LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Ha rry E. Graham (Bi rtle­ Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . Oral Questions BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can find out who the Acting House Leader is.

What I am trying to do, maybe whoever knows can answer - this afternoon I think that he mentioned that we would not be going to Committee, we would go on 86, 96 and then maybe 48, is that it? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I believe I have a list here: Bills 86, 96, 48, 11 2, 11 3, 11 4, 11 5. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day - the Honourable Government House Leader. HON. ED McGILL (Brandon West): I was about to respond to the Member for St. Boniface and he has related it essentially as was the plan of the government in respect to the business of the House tonight.

We will continue to deal with Bill 86, and we hope that all members will have an opportunity to present their views on that legislation or proposed legislation, following which we will call Bill 96 and then, as time permits, Bill 48 and so on. Tomorrow we will meet in the House at 10: 00 and then if Bill 86 has been completed we will meet in two committees in the afternoon and again in the evening if it is necessary to complete the business of those committees. ORDERS OF THE DAY ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 86THE MILK PRICES REVIEW ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR.

BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At 5:30, when it was adjournment hour, I was indicating I felt that based on the Minister's remarks, that rather than bringing in stability to the industry the Minister, I believe, by presenting this legislation, is on the way to bring about instability in the industry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister in his remarks, in his few short remarks, indicated, and he looked at the situation in other provinces, where he indicated that other provinces do not impose any control over the retail price. From those remarks, Mr.

Speaker, it is evident that this government is proposing to lift the ceiling off the retail and the wholesale end and continue to control the producer prices on the basis of a formula that they will establish. Mr. Speaker, the key, I believe, to this legislation, is for the Minister to provide reasons why they are getting rid of the Milk Control Board. The questions that I raised previously: What is the need for the legislation? What couldn't they have accomplished under the present Act that they hope to accomplish now, Mr. Speaker?

While they are deregulating the retail and the wholesale end of the industry, the arguments that producers have put forward as saying, look, you are imposing on us another board, has some credibility, Mr. Chairman. The producers, of course, would like to have some input into the price-setting mechanism, meaning the formula, and, Mr. Speaker, the Minister should be prepared, I believe, to indicate why he is decontrolling the retail industry and still will maintain a control on the producers. Mr.

Speaker, while members on this side, while I on this side, have told the Minister and have given him options that are available to him in terms of the present structure, is that there is no argument from members on this side that there cannot and should not be a formula to establish the cost of production, that hearings be held only when there is a necessity to change the formula, and that price increases or decreases be passed through, Mr. Chairman, as they arise, or if prices decline as they arise, without the necessity of a hearing. We have certainly, members on side, not opposed that move, but that, Mr.

Speaker, could have been accomplished by the present legislation, and by the present board, Mr. Speaker. But no, it appears that the Minister has allowed the pressure to build up over the last several years as to -(Interjection)- Well, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day, who have been in power practically three years, could have in the last three years, if they saw many of the problems. We haven't heard from the Minister what he conceives the problems to be. If it is the length of time of the hearings, we have discussed that. We have had no difficulties there.

If it is the cost of production formula that should be established, we have indicated we have had no difficulty with that. But, Mr. Speaker, what we do have difficulty with is the end price that consumers will pay, Mr. Speaker. That is where we have found difficulty in this legislation, and by the Minister's own words, the direction that he proposes to take the dairy industry in this province is to deregulate the wholesale and retail prices of milk; notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, that the bill does permit them to set prices. Mr. Speaker, I can just hear the Minister getting up and giving us a spiel.

He will say to you, look at the 5905

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 present legislation, and look at this legislation, the powers ate basically the same, or very similar, in the two pieces of legislation of what the boards can do. Then the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, why is the government amending and changing the legislation? That's really the question. Then, if the powers are similar, the Minister gets up and uses that argument, and will say, you know in the present Act, the Milk Control Board may set the prices. Mr. Speaker, if that's the case, why are you changing the bill? -(In terjection)- Mr.

Speaker, the Minister said that in the past year my department has had correspondence and consultation with consumers. Whom from the Consumers Association has the Minister consulted with? I'd like to hear from the Minister as to what input the Consumers Association had. Mr. Speaker, who has the Minister allowed and consulted with in terms of the processors, _Mr. . Speaker? Have the processors asked the Minister to be deregulated, Mr. Speaker? The Minister says no, the processors haven't asked to be deregulated. Mr.

Speaker, the producers have asked to have changes, no doubt about that, in terms of the hearing process and that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister could have have accomplished in the present legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister 's statement in presenting this bill to the House, which really has members on this side and myself very much concerned as to the direction that government is taking with respect to the legislation. We have had the Member for River Heights indicating today that he wishes there will be price cutting and there will be some price reductions in the price of milk, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for River Heights should remember that it was several years ago that the legislation was passed to allow the board the freedom of not regulating minimum prices; the board was set free to allow minimum prices to fluctuate. All that was set was the maximum price, Mr. Speaker, and the board has been doing that for a number of years, so that the end price to the consumer is protected. The maximum price is set based on the information provided by: No. 1, the producers in their submissions; No. 2, in terms of the financial statements of the wholesalers and the retailers, Mr.

Speaker, and that's how the price was set. But to indicate now that it is not possible under the present board and the present Act -(Interjection)- well, Mr. Speaker, the member says he didn't say that. He certainly indicated and implied in his statement that that's what he could see. That is permissible under the present terms of reference to the board. But it appears, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister himself wishes to - and I've said this before - to give the impression to the producers of this province that, look, that Milk Control Board was a bad thing for you, they are no good, we will get rid of them, and this is one way of doing it. And we will what? We will bring in another board. We will bring in another board who will set the cost of production formula - and whete do the producers go, Mr. Speaker? It's as if they are going from the devil to the deep blue sea. They're in between, they don't know where they're going. Government hasn't indicated.

They've closed down one board and they've set up another. Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to change the members of the Milk Control Board, he had three years; the Minister has been in power and has been in office for three years. If he was not satisfied with the work of the Milk Control Board, he had three years in which to change the membership of the board, to put on the members that he thought could do a better job in terms of changing the situation and changing the method of hearings. Mr. Speaker, he could have done that. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister really could have accomplished all that without bringing a new piece of legislation, because the new legislation is really a con job and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister will find and I would almost wager a bet with the Minister that he will find as much unhappiness with the producers of this province with respect to this legislation as he will find with the consumers in terms of his statements about this piece of legislation that no longer Manitoba retail prices should be controlled, Mr. Speaker. Because really that's his statement on the basis of this legislation. Mr.

Speaker, what has happened -(lnterjection)­ yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. I think the Minister - I hope that members on the government side listen and maybe once or twice, if I make those statements, maybe they'll be prepared to move back from their earlier position in terms of this legislation and bring in something sensible, Mr. Speaker, something that can be accepted by not only the producers, but by all citizens of the province of Manitoba.

That's the kind of legislation that certainly would be welcome, rather than having the Minister of Agriculture bringing in legislation which will ostensibly by his statements benefit the corporate sector in the province of Manitoba. His stand on Cargill Grain, Mr. Speaker, with respect to hog production, is well known as to where he stands in terms of production of hogs by the corporate sector of this province. We have the Minister of Consumer Affairs bringing in the legislation dealing with rent controls. The Minister of Consumer Affairs could be accused, Mr.

Chairman, of not being called the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but the Minister responsible for profiteering in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, he freed the speculators in land in terms of the rent controls and he will not be prepeared ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I would ask the honourable member to stick to the subject matter of the debate. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I was really merely drawing an analogy to what the government ministers are doing with respect to legislation this session. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister indicates we were in office before and nothing has happened. Can the Minister - I hope, when he discusses whether or not he's had requests from the Milk Control Board to do - for funding to do studies into the cost of production formula - to set that up. Back, I would think probably maybe right at the beginning, right after their election, I am wondering whether he had not let things ride so that the pressure builds up, Mr. Speaker, so that he can take action and appear to be - at least appear to be the saviour and have the Conservative Party say, well look at the NDP opposition.

They're opposed to you producers and they're not on your side. We are going to change the 5906

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 legislation and the legislation that we bring in will help you. Mr. Speaker, that's not the case and will not be bought. The Minister is replacing one board with another. That's really what is happening. The key, Mr. Speaker, to this legislation again will be, who will the Minister appoint to this board and how will the board use its discretion. I think everyone on both sides of this House will really want to know as to what the Minister intends. Mr. Speaker, all he has to do is transfer the names from the Milk Control Board to this board, and what have we got, Mr. Speaker?

Virtually the very same thing and we have a brand new bill. We want to know what the government's intention is. The Minister says ,what are we yakking about, Mr. Speaker. What are we yakking about? The members on the government side should have read the Minister's statements. They are not very happy that the government, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, is by t�e Minist�r's own words - will indicate that they will be setting a cost of production formula and they have indicated that they found that they have found that most provinces do not impose any control over the retail price, Mr. Speaker.

How can one draw any other conclusion from the � inister's statement that he will not deregulate the industry? And that's, in effect, what will happen, Mr. Speaker. That is, in effect, what will happen. The Minister's statements will bear that out. We will be anxiously awaiting what the Minister will have to tell us, even though, Mr. Speaker, he's had the opportunity to alay fears, Mr. Speaker, and to make some statements. He has them today since we moved the hoist of the bill. Has he taken advantage of this? No, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't taken advantage.

He sent up the Minister of Government Services, who at least attempted to draw a little red flag and a little red herring in front of the honourable members on this side, saying that we have moved away from our principle and long-standing policy that we believe in orderly marketing. That was the thrust of the Minister of Government Services' remarks, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, that was what one could consider a real good red herring, not unlike the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport, who really went out and said, look, producers should start going out in this province and building their own dairies; should start having milk processed in small dairies. Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservatives on that side who really fronted for the multinationals and prevented the producers of Manitoba . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We can only have one speaker at a time. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to indicate to the Conservative member that it was they who fronted for the large, the multinational industries in this province and prevented the producers, the dairy producers of this province -(lnterjection)­ that's right, Crocus Foods, Mr. Speaker. The producers of this province would have had total control of the dairy industry in their own hands in the province of Manitoba. You are the people that have prevented that. In retrospect, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the producers are saying, we really missed our chance ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR.

URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, all that the producers have to do is to look at the province to the west, where primarily in the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, where the producers control approximately 75 percent of the industry, or maybe more, Mr. Speaker, while in Manitoba about the same amount is �ontrolled by the multinationals and the large chains, Mr. Speaker, and in that province, the producers control the entire industry.

Not only are they able to have the processing industry under their control, they are able to pass on long-term savings to the consumers of that province while retaining and getting as high an income as is possible for themselves, Mr. Speaker. But they have the handle in the entire industry, and what is happening in Manitoba? No, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives in the last number of years were the ones who attacked the former government's approach to the option of having the producers take full control and having their own co-operative in the milk processing industry in this province.

