ISSN 0542-5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 12A -2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 1 MAY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, Davic:l R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Q.C., Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Ruasell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, Jamea E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene KOV NATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gltrard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.WJ. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.c:, Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilaon PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER,Hon.�c SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, LR. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKI� Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. Jamea Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Th ompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assinlboia Gladstone Pemblna Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mou ntain Bu rrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NDP NDP NOP INO NDP PC PC PC NDP NOP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NOP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP ND P NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NOP PC NOP NDP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 1 May, 1984. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTE RIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mb er for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Ye s, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I beg to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. MR. CLERK, W Remnant: Your Standing Committee on Public Accounts beg leave to present the following as their First Report.

Your committee met on Tuesd ay, May 1, 1984 and appointed Mr. Blake as Chairman. Your committee has examined the Provincial Auditor's Report and the Public Accounts of the Province of Manitoba and Supplement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983 and finds that the receipts and expenditures of the monies have been carefully set forth and all monies property accounted for.

Prior to consideration of the Public Accounts, your committee adopted the recommendation that the reporting level under the Field Services Appropriation in the Department of Government Services be changed so that a breakdown by building code is not required in the Public Accounts. The Department of Government Services should be requested to provide this type of information in the Department's Annual Report.

Your committee received, or has been assured that it will receive, all information desired by any member from the Minister, Provincial Auditor and staff with respect to receipts, expenditures and other matters pertaining to the business of the province. The fullest opportunity was accorded to all memb ers of the committee to examine vouchers or any documents called for and nor restriction was placed upon the line of examination. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. 324 HON. W PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker , I have a statement. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister. HON. W PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform this House of an encouraging development related to mining in the province. The Tantalum Mining Corporation of Canada -TANCO - as it is otherwise known is emba rking on a new venture.

With assistance from the Federal Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion, TA NCO is launching a pilot project to process spodumene at its Lac du Bonnet proper ty. This project will provide employment for 26 people. Mr. Speaker, TANCO will produce approximately 100 metric tons of ore per day which will be made into concentr ate in the facility's mill. This mill is being refurbished to enable it to handle the spodumene ore. The finished spodumene concentrate will be shipped to customers in Europe and the United States for testing in ceramic cookware such as Corning Ware and similar competitive products.

The objectives of the pilot are three-fold:

(1) To confirm the suitability of the metallurgical process for producing the concentrate known as "super-spod;" (2) to confirm that the concentrate can be made on a consistent basis; and (3) to confirm market acceptance of the product by potential purchasers. If the pilot is successful the project will become a commer cial operation on about the same scale. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is clearly an example of the ability of the mining industry in Manitoba to adapt to changing conditions and its ability to seek out and take advantage of new opportunities. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the Minister's statement, I want to assure the Honourable Minister and members of his government that we on this side welcome these kinds of announcements whenever they are made. We hope that they can offset and help, perhaps prevent the University of Manitoba from having to lay off 200 people in their institution by improving the economic outlook of Manitoba.

So we'll look with interest and in a supportive way at these kinds of ventures that I'm sure the Minister of Mines will want to make from time to time, and I hope he has many more announcements to make in the near future. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before Oral Questions, can I direct the attention of honourable members to the galler y.

We have 28 students of Grade 5 standing from the Souris Elementary School. They are under the direction of Mr. Wallman and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Arthur. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPE AK ER: Also before Oral Questions, I have a statement for the House. On Thu rsday, April 26th, the Honourable Government House Leader rose in his place to raise a point of privilege regarding allegations made in the House by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition .

Following his remarks and the tabling of a letter, I took the matter under advisement in order to review Hansard and the documents quoted. In order for a matter to have precedence over all other items standing on the Orders of the Day it is necessary to show that the issue has been raised at the first available opportunity and that a prima facie case can be shown.

Since the matter was raised on the same day, I will accept that it was raised at th e fir st ava ila ble opportunity. lt remains, therefore, to show that a prima facie case of privilege exists that would justify the matter taking precedence over other matters standing on Orders of the Day. There is no doubt that considerable disorder existed during the question period, quite contrary to the rules of order.

The conduct of the members, as well as the unparliamentary language used, were far below the standard of beha viour expected of ho nourable members, and reflect poorly on the institution of Parliament and the example expected of leaders of the community. lt is expected that honourable members will reflect on their actions sufficiently to moderate their behaviour, and conduct themselves in a manner that will bring credit on the Legislature and all the members.

A close examination of the words of the Honourable Government House Leader show that many of his statements dealt with disorder in the Hou se, the unparliamentary words of members, and imputations against the House and other members. These are matters of order as Beauschesne makes clear, not matters of privilege. The essence of the issue raised as a matter of privilege by the Government House Leader concerns the letter sent out by the Honourable Mini ster of Finance, and a denial of a statement made in that letter.

The statement made in the letter is, "the 2 percent sales tax increase proposed by the Conservatives." The proposal may or may not have been proposed by two or more persons who are Conservatives. lt may or may not have been proposed in the Legislature. lt may or may not have been proposed by the Official Conservative Party.

The word "proposal" may or may not have been synonymous with the word "policy." Since there is no attempt to make the wording of the letter more specific, the precise meaning of this sentence cannot be ascertained by the Chair and must be viewed as the opinion of the Honourable Mini ster. 325 No suggestion has been made, nor any evidence presented, that the Honourable Minister of Finance deliberately misled the House. The remarks of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry have been quoted in support of the Honourable Minister, and Han sard shows these as being spoken just over a year ago.

A careful reading shows that the Honourable Member for Fort Garry was of the opinion that the government should have taken certain actions one year previously. Whether the same actions should have been taken at the time the remarks were made is unclear, as is whether that action is still recommended by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. Also unclear is whether a recommendation that the government should have taken some action previously constitutes a statement that it represents the policy of the Ho nourable Member for Fort Garry.

A careful study of the remarks of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition during question period shows an attempt to deal with the possibilities contained in the letter and an uncertainty as to which opinion was intended, if indeed there were not more than one. lt is clear that once the matters of disorder and unparllamentary langual:ie are removed as matters of order, what remains is a difference of opinion between two members.

Our Rules contain an appendix concerning matterS of privilege which qu otes Citation 19(1) of Beauchesne saying, "A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege". Previous Speakers have ruled accordingly on numerous occasions in the past, and there is no reason that these precedents should be contravened. ORAL QUESTIONS Camperville - self-government MR. SPE AK I: R: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANN ESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the First Minister.

My understanding is, today, that almost half of Manitoba's Indian students on four major reserves have been told not to attend school since the government is advocating self­ government. Is the Provincial Government taking any action In this matter at all; are they involved? MR . SPEAK ER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to you that this is a federal matter falling under federal jurisdiction. - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKE R: Order please.

The Honourable Member for Morris should restrict his remarks to matters which are within the adminis trative competence of this government. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNE SS : Mr. Speaker, I am well aware this is a federal jurisdiction, in part, but the fact that these are Manitoba chi ldren, again I pose the question,

Tuud ay. 1 May, 1884 whether the gove rn ment is inv olved and, more importantly, do they have any idea how long the situation will continue? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think the Indian people have demonstrated that they more fully understand the responsible jurisdiction themselves. They are demonstrating in front of - acc ording to my understanding - the Department of Indian Affairs, Government of Canada. Hydro power - Memorandum of Understanding MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Government House Leader, seeking his assurance and clarification. I have the understanding that he assured the House that the details, the contract of the Northern States Power Agreement would be made availabl e to members of the Ho use, and par ticular ly members of the oppos ition, prior to Manit oba Hydro appearing before Public Utilities Committee. Can he confirm that understanding? .• R. SPE AKER: The Honourable Government House eader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I stand behind the assurance I gave the House a week to 10 days ago, that is our intention.

Chickens - imported into Manitoba MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the Minister of Agricultur e confirm that thousands of pounds of chicken are being imported into Manitoba to replace chicken that could be produced and processed by Manit oba employees and Mani toba farmers, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPE AK ER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSK I: Mr. Speaker , I answered that question over a week ago. dealing with our position vis-a-vis our negotiations in terms of national marketing.

The honourable member should be aware that when he was Minister he allowed national provincial boards to opt for other criteria, other than comparative advantage, in negotiating overbase quota. As a result we have been fighting a rear-guard action for over two years, to get back to the basis of national market share using the major criteria of comparative advantage, because Manitoba producers are, Sir, one of the lowest cost-of-production producers anywhere in this country and Manitoba should have additional market share in terms of quota. lt is true, Mr.

Speaker, that there is quota that we believe Manitoba producers should have additionally. 326 We appealed a ruling of the National Natural Products Marketing Council; we did receive additional quota. We don't believe it is adequate for our production base and our needs in this province and we will continue to press. But, Sir, we would not be in that position had it not been for the former adminis tration allowing other criteria, other than comparative advantage, to allow for the production of agricultural products in this province, Sir. MR . J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I thought the question to the Minister of Agricultu re was straightforward. I asked him whether or not there was any chicken being imported into Manitoba to meet the needs of the consumers and not being able to be met by the Manito ba farmers who produce chicken. The second question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture is, will he give notice to the National Chicken Marketing Agency and to the other participants in the Chicken Marketing Agency, that Manitoba will opt out, so Manitoba producers can produce food for Manitoba consumers and create the kind of economic climate that we should have in this province, Mr. Speak er, and get on with the job of taking his responsibility seriously and not giving us the kind of rhetoric he's been giving us since his Ministry? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell the honourable member, we wouldn't be in this position that we are in now had it not been for his mismana gement and his government's mismanagement. Sir, we will not abandon orderly marketing and price support for the producers of this province on the basis of blackmail. That's what the honourable member is suggesting, that we blackmail the rest of the provinces in this country, that we should, in fact, opt out if they don't give us more quota. Mr.

Speaker, we have a position vis-a-vis the national legislation, that comparative advantage should be the dominant criterion In terms of allocating overbase quota, in terms of production of all commodities. We have taken that consistent approach over the last two years and we have, thr ough co-operation with all our marketing agencies, taken that stand and we have done it in co-operation, not done it in the way that the honourable member suggests, that we should pull out and we should blackmail the rest of the provinces if they don't cave in. We want to work in a spirit of co-operation.

We believe that there is an ability of Manitoba producers to produce for this market as well as other markets, because we are a lower cost-of-production province. Sir, that is the position we will continue to take. Flyer Industries Limited MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Sir, my question is to the Minister of Indu stry and Technology and I believe responsible for Flyer Industries. Can the Min ister advise the House why Flyer Industries has placed a contract with the Ontario

Research Council or Foundation, to do an industrial computer assessment of the construction of Flyer buses to supply information as to construction problems in the manufacture of the bus? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOST YRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That information is something that I can't confirm. it's been public knowledge for some time now, that Flyer is having some tests done on its buses by the Ontario Research Council with respect to looking at some problems that exist with respect to the contract and the buses that were delivered to the City of Chi cago. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Can the Minister advise or confirm to the House why the Ontario Research Foundation subcontracts the contract to the Manitoba Technology Centre, because CADCAM the Manitoba computer, which the government is very proud of and should be because it's a state-of-the-art computer, why they sublet the contract to the Manitoba Technology Centre, because 1\t.anitoba had the equipment and the Ontario Research Foundation does not have the equipment to do the job? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll have to take that question as no tice and provide the information subsequent to today.

