Manitoba Hansard — 8 March 1988 (Sitting 19, 33rd Legislature, 3rd Session)

33-3-19

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1\leaday, 8 March, 1988. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER , Hon. M. Phillips: Presen ting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standin g and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Labour. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I'd like to make a ministerial statement.

Madam Speaker, on this, International Women's Day, I stand as Min ister responsible for the Status of Women to applaud the women on both sides of the House. lt is fitting that my portfolio also includes labour, since International Women's Day originated in the trade union movement. On March 8, 1857, women in New York marched to protest bad working conditions, long working hours and low pay. While the sweat shops of the 1800's are gone, we have not yet achieved economic parity with our male counterparts. And without economic parity, social equality cannot be realized.

In the Throne Speech last month, the Lieutenant Governor announced this government's ongoing commitm ent to im proving the economic lives of Manitoba women. One very important symbol of that commitment is pay equity. Today I am proud to announce my government's intention to amend The Pay Equity Act to include Manitoba school divisions. We will begin consultations with key players from the school divisions within the month in order to prepare amendments this Session. I do not anticipate that teachers will require pay equity wage adjustments as their pay system is free of gender bias.

Madam Speaker, as we proceed in a phased, orderly manner, we are building on the success of The Pay Equity Act,

an act which enjoyed the support of every member in this House. I would like to take a moment for an update on our progress to date. Members will recall that September 29 last year marked an historic occasion, the signing of an agreement between the Manitoba Civil Service and the MGEA, which resulted in Canada's first pay equity wage adjustments based on pro-active legislation. Furthermore, Crown entities, hospitals and universities are continuing their negotiations cooperatively and are scheduled for completion this September.

Meanwhile, as pay equity gains momentum across the country, other jurisdictions are looking to Manitoba to gain from our experience and our success. Now that wage adjustments are in place for employees of the Civil Service and imminent for others 560 in the public sector, extension of pay equity to school divisions will contribute to the solid foundation upon which pay equity in this province is built. As each entity successfu lly implements pay equity, our province moves closer to fairness and equality in the workplace. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G.

HAMMO ND: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too would like to support the celebration of International Women's Day. I thank the Min ister for telling the House that the pay equity will be going Into the school divisions. One of the questions that certainly the trustees and members on all sides of the House, I would imagine, would want to know is how the pay equity will be funded for the school divisions. Will this be another area where the government plans to put it directly on the homeowners of this province?

As much as we support the pay equity legislation, we would like to know how this particular piece of legislation will be funded as far as the school divisions are concerned? I would like to mention about International Women's Day, that we wish that the government could do more in the area of women's issues such as Osborne House and alternate day care for the farm women, because what we have is a government whose priorities seem to be in the wrong place. I'd like to just mention a couple of areas.

This is the bridge to nowhere which is out In the Selkirk-Gimli area, which is at a cost of $20 million to $29 million, and the Kildonan Bridge, which is $10 million and it's not needed for another year. lt's amazing. I don't blame the women on that side of the House because I imagine, every time they bring up money for women's issues, it's ta-ta and let's put it on the back door.

These are hidden issues, issues like farm women needing alternate day care, like Osborne House desperately needing a new facility. lt's not like a bridge for all the world to see so that we can trot out and have this government re-elected. lt's because of mismanagement, misplaced priorities that we have a government that isn't able to help the people who really need it. I welcome the Minister's statement today, and we will be looking forward to what action they will be taking on these other Issues. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Minis ter of Agriculture. HON. L.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . .

Tuesday, 8 March, 1988 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have from the Morden Collegiate twenty-nine Grade 12 students under the direction of Mr. Derzak. The school Is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Pemblna. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Autopac - gasoline tax subsi d y MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for MPIC.

Just the past month-and-a-half, MPIC Autopac Division has begun to use the merit system to recognize better drivers In this province to give them some relief on the cost of their Autopac insurance. Now the Minister is suggesting that a hidden gasoline tax could be used to subsidi ze the cost of Autopac premiums in this province. Madam Speaker, good drivers will again be assessed costs in this province that have nothing to do with their driving record. Madam Speaker, I would like this Minister to clarify this complete contradiction in policy. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter responsible for MP IC. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speak er, I think that suggestion that has been made that the government is going to be using that proposal for insurance premiums came from none other than the member opposite. That's who suggested it. Madam Speaker, I have to admit it's not a very original suggestion. Madam Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that when there was, I believe it was, a 2 cent a gallon levy for insu rance premiums in the mid-Seventies, two years of the levy was during our term and two years of that levy was during their term and they removed lt, Madam Speaker. They took it off.

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my honourable friend that there are no immediate plans for any Introduction of a premium using gasoline revenues. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, the Minis ter denies the origin of the idea. I would like to refer you to his press release on February 2 in terms of reference to Judge Kopstein. In the second sect ion, part D, "Use of drivers' licence fees or gasoline taxes to finance automobile insurance costs." Madam Speaker, I want to assure the people of the province, if he wants to impose a tax like that, we will withdraw it when we form government.

Madam Spe ak er, my question to the Mi ni ster reponsible for M PlC Is: Will he assure the House and the people of this province that, if they should impose this unfair type of gasoline tax to subsidize Autopac, will he assure the people of this province that, in no 561 way, it will be used to offset the deficit incurred in M PlC general and MPIC reinsurance? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the honourable member continues to push the inaccuracy that public funds from Autopac have been used to support the reinsurance losses in the general insurance area, just his statement.

Those are the kinds of falsehoods, Madam Speaker, that mem bers opposite have been putting out to the public of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, let me be very clear to my honourable friend. His Prime Min ister raised gasoline taxes in this country by about 25 cents a gallon in the last number of years. Madam Speaker, there is no intention of the government to have -(Interjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind Honourable Ministers that answers to questions should be brief and should deal with the matter raised. The Honourable Minister. HON. B.

URUSKI: My honourable friend, as I said earlier, there is no intention of the government to impose gasoline taxes to pay Autopac premiums. lt's certainly an item, an area that should be discussed widely as one avenue of possible premium support and has been widely accepted, Madam Speaker. But my honourable friend wishes to say that it will be done tomorrow; 1 can't stop him from saying that, but it is not government policy. MPIC - executiv e shuHie MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, I am confused. I'm not sure who wrote the press release and who wrote the terms of reference for Judge Kopst ein.

Madam Speaker, my supple mental question to the Min ister is that we've just seen in this past day a rather meaningless shift of the vice-presidents at M PlC. I would like the Minister to assure this House and assure the people of this province that this shift in responsibility of vice-presidents will in no way impede them from speaking to the committee of Natural Resources and Public Utilities so that they can be quizzed about their respo nsibilit ies prior to yesterday's shift. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, all mem bers of the executive team will be at committee when the committee is called in the usual manner . Madam Speaker, the only one that can muzzle anyone is the Leader of the Opposition who has been muzzling people backwards and forwards on the whole issue of his leadership.- (Interjection)- I mean he is sitting right to your left. Madam Speaker, I have indicated on a numb er of occasions that the entire executive team will be present before committee and the normal rules of committee will handle the annual report.

Budget - municipal tax-sharing agreement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

1\leaday, 8 March, 1988 Page 24 of the Budget makes reference to a special provincial municipal tax-sharing payment of $5.5 million. My question to the Minister of Finance: Will this sum of money flow during the present fiscal year, such that the third quarter estimate of deficit will increase from that forecast or will it flow from the '88-89 fiscal year such that that forecast of deficit will increase? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, the Member for Morris is aHempting to portray something that Is not quite accurate.

I would have thought he would have got up today, Madam Speaker, and corrected the words that he put on the record yesterday where he says, dealing with the evaluation allowance, that all principles -(Interjection)- what has this got to do with providing correct information, Madam Speaker? - that in accordance with accou nting principles practised everywhere, because my indication is that all the provinces report these losses as of December 31s t.

If you go through province by province, Madam Speaker, it ranges British Columbia, March 19; Alberta, March 20; Saskatchewan, June 17; Ontario, May 20; Quebec, April 20; New Brunswi ck, April 28; Nova Scotia, April 10; March 24 in P.E.I. and April 2 in Newfou ndland, Madam Speaker. After hearing that misinformation yesterday from the Member for Morris, Madam Speaker, you can imagine my surprise this morning when I hear him on thp radio talking about an income earner at $30,000 paying - (Interjec tion )- lt seems that the truth bothers them. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, most obviously the Minister of Finance realizes that whatever his bureaucrats or indeed the Premier or indeed he himself try to do to convince the people of Manitoba . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. C. MANNESS: . . . . many of the figures they presented were true when in fact they were not in the Budget, he has been caught. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, I have no - if the Minister of Finance is asking me to apologize for the comments that I put on the record yesterday, I will do so. What I meant to say, Madam Speaker, was this, that other provinces in this country use consistently the same month-end. That's what I meant to say, so I apologize, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. 562 Okay, now would the honourable member like to ask a question? MR. C. MANNESS: My question was very specific to the Minister of Finance.

Is the $5.5 million under the Provincial-Municipal Tax-Sharing Agreement, is it going to flow in this fiscal year or is it going to flow in next fiscal year? Which deficit is going to increase because of that anno uncement which, I believe, will be coming forward in the next couple of weeks? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I thank the member for the first apology.

On to the second one, Madam Speaker, as I was start ing to say, can you imagine my surprise this morning when I heard the Member for Morris suggesting that somebody who had a $30,000 income will be paying over $600 or $700 more tax this year as a result of last year's Budget. The reality is - and there's a range of possibilities, depending on what situation that individual will find themselves in - but if they were a single person with no dependants, they would be paying more taxes this year of $284 million, not $600 or $700 that he is suggesting. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. M.

DOLIN: Sorry, but on a point of order, I cannot hear. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please! Could honourable members please come to order. I presume the Honourable Member for Morris wants to hear the answer from the Honourable Minister. The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, in terms of the second area that the member has misrepresented the situa tion, if you look at that same $30,000 income, a single person with two dependants, this year, they will be paying increased taxes of $41, Madam Speaker, not the $600 or $700 that he's .

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, on a point of order. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Madam Speaker, like the member on the other side who just got up on a point of order, I would very much appreciate hearing an answer to the question and not a lot of rabble that has nothing to do with the question. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please!

May I remind the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek that an insistence on an answer is not in order, a Minister can refuse to answer if a Minister so chooses, and a Minister can answer the question in any way a Minister chooses. Those are the rules.