They are the ones who bucked it, Mr. Speaker, on the front, that really the co-operatives of Manitoba were the ones that were going to get hurt, that the little ones were going to get hurt. That was the thrust of the Conservatives. It wasn't the little ones that they were arguing about, Mr. Speaker. They were arguing for Beatrice Foods and the Safeways of this province, Mr. Speaker, that's what they were arguing, and they were using the small processors as their front, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the producers, I'm sure, see that had they made that move a number of years ago, that they would have had, not only the stability that the Minister says he wants, they would had the entire industry, I believe, in the long-term, and they would have brought about stability. But what we will see, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be chaos in the dairy industry.

The consumers of this province will be subjected, and unless the Minister is prepared to at least have hearings on the retail price of milk and not deregulate the price, and bring in the formula, which nobody argues about, for the producers, but all he is doing, Mr. Speaker, is really replacing one board with another. So, Mr. Speaker, the reason why we have opposed this bill is quite evident. It is the Mini ster's statements, very unclear as to what will happen and, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to what the Minister has to say to us as to how he intends to handle this legislation. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question before the House is the amendment proposed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. QUESTION put, MOTION defeated. MR. PETER FOX (Kildonan): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. 5907

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 The question before the House is the amendment moved by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition that The Milk Prices Review Act be not now read a second time, but read this date six months hence. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: labour legislation, Mr. Speaker, that does what? Mr. Speaker, give the people who are working an upper­ hand on the rest of society, so they can demand increases when it comes to working for the rest of the community. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the dairy farmers want that. All they are asking for, Mr.

Speaker, is a fair and equal opportunity to have legislation that's in YEAS place, that will allow them to be paid for their efforts, Messrs. Adam, Barrow, Bostrom, Boyce, the efforts that they put into the dairy ind.ustry.. .

Cherniack, Cowan, Desjardins, Doern, Evans, Fox, Mrl.I Spetahker, �Ike h� v� nott onlyh moved in legfa1 �lat1odn Green, Hanuschak, Jenkins, McBryde, Miller, to � ow e � 1 pricing 0 c a �ge on a. . ir an p · k s h der Uruski Uskiw Walding Mrs.equitable basis, at the same t1m : providing the arasiu • c roe W tb ' ' ' consumer a product that we're all in need of, and es ury. giving them the ability, Mr. Speaker, to, if they're not NAYS Messrs.

Anderson, Banman, Blake, Brown, Cosens, Domino, Downey, Driedger, Einarson, Enns,· Ferguson, Filmon, Galbraith, Gourlay, Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Lyon, MacMaster, McGill, McKenzie, Minaker, Orchard, Ransom, Sherman, Steen. MR. CLERK: Yeas 21, Nays 26. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment lost. We're now dealing with the main Motion. The Honourable Minister will be closing debate. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate on Bill No. 86, I would like to thank the members of the opposition for their input into the debate.

Also, I would like to thank the members of the government side of the House, Mr. Speaker, for their support - their support, Mr. Speaker, in what I believe is a very responsible move on their behalf in supporting the government to develop a pricing system for the dairy producers in this province, a system which, Mr. Speaker, is very fair for the consumers of the province and, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to start by saying I don't think there is any question about any member of this side of House, any member of the other side of the House, in their desire to provide a top quality product for the consumers of milk, for the low income people, for the old people, for those people who are unable to support themselves, but in fact I believe there's a common understanding that we would all like to see those people be able to have milk. I think that's really the main objective of both sides and it's unfortunate, Mr.

Speaker, that there has been some misleading take place from members of the other side of the House, that in fact I put myself as the Minister of Agriculture, in preparing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, in the position of being a consumer, a consumer in the province, a consumer of a product which is essential to everyone and I think the dairy producers of the province feel the same way - that they, Mr. Speaker, do not want an unfair piece of legislation that would allow them to take advantage of anyone in society. In fact, far from it, Mr. Speaker.

I think all they are requesting, as I'm requesting for them, is an opportunity to be paid for their efforts. No different, Mr. Speaker, than a party, such as the party on the other side of the House who, Mr. Speaker, who are strong supporters of happy, Mr. Speaker, with the price of that milk, that there is an opportunity to put their case forward, Mr. Speaker, to a commission, a separate commission which is in place, which, Mr. Speaker, will give the consumers, and I want everyone to know this, will give the consumers an opportunity that they now don't have under the present Milk Control Board. Mr.

Speaker, any consumer, if he's not satisfied with the price of retail milk, on an ongoing basis, can have that milk price reviewed, Mr. Speaker. But under the present legislation, Mr. Speaker, they don't have that opportunity. No, Mr. Speaker, they don't have that opportunity, they have to wait until an appeal or a hearing is heard. But on an ongoing basis, Mr. Speaker, the consumers have the opportunity to be heard on the price of milk. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Brandon East is going to have a lot of difficulty; when he goes into Brandon East, of course, he doesn't really know what it takes to produce milk. - (I nt erjection)- Mr. Speaker, he is one of the economists in this country that thinks that if you can figure it out with his kind of arithmetic, then it will happen. Well, Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of hard work from the dairy industry to put milk on the table of the people of the province, and we want to ensure that that takes place. Mr.

Speaker, I just want to say that before introducing this legislation, there have been a lot of steps taken by the government of Manitoba, by the Premier, by the rest of his Cabinet and the caucus, Mr. Speaker, to put in place programs that will assure those unfortunate people that they are able to afford milk. Look at the programs in the White Paper reforms on tax, that anyone that is under a certain income can give 30 - just stop - laugh if you like - but 30 per child, Mr. Speaker, will buy the milk supply for that one child for one month. Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's time that we just stop and put everything into perspective. It isn't the low-income people, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite are worried about, it is those members on the other side who think it's going to cost them a nickel more to buy milk. When I speak about a nickel, I really should refer individually to each of the member's comments, Mr. Speaker, as they spoke to the bill.

I should really mention that when the Member for Burrows, who has left - I have a little farm story I should tell about the Member for Burrows, when he speaks to the Milk Control legislation about 1932 - well, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see that he's back in. The Member for Burrows refers to legislation in 19 32 that was put in place by the government of the day to take some chaos out of the dairy industry. Mr. 5908

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 Speaker, at that particular time, that was the only form of legislative protection that the dairy industry had, that the consumers had and the producers had. The Member for lnkster brought us up on some more history that, in fact, the legislation was not put in place at that particular time to protect the consumers, but was in fact put in place to protect the producers. Well, since that particular time, we have seen a lot of changes take place in the industry. We've seen the producers modernized; they have put in new production equipment, Mr.

Speaker; they've put in a lot of equipment that has facilitated the increased efficiencies that have been needed in the industry. But, Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Burrows speaks of 1932, he doesn't tell the whole story, because the reason that the Milk Control Board was put in was to try and regulate the supply of milk to make sure that everyone had a supply. Since that time, we now have a producer board which, in fact, has the power given to them under the last government, under the NOP Party, to cover the cost of 50 percent of the milk. They have that authority already.

We now have two mechanisms in place in the province to price milk. The milk comes into town on the same truck, the same cows produce it but, Mr. Speaker, we have two mechanisms in place to price milk. What are the dairy farmers asking, Mr. Speaker? They're asking to have the ability to price all of their milk, which the Member for Lakeside referred to earlier. That is the philosophy of the NOP Party. They believe that should take place, but they're standing up, debating against it. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they want the votes of the consumer. They don't care if the consumers have milk, Mr.

Speaker, they don't care about the young children, because if they did care they would be supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, let them stand up 10 years from now, when we are practically out of milk, and tell the people that are running the nursing homes, tell the people that are running the hospitals that we can't supply them with milk because we didn't facilitate the increase in price so the producers could get enough. No, Mr. Speaker, they were prepared to sit on their haunches. Other provinces have moved to modernize the pricing system for their producers.

They have modernized so that they can assure their consumers of a fair and adequate supply of milk. We are the most over-regulated dairy industry in all of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and we're moving to change that so that we are responsible to the people who are producing and consuming it. The Member for Lac du Bonnet uses the example of B.C. He says we should look at what it's costing B.C., land at 4,000 an acre. He's comparing apples and oranges, Mr. Speaker, because why aren't we talking about Saskatchewan, the province next door to us?

Why aren't we talking about Ontario, where they have in place, systems that are facilitating the actual objectives that we're working on, but no, Mr. Speaker, he tries to bring in red herrings. At the same time he's trying to tell us that this legislation is going to figure in, is going to say that there is actually a right given to the producers to produce milk, that they are now going to pay for the right to produce milk. That has nothing to do with the Milk Control Board at all, Mr. Speaker. Nothing to do with it at all.

It's a total red herring, that he's trying to mislead the public, in saying that there is a cost to the right to produce in there. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to put the record straight, that there will be no right to produce figured into the cost of production formula. There is no cost of production, or there is no right to produce cost figured in to -(Interjection)- well Mr. Speaker, they don't know, and it hasn't changed any since they were in power. The old Act doesn't point that out, Mr. Speaker, and they're sitting here trying to say the new Act should spell it out.

Well, why didn't they have the intestinal fortitude to change the old Act then, Mr. Speaker, if they're so worried about it? Mr. Speaker, when we're talking about production rights and who should have figured in the legislative power or the returns from legislative power given to any group, we should talk about the rights given to the labour movement in this country. Mr. Speaker, the labour movement in this country has been given the right to strike, to have their wages increased. Mr. Speaker, for what purpose? To get a better standard of living.

They want to be able to say to us that the dairy farmer shouldn't be able to build in to their cost of production, the right that was given through the legislative process, into the cost of production. And I agree with the Member for lnkster, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Member for lnkster when he says that a legislative right that gives value to produce something shouldn't be built in to the cost of production and, Mr. Speaker, I agree with that principle. I do not agree that that should be built in.

The same as I do not agree that it should be built into the cost of what it costs the farmer to buy a milking machine or a combine or a tractor. When the legislative power has been given to a group of people to withhold their services to the rest of society, Mr. Speaker, it is so. Yes, when they are able to use the legislative power to demand on the rest of society that they have to be paid more money - to do what? Not to produce more, not for more production, Mr. Speaker, just because they need more, (Interjection)- Mr. Speaker, I will permit a question following my closing of debate. Mr.

Speaker, I think it is as fair for the dairy producers as it is for the labour movement, but I don't support either one. I don't think a legislative right should be figured into the value, and I agree with what he is saying on that principle. And if you want to carry it to the full distance, then in fact, the dairy farmers should be asking to have a commission set up, Mr. Speaker, that reviews the cost of increase to the products that they are buying because of the fact that the labour have increased the cost of the goods that they are buying, and it should be reviewed to see if that is fair and equitable.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to come right down to basics when we are debating this bill. When we are talking about legislative rights given to a group of people, that can't be figured into the cost of production, then I think it has to cut straight across­ the-board and, Mr. Speaker, I would expect that the Member for lnkster would reconsider his position when he comes to supporting or not supporting this bill. I would like to speak a little more to some of the other points that I have here on Bill 86, and I'll go back to the comments that the Member for Burrows 5909

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 made. He goes back to the Milk Control Board of 1932 that was put in place because there were no other mechanisms in place, and it was in fact to protect, not the consumer, but the producer. But as time has evolved and we have seen developments in the industry, we have seen some changes take place. The producers have now a board in place to protect their interests and, Mr.

