terjec tion)-- Yes, he was with me when we gave out the cheques. rd be very interested to know how he votes on that resolution, very interested to know how he votes on that reso lution. Mr. Speaker, rve been watching with interest, Ricki Katz and her CBC program ana she does an excellent job. CBC and the University of Winnipeg had a se minar with some - 227 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 econ omics inv olved in it and she interviewed the people. I must say that they had that seminar with part of it valuing ec ono mic de velopment; there was not done person invi ted from the Economic Department of the Province of Manit oba, no t a one. Mr. Speaker, they said in that Confe rence we should be looking to the western markets, we should be looking to the markets to the south of us, we should be looking at companies that can manuf acture and supply interna tiona lly, they said we should be looking at int ernational markets. And, Mr.

Speaker, in Hans ard, Volume XXVII, page SOB, 8:00 p.m ., I outlined that pro gram last year. And that's the program that we've been working on, Mr. Speaker, small bIB in ess assistance, technology centres, all of these things and, Mr. Speaker, I'll be prepared to expand on it in my Estimates or with anybody at any time. Mr. Speaker, it just makes me sick when Manitobans criticize Manit oba, and I tell you this, the reason they have got into that habit is because we've had the NDP around for so long preaching doom and gloom. You know, the NDP keep continu ally running down the greatest province in Canada.

We've got more water, more sand , more culture, more everything in this province and I def y any one of them to sit down and start writing the good things in this province and if they can't come up with a forty-minute speech or a two hour speech, they ought to be ashamed of themselves, bu t it's always run it down and mix it up. Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to challenge the Honou rable Member for Brandon right now, that any figures he produces, my department with the analysts that I regard are the best in Mani toba and some of the best in Canada because they are consulted by people across Canada, I invit e him to bring his figures up to those analysts and we will discuss them, something he has ne ver don e, something the Member for Selkirk has ne ver done. --(Interjection)- Yes, you did, you hired them and you know they're good and you don't pay any damn attent ion to them. Mr .

Speaker, the challenge is there, the offer is there to the media, to come forward; my department is available. Mr. Speaker, we will have growth in manufacturing and more jobs in the Province of Mani toba in 1980 and I'm standing before this Assembly and saying it and it will happen, and I will tell you there are more peopsle that have come to us because of our freeze on hydro than you would believe. There isn't a week or couple of days go by that we don't have somebody asking about the fact that hydro is frozen in Manitoba and they will have good ene rgy rates. Thank you very much. MR .

SPEAK ER: The Honou rable Me mber for Brandon East. MR. LEON ARD S. EVA NS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I enjoyed listening to my success or, the Minist er of Economic Development, on his dissertation, spoken like a Minist er of Economic Development or a Minister of Indust ry and Commerce should speak. You know, he should be boosting the province and he should always be looking on the bright side of things. We tried to do that for a numbe r of years and I must say, tried as we may, as some of my colleagues behind me suggested, we heard the doom and gloom from the members of the opposition at that time.

And I say, Mr. Speaker, if we had doom and gloom to talk about, it's really because there is doom and gloom in the province, doo m and gloom because of a very very serious situation of ec ono mic stagnation. And try as the members opp osite will try, try as the Premier will try, the Minist er of Fina nce, the Mini ster of Economic Development, the Minister of Resources, try as they will, I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that you take any objective person and you show them the figures on the economic perfor mance of this province and I think they will come to the conclusion that the ec ono mic situation of this province is lamentable, that it is probably the weakest of any of the ten provinces in this coun try. MR . JO HNSTO N: I told you why. Do you want us to come up and talk about it? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to cong ratulate you for assuming the position of Speaker again.

It's a very diff icult job especially when you have some of us in the House that like to talk a little too much at times and I don't envy you your position but I'm glad you're there and I wish you all the best in the for thcoming days, weeks and months of the session. I would also like to extend my best wishes to some of the other new members, the three new me mbers that we have: the Honou rable Member for Fort Rouge, the Member for River Heights, and of course the Me mber for Ross mere. I look forward to their contribution to this - 228 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 Legislature and I know they will attempt to serve their consti tuents to the best of their ability. Mr.

Speaker , I would like to discuss the econ omy of Manit oba, not because I haven't discussed it on occassion, no t because we don't thind about it a lot , but because members opposite have paid so much attention to some of the statement s I believe rve maae, some of the econo mic data that we have given out from this siae, ana their particular use ana misuse of the figures over the last few days has caused me to get up on my feet to provide some rebuttal, as much as I can in the amount of time that I have available.

I even had the treat of having one of my speeches reaa to me the other day, a speech that I made about ten years ago, and you know, Mr. Speaker, it soundea pretty good. In fact, I would say the same thing again because what I saia then was true ana I woula say, as the the Minister of Consu mer Affairs read it, I would say it is true toa ay. --(Inte rjection)-- I can assure you no one wrote it for me. I think that we have witnessed in the last couple of days a rather lame aefense of the econo mic situation in this province that we have experienced unae r this particular Conservative administration.

And I think as years of their govern ment roll on it will become more ap paren t that indeed the Manitoba econo my is flound ering on the rocks of Lyonomics. We are, and I would submit, Mr. Speaker, we are flound ering, we are stagnating, because of a very funda men tal dif ference between the people on that siae and the people on this side. We are stagnating because of the economic ideology of the First Min ister ana his associates, we are stagnating because of the econo mic philosophy of privatization.

That philosophy of the marketplace and nothing bu t the marketplace for Manit oba will not work ana is not working. We've had evidence of that over the last nea rly two-and-a-half years and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as we proceed through the life of this government we will find more evidence. Ana indeed there are many statistics we can talk about. Many have been mentioned this af ter noon and one could spend hours reviewing them. I choose to take three or four or five of the major series that seem to be of interest to people in this House.

Po pulation is on e, but also what's happening to inves tment because I would like to put the infor mation on investment spending into its true perspective because we've just had an exercise in m isleaaing statistics from the Minister of Economic Development on the investment situation in this province. The inve stment situation in this province is damned serious. It 's very very serious. Ana any reading of the statistics, unless you want to close your eyes to the figures, would give you this very pessimistic conclusion. I'd like to say something about un employment.

I'd like to look at the rate of job creation, much has been said about it. And I'd also like to look at the real dOmestic product, that is the measure ment of overall econ omic growth that has occurrea in Mani toba over the years. By "real" I mean no n-in flation ary dollars. We've talked about it in constant aollars so we can eliminate the element of inflation that qu ite often distorts figures. All ri g ht, let's talk about No. 1 myth that my friend , the Minister of Resources, talked about the other day, and that is the whole item of population.

The perfor mance of the Minister of Natural Resources was remarkable the other day, I'm sorry to say, because it indicat ed to me, at least for this subject, a lack of some in tellectual integrity for this subject. I know he's an honourable man, but in this subject I think there's some intellectual integrity missing. --(Interjection)- Well, just wait a minute. The Min ister got up, and read us figures abou t outw ard migra tion and I don't dispute the figures, in fact, I we nt down and I checked my records and I think they're probably right. --(Interjection)- Okay, they are right.

No thinking involv ed, absolutely no thinking involv ed. Thoughtless figures. And, Mr. Speaker, the point, of course, is that when we talk about the loss of people in Mani toba we indeed have to be conce rned with the botto m line. The people across who priae themselves in know ing something about business, surely, when they run a business, ana they want to be concerned about the state of that business, the health of that business, they aon't only look at one side of the ledger but they must also look at the other siae. They not only look at expendi tures but they look at revenues as well.

