Manitoba Hansard — 18 May 1982 (Sitting 57A, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-57a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. James Walding (St. Vital): The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. ROLAND PENNER (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, before we start routine proceedings, I think I speak for all members in the House in welcoming you back to the House. The applause indicates how glad we are to have you back with us. We are all aware of your recent illness; wished you a speedy recovery and I'm glad that our combined wishes have had some effect. Wel come back! MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. BRIAN RANSOM (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, may I add our good wishes too. Welcome back and good health to you, Sir! MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable members and also the members of the Legislative Press Gallery for their good wishes and kind regards. I still have some tests and treatment to undertake, but I am improving and I expect to be here full time before very long. I would just ask members not to presume too much on my patience and goodwill. Part of the treatment consists of being forbidden to smoke any further. Presenting Petitions ...

Reading and Receiving Petitions ... Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees ... MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Munici pal Affairs. HON. A.R. (Pete) ADAM (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make and I have copies for the Opposition, Mr. Gourlay and the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to announce the introduction of the Main Street Program.

The Government of Mani toba believes that our rural communities and their lifestyle will continue to play an important role in the future economic and social development of the pro vince. Working together, municipal councils and local business people can receive assistance to revitalize their Main Street business districts to everyone's benefit. This could include storefront renovations, decorative pavement, landscaping, benches and ornamental lighting, additional parking, boulevards and tree planting, etc.

These Main Street improve ments can make Manitoba's small cities, towns and villages better business, shopping and recreation areas, attractive to shoppers, new businesses and res idents. My department will initiate a meeting with municipal officials to review our proposed guidelines for the program. I am sure co-operation at the local level between municipal government and private businesses will produce many effective and innovative projects through joint planning.

The Province of Manitoba has allocated $1.5 million to provide financial assistance for the Main Street Program to our rural communities with approved projects. Financial assistance to municipalities will take the form of a grant equivalent to two-thirds of the project cost up to a maximum determined by the guidelines. The following general principles to the program: storefront renovation or improvements should be part of the proposal; costs of private storefront improve ments will be cost-shared with the proprietor, one third by the province up to a maximum of $500.00.

The cost of public improvements will be cost-shared two thirds by the province, one-third by the municipality. There will be no deadline for project application. This is an ongoing program and those centres not partici pating this year will be eligible to apply for assistance in the future. Proposals will be assessed and funded in accordance with the established guidelines which will include the criteria of the community population, pro ject cost and other relevant information. This program will be operated by my department in co-operation with the Department of Economic Development and Tourism.

The Minister of Economic Development and Tourism advises that her depart ment will be pleased to extend community commer cial planning and other assistance to the communities participating in Main Street Manitoba. There are some towns that have budgeted for Main Street improvements in 1982. Those who have not, but wish to participate in the ·program may apply for approval of an operating deficit in 1982 in the amount of their municipal contribution. This deficit may be recovered by levy in future years or absorbed by exist ing surplus funds, depending on the financial position of the municipality.

I am confident that this program will enhance the quality of life for residents and small business in the rural communities of Manitoba and is in keeping with my government's commitment to assist in rural development. 2555 Thank you, very much. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D.M. (Doug) GOURLAY (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for making the statement today.

We have been waiting for some time now for this announcement and I am sorry that it has taken the Minister this long to make this informa tion available. I am sure that many of the towns and villages throughout Manitoba will be interested in the details of this program. However, I do think that it is a little money and a little late. I am sure that there are going to be lots of applica tions from many of the towns and villages. However, I won't belabour this part of it. I do thank the Minister for making this information available and we will take it from here. Thank you.

Tuesday, 18 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. JAY COWAN (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to table the 1981 Annual Report of The Clean Environment Commission. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion of Bills . Introduction INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gal lery where we have 35 students from the Ecole Lava llee School, who are host for a further 35 students of Grade 9 standing from Beaufort, Quebec. These students are under the direction of Mr. Marion.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honour able Member for Rie l. There are also 75 students of Grade 5 standing of the Hastings Elementary School under the direction of Mrs. Sigurdson. This school is also in the consti tuency of the Honourab le Member for Riel. There are 23 student s of Grade 4 standing from Lac Brochet under the direction of Mr. Maxwe ll. These students are from the constituency of the Honourab le Minister of Northern Affairs. There are also 32 students of Grade 6 standing of the Ecole St. Joachin School under the direction of Mrs. Gagnon.