TUesdar, 1$ Marc;h, 1918 The Honourable Minister of Finance, briefly. HON. E. KOSTYRA: In fact, Madam Speaker, in order to do what the mem ber suggests that somebody at an income level would pay $700 more taxes, they would have to have income of over $70,000 a year, not the $30,000 or $40,000 that that member is suggest ing. I wish he would get up now and apologize for his second error, Madam Speaker. MR. C. MANNESS: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I would seek your indulgence, and I ask whether now it is within the rules that I can now comment on anything the Minis ter of Finance says in the media or the press tomorrow, Madam Speaker. Can I do that? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. First of all, as the honourable member kn ows, questions to the Speaker are out of order. I will repeat the Beauchesne citation from which I was quoting before, which says: "Citation 363.( 1): A Minister may decline to answer a que stion without stating the reason for his refusal, and insis tence on an answer is out of order, with no debate being allowed.

A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such a refusal. A Member may put a question but has no right to insist upon an answer." Now, it's question period, not time for debate. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I would refer you to Rule 358.(2) . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. C. BIRT: . . . where it says "Answers to . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please!

I have already ruled on the point of order. Budget - interest costs MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Morris, with a final supplement ary. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, a new question.

Given that the Minister of Ana nce levied the taxes that caused many, many people to pay hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars more by virtue of the new tax on net income, can the Minis ter of Finance explain to me as to what the accurate portion of expenditures are going to be directed towards financing costs, because, Madam Speaker, in the Budget it said 11 .4 percent, and yet, at the NDP Convention, 563 Resolution No. 88-2 100-01 said that the figure was beyond 12 percent?

My direct question to the Minister of Finance: What is the actual amount of expenditur es that is being directed towards debt-servicing costs in this province in the next fiscal year? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Let me first respond to the other question that the member wanted a direct answer to in terms of the provin cial-mu nicipal tax-sharing payments. lt will not do either what he says. lt will not increase ... MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader on a point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

You have said two or three times today that the answers should deal with the matter raised. You should ans wer the question, not previous questions. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Ye s, Madam Speaker , on a point of order. We have, once again, the Opposition attempting to dictate not only what the questions should be but what the answers should be. Madam Speak er, I would like to read to the House a very brief excerpt from Hansard of March 13, 1979, and I think the words that are expressed by the then Government House Leader, Mr.

Jorgenson, are words that should apply as well today. I believe I've read these particular words to the Assembly last Session, but I think they are worth repea ting. On page 900, Mr.

Jorgenson says, "If we're going to be examining Beauchesne to determine whether or not an answer is in order, then I think it's in keeping with the spirit of the rules that you examine all of the question period, including the questions, and expunge from the record all those questions from the other side of the House that have been satirical, ironic, rhetorical, offensive, contain epithet, innuendo, be trivial, vague, meanin gless, multiply with slight variation similar questions on the same point, repeat in substance questions already answered, etc., et c." If my honourable friends want the rules applied in that way, then they should be applied in that way, and I would suggest if we rid ourselves of all those sorts of questions, it would be a very short question period, given the tenor of the questions of members opposite.

Madam Speaker , it is not in their power to determine what the answers should be and they cannot go on, day after day, putting false information and false innuendo and false rhetoric on the record and not expect to be answered in this House with true factual information by the Minister of Anance and by every Minister on this side of the House who wants that information to be presented fairly to the public. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader , on the same point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tuuday, 8 March, 1988 it's obvious from that comment by Mr. Jorgenson, that the Government House Leader wrote, that the NDP didn't follow the rules in Opposition at that time and now don't follow them in the House, Madam Speaker . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. On the point of order, I have brought to the attention of honourable members many times their respo nsibility both in asking questions and answering questions to short questions with a short

preamble, and that questions should be answered briefly, to the point , and without provoking debate. I have said that many times. I would hope that mem bers on all sides would attempt - so that question period can be carried on in a fair and orderly manner - to follow those rules and impose those restrictions on themselves both in answering and asking questions. The Honourable Minister of Finance, briefly . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I can't comment specifically on a matter that is not before the House, but the figure in terms of the proportion of interest costs is as represented in the Budget as a percentage of expenditures. If one takes it as a percentage of revenues, and that may be what that resolution is referr ing to, it may be somewhat higher.

In terms of the other issue, the provincial-municipal tax-sharing payment to municipalities to assist with the transition costs will be made during this current fiscal year and will not increase the deficit that has been projected for year-e nd this year and certainly will not Impact the deficit that's projected for next year. Beardy case MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Madam Spe aker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services.

A repeat offender, one Wllllam Johnson Beardy, was sentenced to seven years yesterday for raping a woman after being released from Headingley Correctional Institution. Could the Mi nister advise - was this Indiv idual released on an early basis, early parole? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister for Community Services and Corrections. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll take that que stion as notice and provide the information to the member when I get it. MR. C.

BIRT: Madam Speaker, given the fact that the judge found that he was a dangerous man with no hope of rehabilitation, I would ask the Minister also to investigate what steps were taken to ensure that he didn't get out of the institution before his permitted time? 564 HON. M. HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker. I'll add that to the notice of question and provide the information to the member. NDP fundraiser - civil servants MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Brandon West . MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , my question is directed to the First Minister.

I have in my hand, Madam Speaker, a letter sent by Susan Proven to various people in Western Manitoba, I presume, including civil servants at their government offices, suggesting that they attend a business dinner in Brandon at the Victoria Inn on Tuesday, March 29. Quoting from the letter, it's $175 a plate, Madam Speaker.

This letter, Madam Speaker, sent to, among other people, civil servants at government offices, says, "There are some issues and areas of mutual concern that you will want to discuss with Eugene Kostyra, John Bucklaschuk, Harry Harapiak and Len Evans." Just in case that wasn't intimidating enough to a civil servant, Madam Speaker, it says, "I will be calling you to confirm your attendance.

I look forward to meeting you at the dinner." I would like to ask the First Minister , who also is scheduled to be attending that $175-a-plate meeting, what areas of mutual concern would require attendance of civil servants at a $175 dinner. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , unl ike Conservative fund-raising dinners attended by the pin striped-suit set, the dinners sponsored by the New Democratic Party welcome people of all ranks of society - farmers and workers and public servants and business people - to attend.

Madam Speak er, if the members don't want to receive answers to questions posed, then there's really not much point in providing it to them. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, the civil servant who brought this to my att ention asked me, "Jim, am I under the gun on this?" Madam Speaker, why Is it that civil servants In this province have to pay $175 to have access to this Premier's Ministers? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the member is sure - I think that what has happened, the honourable members must not have had their leader present at caucus to get their questions In proper order today and ensur e proper prior ity. The New Democratic Party sponsors dinners, fund raising dinners, as did the Conservative/Liberal Parties. I understand the honourable member's touchiness about a dinner sponsored in the City of Brandon that I'm sure will be well-attended by many Brandonites. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, a question to the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission.

Can he give civil servants in Brandon the assurance that if they don't attend this meeting, that they're not

Tuesdar, 8 �rch, 1888 obligated to attend that meeting, nor will they be demoted, nor will they lose opportunities for advancement if they decline to attend? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission. HON. E. KOSTYAA: Of course not, Madam Speaker , and I would -{Interjection)- Only a Tory would think so. Of course not, Madam Speaker, and I would remind the member opposite that it was this party, while in government previously, that provided for political rights of civil servants which previously didn't exist.

School Tax Assistance Program MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vir den. MA. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In the 1987 Budget, $12 million was budgeted to the School Tax Assistance Program for farmers, Madam Speaker , and given that farmers paid their taxes back in the summer and fall of 1987, I would like to ask the Minister how much of that $12 million budgeted last year has actually been paid out to farmers under the School Tax Assistance Program, and how much of that money was actually used for admin istration?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Of course, everyone in this Chamber will know that this is a new program. lt is a program that was spoken well to on all sides of the House, bringing relief to the property tax being paid by farmers, specifically education tax. The program allotted some $12 million, and the last report I had, Madam Speaker , was bet ween $9 million and $10 million had been paid out. There were many applications yet in progress, and of course, people could apply at some point into the coming year .

So we have no way of determining, at this point, absolutely what amount will go, but we are confident, Madam Speaker, that the full amount will be paid and we have allocated the same amount in the Budget. There will be a continuation of this program in the coming Budget year. MR. G. FINDLAY: Given that the way the program was administered, it caused a lot of nightmares for municipal secretaries across the province. They were required to do a lot of paperwork, which was totally unnecessary, and most reeves have told me, Madam Speaker, it took a month of their secretaries' time to deal with this program.

I would like to ask the Minister if he's planning to streamline the program to reduce that heavy workload on the municipal secretaries in 1988, work that they were never paid for, Madam Speake r, by this government. HON. L. HAAAPIAK: We recognize that in terms of bringing in a new program, that there are going to be 565 some issues to be addressed in terms of making it more efficient, but I think it is better to have the courage to do something innovative than not to do anything at all, Madam Speaker .

We are quite prepared, Madam Speak er, to undertake some of these programs, to undertake new initiatives, and to take some of the criticism that might go with them. In spite of what the member opposite might say by way of criticism, I was pleased to hear when it was indicated the program would be extended for another year, that the president of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities indicated that he was indeed delighted that the program would be extended .

We are looking at ways of improving the administration, and I think it has been indicated quite clearly that two-thirds of the funds paid out by the municipalities, under this program , in the coming year, will in fact be advanced, and we think that that is something that will assist them, and recognize their contribution - a contribution that we want to pay recognition to, Madam Speak er. MA. G. FINDLAY: My supplementary question to the Minister is that the 1987 program discriminated against wives and widows, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister planning to continue that kind of program? HON. L.

HAAAPIAK: Madam Speak er, I think what the Member from Virden says is diametrically opposed to the truth. To suggest, Madam Speaker, that the program discri minates against widows and women is totally , totally false. The program certainly has eligibility criteria, Madam Speaker, and having defined those criteria, some people are excluded.

That is no different, Madam Speak er, than, for example, the Western Grain Stabilization Program which requires certain criteria in order for participation; the Special Grains Program requires certain eligibility criteria, and having established those criteria, some then will not be eligible. In the case of the program in question by the Member for Virden, we indicated on this side that we wanted the benefit of this to go to farm families and that we were wanting the benefits to be distributed as widely as possible.

There are circumstances in which they are raising questions of what constitutes a family relationship, but frank ly, I don't think we should be running about the country to determine what constitutes an appropriate family relationship. Foundation Levy increase MA. G. FINDLAY: Madam Speak er, if I can get in one last supplementary question to the Minister. His government has raised the foundation levy from roughly 43 mills to 46 mills this year . it's a levy on farm land, Madam Speaker.

I would ask the Minister what additional tax will farmers have to pay because of this foundation levy increase, the first since 1983, Madam Speaker? What impact will that have on the agricultural community in terms of extra tax dollars they are forced to pay because of actions of his government? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Tuesday, 8 March, 1988 HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, my honourable friend should be aware that this is, I believe, the first increase in five or six years in the foundation budget. Madam Speaker, clearl y, in terms of the support that the province has provided to Manitoba farmers on education tax, the $500 towards education tax has been a big help.