Demonstration at U.S. Consulate - inquiry MR. SP EA KER : The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MER CIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker, could the Attorney-General advise, when he ordered an inquiry into the anti-American demonstration in front of the U.S. Consulate, did he have knowledge that the Vice­ Chairman of the Manito ba Police Commission was in attendance at that demonstration?

Can he assure us that a fair hearing can be held by the remaining members of the Manit oba Police Commission in that the Vice-Chairman, who will not sit, has not discussed that matter with the remaining members of the Police Commission? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. A. PENNER : First of all, Mr. Speaker, no, I was not aware that the Vice-Chairman of the Manitoba Pol ice Commi ssion was in attendance at the demonstration in question, but the Member for St. Norbert doesn't read very well or forgets too easily. The person actually heading the Commission is Mr.

Perry Schulman, Q.C., who ran as a Conservative against me in Fort Rouge, and was appointed by me - (Int erjection) - who was appointed by me because I have every confidence in his integ rity, as I do in the Vice-Chairman of the Commission who, as said and it's quoted in the paper today, deliberately did not choose to participate in the proceedings in any way because he understood the basic rules of conflict of interest. Deputy Attorney-General - appointment of MR. G. MER CIER: Mr. Speaker, we have no concerns about Mr. Schulman, only the balance of the members of the Commission, Mr.

Speaker, appointed by this government. Mr. Speaker, a second question to the Attorney­ :Jeneral. Could the Attorney-General advise when a new Deputy Attorney-General will be appointed, and can he assure the House that the next Deputy will be appointed from within the existing members of the department? 327 HON. A. PENNER: No, I can't give that assurance. We have advertised nationa lly. We received a number of applications both from within and without. A number of persons have been interviewed. A second round of int erviewing has taken place.

Two persons were interviewed in the second round on Monday; another two persons will be interviewed in the second round of interviews on or about the 9th of May. I can simply say to the honourable member at this stage that the majority of those being interviewed are from within the department. There are two positio�s. in fact, to be filled, the Deputy consequent upon the retirement of Gordon Pilkey - and I am pleased to note that the honourable member paid tribute to Mr.

Pilkey yesterday; I will have occasion to do so later on - and we have to fill the position of an Assistant Deputy, consequent on the elevation to the Court of Queen's Bench of Mr. Gil Goodman. Again, 1 am happy to note that the Member for St. Norbert paid tribute to Mr. Goodman, as I'll have occasion to do later on in these proceedings. Free trade zone - movement to MR. SP EAK ER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR . A. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister of Business Development and Tourism, I believe the right handle is.

Could he inform the House whether his department is monitoring and is doing any studies with regard to the exodus of a number of manufacturers from the Province of Manitoba to the free trade zone in Grand Forks? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister for Business Development. HON. S. USKI W: Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that the member is trying to address the small-business sector when he is refer ring the question to this department. If it has something to do with international trade then he should direct it of course to my colleague, the Minister in charge of Trade and Technolo gy.

I am not aware specifically, Mr. Speaker, but I will take the matter under advisement. MR. A. BANMAN: A question then to the Mini ster of Trade and Techno logy. I wonder if he could inform the House whether his department is monitoring or is doing any studies with regard to the stated intention of a number of manufacturers in Man itoba to move their

TuesdaJ, 1 May, 1984 manufacturing facilities to the free trade zone in Grand Forks? MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOS TYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, our department is monitoring those developments with respect to the free trade zone in the United States. We're also involved in discussions with the Federal Government as they have recently indicated that they are considering that concept for areas of Canada. I might indicate that we are concerned about that development.

However, it's interesting to note that in one case I am aware of there was a Manitoba manufacturer operating out of - I believe it was Winkler or Morden - that established an American subsidiary for the distribution and the final manufacturing of a soap product - I believe it was a hockey puck soap - which resulted in some five or six additional jobs at that manufacturer's base plant in southern Manitoba. So in that particular circumstance, the access to the free trade zone provided a Manitoba manufacturer with a base of operations into the American market.

But as I indicated, we are concerned and are monitoring that development very closely. MR. R. BANMAN : In light of the fact that Mayor Bill Norrie of the City of Winnipeg has been advocating this type of a free trade zone for certain parts of Winnipeg - and I guess in his particular instance to the City of Winnipeg - has the government been working with the city in order to check with the Federal Government as to the status of a free trade zone being established in Manitoba? HON. E.

KOS TYRA: As I indicated in response to the previous discussion, we are aware of that development and there has been discussions at the federal level with regard to the possibility of free trade zones in Canada. We will continue to participate in those discussions and to ensure whatever developments there are will be of benefit to the Province of Manitoba. Sales tax exemption - motorcycle helmets MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCH AR D: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance annou nced sales tax exemption for motorcycle helmets effective Apri125, would the Minister give consideration to making that sales tax exemption retroactive to January 1st, the proclamation date of the helmet law? A ME MBER: Good idea. A MEMBER: That makes sense. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SC HROEDER: Mr. Speaker, on the helmets purchased between then and the day the Budget announcement was made, the tax has already been paid.

I think that there would be a great deal of administrative difficulty in having rebates; there would be people who didn't have their receipts, others who do. The changes that were announced on Budget night took effect right after the announcement. MR. D. OR CHARD: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the Mini ster recognizes that the new law caused the purcha se of safety equipment such as motorcycle helmets, would he not believe that it is worth the administrative effort in the Department of Finance to make a refund available to those law-abiding motorcycle operators, riders and passengers who purchased helmets after Januar y 1s t to comply with his government's law? Would it not be fair and equitable to those people to make available a sales tax exemption, by application, by people who have spent anywhere from $5 to $15 on sales tax for safety equipment now exempt?

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Hear! Hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question asks for an opinion of the member. Would the honourable member please seek information from the Treasury Bench? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR . D. OR CHARD: I would ask the Minister of Finance if he would not consider it fair and equitable to provide an exemption of sales tax paid on motorcycle helmets purchased from January 1st till April 24th to comply with the safety helmet law imp lemented by his government? MR. SPEAKER: That question also asks for an opinion. The Honourable Member for Pembina. 328 MR. D. OR CHAR D : Mr.

Speaker, will the Mini ster of Finance do something for the people of Manitoba and provide retroactive sales tax refund and treat with justice and fairness those motorcycle riders and passengers who have complied with his government's law? Is that a question, Mr. Speaker? A MEMBER : That's a good question. McKenzie Seeds MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. The Standing Committee on Economic Development will be meeting next Thursday to consider the report of A. E.

McKenzie Ltd. for the period ending 31s t of October, 1983. Since the Member for Brandon East, the now Minister of Employment Services was the Mini ster responsible for McKenzie Seeds during the period of time when there was considerable upheaval in the corporation, will the First Minister assure us that the Member for Brandon East will be in attendance at the committee and will be answering questions from members of the committee concerning his role as Mini ster responsible for A.E. McKenzie?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , I'm sure that the honourable member will be in attendance and will be there. He will participate in due process as indeed would any other Member of this Legislature. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question to the First Minister was, would he be there and answer questions from other members of the committee, in view of his having been the Minister respo nsible? - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, they make reference to, do I know the rules?

We know full well that he was the de facto Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds for two years and answered questions before the committee. Will the First Minister give the assurance that he will be there and will answer questions from members of the committee? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the member will be there and the rules will be followed as they have been followed in the previous proceedings of committees within the Legislature. I'm sure that the normal practice of the committee will be followed. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, that answer means that he will not be answering questions.

My request is, will the First Minister consider directing, requesting his Minister responsible for Employment Services to go to the committee meeting and be prepared to answer questions from members of the committee, not just to participate in the debate, as a mem ber, but to answer questions? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister of Employment Services. HON. L. EVANS: Ye s, thank you, Mr.

Speaker. lt is my intention to attend the meeting of the Economic Dev elopment Committee of the Legislature, I've been looking forward to it for some time. 1 notice that there is some conflict with the Public Utilities Committee, but I've already indicated to the House Leader that I'd like to be removed from that committee so that I could be in attendance at the Economic Dev elopment Committee meeting. I might add, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what the rules are, but I'd be very happy and prepared to debate and discuss this matter with the Honourable Member from Turtle Mountain, and I can advise him I have many questions to ask of him and his government when they were in power and when all of these items were established. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Can we just have one question at a time? The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to appear before the committee as a witne ss sworn under oath.

Will the Member for Brandon East be prepared to do the same thing? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 329 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, this government on this side has been very open; this government has taken steps to remedy what has been a bad situation, admitted ly, in respect to McKenzie Seeds, a situation thcot goes back for some period of time. 1"his government is prepared to respond to questions. The Honourable Memb er for Brandon East has indicated that he has questions of his own to pose.

I'm sure the Member for Turtle Mountain has questions to pose. Those questions will be dealt with in committee according to the normal processes of committee, Mr. Sp eaker, and this commi ttee will follow those procedures that have been traditionally followed but, if the honourable member wants debate, if he wants questions, I am sure that the Honourable Member for Brandon East, the Minister re sponsible for Employment, will be ready for him come the committee hearing. MANDAN Line MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to provide some information that had been asked by members opposite regarding the process on the MANDAN Line Routes Select ion, and I'd like to inform mem bers of the House that the Provincial Government Regulatory Agency is pres ently in the process of finalizing the preferred route for the MANDAN Line, and ongoing discussions are still taking place with the Nebraska Power Authority and with The State of North Dakota officials.

Pending a satisfactory completion of these discussions, a preferred route will be announced and made known to the public, after which a series of open house meetings will be held. Final approval of the preferred route is subject to Manitoba Hydro filing an environ mental impact statement on the preferred route with the Provincial Review Agenc y. Those discussions are taking place. lt would appear that the

schedule will be delayed a bit, and that the discussions with the authorities to the south of us will have to continue and I would expect that, once a better grasp is gotten as to when the route selection could be made public, the appropriate people will be informed so that they can be informed of the preferred route selection, and then be able to express their concerns or their comments at open meetings after that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: I thank you, Honourable Minister, for that response to earlier questions. I O'lly have one que stion to the Honourable Minister.

I apprecia te that the original date for route· se le ction has now come and gone but, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Honourable Minister is the date that the Manitoba Hydro had set for itself for approval from the National Energy Board was for September of'84; is that a date that is still being looked for as achievable by Manitoba Hydro and by this govern ment? · HON. W PARASIUK: One of the questions would, indeed, be the route and the border crossing, and that

Tuesday, 1 May, 1984 is the matter that still is under discussion. I expect that the September 1st date will not be able to be met and the National Energy Board will have to hear this at a later date. Shoal Lake cottage development - road access MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, Mr. Speaker , my que stion is to the Minister of Urban Affairs. In light of statements made by the Indian Band at Shoal Lake about the cottage development, is the government planning to allow road access? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr.

Speaker , there is a committee that is dealing with all of the situations that arise out of the Shoal Lake problems, if we want to call them that, and the requests from the Bands and so on. That commit tee is chaired by a provincial government em ployee, he is the Deputy of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health. My Deputy Minister, Mr. Peter Diamond, also attends those committee meetings, but is not involved in an active way because the chairperson was decided to be Mr. Tom Owens.