This school is in the constituency of the Honourab le Member for La Verendrye. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister.

Can the First Minister advise the House whether or not he was successful in convincing the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon ourable Lloyd Axworthy, that the payro ll tax, which the First Minister's government imposed last Tuesday was in fact simply a means of raising revenue and not the means of retaliating against the Fede ral Government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le First Minister. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I think that question could be best asked to the Federal Minister of Immigration.

We certainly had a very use ful and fruitful discussion and I believe that to be the understanding of the Federal Minister, but in fairness to the Federal Minister, that question would be best answered by the Federal Minister himself. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the Provincial Government wi ll be undertaking a study of preparing information to convince the Minis- 2556 1982 ter of Employment and Immigration, and for him to use in convincing his colleagues and businessess that Manitoba continues to be a good place to invest.

Wi ll the government be tabling that report in the House? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I certain ly wi ll be quite pleased to table that information because I think that information not only wi ll be enlightening to Federal Government people, but certain ly wi ll be enlightening to members of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Minnedosa. MR. DAVID R. (Dave) BLAKE (Minnedosa): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On April 22nd, I directed a question to the Minister of Agricul ture. On April 22nd, some questions were taken as notice by the Honourab le Member for Ste.

Rose, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in connection with the rebuilding of the lives tock yards in Brandon. I asked if he had any informa tion to give to the House and I wonder if he has that information now. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Agriculture. HON. BILL URUSKI (Interlake): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Those questions or questions related to that, to the rebuilding of the Brandon plant were answered by myself to the honoura ble member in this House. I indicated -( Interjection )- Mr. Speaker, either the honourable members don't want to hear the answer.

I wanted to tell the honourable member that there have been meetings between staff, Manitoba Pool, and that we have indicated to them that we were encouraging them to rebuild the plant. It was their decision and their own decision to make, but in terms of the need for that facility, we saw the need for that facility in the western part of the province. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister forthat answer. I wonder, could he tell me what the current position is. Has he met with them lately and what is the situation as far as a commencing date for the rebuild ing of the yards? MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, as I've indicated, that decision is left to the Board of Directors. I will specifi cally take that portion of the question as notice to be briefed as to what may have happened in the last week or so. MR. BLAKE: A final suppl ementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could confirm that a portion of their final decision to rebui ld the yards rests with the Beef Stabiliz ation Plan proposed in the six-year mar keting plan proposed in the Beef Stabilization propo sition.

It is my understanding that some of the deci sion hinges on whether they are going to be allowed to market the animals or whether they are going to be controlled under a government agency for six years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Minister of Agriculture.

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, to answer that question specifica lly, that matter of length of period is under discussion by the committee. I want to inform the honoura ble member that I met with the Manitoba Farm Bureau and a director of Manitoba Pool was present. In fact, I believe one of the directors who is involved in this matter, and I did indicate to him at that time that we certain ly felt a facility in the western part of the province was necessary and that our program should not play any

part in terms of them not wishing to rebui ld because we wanted to enhance the numbers of animals that would be slaughtered in the Province of Manitoba and that kind of a facility certainly would be necessary in that part of the province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Arthur. MR. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, per haps I should ask this question of the Minister of Highways and Transportation, but I wi ll direct it to the Minister of Agriculture.