Madam Speaker, as well, there are other programs that the Department of Agriculture has had and other programs to assist municipalities that In terms of the impact, while it is a raise, if you look at it over the five or six-year period, it is held well below any other costs that have gone up anywhere else. Challenge for credit program MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is to the Minister of Education. lt refers to the challenge for credit program in the University of Manitoba which was announced with some fanfare a few years ago.

The object of the program was to allow profess ionals from abroad and working people the ability to challenge so they could get credits and get profes sional degr ees and get into univer sity. My understanding is that the various departments in the university are not allowing this to happen. Is the Min ister going to take some action to get the Un iversity of Manitoba to cooperate with the challenge for credit program? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Education. HON. R.

PENNER: Madam Speaker , in fact, the Un iversity of Manitoba has a general policy which requires faculties to implement a challenge for credit program, but beyo nd that, it becomes a matter for the faculties, and it should be und erstood that it is somewhat more difficult and complex in profes sional faculties than In general stud ies faculties because the programs In the professional faculties lead to accreditation for practising the profession.

For that reason, the challenge for credit has to be one that is accept able in terms of the recognition of the credits and ultimately the degree to the practising profession, so that there is a problem there. Similarly, in some Instances, a challange for credit in some courses is simply not appropriate.

But with those caveats, yes, I will look further into it to find whether or not this general pol icy, which is correct in its enabling people to get Into a university level program at some stage with some experience or some programs in other countries, and I do want to make sure that that is functioning as completely as possible and I will look into that matter and respo nd to what I think is an excellent question raised by the Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: I appreciate the response from the Minis ter.

While he is looking into it, I would ask if he could contact the university to find out what their rationale 566 is for not allowing a Masters in Ps;chology graduate in Brazil not to take even the challenge in Psych I in the educational program. Are they trying to maKe mone1 for the university? I 'd like to know what their rationale is while he is looking into it. lt strikes me that pe ople are being denied a right to professional training if they're new immigrants or working people, and I think that's wrong. HON. R.

PENNER: I should note, Madam Speak er, that in addi tion to un dertaking to discuss with the appropriate people in the Grants Commission and, through them, the university as to the way in which the policy is in fact being implemented, that my department is heading a study that was agreed to between the Minister for Culture, Heritage and Recreation and myself into the whole problem of accred itation, whether it means entry into the university or accreditation with professional organizations.

We are concerned about the fact that a number of apparently highly qualified people coming to this country to take up life here are denied, or appeared to be denied, an entry level in some way or that there are formidable obstacles, and we want to look Into that and we have initiated a study . Also, and I conclude, Madam Speaker, we are cooperating with the Federal Government in looking into that issue across Canada. MR. M.

DOLIN: I appreciate the Minister's response, and would hope that if he can also look Into the other universities in the province to see whether or not they are being more open, or whether the situation applies throughout the University of Brandon and the University of Winnipeg, also. Stubble and peat moss burning - report MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nlakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I would like to direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health.

Last fall, the Clean Envi ronment Commission held public meetings on the burning of stubble and peat moss. Has a report and rec ommendation been received by the Minister from that committee who have listened to these at the different hearings? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am expecting that report any day no w. The chairperson of the Clean Environment Commission did indicate to me that they would require a little more time than originally planned, but he did indicate that I should receive it very soon. MR. A.

KOVNATS: To the same Minis ter, Madam Speaker. Last fall when I attended many of the meetings, 1 was advised at that time that the recommendations would be in the Minister's hands in the early part of the year, possibly In time so that we could deaf with

Tueaday, 8 March, 1• those recommendations when the House was in Session. Can the Honourable Minister advise if there is any other reason than just a lack of cooperation that the Minister does not have the report in his hands? HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that there is no lack of cooperation at all. lt's simply that the Commission has had to intervene In other operations and, in particular, is constantly required to impose ordinances on sewage and lagoons, and it's had an inordinate number of these in the past few months.

I have indicated to the member that I expect to have the report shortly, and that is still my answer, Madam Speaker. MR. A. KOVNATS: A final supplementary to the same Minister . As the straw burning, stubble burning and the peat moss burning season is rapidly approaching, I would hope that the Hono urable Minis ter will do something rather than just make excuses and see that there is some action taken on the reco mmendations. Would the Mi nister im media tely take action on the reco mmendations and ensure that the recommendations are distributed so that we can all have a look at them? HON. G.

LECUYER: Madam Speak er, there is no stu mbling when we're talking about stubble burning. it's just. Madam Speaker, as I have explained, other matters have prevented the Commission from being able to deal with this matter as urgently as they would have liked, and I assure the member we will have the report shor tly. We are still a substantial time away from the next planting season, especially from the next harvest season when we have experienced the problem in the past. Certainly, we will not seek excuses even though the matter may not be an easy one to resolve.

Fire by-laws - apartment owners MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster for Labour. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speak er, yesterday the Member for Charleswood raised an issue, alleging that a substantial number of MHRC buildings were not in compliance with the City of Winnipeg fire upgrading by-law. Madam Speaker, I looked into the matter and I would like to set right the member's misundersta nding. The fire by-law permits a three-phase compliance schedule. lt also permits for large land lords the negotiation of a specific schedule.

In fact, MHRC buildings, of 72, three are in complete compl iance with all three phases. All of them are in compliance with Phase I, Madam Speaker, and the agreement with the City of Winnipeg for the rem aining 68 is that there is a phased compliance program. All of them will be In compliance by 19 90. In fact, they are ahead of schedule.

The reason for asking for this Is that it's not only a costly process but it does require some structural change that does Impact on the tenants. lt was agreed that this was a much more reasonable way so that the tenants would only be disturbed once so that, in fact, half the projects will be brought up to

schedule by the end of the Phase 11 period up to the 19 90 level, and the remaining ones will all be comp leted well before 19 90. 567 Health Dept.- capital projects - status MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speak er. Madam Speaker, it was with some considerable fanfare that the government tabled the construction estimates in the Department of Health last year. Projects which were approved for construction totalled some capital costs of $283 million.

Madam Speaker, on September 24 of last year, I corresponded with the Minister of Health, because a number of facilities in my constituency and other constituencies throughout the province which were on that approved list for construction were being put on hold. I asked the Minister , September 24, if he could provide me with the status of those projects and how many of them were put on hold. Can the Minis ter provide that information today? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speak er, I'm not able to provide that information today.

I have had dis cussions with people in the health care field, especially with respect to rural and northern services, asking for their advice and input as to how one might best improve the services in rural Manitoba and Northern Manitoba indeed by putting more services into rural and Northern Manitoba. We are continuing those dis cussions to determine the best mix of facilities, how they might act in a complementary manner to each other, and how this might induce greater services in rural and Northern Manitoba. Those talks are continuing. When we have further to say on that, we'll bring it back to the House. MR.

D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I find the Minister of Health's answer most bewildering, and I imagine every taxpayer in Manitoba will. it's my understa nding that, before you present capital estimates to this Legislature - and we have passed them. This Legislative Asse mbly passed them last year in July. Madam Speak er, were these capital projects not approved by Treasury Board and indeed the entire Cabinet, the same capital projects that this Minister now says he is reviewi ng? On what basis did you approve them last year and now you've cancelled them? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Sp eak er, I'm really surprised at the Member for Pembina. There is a capital project, a capital program that comes forward for either architectural work or engineering work or building. That is done on a yearly basis, Madam Speaker. lt is a five year process that we are talking about and, If the member is saying are we committing to the exact date five years from now, the answer is that wouldn't be best to do at this time, especially when the rural people themselves indicate that they would like to get a better mix of services into rural Manitoba.

They want to ensure that there is greater complementarit y, Madam Speaker , between the services provided by their institutions. I

Tuesday, 8 March, 1988 have listened to that request, Madam Speaker . I've had dis cussions with rural groups on that, and it would be our intention to approve upon the system . If the Member for Pembina is saying that which was done two or three or four years ago, even last year, is inscribed in stone, I don't think we're ever going to have the opportunity to improve the system , which is what I thought all members of this House wanted to do. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speak er, my final question to the Minister of Health.

In case he's wondering what he and his Cabinet approved last year, I'll read from the Capital Program 1987-88.

On page 6, it says: "Projects approved for construc tion," and it says, "the estimated construction start date," for instance, "Morden Hospital, a major upgrade of emergency and outpatient services areas was to start in mid-1 987"; further page, "Virden Hospital, replace the existing 32-bed hospital with a new 25-bed facility, construction to start mid-1 987." That decision was made by Treasury Board, by the Cabinet and his Premi er, and each of those projects and many others which he has not provided me with a list of since September 24, 1987 are now being withheld from the people of Manitoba and those services are denied.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. D. ORCHARD: When is the Minister and this government going to get their act together and provide for proper health care in rural Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourab le Minis ter of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I'm surprised. I guess this is the spending day for the Conservative Opposition. His colleague was calling for a deficit reduction of another $134 million. They also said that we should abolish taxes, which would add to our deficit by $200 million. That is $334 million, Madam Speaker.

They also seem to equate health care only with the building of an institution. We think there has to be a far better balance - and we've ind icated that very clearly to the people of Manitoba - bet ween institutions, community-based care, and health prevention and health promotion. Madam Speaker, we will try and pursue that because we think it's the best policy, even though the Conservatives have a very, very mixed position with respect to health care. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Before procee ding to Orders of the Day, I have a ruling to present to the House. On Monday , March 7, 1988, the Honourable Mem ber for Morris rose on a matter of privilege, alleging that the Premier and the Minister of Finance had attempted to dis tort information contained In the 1988 Budget. 588 As members know, when a matter of privilege is raised, before it can be proceeded with, the Speaker must be satisfied that: (

a) the member raising the matter has concluded his or her remarks with a motion; (

b) the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity; and (

c) sufficient evidence has been presented to suggest that a breach of privilege has occurred. The Honourable Member for Morris did comply with the first re quirement by concluding his remarks with a motion. In relation to the second requirement, timeliness, the honourable member indicated in his remarks that he could have brought this matter to the attention of the House earlie r.

Our Rule 25 req uires that: "When a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immed iately ." On several past occasions in this House, matters of privilege have been ruled out of order because they were not raised until the day after they occurred.

In relation to the requi rement to establish a prima facie case, Beauchesne's citation 16 states: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively . . . by members of each House Individual ly, without which they could not discharge their functions," and, "The privilege of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due exe cution of its powers ." The honourable member has failed to establish that the privileges of the House, or of members individually, have been interfered with.

The main thrust of the member's remarks in support of this matter of l)Tivllege focused on allegations respe cting inaccuracy and information presented in the Budget.

In this connection, Beauchesne's Citation 19(1) states: "A dis pute arising between two members as to allegation of facts does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." I must, therefore, rule that the honourable member's matter of privilege Is out of order because he did not raise it at the earliest opportunity, because he failed to establish a prima facie case, and because the matter was based on a dispute over allegations of the facts.

ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Min ister of Business Dev elopment and Tourism has 32 minutes remai ning. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, when I was speaking last evening, I did reflect on the excellence of the contribution to the Budget Debate -{Interjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. As I reminded honourable members yesterday, if they want to play little games, they can play them elsewhere, not in this Chamber.

Tue8da� I March, 1988 HON. A. MACKLING: . . . on the excellence, Madam Speak er, of the contribution to the Budget Debate by the Member for Lac du Bonnet. I know that the honourable members would like to reflect further on the history of the past and reflect - sincerely I trust - on present actions today of governments in the world. Madam Speaker, what the Member for Lac du Bonnet was pointing out was that in the 1920's and 1930's, we had that market economy , that modern economist the Reaganomlcs and the Mulroney economists are talking about so persuasively.

We had that free dynamic market condition, no regulation of markets , no government involvement. Capitalism, market capitalism was running free. Madam Speak er, we know what happened. That system did not work, and then when there was obviously a need for government involvement, legislators like Franklln Delano Roosevelt said that government has to be involved and they had developed systems to get public works created in fashion, put people to work.

So when market capitalism failed, government had to act, but as the Member for Lac du Bonnet pointed out, there was even greater involvement because of the Second World War, and there wasn't just regulation of society. There was regimentation of society , and we accomplished a great deal. We put to work that were unemployed. We clothed people who didn't have clothes. We fed people who had otherwise been hungry. We were able, through planning, to produce goods and put people to work. Government was involved In planning the economy, to fight, dis courage Fascism, of Nazism.

Isn't it sad commentary that today we, as a society, cannot plan effectively to provide universal health systems with all of the technological needs for . all of the world, that people go without adequate health care. People go without adequate water and food. And that's the lesson that history teaches us, that there has to be some degree of pl anning in society, that governments must take a responsive role and a respons ible role in developing systems planning to meet human needs. That's the message that history has given us.

And yet, today, we have these people talking about deregulation, that all these regulations must be set aside. Remember the words of the former Member for Fort Garry and from Charleswood before, the honourable former leader of the Conservative Party and former Premier - he used to refer to the dead hand of government. Take the dead hand of government off private enterpri se. That was the hand of government that was instrumental in the United States under Roosevelt that started to lift the economy up again.

That was the hand of the economy in the We stern World that put our economy working to defend our democracy, and we succeeded. After the war, there was all that income available for people to buy consumer goods and our economy sprung to life. And yet we have these economists talking about deregulation, destroying systems that were built over time to ensure fairness in the marketplace and a reasonable degree of equity for people who wanted to invest in enterprise.

I, for some years, was chairman of the Motor Transport Board, and I can tell you that many of the people who invested of themselves. their lives and their families' fortunes to develop a trucking 569 system depended on some degree of assurance that there wouldn't be unlimited competition, because they had invested to provide services to the areas that they served. Ye t, all of this is to be set aside under this new wave of open market capitalism. lt didn't work in the 30's, it won't work in the 1980's.

Mada m Speaker, social democratic or democratic socialist governments must strive constantly to effect greater fairness and equity in the distribution of wealth in our communities and throughout the global community. I would like for a few moments to talk about my concerns about the distribution of wealth in socie ty. Now, I know that this is going to contrast myself and others on this side of the Chamber from other members opposite, on a philosophical basis - and I understand where they come from and where they go - and 1 trust that they can sincerely appreciate the positions we hold on this side of the House.

We believe that humankind Is not like nature, where it's survival of the fittest; that humanki nd, through the exercise of intelligence, is prepared to share equitably with others who are less fortunate, who are less physically able, who are less - whatever the reason - able to fight for the benefits that otherwise they could obtain in society if they had those same strengths. Madam Speaker , humankind is above nature and beyond nature. We are able, through the gifts we've been given, to plan, order and structure things so that we get fairness In society .

Now, the open market system would mean that everyone gets what they can and you don't worry about your neighbou r. That's the rugged, private enterprise free market capitalism that I talked about earlier that existed, rampant in the 1930's.

Fortunately, Madam Speaker, we have provided through time, systems in this country that have brought greater fairness and equity to people everywhere; systems that, sometimes begrudgingly , sometimes with more enthusiasm, members of Conservative and Liberal Parties have joined with social democrats in endorsing; programs to provide fair social assistance when people are unemployed; systems for compensation for workers who are injured; systems that provide reasonable housing for people who need housing; and most significant of all is the treasured health system which we now have in this province and throughout this country.

These programs didn't come easy. There was struggle to attain these programs. We had to convince reluctant people In our society to accept the fact that we are our brothers' and our sisters' keeper, and that we as a society should share from our common fruits sufficient that we can take care of the needs of others. That's what we have been able to do in respect to those fields of endeav our. Ha ve we perfected those systems to the point where we can be satisfied that we've done enough? I don't think any member in the House, including members on the other side, would agree.

In order to do those things - they just don't happen on their own - there has to be government showing leade rship, developing systems, programs, to provide for that sharing of the benefits of society. I don't think anyone would deny that. So that is why we on this side of the House and hopefully members on that side must be vigilant in our commitment to not only retain the health systems and

Tue•day, 8 March, 1988 the social benefits that we have, but to try and ensure that they are improved upon and furthered to the benefit of all. Madam Speaker, I would also like to point out that, when you provide systems, universal programs for health, for education, for housing, you are providing for redistribution of wealth, because those who can afford to pay through the taxes we raise are therefore benefitting their neighbours in providing these essential services.

No one on the other side of the House would be opposed to the public education system we have, but that is but one example of how society freely, reaso nably, came to structure a program so that everyone had a right to go to school. That wasn't always the case. Historical ly, only the affluent children could go to school but, over the course of time, reluctant parliaments finally accepted the fact that there should be universal free public education. I regret the fact that in our society today, unlike some societies elsewhere, there is not universal free education right through the university sy stem.

I regret the fact that we still have tuition fees. I think that, as a society , we should strive to eliminate the costs of fees right through the whole course of the educational sys tem. I believe that we should provide systems that would ensure that the health system we have is even stronger in its role of protecting people, and the emphasis that we are placing in this Budget on a health system that encourages and rewards fitness and wellness is the way we must go if we're going to control the ever burdening costs of health care in this country.

I congratulate the Mi nister of Health and my colleagues in government for the commitment that is embodied in this Budget of the health care fund to continue to press on with the reforms that are necess ary to shift the emphasis away from crisis health care to ttoe protection of well-being and fitness, because that's the way we have to go. Madam Speaker and colleagues, I am concerned that, in our society still, there are far too many who do not have jobs and do not have the pride of being able to work.- (Interjection)- Madam Speaker, the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie is chattering from his seat.

I will ignore that interruption. The facts are, Madam Speaker, that this government wasn't overburdened, wasn't frustrated by the size of the deficit that they can take no action in job creation. We have put many, many thousands of Manitobans to work through our Jobs Fund effort. We can be proud of that, Madam Speaker. But In our society today, there are far too many people who are either unemp loyed or exist on minimum wage, minimum wage that has not kept pace with the cost of living.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that, if we're going to have fairness and reaso nable redistribution of wealth, then those minimum wages must be increased, year by year, to the point where those who are working even at the lowest scale in our economic ladder receive a reasonable compensation, so they can enjoy a reas onable standard of life. Surely, that should be an attainable goal for us in this society . We have an obligation, Madam Speaker, as an enlightened society to provide jobs for everyone, to provide reasonable reward for everyone.

Madam Speaker, some years ago, former Premier Schreyer indicated a concern in respect to the levels 570 of income in society, that there should be a reason able incomes policy in our society. He put out a rather tentative suggestion that perhaps the maximum salar y in our society should be two-and-a-half times tt.e average industrial wage. I think there was very serious concern about that kind of a formula, Madam Speaker, and I wouldn't debate with honourable members if they say that might be too tight, that might be too narrow. There shouldn't be that rigid a formula.

But I think members opposite would say, well, we may not agree upon the formula, but we think that there should be more fairness and equity in comparable levels of salary, and that there shouldn't be the great disparity that exists in society in respect to levels of income, where managers and directors of corporations receive -(Interjection)- Well, Madam Speaker, I know the honourable members want to chatter. If they want to chatter nonsense, of course, they can go into their caucus room.

Madam Speaker, surely today in our society, it should be obvious that those who earn beyond $1 million a year as a manager or a director of a corporation are getting far and away above what they reas onably need as compensation for their work. Yet, at the other end of the scale, we have people who are not even making sufficient to enjoy a reasonable life in society. They're earning $1 2,000 and $1 4,000 and $1 5,000 a year.

This great disp arity in income is what exists in parts of the world where people become so desperate that they're prepared to take any means to justify a more equitable sharing of salary and the fruits of life in that society . Madam Speaker , surely in our society, we should be working towards greater fairness and equity in the salary levels that exist throughout North America.

Madam Speaker, we've heard talk about the concern in respect to doctors' salaries, and I won't dwell on that except to say that, in the pioneering days in Saskatchewan in respect to the development of health care as we now know it, communities in Saskatchewan - not socialist communities, Conservatives and Liberals and CCF as they then were - people in those communities said, we want a doctor, we need health care. So they formed a clinic, a community clinic, and they hired a doctor. They paid him or her a sal ary, and they got better health care. But now we've got a system that is dominated by fee-for-service.

Like the lawyers too often, like the accountants too often, everything is fee-for-service. In that kind of a fee-for-service climate, the cost of professionals continues to escalate. We have to shift in emphasis away from fee-for-service to reasonable standards of salaries for profes sionals. If the Member for Gladstone has a question, I'd be happy to answer it at the end. Now, Madam Speaker -(Interjection)- well, the Honourable Member for La Verendrye says, like they have in Russia. Well, they have in many parts of the world professionals who work on sal ary.

The honourable member might be surprised to know that we've got dedicated people in Manitoba who work on salary as profes sionals, and they don't feel that they are degraded or they're regimented. They choose to do that because they work a much more reasonable lifestyle. They have someone who takes their place when they leave. There is no dis continuity of service. There is an assurance of the income. They don't have to chase and collect bills for their services.

1\.lesda� 8 March, 1918 lt is a much more reaso nable and orderly system. They have holidays on a regular basis, and I don't think that saying that those people who opt that way, that they're communists. That's a much more reas onable, loving and caring form of contribution of profes sional services. Madam Speaker, I also want to say that, in our Budget, we continue in a modest way to reform our tax system. There are no great revolutionary changes in this Budget. I would say I would agree with those members who have characterized this Budget as a relatively responsible Budget.

I was going to say relatively conservative Budget, because there is no massive change involved in this Budget. Wel l, my colleague from Kildonan says, careful. You know the word conservative is not a bad word. lt's the application of it in politics that sometimes gets a little disturbing. But, Madam Speak er, surely in our society, the Honourable Mem ber for Portage and others would agree that those who have very large incomes should contribute significantly more to the programs that we have, whether they be for education or health or social services.