Ana when you co mbine them - aaa or subtract whatever you will - you look at the bottom line of profit of loss. And the Honou rable Minister got up the other aay and saia, well, the outwara migration isn't any greater, it seems, than it has been over the last several years, whatever. Ana, Mr. Speaker, it's sort of equivalent to talking about the expenai tures of a company. Expenai tures are no greater; they're sort of on average. As the Minister of Economic Development said, they were up this last year or two, but ne ver theless, he want s to take the long-term average and so on.

But, he chooses to forge t about the other siae of the ledger, nam ely the revenu es - - 229 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 what's coming in. He chooses to ignore the people that are coming in or are not coming int o Mani toba through the process of interprovincial migration. And , of course . . . -(Interjection)- Well, he left the impression with me that he was ignoring it. Mr. Speaker , he left the impression that we should onl y be conce rned with one side of the ledger , and I say it's ridiculous, it's totally ridiculous.

And to try to parade these figures in fron t of this House, and in front of the media, and in front of the people of Mani toba, that all is well in the St ate of Den mark because, actually, there's not much change in the num ber leaving this province, and therefore, presumably no thing is too bad. I say, Mr. Speaker, that he is misleading himself, surely, if no t the people of this province and this Legislature. It's the bottom line that counts.

And it is very clear that the bottom line indicates that through interprovincial migration we had double the nu mber of loss, double the loss through interprovinc ial migration in the first year of Tory administration than we had in the last year of NDP administration. It doubled, it doubled through the loss through interprovincial migration, doubled ••• --{In terjec tion)- - Well, it's no t wrong. I'm sorry, the Minister of Highways says it is wrong and it is not wrong. As a matter of fact, the Estimates for 1977, the calendar year, show a ne t loss of 5,685 people in 19 77.

In 1978 the ne t loss of Mani toba population through int erprovincial migration was 10,493 - so, ap proximately a doubling. And for 19 79 it's probably going to be about one-third higher than it was in 19 78, because in the first ni ne months it was up by one-third already. So, if you project that it's possible - I'm no t sure, we'll know in a couple of weeks - it's possible that the ne t loss this year will be 14,000 people. Bu t the fact is, Mr. Speaker, it's the botto m line we've got to look at. Surely to God, if you're only looking at one side of the ledger, you don't deserve to run the bus iness.

If you're only looking at one side, as a Minister of this province, you don't deserve to be a Minister of this province if you want to seemingly refuse to look at the total picture. Because, Mr. Speaker, of the sharp rise in the net loss through int erprovincial migration the total level of population of Mani toba has dropped. The total level of population in 1979, according to Statistics Ca nada, was nega tive. The rate of grow th was neg ative, it was a rate of decline.

Minor, it was a small amount , it was minus 0. 2, but ne vertheless, signif icant inasmuch as we were the only province in Cana da to register a decline in our total population, the only province in Canada. And I say that that has got to reflect something. And I'm no t changing my attitude with regard to the signif icance of population growth - I ne ver suggested it for one moment before - and now the population growth is equivalent to economic growth. They're not the same thing, bu t what it does indicate, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a lack of job opportuni ties in this province. That's wha t it indicates.

The ne t loss on in terprovincia l migration account is a direct function of job opportunities in this province. It's a direct funct ion of the loss of the inadequate nu mber of jobs in this province. And I say that when we have adequate economic growth in this province, when we have adequate job creation in this province, then you will see the total population growing again. But not until you have a better econ omic situation than we have. There are inadequate jobs, people don't come, and others leave. There are a number of other indic ators that I'd like to touch upon in the time that I have available.

There are many many to look at that would pretty well paint the same picture of an inadequate state of economic health, bu t I will conf ine myself, because of time limitations, to three or four of the more key figures. I'd like to touch upon inves tment, which was mentioned by the Minis ter of Economic Development in his speech, and ask ourselves , by looking at the figures, whether we're satisfied with this particular situation.

In 1979 , which is the latest inf ormation we have from Statistics Canada - we're all, I'm presuming, using the same source; in fact, it's really the only source of offi cial statistics in Ca nada, other than some administrative statistics that are available probably at provincia l and munici pal levels. But acco rding to the latest information we have on inves tment in this province, our inve stme nt in 1979 will increase by 4 percent over 19 78 . That increase of 4 percent, to put it into perspective, Mr.

Speaker, first of all, it's less than the rate of inflation, which means virtually that the inves tment ex pendi ture that takes place in '79 in real dollars, in real goods and services, will amount to less than occu rred in the previous year, 19 78 . MR . DEPUTY SPEAK ER: Order please. The Honou rable Minister. MR . JOHNSTO N: Would the honourable member per mit a qu estion? - 230 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 MR . EVANS: Yes, go ahead. MR. JOHNSTO N: Is your 4 percent the total of public and private? MR . DEP UTY SPEAK ER: The Hono urable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it inc ludes public and private. This was only - I said it was 4 percent. The Canadian increase was 11 1/2 percent, so it's only 1/3 of the Canadian increase. And if you look at all the provinces in Canada, every one of the 10 provinces, you'll see that Manitoba had the lowest rate of increase in total invest ment , the lowest rate of increase, 4 percent. rve got the list here.

It ranges from 30 percent in Newfoundland to a low of 4 percent in Manitoba. If you're interested in Saskatchewan, it was 14.4 percent, Alberta was 17 .3, B.C. was 11. 6 and so forth and so on. Even Prince Edward Island was 9.2 . So they are putting total inves tment into perspective. It's a pretty sad situation. Okay, le t's look at public inve stment. The Minister is interested in the breakdown. Let's look at publi c investment. Public investment in '79 will inc rease by a mere 1. 7 percen t over '78, co mpared with an 8.2 percent for all of Canada, 1. 7 co mpared to an average of 8. 2. Again, Mr.

Speaker, this is obviously below the rate of inflation, so therefore, in real terms there will be less investment in the public sector in '7 9 than occurred in 1978 . Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, this is not only below the Canadian average , but again, we have the lowest rate of incr ease in public inve stment of any province in Cana da. -{Interjection)­ Private, private rate of increase was 5. 1 percent in Mani toba, '79 over '78, this was only two-fi fths of the Canadian average of 12.8 percent, two-fi fths of what occurred as a nationa l average, but the na tional average is just that, it's the total ••• --{Interject10n)-- no, it isn't. Well, so what?

It's the Canadian average, it's the Cana dian average and if the Minister doesn't like averages I would like to tell him and give this, that Manitoba's increase in private inve stment is the lowest of any province in Cana da in 1979 . We had the lowest rate of increase of any province in Canada in 1979. --{Interject ion)-- That rate of increase, total private increas e was 5.1 percen t, Saskatchewan was 15. 9, Alberta was 17.5, B.C. was 13.7, and as I said, the average for Canada, the Canadian average , or the Canadian total inc rease was 12.8. That's all investment expendi tures from every in dustrial sector.

Now the Minister will now say, "Okay, let's do manufactu ring?" Do you want to do manu factur ing? We'll do manufactu ring. Manuf actur ing for all of Canada - the average increase, well it dependS on whether you take new or new and repair, I'll take new and re pair. It doesn't matter, there are some slight differences but it was 12.4 percent for all of Canada, 12 .4 percent. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Hono urable Minis ter will say, "But hurrah," because Mani toba's rate of increase was 24.9 percent. So, the rate of increase of man ufacturing investment in '79 was abou t double. Just hang on a minut e, will you? Mr.