Could the Minister of Agricul ture indicate to the beef producers of the Province of Manitoba just what type of program the Federal Minis ter of Agriculture plans to introduce in view of the fact that he has had discussions with the Federal Minister last week, he indicated to the House? Is it a program that's more receptive to the beef producers than the one that the province has introduced? MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, what I did indicate when we announced our program and the developmental committee to our program, I have indicated that it was still our hope that there would be a federal program and that our program could be meshed with a national program and the farmers could, of course, make their choice as to what they wanted to do at that point in time. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, when did the Minister receive that information from the Federal Minister or when did that discussion take place? MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the dis cussions, there has been ongoing communication between my department, my office and the Minister's. In fact, there was a telex that I just received back yesterday dealing with the question of stabilization, some comments that the Minister of Agricu lture made, and our request along with the Minister of Ontario that there should be an early meeting of Min isters to discuss some of the proposals that he has made.

The reply and response to our telex was basi cally to the effect that while there were still ongoing discussions at his level, he had no specific program to announce at this point in time. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, could I take it from the Minister, and he can correct me if I am misunderstand ing, that it is now his department that has had discus sions with the Federal Government, not he persona lly. He, person ally, has had no discussion with the Fed eral Minister of Agriculture, directly opposite to what he told this House yesterday. Is that correct?

It is now his department and not him that have had discussions? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Minister of Agriculture. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, so the honourable member doesn't get himself confused any more, the telex that I spoke about to the honoura ble member was in response to a telex from myself. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister told the House that he had in fact phoned the Federal Minister last week and had not yet received a tele phone call from the Minister. Did the Minister, Mr.

Speaker, in any way get any indication from the Fed eral Minister the amount of money that may be paid out from the Federal Government to support the beef industry in this province? Did he get any commitment from the Federal Minister in any way, shape or form in amounts of money from the Federal Minister? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, if there was any commit ment made, I am sure that the Federal Minister of Agriculture wou ld have wanted to make that announcement himself. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the agricultural community are not being represented in speaking for them on their behalf at the Federal Government level and the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is somewhat misleading the farm com munity and the House as far as his communications with that particular organization, has the Minister of Agriculture in the Province of Manitoba changed his position on the paying out of a direct $50 per cow to the beef producers of this province following his meet ing yesterday with the beef producers in the province? After his indication, Mr.

Speaker, that he was listening to the beef producers and going to work with them in establishing a program, is he now prepared to pay out the $50 directly to them? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I should mention to the honourab le member that I met not only with members of the MC PA, but also the committee that we estab lished.

I shou ld mention to the honourable member, if an announcement wi ll be made he wi ll be one of the first in this Legislature to know, but I should point out to the honourable member that our advice from the producer committee that has been established to work out the details of the plan, that there is not unanimity on that question. 2557 MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that there is not unanimity among the cattle producers or that there is not agreement between him and the cattle producers? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Swan River. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question to the Minister of Education. I would ask the Minister if she is contemplating giving assistance to vocational schools who are having to cut courses because of declining enrolment? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Minister of Educa tion. The Honourable Member for Swan River.

MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon ourable Minister did not hear my question. My ques tion to the Minister is, I am wondering if she is con templating giving assistance to vocational schools who are having to cut courses because of declining enrolments. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. MAUREEN HEMPHILL (Logan): Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult for me to give a direct answer to the question, since I am not clear which vocational schools he is talking about and which courses are being cut. If he can provide me with that specific information, I will be glad to respond to him.

MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, I am specifically con cerned about the secondary comprehensive school in Swan River where they have had to cut courses come September of this year because of declining enrol ments in those vocational courses. MRS. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I recognize some of the difficulties are the difficulties that many of the school divisions are facing in this current year and to that degree, we did as much as we could to give them additional support through additional direct provin cial money.

Swan River was one of the beneficiaries of the supplementary program, so the purpose of that money was to give them help to maintain existing programs and the judgments on the priorities and what choices would be made is entirely up to the school division. I think that I was able to give the member opposite a fairly comprehensive piece of information about the things that were affecting both the mill rate and the expenditures in the programs in his division and to what degree the Provincial Government had provided support. The support was not unreasonable. It was quite good.

The declining enrolment and other factors were creating problems and we will be reviewing the whole situation in our educational finance review. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. CHARLOTTE OLESON (Gladstone): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will the new payroll tax be levied against public library payrolls on July 1st or will they be treated as municipal corporations of which they are a branch? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. VIC SCHROEDER (Rossmere): Mr.