But the sad fact of our taxation system today, Madam Speak er, is that the wealthy people, once they attain a certain plateau, don't continue to pay more and more taxes. We cut them off, we give them a holiday, and then we give them all sorts of loopholes in which they can avoid paying taxes, and then the honourable members wonder why we have deficits. Madam Speak er, our tax system - and honourable members on this side have pointed this out - our tax system nationally cries out for significant reform.

We had a study that was made by Carter back in the Diefenbaker days and, if that reform had proce eded, we would have had an equitable tax system extant in Canada today, but that report was put on the shelf and we continue to have a tax system that is a hodgepodge, such a morass of regulation, exception and provisos that it's almost impossible for a lay person now to complete their own tax form. We have a system today where, under that tax system, we subsidize the exploitation of resources in this country.

We subsidize their exploitation - gas and oil - and honourable members will know whereof I speak - the depletion allowances and depreciation allowances in those industries that allow for the massive writeoff of the cost of exploration, development and so on, to the extent, Madam Speaker , that the extraction of those resources is subsid ized by everyone in society in Canada, and yet we sell them off as cheaply as we can to the United States. Madam Speaker , it's an absolutely incredulous system that we have.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I regret in our present tax system is that we have in Canada a system where the wealthy can leave their wealth untaxed, undiminished, to succeeding generations and that whole generations of people can live off the income of others who have left. Surely, we should, like other countries of this world, provide that those who leave, after having secured the great benefits that they do from living in this free society, leave somet hing of that bounty to the generations that follow and share it with all citizens in society.

I refer, of course, to some measure of estate or succes sion taxes. lt's very difficult for one province to maintain a system and be an island in a sea of exception, and that was 571 the problem that we found ourselves in Manitoba, but surely , Madam Speaker, we, as a national society, should have the commitment and the political will, the social and economic will, to develop a system where there is some reas onable ret urn to society of wealth when people pass on. I really sincerely believe that the time is long overd ue when we reest ablish some rea sonable basis of estate or succession taxes.

Madam Speaker , I believe that our national community cries out for some redistribution of income. When I read in the newspaper and hear the commentaries and there is a dispute as to the cost, whether it is $8 billion or $1 0 billion or some say $14 billion for the operation of nuclear submarines in the Arctic, I am distressed that in our society today we would see government making that kind of commitment. We have at least within the world some voices of reaso n, some voices of concern about militarizing the Arctic. Madam Speaker , I hear those voices.

I hear those voices of Mikhail Gorbachev, the President of the Soviet Union, saying that the Arctic should be demil itarized . I hear the leader of the Liberal Party saying that. Certainly , in our party, we have had a consistent commitment to no nuclear development in this country. John Diefenbaker stood for a nuclear-free Canada, but now we have this new group in Ottawa hell-bent on providing nuclear submarines in the Arctic. You know what John Dief enbaker would say about that?

He'd say, "Can you just imagine those submarines creep ing under the ice silently, waving the flag and saying, we are here." That's the kind of caustic criticism John Diefenbaker would have raised in Parliament in respect to that kind of proposal. Eight bill ion - (Int erjec tion)- Ye s, I liked old John Diefenba ker. (lnterjection)- Well, I didn't have the privilege to vote for John. I ran against his party. I liked John because he spoke up for Canada. He spoke up against the absolute demand of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and others, that Canada accept the Bomarc missile, nuclear armed. He stood up to them.

Madam Speaker, when I consider the kind of money that's involved in having those submarines dr ift around in the Arctic, in that ice-controlled Arctic water and consider what $8 billion or $14 billion, whatever the number is, would do to provide international peace and good will, and take about half of that money, $4 billion, or $7 billion, whichever is the right figure - it's only billions anyway, you know, it really doesn't matter. That's of course, people who are making these mil itary spendings, what's another billion?

But just think of the benefit that kind of spending could have in our global community to provide clean water to communities that don't enjoy clean water, to provide shelter for those who have no shelter, to provide the substance of irrigation and dams to return countries like Ethiopia to prospering nations feed ing their own people. Madam Speaker , when you consider the kind of positive good that could be accomplished by the utilization of those gross amounts of money for good in the world, surely we as members must also cry out and say, let's have a fairer redistribution throughout our world community as well.

So, Madam Speaker, it is with those concerns that we, while we have developed a Budge t that produces

Tue•day, 8 March, 1988 some greater fairness, some greater sharing, some greater protection, we must continually strive to do better for our own commun ity. We should urge our brothers and sisters in Ottawa to do better in respect to the commitme nt to sharing through a fairer redistribution of wealth in Canada and throughout the world. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assi niboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to be here and to participate in this debate. I don't intend to be long but I do want to put before the House some of the concerns that I have.

I am happy to be here on behalf of my constitu ency, Assiniboia. lt is good to be back. As you probably recall last spring, before the House terminated, I had a bit of a health problem. lt isn't entirely back to normal, but I am better than I was back last June. I do want to make mention of one of the former members who is no longer with us, Mr. Desjard ins, an old friend going back many years. We played baseball against each other and curled at the same club. I'm very pleased to see that he's back on his feet after his operation and living well.

Madam Speaker, last year the Provincial Government imposed a tax on net income which is applicable only to Manitoba taxpayers. Madam Speaker, every taxpayer in Manitoba will feel the effects of this bite that the Manitoba Government is taking on net income, 2 percent of net income right off the very top before any deductions are taken into account. This leaves the average working man, woman or family with less available dis posable income. Every working man or woman will be affected, another bite into what little disposable income that the average family will end up with.

Couple that with the increase in Autopac and many other bites into what is left of wages leaves very little left for anyone to put away for future needs. Madam Speaker, April 1 brings more bad news to the average Manitoban: additional tax on fuel if you drive an older model automobile that primarily uses leaded gas. The price will increase by - so it's only 0.9 cents per litre, but it's still something that the average working man can do without, another tax. The people who drive older model cars and those who can least afford the increase are going to be affected.

At the same time, aviation fuel will be increased by two cents per litre. This is going to affect every working stiff who has to travel throughout the country, or if it doesn't affect him it's going to affect the company that he works for. All they'll do is pass that added cost on to the buyer of their product. lt's a vicious circle and there's nothing that can be done about it, I guess, at this stage.

Madam Speaker, while speaking of airlines, another area that is yet - it's undetermined as to what is going to happen - is the route British Airways will take under its new agreement with Air Canada, whether Winnipeg will become a stop en flight between London and the U.S., particularly the U.S. west coast of California. lt just depends on what happens as to the results of the 572 improved air service between Winnipeg and London and California - may very well be influenced one way or the other by that same tax that I was just speak ing of, on fuel. Madam Speaker, more bad news for the travelling public.

Manitoba Blue Cross will increase insur ance rates as much as 51 percent for the Manitoba traveller. A MEMBER: Bad news for the traveller. MR. R. NORDMAN: That's bad news, definitely. Travelling out of the country, I mean it's not bad in the city or in the country that we live in, but as soon as you step outside that or fly outside the boundaries of Canada, you're going to get stuck with a 51 percent increase in travelling costs. The government plans to reduce its coverage to travellers under Medicare. Manitoba medical will no longer cover the 75 percent medical costs incurred in other countries.

In other words, if you're travelling into the United States or into Europe where the Manitoba insurance, Blue Cross, covered you for all your expenses or practically all your medical expenses in foreign countries, now they will only cover approximately 25 percent. The province will pay what a Manitoba hospital would charge or receive the same service. In other words, Blue Cross will only pay about 27 percent of medical costs incurred outside of Canada. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C.

Santos, in the Chair.) Now I don't know what other insurance companies - I haven't looked into that - I'm speaking of Manitoba Blue Cross -, but other companies will probably take up the slack somewhere along the line. But the traveller, people that have worked all their lives and finally have taken retirement and decided to go to a warm climate for the winter, they are only going to be covered by Blue Cross for 27 percent. There is also a new policy to cover transportation costs for Manitoba needing medical care available only outside of the province.

There is going to be limited coverage outside the province but not as much as what it has been. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the end result to the average wage earner is less dis posable income than before due to higher taxes and higher fees and so on. Mr. Deputy Speaker, take the increased costs of opera ting an automobile. Everyt hing costs more, gasoline is up - not the product but the increase in taxes is up. Insu rance rates are up. From my own personal experience, I'm driving a 10-year old car and I'm paying about $300 more today than the day I bought the car and having less coverage to boot.

When I bought the car, I think I was paying approximately $300 for that ins urance; now it's better than $800.00. The effect of all these increases certainly has affected the dis posable dollar. Restau rants and retail outlets are the busi nesses hurt most by the taxes and the licensing that we've just gone through. There just aren't the dis posable dollars around. The travel indus try is bound to be affected. I speak of the travel industry because my son and I are involved in the travel industry, and we can foresee that people are not going to be able to travel as freely as what they have.

Their cost for flying is going to be greater

TUesday, 8 March, 1188 unle ss you have the time and are able to plan your trips well In advance. You can't take advantage of the seat sales that come about, so it's not going to be any picnic. On Insura nce, I previously commen ted on the Incr eased amount to almost $300 more than when the car was brand new. Mr . Deputy Speak er, I can 't remember which one of the members on our side in his spee ch made this comment but it Is a fact that Manitoba has been a province since 1870.

Half of the deficit was accumulated since 1981 while the NDP was In power. lt took 117 years to accumulate the total deficit but it took the present government now sitting six years to accumulate half of that total deficit. Of that, $5 million is direct government debt and if you were to include the debt of the Crown corporations, the total would be $10.5 billion. That's incredible. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, with regard to the write-off of debt amounting to $180 million, such a staggering amount of money and with so little explanation, I feel that the Government of the Day needs to provide a more detailed accounting of its actions. lt is truly incred ib le that so little explanation has been forthcom ing. Mr. Deputy Speaker , Work men 's Compensation - I guess somewhere along the line I blew that one, it is Workers Compensation, not WOrkmen's Compensation. But what is the problem?

In 1981, WOrkers Compensation had a surplus of approxima tely $36 million and in 1986 , five years later, we find that there is a deficit of $86 million - a $122 million differential in a five-year period . What happened? That's incredible that this could be - a loss of $24 million over a year for five years. Mr. Deputy Speaker, health care I shall leave in the capable hands of our critic, the Member for Morris, but it seems to me that health care is taking one step forward and two steps back, yet the costs of survival seem to escalate almost weekly. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, after eight days of debate, there isn't much that hasn't been said for and against the Budget. As for the Government of the Day, I know my contribution has not been of the quality of my leaders, but I did want to make my feelings known in this debate. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. J. MALOWAY: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

I always find it very interest ing to listen to the members opposite and particularly hear the regurgitation of this brand of voodoo economics imported from the United States , first coined by Vice Pre sident Bush when he ran for the nomination back in 1980. You recall, he called Ronald Reagan's version of economics voodoo economics and then a few months later became his vice-pre sident. He's been a loyal follower of his ever since.