Speaker, I have listened to the Min ister of Highways interrupt me, no t on one occasion but on 10 or 15 occasions since I've been up and I've onl y been up 10 or 15 minutes, so I would app reciate a little assistance here. MR. DEPUTY SPEAK ER: I would caution the members that they have their opport uni ty of 40 minu tes when they get the floor. The Hono urable Member for Brandon East may continue. MR . EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point is - and while we welco me this rate of in crease in manuf actu ring in Mani toba compared to Canada - the point is that the amount of investment dollars in manufacturing is so small that it's pi tiful. You can have large percentag e inc reases if you're dealing with small nu mbers, and frankly , Mr. Speaker, if you look at all inves tme nt in Manit oba manufacturing account s for only 6.3 percent. Of all the inve stment expendi tures in this province manuf acturing accounts for 6.3 percent. In Canada, if you take all manufacturing inve stment, it account s for 15.1 percent.

So really, you can have a high percen tage increase but you're talking about a relatively small amount of expenditure in the total spectrum of thing'S. And the other thing that disturbs, Mr. Speaker, is that when you look and you're putting this into perspective, if you look at manufacturing investment per person, the per capi ta inves tment in manufa ctu ring is estimated to be $168 per capi t a in Mani toba in 1979 compared to an average or per capi ta figure of $457 for Cana da as a whole.

In other words, the investment per person in Manit oba in ma nufacturing is only 36.7 percent of the Canadian per capi ta expendi ture on manufacturing. --(Interjection)- Well , I'v e gone over that. And as I - 231 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 said, although the manufa cturing inve stment is up, you know, and I indi cated that, is up in Mani toba in '79 over '78, if you take - it dependS on whether you take new and repair or new alone, bu t let's take capital and repair, ne w capi tal and repair - Manit oba's expected increase is 24.9 percent. But let's look at what's going on to the province to the west of us. He likes to drag this in every once in a while, what's happening to Saskatchewan. Our increase was 24.9, Saskatchewan is or will be 42. 4.

Look at the Maritimes, Nova Scotia was 29.3 percent, still higher than Mani toba. Look at Newfoundland, it goes up by 66.5 percent. Okay, bu t the point I would make, the point I would make is that these figures on manuf acturing expendi tures in these i:rovinces, all of them that I mentioned, are relatively small so get more volatility. You look at On tario and Quebec you don't get the same volatility. With a bigger figure there is more stability. And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that man ufacturing inve stment is not adequate.

It is not adeqate when it's only 36.7 percent of the Canadian average expendi ture in ma nufacturing. Looking at the figures on employment, Mr. Speaker, the honourable members opposite like to talk about the jobs that have been created in Manitoba during the past two years and fair enough, and there's no question that from the figures I have, in 1978 there were 11 ,000 new jobs and in 19 79, 13,000 for a to tal of 24,000.

But they always want to com pare them, you know, with the last two years of our administra tion which was a down period on the business cycle. --(Inte rjec tion)-- Oh, yes, you know most oft en if I say, "Why don't you look at '73 under the NDP admini stration?" We created 16, 000 in '73, 17 ,OOO jobs in 1974 and this is total - this is from the Labour Force Survey, this is ne t jobs created from all sources. And, Mr.

Speaker, the sad fact of the matter is that while there has been some increase in employment in this province, which we're all happy abo ut, the rate of increase of employment co mpares very badly with the rest of this count ry. Our employment, the jobs created in this province in '79, using the numbe rs I just gave out which you all cheered about, was an increase of 3 percent co mpared to an average or to a Canadian total of 4 percent. If you look at all of the province s in Canada Mani toba's rate of job in crease is the lowest of any of the 10 provinces. We' re the bottom the totem pole.

So, you can brag about a 3 percent increase in jobs if you want , but I say if I was in Saskatchewan I'd brag about more jobs being created on a percen tage basis; or I was in Nova Scotia, I could brag about more jobs being created; or if I was in Quebec or On tario or wha t have you?

The fact is, and let's not forget it because it's easy to ignore co mparisons but the fi gures mean nothing unless you co mpare historically or geographically, and I say when you corn pare us in the natio nal spec tru m we come out at the very bottom of the totem pole. -{Inte rjection)- Compare it geographically, I just told you, we're the worst of the 10 provinces. --(Interjection)-- Well, look at every province, Newfoundland, 5. 4 percent; Prince Edward Islan d, 4.4; Nova Scotia, 3. 3; New Brunswick, 4.6; Quebec, 3. 3; On tario, 4.2; Saskatchewan, 3.7 ; Alberta, 6. 7; British Colu mbia, 3.3; Mani toba, 3. 0 and the lowest. -{Interjection)- Well, we're the lowest, we're the lowest and, Mr.

Speaker, the unfortunat e prediction, I think, that we're going to have to satisfy ourselves with, I shouldn't say satisfy, bu t we're going have to, I'm afraid contend with practi cally no growth in jobs in the year, 19 80. The forecast for job creation in Mani toba is relatively dismal for this year, 1980, and we'll see, we'll see, and I hope there are jobs but I am not optimistic that we're going to have even that 3 percent increase that we had last year. Mr .

Speaker, if you look at un employment which is the other area, I think, of some signi ficance, there's no ques tion that Mani toba experienced lower une mployme nt rates in '79 than in '78 which is good. And also, we seem to be maintaining our his toric role, we usually are about third lowest une mployment rates in Canada and we have been the last year or so. Although I must say, I recall in the early '70s, we were sometimes the lowest or sometimes the second lowest and then sometimes the third lowest.

But the last couple of years, we usually seem to be about third lowest but that is more or less where we fitted in a pattern in the past years. The disturbing point about all this, of course, is the fact that our labour force is not growing. The reason, un fortuna tely, for the low level of unem ployment is because the labour force, that is the pool of people who are available to work, is not expanding at a very fast rate. If it we re expanding in keeping with the ra tes experienced in most other provinces, in many other provinces, our une mployment rate undoubtedly would go up higher.

And, I suppose, you could say, well, that's the bright side of the coin when you look at the loss through interprovincial migration. that if we didn't have that net loss we'd have more une mployment , and that's probably true. If we didn't have that ne t loss we would probably have more une mployment in Mani toba and so you could argue, well, it's better that they're - 232 -

Friaay, 29 February, 1980 working in some other province than being un employed in this province. That's looking at it on the bright side of things and I don't think there would be any dispute about that. You can talk to the econ omists in the Economic Development Department, you can talk to federal econo mists, you can talk to anyone, business, bank econo mists and you look at the labour force figures and you'll see that, as I said, the rate of increase in the labour force has slipped and this accounts for the continued low rate of unem ployment.

Just taking a moment to look at the overall measurement of growth, that is the real oomestic product which provides the most co mprehensive measurement that we have in econom ic growth, real domestic i:roduct, increased in 19 79 by 0.8 percent which is one-third, only one-third of the Canadian average increase of 2.6 percen t. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that this again is not satisfactory because no t only is our rate of increase only a third of the Canadian average but, of all the provinces in Canada, we had the lowest rate of overall economic growth, the lowest rate of the ten provinces.

Now I know it stated for 1980 great things, Mani toba's 1. 7 is the forecast and it's fractiona lly higher than the Ca nadian average of 1. 6. I say, Mr. Speaker, it's rather nic e to think of yolll'self of being above the Canadian average for a change but , low and behold, that figure of 1. 6 is the lowest, I think it's the lowest rate of increase that Can ada has experienced in the past nine or ten years. I have a series of nu mbers here, well maybe '75 is one exception, '75 was a bad year, bu t apart from 1975 this forecast of 1. 6 for 1980 in Cana da has got to be the worst that we've experienced.