Speaker, what. we have seen the Control Board develop into is a consumer control mechanism, which we have all agreed that it is essential that somebody give protection to the consumers to assure that they in fact have got input into the milk price that they have to pay. Mr. Speaker, let's talk of the Milk Control Board of 19 80. The Milk Control Board, Mr. Speaker, of which he was a Cabinet Minister that appointed them. Yes, Mr. Speaker, he was one of the Cabinet Ministers who was part of appointing the Milk Control Board that is now in place. And what did they recommend, Mr. Speaker? What did they recommend?

Now, I really have to say I can't make apologies for the Member for Burrows, but he reminds me somewhat of an old farm dog we used to have. - (Int erjection)- No, no reflection on the Member for Burrows. I give the dog a little more credit, Mr. Speaker, because the old farm dog -(lnt erjection)­ No, in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, the dog knew the difference between sick him and come here. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Burrows, I really don't think he knows what he is talking about when he is talking about the 19 32 Milk Control Board, when he put a Board in place that recommended these kinds of changes taking place that we are proposing, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Milk Control Board recommended that a formula be put in place that triggered automatically, that we didn't have to go through the public appeal process. Mr. Speaker, they are telling me that, and, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing. He wanted to know why we are changing it?

Because the Milk Control Board asked for it, recommended it, which they appointed, Mr. Speaker. The dairy farmers of the province asked for a change and, Mr. Speaker, we are moving in that direction. Mr. Speaker, we are moving in that direction and at the same time giving the consumers of this province a guarantee that they will have an opportunity to have input into the control of the retail price of milk. Mr. Speaker, we are going on the recommendations of the Milk Control Board that was put in place by the members opposite.

We are following along the lines of their recommendation, not 1932 like the Member for Burrows would like to take us back, Mr. Speaker. I really can't figure out what the relevance of his argument was, he was really not in tune with the times. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that we are moving in that direction and in fact I think that we are going a little further as far as the consumers are concerned, because they do have an ongoing input to the price of milk, and I want that to be put on the record and the consumers of this province to know we are protecting the interests of the consuming public. Mr.

Speaker, I will refer to the sections of the bill specifically because I think that it is important that everyone in the province and the media know so they can communicate it to it. And the commission, tha t's

Part 3(5) of the Act, and it says the commission shall monitor the price of fluid milk charged by distributors and retailers and where the commission deems those prices to be un reasonable, the commission may by order establish schedules of maximum prices and minimum prices or both at which fluid milk may be sold to the consumers. Mr. Speaker, their power it there, the same power as they have today, Mr. Speaker, the same power as they have today. I am somewhat surprised by the comments by the Member for Fort Rouge, because her requesting to have this bill withdrawn, Mr.

Speaker, I am very surprised, because there are some good Liberal, good strong Liberal dairy farmers in the province. But maybe if she isn't getting any calls, maybe it shouldn't be of any surprise, because maybe those calls are now coming into the Conservative Caucus Room. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is government's responsibility, it is government's responsibility to keep in place legislation that keeps a proper balance, that it shouldn't be weighted to the consumers, it should be weighted to the producers, but it should be fair and equitable, Mr. Speaker. That is the objective. We have heard, Mr.

Speaker, members opposite say, well, you could have changed the board, you could have changed the board, Mr. Speaker. Changed the board for what purpose. They should have been fair people and I am sure they are, that's why they weren't changed. Is that what they did, Mr. Speaker, because they didn't agree with what was happening, instead of taking a hold of the issue? No, Mr. Speaker, they didn't. They would change the board to lean to the left the way they were, Mr. Speaker, and I could name many examples, but I don't think we have to.

I think the general farm public know really what took place under the last government. - (Int erjection)- Why didn't we change the board, Mr. Speaker? Because we felt they were fair and equitable. Look what they are recommending to us, Mr. Speaker. They are recommending exactly what we are doing. They have stood up, Mr. Speaker, and given us what I would consider a lot of debate that has created a lot of heat, but very little light. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is in the best interests of both the consumers and the producers that we should sit and not act. Mr.

Speaker, we talked of politics of the Milk Control Board. Any time you deal with an important product like milk, it could have political ramifications, Mr. Speaker. We have heard members of this side of the House stand up and speak, Mr. Speaker, in support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, they haven't been afraid to come to grips with the issue, because they know what the downroad difficulties will be if we don't. Mr. Speaker, they will have to answer to the public for being short of milk. They don't want that resting on their doorstep. Mr.

Speaker, let us just stop and be a total consumer for a few minutes, today as opposed to a few years ago. The Member for Lakeside, the Minister of Public Works, suggested earlier today that the percentage of the consuming public, the money that a person spends today towards food has 5910

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 been decreasing something like 16 percent, it is about 14 percent is spent in the home and about another four percent spent out at restaurants and that, and that type of eating. So we have had about 18 percent of the consumer's dollar going towards food. Mr. Speaker, not too many years ago it took about half-an-hour of a man's pay or woman's pay to earn one quart or one litre of milk. Today, Mr. Speaker, if you take the minimum wage and you work it down to what it costs to buy a litre of milk, it takes about 10 minutes to 15 minutes of a person's daily wages to buy a litre of milk.

A family of four, Mr. Speaker, about 20 minutes of a person's pay would buy them their daily needs for milk. Pretty small, Mr. Speaker, when you sit and look at it in those terms. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what is works down to is that a man or a woman in their normal coffee break time can earn enough money to buy their daily milk requirements, the coffee break time of any person can make enough money to buy their daily milk requirements. Mr. Speaker, that was not the case ten years ago. Mr. Speaker, when you figure it out -(In terjection)­ ! said, Mr.

Speaker, two litres a day for about 20 minutes, about 62 cents for a litre of milk is 1. 24, 3. 15 is the minimum wage and if you figure it back, Mr. Speaker, about 20 minutes is what I said, the normal coffee break. Mr. Speaker, that is the length of time it takes to get your daily milk requirements for a family of four. Mr. Speaker, do you know how long a dairy farmer has to work to make that kind of money? Mr. Speaker, they have to work 25 hours a day, 365 days of the year, Mr. Speaker. Their work is never done. Their work is never done, Mr. Speaker. So. Mr.

Speaker, what I am trying to say is that No. 1, we are all concerned that the people who are unable to provide for themselves get milk. Mr. Speaker, there isn't anyone on this side of the House or any dairy farmer that begrudges anyone that kind of product or that necessity. We will all assure that, and I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House will back us 100 percent. There is no question on that. -(Interjection)- That's right, Mr. Speaker. My colleague from Rock Lake says, don't ask the producers to carry that load on their back and, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we are changing the Act.

I would just like to further add, Mr. Speaker, that some of the other parts of the Act that are in to make sure that the consumers are well protected - and I want to emphasize this and this is the considersations and fixing the maximum prices and the minimum prices. We heard comments earlier today about the fact that why not put a maximum price in place. Why isn't it working, because a maximum price will give people protection. Mr. Speaker, it hasn't been working. Mr. Speaker, it hasn't been working, because the minute you put a maximum price in place it becomes the floor price; Mr. Speaker, the only price.

It hasn't worked, Mr. Speaker. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have also had comments from the Milk Control Board, the same Milk Control Board that was put in place from the members opposite - and I will quote one line from their comments. "The board is of the opinion that insufficient competition among processors prevails." The Member for Fort Rouge stood up and said it was to protect the processors. Mr. Speaker, all the presentations we have had, or the majority of presentations we have had, is not from the processors. They are happy with the system, Mr. Speaker, because they have a locked in profit.

They haven't had to compete, Mr. Speaker. The members opposite were protecting the segment of the industry that least need the protection, and they have the audacity to stand up and say that we have something going with the processors of this province. Mr. Speaker, very much the opposite. The processors like the system that's in place. The producers don't like it, Mr. Speaker, because it isn't giving them a fair and equitable return. Let me just further read into the record, Mr. Speaker, the protection that we are giving the consumers and, Mr.

Speaker, I am concerned about the consumers because I have a lot of members here that are my colleagues that represent consumers far better than the member from whatever it is over there and sitting in the back row. What is the name of that - Wellington, Mr. Speaker - who lets on that he is representative of the consumers, just about the same kind of representation as he considers the farmers' union that represents the farm community, Mr. Speaker. He reads to us as if the farm union represents the farm community. Mr.

Speaker, there are less than 800 farmers in the Farm Union Movement, out of 20 to 30 thousand farmers in Manitoba. That's a pretty small representation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will just read further for the consumer's benefit. "Considerations in fixing maximum prices and minimum prices" and this 3/ 6th's of the act, "in establishing minimum or maximum prices or both under subsection 5, the commission shall take into acccount the cost of milk to the distributor or processor as determined by a formula.

By the formula established under subsection 3(2), the cost of processing, handling, packaging, and distribuHng the milk, the allocation of direct and overhead costs of fluid milk and other products and costs of retailing; and (

b) The need to provide consumers with a continuous supply of fluid milk at reasonable prices, and may establish such prices in respect of any quantity of fluid milk and express those prices in relation to the fluid measure or butter fat content or otherwise." MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe when we are discussing and debating a bill in principle, we are not supposed to refer to sections. Here we have the Minister, who should know better, reading it word for word, paragraph by paragraph.

I think he should be told that this is not the common practice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister, and the comments of the Honourable Member for Kildonan are quite correct. I would hope the honourable member would talk about the principle. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker. I appreciate and thank you for that directive. I will try and refrain from referring directly to the actual facts as they prevail, Mr. Speaker. 5911

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 I, Mr. Speaker, would like to just make a brief comment for the Member for Churchill who is concerned about the consumers of milk in Churchill. Mr. Speaker, the Act does give consideration for the remote areas of the province. Mr. Speaker, if any particular price is out of line or there appears to be some unfair pricing mechanism or practice that's taking place, the commission do have the ability to establish the price in that remote community, Mr. Speaker. They can direct and set the price and will direct and set the price in that particular community, Mr. Speaker.

That is in the Act, no different than it is today, Mr. Speaker. The same controls are there. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we should really acknowledge the Member for Ste. Rose, who has on the record said that there have been very little changes in the Act that we've proposed. Mr. Speaker, they've done a lot of debating. The Leader of the Opposition has put a hoist on the bill; for what purpose if in fact they are happy with the bill that's in place and members are saying that there is very little change? There are some basic changes, Mr. Speaker, but they have failed to point them out to the consumers of this province.