As far as their discussions regard ing road access, I don't know that that has come up at their last meeting, and I would ask that if my colleague has some more information on that, perhaps we can get the information for the mem ber. I don't know that that particular item was under discussion at their last meeting. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Well, then my question would be to the Minister of the Environment. Has there been any discussion, and is the province planning to allow road access? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter for the Environment. HON. G. LE CUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think as everyone knows that is only one of a numb er of issues that are under consideration with the Indian Band IR 40, and that there are three levels of government involved in the current discussions. In order to facilitate and arrive as speedily as possible to some conclusion to these discussions all three parties have agreed that they would negotiate on a regular basis, and meet on a regular basis to try and expedite these negotiations, but keep these negotiations private until such a solution is arrived at. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, I have a further question to the Minister.

Can he assure the people of Manitoba, and especially the citizens of Winnipeg, that the Band won't go ahead with the cottage development while they're busy, the three levels of government are busy discussing, and what assurance can he give the City of Winnipeg and the citizens that our water supply will be protected? HON. G. LE CUYER: I think for the honourable member I should indicate that the Band itself, of course, is a 330 party to these negotiations and sits at these meetings and, obviously, that is one of the issues that I referred to that is part of those negotiat ions.

Therefore, I fail to see how that would happen as the member seems to indicate MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. A. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that I believe access to Shoal Lake would have to possibly come through the Whiteshell Provincial Park, I wonder if the Minister in charge of Parks could advise the House whether or not he has issued a permit to the Shoal Lake Indian Band to build a road? MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker. MA. A.

BANMAN: I wonder if the Minister could advise the House whether or not there is an application, or is the department entertai ning any proposal which would see a road built through the Whiteshell Provincial Park either coming out at Falcon Lake or close to East Braintree. HON. A. MACKLING: . Mr. Speak er, I believe my colleague, the Honourable Minister of Environment, did outline that the whole question of development by the Shoal Lake Indian Band is a matter that is the subject of dis cussion between the Band, the Federal Government, the Provincial Government and the City of Winnipeg.

I don't think it enha nces the prospects of reasonable settlement of those discussions to articulate individual matters here. MA. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker , in light of the fact that both Falcon Lake and East Braintree are In my area, and in light of the fact that citizens in that particular area would be affected by any development within the park or any road changes, could the Minister assure this House that before any deals are struck with the Shoal Lake Indian Band, some consideration is given to consulting with residents and cottage owners of the area in dealing with that particular proposal? HON. A.

MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows that this government has an excellent record in respect to consultation before decision s are made that take away or impinge upon any rights. The adoption of the Whiteshell Master Plan is certainly a case in point, and I'm sure the honourable member's constituents will verify the excellence of that exercise and the abundant opportunity his constituents had to register their concerns in respect to park develop ment, particularly the Whiteshell. MA. A. BANMAN: lt is precisely for that reason I asked the question.

The people out in that particular area were opposed to the Minister's move, the majority were. Mr. Speak er, If the Minister would be so kind this time to assure us that there will be some public meetings or that the public will be allowed to have input before

any permits or rights are given to the building of a road within the provincial park or within the region of East Braintree or the Falcon Lake area, and assure this House and my constituents that they will have an input into anything that's going to happen out there, and that it is not a fait accompli that he just comes out and announces it when it's done. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, somewhere within that speech, there was a question. The honourable member seems to indicate a state of affairs that I don't think exists. He says that his constituents are displeased about the Whiteshell Master Plan.

I haven't seen that dis pleasure noted in the correspondence I have received. I haven't received requests from his constituents for a re-evaluation of the decisions that were made over an extensive period of time, where there was effe ctive consultation and an opportunity for all of his constituents to play a role in that decision­ making process. To hear him now say that there is considerable discontent, I believe it's the honourable mem ber, Mr. Speaker, who is unhappy because, as former Minister responsible, he made some very serious blunders and he's em barrassed by them. Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to consultation, this government has no equal in the Province of Manitoba. 1 can assure the honourable member that those affected by decisions of this Minister will be consulted. Freon - certificate for use of MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. w. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of questions for clarification to the Honourable Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, constituents of mine have been at a course at Gimli regarding the management of these refrigeration plants and the management of arenas.

They go there and they deal with Freon, which is the type of element that's used in rinks in rural Manitoba. For some strange reason, they're not entitled to a certificate. Ye t, those who work in arenas in the city and manage arenas where those rinks use ammonia, they go there and they are entitled to a certificate. Can the Minister tell me what's the difference between the Freon and the ammonia management of these rinks, and why one group is entitled to certificates and the others are not? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I cenainly will take that as notice.

Sometimes the very technical items that are licensed by the Mechanical and Engineering Branch of the Department of Labour - everything from ferris wheels to ammonia - do take some detailed study. I will have an answer for the member shortly. MR. W. McKENZIE: One other question for clarification, Mr. Speaker . Can the Minister explain, is there some vehicle whereby-they can work back and forth on ammonia one day and Freon the next under the same certificate? 331 A MEMBER: As long as it doesn't go to their heads. HON. M.B.

DOLIN: Ye s, we'll see that it doesn't go to their heads, as the honourable members are saying. However , I would think that the certificate would obviously have to be for both if they were going to be certified to work with both. That's exactly, I think, the qu,.stion he was asking. We will determine whether there is a technical difference enough to make licensing different for ammonia and Freon, or whether they should be knowledgeable about both. We would certainly want to expand their skill base , if at all possible. Suicides in corrections facilities MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Rhineland. MR. A.

BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services and Corrections. During the past few months, we have experienced two suicides at Heading ley, and also during that period of time a death and problems have been reported at the Remand Centre. My question to the Minister is this: Can shA explain why these incidents seem to be increasing at both these centres? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speakar, it is beyond my power to give any explanation as to why they are increasing other than, I suppose, conjecture that we are bringing into the correction system people who are more and more disturbed as a result of a multitude of things, all the way from unemployment on through greater use of drugs and alcohol, all those issues which we are trying to approach in a constructive way in other areas.

But I can assure the honourable member that we are not waiting for tragedies of the sort that have occurred to review in a very thorough way the facilities and the policies and practices, both at the Remand Centre and Headi ngley. Whenever an incident of this sort occurs, we do get a very thorough report. If there is any immed iate improvement we can make in procedures or facilities, we do that. As I have already informed the mem ber, we have moved to improve the viewing area in the Remand Centre drunk tanks. We have ensured that there is a regular medical checkup and review by the staff.

Really, the increase in precautionary measures, the list is quite long, and I would be more than happy to share that information in greater detail with the honourable mem ber. Group home incident MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. Following the murder of a resident in a group home by another resident of that group home, and because concern had been expressed about this person's behaviour and concern expressed that this resident was increasingly expressing dangerous tendencies . MR. SPEAKER: Question.

Tueeda� 1 Ma� 1984 MR. A. BROWN: . . . can the Minister inform this House why th ese concerns were not add ressed by her department? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, because the incident involved a post-mentally ill person who was in a home licensed by our department, but whose medical treatment was under the health portfolio, both the Minister of Health and myself have asked for a full investigation into the situation.

I've had a preliminary report from the forensic psychiatrist but there is more information to come so, with respect, I and the Minister of Health will see that the House gets a fuller report in a few days. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER : Order please. The time for Oral Questions having expired, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery. We have 53 students of Gr ade 10 standing from the Pinawa Secondary SchooL The students are under the direction of Mr. Mike Biglow and Mr. George Turner. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Min ister of Business Development.

On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MR. SP EAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance and the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Hon ourable Min ister of Natural Resources has 40 minutes remaining. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, it is a delight for me to have the privilege, once again, of participating in a serious consideration of the Budget of the Province of Manitoba.

I have some reservation about saying, serious consideration, because I must admit that some of the speeches I've heard, some of the comments I have heard, lead me to believe that some of the comments weren't all that serious. Mr. Speaker, I approach the discussion of the Budget of the Province of Manitoba with very serious concern, a concern that we in this House will reflect, and reflect deeply, on the economic issues that face, not only people in Manitoba, people in Canada and people thr oughout the world. Mr.

Speaker, in addressing economic problems we have to look at the type of philosophy that people have toward government, and what government can do to improve the qu ality of life for men and women everywhere. Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party, the successor to the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, has always adopted an approach about putting people first, humanity first, corporations second.

The philosophy that comes through when Conservatives - oh, they call themselves Progressive Conservatives - but when Conservatives talk about taxation, when they talk about raising funds through government, their philosophy comes through. You know they have a 332 different universality theo ry, Mr. Speaker. They believe, and the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek will hear more on this, they believe that everyone has the right - well they may even call it a privilege - to pay exactly the same for services as everyone else. Mr.

Speaker, the first New Democratic Party in government in Manitoba did something that angered Conservatives in this province because what we did was abolish Medicare premiums, hospital and medical premiums. We transferred that load off the backs of indi viduals to government. Whether you were a millionaire, or whether you were a pensioner on fixed income, prior to that decision, you paid the same kind of levy. lt was called a premium. Mr. Speaker, that is a tax. Let me say more about premiums.

The Unemployment Insurance, and thank goodness for Unemployment Insurance in Canada because it has meant that there's been a continual flow of money to facilitate the ongoing program of people, so that people will have money with which to buy the necessities of life, but the Unemployment Insurance contribution, as it is called, is a premium; it is identified as a premium. Why is it identified as a premium? Well, that's the way it was orchestrated. lt goes into a fund, but we all know that the Federal Government, when that fund goes down, puts more money into it.

Unemployment Insurance is being funded out of the · corporate wealth of Canada, and so it should be. Unemployment Insurance does have a contributory aspect to it but we, in Canada, through Unemployment Insurance, are providing a continuation of a measure of security for all Canadians. Why am I talking about premiums, Mr. Speaker? Because old-line parties have looked upon premiums as a way of collecting revenue without facing the fact that they are really taxes; they're poll taxes. They don't take into consideration the ability of the person to pay those taxes. What a crime that is, Mr. Speaker.

In Ontario, in Alberta, you're a single person, you pay over $300 for your Medicare premium. Alberta the same. If you're a married person you pay over $600.00. lt doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker, whether you're earning $7,000 a year or you're earning $10 0 ,000 a year - you see it's fair to all, you all pay the same. That's the kind of fairness, that's the kind of univ ersality that Conservatives, like we see across from us in this Chamber, and Conservatives like Peter Pocklington and Michael Wilson - those real Progressive Conservatives throughout Canada. That's their concept of universality in health care. Mr.

Speaker, the New Democratic Party, as the CCF before it, does not look upon health care as a privilege or a licence and if you pay your premium you get the privilege or you get the licence. We believe that universal health care is a right for all and must be funded by all. We believe that the wealth of all should be used to fund universal health care. In 19 70, when we abolished Medicare premiums in this province, that, Mr. Speak er, was a massive redistribution of income In this province. Conservatives pay lip service to universality and fairness in respect to health care funding.

Earlier in my contribution in the Throne Speech, I exposed the kind of idea that was being planted by Conservatives in Manitoba. Well, wouldn't you accept additional fees by doctors if you

could charge it off against your income tax? Sure you could, if you paid any tax. But, Mr. Speaker, that's - (Interjection) - There is some sickness across the aisle and not being a doctor I won't endeavour to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, we've heard in this Budget Debate vicious, unthinking, ignorant attacks upon the economic initiativ es of this government. Mr. Speaker, in days earlier we heard insults being thrown against the Jobs Fund. They talked about the "fraud" fund, Mr. Speaker.