And now that Canada is experiencing abou t the worst in many many years, about the worst, no w we can say, well, Manit oba is going to be slightly above the Canadian average. You see, Manitoba is a rather stable type of economic perfor mance. We don't have the fluctuati ons that you have in Ontario or ce rtainly in British Colu mbia. Olll' rate of growth tends to be relatively slow but stable, ne vertheless.

I could make the same co mparisons that the Minister of Resources or the Minister of Economic Development, take averages over the past several years and make comparisons, and if I did, I haven't done it, but if I did, I can tell you that the average rate of growth unde r the NDP administ ration was double the rate of growth that we're going to experience in 1980, the forecast, and it was certainly a lot higher than that dismal 0. 8 percent experienced last year.

The rates of growth, this is in real dollars, this is taking out the inflat ion: 1973 , 3.1; 1974, 2.8 ; 19 75, it was not as good, 1.5 ; 19 76, 3. 3; 1977 was a bad year, it was down to 1.2 ; 1978, 2.9; and then of course 1979 , 0.8. One of the factors behind this figure that causes some change, of co tll'se, is what happens to the farming sector, wha t happens to the inco me earned in the far ming sector and I would have to acknowledge, and I think we should all be aware of that compon ent , the volatility of that compon ent. Okay, enough about these figlll'es. I say, Mr.

Speaker, if you have any in tellectual honesty about you, you have to conclude that this rate of ec ono mic performance is less than satisfactory , it is not adequate, 1t is a situation which I think is probably more serious than any other province in Canada. And I say we've had two-and-a-half years ex perience of conser vat ive econo mic polici es; tha>e policies have i:roven deficient. I can't help bu t be amused, Mr.

Speaker, at the nu mber of speeches that have been maae referring to the loa>ening of the ptll'se strings, in statements made in the paper that now the purse strings are going to be loosened. rd like to know why are the purse strings going to be loooened ? Olll' econo mic si tuation hasn't improved. I wonder why, why, I'd like to know why .• MR. SPEAK ER: Order please. The honourable member has five minutes. MR . EVA NS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why oh why, are we going to have an inc rease in government spending?

We were told that we were in a very serious situation in 1977 because the per capi ta debt was $3 ,130, in 1977, at least that's the one I looked at in the 19 79 Budget Address. That's what it says and I'm just talking it as it is so I presume it's correct unless it's been revised; $3 ,130.00. In 19 78, Dece mber 3l st, the end of the year, the debt had gone up to $3,744, I believe this is the net debt; and according to the latest report issued by the Minister of Finance, the ne t debt as of Dece mber 3l st , 1979, is now $3,968.00.

In other words, the debt has gone up by over $800, if you subtract these two it's $838 in the last two years. Why oh why, when we were supp ooed to be bankrupt in 1977 and we were supp ooed to have acu te protracted restraint, all of a sudden we can loosen the purse strings and start spending more money? And I say, Mr. Speaker, it's certainly no t because of any improve ment in the economy, it's not because we're in a better debt situation; we're in a worse debt - 233 -

Friday, 29 February , 1980 situation. We've got more debt today than we had under the NDP . --{Interjection)- Well, I'm looking at the figures submitted by the Minister of Finance to this House. The figures show that we have a worse debt situation today than ever before. Well I guess perhap;; the federal election of last May had some thing to do with it, perhap;; we're getting closer to a provincial election and that indeed may have something to do with it as well. Now we're getting closer to the truth.

It' s not the econo mic circu mstances, it's not the financia l or the fiscal circu mstances, it's the political circu mstances that's going to determine the rate of spending by this govern ment. rm sorry to observe that in spite of all the talk and puppery and so on out of the Minister of Economic Development, we have very little evidence of any meanin g ful accomplishment s out of that department. There hasn't been one single industrial enterp rise established in this province since this govern ment came to office of any sig nificance. Maybe a few small ones here, a few small ones there.

Of course the few small ones have disappeared and some not so small ones have disappeared as well unfor tuna tely. The most recent glaring example is the Swift Canadian pac king plant in St . &>niface. --{Interjection)- Well, you know, I think there is some opportunity in flll'_m machinery and I like to see that occu r.

In fact, I would remind members if it w�n't for the NDP govern ment using the MD C in 1970, Versatile may not have been here today because we saved it from the clutches of the Bank of Mon treal which was going to close the doors of Versatile and that's a fact, that's a historical fact and you can look it up. --{In terjec tion)-- Well, that is no t true, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that we saved Versatile in 1970 and the documents are there. Be my guest. Okay, we are now operating unde r the Cons ervative econo mic philosophy, the Conservative economic policy of privatization.

The govern ment should stand aside, mini mize govern ment, make govern me nt as insignif icant as possible, reduce corporate taxes, and wait for the industries to come in. Mr. Speaker, the indus tries are not flooding int o Manit oba they are pouring out of Mani toba. We have no signif icant industrial expansion in this province under this Conser vative govern ment, and what little expansion there has been in the manuf actu ring sector, and get this clear, has been a direc t result of the devaluat ion of the Can adian dollar.

The devaluation of the Ca nadian dollar has stimulated man ufacturing jobs, manuf actu ring shipment s, ri ght across Canada inc luding Manitoba. The only sad part of it is the stimulus in Manit oba is the weakest of all the provinces. Our increase, at least for the past couple of years of manuf acturing output has been weaker than most other province s. So, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that this recent neo -conservat ism that we've got from this Premier and this govern ment is no t working. And inciden tally, I would observe that this gover nment is not in keeping with the ••• MR. SPEAK ER: Order , order please.

The honourable member's time is up. The Honou rable Minister of Highways. HO N. DO N ORCHAR D (Pe mbina): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity whilst you are in the Chair to congra tulate you on your appoint ment once again, and like other members of the House, I have no doubt that you will carry on in your impartial and very off ic ial and very good manner as Speaker of this House. And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congr atulate my colleague, the Member for Radisson, in his absence, in his reappointment as Deputy Speaker of this House. Mr.

Speaker, on Friday of last week we had the very pleasant opportunity to listen to one of the new er members to this Chamber, my colleague and friend , the Member for River Heights, and I know that all me mbers of the House will join with me in agreeing that he made a very fine and very excellent con tribution for his maiden speech in this Chamber and I think he indeed deserves to be cong ratulated on that effort. And my good friend and colleague, the Member for Emerson, likewise, did a very exce llent job in seconding the speec h from the Throne.

I would like to offer my congra tulations to the ne west member on the opposition side of the House, the Member for Ross mere. I trust that he will contribute well to the debates. I'm looking forward to his maiden address in this Chamber to see what sort of a debating form and debating decorum that he will bring to the Chamber and I trust that it is going to be in full agreement with his legal background and his eloquent qu estioning in the question period.

I look forward very much to hearing some of his contribu tions to the speaking and to the debates in this House and I hope that he will bring to us some of the threadS of his theory on ec ono mic develo pment and where this province should go and possibly we'll find out in his maiden speec h and others if he agr ees with some of the nationa lization and some of the state - 234 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 farm programs that the rest of his colleagues have, or whether he will divest himself from that and take on a di fferent econo mic attack. We shall soon fina out, Mr. Speaker. And also to the only member of the Liberal Party in the House, Mr. Speaker, the honou rable lady from Fort Rouge, I want to welco me her. I have to admit, Mr.

Speaker, and I do wish the lady was here because it is not in any personal aeference that I make my next comments but I was most interested in watching that particular race in the by-election and I was certainly disappointed that our very fine candi date was not successful in that by-elect ion. But I had a great deal of interest in that by-election because, ana as I mentione a, Mr. Speaker, no aeference to the honourable lady, I woula have very much preferrea if the winn er was other than our canaiaate to have the winn er being the NDP candidate, one Mr. Vic Savino. And I say that, Mr.