Speaker, any part of a municipality or a municipality's payroll is, as I had indicated previously, exempt until January 1st, 1983. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honourable Minis- 2558 1982 ter of Health. I would ask him if he can advise the House how close we are to conclusion of negotiations between the province and the Department of Vete rans' Affairs, including the Royal Canadian Legion for provincial takeover of Deer Lodge Hospital? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON.

LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has been advised that we accept in principle the agreement that has been worked out between the staff and we are await ing word from the Federal Minister responsible. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise the House as to whether the jobs of the present employees will be protected and does he have Federal Government assurance, in writing, that the jobs of the present employees will be protected? MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, we would not sign an agreement if this wasn't covered.

This is something that will be covered right in the agreement that will be signed if and when it is signed by the two levels of government and also, I should have explained because the member talked about the Legion and the Veterans; I met with them. It is understood they will meet with the Federal Government and then we will insist to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, finally, there should be a meeting between the Veterans' organization. The Federal Government should be represented and also I would intend to be there. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister advise the House whether he is contemplating a change of name for Deer Lodge Hospital? MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, this is something that certainly will have to be looked into. I think that the member would remember that during the Esti mates I had suggested that maybe a certain person should be recognized for the work that this person is doing rendering to humanity. It is something that would have to be discussed, I would think, with the different groups of the legions and volunteers.

I think that we would like to - the veterans, I should say, to start looking at the system that we have in the pro vince, to service them and to break away from Deer Lodge. But this is something that I'd like to hear from them and certainly would be discussed, because their lodge will not render that service any more. Their lodge would be a geriatric centre and the service for the veteran, as the members might know, will be pro vided in General Hospital, acute hospital. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that I assume and I feel confident that all members of this Assembly can assume that any change in administration of Deer Lodge Hospital will incorporate and accommodate the preservation of a certain number of beds for veterans, at least 150, can the Minister advise the House whether he has up to this point in time discussed with the Royal Cana-

dian Legion the idea of a change of name? MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, no, I think I've ans wered that; there has been no talk. There was just the thought that I shared with the members of the Com mittee, in fact, that was never discussed with the members of Cabinet or the members of that party. It was an observation that I offered. It is certain ly not a decision and I just stated that nothing will be done until we discuss that with the veterans. But I want to repeat that, the veterans, there wi ll be a guarantee of beds but the beds wi ll not be all in one location. The beds wi ll be in different hospitals.

We are trying to, if we take over, we're not going to continue what was done before. We wi ll continue guaranteeing services but the service wi ll be done as Manitobans and this is what he is trying to do now that there is hospitalization and so on. But I repeat nothing will be signed; nothing wi ll be finalized; in fact, nothing wi ll be presented to my colleagues in Cabinet until we've had -first of all, there's a meeting between these groups and the Fed eral Government and a further meeting between the Federal Government, Provincial Government and these groups. So let's not jump to any conclusion.

I don't know why my friends and neighbours are con cerned; I wish I knew because there seemed to be some concern. MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, with your indul gence, Sir, I would like to ask a further suppl ementary which results from the last answer from the Minister. Is the Minister saying that there wi ll not be a consol idated, identifi able block of 100 or 150 veterans' beds in the new Deer Lodge Hospital plan; that all those veterans' beds wi ll be split up and disseminated through hosp itals in the province because that represents a considerab le piece of news and not necessari ly a welcome one, Mr.

Speaker? Is that what he is saying? MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, we're talking about two different things. I was talking about acute beds; my honourable friend might be talking about personal care beds, or that level of care. At the acute beds, definitely, there wil l not be a set number, a block of beds. There wi ll not be a veteran hospital, as such, at the acute beds. This service wi ll be it's too costly for one thing. This is exactly the reason why we would do this and the service will be rendered at the other hospita ls around the province where the people are.

Definitely, if you're talking about acute beds, it's not intended to have a block of acute beds and that was never intended in the first day of negotiation years ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Morris. MR. CLAYTON MANNESS (Morris): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to address my question to the Minis ter of Education.