They failed to point them out to the producers of this province but, Mr. Speaker, I think the producers know what the basic changes are. Mr. Speaker, we will further hear from people who are concerned when we go to committee. I am sure that there have been some positive comments come from members opposite that I am sure should be taken into consideration and we will have the opportunity -(Interjection)- Mr. Speaker, the Member for La Verendrye says we should be easy on that. That, Mr. Speaker, will be given consideration when we go into the committee.

I think that it is a process that we feel was necesssary as a government, Mr. Speaker, not to discriminate against the consumers, not to put the farmers at an advantage to them, but give them the fair and equitable opportunity that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members from this side of the House, and I want to thank the members opposite for their productive input into the debate and look forward to further debating it and hearing the submissions of the committee and recommend that the members of the House support Bill No. 86. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster with a question. MR.

GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Minister has said that he would answer a question after he concluded his remarks. In his remarks he said that workers had been given the right by legislation to withdraw their services for the purpose of seeking greater wages. Mr. Speaker, that is false, but I don't want to argue it now, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister tell me which group in society without legislation does not now have the right to withdraw their services to seek better pay for what they are selling, whether it be grain producers, milk producers, turkey producers, doctors, lawyers, anybody else with the one exception where it has been legislatively taken away, that is teachers and firefighters? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, let us just go back to a statement that the honourable member made earlier and I missed it in my debate and if I can just cover it in my answer - he suggested, Mr.

Speaker, that the first labour legislation in fact put a maximum on the price of what people could earn as wage earners, which, Mr. Speaker, he didn't like; the wage earners didn't like; but Mr. Speaker, that is the same kind of legislation that the members opposite think should be left on the dairy producers in this province, that there should be a maximum put on what they can get for their product. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member gave me an opportunity to change it. Mr. Speaker, the dairy producers of this province feel that the production of milk is an essential commodity. Mr.

Speaker, I do not believe that they would take advantage of the rest of society to the betterment of their own industry. Mr. Speaker, I believe that they feel it is an essential service and they don't need a law, Mr. Speaker, to tell them that they can do that. MR.

GREEN: Yes, I wonder if the Minister would point out which group in society, whether it be turkey producers, wheat producers, grain producers, flax producers, milk producers, any producer of any agricultural commodity, which of them does not have the legislative right to say that they will not grow the product, they will not produce it, and they will not sell it, because they are not satisfied with the price. Mr.

Speaker, will the member also confirm that milk producers in the United States and Canada at different times have spilled milk rather than sell it for a price that they don't want, which I say they have the right to do and I would defend their right to do. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The motion before the House is Bill No. 86 be now read a second time. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. FOX: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Order please. The question before the House, shall Bill No. 86, Milk Prices Review Act, be now read a second time.

A STANDING VOTE was taken, the results being as follows: 5912

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 YEAS Messrs. Anderson, Banman, Blake, Brown, Cosens, Domino, Downey, Driedger, Einarson, Enns, Ferguson, Filmon, Galbraith, Gourlay, Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Lyon, McGill, McKenzie, Minaker, Orchard, Mrs. Price, Messrs. Ransom, Sherman, and Steen. NAYS Messrs. Adam, Barrow, Bostrom, Boyce, Cherniack, Corrin, Cowan, Desjardins, Doern, Evans, Fox, Green, Hanuschak, Jenkins, McBryde, Malinowski, Miller, Parasiuk, Schroeder, Uruski, Uskiw, Walding, and Mrs. Westbury. MR. CLERK: Yeas 26, Nays 23. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. McGill: Mr. Speaker, before you call Bill 96 I might confirm to the House that the Agricultural Committee will meet at 2:00 o'clock tomorrow in Room 254 to consider Bill 86. Should their work not be completed, they will meet again in the evening at 8:00 o'clock. The Private Bills' Committee will meet in Room 255 to continue their deliberations. In the unlikely event, Mr. Speaker, that both Committees should complete their work by 5:30, we might recall the House at 8:00 p.m., so members should remain in touch with the situation.

BILL NO. 96 THE ELECTIONS FINANCES ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know whether or not I will be the last to speak on this particular bill from this side of the House, but I do believe that it is a piece of legislation that has demanded, and justifiably so, the attention of this House, of all members on both sides of this House, and has been one worthy of a detailed analysis.

Because in what seems to be a fairly complex piece of legislation that is intended obviously to deal with the whole matter of how political parties shall gain their financial backing, is in fact what I can only call a piece of monitory gerrymandering. You know, we had expected, and justifiably so, from experiences, perhaps some bias built into the different Acts that come before this House, and when you come to

an Act that has such an impact on the activities, the political and election activities of the members of this House, one is even more fearful of that bias, the bias of the government in power being put into legislation. That is exactly what has happened with this particular piece of legislation. We have a bill that is intended to benefit the Progressive Conservative Party, and it will by that fact also benefit the Liberal Party, I might add, although there are certain qualifications that have to be made to that statement, which I will delve into later.

But the fact is that it is intended to benefit the two old-line parties with their two old-line sources of funding, and that is the corporations, and that will work to the disadvantage of the peoples' party, of a party that depends upon the individual, depends upon the citizen with a political motivation to fund their activities. It is interesting that back during the session, the Member for St.

Matthews announced to the press that he was going to bring forward sort of a mini­ election finances act in regard to contributions that unions can make, and if I recall it properly - and if I am giving the story wrong I would ask the member to correct me - if I recall it properly what he said - and he was mad because a transit union had decided to delve into political activities; they had decided at a duly held meeting through a democratic process that they were going to delve into . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews on a , o " MR.

LEN DOMINO: I'm not quite sure what this is a point of, I think it's a point of clarification. I never ever stated that I was mad at the Transit Union for any of their actions, or that anything the transit union has ever done has in any way influenced my actions in this House or the proposals I was going to present to this House. So the member is wrong from the start. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: As you say, oftentimes, Mr.

Speaker, in this House, that we do have differences of opinion, and I will accept the member's word, although the story that came to me through some fairly legitimate sources at the beginning substantiated what I had to say just a moment ago. Let's not impute motives to him. Let's not try to determine why it is he wanted to bring forward. Let's look at what the bill would have done.

His mini-election finances bill would have said that if a union wants to give a donation to a political party, that what they would have to do is have a survey every so often within their union, and they would have to determine how many people would vote for the Torys and how many people would vote for the New Democrats and how many people would vote for the Liberals and how many people would vote for the Socreds and how many people would vote for the Libertarians and how many people would vote for the Rhinocerous Party and how many people would vote for the Marxist Leninist Party and how many people would vote for the Communist Party and so on and so on, and then what they would have to do, the union would have to split that money up percentage-wise if they wanted to donate it.

If they wanted to donate 1, 000 a month, and 30 percent had said they were going to vote for the Liberals, they would have to give 300 to the Liberals, and if 70 percent had said they were going to vote for the 5913

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 NOP they would have to give 700 to the NOP. I believe that is basically what he had suggested would be a proper restrictive mechanism to impose upon the unions. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest to the honourable member that when the honourable member is finished speaking, he may. then rise and clarify his position. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR.

COWAN: Sir, I will be the first to admit that perhaps I have it wrong, because this is what the member told us he was going to do but never proceeded with, so we don't really know exactly what would have been strictly in that bill, but the fact is that this was the common perception that was going around at the time. What that says to me, Mr. Speaker, is not that the Member for St. Matthews wants to see a more democratic election finances system, what it says to me is that he wants to restrict the political activites of the union.

But it's interesting that at the same time he did not say, well, when a corporation wants to give money to a particular political party, what it must do is have a survey done of its shareholders and that its shareholders would have to split up the money in a percentage manner as he had suggested for the union. Now what does that say to us? What that says to us, is that in the mind of the Member for St.

Matthews, as my recollection of the events of a number of months ago, go, he believed that the unions and individuals who wished to give money to political parties should operate under different rules than the corporations. I don 't believe that the Member for St.

Matthews has much influence in his caucus or within the Cabinet, but I do believe in this particular instance he must have had some influence, because what we have before us is an election finance act that is based upon much the same principle that restricts the activities of the unions in giving money to the political parties and leaves a free hand open to the corporations.

And the restrictive mechanism of course, is the particular part of the bill that suggests that if a union is going to give more than 10 cents per member, that it must in fact start handing out receipts, which is a cumbersome process and a process that would undoubtedly restrict the activities of the union in donating to a political party of their choice. Now there is a reason for the 10 cents per member per month qualification, that is, most unions when they affiliate to a political party, they give that party 10 cents a month per member. That's the standard donation that they would give to a political party.

But in my own constituency I have a union that gives the 10 cents per month per member. On top of that, it gives a 50 a month lump sum. If this bill were to go forward, they would either have to drop that 50 a month lump sum, which may not sound like much to you, but in my constituency that's a lot of money for political purposes. They would have to drop that, or they would have to start receipting each individual member, and that indeed could be cumbersome and I would suggest that they would probably drop the 50 a month.

They might try to find some other method to use that money for political activities, but the fact is that they would be forced into not doing what they wished to do because of this type of legislation, yet a corporation can give whatever it wants and it doesn't have to receipt any of the shareholders. A corporation can give whatever it wants and it doesn't have to in any sort of substantive way check with the shareholders, and they in fact do, Mr. Speaker.

We are indeed fortunate to have before us the list of contributions which just came out from the federal government in regard to contributions made to political parties during the year 197 9. Let's look at some of those contributions and where they come from. Let's start with the Member for St. Matthews' party, the Conservative Party, and let's see how the contributions within that party break down. There are seven classifications.

They are individuals; (2) is public corporations; the next classification is private corporations; then governments; after that comes trade unions; then (6) is corporations without share capital other than trade unions; and (7) is unincorporated organizations other than trade unions. The Conservative Party got 60 percent of the 8,37 5, 716 that is listed in this, of contributions of over 100. They got 5,020,285 of that from public and private corporations, 60 percent funded by public and private corporations, and only 38 percent funded by individuals within the party.

We see now who rules the roost in the Conservative Party. It is the corporations. I will go into some more detail on that in a moment. Now if they are bad in that regard, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are worse. If they are funded primarily by the corporations, the Liberals are funded almost totally by the corporations; three quarters, or 7 4 percent of their funding, of their 5,220,520, came from the corporations, Mr. Speaker, 74 percent - I would suggest that is an unhealthy balance - while 23 percent came from individuals.

We see, if I were an individual in the Liberal Party I would be concerned that I didn't have much of a voice when it came to making policy, when it came to putting programs in place, and when it came to trying to direct my particular party. I would much rather be a corporation. Obviously they have far more monetary influence, and that in many instances reflects the policies of a government. The New Democratic Party on the other hand had 42 percent of its donations come from individuals, close to one half, Mr. Speaker.

And from corporations it had grand sum total of 3 percent - and I don't know how they got in there, but they got in there somehow. It was private corporations and public corporations. (Interjection)- The Member for Roblin says, Husky Oil and Tommy Douglas. Well perhaps if there is any good that can come out of Tommy Douglas sitting on Husky Oil board of directors, that might be one of the good points that can come out, I'm not certain. Mr.