What a shame it is that those members made those statements because when they go back to their constitue ncies, where the Jobs Fund initiativ es have recorded specific jobs for their constituents, they should hang their heads in shame, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, honourable members, let's reflect on the kind of economic thrust they would have. The first thing they would do is eliminate the Jobs Fund; they would eliminate that spending. Well, Mr. Speaker, they would sit back and say, well, free enterprise will do it.

Well, that's the kind of message that they gave Man itobans for four years, and we know what happened. Mr. Speaker, you know, if we wanted to, we could virtually eliminate our current deficit on current spending by just cancelling the Jobs Fund spending and pay off that deficit, but that wouldn't fuel our economy; that wouldn't generate any jobs; that wouldn't do anything to try to address the sick economic era in which we live. They know that, Mr. Speak er, but they are hidebound by a doctrinaire, do-nothing philosophy that constrains the conservative thought in this country. Mr.

Speaker, what we faced when we came into office was economic stagnation. Yes, we had to prime the pump; yes, we had to facilitate the engine of private enterprise to work again. That's nothing new, it's been demonstrated in ages past but, Mr. Speaker, the proposals from the other side of this Chamber would have us reverse all that, they'd have us cut back. They say eliminate the deficit by cutting spending, and when we say cut spending where? There's a deafening silence, Mr. Speaker.

They will talk about education, they'll talk about a miscellany of vague areas where they suggest they would cut government spending. Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant features of this Budget is the fact that, for the first time in some years in this province, there has been a concerned endeavor to deal with some of the taxpayers at the bottom end of the scale. Mr.

Speaker, as a result of the carefully balanced Budget that the Honourable Finance Minister brought before us, there are 60,000 people in Manitoba, 60,000 people who file income tax returns, who will have their provincial income taxes reduced by an average of $55.00. Well you may say, well, you know that's really nothing, nothing of any consequence. lt's of significant consequence to people in those categories, Mr. Speaker.

When you appreciate the fact, and if you look at your 1983 tax return and calculate, an individual earning the minimum wage, $4 an hour, working 40 hours a week, and if he worked the 52 weeks in the year and was paid for his two weeks holidays, he/she would earn $8,320.00. What kind of tax would they pay, Mr. Speaker? My calculation says they would be entitled to the standard basic exemption of $3,770, the $1 00 333 standard deduction, a total of $3,870, they'd have taxable income. That individual would have taxable income of $4,450.00. They'd pay a total of $745.40 tax.

Now, that is a shame, a person on minimum wage. How would honourable members over here like to live on the minimum wage? Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I know that they would :;hrlnk from that thought, Mr. Speaker, and yet not one of them paid any credit to the initiativ es of the Finance Minister, of trying to provide some relief to the poor taxpayer in this province. Mr. Speaker, we have a sick situation in tax in this country, a very sick situation. I referred to Peter Pocklington earlier.

He was one of those leadership hopefuls for the Progressive Conservative Party who had a new answer to taxation in Canada. - (Interjection) - He was going to have a flat tax, that's right. lt's the kind of thinking that Tories have, it's flat, unimaginative, universally flat. Mr. Speaker, his approach was 22 percent for everyone, 20 or 22 percent for everyone. Rich, poor, it didn't matter what you were you all paid the same, just like the premium tax that they pay in Al berta, the premium tax they pay in Ontario. Everybody gets treated alike, whether you're on the minimum wage or you're earning $1 00,000.00.

That's th(' Conservative idea of a fair kind of reform of tax in this country. Mr. Speaker, some may well say, but Mr. Pocklington, he's kind of different, he's kind of, not only eccentric, but his economic or tax theories are rather wild. Well, Mr. Speaker, just the other night . . . Well, I'll wait until the honourable members over there subside a little bit, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just the other night as I got home after our Session last night in this Chamber, I had the opportunity to watch the conclusion of a program in which Mr. Eric Kierans and Mr. Michael Wilson were talking about tax reform. Mr.

Michael Wilson had this Conservative theory, again, you know, the universal flat approach. What he would do is all tax filers would pay a flat rate of 22 percent. Kierans, to his credit, was saying, that's not fair. A MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. HON. A. MACKLING: Oh, you don't have a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: I'll answer a question at the end. Mr. Kierans, on the other hand, said, "Look, that's not fair. The person at the low end of the scale hasn't got the ability to pay that same amount of tax." The whole system, Mr.

Speaker, is riddled with ridiculous anomalies in respect to tax. The honourable Conservative spokesman was Michael Walker, I apologize to Michael Wilson. You know, we had Wilson; there are so many people in Manitoba who have the name Bob Wilson that Wilson was ringing in my ears from time to time. I know there's a great affection for that name in Manitoba and I don't want to do anything to . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, there is a real sickness. Well, the honourable member over there complains that he is ill. Mr. Speaker, I think he is ill because he is fixed with a paranoia that is common to Conservatives in this country; an ability not to reaso n. not to take a fresh look, not to consider a new way, a fair way, a just way. What they have, Mr. Speaker, is a paranoia about following polls. They have an idea that polls can lead them somewhere. I take, Mr. Speaker, the approach of the - wel l, not quite the approach, reasonably close.

I have some respect for polls, a good deal more than hone st John Diefenbaker, however, I do respect his viewpoint in respect of polls, that they are convenient places for dogs to deal with. We ll, the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek th inks tha t's funny. I th ough t th at when John Diefenbaker said that he was very funny. Mr. Speaker , our tax laws are riddled with injustice. Let me, for a few moments, deal with some of that injustice.

For many years democratic socialists have recog nized that despite Canada's enormous wealth and the native compassion of its people, gross inequities have continued to exist in our social and economic structure. The traditional use of the term "mix ed economy" acknowledges the co-existence of private and public enterprise within our society. In Canada, the mixed economy has advanced beyond the co-existence of public and private enterprise. lt has reached the stage where private business is increasingly supported by the public purse in the form of tax concessions.

The religion of capital investment has been the motivating force behind the creat ion of corporate states. To induce capital investments, post-war governments have looked for and have found virtually every means imaginable to provide incentives. The most important, because it is the most costly to the individual taxpa yer, is the use of capital co:;t allowance. Capital cost allowances are not the only concessions given to corporations, but they are the most significant in economic terms. Besides draining revenue from the government, they introduce a bias in the direction of our economic gr owt h.

As a result th e individual Canadian is hit two ways. In the first place, individual taxpayers have had to make up for the revenue losses incurred by higher allowances to corporations. Let me point this out, Mr. Speaker. In 1954, the Federal Government of the Day collected $1.17 billion in income tax from individuals -$1.17 billion - compared to $1. 05 billion from corporations, pretty close, not all that dispari ty, almost 50 percent one would say. Now, 30 years later the gap has widened dramatically to the corporation's advantage.

In 1982, Ottawa colle cted $26 billion in income tax from individuals, and only $8 billion from corporations. Let me repeat that - 1982, 26 billion from individuals; 8 billion from corporations. This means that individuals were shouldering 76 percent of the tax burden, compared to the corporations' 24 percent. What kind of govern ment have we had in Ottawa in all those years? Mr. Speak er, this devel opment has taken place largely out of public view, partly because evidence of it is often 334 confined to footnotes. Officially, corporations pay a tax rate of 46 percent.

In fact, as I stated earlier, their rates are often dramatically lower. Effecti ve corporate tax rates reduced to 22 percent in 1980 from an average of 28 percent in 1968, down from 1968 and 1980 by 6 percentage points. Aggregate numbers can cloud the picture because they do not reflect the considerable discrepancies within the corporate sect or itself, and fail to indicate how low some individual corporate rates are. Mr. Speaker, some of the largest, most profitable corporations in Canada pay the lowest rate of tax. Shell Canada is a good example.

I would like the Honourable Member for Lakeside to recognize the fact that I am about to read . Reading the Shell Annual Report, one gets the impressi on that the oil giant pays an onerous burden of income tax. Shell's 1982 Annual Report pegs the company's income taxes at $152 million on pre-tax profits of $302 million. Let me repeat that: 1982 Annual Report, their income tax is at $152 million on pre-tax profits of $302 million. In a footnote - harken, Mr. Speaker , a footnote merely - it calculates that this gives the company an effective income tax rate of 50.4 perc ent, a hefty rate by any standards.

But another footnote - harken, Mr. Speaker, another footnote - downturns that 50.4 percent figure, turns that on its head. lt indicates that Shell deferred $199 million in taxes that year. This wipes out the $152 · million tax bill, leaves Shell with no tax to pay. In fact, Shell has a tax credit of $47 million. How do you like that, Mr. Speaker? The bottom line is a far cry from the 50.4 percent that I first mentioned. Defe rring taxes is one of the key ways in which the tax system allows corporations to reduce their tax burdens.

The word "deferred " is, in fact, misleading, because almost all cases the taxes are deferred indefin itely. David Perry, a researc her at the Canadian Tax Foundation, says and I quote: "lt's not a question of owing the money at a later date. In a sense, it's a measure of tax relief provided by various measures in The Income Tax Act." lt's not a matter of owing it at a later date, but a matter of tax relief. That is what David Perry says, of the Canadian Tax Foundation, not known as a socialist spokesperso n.

Jean-Jacques Carrier , a spokesman for Consolidated Bathurst, puts it more bluntly and I quote: "If you ask me when we expect to pay these, I'll tell you, never. " Over the years, Consolidated Bathurst has accumulated $208 million in deferred taxes. Yet acc ording to accepted Canadian accounting principles, companies include these deferred taxes as already being paid when they calculate their tax rates. This is why corporations report far higher income tax rates than they actually pay. lt explains, for instance, why Consolidated Bathurst reported a tax rate of 34.7 percent in 1982, even though, Mr.

Speaker, it paid no income tax whatsoever. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, honourable members opposite don't like to hear criticism of their corporate friends, and I regret that. Former Liberal Cabinet Minister, Eric Kierans notes that large corporations in a few sectors have reaped the most significant benefits. He says: "What does a two-year depreciation mean to a new firm? Nothing at all," says Mr. Kierans. "Deferred taxes accumulate in corporate accounts. In 1971, they amounted to $2.78 billion." I would like the honourable mem bers to reflect

Tuesday, 1 ... , 19M on that. Deferred taxes in corporate accounts of $2.78 billion. That was 197 1. At the end of 1980, they had increased almost 10 times to $24.24 billion, more than the federal deficit at the time - deferred taxation, $24.24 billion. In 1980, firms deferred taxes worth $3.9 billion. These benefits were by no means equally distri buted among the 450,000 firms in Canada. The 13 percent of firms that benefited so heavily from tax deferrals in 1980 are the same firms that have enjoyed the lion's share of tax deferral benefits over the years.

Of $24 billion in accumulated deferred taxes, $19 billion were claimed by 13 percent of the Canadian firms. In 1980, Bell Canada deferred taxes of $129 million, bringing its total accumulated deferred taxes to $1. 2 billion; Stelco deferred $30 million, bringing its deferred taxes to $390 million; MacMillan Bloedel deferred $55 million bringing its total to $227 million. In 1982, Gulf Canada paid taxes of $67 million and deferred $106 million. In 1968 corporations were deferring 14 perce nt of their total tax bill. In 1968 they were deferring 14 perce nt. How many individuals in Canada can do that? None.