I also note that the Member for Minne dosa is planning his retirement and I imagine it's a well-deserved retirement after spending so many years in this House, of course always wanting to be in government but not having - his colleagues fall short. Of course, he's always told us that it hasn't been his fault that they haven't been over here. As a matter of fact, once again, I guess 573 it bears repea ting, that their electoral record has not been all that great. I mean four out of five elections, that's what they've lost and we're going to make that five out of six, I believe. You know, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , they continue to call for cuts in the deficit. They call for cuts in spending. They call for cutting taxes. They want to increase services. Just today, the Member for Pembina was asking for more hospital construction. And they expect that somehow they can sell this ver sion of voodoo economics to the public at election time. The voters I think know that the Conservatives are not serious. They also know that voodoo economics won't work. 1 mean, they tried that back in 1977 and what did we have for four years? We had voodoo economics and the people threw them out. They also, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, wanted to point out once again that the rich are the biggest winners under Tory tax reform Of course, we on this side knew from the beginning that that's in fact what happened. As a matter of fact, the Winnpeg Sun

article of February 11, they say that yeste rday's Budget calls the last four years of Tory Government the years of progress. They might have been also called the years of taxation. After ref orm, the great majority of taxpayers are worse off now than they were in 1984. The richest people in the country are the biggest winners. Tax changes wrought by Wilson since 1984 have meant that some of us are better off and some of us are worse off and probably most of us are worse off.

The Tories put the big tax bites on in 1985 when they elimina ted a low income tax credit and made taxpayers absorb almost all of the effects of inflation by abolishing the indexation of tax brackets and exemptions. These measures added hundr eds of thousands of people to the tax rolls. The Conservatives also gave 100,000 a year tax break for capital gains which benefitted upper income groups. I don't know that there is anybody in Elmwood who is benefitting from the 100,000 a year capital gains tax break that they brought in.

I would suspect that there are a tremendous numb er of people bene fitting from the capital gains tax break in the riding of Tuxedo, for example. But I don't think there are too many people in Elmwood who are going to benefit from that particular tax break. Then came tax reform which basically took off all the people that had been added to the roll since 1984. Again, an example of smoke and mir rors, where they simply, on the one hand, give breaks to people and then on the other hand take it away.

In the first three fiscal years of Conservative rule, personal income tax has brought in an extra $8.6 billion to the Treasury, an increase of 29 perc ent. Now, where did the corporate taxes figure into this, Mr. Deputy Speaker? By comparison, they brought in only 5 percent more revenue in the same period. So, once again, we see that tax re form Tory-style simply means what it always meant; and that is, breaks for people who have power, people who are rich and increased taxes, cert ainly a higher perc entage of the burden put on those who are the least able to afford to pay.

The Leader of the Opposition, of course, much the same as his federal counterpart, Michael Wilson, believes that the rich pay too much tax. The Leader

Tuesday, 8 March, 1988 of the Opposition has been calling for tax cuts this week and his official Finance Critic wants taxes raised to pay for health care. As in Hansard on Monday, February 29, Mr. Manness was quoted as saying, "Tax for it, don't borrow it." Mr. Oeputy Speaker, in fact the Mem bers for Morris and Pembina both want more spending in health care even though the deputy Leader of the party wants more health care spending. The Leader of the Opposition, on Monday, said that the provincial funding for health and education was sufficient.

So, once again, the Leader of the Opposition is flip flopping. it reminds me of those famous Sunday press conferences during the last elections. Remember the programs for people? I think most of you recall that whole effort that didn't prove to be all that successful where the Conservative party tried to masquerade as something a little more progressive than it really was. And, of course, people saw through that and it didn't work. But interestingly enough, there are a couple of items in this particular brochure which you would not find in an NDP brochure.

A lot of what's in here Is hard for us to argue with, but there are a couple. For example, they asked for, once again, the elimina tion of the health and education levy. On the other hand the rest of the pamphlet talks about increased spending and here they call for a decrease in the tax rate. Again, how do you square that circle? And they've not been able to provide the answers for that and probably the best part of the whole leaflet, imme diately rebate 10 percent of Autopac premiums. Now, wasn't that a smart thing to do?

Wasn't that forward-looking when at that time - and we'll get into that In the next 30 minut es - if they had checked with any of their friends In the insurance business in other parts of Canada they would have known that the Industry was in trouble, and that in fact, this would not be a very good Idea at the time. But they did it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in an effort , I think to attempt to buy the voters, buy the election. This is a carbon copy of what Grant Devine used successfully in Saskatchewan In 1982 and I think that's where they came up with this thing.

On the final page of the Programs for People brochure they say, "The Progressive Conservative Party has a plan for Manitoba." Well, we know all about that. We know there Is a plan. There are several plans In there: the one that they're going to enunciate during election campaign and then the one that's really going to come forward .

The one that came forward in the period from 1977-198 1, that's the real plan - the privatization and the basic hacking and slashing and burning - that members opposite are so prone to follow once they get in power, which is again one of the reasons why their electoral record is so dismal In the last few years. As a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I happen to have a cartoon that was in the paper not so long ago showing a contractor holding blueprints and forms titled, Go vernment Contr acts, and a P.C. Party membership card in the other.

The caption on the party card reads and I quote, "Don't leave home without it." Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wanted to say that I, for one, was pleased to hear that Mr. Bissonette was acquitted a couple of weeks ago and of course was surprised that the Prime Minister him self fired Bissonette. The land itself of course, as we all know, certainly did triple In value. But the reason that I was pleased with this 574 acquittal was the fact that the Federal Conservatives were making some of the TV evangelists look pretty good. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I wanted to also mention that there was a column in the Winnipeg Sun which certainly bears reference to - a couple of weeks ago by John Bertrand -a nd it's entitled, "Making a list and Checking it Twice." He has done this.

He has checked off Michel Cote; Marcel Masse; Sine Stevens; Andre Bissonette; the CF-18; Meech Lake; Baie Comeau's new prison - patronage; Robert Coates and the German stripper; Tory news service; Tunagate; the Oerlikon Affair; Paris at $28,000 a visit; Eric Nielsen and eavesdropping, - remember that - eavesdropping in the Liberal Caucus some 20 years ago; renovations at 24 Sussex Drive; refugees; Mila's interior decorator; security scandals; Mu lroney's child teacher. Now he says, "When Brian Mulroney and the Tories were swept into power in 1984 we were promised a brave new era in Canadian politics.

We would have a government that we could trust, a government built on the twin pillars of decency and fairness. Go over the list one by one. Ask yourself this question: When is this new era supposed to start?" I think that a tremendous amount of people, as reflected by recent polls, are asking themselves the same question. That is why we will see in the federal election that will happen within the next year, probably a quick end to a Conservative Government and a Conservative Party that has been out of power most of this century and probably for a very good reas on. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Conservatives have tarnished the reputations of all politicians of all parties - federally , provincially and municipally - by all these scandals and controversies in Ottawa. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that Canadians do want a federal election before the trade deal has gone too far, the trade deal that was signed a couple of months ago. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in today's Globe and Mail there is an

article entitled, "A Hund red Ways to Wipe that Smile off your Face." Number 92 on that list, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Is that with free trade and so on, the leader of Canada in the year 2,000 will probably be the President of the United States. In fact, there's a lot of people even in the Conservative Party, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who either believe that or are begimiing to believe it. I bring you an example here of a person who runs a very successful tour operation in Manitoba, one who probably many of you have travelled with In the past, called P.S. Holidays. In fact, Mr.

Gavin Scott was a Conservative candidate In 1981 in Ellice. A very right wing thinker but a very competent individual, and he says in an

article in the Free Press, Sunday, March 6, just last Sunday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, under an

article entitled, "Tourism gives trade deal warm welcome," what he says is, "I'm a nationalist and against it. I'm worried it could mean int egration into American society." So you see that you don't have total support within the Conservative Party for this trade deal. You might like to suggest that you do, but in fact you don't. MA. E. CONNEAY: Whoever said that? Nobody ever said that.

Tuesday, 8 March, 1988 MR. J. MALOWAY: Gavin Scott, a previous Conservative candidate in Ellice - for the Member for Portage la Prairie - the man who claims to talk to speed bump s. Mr. Deputy Speak er, I think it's fairly clear that eventually we are faced with a loss of sover eignty if we proceed with this deaL lt's only a matter of time before you see the bulkanization of the country and you see an integration occurring in which Canada will effect ively be swallowed up by the United States. Mr.

Deputy Speake r, also, in terms of the deal itself, the Mem ber for Arthur is one of the people over there who rides his high horse In favour of free trade, and maybe he doesn't buy the argument of the sove reignty question, but surely he should pay some attention to the business side of the free trade deal, and in fact, I have a copy here of a Bank of Nova Scotia study, and I'm cert ain the Member for Minnedosa probably would give some kind of credence to a bank study, being a banker.- (Interjection)- Well, that's true, he was with the Royal Bank.

Maybe he wouldn't like the Bank of Nova Scotia analysis, but I'm sure that if the Bank of Nova Scotia comes up with an analysis, the Royal Bank cannot really disagree too much with it. But in any event, it's got "Confidential" marked on the front of it - "Fr ee Trade in North America: im plications for credit risk, broader economic considerations." Now, Mr. Deputy Speak er, in this particular analysis by the bank, they state that while a services sector will be a net loser, that both the manufacturing and the agricultural sectors are small net negatives under free trade. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they suggest that a broad-based deal em bracing these areas would produce some serious losses in the process of rest ructuring, and in fact, they suggest that the route to go would have been a narrower agreement. Now what we're talking about here Is a bank study which will no doubt have an effect on lines of credit with companies. If a company is a marginal company to start with, and they rely on continuing lines of credit from the bank, it could be Impaired by this very document.

The loans officers in banks and credit unions are not going to be very willing to extend lines of credit or even keep existing lines of credit when they've got a study like this that's telling them that they should pull back from areas that may become risky. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the report goes on to say that beyond resources, all other major sectors are net losers. In manufacturing, the losers will be hit up front while the winners will tend to collect further down the line. They say that we estimate that free trade will be a small over all negative In manufacturing.

This small negative read ing reflects a hard hit on small manufacturers. Well, again, just what makes up the Manitoba economy if it isn't a lot of small manufacturers and the Canadian economy as well? The agricultural sector , of which the members opposite profess to be the spokespeople for, and . A MEMBER: Profess, yes. MR. J. MALOWAY: Profess, that's correct . What does it say about the agricultural se ctor? lt says, "The agricultural sector is at serious risk in poultry, dairy, fruit and vegetables. We estimate free trade will 575 be a small overall net negative in the agricultural sector.