Speaker, because I think he would have given to this House, he would have added to this House that very positive thread of political thought which has strung itself out amongst some of the ne wer members in the last two years. And I think he would have made some very dramatic contribu tions to what is considered to be the traditional thought on economic policy and the politics of the New Democratic Party.

He would have clearly represent ed the new left that is emerging, even the far left, as my colleague behind me has indicated, and his addition to their ca ucus would have told Mani tobans, prior to the next election, just in fac t how far left the offic ial opposition is moving in this province ana given them fair warning of what they can expect shoula the New Democrats contend to be the next government in this province. But, Mr. Speaker, su ch justice was not to be ours and I was somewhat disappointed in not havin g Mr. Savino here to join with us formally in the debates of this House. But, Mr.

Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Me mber for Virden on the recogni tion that we have given him in his posi tion in this upcoming session; and I note that a nu mber of the members opposite, in the opposition, have agreed with that particular appointment; they say that it is long since time that we recognized our longstanding ana se nior member of our caucus. And I agree, Mr. Speaker , I think that the Me mber for Virden will capably ana ably carry out the posi tion to which we have appoint ed him in this House. I can't say, Mr.

Speaker, in looking at our opposition caucus, that they practice what they preach at all times because, on one hana , they congra tulate us for rec ogn izing our longstanding member, the Me mber for Virden, and on the other hana, they get int o a two-week bicker over one of the ir longstanding members of the party about where he will sit, the Me mber for Inkst er. And if they would show him the kina of respect that we traditionally show our senior members on this side of the House, suc h nitp icking and bickering woula no t be part of the fabric of the opposition. Bu t, Mr.

Speaker, the Me mber for Brandon East ment ionea, in the closing re marks of his speech, tha t he couldn't understand what the new, suaden loosening of the purse strings by the govern ment was causea by, or what the reason was.

Ana I can only of fer the Me mber for Brandon East the small consola tion that, as one of the newest members to the Executive Council, I cer tainly like to take credit for encouraging my colleagues in Cabinet to loosen the purse string s; and if it is any consolation ana any answer to the Member for Brandon East, I will gladly take creait for the loosening of the purse strings on this siae of the House. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment just briefly on the most recent federal election. Now, the federal election certainly was somewhat of a disappointment for me.

I was not at all pleased with the outcome of the federal election. I was particularly not pleased to have the television coverage come on at 8 o'clock with the flashing sign "Liberal Major ity" before any of the ballots were indeed in the ballot boxes, or even opened in Manitoba. I think that was a very very sad time for western Canada ana, Mr. Speaker, I have basically three concerns about the federal election and, I'd like to share them with yourself ana with members of the House. My first and primary concern about the outcome of the federal election, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that western Canada, the four western provinces and the two Territories, have very little, and no ne, no represent ation on the Liberal governm ent in rural Mani toba, and in agricultural Mani toba. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a tragic loss, that we only will begin to appreciate over the ne xt several months as the two lone Liberal members for western Cana aa and the Territories begin their attem pts to bring the western point of view to what usea to be a Liberal Cabinet that alienated the west. And , Mr.

Speaker, it is parti cularly sad, in re trospect, to see that loss of representation, because the six to seven short months that we had to deal with a Conservat ive govern ment with adequate representation from the west tola us that things, indeed, were possible for the betterment of western Canada. We had massive gains in six to seven mo nths of Cons ervative - 235 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 rule, aided by a strong and vibrant western caucus; we had strident gains in the transportation system; we had major gains in settling, and coming into, an energy policy , a natio nal ene rgy policy, for all of Canada, which is sorely ne eded, and each and every one of us know that it is sorely needed. We have lost tha t kind of western representation as a result of the last federal election, and that brings me a great deal of concern. The secona area of disappointment and concern over the federal election, Mr.

Speaker, is that it appears as if, af ter the federal election, that the Ca naaian people are no longer capable of making the adjustments and the sacrifice necessa ry to keep Canada in its growing and p:-ominent position in the world. It seems as if we have lost our will to surv ive in western Canada because the voters, partic ularly in eastern Canada, rejected a party - the Conservative party - wh ich had a solid group of platfor m and policies to take Canada into the 19 80s. They were rejected, Mr.

Speaker, and replaced by a pa rty that had no policy in the federal election; they had no energ y policy; they had no pricing formula; they had no economic development strategy - they didn't have when they were in govern me nt and they didn't have in this last federal election. And, Mr. Speaker, we lost a govern ment which was going to come to grips with the realities in Canada today; and the Canadian reject ed that.

And wha t is disappointing to me is that may well be a sign that the Canadian people are no longer willing to come to grips firmly with problems that confront them, and are going to take the easy way out and forge t about the future. And, Mr. Speaker, my main concern, if that is happen ing, is not for myself - because I am going to survive, and every member in this House is going to survive, Mr. Speaker , because we are reasonabl y well-established. But, Mr. Speaker, who will suffer from that lack of se eming care for the country will be my children and my grand children. And, Mr.

Speaker, therein lies, indeed, the shame and the sadn ess if, in fact, the Cana dian peop le are not willing to plan for their future, and to plan for a better Canada in the 1980s and the 19 90s. Our forefa thers did it, Mr. Speaker. Men of vision and women of vision built this coun try, made sacrifices to pioneer western Canada and no rthern Ontario, the Mari times; they built trans-contine nt al railroads; they put in roads and ports and the economic inf rastructure that we today are living and deriving the frui ts of our econo mic wealth fro m; they made sacrifices, Mr.

Speaker, in the past to make sure that our gen eration had that kind of economic stability and growth potential in this coun try. It app ears as if we have lost our will to plan for the fu ture. And, Mr. Speaker, if we have it is our children and our grandchildren who are going to suf fer and that is the sadest part of that last feaeral election. Ana the third area that I have disappoint ment in the federal election - and ru just touch briefly on it - was what app ears to be a failure. I want to put it gently because I don't want to app ear overly-critical, bu t I believe there was a lack, Mr.

Speaker, of very subjective and critical analysis by our electroni c and print ed media in the course of the last election. The media, Mr. Speaker, some nine months ago, in the May federal election, in the prospects of a three-candidate debate, the three leader deba te, the Leader of the then Opposition, Mr. Joe Clark, was putting certain stipulations into the debate, and he was jumped upon by members of the media as being afraid to debate with the other two. He went into the debate and he did quite well, Mr.

Speaker, bu t he took considerable personal criticism in the course of plann ing how he was going to get into that debate. What we saw in this last February election, Mr . Speaker, was not the Leader of the Oppo sition, Pierre Trudeau, trying to neg otiate to get into debate, but out and ou t refusing to debate. And did we hear an objective analysis and critique of why the man would not debate the other two leaders on national te levision as he did prior to that? No. Ana, Mr. Speaker, I feel that that was a less than fair presentation on the part of the electron ic and the print ed media.

They didn't want to tell the Canadian people that the Leader of the Liberal party aid not want to debate because he had no policies and no issues to of fer to the public of Cana da, to the voters. And that's the basic bottom line of it, Mr. Speaker. And, in the course of the ca mpaign, when we had a Liberal party representative in Vanc ouver talking $4.50 a barrel increase in oil price , and another Liberal party member in Quebec saying S3.00, and the Leader hi mself saying $3.50, there was no effective critique of where their policy was at. Had that been our leader, Mr.