Douglas did not consult me before he chose to sit on that board and I have not consulted him afterwards, but I am certain that he had very good reasons for doing so, because he has very good reasons for almost everythng he does. I intend to, when I have the opportunity, discuss that matter with him further. But let's get back to the subject matter at hand; I don't want to be distracted by the Member for Roblin. - (Interjection)- Uh huh, the Member for St. 5914

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 Matthews with his one-track mind, "Get the unions, get the unions, get the unions, " says across the Chamber from his seat, "Give me the figures for the unions," Mr. Speaker. Well, I will. I will. The unions donated 1, 701,616 for a total of 28 percent of our donations, 28 percent of our donations. Now, he is writing that down, because I know he wants to get into this debate and I know he wants to answer some of the suggestions that I have put on the record. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that those union donations for the most

part come from affiliation dues, come from union meetings - I have been through a lot of these meetings, as a matter of fact I am very proud to go to these meetings when they are trying to decide in a democratic way whether or not they are going to affiliate, and by doing so fund the New Democratic Party. And I go to these meetings because, as a representative in this House, as a member of a political party which I think is reflective of the needs of the working person, of the individual in this society, I feel I have some contribution to make to those meetings.

What I tell the people when I go to those meetings is, I want you to affiliate to the New Democratic Party for two reasons, for two reasons specifically, Mr. Speaker. The first reason is I want your input. You see, we are a very democratic party; we hold conventions every year, unlike the Conservative Party. At these conventions we have our policy decisions made in a democratic way. We have a democratic structure and we pride ourselves in that. I want the unions to become involved, and when I talk about the unions, all I am talking about is people who work for a living.

I want them to come to our conventions; I want them to become involved; I want them to be a part of the policy-making process so that we will have a party that more directly reflects the needs of the working person in this province and in this country. That is why I want them in there. But I also - if I can just finish the second point, Mr. Speaker, and I accept your admonition to get back to the bill.

The second point I tell them is I want their money, because if we don't get the money from the unions, and if we don't get the money from the individuals, we have to go to the corporations, because there is limited sources of funding in a society, and I don't want to be put in the position of having to go to the corporations. So that is why I am proud that the unions fund us 28 percent, and that is why - (Interjection)- In a democratic way, certainly.

And that is why I am concerned that this bill will in some way influence their decision to fund us, at least above and beyond the 10 -cent per member, and I think that that will hurt our party. I think this whole bill hurts our party, Mr. Speaker. I think this bill is intended to hurt the New Democratic Party. I think this bill is intended to hurt the New Democratic Party. I think this bill is intended to damage the New Democratic Party. I think it is, as the Member for Rossmere says, a vicious attempt to destroy the funding base of the New Democratic Party. What is that funding base? The people.

They are not attacking us, they are attacking the average Manitoban; they are attacking the individual who wants to give money and wants to have that money play a

part in the development of a political process. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I missed the comment from the Minister. The Minister said that I was phony, or the argument was phony? Would the Minister care to put that on the record? The Minister doesn't have the courage to put that on the record, Mr. Speaker. I have learned to accept his interruptions, and I have learned to accept his negativism, and I have learned to accept his inane comments, Mr.

Speaker, but I will address myself to the bill and try not to get sidetracked by what appears to be a blatant attempt to deflect me from telling why we are opposed to this bill, which his government has brought in, which is an attack on the people of this province. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, that while we receive 28 percent of our funding from the unions, each of those decisions to grant that funding is made in a democratic way, and when I go to these meetings I am always somewhat concerned that they are going to reject the affiliation.

I am always somewhat concerned that they are going to reject contributing to the party, and on occasion, the very rare occasion, that does happen. It is happening less and less, but the fact is that they have that democratic choice, and when they make that choice I accept that choice; I come back again and try to convince them, but I do accept the choice. I accept the democratic will, and that is what the government doesn't want to talk about, that is what the Minister doesn't want to listen to.

He doesn't want to listen to democracy, he doesn't want to listen to the democratic way, he would rather ramrod through a bill that is intended to take away financially the democratic rights of many of the citizens of this province, just as their Election Act will take away the voting rights of some of the members of this province. - (lnterjection)- Mr. Speaker, now the Minister is saying that we have arranged it with our federal party.

Well, I would rather have an arrangement between the provincial NOP and the federal NOP than the arrangement, the unholy marriage, that they have with the corporations, that the under-the-table arrangements that they have been historically known to make. I would much rather be arranged with a party, with people of my own philosophical bent, above-board, and if he knows about I am certain that all know about it. I would much prefer that to the type of arrangements that we have seen . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. We can only have one speaker on this bill at one time.

The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your assistance and guidance in this matter. There are a number of other items that I wish to speak to on this bill, but I don't want to leave the area of funding and what it does to a political party until I have put a few matters on the record. One is, Mr.

Speaker, that there are a number of elite groups, financially powerful groups that provide the Conservative Party with a substantial portion of their funding - and it is an arrangement, everybody knows about the arrangements that are made between the provincial government and the business community. You know, the mining industry, according to the federal results, and these are federal returns for the year 19 79, the mining industry 5915

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 in total contributed to the Progressive Conservative Party 21 5,725. They contributed to the Liberal Party, by the way, 18 7, 140, 18 0,740, excuse me, I want to make certain that is on the record correctly. They contributed to the NOP nothing, so we are not beholden to them, Mr. Speaker, and I believe - (lnterjection)- Well, the Minister is still attempting to interject himself in the debate, and I really don't mind, because he allows me the opportunity to point out that it does make a difference. He says, "And that makes a difference?" in a question form, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, it does make a difference. One of the things I tell the unions when I talk to them at their affiliation meetings, is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I say it much better at the meetings, Mr. Speaker, than I do here. The fact is, that has to have some influence on them, and as much as they would not like it to have an influence on them, it must, because what happens if they say to the mining companies, look, we are going to have to crack down on you for your pollution of the environment, and the mining company says, go ahead, but we are going to take our funding away from you.

Well, I would suggest that they would be less likely to crack down than if that were not the case. A MEMBER: What is the historical fact? MR. COWAN: The historical fact is exactly that, Mr. Speaker. The historical fact is that they have found themselves financially obligated to the corporations, and this bill will ensure that they become more and more financially obligated to the corporations. I will go into that, of course, a little bit later in my presentation.

The chemical company - we talk about the use of chemicals in this country and some of the effects that they are having, and the need for strong legislation, enforceable legislation, to in some way protect us as citizens and our environment in which we live from the adverse impacts of some chemicals. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I hope the honourable member will confine his remarks to the bill and we will talk about chemicals at some other time. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I perhaps was straying a bit too far afield from the subject matter.

But what I wanted to say, was that the chemical companies had given to the Progressive Conservative Party last year 40,800, and they had given to the Liberal Party 33,020, so they have some explaining to do also. They gave to the NOP nothing, nothing again. And I don't miss their money. That's the strange thing about it. We're in debt; we don't make any secret of that as a provincial party. We have better financial times and tougher financial times, we don't make any secret of that, but I am not going to hold my hand out to the chemical companies or the mining companies in order to get rid of that debt.

I would far prefer to go to the unions, to go to the individuals, to go to our private membership, I would far prefer to do that. Because if I have to listen to someone who has paid the piper, I prefer to listen to the people than the corporations. Of course, we have a bill before us, Mr. Speaker, in this House - or actually I don't know if it has been reported back from committee stage yet - The Payment of Wages Act.

And The Payment of Wages Act puts the banks, the mortgage companies, ahead of the worker, it gives them an advantage over the worker in the case of a bankruptcy or a foreclosure, and the fact is that banks gave to the Progressive Conservative Party last year 283 ,9 91; they gave to the Liberal Party 269,028; and I would suggest that that money was money well spent by the banking institutions, because they are getting the type of legislation that they wish, they are getting the type of legislation that they want.

I'm not going to say that the Conservative Party is being bought off; I'm not going to make that allegation in this House. I think it might be a matter of they are just contributing to a party that best represents their interests, and it's a matter of the chicken and the egg, which came first, the interests or the sell-off. I'm not certain which did, and I don't want to make a categorical statement, but the fact is there's an arrangement, there's an arrangement, Mr. Speaker, and that's the type of arrangement that we have to be wary of.

The Member for lnkster had mentioned that, I believe I am paraphrasing his comments correctly, that he saw in this type of Act, restriction; that he saw in this type of Act, legislative requirements - dangerous - and I see the same in this type of Act, Mr. Speaker. I disagree with the member in the respect that he says that we would be better off without any legislation at all in this regard and let the process unfold before the electorate.

I disagree with him in that, but I think that there can be legislation that is brought forward that can reflect the need for some sort of control without being so biased as to benefit one party so greatly and disadvantage another party so greatly as this bill does, a bill that benefits the Tories and Liberals, and disadvantages my own political party.

So I would suggest that, in my opinion, and I am not saying that it is the only opinion that one should listen to, or one should have, but in my opinion the legislation can be developed, that there is a need to develop that type of legislation, but this particular piece of legislation, while it attempts to address a need, fails. That is why as a caucus and as an individual we will be voting against this bill. We won't even be attempting the six-month hoist, because we want to see this bill withdrawn, we want to see this bill taken away like a bad dream, a bad nightmare, Mr. Speaker, because that is what it is.

It is a dream of the Tories that they impose a nightmare upon the New Democrats, and that is exactly what they have attempted to do. Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that while we have those restrictive measures for union donations in this bill, what they do do, is they take the cap, or they do not place any cap on corporation expenditures. Corporations can now give to any political party any amount of money that they want, so we can expect to see those types of figures, which I read off earlier, in regard to corporation donations to the Liberals and the Torys increasing.

I don't expect any increase in the New Democrats, we'll still get our very little, or our zilch, from the corporations, but it will benefit the two old-line parties, because it allows the two old- 5916

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 line sources of financial security to increase their expenditures. There is no cap, there is no limit on the donations that a corporation can make to a political party.

What we have in that instance, is we have a corporation like Canadian Pacific which donates 35,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party being able to continue to donate that 35,000, but the subsidiaries of the Canadian Pacific, MacMillan Bloedel donates 13 ,690, and Noreen Energy, another subsidiary, donates 12,6 06.56, and Rio Algoma Mines donates 15 ,000, and Union Carbide donates 4,000, and Cominco donates 5,000, and Pan­ Canadian Petroleum donates another 5,000; all subsidiaries of Canadian Pacific.

Algoma Steel Corporation donates 6,200; Dominion Bridge donates 12, 15 4, so Canadian Pacific and its subsidiaries has a total donation to the Progressive Conservative Party in 19 79 of 97,250.56, and the members tell me that's not going to influence any decisions they might make. The members tell us, or would have the public believe that they take this money from the corporations and that they do not feel some responsibility to reflect the interests of the corporations? Well, if they would suggest that, if they are going to tell us that, Mr.