" They say, "The setback in poultry, fruits and veget ables could be quite sharp and similarly for food proces sing in these areas. Unavoidably, free trade in the service sect or will produce a net negative impact of at least medium size. In general, the Canadian service sector is smaller, weaker and less competitive compared to the service sector in the Un ited States." Once again, an admission that this sector will be adversely affected by the trade deaL lt also goes on to say that ther e'll be a big hit on trucking services and railway services. We ll, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in fact there's about eight or nine of the 15 major trucking firms in Canada who are headqu artered right here in Winnipeg. A MEMBER: Not for long. MR. J. MALOWAY: And the Member for Arthur says, "Not for long," and this is being borne out by the analysis from free trade. "Free trade ser vices," they say, "if it's attempted, also promises to be a sizeable net negative. Small manufacturing, agriculture and services will be net negative." So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it's not as rosy a picture as the three musketeers across were saying it was going to be when they were heading off to the Peace Gardens, or wherever they were going, to have this meeting -w ithout their leader's knowledge, I might add. So just a

summary of the measures. Manufacturing is indic ated here as being a loss of minu s one, agriculture, minus one, services minus two. The big losers will be the clothing industry of minus tour, the food processing, poultry and a num ber of others, Mr. Deputy Speaker , which time does not permit me to get into the entire list. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also have an

article here entitled, "Business told to be lean and mean in free trade." We ll, I don't know how much leaner and meaner they can get because before the last recession that was the talk - business had to get lean and mean and get into the 1980's because it was facing offshore competition in automobiles and that. Wel l, it's 1988.

We're looking down the barrel of a free trade deal and what do we have but articles saying, "B usin ess will have to be leaner and meaner if Canadians are to reap full benefit from free trade with the Un ited States, says a new federal council study that's studying the proposed trade deal." Well, what that really means is that we're going to have to level off the playing field, that we're going to have to go and adopt the laws of the right-to-work states like Alabama and Mississippi, and we're going to have to level that playing field out so that emplo yers here can pay $2, $3 an hour and displace workers that are earning $10 and $15 right now.

That's what's going to happen. And they go on to say that as many 25,000 Canadian workers per year will be displaced on an average during the first 10 years of the free trade deal. So that's a quarter of a million over a 10-year period. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is likely to happen is that a whole lot of companies who set up shop here over the last 20 or 30 years because they had to, to properly compete in the market, will in fact now set up in right-

� 8 Merch, 1881 to-work states like Mississipi and produce their goods down there at much lower cost and simply send them back to Canada. So, for people who think they're going to be able to buy the odd American goods free of tariffs and for a few cents less because of free trade, I want to ask you how they are going to be able to do this when they don't have a job, when they're not earning any money in order to pay anything. If their wages drop from $10 to $3 and they save $1 on a U.S. product, how is that supposed to help them out? In

summary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from my own personal point of view, the sover eignty question is the biggest question in this whole area, that we're going to be on this slippery slope to oblivion, eventually as part of a continental American system. On top of that, I do feel that the deal itself is not going to be a v ery, very positive thing for Manitoba or Canada. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I did want to deal for a moment or two about the tax inc reases that the Federal Conservatives have brought in, in the last four years, and also to make some comments about the Conservatives here provincially in that they can criticize us for bringing in a Budget which is basically containing and arresting the growth in the deficit, but they can support a federal Budget which has a worse record, which doesn't rein it in to the same extent. The Winnip eg Sun, Monday, February 15: "Tories tend wrong plot," so it reads.

"FIImon praised Federal Finance Minister Michael Wilson for his plans to trim the federal deficit, even though the Minis ter admitted the deficit would be cut only slightly over the next few years. Had this same Budget been brought down by the Provincial Government, we would have expected Filmon to attack it for its lack of commitment to cut the provincial deficit.

Now however, it appears Filmon is content with deficit reductions of less than 3 percent, as indicated in the Federal Budget." They go on to say: "This is good news, no doubt, to Manitoba Finance Min ister Eugene Kostyra, who can expect all sorts of praise from Filmon by projecting provincial Budget cuts of up 30 percent." Then they say, "Of course, that's not going to happen." Again, where are all those accolades from members opposite for the efforts of the Finance Min ister?

They go on to say that even if Kostyra slashes the deficit in half, it won't be enough for Filmon, that he will assail the Finance Minister no matter what the Budget shows. They go on to say that Filmon said after last week's Throne Spee ch that the NDP has no plan, no blueprint, that he should take a look at his own words, that praising deficit cuts of 2.4 percent nationally, criticizing cuts of 30 percent provincially is hardly a stellar plan for the econo my.

"The Tory leader had better start to create a consistent policy, not one in which he automatically praises anything done by the Federal Conservatives and automatically criticizes the Manitoba Government. He is, after all, supp osed to be running to lead Manitobans, not angling for a seat at Brian Mulr oney's right hand. If we wanted a federal apologist, we would have drafted Jake Epp." I'm sure he could agree with that last statement. But this is the case.

He is not really showing any degree of fairness in that he hops on the bandwagon to support the Federal Government whenever they do 576 anything, and he's quick to condemn us for basic.ally showing even a better record. Let's look, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker , at federal tax increases over the last three years. I draw your atten tion to the House of Commons Debates, February 11, 1988, page 12872. Mr. Nelson Riis, the NDP MP for Kamloops Shuswap on tax increases, effect of tax increases, federal tax increases on the average family.

Today we had members opposite going through the litany of provincial taxes that are supposedly being a big burden on people living in Manitoba and not making any reference, not giving any balance, to all of the federal taxes that have to be paid as wel l. Certain ly, the provincial tax load is there - it's got to be recog nized - but the federal tax load has to be recognized as well. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Member of Parliament says, and I quote: "In 1984, an increase in oil and gas price costs the average family $200 per year; the increase in unemplo yment insurance premiums costs the average family $102 per year; the sales tax increase costs the average family $150 per year.

"In 1985," a year later, "the elimination of the federal tax reduction cost the average family $100 per yea r; modification of Indexing cost the average family $115 per year; the cut in family allowance cost the average family $22 a year; cigarette and alcohol tax cost $75 a year; sales tax changes $150 a year; gas tax increases $50 a year. "In 1986," Mr. Deputy Speaker , "the 3 percent income tax surcharge cost the average family $170 a year; sales tax increase cost the average family $150 a year; cigarette and alcohol taxes a further $20 a year. "In 1987," Mr.

Deputy Speaker, "the gas tax increase cost the average family $150 per year; sales tax changes cost the average family $15 a year; cigarette and air ticket tax cost the average family $35 a year. "In 1988 the gas tax increase will cost the average family $50 a year. " Now the grand total, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is $1,12 4.00. Of course, what they don't tell you is that, once the election is over and if they were lucky enough to be the government again, in fact they would be bringing in the sales tax. So In fact it's another situation of smoke and mirrors, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

After increasing taxes by some $22 billion in just three years, the Conservatives have now offered back $2 billion as part of their upcoming federal election campaign, again just a giveaway before the election campaign to soften people up to get them in a better mood. Average Canadians after Tory tax reform, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will still be paying $1,000 more a year than they were in 1984. Under Tory tax refo rm, Michael Wilson lowered the maximum tax rate from 34 percent to 29 percent. For anyone with taxable incomes over $55,000, this will bring them large cuts this year. So we see, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that this whole question of tax reform , helping the rich, has in effect helped a cons tituency that traditionally votes Conservative, traditionally supports the Conservatives. For example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a family of four with an income of $20,000 will pay some $250 less In dir ect income tax this year. A family with income of $40,000 will pay $525 less. But the real winne rs, Mr. Deputy Speaker , are the families with incomes of $75,000 or more. They're going to save $1,1 00.00. So you can see again, the real winners are those people who

Tuesday , 8 March, 1988 traditionally vote Conservative and traditi onally contribute to the Conservatives. Once again, they have not told us what they will be doing about the sales tax, which they are certainly going to bring in as soon as that election is over, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank goodness they backed off on their tax for food, but perhaps that's something that they will leave again till after the next election. 1 understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I'm running short of time, so I'm going to have to skip ahead here a bit.

I wanted to certainly get my little quiz in before 1 got to the end, because I thought members opposite would enjoy a little bit of participation here. What provincial Conservative Government lost over $256 million on one project? Does anyone know the answer to that? We have no takers on that. Well, because we're short of time, I'm going to have to give you the answer. The Tories and it was on CFI. The Member for Sturgeon Creek likes to ride that horse, ride CFI. That's one he's never been able to successfully explain, and he never will.

All right, Question No. 2: What Provincial Government spent some $500 million on a railway to the wrong min e? Does anyone kn ow this one? - (Interjection)- B.C., yes, getting close, B.C. The B.C. Socreds, which are sort of a cousin of the Conservatives. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what Provincial Government first approached Flyer Indust ries with offers of loans and government assistance? Who would that be? - (Interjection)- Duff Roblin. The Member for lnkster got that one right quick. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what Provincial Government started Project IDA, a scheme that lost some $2.5 million? -(Interjection)- That's right, the Tories under the Member for Pembina. What Provincial Government started project Fast Alarm? That was another flop that caused taxpayers some $7 million.- (Interjection)- Once again, the Member for Pembina. What about MTS and Saudi Arabia? Who was the genius that got Ma nitob a Into that country? - (Interjection)- The Member for Pembina scores again, and we wonder why he was dum ped as Deputy Leader. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, one last one here - here's an easy one - who said that acute protracted restraint was necessary, as he cut funding for education, health care, social services, and shovelled out contracts to independent economist, one Joh n McCallum? - (Interjection)- That sterling judge and former MLA for Charleswood. And finally, one more for the books: Who got the M PlC Into the worst reinsurance treaties? -(lnterjection) Once again, those Conservative businessmen opposite who make all these correct decisions that get us into the tremendous messes that we've had over the last 15 years.

And again, no wonder the public don't trust him, $22 million, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How much time do I have? Five minutes? Mr. Deputy Speaker, Frances Russell, in an

article a couple weeks ago in the Free Press, states that, when the Conservatives were in power, when the Manitoba Telephone System first decided to go Into business for itself, Project IDA, costing a minimum of $2.2 million, was launched in 1979 and wound up in December 198 1. Project Fast Alarm was started in March, 1981, and In a news release, Don Orchard, P.C. Pembina, then MTS Minister, was, ". . . enthusiastic about a 'good example of technology working for people."' That's what he said in 1981. Of course, we all - and then, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, once the Sterling Lyon Government was in power, however, MPIC reinsurance business began an earnest. In its 1979 report for the Lyon Government on MPIC, Michael Burns stated that they'd adopted a conservative approach in dealing with reinsurance. it wasn't until, of course, last year that we realized that those contracts that the Conservatives had signed had lost something like $22 million. 577 Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I had an awful lot more material here, which will have to wait for another time and, if the members would give me leave, I would be happy to go on for some time more, but I think we will have to simply wrap up by making just a couple comments more about the MPIC and simply say that, had it not been for the establishment of the MPIC back in 1970, we would not have $280 million here. If the private companies had been operating in this province, they may have had investment money over those years, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , but that investment money would have been taken out of the province or would have been invested in things like Burger King and other socially useful projects, but the MPIC has invested its money in things like hospitals, in schools. I could give you a list of a lot of them right in the member's opposite riding, and that of course will have to wait for the next opportunity I have. I will be very happy to put on record a lot of the money that the MPIC has in members' opposite ridings.