Clark, we would have been decimated in the pages of the press and in the electronic media. Bu t very little mention was maae of that. Ana I feel that, in this particular case, the media - electronic and print ed bo th - failed in their obligation, in a de mocracy, to present to the voting people an objective analysis of the issues as they were being !Xlt forth; or, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, as to the lack of issues as they were being put forth. - 236 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 There was no objective critique of the third party's promise of a made in Cana da energy price; or a made in Canada interest rate; they weren't object ively critiqued to find out what they were. The voting public were asked by the adVertising to buy a pig in a poke. And, Mr. Speaker , no one in the media, to the best of my knowled ge, asked the Leader of the ND Party, what is a made in Cana da energy price? A vote for that party was a vote for a question mark price on energy , a made in Ca nada price which meant nothing because it had no dollar value assigne d to it. Bu t, Mr.

Speaker, eno ugh of the federal election. I want to deal briefly with some of the issues tha t have co me out and been presented according to the Throne Speech Debate. And I have to congrat ulate the Pre mier on the thrust that he has pu t into and garn ered into this Throne Speech Debate. The Throne Speech represented a change for the good in this province. Some of the things that are going to come out of that Throne Speech Debate are things that all of us would like to be able to carry forward. And, Mr.

Speaker, we will now carry them forward because, over the last two years, as was mentioned in the Throne Speech Debate, we have, through fiscal prudence , brought the province into suc h financ ial condi tion as to no w enable us to expand programs where ne eded. And, Mr. Speaker, that direction is clearly, positively and defini tely outlined in a very very good Throne Speech. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal briefly with the one area that primarily affects my department, that being the comment s on branch line abandonme nt. Now, the Member for Ste.

Rose, although he is not here today, attempted to put a question before you and was ruled out of order, and in his debate of the Throne Speech some days ago, he did ment ion what he was trying to get at in terms of ref erence to rail line abandon ment. And if I follow his logic, or lack thereof, Mr. Speaker, to its na tural conclu sion, what he interpreted from that paragraph in the Throne Speech is that it was my int ention, as Minis ter of Hi ghways, to build roadS so that we could abandon rail lines, and thereby further allow rail lines to leave this province . Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a rather strange

interpretation of what we said in the Throne Speech. And the Member for Ste. Rose, I hope, knows full well what our intentions are. My explanation will not be for him, or indeed, for members of the opposition, bu t will rather be for members of the media, because I think it is important for them to appreciate what that particular paragraph on rail line abandon ment and road constr uction meant. And to explain briefly, Mr. Speaker, a rail line abandon ment involves a fairly prolonged process.

It involves a process which starts out initially with a rail company, be it CN or CP, making application to the Canadian Trans port Commission for the right to abandon a given piece of rail line, and they develop their reasoning through economic justification. They will say that their losses are too high; the track is in poor shape; and a numbe r of reasons that they can present to CTC. CT C takes that application into consideration; if it is consi dered valid, a public hearing will be held.

And at that public hearing all areas of concern bring the pro argu ments and the con arguments together, and they make a decision on the viability of that rail line and, in fact , whether it should be abandone d. And in the process of that hearing, Mr. Speaker, the main people proposing abandon ment, of course, are the railroadS; the main people proposing retention are the local communi ties, the local munici palities through which that rail line may well travel , the grain co mpanies in some cases, and in particular the provincia l govern ment.

The pro vinc ial government in each case has a very very solid case to pu t forward, because rail line abandon ment, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, by and large, transfe rs costs from the federal treasury directly to the provincia l and muni cipal treasuries. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal at stake. Now, Mr. Speaker, that process of rail line abandon ment takes some five years as a minimum figure before you will have an abandon ment order for the rail line to be abandoned on a given date. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Me mber for Ste.

Rose is chastizing this government for wanting to build roads to acco mmodate the transfer of tonnage of freight from rail lines to the highways, and he has interpreted it, in his wisdom, that we are going to build roadS so that the railroaos can abandon the railways. Not so, Mr. Speaker. What we are building roads for, Mr. Speaker, is a little list that I've just rec ently received. Now bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, that it is a some five-year process from the application by a railroad to abandon a rail line until the ti me that the rail line service is discontin ued - some five years.

I want to give you some status on prairie rail lines as of Jan urary 15, 1980 ; Mani toba CNR lines. Cabot, as a subdivision - and these are subdivisions, Mr. Speaker. The abandon ment ord er comes in effect Augus t 29, 19 75. Carberry, abandon ment December 31, 19 78; Carman, four subdivisions in Carman, ranging in abandonment order from February 7, 1978 to November 16, 1975 to Dece mber 31, 19 7 8; Hartney , two abandon ments, November 22, 1975, - 237 -

Friday, 29 February , 1980 June 9, 1978 . And the list goes on, Mr. Speaker, 19 78 , 1975, 1977. We can go into CP lines, 19 78 on the Alida sub; the Carman sub CP , 19 75, 19 77. Mr . Speaker, what we are acco mmodating in the capi tal budget of the Department of Highways is no t building roads so the railroads can abandon more lines. We are building, Mr. Speaker, roads that are ne cessary because the rail lines are already abandoned. And, Mr. Speaker, they were abandoned in the course of time that our honourable friends opposite had the jurisdiction and the provincial inpu t to prevent that abandon ment, Mr.

Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, nat urally the Member for Ste. R0>e and his colleague, the Member for Brandon East, who had responsib ility for rail line abandon ment in this province in presenting the province's case, want to try to hide the fac t that they failed dismally in saving any rail lines in this province, Mr. Speaker. Fro m 1975 to 1978 there are 30 some subbranches, subdivisions, abandoned in the Province of Mani toba, while that govern me nt should have been fighting on behalf of rural Manitoba to retain some of those lines. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I can appreciate why that didn't happen, because if you take a look at the makeup of that governm ent when they were in government, they lacked total and complete representation fro m rural agricul tural Mani toba. And they didn't give a hot damn about it. And their presentation to the Canadian Transport Commission must have been very very minute and weak, Mr. Speaker. And that is the reason why today, Mr.

Speaker, my governm ent, the governm ent on this side of the House, is forced int o substantial capi tal inve stment in the roads, the PRs and the PTHs of this province, to acc ommodate grain movement caused by abandon ment that occurred in the time of govern ment of the ND Party in Mani toba. That, Mr. Speaker, is the true fact of what that statement in the Throne Speech ref ers to. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to poin t out to the Me mber for Brandon East, who is talking from his seat again as he is so wan ton and aghast whenever any of us do it. But, Mr.

Speaker, I want to give credit where credi t is due on this whole rail line abandon ment process. The credit for abandon ment goes to my friends in opposition from their term of govern ment, because more steel got abandoned in their term than in any ti me of this province, Mr. Speaker. They are the abandon ment kings. Now, Mr.

Speaker, during the last two-and-a-half years that we have been on this side of the House we, a party of members, the Minister of Agricultu re from rural southwestern Manit oba, the Me mber for Robiin, the Me mber for Rock Lake, the Me mber for Emerson, the Member for Spring field, the Member for Portage la Prairie, myself as a backbencher in this governm ent, in two-and-a-half years, Mr. Speaker, we worked with three departments and with some seven staff man years. Th0>e staff man years, th0>e seven staff were in the Department of Economic Development, the Highways Department and, Mr.

Speaker, the Highways Department. Seven staff that worked a diligent and dedicated effort and deserve the full credit of every citizen of this province for the ef fort they put forward in two-and-a-half years. Because, Mr. Speaker, those seven staff worked tirelessly to develop a position for this governm ent to present to the Canadian Transport Commission, to give us the ammuniti on, Mr. Speaker, that we need ed to save some rail lines in this province. And that is in two-and-a-half years, Mr. Speaker, since we have had that kind of inpu t int o the rail abandon ment process. And, Mr.