In view of the fact that the recently announced payroll tax wi ll cause nearly a 2-mill increase to the ratepayers in the school division of Morri s-Macdonald in 1983, I'm wondering if the Minis ter of Education could indicate whether the proposed grant in lieu of this payro ll tax to the school divisions wi ll be made basis a dol lar versus a dollar, or in fact 1982 wi ll equalization come about and cause some school divisions to pay more than others. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Education. MRS. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, I think that both the Minister of Finance and myself have indicated clearly that we have made an exemption for school divisions in municipalities in this Budget year. We have made a commitment to sit and meet with them and talk to them, look for and find ways to offset the costs for the coming years. We have not determined what wi ll be done or how it wi ll be done. That's the process that we'll be undertaking in the next few months. MR. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, then is the Minister indicating that for 1983 possibly there wi ll be some formula through equali zation that could have some school divisions paying more on a pro-rated basis than other school divisions? MRS. HEMPHILL: No I am not, Mr. Speaker. MR. MAN NESS: I'm wondering if the Minister of Edu cation could tell the House what are the basic criteria of eligibi lity when applying under the new program announced yesterday to help Manitoba's Small Schools. MRS. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, the basic criteria for support to Small Schools is, as might be imagined, size.

The support is to go to those schools in the Province of Manitoba that are the smallest, Mr. Speaker, and the criteria is different for elementary schools and high schools. For elementary schools, it is those schools who have between four and six teachers; for high schools, it is schools that have an enrolment or a population less than 150. MR. MANNESS: Is the Minister indicating then that the criteria has nothing more to consider than just the number of teachers? MRS. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, it actua lly has to do with the number of students, because the number of teachers that are in any school are determined by the number of students. The reason that was selected as the criteria, Mr. Speaker, is that is the deficiency in the existing Educational Support Program and in the Old Foundation Program which gives money to school divisions who have the most bodies, who have the most children. It is understood and recognized that those that have very small enrolments do not have the same opportunity to get resources, materia ls and equipment as do the larger schools.

The purpose of this program is to give additional support of materials, equipment and personnel to help them provide a quality education for all of the children that are being educated in Manitoba's 251 small schools. They deserve a fair share and equal resources as do children in all the other schools. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Morris. MR. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister 2559

if she could te ll me in 10 words or less what is the maximum eligible grant per pupil that schools can apply under this program? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourab le Member for Morris. MR. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am asking the Minister if she can tell the House what the maxi mum per pupil grant will be under this program? MRS. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker. since he only wants 10 words or less, I wi ll tell him the maximum grant is $15,000.00. The detai ls of the program, I wi ll give him in the Estimates discussion. MR. MANNESS: One final question, Mr. Speaker.

I'm wondering by what date wi ll the school divisions in this province have notice of this program. MRS. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, detai ls of the pro gram are going out to school divisions within the next week so that they can prepare their plans for the fall program. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.W.J. (Gerry) MERCIER (SI. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Educa tion on just a clarification yesterday in response to a que stion from the Honourab le Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister indicated in talking about financial assistance to independent schools that the increase is in the range of approxima tely 11 percent over last year's Budgetary figure. Could she just confirm that there has been no increase in the basic $450 per stu dent grant? MRS. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I think I did confirm that the basic grant of $435 has stayed the same. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member forTuxedo. MR. GARY FILMON (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, my ques tion is for the Honourab le Minister responsib le for housing.

I wonder if he could indicate to us what are the plans for the $15 million additional Capital for housing that is included in the Budget that was recently announced. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Natural Resources. HON. AL MACKLING (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I wi ll be making a formal statement on that matter giving detail in due course. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, we'll be looking forward to that announcement in due course.

Can the Minister indicate at this time if any of the initiatives or pro grams that wi ll be contained within that $15 mi llion program wi ll have long-term subsidy requirements on behalf of the Manitoba taxpayer? 18 May, 1982 MR. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I wi ll not speculate on the contents of the statement with the honoura ble member until the statement is made. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct a question to the Honourab le Minis ter of Natural Resources.