Speaker, then I would suggest that they think we are either fools or that we are ignorant, and we are neither. We know exactly what is happening. We can see it in the legislation that comes before this House.

We had some legislation - it wasn't even legislation, it was some agreements with Abitibi Paper that we took great offence to, that we felt gave Abitibi Paper a very good deal, as a matter of fact, an unfair deal, when it reflected the interests of Abitibi Paper over the interests of some of the people who lived in the area, and we find that Abitibi Paper donated 6,450 to the Progressive Conservative Party in 1979. Now I am not saying that that deal came about because of that donation, but I am saying that that donation didn't hurt.

I am saying that that donation didn't stop them from doing that, at the very best, and I would even suggest that when they were negotiating that deal, that in the back of someone's mind, whether it be the government's mind or a representative of a corporation's mind, there was a debt. It might not have been explicitly stated but it was there nonetheless, and they want to be able to accept from the corporations any amount of money with no limit; no limit at all. What are they going to do with that money?

They are going to use that money to fight election campaigns primarily, to run their organization in­ between elections, but to fight election campaigns. So now knowing that they are going to get more money from the corporations, or at least opening the door for them to get more money from the corporations, they have to find a way to spend it, because it doesn't do them any good sitting in the bank. If it did, they might as well not have the bank contribute it to them in the first place. The fact is that they must spend it to get re-elected.

So what have they done to reflect what they believe will be an increase in corporation funding for themselves? They've changed the rules of election spending. They said that there will be no limits on campaign expenditures outside of advertising; no limits outside of advertising, and they make a formula for the advertising limitations. Mr. Speaker, what they are saying, is that they are going to start to develop campaigns now that rely less on advertising and rely more on buying of expertise, and rely more on fancy, glossy pamphlets.

We've all seen the Tory pamphlets in their nice three-colour runs and their glossy heavy duty paper. They've always been able to outspend us on pamphlets, and now they're going to be able to do even more, and there will be no limitation. Before at least, we had a limitation, which said, go ahead and outspend us, but only outspend us to a limit. Now they have taken that limitation away and they are going to be able to spend whatever they want on hired help. They are going to spend whatever they want on signs. They are going to be able to spend whatever they want to pamphlets.

They are going to be able to spend whatever they want on campaign headquarters. They are going to be able to spend whatever they want on election materials. They are going to be able to spend whatever they want on everything except for media advertising. That, Mr. Speaker, will create an imbalance, because we can't outspend them, because we don't have the type of corporation funding that they have, and we don't want it quite frankly. If that's what we have to do to get elected, Mr. Speaker, then there is some glory in opposition.

If we have to go to that extent to get in power, then I would suggest that we would be justas they are in power, a bad government that reflects the interests of a financial elite. Mr. Speaker, what we are going to see as a result of these two particular parts of therticular candidate and/or political party and they should be covered, too. I think of these so-called groups that my honourable friends seem to be supported by, these so-called groups for good government, etc.

I also don't want to be restricted from attacking the government in the next election in any way, shape or form because the public will be so anxious to get rid of this government, Mr. Speaker, that they will be beside themselves. They will be running into the polls as soon as they open to pop their votes in for the New Democratic Party, in their haste to eliminate this particular administration, this blue blip, as they called the Clark administration. This will be the other blue blip, the Lyon blop, and it will only be a bitter memory, one that is not openly discussed. (lnterjection)- Mr.

Speaker, my colleague, my friend for Pembina says, don't be silly. I now want to deal with the silly

section of the bill. I want to show him how his administration has demonstrated that they are incompetent and how they are not fit to govern if they allow this kind of legislation to go through. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the

section that was put in the bill and is now going to be withdrawn by the Attorney-General, where he wanted to establish a commission to -(I nterjection)- no, in fact, my colleague is right. I'm being corrected by the Member for Logan. He said the Attorney-General didn't want to withdraw this provision, it was the First Minister who withdrew this particular section. In fact, I hardly ever use the First Minister to back me up, especially when I'm debating with the Minister of Highways. But the Minister said that was a "silly" bid to ban campaign lies. This, of course, is the 5917

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 notorious section, Mr. Speaker, where the Attorney­ General in his notes - and I looked at them carefully - provided an explanation of what he intended to do in Bill 95. He made a 7-page speech and then he brought in a huge package of notes which we got delivered to us on Friday. I don't know how many pages there are here, I guess about 60 huge long pages, 83. All it says about that

section is that it's new, sure was new, and that it has been announced that the

section will be deleted. Mr. Speaker, my point in discussing this

section here is that I think it's a shocking example of government incompetence. That the Attorney­ General was able to bring in a provision to set up a tribunal to examine the truth or falseness of statements by members of political parties, probably opposition members, who would be heard by a high court and that he was able to put that through his caucus - I don't know if the caucus knew about it or didn't. I don't know if you discuss bills; we do, you probably don't. I don't know if they have sub­ committees to examine legislation, but they obviously didn't have a mechanism.

I don't know whether or not this was discussed in Cabinet but I mean, Mr. Speaker, there must be a vetting process. For a piece of this magnitude, something of this magnitude, so horrendous in the annals of Manitoba's political history, something that's become a national news story, for that to go through the Conservative government and the Conservative caucus is, I think, to their undying shame, that they were not able to spot this or, worse still, that the Attorney-General persuaded everybody of the logic. (In terjection)- Well, the Premier didn't know about it; he apparently was away.

He was down in Detroit or some place trying to become the running mate of Ronald Reagan and had to come home - (In terjection)- renegotiating Confederation. (In terjection)- I'm not sure where he was, but anyway, while he was away or at least - (Interjection)- no, he wasn't away. Well bill, this sort of financial gerrymandering of the election process, is that the Tories are going to be able to out-spend us and out- pamphlet us and out-campaign headquarter us, and out-campaign us in the sense of materials during any election campaign. If we didn't have truth and justice on our side I would be worried.

If we didn't have the people on our side, I'd be worried about that. I know that it's going to backfire. I know that for all their gerrymandering, for all the unfairness that they have built in this piece of legislation, for all the advantage that they have given themselves and the disadvantage they have thrust upon us, we are going to win the next election, because you can only do so much. We had a pamphlet that was brought before us a couple of days ago, yesterday, a piece of blatant propaganda, I think, was the correct term for it, and it was a slick operation, and it was a piece of election material.

I don't care what they say, I've seen election material, you've seen election material, and we both saw that that was a piece of election material. Sir, we don't have the type of money, as a party, to fight that. We don't have the type of money to put that sort of material on the street. The Member for Wolseley talked about the big machine, the NDP machine that was out there pumping out literature on rent controls in three constituencies. Mr. Spe aker, I had the pleasure as well as the responsibility of doing a number of drops in those consituencies, of handing out pamphlets in my spare time. I did so, Mr.

Speaker; I saw all the pamphlets, and they were mimeographed sheets, there was nothing slick about them. There was nothing that I would consider expensive about them. They were just a mimeographed piece of paper that had on it some very pertinent information, and they were dropped by volunteers. There was no organization that went out and droppe d those. They were dropped by volunteers like myself; for people who had a spare hour or two and wanted to do some work to make this a better province. I will stack that piece of literature up and that distribution system ... MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER, Abe Kovanats (Radisson): Order please. The Honourable Member has 5 minutes. MR. COWAN: I will stack that, Mr.

Speaker, against the White Paper, against their slick materials, against their three-colour pamphlets, against their big 4 x 8 signs, against their fancy campaign headquarters, against their hired help, because, Sir, the people know what is good government and what is bad government, and they know that that is a bad government, and they are going to oust that bad government And no matter how they try to put the yoke of financial constraints around this party, this party will hold its head high because the people in this party, the 63,655 individuals that contributed federally to this party in amounts of over 100 will go out on the streets, will spend their 5 minutes, will take their mimeograph machines and will put out the truth and the facts, and they will win the election based on that.

Then we will have an election act that is fair, because we don't want to take advantage of that particular party or any political party, because we know that when you take advantage or you attempt to take advantage of a political party, you attack the very system, the democratic system, in which we should all believe and we should all support. If I have just a couple minutes left, which I think I do, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to address myself to one other - what I believe to be a very restrictive part of this act, and that is they have told us that we cannot accept donations from outside of the province, that we cannot accept paid workers who come in from outside of the province. In other words, if a good New Democrat in Ontario happens to work for the party and wants to come in and organize in this next election, he or she can't do that because of their legislation. And, Mr.

Speaker, if that isn't an attack on the process, I don't what is, because while they have said that an Ontario individual cannot come in here to work in a provincial election, they have made certain that as long as Dupont sells one item in the province of Manitoba, as long as Dow Chemical sells one gallon of 2,4, 5-T in this province, as long as Canadian Pacific ships in this province, as long as Abitibi Paper makes the wood for one pencil to be made that is sold in this province, they can contribute, and it doesn't matter whether there headquarters are here or in the United States or in the Netherlands, that doesn't bother them.

They say 5918

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 that political parties should not be financed from outside of the province, yet they will take that sort of money gladly and they will write into legislation the protection for their sources of funding and their sources of help. The quote is, and I am reading from the Minister's notes, "the basis for these provisions is that Manitoba elections should be funded by Manitoba money. A political party should get its financial support from the residents of the province. They should not be propped up by outside influence." Outside influences, Mr.

Speaker, let me go through them very quickly because I don't have much time. I read them into the record once before, let me read you a different list. Let me you read the list, Mr. Speaker, of mines that are contributing to the Conservative Party. Alcan; where does it operate in Manitoba? Asbestos Corporation; where does it operate in Manitoba?

Assembly mines; where ?; Bethlehe m Copper; wher e?; Blake Mineral Resources; where?; Campbell Mines; where?; Cassiar Asbestos; where?; Chi mo Gold Mines; where?; Cyprus Anvil Mining Group; where?; D'Eldona Gold Mines; where?; Delta Smelting and Refining; where?; Dennison Mines; where?; Dickenson Mines; where?; Dome Mines; where?; Falconbridge Mines; where?; Granby Mining; where?; the list goes on and on and I don't have time to complete it, Mr. Speaker.

But the fact is that they will take that money and they will tell us that our friends can't come into this province to help us during a federal election - a provincial election, excuse me; that our friends cannot send us 100 from Ontario, but they will take 50,000, Mr. Speaker; they will take 50,000 from lnco; they will take 41 ,200 from Noranda, Mr. Speaker; they will take 10, 000 from Falconbridge; they will take all that money and more, Mr. Speaker, and they will tell us, as the Member for Seven Oaks said, that his sister can't come in and help him get elected.

And that in a microcosm, that in a nutshell is the intent and the purpose of this Act - to advantage them and to disadvantage us. Tha t is why we demand its withdrawal. That is why the people will demand its withdrawal. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. DOMINO: Tha nk you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if we're reading the same bill, if we are looking at the same piece of legislation, but I don't find all these great flaws in this piece of legislation.