In 1980, these same corporations were deferring 25 percent of their tax bill. How would you like to be able to tell your constituents, don't worry, you know you had a profitable year in your farming opera tion, you can defer 25 perce nt indefinitely like the corporations do. lt would be pretty nice. The lower tax rates are generally found among the largest corporations, Mr. Speaker. The highest tax rates, an average of about 30 perc ent, are paid by middle­ sized firms.

Maybe if the Federal Government started charging interest on the deferred taxes, it would encou rage large corporations to pay their share and take the load of the tax burden off the shoulders of less wealthy Canadians. But, Mr. Speaker, they don't charge interest -they are massive loans-$24.24 billion worth of loans out there at no interest . If a tax filer in Manitoba in my constituenc y doesn't pay his tax on time, he's assessed an interest penalty, but anyone of these large corporations that now owes a gross total of $24 billion, they don't pay any interest, Mr. Speaker .

There's a massive double standard in this land and it's suppor ted by Co nservative Party spokesmen throughout Canada. Mr. Speaker, th ese tax inequities don't stop at corpora tions. Tucked away in a dull federal tax document is a little known statistic that might startle some Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I know honourable mem bers over there are upset because they don't like their corporate friends being exposed. Some of them, 1 suppose, may be significant share holders in some of those corporations, I don't know. - (Interjection) - But I would like, Mr. Speaker, and I will address individuals.

Now the Member for Sturgeon Creek wants to speak from his seat and he will have an opportunity at his given time to say what he will, but I know he doesn't like to hear the weakness, the sickness that exists in our private corporate sector. He doesn't want to hear this, Mr. Speaker, because he doesn't know how he could tell his constituent in Sturgeon Creek - many of them were friends of mine - how they can't defer payment of their tax when they have a profitable year, but these large corporations can. Mr.

Speaker, in 1982, 239 Canadians - these are not corporations - 239 Canadians with an annual income of more than $250,000 paid no income tax. This select group of Canadians was able to convince Revenue Canada they owed nothing to the public purse by claiming a series of deductions on their tax forms, deductions available to all Canadians but in most cases applicable only to the wealthy. Where does fairness and jus tice enter the picture?

When a nurse without de!"Jendents will pay about $5,800 in income tax this year on a salary of $25,000, a tax rate of approximately 23 percent; a first-class police constable without dependants will pay about 25 percent on his $32,000 in income; while the tax rate for the average single high· school teacher will be roughly 26 percent on a $33,000 salary. Does that make sense, Mr. Speaker, when in 1982 Trans Canada Pipelines Ltd., a firm with $4.7 billion in assets paid tax at an effective rate of 7 percent? Ironically - (Interjection) - the Honourable Member for Morris says, how many people do they employ?

You see, Mr. Speaker , th e kind of thinking that dominates the Conservative Party, is if someone says they're going to hire people then give them all the concessions they want. That is the attitude that's manifest in that statement by the Honour able Member for Morris. That's the kind of philosophy that dominates that party, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, ironically when similar statistics became known in the United States 15 years ago, it sparked a public outcry that eventually lead to a major change in U.S. tax law.

As a result, the United States now has a minimum tax of 20 percent to ensure that high-income individuals cannot reduce their taxes to 0. I repeat, this is a minimum tax rate and that does not mean that all individuals pay a straight 20 percent as advocated by Peter Pocklington or Michael Walker. Canada has not been so hard on its wealthy. This country still has an income tax system under which a millionaire can go tax free, while someone with an income near the poverty line, someone that's on minimum wage will pay substantial tax. Even within the same income group, there are surprising discrepancies.

Some people who earn a $100,000 a year for instance, pay tax at the rate of 30 percent, while others with the same income pay no tax at all. 335 it's interes ting, Mr. Speaker, to learn what the Federal Finance Department has said about some of these things. The Federal Finance Department which designs Canada's tax policy has, itself, commented that such figures reflect - and this is a quotation - "a source of unfairness among taxpayers that is difficult to justify".

Those comments were made in 1981 in a Finance Department brief called "Analyses of Federal Tax Expenditures for Individuals." The same document also argued that if all special tax breaks were elimina ted, tax rates for all Canadians could be cut by 45 percent. Ottawa quickly retreated from promises of reform made in its November 1981 Budget after the government encou ntered a storm of protest - from who else - high income Canadians in busine ss groups.

Instead of reforming the tax system to correct the inequiti es, the Finance Department in Ottawa simply stopped publishing information that suggested the system was unfair. lt stopped, for instance, printing its tax expenditure account, which documented who was benefiting from various tax breaks. Hide things, Mr. Speak er. Not only has the Federal Government

Tue•day, 1 May, 1984 retreated from reforming the tax system in the way it had planned, it now appears to have gone in the other direction. In addition to reinstating most of the tax breaks it had removed in 1981, Ottawa has since created generous new ones such as research and development tax credit and planned increases in the allowable contribution levels for retirement savings plans. Both measures are primarily available to upper income groups. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether the Honourable Member for Lakeside has calving problems or what is giving him such discomfort at the moment, but surely he is inter ested in knowing something about the injustices that apply to farmers in this country when corporations and large, wealthy people in this country can, in effect, rip off the system while his constituents go without. Mr. Speaker, the government has also lowered the top tax rate for the highest income group to about 50 percent from 65 percent. They backed down, Mr. Speaker.

Carlton University economist, lrvin Gillespie, notes: "The most significant gain for the rich came in the February, 1973 Budget. In that Budget, the average benefit for families in the highest income group was $1 ,823, while the average poor family gained only $1 34.00." . While the rich have apparently benefited from the Federal Government's Budgets over the years, the Canadian public does not necessarily believe this to be the case. The confusion arises partly because the tax system appears to be designed to favour low income groups. Income earned above a certain level is taxed at a higher rate.

The top level is known as the individual's marginal or maximum rate at which any of his income is taxed. While marginal rates rise fairly dramatically on paper, the actual rates paid by individuals do not rise nearly so rapidly. In fact, beyond an income level of $200,000, they begin to fall. In 1981, for example, people with incomes of more than $250,000 theoretically had a marginal rate of 53 percent, meaning they were theoretically paying 53 percent on part of their incomes.

In fact, once an average person in that income group had claimed all deductions, he or she would actually be left paying tax at an effective rate of 27.9 percent, giving him or her roughly the same effective rate as an individual earning between $35,000 and $40,000.00. As the Financ e Department's 19 81 paper points out, some individu als are extraord inarily successful in reducing their taxes. Mr.

Speaker, the vast majority of Manitobans fulfill our obligatio ns to society, and we benefit in return from the many services that are provided collectively by our society; but a very few benefit out of all proportion to their contribution. By permitting their contribution to be withheld indefinitely, we deprive Canada of the means to bring about long overdue changes in our social priorities. Canada has enormous resources to meet the legitimate needs of its people, but th ose resources are pocketed by a privileged few, though they are generated by the labours of the many. Mr.

Speaker, we have had commissions and studies in respect to income tax reform. We had the Carter Commission. We even had the Progressive Conservative Party going out on a task force and listening to the problems of tax filers in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, what 336 I would like to hear members of the opposition talking about, I would like to hear members of the opposition in Ottawa talking about, as New Democrats have been talking about for many many years, is that there is an unjust society in Canada; a tax system with which all Manitobans must conform; one which we must work with; one that needs basic reform; one that apparently doesn't interest the members opposite. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. A. MAC K LING : Mr. Spea ker, honourable members opposite are disordered.

They are disordered not only in their conduct in this Legislature, they are disordered in their thinking, Mr. Speaker, because individual Manitobans want to see basic tax reform. They want to see lower taxes on individuals, Mr. Speaker, but none of the speeches we have heard have called upon this government to take up with Ottawa the concern for basic income tax reform in Canada. That is to their shame, Mr. Speaker, to their undying shame, that they snicker and sneer about the revelation of the massive rip-off by corporations in this count ry, and their constituents don't get any of those breaks, Mr.

Speaker, to their shame. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMON D: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. welcome the opportunity to rise and say a few words on the Budget. As a member of the opposition, I certainly welcome the init iatives that this government is undertaking in hope that they do come to pass for Manitobans, because as a Manitoban as we've all said, that that's our purpose for being here, to create opportunities for our childr en and for their childr en and for our grandchildren.

These opportunities can only come by the good will of the people in the province and we all know in Manitoba, that we have many of good will. I find that reading the Budget Speech, on Page 2, it indicated that: "This Budget reflects the consensus of the people of Manitoba. "lt will build on the success we have achieved over the last two years." Well, unfortuna tely, the success they achieved in the last two years was proved to be a fraud, by the Member for St. Norbert, when he gave the statistics on the Jobs Fund and the number of people that are at work now, rather than were at work when we were in government.

He said, "The Min ister of Finance states boldly that the NDP created 9,000 jobs, th ree times the increase in the last two years of the previous administration." Well, Mr. Speaker, what happens is, these statistics clearly show in the first two years of their administration there were 1, 000 less employed in Manitoba than there were when they took office and that makes the Jobs Fund into a "fraud fund." lt is just a juggling of figures and short-term, 24-hour jobs in the main. lt is about time that this government did bring in long-term employment because this Is what we need.

They seem to be starting now at the position they could have been in with Alcan and with the Power Grid.

Tueedq 1 ... , 1114 Now they're back to the beginning again and starting to negotiate, only instead of having a Canad ian company that they're negotiating with, Alcan, they are negotiating with a multinational corporation. After reading some of the speeches of the government when they were In opposition, it almost seems unbelievable that they would even talk to a company from another count ry. The Member for St. Norbert went on to say that, "If a government wants to have the confidence of the people of this province it has to tell the truth, and they refuse to tell the truth. They manipulate. They distort.

They use selective statistics, and they don't tell the truth, Mr. Speaker." And that's the end of quote from the Member for St. Norbert. 1 think the most amazing thing about this Budget is the fanfare that this government is giving to the exemption of the 1.5 employment tax under $50,000.00.

There is a letter that went out to all the employers and it says In part, "As you may recall, the levy was introduced in July, 1982 to secure needed replacement revenues in response to major cutbacks in federal support for health and post-se condary education programmit;g." Now, it has always seemed very strange to me that a government, who is supposedly pro-labor, would put a tax on employment to begin with; but this is a tax that wasn't there before, it's a totally new tax, and it's there sitting waiting, even with this reduction, to be increased. lt can be increased at any time, and it indicated that in the letter, that an additional 2,000 employers, without raising the rate for the remaining 7,000 larger employers.

So they were planning on raising the 1. 5. We welcome the reduction, but the problem is that employers sitting around the 50,000 level are not going to have any incentive to hire employees, so how does this help with job creation in Manitoba, where we have the small employer who might add one employee, maybe even part-time, but if he/she are sitting on that level of the 50,000 they're not going to take the chance of Incurring extra taxes. So, instead of creating jobs, they're having people figur e out ways that they can hold down employment.

What a shame this Is. lt's a disincentive to any employer who is sitting in the 50,000 range to even consider expanding because they just get slapped with a tax. The larger employers who are able to absorb probably more employees, when they get hit with the tax then why bother. Why would they bother expanding in a climate where we have a tax on employment? lt just doesn't make any sense. How this government gloated when they brought in the levy. lt always reminds me of the song from AI Jolson, but unfortunately it's nothing to sing about.