Speaker, what are the results of our two-and-a-half years efforts and the untiring efforts of thooe seven staff? The result of that effort, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that today the Rossburn subdivision is running south of Riding Mountain Park and servicing many communi ties in that area, is now in the basic network to the year 2000. That, Mr. Speaker, is our eff ort, our effor t, Mr. Speaker. A second line, Mr.

Speaker, th at is no w in the basic net work to the year 2000, it just so happens, and I know the members opposite will accuse me of political implications because it runs right through the middle of my cons tituency, it's 145 miles long, it's the Morris to Hartney subdivision. That is in the basic network to the year 2000, Mr. Speaker. There is one more major line in this province that was saved, and it's in the Hono urable Minister of Agricu lture's consti tuency , the Waskada line, is now in the basic network to the year 2000. Mr.

Speaker, God forbid if that gang of people had been in govern ment when the abandon ment process was ong oing on thooe line s; we would have lost ano ther 250 miles of steel in this province. And they still wouldn' t have built a single road to accommodate the traffic, Mr. Speaker, because they froze out every single road in th0>e areas the time they had control of the road budget. And, Mr. Speaker, then they sit back and have the gall and the nerv e, Mr. Speaker, to sit back, as the Member for Ste. Rooe did just in this session alone, ana say that we are building - 238 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 roads so we can abandon more rail lines. The hypocrite - he doesn't understand what his own govern ment did to rural Mani toba. And then, Mr. Speaker, we have people like the Me mber for Transcona, who last year in the Estimates in the Department of Highways said, why don't you build roads without shoulders and save some money. That was the Me mber for Transcon a's solution to the trans portation problems in rural Mani toba. Build roads without shoulders. Mr. Speaker, that shows the level of int egrity and a concern for rural Manitoba that the ND Party has in this province. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Honou rable member for Transcona. MR . PARASIUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege. I was saying that we shouldn't be paving shoulders in a ti me of restrain t, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAK ER: Order please. The honourable member has noted a difference in int erpretation. rm scrry, it is not a point of i:rivilege, but he has made that not ification at the present time. The Honou rable Minister of Transpor tation. MR. ORCHAR D: So, Mr.

Speaker, what we are going to hear, no doubt, in this Session, and in the course of my Estimates that will be coming up , we are going to hear that the Conservative governm ent builds roads. They care for pavement before people, roadS before hospitals. That's the kind of attitude that we're going to have pumped ou t by that group of people. And, Mr. Speaker, how can they justify that kind of attitude when they put no dollars into recons truction of roads, put under stress and duress because of rail line abandonment that they condoned as govern ment.

Do they expect the ci tizens and the people of rural Mani toba in the agricultu ral communi ties to be second class ci tizens and no t have the trans portation system that they deserve no w that that former governm ent allowed the abandon ment of rail lines? ls that what they're telling the people of rural Mani toba, is that they're second class citizens and don't deserve any roads? Mr.

Speaker, I hope no t, because if that's the ir attitude towards rural Mani toba, then they haven't learned their lesson of eight years of governm ent wherein they los t all the minuscule agricultural representati on that they did have, they lost it all. And , Mr. Speaker, that kind of attitude, the no shoulders on the roads attitude, the pavement before people that they're going to throw at the press and everybody , will keep them sealed out of rural Mani toba. Because the New De mocratic Party considers, Mr. Speaker, that rural Mani tobans are second class citizens. And they consider that, Mr.

Speaker, because they don't happen to vote New Democrat. And anybody who doesn't vote New De mocrat, according to their criteria, is a second class citizen. And, Mr. Speaker, that's what happened in eight years. The people in rural Manit oba know tha t happened , and the people in rural Mani toba know that this govern ment has addressed it self to the transporta tion ne eds of rural Manit oba and of the whole irovince. And, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to address ourselves to the transpo rtation needs of all Mani tobans, including the ones in rural Manit oba affected by rail line abandon ment. And, Mr.

Speaker, why do we do it? Do we like spending money on roads and having roads here, roads there? Mr . Speaker, we build roads into the rural Manit oba commun ities to service the growing industrial base in those communi ties. We want to see all areas of the province grow, Mr. Speaker. We want to see the Mordens and the Winklers and the Carmans and the Altonas grow, Mr. Speaker, through the provision to them of no t only rail service, bu t of a decent, all-weather truck and car tran sportation system. We want to see the Roblins grow, Mr.

Speaker , by providing the Town of Roblin with a year-round truck transportation route, unrestricted. And, Mr. Speaker, we will do that. We will do that in upcoming budgets, and we will service the communi ties of Dauphin and the other com muni ties of rural Manitoba to give them the opportunity to grow and become part of the industrial and economic fabric of this province, as they ri ghtfully deserve, Mr.

Speaker - something that our colleagues in the opposition , when they were governm ent, failed to recogn ize and didn't address themselves to, and they let the road syste m of this province drop into a shambles, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, I will accept openly and co mpletely some of the no -shoulder critic isms, some of the pave ment before people criticisms because, Mr. Speaker, is the long run, the economi c stability and growth in this irovince depends on an efficient transpor tation and distribution - 239 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 syste m. We intend, in this side of the Ho use, in this govern ment, to provide that trans porta tion system to all areas of Mani toba. And , Mr. Speaker, we will have many time s, many ti mes, budgets to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I've dealt enough with some of the silliness that has been presented already in the Throne Speech Debate by the Member for Ste. Rose. And I want to digress a little bit, Mr. Speaker, and I want to address myself to the 19 80s. Because, Mr.

Speaker, it's the 1980 s that are going to be important to members on this side of the House, because we have the task before us to govern this province in the 19 80s and see that the Province of Mani toba grows and thrives in the 19 80s. And , Mr. Speaker, to date, in the last two years of govern ment, we have made substantial strides in developing the economic viability and stability of this province. And, Speaker, how have we done it? We have done it by re moving the long ar m of govern ment from unnecessary intrusion into the private sector. And, Mr. Speaker, that is paying off. Mr .

Speaker, we have industrial growth and expansion, plant manu facturing capaci ty increases in my consti tuency , in the cons tituency of the Hono urable Member for Rhineland , like we've nev er seen before in this province. Now I full well appreciate that members opposite don't kn ow that kind of growth is going on , because they have ne ver driven south of the Perimeter Highway in their life, Mr. Speaker. They don't recognize that there is anything beyond the Perimeter Highway in Mani toba. And southern Mani toba, Mr.

Speaker , has responded positively, dyna mically, and aggressively to the policies that we have institu ted in this govern ment of bringing spending under con trol, bringing defici ts down to the manageable level that they should be at and stopping unnec essary spending by govern ment. Now, Mr. Speaker, the 19 80s present a considerable challenge to all Mani tobans and, Mr. Speaker, part of that challenge is in developing renewable resources in this province. And immediately, when rene wable energ y is mentioned, everyone thinks automatically of Mani toba Hydro and our hydro-electr ic development.

That's an important part of it, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, agric ulture serves the greatest source of rene wable energ y in this province, than any other source that we have, inc luding Mani toba Hydro. Mr. Speaker, we are currently birning su ch co mmodities as flax straw which may well, with new processes, co me in to the solid fuel needs of space heating in this province. And , Mr. Speaker, that will co me and that will come very shortly and it will co me with this govern ment in power to encourage that kind of development and thrust into the 19 80s. Mr.

Speaker, the other area has been touched upon by the Minist er of Agriculture. It's gasohol, that is a very positive and definite new step that rural agricultural Mani toba will bring to this province and bring deve lopment and growth to this province and solve an energy problem at the same time, Mr. Speaker. And , Mr. Speaker, we will take suc h things as our oil seed economy , the soybeans, the flax seed, the rapeseed, the sun flower, the oil seed production in this province will take off dramatically. It has done so over the past few years. That represents, Mr.