I think this bill we are presenting to this House will allow for fair and open elections with Manitobans participating in the elections, with the funding being provided - everyone is allowed to donate money now to political parties. Previously we had a situation, or presently we have a situation where some people are allowed to donate and others aren't, where corporations are forbidden to give money. The member, I think, overstates his case, and because he does so he hurts his own credibility. We have seen this on more than one issue. We have seen in on the chemical issue, we have seen it on several other issues.

He is sloppy with his facts. He is throwing federal facts at the provincial Progressive Conservative Party. He takes federal figures - money donated to the federal Progressive Conservative Party, and then suggests that it is used here in Manitoba. I don't believe it is, any of it. None of the money was used in my campaign, none of it. Let's take a specific example. The Member for Wellington mentions the calendar, and I am sure it preys heavily on his mind many a night. However, we'll discuss it, I'll take the time to discuss the calendar, because I think you should know how the money is raised.

But let's talk first about what the member suggested about my proposed private members' resolution earlier on when he discussed it. He talked about this heinous private members' resolution that I had, or bill that I was about to propose, which was going to restrict the unions' freedom of action. Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say about that is, that the suggestion that was made about the details of the legislation that I was going to propose, not accurate.

The member has somehow got hold of one of several proposals that were presented to me, only one of several, and one that was rejected, by the way, I decided not to go that route. I further decided not to bring forward any legislation this year, because we already have 11 9 bills, or something of that sort. However he was wrong on that detail and he was wrong on several other things. Mr. Speaker, I don't seek to restrict the freedom of unions. I believe that there is a useful purpose for unions in our society.

I belong to unions, that is representing the workers, that is fighting for better working conditions, salaries. At times that might even involve commitment to a political party, but I think when the union movement decided carte blanche that they are going to support the ND Party and that is the only party they are going support, I think it is bad for the New Democratic Party.

It is really not my concern to make the New Democratic Party stronger or healthier, but I think it is bad for that party, and I note that several members, prominent members of that party, including one member in this House, and I have already spoken out against that, one member has left their caucus, several constituency presidents and other people have left publicly, and stated it is because the union movement has too much power in the New Democratic Party, and that New Democratic Party begins to then represent unions only.

Let's remember that less than 30 percent of the population of this province is unionized, but further, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the union leadership ties itself hand and foot to the ND Party it hurts the union membership. It makes it harder for the union movement to deal with governments of other political stripes. It blinds them to certain alternatives which may be better for their workers. Mr. Speaker, what happened earlier this year?

Constituents of mine came to me and said, you know, my union is giving money to a political party, and I spoke out against it, I spoke out against this situation and I was overruled. What was happening was that people who voted for Len Domino, people who supported Len Domino and believed in what I believe in, their union dues were being taken, and still are being taken, and were sent to the New Democratic Party and were used to negate the work those people were giving to me, the volunteer effort. 5919

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 Mr. Speaker, what we need in this province, and I still believe we need a law like this and we don't have one, we need a law which would allow for the individual members of unions to have a say in where their money goes and what happens to it.

Because if you take a look at the Gallup polls, Gallup has surveyed union households, and I will use federal figures, because the member opposite doesn't mind using federal figures and throwing them at provincial politicians, the Gallup polls have surveyed union households during the last six elections, and in not one of those six elections did those people, privately and secretly when speaking to the Gallup pollsters, in not one of those elections did the New Democratic Party obtain more than 30 percent - I will give them the benefit of the doubt - more than 30 percent of union household votes, but yet all the union money goes that way.

Yet if you listen to the union leadership you would think that every single unionized person in this country was dedicated to a MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. The Honourable Member for Churchill has had his opportunity for debate. Unfortunately, we only allow forty minutes; we now have the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, let him continue with his speech. MR. DOMINO: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. What this bill does is restore some sort of equality to the situation. Unions can continue to donate money, all they have got to do is declare it and show it.

Corporations can now give money, and they are going to declare it and show it. I think everybody should be allowed to give money, maybe even people from outside the province. I am not hard and fast on that either way. I think the government has a good rationale for it, but I am willing to listen to other arguments. I don't mind who gives the money as long as there is full disclosure. Let the people decide. If Alcan is going to give money to the Conservative Party, let the people decide whether Alcan is being twisted to Conservative Party's policies.

If the union movement is going to give money to the Member for Churchill, let the people in his constituency, the people in Manitoba decide, because of the full disclosure procedures, let them decide whether the member has become a mouthpiece for the unions, and whether or not he is neglecting his own constituents and the majority of his constituents who are not members of unions. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that to be a fact, but that could be possible. Mr.

Speaker, what I was proposing, and what this bill goes somewhat along the road to providing us with, is a fairer system, a system which is fair to the unions, fair to the members, fair to the policital parties, and is all around a better system. The member mentioned one other point which I want to take up, and that is, he said, well, if we forced the unions to give their money on the basis of where the support of the membership lies, why not corporations? Mr. Speaker , I think there is a difference.

There are many instances, when I join a union in this province, when if I don't to belong to that union, I can't work. Now, if I have money in Great-West Life, if I hold stocks in Great-West Life, and Great-West Life decides in their foolishness - God forbid they should ever, or any other corporation - decide to give large sums of money to the N.D. Party, that I can then take my shares, cash them in on the open market, put them into another corporation, and I lose none of my ability to earn a living.

That's not true if you belong to, for instance, pick any union you want that has a situation where you've got to be a union member to work. That 's a signific ant difference. Mr. Speaker, I want to also talk about the federal figures that were used by the member opposite. He says 28 percent of the New Democratic Party funds came from unions, but those figures don't include donations in kind; they don't include the hundreds or even thousands of paid organizers who work regularly on behalf of unions, who are then transferred to do election campaigns.

And my own campaign, I not only had to campaign against my opponents - two other opponents, which is legitimate - and their active supporters, I also found myself having to campaign against men who were paid by unions to work on behalf of the union membership, who campaigned house to house, who put signs up, who went around trying to convince people not to vote for me. But yet the gallop poles show that the vast majority of the membership who pay their salaries, chose to vote for me, or at least chose to vote for a party other than the one they were promoting at the time of the election. Mr.

Speaker, this legislation doesn 't bar that. It doesn't say you can't have steelworkers pounding on doors in St. Matthews constituency. It just says if that happens, you've got to tell the public what they're worth and tell the public what they're doing. You've got to have full disclosure. If I get a large donation from the Bank of Montreal, it's there; if a union gives me money, it's there. You have got every opportunity, through the press and through this Legislative Assembly, to print your own pamphlets or whatever you want to do, to tell people where the money comes from.

You've got every opportunity to make the connection. Mr. Speaker, members opposite have conveniently forgotten one very positive aspect of this bill. This bill allows for provincial tax credits. This bill encourages and makes it easier for the little guy to give money to political parties. Mr. Speaker, I'll speak very candidly and frankly. I'm not happy in a situation where large chunks of money are donated to the Conservative Party from corporations. I don't think it's healthy for any party, whether it be unions supporting one party or corporations supporting another party. That's not healthy.

I want to see as much pluralism in terms of donations as possible. Let it be understood, though, that even if someone financed my campaign 100 percent, I'd never put up with it, but if they did, I still wouldn't take orders from them. I speak on behalf of the people of my constituency. A member asked earlier about who paid for the calendar. There's no question about who paid for the Member for Wellington's calendar - he hasn't taken the opportunity to give one out, to tell people what his phone number is, to ask them to call him. (I nterjection)- It's also a law office, your constituency office?

You also use it to earn salary, to earn your other income? I have one too. My 5920

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 constituency office is not on Sargent Avenue; it doesn't say solicitor or barrister. It says Tee Voc High School. Yes, that's where I spend my working day. You spend your working day in your constituency office. I suggest the amount of politics that's carried on from those offices is just about equal - nothing. Mr. Speaker, I was saying earlier that I'm not concerned about corporate donations, as long as there's full disclosure, and I think tha t's the important part. Tax credits are a good system.

The tax credit systrem, over a number of years, will allow all the parties in this country, it will allow all the parties in this province and this country to get away from depending on unions or corporations for donations. Over a period of time, if we use it properly, if we encourage people to donate, if we educate them about the benefits of donating money, you will find that over the next 10 or 15 years 80 or 90 percent of all the parties' money - all three parties - will come from private individuals. And that's the healthiest possible system.

And this bill which the members opposite want to yank out, want to throw out, this bill allows for tax credits. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other point. I think the sword cuts two ways. The member said, well, 28 percent in New Democrats' money federally comes from unions. That's not important, he said, we don't listen to unions, they're not overly represented in our caucus, or they can't call the shots or anything of that sort. Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest if large donations from corporations, in his opinion, if large donations from corporations can twist my party's policy, large union donations can twist his party's policy. It works both ways. Neither situation is healthy. We have to encourage small donations from as wide as base as possible. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't find a whole lot wrong with this legislation. I can see where the New Democrats are unhappy. I think the previous legislation was unfair. Any law which says a union can give but a corporation can't, any law that takes that sort of a stance, is not equitable; it's not fair.

This law doesn't make any rules like that. It says you can have any donations you want, unless of course they're from out of the province. The member mentioned that corporations who have headquarters in eastern Canada, as long as they have some kind of a branch here, can give money. That's true of unions, too. That's true, if he wants to have the shop stewards from the stewards' union or something operating here, even though their headquarters is in Toronto, most of the membership is in Toronto, they can still send in people from Toronto to work, as long as they declare. I believe they can, my

interpretation is. Mr. Speaker, the key elements of this legislation - and there are two pieces of legislation which go hand in hand; one, that we have full disclosure, and two, that we have an equitable system where everybody has access to the political system on a fair basis. Mr. Speaker, I find, and it's obvious because - I don't want to speak too long on this, but we've caucused this. We've talked about it. I find this to be a very good bill. I think it's going to make for freer, more open elections, and let the people decide if they don't like where the money's coming from.

We had this discussion earlier with another clause in this bill about whether or not politicians were lying. Well, whether or not politicians are affected by the donations they receive should be decided in the same way - not by legislation, but by the electorate. And I'm sure, having listened to the Member for Churchill, having listened to the Member for St.

Johns, having seen close up their ability to speak for sentence after sentence after sentence, often saying very little, but the words continue to come out; after having seen them do that, I know that there will be no lack of publicity if Len Domino should receive some horrible donation from the Transit Workers' Union, or some other union like that. I know that the Member for Churchill will stand up in the House and denouce me as a puppet and as nothing but a mouthpiece for the union movement. Mr. Speaker, most of what the Member for Churchill said was grandstanding.

I took note of his comments about the restrictions on people and funds from outside the province, and maybe that can be discussed in committee. As I say, I'm not certain of that. There may be some merit to that. But most of what he was saying, he was saying in his own self­ interest and he was saying because he wants to keep the present system of funding and the present system in this province allows the New Democratic Party an unfair advantage. You don't have to declare donations in kind, which is labour. Unions and other non-profit organizations can give, but corporations can't. It's a ridiculous situation.