This is a government that came in and oh, how they crowed, and were they delighted because they hadn't brought in the sales tax. They brought in a tax - what did they call it? The employment levy. I think at the bottom of this letter it called it Health and Post­ Secondary Education - oh, it's the tax branch, so they've even formed another branch to take care of this. I guess this is their job creation. lt's more employees in the government, not out in the private sector, it's all government funds. This government really gloated when they brought this in.

Oh, had they done something clever, and look 337 at us, we're feeling so badly because they didn't bring in a sales tax. We were feeling badly all right because we recognized what was going to happen, that it was going to keep employers from hiring; it was going to creater layoffs in small business, and it did. At least they saw a bit of the error of their ways, but they can't get out of it total ly, only because of stubborn ness and they don't want a total "I told you so." I think it's oecause of that that they didn't wipe out that tax altogether.

The levy, which is a tax on employment for health and post-secondary education, I have never quite been able to understand that if you're trying to help a certain portion, a certain segment of the population. that you'd slap the tax on them too, and then you give it back in grants. That's probably another way of job creation, because the more people you have in the different departments handing out these things, and aren't we wonderful, we've given you a grant. In this area in health care and in education, I don't Imagine that the tax will come off there because the y're very heavy with employees.

They have a lot of employees and I'm sure it wouldn't cover that area, so they still get the tax. In the letter, as usual, there would have hardly been a mention about this letter if it hadn't been for the fact that the Minister of Finance could not resist talking about the 2 percent sales tax incra ase proposed by the Conservatives. They just cannot resist giving that extra little kick, and it's the extra little kick that makes Manit obans just get so ann oyed - because they're basically decent and they don't like to see that type of thing.

So if the letter had just gone out as information there probably wouldn't have been a word about it. Instead of getting good publicity on it, they've had nothing but bad publicity on this letter. Not only that, but they made a little deal with the Post Office that you can go in and put your mail in at 9:30 p.m. and have it delivered the next morning for no extra cost. Now, when we tried, my husband needed a letter to get to Toronto for Monday and he was mailing it on Friday, he paid $9 to make sure it got there.

We couldn't make any little deal to make sure that it would get there so we had to pay through the nose for it, but then we're not the government, we can't make deals like that. I think that it's in areas like this that makes this government look so poor, constantly. The Member for Turtle Mountain had indicated, when they brought in their budget and the 1.5 tax to start with, that if they had spent 2 percent less then that there wouldn't have been a need for any tax increase at all.

I think if they'd kept that in mind, at the beginning, we wouldn't be into the state of affairs that this government seems to find themselves in now. Now what we have is the 1. 5 tax plus we have a 1 percent sales tax, so what's the point of crowing about what the Conservatives might have done, or what we might have been proposing when we proposed no tax increase at all.

At the time we would have preferred that, and so what we got is 1.5 plus 1 percent, and the only reason that they didn't end up with a larger deficit is because the members on this side kept telling them, if you keep going the way you are you're going to end up with a $700 million deficit. If you keep going, you're going to end up with this and things are going to get worse. And just to be ornery they decided that

tue.., 1 lley, 1114 well we'll cut back and then we can start crowing, and they're doing it again, they can't resist. Here they are bringing in this wonderful deficit of only $49 1. 9 million. Is that it? Now, that is certainly a big credit to this government to have almost $500 million, and the operating defict is sitting at $236.5 million, and this government is crowing about what they're doing. lt's almost unbelievable that, because they didn't hit 700, they think they're wonderful at 500.

I tell you, as someone who is used to keeping a rather balanced budget at home I could not afford the luxury of being in the hole this much and no one would allow me. I think we heard the Minister of Natural Resources talking about the average citizen, well, he might have compared it to this Budget, because the average citizen could n't afford to be in the hole the way this government Is, and because they know then that they can't do the things for their famlily that they want to do, if they are always in such a large deficit position. These things don't work that way.

So instead of this government gloating, I think maybe they should just pay a little bit more heed. If they would just bring Budgets in without all the gloating and how wonderful we are, people might accept them a little bit more readily and they wouldn't get panned so easily. This Budget refers to the people of Manitoba having compassion for the unemployed. Of course they do. lt's there but for the grace of God go I. Businesses are still closing. Bell Foundr ies, just 74 jobs lost last week; farm bankruptcies are increasing; tourism is down. There's an

article in the - I think it was the Press, yes the Press - about the Assiniboia Downs that the horse racing is in trouble; that from 19 81 -83 the daily attendance has dropped from 4,200 to 3,900 to 3, 700 and they're In trouble. This is an industry I know, that draws many tourists from North and South Dakota - well now that they've got a new track in Minnesota, that's going to be the draw there - so there's got to be something done there. These are just local initiatives that the government has to face.

I believe these are things that are causing problems In Manitoba so when the eco nomy is turning arou nd, there are many segments that are not. I think really it's been at a standstill and it's just a lot of shadows that were seen and moving from one pocket to the other. Then we come to education and investment for the future. Well what do we have in education? We have the universities cutting staff and courses. Government raised expectations in the past two years.

There's a couple of articles here and one is, students getting squeezed. lt indicates that fiscal restraint combined with 9.5 percent tuition fee Increases will put the squeeze on students, forcing many of them out of school. The university has announc ed it will cut more than 200 full and part-time staff positions and about 250 courses. Enrolment limitations have been placed on all but arts courses. Now that's pretty rough considering that there aren't jobs out there and more students are heading back to university.

I'm not questioning the need for the government, but the fact is this was the government that said, priority not neglect and it's clear choice for Manitobans. That's what was happening with education. We hear all the wonderful things that are happening from the Min ister of Education but when it comes right down to it, what we have is a problem because we've got students, we've got young people 338 who can't get jobs and now unless they're going into arts or they're the cream of the crop, they're not going to be getting into too many other faculties either.

That's a darn shame because the one hope is our children and we need to give them every opportun ity. In an

article on the same topic in the Free Press, it indicates the places that they're cutting down. In one of the spots was discontinuing the instal lation of backflow valves to the sewage system which Is required by the city. Now how does that sort of thing happen? How can a university do that type of thing and not be penalized by some type of regulation? Surely this isn't the type of thing that you stop and then you have the cost shift to another level of government because that's what happens when that sort of cutback is made.

The outgoing President, Mike Young of Students Union, also condemned the cut saying students are paying more for less. We're paying 10 percent more in fees for less services and instruction time from professors. Now, I think during the period - I'm not sure if it was last year or the year before - that the Min ister insisted on a freeze in tuition fees. I think this just gave the students a false sense of security. Boy, one year we don't have a raise in fees, but then they get slammed the next year. lt's just not wise for this government to interfere in all the areas that they do.

I don't think it's realistic to raise expecta tions · and say, look how · wonderful we are again, we won't allow them to raise the fees; but then a year or two later they raise it doubly and they really get it. lt's pretty hard for students who are on student loans, students from the city and especially from the rural area where they must come in from out of town to go to the University of Manitoba or the University of Winnipeg. They've got extra costs. They can't live at home. So I think this is an extra problem and I don't think this government has helped it in anyway.

They haven't been realistic and they haven't allowed the universities to be realistic about their budgets. Then we come to my division, which is St. James­ Assiniboia, and this year in spite of the Minister indicating that there would be 3 percent, the St. James­ Assiniboia had an increase of 1.12 percent. Now this is for a division that I think has always been very fiscally responsible.

We're one of the few divisions that has actually closed schools - I think they've closed four or five schools - and this is what happens to you obviously if you are fiscally responsible then they make sure they hammer you and you get less help than you might have had if you just leave these buildings to stagnate, keep students in and ask for extra grants. So I think in this way that the department certainly isn't realistic when it looks at divisions, if this is an example of what happens. The government talks about highways and provincial roads as assets.

Well if you've got an asset, it will need some upkeep and maintenance or they turn into liabiliti es and I thin k that's what's happening in Manitoba. After cutting - was it $7 million from last year's Budget - now the Minister of Finance is saying, we're trying to put no more money than necessary into them. Well with more truck traffic expected in Manitoba, again this government is going to be scrambling and we're going to be left with a road system that certainly is not going to be an asset.

Tuesday, 1 May, 1984 Social programs - this government has crowed about all the wonderful things they've done in the area of social programs. Well they brought in regulations, lots of regulations into day care and, oh, that was a lot of fanfare again for this. But they didn't have the money to allow the day cares to fund all these reg ulations, so what is the good of making reg ulations th at automatically increase costs if the government is not going to give funding with it? Better that they go slower on the regulations so tha t the funding and the regulations can keep the same pace. What did we have?

We had day care associations marching pract ically - I think they did - on th e government. Unheard of for this government. They certainly didn't hesitate to do it when we were in power but now it's a complete turnaround and they're finding that with all these regulations and things that are costing more, all of a sudden they have to choose between reg ulations and spaces. They are making changes in the Children's Aid Society, decentraliza tion, and they save no extra cost. That seem s impossible that you could decentraliz e and not have any extra cost.

There must be planning, implementation, and all these costs are taking away from helping the very people it needs to help the children and their families. So, instead of trying to change every thing so no one can figure out what's happening, better they stay with some of these programs and make them work the way they are. There was an

article on women's shelters and this government has certainly had a commitment to abused women, but she said that - I'm read ing an

article that said: "Shelters Turn Away Women ." A Dr. Black said that Winnipeg needed more shelters. Now that the Attor ney-General has issued a directive telling police to lay assault charges in violent domestic situations what has happened is that when they're laying the charges then it puts these women in the stress situation - and I cert ainly agree with the charges being laid - but they must have more facilities for these women. Some of the mone y, such as, the adve rtising on the Jobs Fund, the advertising for the Budget, any of these areas should be used to help women have shelter. They talk in this

article about safe homes. Well that's an area that wouldn't take a lot of cost. I don't know why they are just talking about it, and why it isn't coming to pass, because I think that is something that should be investigated because it's something that could work in the city especially. I really do feel that the gover nment is remiss in talking about these thi ngs, raising expectations and then not having any area for these women to go. You always hear cries from the govern ment, where are we going to get the money? Well just for a start, the Jobs Fund. I saw one of the green signs sitting outside a day care.

We ll if that sign hadn't been there possibly a child could have had one more piece of equipment in that day care. The Budget adver tising, how much does that cost, and how much help could that ... We're not talking about large sums of money in some of these day care situations where some equipment it could help them get.

Ye t, this government to put to work all the communicators they've got floating around, they can't think of enough ways to spend money - political appointees, profes sional hangers-onners who move from province to province or from Federal New Democratic Party to here, where they move from B.C. to Saskatchewan, back to Manitoba, into the Federal Government, back again, wherever there's an NDP Government. We ll they're going to be hard pressed to find another job after this.

We have someone in the government, David Sanders, who has a sweetheart contract, over 66,000 and all the perks while he forms a consulting corporation. They bring in their friends at the top, and then let go career civil servants. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the best commentary on this Budget was made in the Sun. lt said, "Bus iness Ple ased By Do-nothing Approach." I want to quote this article, because it says: "Business breathed a sigh of relief at the cautious NDP Budget last night. lt was a do-nothing Budget, which is the best thing the business community could have hoped for.