I asked this question of his predecessor some time ago and we touched on it in his Estimates. but the season is getting on. Has he been able to sort out any of the problems or the new rules of how the wild rice will be harvested in this coming season? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that I have been receiving a harvest of words, a great many submissions, a great many articulate spokesmen for Native people and for other people interested in the resource, have given me the benefit of their views.

We are looking at all aspects of the wild rice industry and we wi ll be making announcements of policy direction in due course. MR. ENNS: Specifica lly, has the report on the report by one Harvey Bostrom been presented to the Minis ter and to the government as yet? MR. MACKLING: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, subsequent to the receipt of the Ross Report, a fine report, as sug gested by the former Minister of the department, that report and many many more submissions that were being received by me and the department in respect to this issue were forwarded to another former Minister of Natural Resources whose family background involves the wild rice industry. Pursuant to the inquir ies that we made to him, he did review the Ross Report and the numerous submissions that were received in addition to that and has made observations to us which we find very helpful in deciding our policy.

I hope we wi ll find it very helpful in respect to deciding the policy questions that have to be confirmed in our policy directives in this industry. 2560 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. The First Minister during the election had indicated that he would be appointing an Indian Land Claims Commissioner. I wonder if the Minister can advise the House whether or not he has yet selected that person. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, this matter falls within the purview of the Minister of Northern Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Northern Affairs. MR. COWAN: Yes, I can advise the Member for Turtle Mountain, Mr. Speaker, as I did during the Estimates procedure that we are now involved in a process of consultation in respect to the formation and the estab-

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 lishment of an Indian Land Claims Commission. We will continue that consultation and we will continue to listen to those indiv iduals who wish to bring forward their concerns. their suggestions and their criticisms in this regard.

Once we have been able to develop a picture of what that Land Claims Commission should be doing exactly, we wi ll then be looking to the appointment of an Indian Land Claims Commissioner who will be entrusted with the purpose of establishing the commission, ensuring that it operates in an effi cient way and ensuring that it operates in a way in which we intended it to, and that is to bring a speedy resolve to some longstanding questions in this prov ince respecting the transfer of lands to Treaty Indian people. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker.

I realize I'm pressing my luck but I have a question for the Honourable Minister of the Environment. I was interested to read a story in the newspaper yesterday with respect to a discussion which the Minister had with the Manitoba Environ mental Council and I did ascertain the veracity of the report, Mr. Speaker. It had to do with the fact that apparen tly there has been prepared for the province the socioeconomic impact statement and the envir onmental impact statement with respect to the alumi num smelter proposed for the Interlake area of Mani toba.

The story indicated that the Minister would not make public those reports or the province's assess ment of those studies. I wonder if the Minister would perhaps at least share that information with members of the House who I know are all very interested in that information at the present time. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the actual newspaper

article in front of me to refer to. However, I can indicate to the Honourab le Member for Tuxedo exactly what it was I said to the Manitoba Environmen tal Counci l at their annual meeting of the other day.

I indicated to them. as a result of a question from the Chairperson of the Environmental Counci l, that if we had in our possession certain environmental impact assessments or reports which were completed on the Balmoral site, that we would prefer not to release those particular reports at this time as there has been a change in the way in which negotiations are being undertaken as a resu lt of the change in the administration. You are aware. as is the member aware, that we have entered those negotiations with no preconditions.

That means we have entered them with no precon ceived notion nor no preconceived agreement on our side as to what would be a preferred and what would be a non preferred site. We are conducting the negoti ations with agreement from Alcan on that basis. Therefore, I believe it would be imprudent and coun terproductive for me to release those reports which specifica lly address themselves to one site.

I did indicate to the members of the Manitoba Envir onmental Council and I will do so through you to the Member for Tuxedo that if in fact that does become a site upon which we shou ld take environmental impact assessment studies, then we wi ll release those reports at that time. To do so previous to that would only confuse the issue and would be of no value to those indivi duals or to the member opposite.