Speaker, untold creation of wealth in this province, because the agricult ural sector has been the stablest, steadiest and most eff icient gen erator of revenues to this province of any industry. And, Mr.

Speaker, will con tinue to be that under the very excellent guidance and leadership in the Minister of Agriculture on this side of the House, quite to the contrast of the man who occupied the Chair before who want ed to nationalize agricultur e with state far ms; he want ed to take over the cheese factories; he want ed to take over the food processing; he wan ted to na tionalize everything as we have heard through many spee ches over here in the past several days. We have heard that they want to nationalize the oil industry; they want to have public ownership; they want to get back into the state farms.

You na me it, they want to get in to complete public dominatio n and ownership. Mr. Speaker, that brings me to one little sore point that rve always had and I don't want to take much ti me on it because it takes a long ti me to explain, but the whole energy situation, Mr. Speaker, as presented by members of the NDP party is a joke. They have played pitilessly upon the la ck of knowledge amongst the voters in terms of energy policy. They have promoted, through strict lack of kn owledge, that Pe troCan is the only salvation to the energy situation in Canada. That's the ND P party.

They want, nationa lly, to have PetroCanada to be the only oil company; they want Pe troCanada, Mr. Speaker, to have all the retail stations across Canada so you drive into a PetroCanada station. And, Mr. Speaker, if one gives it some ba;ic thought about making PetroCana da the only oil company that's responsible for oil and gas distribution in Canada, ask yourself one simple question, do you want the same people pum ping gas and running ref ineries as currently run our post office, Mr. Speaker? I suggest, - 240 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 Mr. Speaker, most Canadians don't want that. The whole aura that they have been able to develop , and quite success fully, the big myth about PetroCanada, will be blown apart. The big myth will be blown apar t because, Mr. Speaker, just rec ently I discussed ene rgy with a no rthern California farmer, California is a state of the U.S., and this farmer in no r thern California - isn't it amazing, gent lemen what a little bit of kn owledge will do for them? That is something, obviously, Mr. Speaker, they didn't learn in school. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

The honourable member has five minutes. MR . ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In discussion with this no rthern Californ ia far mer, I asked him, "What are you paying for diesel fuel on your far m no w? " And he didn't know to the exact cent wha t he was paying but it was over a dollar a gallon, he said. Now, that is a U.S. gallon, that is U. S. cu rrency . Translated int o Canadian prices that's approximately $1.45 a gallon. And, Mr. Speaker, I checked this morni ng with my local fuel dealer and rm paying 75 cent s a gallon in Ca nada. Mr.

Speaker, the NDP party throughout western Canada told the farming people that you people are so inefficient that you cann ot stand an 18 cent in your fu el costs because you will be kn ocked out of the market by the competition. Mr. Speaker, the competition is paying twice what we are for fuel. Isn't that the most ridiculous statement that you've ever heard in your life? And the botto m line of that statement, Mr.

Speaker, is it demons trates clearly and unequivocally, as I have stated in rail line abandon ment, that the NDP party has no confidence in the agricultural communit y and their ability to survive and become an efficie nt part of Canada's ec onomy. They don't understand, they tell them that they can't compete because of 18 cent s a gallon. Now, Mr.

Speaker, you know, the energy thing, as I say, is a very complex issue but if we follow the NDP par ty's pol icy to its nat ural finale we will drain Cana da of the conven tional oil sources at $14.75 a barrel because they don't want any increase at any time by any mean s. Mr. Speaker, once the conventional oil at $1 4,75 a barrel is gone, some several years from now, we will go onto the world market and pay up to $50 a barrel. What will the farmers say then? What, Mr.

Speaker, will the poor people of Canada, who they claim to represent, say at that point in time when their fuel costs rise, not from $1 .15 but the $4. a barrel because that party wanted to live for today and forge t about tomorrow and, Mr. Speaker, that is the basic dif ference between a Cons ervative party and a ND P party. The Conserva tives, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to offer realistic options for the future of this province and this coun try. The socialist party want to live for today , get the vote for today, be in power today and to hell with the future, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. MR.

SPEAK ER: The Honou rable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, if the honourabl e member's ti me has not expired I wonaer if he woula answ er a question? The honourable member has said that at the world price, by the time we run out of energ y , it will be $50 a barrel ana then we'll have to pay it ana that we, therefore, shouldn't keep our present price low. If we do keep our present price low, excuse me, if we do let our present price go up which is what he and his party is aavocating, what will we have to pay when the price of oil goes up to $50 a barrel, will we no t be paying the same $50.00? MR .

SPEAK ER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Transpor tation. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker , as I unders tand , the oil production situation in Canada, the current per barrel price of the ne xt tar sands development is something like $24 a barrel and that, Mr. Speaker, is where the excess revenue s shoula ana will go into the aevelopment of our own inter nal supplies of oil as come from the tar sands, and we can, Mr. Speaker, isolate ourselves from the $50 a barrel. But if we don't spend the money now, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the tar sands development and we go on the world market at $50 a barrel. The choice is his. MR.

SPEAK ER: Order, order please. The honourable member's time is up. The Honou rable Member for Rossmere. MR . VIC SCHR OEDER (Rossmere): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to begin by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance you have provided to me in the first week that I - 241 -

Friday, 29 February, 1980 have sat in this House. I trust that you will be somewhat patient as the new members learn some of the rules. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you con sider, or this House allow me at this time to make a brief correction of one question that I had previously asked in haste, when I was rattled. The quest ion was incorrectly asked and I would just like to correct that before I go on. It's recorded in Hansard on page 14 1 for Thursday, February 28 th.

The question was recorded as: the question I have for the Minister is, can he con firm that the total cost of this escapade in Hong Kong has been more than $300,000 to the taxpayers of Manit oba? Yes, I agree, that is what I said. I would like to correct that, that is no t what I meant to ask. What I meant to ask was, was the total cost of the escapade and including all other costs incurred with respect to that case, more than $300,000.00.

I would also like, at this time, to thank all of those members of the House on both sides who have been of assistance and have been so warm in providing information to me in the first week. It is very much appreciated. I would like, however, to give special mention to several members of the House on the other side. I enjoyed the speech of the Minister of Supply and Services. I might add that I enjoyed his visits to Ross mere during last fall, during Octob er of 1979. And he was right, when he went into 21 0 Oakland , that was a trouble spot. The Tories, in fac t, lost 21 0 Oakl and.

The Me mber for Morris was also kind enough to visit on MacAulay Crescent. He was correct in his assessment, Mac Aulay Crescent was a trouble spot for the Tories and it went NDP. I would like to give special thanks to the Attorney-Genera l for his intercession in the dying days of his candida te's campaign . He was of great assistance . I am the successor to Edward Schreyer as the Me mber of the Legislature for Rossmere. My predecessor saw govern ment as an ins trume nt which could be used to improve the quality of life for our citizens.

He saw governm ent as having a role to play in the economy of this province and in the planning of the ec onomy of this province. He saw one of its functio ns as being providing greater equity in the distribution of goods and serv ices amongst the people in our society, amongst thooe people who work so hard to produce thooe goods and services. In his eight years as Pre mier, he proved that an activist governm ent can be as successful as those on this side of the House had hoped for.

Indeed , in retrospect , the govern ment that Ed Schreyer led looks even better today, when we have the perfor mance of the curren t gover nment • • • During Edward Schreyer's years in Mani toba I was invo lved within the New De mocrati