Let's put this thing on a fair basis; let's let the ordinary voter, after being fully apprised of the facts by the press and by the opposition parties, whether it be Progressive Conservatives or the New Democrats or Liberals, let's let the ordinary voter make up his mind. I'm confident; that's all I need. I don't need any restrictive legislation to protect me. All I need is a fair and open system where the electorate knows what's happening and I'm sure I'll be returned to this House, and I'm sure they will agree that this legislation is good legislation too, and it's fair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLAM JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Johns that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. McGILL: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, I might observe that it had not been the intention of the government to accept adjournments on this bill at this stage but we are advised that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition wishes to speak on this bill, and so we have given that agreement that he will be able to participate in the debate when the bill is called tomorrow morning. Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 48? 5921 ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 BILL NO. 48 THE LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 48 - The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's sometime since we last dealt with this bill, I believe it was Friday, July 11 th. Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record my opposition to this bill. I am speaking on my own behalf. I do not intend to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I don't argue that members of the Treasury Bench need an increase in their salary that they receive over and above the emolument that they receive as being members of this Legislative Assembly, but, Mr. Speaker, that has been accomplished, I understand, by Order-in-Council. The only thing in this bill that is a change from the present Legislative Assembly Act is the

section dealing with the Leader of the Official Opposition, where it was in the Legislative Assembly Act that it would be covered, it's now going to be covered by the same Order-in-Council that deals with the salaries of treasury benches. Mr.

Speaker, when this House was first called into Session in 1977 to deal with an emergency situation that had arisen, the First Minister when he introduced this bill he said he took the responsibility, and that is a responsibility of First Ministers to introduce bills dealing with this, he hoped that there would be co-operation from members on this side of the House, but I refer you back to 1977. There was no consultation with the official opposition or the then loan Liberal in the House, now the Minister of Immigration, in the federal House, the Member for Fort Rouge at that time.

The government of the day decided that what the emolument would be for that Session, no consultation with this side of the House; the same thing in 1978 when they upset the formula that was in place, in fact, they made great hay on it. We got, I believe, in 1978 - I think they rounded the figure off. 1977 - total indemnity payments plus expense allowance in 19 77 was 18 ,299.27. They rounded that figure off, Mr. Speaker. They were holding the line, no discussion, just brought in an amendment to The Legislative Assembly Act, a grand sum of 63 cents - grandstanding.

We heard the Minister of Government Services last night accuse this side of grandstanding. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you ever saw a case of grandstanding that was a case of grandstanding. I can remember - oh, I'm sorry I can't mention, that's a no no, that a certain member isn't in this House, but I think people will recognize who I am talking about. There was a certain member of this House who said and threatened that if members on this side of the House opposed the legislation that he would bring in an amendment.

He threatened to bring in an amendment to prove us hypocrites, that if we voted for the bill we shouldn't receive the money we should give it to a registered charity. That's all very well and good, Mr. Speaker. There are members in this House who, unfortunately, this is the only emolument that they receive; they are not able to work. That member is a full-time member of the Winnipeg School Division, working full-time; I would imagine he is a Class IV or a Class V teacher, which puts him in a 25,000 to 28,000 bracket, plus the emolument that he receives here. He receives more than the First Minister.

You talk about hypocrisy. Well, it would be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see if this member is going to introduce these amendments. If this bill doesn't go out of the House, he's going to have to make the amendments in this Chamber when we get into Committee of the Whole, and I shall be very interested to see if this member - who unfortunately isn't present at the present time, but I think everybody here knows who I'm referring to - if this member is going to make these so-called amendments. Mr. Speaker, there was a perfectly good formula in place, a perfectly good formula.

And, the ironical part of that formula is that if the formula had been allowed to stay in place we would be approximately somewhere in the vicinity of 200 less than what the legislation, which on the back page is a sort of an afterthought. I know I can't refer to specific sections of the bill, Mr. Speaker, but it sets the calculation on which the formula will come into place for the 19 80 session at approximately 200 more than what the formula would have been in 19 80 if the tinkering and grandstanding, absolute grandstanding by the First Minister and by that government over there.

They now want their pound of flesh. You know, Mr. Speaker, it was interesting this evening. We were discussing, I think, Bill No. 86, the milk bill. We've already had a hint how much maybe milk is going to go up - 5 cents a litre. The Minister of Agriculture said, well, what's 5 cents a litre - 5 cents a litre. Maybe that's why we're getting this increase, so we can pay for the increase in milk. Mr.

Speaker, the First Minister, when he introduced this bill, and I refer to Page 5570 of Hansard, and he stated and I'll quote as follows: "I know that from time to time we hear and possibly in the debate last year on Supplementary Supply we heard the statement made, well, until Manitoba's minimum wage is raised, why should the salaries of the members or of the Executive Council be raised? I can only point out in that regard, Mr.

Speaker, first of all, it's a comparison of apples and oranges but, even assuming that there could be comparison made in this respect, the last information that I had in that regard was that Manitoba's minimum wage was about the third highest in Canada. So for those who would argue in that regard, they would also then have to accept, I suppose logically, the suggestion that Manitoba's Executive Council and MLAs salary should go up to the third highest in Canada rather than to the fifth or sixth level".

You know, if we're talking about apples and oranges as the First Minister said, here's a classic example of apples and oranges, because the people on the minimum wage do not set their salaries. They are not the ones who decide what the minimum wage will be. It is the government; it is not the Minimum Wage Board because it doesn't even meet. It hasn't met, I think, since this government was first elected to office - hasn't met.

And, you know, even with the freeze that was put in in 19 78, the salaries, the earnings that the members receive as members of this Legislative Assembly have gone up, and they have gone up a much higher percentage than those 5922

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 poor unfortunates, Mr. Speaker, who work at the minimum wage level. We have a unique position in society. Those who are elected to represent people in Legislative Assemblies in Canada, in the federal House, and I believe some councils and some school boards, they have the opportunity, and I know that it's a difficult task when you have to raise the salaries. But, Mr. Speaker, if the First Minister had left alone tinkering with The Legislative Assembly Act, left the tinkering alone, we would be approximately at the level that they are now proposing. What were they doing it for?

Grandstanding. Restraint? Restraint has gone out the window now, Mr. Speaker, as far as salaries for the members of the Assembly. The restraint that was forced upon the people of Manitoba by this government - the restraint, yes, the restraint. But now they want their pound of flesh; now they want to come up 200 more, approximately 200 more, than what the formula would have brought them to. They wouldn't have had to come in here with this bill, this bill now. As I said before, there was a perfectly good formula in place, it operated and worked well.

All members agreed that it worked well, so why tinker with the formula? They tinkered with the formula because they were grandstanding, and grandstanding of the first water, that's the type. Now, Mr. Speaker, now we are supposed to be nice fellows, go along with them, not rock the boat. Mr. Speaker, there are members of this Assembly who have young families, they have mortgages on their homes, and they have the same problems as others. I know that they need the money, there's no doubt about it. The hours are long. I think when the First Minister introduced this legislation he said the duties are onerous.

They are onerous, especially when we've been now, I think tomorrow will be the third week in Speed-up. The hours that we are sitting here. -(Interjection)- The fourth? We've been here for six months, is that right? Five months, and we're going into the sixth month. We wouldn't even have to be discussing this bill if they hadn't tinkered and tried to make themselves to be the good guys. We're going to restrain, we're going to show you, we're going to show those people how we can restrain ourselves. Well, why don't you restrain yourselves some more? Why bring this bill in?

You didn't have to bring this bill in to increase the salaries of the Treasury Bench members, no way. That could be done by an Order-in-Council and was done by an Order-in-Council. Pensions. Mr. Speaker, the member referred to pensions; you know, the pensions part. If I wanted to look in here, I think the First Minister said, when he introduced it, it was a cleaning up of the changes that were made to The Legislative Assembly Act last year, to bring them in line. Basically, I don't argue too much with that, I said my piece on that last year.

The main part of this bill is putting the Leader of the Opposition in the same position as the members of the Treasury Bench and the transitional, which is on the back page, which is increasing the emolument that the members of this Assembly will receive. So that, Mr. Speaker, is why I am not going to support this bill, under no circumstances. I'm not going to support this bill. I don't think this bill was necessary in the first place. If they wanted an increase, a very simple amendment to this bill, if they had wanted to increase the salary of the . . .

And I believe, if I remember correctly, I'm just vaguely thinking of the

section in the present Legislative Assembly Act dealing with the Leader of the Operation; I think it is tied to the Executive Council salaries. I might be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but that's my recollection of the Act. So actually, there wasn't really any need for that change. Now Mr. Deputy Speaker, the First Minister, he referred to you and I believe the Speaker of the House, and I agree. I believe he said on Page 5569, where he said the members were the second lowest paid of the members of the Legislative Assembly in Canada, of any Legislative Assembly in Canada, and the Leader of the Opposition.

And also they show, Sir, - quoting the First Minister - that your office and the remuneration that is attached to it is the second lowest of any Speaker in the Legislative Assembly anywhere in Canada; and they show, Sir that your Deputy Speaker - that's you, Mr. Deputy Speaker - is receiving a remuneration at the second lowest level in that position in Canada. Mr. Speaker, ii your First Minister was so concerned about you ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Would the Honourable Member for Logan kindly repeat what he just finished saying? I didn't quite hear it. MR.

JENKINS: Oh, you want to hear what your First Minister said? Oh, yes, I'll be delighted. He was speaking to the Speaker -not you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were, I believe in your seat - but he said, and I quote, "They show, Sir, that your office and the remuneration that is attached to it is the second lowest of any Speaker in a Legislative Assembly anywhere in Canada. They show, Sir" - now referring to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker - "that your Deputy Speaker is receiving remuneration at the second lowest level of anyone in that position in Canada". And you know, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if the First Minister had been so concerned about you, which he expressed, I ask you, where is he looking after you? Where is he looking after you in this bill? Those are pretty pious words, but there's an old saying, put your money where your mouth is. - (In terjection)- Well, that's the old saying. Or, put the taxpayers' money where the Premier's mouth is. But he hasn't looked after you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hasn't looked after your Speaker. And I believe when you spoke in the House here one time, you talked about the long hours that Mr.

Speaker spent in the Chair and the long hours I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had spent in the Chair down there. And I know from experience the long hours that you put down there. But Mr. Deputy Speaker, if your First Minister were that concerned, where? Show me in this bill that he's looking after you. Oh, piety, piety, that's what it is. He's killing you with kindness; he's killing you with kind words, but kind words aren't going to put meat and potatoes on your plate.

Talk about hypocrisy - and I know we're not supposed to accuse individual members of hypocrisy - but if there ever was a case of hypocrisy it is the speech that the First Minister made in this House dealing with the legislation that we have before us, 5923

Tuesday, 22 July, 1980 talking about how we should be a nice little club here. There wa