Also, there was a very good interview on the CBC on February 29 with Mike McCourt, which basically expresses the view that the insurance problem, the automobile insurance problem, is in fact a world-wide problem. it's not limited to Manitoba. it's a national problem In Canada; it's an international problem in the United States and, in fact, it was the insurance industry that was caught napping when in fact they knew that rates were going to be going up. When claims were coming up, they were in a state of shock for a year or two, thinking that this was some kind of aberration.

They were waiting to see if it would pass and they were caught napping. The result is that, right across the cou ntry, there have been tremendous losses, and insurance rates for automobile insur ance have gone up all over the place. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The member who was just speaking remarked that he had a great deal more material that he could be using, and I would suggest that perhaps he would put it in a box, similar to the box used by the Member for Gimli a year or so ago, and send it to the Archives. lt is a pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rise today to speak on the Budget. There are several items which I would like to discuss but which time does not permit, but there are one or two that I want to zero in on because I think they are of great importance, not only to my constituency, Mr Deputy Sp.:�aker, but to all Manitobans.

Tueeclay, 8 March, 1988 The Budget Add ress is a hard one to really discuss if you want to get right down to the basics and discuss a Budget Speech. lt's a curious document, full of high sounding phrases and self-praise, slamming the Federal Govern ment, complaints about what the Federal Government has done, not any real direction as to what we in Manitoba would like to see. lt's designed to deflect the attention of Manitobans away from the issues which are uppermost in their minds. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is uppermost in the minds of Manitobans these days?

Well, judging from the letters that cross my desk, there are a great many things that are on their minds to do with last year's Budget, which of course is still in effect, all the taxes that were raised in last year's Budget, some of them just really coming into effect this year. So they see that this really wasn't such a good news Budget after all. All the rhetoric in that Budget Address, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, won't deflect the attention or convince the people that they have a competent government which is running their province wisely , and that they are getting the most value for those hard-earned tax dollars which they are sending to the government. So that's what it's all about, Mr. Deputy Speaker. People are basically fair. They are. They don't like paying taxes, but they know that taxes have to be levied. They know that these services and other things that they need so badly have to be paid for.

So when they can see that taxes are fair, they are quite happy to pay them - not maybe happy but they will pay them. But people are not particularly impressed at paying high taxes, increasing taxes, licence fees and all the fees that are levied to support an incom petent government. They like to see that they're getting value for the money that they are putting into this province. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are telling me in no uncertain terms that they are not getting the value that they would like to see for their hard-earned tax dollars. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the government has stated, as one of its major preoccupations and interests, an emphasis is going to be on the health care system . There are, no doubt, reasons for this. One of the reasons may be that they can see, and they're being told just the same as we are, of the state of the health care syst em.

Another reason may be that they've also been reading the Free Press - a newspaper which they don't always agree with, of course - but a poll done by the Free Press pointed out to them very clearly that one of the subjects uppermost in people's minds was the health care system and that they would do well to look at it more closely and pay more attention in order to get re-elected. Now there are many aspects, Mr.

Deputy Speake r, of the health care system we could talk about. lt's a large and diverse subject and perhaps members would do well to read some of the bulletins that have been sent out by the Manitoba Medical Association discussing health care. One of the headlines, and I quote, "Government fails to recruit psychiatrist to Brandon.

The Brandon Meantal Health Centre, with more than 400 in-patients and responsible for serving southwestern Manitoba's 210,000 people, does not even have one full-time psychiatrist." Or maybe they could read the one about "Waiting lists for urgent surgery continue to grow." That one should get their attention. I won't go into reading all of those, Mr. Deputy Speake r. I imagine they're available in most doctors' 578 offices. I think that's where the Manitoba Medical Association usually sends them. So they're readily available, and if members don't have a copy, I'd be glad to forward them a copy of mine later.

As I said before, there are many aspects of health care which could be discussed, and other members of the House will raise this point with the government, particularly members of the Opposition. There is one aspect of health care which I want to raise today which is important not only to all of us in this Chamber but to everyone in Manitoba, and that is the subject of cancer treatment. The Minister , in answer to my questions regarding the Cancer Foundation, went on at great length to tell us how he cares about it. He, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is in a position to do something about it.

He cares; he's in a position to do something about that. This government thinks that the answer to every problem is mone y. In response to any question which is asked in this House by the Opposition, we get a tirade on money - that they have spent a lot of money, or they don't want to spend a lot of money, or many, many times, of course, they will blame the Federal Government if they foresee that there is a shortfall. Funding money seems to them to be the answer to every problem. Name a problem on any subject and they will talk about the money that has been spent on it. I raised in this House, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the subject of the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation. When I raised the question about delayed treatment, what sort of an answer did I get? He accused me of fear mongering, the Minister did. He, for some reaso n, blamed the Federal Government for the problems at that institution. He quoted the amount of money which had been allocated to that facility over the past few years. He was very quick to produce figures on money that was spent. Once again, he thinks that the only answer is money. Sometimes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the answer is not just money. lt is how the money is used.

The Cancer Foundation and other facilities like it can always use more money. There isn't an Institution in this province that would say no to more funding. That is not the issue that I want to discuss today. I propose to tell the Minis ter and the members of the NDP Government some things that they may not be aware of of what has been happening at the Cancer Research and Treatment Foundation, although the Minister, being a member of that Foundation, should be aware of the problems there. He should be aware very intimately of what is going on.

I realize, of course, that he is a recen tly appointed Minister, but I think perhaps he has had time to have some inkling of what is going on in that institution. I have been called many, many times about problems at that foundation. The former Minis ter of Health, in response to my questioning last Session, he launched into a diatribe on how mU(fh money had been dedicated. He thought that was the answer.

The present Minister followed the same path in response to my questions - once again a diatribe about money spent, together with a lecture on me for even raising the question, and a great deal of verbiage about blaming the Fed eral Government as I said before. We ll, people tell me things about that Institution. They ask me to speak for them because they are muzzled,

Tuesday, 8 March, 1988 Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are not allowed to tell anyone what problems they are having at that institution. They dare not come forward in person to tell their concerns. So I think it is beholden on someone whom they have raised it with to bring them to this House and to not be accused of fear mongering for doing so. This NDP Government has been informed on many occasions over the years that there were problems at the foundation.

The former Minister of Health said in the House, in answer to questions by one of the members of the House, that he consistently had calls, and over the years, I am told, he has had letters to that effect, warning him that all was not well with that institution and that steps were needed to be taken immediately to address the problems. A report, dated November 1984, gives quite a broad picture of what the problems were that were being experienced at that time and that you also gave suggestions for their solution. Now let us look at some of the problems that report tells us about, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and I quote: "The Sagittaire is currently running at up to 150 ports per day, some 50 percent in excess of Its rated capacity, and operates 12 to 14 hours per day, commencing at 0700 hours. This has been achieved by staggered work hours and it has resulted in a drop in the technologist coverage for these major treatment errors, a trend which should not be allo wed to continue. When treatment is admi nistered before and after normal working hours, other services such as hematology, paramedical and volunteer support are unavailable.

Patients are seriously inconvenienced and the staff morale deteriorates due to the long working day. Extended shifts are not only expensive in staffing costs, and inconvenient to staff and patients alike, but also are most undesirable since patients must be treated without the availability of planning and mould room staff and other essential services." Now this is in 1984, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so we would hope that some result came from this report having being written.

I'll quote again from the report. lt says, and I quote, "In particul ar, we must anticipate a continuing increase in the demand for high energy photon therapy. In spite of the 40 percent increase in incidence, the rate of referral to radiotherapy has been only 25 percent over the last 10 years, from 1, 189 to 1, 485 new patients. This is undou btedly due to the severe shortage of radiotherapists." Then I will quote from page 6 of this report - when I find it - where they discuss a 10-year plan for how replacements of machines at the Cancer Foundation are to take place.

I quote, "the estimated replacement time for this machine is 1988." They are referring I believe to the Sagittaire; I may be wrong in that. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister in his answers to my questions the other day said that there is a replacement machine. I know that. I've been told that it isn't in place yet, it won't be in place until October of this year, which is four years after this report was written, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in which they pointed out that even though the machines were going to be replaced in this fashion later on that there was an urgent need at the time.

I quote, "In order to meet both the short-term needs and the long-term predictions, an additional high energy linac would be installed . . . hopefully in 1985, but no later than 1986." -(Interjection)-We haven't got it yet. 579 Mr. Deputy Speaker, this report goes on, it's quite lengthy and it's full of a lot of technical things but it was pointing very clearly the need for some action to be taken at that time. I understand that things have not changed, there are still these problems. Now this report was submit ted and the people involved, who were concerned, thought that some action would be taken of course.

They relaxed a little bit. They hoped for some change of direction which would Improve the situation but nothing happened. They started to feel that they were being ignored by their government. The machines were breaking down regularly, resulting in long waiting lists for radiation treatment. Attempts were made to communic ate to the government and to the media the problems that were being faced. A letter was written in late 1986 to the former Minister requesting an outside group to assess the situation and see what could be done about it.

Finally, in early 1987, there was some investigation or a study done but it was not done by an outside group, it was done as an in-House project. Now, the staff had input into this report, they were promised immunity if they spoke freely about their problems and they made suggestions of what action could be taken. But to this day, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no one over in that facility has seen that report. They were promised a copy of it. They had input into it, but they haven't had the report and more importantly than the report, there is no improvement in the situation.

Now, in May of 1987, the Minister replaced several board members. Again, the hope was held that there would be some improvement to the situation and the way that the place was functioning - again, no change. Here we are in the early part of 1988 and people are still experiencing problems. There are still waiting lists and no concrete hope that anything will improve. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) Now I asked the Minister for this report and of course he didn't have it in his hand - I didn't expect him to.

He bragged about the funds that had been raised and told us about the dollars spent but he still hasn't produced the report. People are still telling me that in spite of the fact that he said in response to my questioning that waiting periods were only as high as five weeks, I am told that at the first part of February they were six to eight weeks. Now, the Minister may feel that five weeks is acceptable; I don't feel that five weeks is acceptable. I hope, Madam Speaker, that I'm wrong about this. I don't think I am, but 1-(lnterjection) just wait till I'm finished.

No, I'll answer his question when I'm finished. Now, as I said before, I do hope I'm wrong

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-3-19
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 3rd hansardpdf 19.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1733fa5a32b83dad0c72f022642ddd7b8f084410

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