A 6 percent tax credit for business investment is a small step, but it's bigger than no step at all, and it's better than steps taken against business which we have seen in the past from the NDP." This says it all. lt was a do-nothing Budget, and that is what the business community was hoping for. Mr. Speaker, that's probably the best they were going to get from this government. 339 MA. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister ·Of Environment. HON. G. LE CUYEA: Merci Monsieur le President. Je vais donner a mes collegues en face au moins quelques seco ndes pour mettre leurs ecouteurs.

Au tout debut de mes remarques, Monsieur le President, je voudrais vous offrir mes meilleurs voeux pour la session qui est encore en ses tous debuts et je veux en souhaiter autant a tous mes collegues de la legislature. Surtout je souhaite que chacun de nous qui detenons la confiance du peuple manitobain sauront nous montrer a la hauteur de la tache pour administrer la Province dans les meilleurs interets de nos concitoyens. Pour rejoindre cet objectif, Monsieur le President, je nous invite tous, c'est-a-dlre tous les deputes de cette Chambre a agir avec plus de tolerance et moins dans nos interets personnels.

Je voudrais au debut de mes remarques, Monsieur le President, feliciter mon premier ministre ainsi que le ministre des finances pour le leadership et la vision qu'ils ont demontre l'un et l'autre dans le Discours du Trone et dans la presentation du budget. Monsieur le President, quand on s'attend en quelque temps a voir ce que contient ce budget, on volt d' abord qu'il fait etat de deux priorites. C'e st-a-dire de mesure visant le dev eloppement economique et deuxiemement, la preser vation des services de la sante.

On fait etat dans le budget du fait que l'emploi, ou les emplois ont augmente en moyenne de un pour cent au Manitoba en 82 et en 83, alors qu'il diminuait partout ailleurs a l'e chelle nationale. On fait etat du fait que le nombre des emplois a triple depuis 80-81. Alors, et on fait etat de la croissance dans les ventes au detail.

Aussi, le budget fait etat du fait que si nous avions fait des erreurs dans nos projections budgetaires, nous les avons fait, pas dans le sens de ce que nous avait predit !'opposition qui nous predisait par contre, par exemple, des deficits allant jusqu'a peut-etre un milliard de dollars. Nous avons demontre que, si nous avions fait

erreur, nous avions projete au-dela du deficit avec lequel nous avons abouti. Nous avions projete des revenus que les membres de I' opposition disaient etre beaucoup plus ample ou vaste que ce que nous avions droit a nous attendre et finalement la fin de notre exercice financier demontre que si nous avons fait erreur, ce n'est pas parce que nous avons surestime des revenus qui sont alles au-dela de nos projections. Depuis notre avenement au pouvoir, nous avons eu comme objectlf fondamental le developpement economique.

Nous avons cree plus d'emplois, de meilleurs emplois; nous avons cree des revenus garantis et ce qui s'en est suivit, c'est une qualite de vie meilleure pour bon nombre de Manitobains. Je crois que le Manitobaf les Manitobains ont juste

titre droit de s'orgueillir du fait que - de la performance economique de cette Province. Des taux de choma ge moins eleve que partout ailleurs au Canada et des taux d' investissement qui promettre pour la relance economique de cette Province. Notre succes a combattre la recession demontre que nous sommes prets a mettre d' avant des projets de developpement economique aussi a long terme, Monsieur le President.

Je ne peux m'empecher de noter que lorsque nos collegues de !' opposition parlent et font des remarqu es dans le cadre de ce discours sur le budget, la plupart d'eux font tres peu allusion au budget comme tel. On les entend lire des lettres, on les entend faire etat de toutes sortes de choses ou de details qui n'ont aucun rapport il ce budget. Monsieur le President, j'ose croire que les membres de !' opposition realisent eux-memes, meme si ils ne veulent l'adm ettre, que ce budget reflete reellement les progres accomplis dans cette Province et les progres a venir.

Evidemment, Monsieur le President, il n'y a pas de quoi a s'y confondre - le Manitoba n'est pas le Paradis Terrestre. D'ailleurs, ce lieu ne se retrouve pas ailleurs sous le sol canadien. Partout, nous connaissons d'lmormes difficultes auxquels nous devons faire face sur une base quotidienne. Nous avons comme legislateurs de nombreux problemes a resoudre et c'est ce a quoi nous devons adresser nos efforts les plus ardents, surtout en vue de creer des emplois en utilisant tous les moyens a notre disposition pour soutenir et accelerer la relance economique.

A travers ces dernieres annees difficiles, nous avons fait de la creation d'emplois la priorite envers laquelle nous avons mise beaucoup d' efforts, de creativite, et surtout une large part de nos ressources. Malgre les remarques, parfois derogatoires, des membres de !'opposition, ils ne peuvent nier le fait que le fond de creation d'emplois au Manitoba a eu un imp act positif et significatif en faveur de la reprise economique.

Nous sommes les premiers a admettre que le chOmage demeure beaucoup trop eleve et pour toutes personnes dans cette categorie, c'est-a-dire les personnes qui sont en difficultes, car le travail qu'ils n'ont pas, c'est ce qui manque a chacun des personnes dans cette categorie, pour realiser sa pleine dignite et sa propre creativite.

Et voila pourquoi, Monsieur le President, dans le Discours du Trone et le budget depose la semaine derniere, que nous faisons etat non seulement de mesures que nous avons proposees depuis deux ans, mais aussi de mesures concretes que nous proposons pour la presente annee fiscale pour creer des emplois a court et a long terme.

Meme si les membr es de 340 !'o pposition repetent constamment leurs propos negatlfs et leurs predictions de desastre, il demeure vrai - tel que demontre par Statistiques Canada - que nous avons cree plusieurs milliers d' emplois, tout en absorbant une imm igration de nouveaux Manitobains pour la plupart des jeunes couples et souvent, autrefois du Manitoba, qui nous avaient quitte durant les annees du precedent regime conservateur. Mon sieur le President, ce n'est pas par accident que le Manitoba pour la premiere fois depuis plusieurs decennies a la distinction d'avoir le plus faible niveau de chomeurs.

Et comme je l'ai dis tout a l'heure, nous reconnaissons cependant qu'il nous faut redoubler nos efforts pour creer encore plus d'emplois. C'est la, Monsieur le President, une f�on de proceder qui est en soi di fferente de l'approche des memb res de !' opposition qui croient plutot au precepte que le gouvernement ne doit pas faire valoriser sa presence - il croient plutot - mieux connu en anglais - the best government is no government. C'est cette attitude de laisser faire qui a conduit le Manitoba a la decheance durant leur mandat.

Lorsque nous sommes arrives au pouvoir, la Province detenait le troisieme rang en terme de ch6ma ge - c'est"a-dire le troisieme rang de ceux qui avaient le moins de ch6meurs. Et on ne trouvait mieux que de deplorer cette situation economique grave et serieuse et tout a fait inappropriee pour le Manitoba, mais on ne trouvait mieux faire que de lever les bras, · hocher la tete tout en laissant aller les choses alors que nos jeunes devaient aller ailleurs A la recherche d'emploi. Plusieurs d'en tre eux et quelques-uns des membr es de !' opposition en ont fait etat et sont alles en Alberta en quete d'emploi.

N'e st-il pas curieux que aujourd'hui, la semaine derniere specifiquement, on annonc;;ait par example que l'annee dern iere !'A lberta avait subit une perte nette de 13 ,000 habitants, dont deux milles de la ville de CaJgary elle-meme. Sans doute, Monsieur le President, qu'un bon nombre d' entre eux sont parmi les gens qui font

partie de cette nouvelle vague d'im migration vers le Manitoba. Qui, il y a encore aujourd'hui pour le depute d' Emerson qui questionne la veracite de ces commentaires, je voudrais lui slgnaler que ce sont les propos directement de Radio CBC qui annonc;;ait c;;a mercredi soir dernier. Les membres de I' opposition font constamment reference au deficit. Ne se rendent-ils pas contra que tous les autres provinces ont aussi reconnu qu'il fallait injecter des donnees publiques pous stimuler l'economie.

Mais leu ·s efforts ne sont pas allees assez loins. lis n'ont surtout pas ete conc;;us en vue d'une relance de l'economle. Malgre le deficit accumule en Saskatchewan, en Alberta et en Colombie-Britannique, le ch6m age demeure plus eleve qu'au Manitoba et de plus, ce sont les citoyens le moins en mesur e de payer dans ces provinces qui doivent subir les contrecoups des frais supplemen talres pour maintenir leurs services de sante et d'education.

Monsieur le President, nous avons mieux survecu les effets nefastes de la recession economlque parce que nous avons fait confiance a l'avenir de cette province, parce que nous avons ose risquer les donnees publiques dans la creativite et la perseverance des Manitobains et nous avons ose developper de nouveaux programmes en vue d'une reprise economique equlllbree. Pendant quatre ans, les membres de !'opposition, alors qu'ils etaient au pouvoir, se sont demontre impuis sant a intervenir. C'est bien sOr plus facile et moins taxant

Tuesday, 1 May, 1984 comme formula, mais c'est auss1, a mon sens, plus irresponsable. C'e st aussi pour cela qu' ils ont perdu la confiance du peuple lors des dernie res elections. C'e st la marque des gouvernements conservateurs d'attendre que la chance se presente et de compter uniquement sur le secteur prive qui n'ose pas non plus risquer a lui seul alors que le gouvernement se montre creatif.

Si l'annee derniere, nous avons connu une pouss ee sans precedent da ns le secteur de la construction, ce ne fut pas par accident, mais plut ot ce fut un resultat de projets concrets et volontaire m is sur pied par notre gouvernement. Nous avons aussi suscite la reprise dans la construction des batiments publiques tels que les hopitaux, les residences pour personnes agees, dans le centre vi lie et sur les campus universitaires.

En plus des nouveaux emplois crees - pour ceux qui ont des commentai res a me lancer de l'autre cote, je parle presentement de construction - en plus des nouveaux emplois crees, ce sont des generations futures qui beneficieront de ces projets capitaux = je sais que ea trouble un peu les membres de !'opposition parce que il est evident qu'au jour le jour, il y a des emplois - meme si il y a des emplois qui a un certain moment diminuent et qui sont perdus a certains endroits, il demeure vrai qu'il y en a de nouveaux qui sont crees dans de nouvelles initiatives que nous sommes a proposer justement par ce budget.

Je voud rais aussi signaler pour les mem bres de I' opposition qui sont vite a signaler les emplois perdus et on pourrait faire une lis te tres longue de ce qui s'est produit justement par des situations que mol je connais pertinemment, etant depute de Radisson - je connais les situations de Swift, par example, de Maple Leaf, qui sont des examples concretes - dans ma propre circonscription - et on pourrait en citer encore bien d' autr es - mais on a pas, alor s du mandat des conservateurs, chercher a susciter des projets correspondant a la creation d'e mplois.

Aujourd 'hui, les membres de !'opposition nous blament pour chacun de ses emplois perdus, nous refusent tous credits pour les projets crees et chaque fois que l'on propose les initiatives qui doivent resulter en creation de nouveaux emplois, ils nous accusant d' accumuler un deficit supplementaire. Alors, comme l'ont dit souvent mes collegues -justement - on ne peut pas l'avoir des deux cote - et ce qu'on leurs demande - quelles sont vos suggestions de rechange. On en entend jamais.

Monsieur le President, je n'arrive pas a concevoir comment un groupe de deputes elus repres entant done un sect eur important de la population de cette Province peuvent se dire agir de faeon responsable dans la Legislature du Manitoba alors que tout ce qu'ils ont a donner comme formula de rechange, c'est demissio ner. Ca, Monsieur le President, c'est un signe de manque d'i magination, du manque d'e fforts, du manque de volonte des membres de !'opposition.

On est en droit de s'attendre, Monsieur le President, que advenant le jour ou ils seront rE!-elus au pouvoir, tout ce qu'ils auront a offrir a la population du Manitoba, c'est la meme recette qu'ils ont servi a la population durant les annees 78-81.

Si les habitants du Manitoba avaient besoins d'un education, if l'ont - de faeon toute evidente, par les projets qu'on propose, par les projets que nous avons deja concretises et ceux que I' on propose dans un budget, Monsieur le President, ils sont en droit de s'a ttendr e que tout ce qu'il s obtiendront, les 341 Conservateurs ici au Manitoba, c'est la meme recette qu' ils ont reeu alors que rien ne se passait; alors qu'il y avait un manque total de creat ivite, d'im agination, de volonte, de s'ad resser au besoins des Manitobains au Manitoba.

Monsieur le President, je vais retourner a mon texte de peur que je charris un peu trop vite lorsque je me laisse aller a m a ferveur personnelle. Je retourne a m on texte, Monsieur le President, pour permettre aux membres de I' opposition d'arriver a saisir ce que j'avais a leur dire. Les membr es de !'opp osition cherchent souvent a faire valoir qu' ils sont les seuls interesses a f'ag.riculture.

Nous reco nnaiss ons de notre cote, Monsieur le President, que !'agriculture joue un role primordiale au Manitoba et que le budget que presentait mon collegue, le minlstre des finances, faisait etat par example, de depenses totalisant $6,400 par exploitation agricole et jamals, a ma connaissance, les conservateurs eux-memes en ont fait autant. Non pas seulement, nous reconnaissons que !'agriculture joue un role important au Manitoba - nous avons fait des demarches pour soutenir I' agriculture dans une periode difficile, telle que des mesures MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please.

The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: I wonder if the member would submit to a question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. G. LE CUYER: Monsieur le President, ce n'e st qu'une obstruction ac e moment ici du depute de I' autre cote et a ce moment ici, je propose tout simplement de continuer avec mes remarques, Mo nsieur le President. Je sais que ea mis un peu de temps pour que le depute comprenne ma reponse mais elle demeure celle que je lui ai donnee et je n'ai pas !'intention de la changer.

Face au interets eleves, par example auxquels les agriculteurs devaient faire face par rapport aux hypotheques qu'ils detenaient, nous avons propose des mesures d'assistance. Nous avons augmente les credits agricoles. Nous avons cree un fonds de stabilisation des prix pour elevage de bovins et des pores.

Alors que dans la periode ou ifs etaient aux pouvoir et toujours, a ce que je sache, et surtout leurs collegues a Ottawa, eux ont appuye les mesures d'i nteret eleve comme solution de rechange pour controler !'inflation. 11 n'ont aussi pas mene une bataille tres vigoureuse contre les changements au tarifs du Nid de Corbeau, et je parle en particulier de leurs collegues a Ottawa.

Monsieur le President, je suis particulier ement fier que notre gouvernement, en plus de concentrer des effectifs importants en vue de creer des emplois et de stimuler de nouveaux investissements dans les secteurs manufacturiers et industrials a egalement an nonce des mesures pour favoriser !'hygiene et la securite du travail. Ces mesures sont etroitement, a mon sens, liees a l'e conomie - car ils comptent de faeon importante dans la production. Nous reco nnaissons qu'en periode de repris e ec onomique, if est important de redoubler nos efforts et de limiter les frais qu'occasionnent au sec teur

industrial, au gouvernement et a la societe, les accidents et les maladies profess ionnels. La legislation adoptee au cours de la derniere session a marque une etape importante dans ce domaine. En janvier 1984, nous avons renforce le droit pour les travailleurs de refuser un travail dangereux. Nous avons rendu mandatoire la formation des comites conjoints pour la securite et !'hygiene du travail.

Monsieur le President, je voudrais aussi souligner qu'au sein du minis tere dont j'ai la resp onsabillte plusleurs autres changements positifs ont ete apportes au courant de la dernie re session et lis sont en train d'etre developpes pre sentement, et il en resultra certains cha ngements, surtout dans les reglements sous-jacent a la

loi sur la securite et !'hygiene du travail. Tout d' abord, a partlr du 1e avril dernier, je voudrais signaler que !'Inspection des mines fut transfere au ministere de I'En vironnement et de la sec urite et de !' hygiene du travail afin d'l ntegrer de fa�on com prehensiv e tous les facteurs relies a l'en vironnement du travail.

Monsieur le Pre sident, je pense qu'il est important de slgnaler que pour que les travailleurs donnent leur plain rendement, il taut creer une plus grande harmonia entre travailleur et emplo yeur. 11 taut aussi qu'ils puissant participer aux decisions qui affectent leur sante et leur sec urite au travail. Nous voulons leurs offrir ces possibilites au moyen des amendements apportes a la

loi sur la securlte et l'hyglene du travail et au moyen de plus ieurs amendements comma je viens de le signaler - a la loi. Les travailleurs non seulement ont-ils le droit et le devoir de refuser de travalller dans des situations dangereuses a leur sante et a leur se curite mais aussi, ils pourront assumer une

partie des responsa billtes en participant au sein des comites conjoints dans l'entreprise ou ils travaillent et pour qu'ils comprennent mleux le r61e qu'ils sont appeles a jouer pour ameliorer les conditions pouvant effecter leur se curite et leur sante, ils pourront beneficier de journees d'apprentlssage. Monsieur le Presi dent, il est grand temps que la societe canadienne qui se vent industrlall see et evoluee reco nnaisse que les objectifs d'une production et des niveaux de securite accrus ne sont pas mutuellement exclusifs.

Et a cet eff et, je voudrals clter un passage d'un des rapports speciaux dans la revue sur la securite et la sante au travail et je cite en anglaisfit's taken, Mr. Speaker, from the Canadian Occupational Health and Safety News Report of April 25, 1983, where it quotes Mr. W.l. Hetherington, who Chairman of the Canadian Manu facturer's Association: "Speaking at a recent IAP A Annual Conference, Hetherington dismissed the notion that either productivity or safety has to be sacrificed for the other.

This way of thinking has seriously eroded our ability to compete, not only in the world marketplace, but right here in our own home market. "He therington qu oted us statistics showing that among the world's top industrial nations Canada ranks a poor 22nd in productivity." He went on to suggest that "productivity and safety should become part of an integrated strategy for corporate succes s." He describes it, Mr.

Speaker, "as one of the keys in maximizing the contributions of human resources ." I quote further: "Emp loyees will not contribute if management does not match or rec ognize their effor ts." Refe rring to the work environment in Japan he further 342 on commented and I quote: "lt really is not surprising that a management technique providing strong worker motivation through greater involvement in decision making produces a dramatic improvement in overall res ults." Mr. Speaker, in that same

article there are a number of other speakers at that conference who I think indicated very clearly the same message, that Is, that productivity and workplace, health and safety are not mutually exclusive. In that sense, I believe, the steps we are proposing and undertaking in that particular sphere are very closely tied to economic devel opment. General Mills Canada spokesman Robert Newsom also is quoted as saying that in their industry where, bet ween 1977 and 1981, they had experienced a lost time accident every eight working days,

whereas through this communication, which he describes and the greater interaction between emplo yer and worker, this had been reduced by 69 percent. He says: "A specifically developed safety communication program, Including personal letters from the vice president of oper ations, posters, weekly safety meet ings and a combined meeting with management and workers Is the process which enabled them to achieve these resu lts." A MEMBER: Not regulations? HON. G. LE CUYER: As a re sult of regulations that are already in place, yes. I'm re ferring to Ontario here, Mr.

Speak er, for the benefit of the Member for Turtle Mountain.

Also the Construction Safety Association of Ontario representative John Shields said that "low productivity, government pressures and labor hassles are often by­ products of poor accident perfo rmance." He added, that "clients who maintain a hands-off policy regarding construction safety on their property should be prepared to accept a less than optimal accident performance and undesirable situations that accompany a poor safety rec ord." Other safety procedures that he has described include "instituting . . . accountability tor accident prevent ion; providing safety instructions for new emp loyees; establishing a reas onable accident frequency objective prior to job commencement; and conducting regular project safety audits." Mr.

Speak er, in essence, what I wish to dra•'4 attention to through those quotations was the effect that there is a very closely tied link - contrary to what Is commonly believed - between health and safety of workers and profits and increased productivity. I think that the countries, such as, Japan have shown that through such techniques of motivation and interaction and communication that they can bring about, Indeed, beneficial results for all. I think, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude at this point by saying that - and I will say it in French, Mr. Speaker.

A mon sens, il n'y a pas de gouvernement dans le passe et certalnement pas le gouvernement qui nous a preced e, n'a deploye autant que ce gouvernement dans l'e space de deux ans, autant d'e fforts pour se mettre a la fois a l'e coute et en consultation avec tous les secteurs de la societe - il n'y a aucun gouvernement qui s'est preoccupe autant des suggestions

Tuesday, 1 May, 1984 representant tous les secteurs de la societe pour mettre en place des mesures efficaces et reelles pour la relance economique. Je suis fier de ce que nous avons accomplis jusqu'a maint enant et je suis confiant, Monsieur le President, que les mesures contenues dans le Discours du Trone et dans le budget qui nous a ete presente tout recem ment nous apporteront des resultats que nous projetons et qui - je pense - seront en soi le juste retour pour la confiance que nous avons mis dans l'economie du Manitoba. Merci, Monsieur le President. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I can join in this backslapping that's so prevalent across the way now in this Budget debate or not. lt's a new found way of debating and bringing the messages of the Government of the Day to the people of this province, and now you do your own backslapping and you put your own comments and print in Budget. Mr. Speaker, I find it a privilege to speak on the Budget. Of all the debates that I take the most interest in in the Legislature, I think the Budget tops them all. The reasons are many, Mr.

Speaker. lt gives me and the people of the province, Canadians, Americans, a chance to take a look at the performance of our people, the performance of our government, the performance of our business communi ty, the performance of our agricultural sector. lt gives us, generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, a pretty good conception of what's going on in the province. Mr.

Speaker, I went out of my way this morning and last night to read back over the years some of the Budgets that were addressed to this Assembly, to see if I could find anything close to this document that we have before us now, this 19 84 Manitoba Budget Addr ess, of propaganda, misleading statements, half­ truths, qua rter-truths, backslapping. I can't, to the best of my knowledge, Mr.

Speaker, and I took the liberty of reading some of your comments over the years in Budget speeches, and I'm sure you will join my in my sentiments in this matter, that this is the first time that I have ever seen a Budget that has tried, for whatever reason, to mislead, either us or the man on the street or the investor, or who are they trying to misguide? Mr. Speaker this one has . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. lt is not in order to accuse members of th e government from issuing a mislea