So I have to regretfully decline to provide the House with that information for that reason for the time being, but I do want to indicate that it is only for the time being and based upon the conditions which I outli ned in my answer to him. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, understanding the com plexity of the reports and the impact statements that have been prepared, I would think that there would be considerab le value to Manitobans who are interested in this project to have as much time as possible to review the information avai lable.

If it turned out at some later date that because of this government's action. the Balmoral site was not allowed to be pro ceeded with, then of course there would have to be addenda and additional information. So my question to the Minister is, on what basis can he assure us that there would be no value whatsoever to peop le to review such information? MR. COWAN: Well, I am pleased to be able to respond to the member in a general way because it does impact upon some of the other statements which I made at that Manitoba Environmental Council Annual Meeting of last week.

I, at that time, suggested that we as a government believed very strongly that the public have a vital role to play in the assessment of major economic projects which may, in fact, have an impact on the environment. We value their expertise which they have gained as a result of experience. We need their suggestions. we need their support, and we need their criticisms. Consequent ly, as a government and within the Environmental Management Division specifica lly, we are now addressing the entire issue of environmental impact assessment procedures.

We are addressing them from the perspective of combining environmen tal impact assessments along with socioeconomic impact assessments and providing environmental impact statements to the general public far previous to the Environmental Impact Assessment Public Hear ings being held. 2561 I can give that commitment to the Member for Tuxedo as I did to the members of the Manitoba Environmental Council the other day.

We encourage that participation, we want that participation, and we wi ll do all that is possib le to make certain that we have that participation by way of support and encourage ment of the public to come forward. In this specific instance, I think that when we have an opportunity to unfold that process, even the Member for Tuxedo wi ll have to agree that it is a far better process than they had ad hocly and in a hurry put together for the so called mega projects which they were embarking upon just previous to their defeat. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Minister of Economic Development. HON.

MURIEL SMITH (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I undertook yesterday to keep the House updated on the level of pay out on the Interest Rate Relief Program for small business. I am happy to report the current pay out level for 16 projects is $62.4 70.00.

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions having expired, Orders of the Day. COMMITTEE CHANGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, just before we get to Orders of the Day, I would like to announce a commit tee change. Public Utilities is still not finished its con sideration of Hydro and we are rescheduling so that Public Utilities will meet on this coming Thursday, May 20th, at 10:00 a.m. to, one hopes, finish its con sideration of Hydro.

Therefore, that will be a substitu tion for the previously announced committee meeting on that date which was Economic Development. The Economic Development Committee meeting which is now displaced, the date for that will be announced when we see where we are going after Thursday. ORDERS OF THE DAV BUDGET DEBATE (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Minister of Finance, and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Member for Dauphin. MR. JOHN PLOHMAN (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, how much I appreciate your presence back in this Chamber. Just to add to what the Attorney-General said and the Member for Turtle Mountain, I am very pleased to see you back here.

I know we have missed your guidance in this Chamber and despite a very able job done by the Member for Flin Flon, we certainly have missed you here and I want to extend my wishes as well for a speedy recov ery and know that our well wishes are with you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak once again in this Chamber on a matter of utmost importance to the people of Manitoba. That being, of course, the Budget that was brought down by my honourable friend, the Minister responsible for Finance. You know, Mr.

Speaker, there are times when it is especially pleasurable to be a New Democrat and especially to be a member of a New Democratic Gov ernment as we are here in Manitoba. This past week has been one of those special times, Mr. Speaker. In these most difficult economic times, it has certainly been made more difficult by the Opposition when they were in government by the policies that they followed, Mr. Speaker. -(Interjection)- No, I am not. The Member for Pembina is saying I am reading my speech.

Well, I'll tell you that as long as the briefcase is here, at least; the desks are made for short people like you and I am able to put this up here. It is a pleasure to see some bright spots, Mr. Speaker, on the horizon here in Manitoba. A pleasure to see some bright spots despite the gloom and doom that we endured over the last extent of the former government. I think our government has shown; this Budget has shown that it is possible for the sun to shine again in Manitoba. We have shown through our Budget, Mr.

Speaker, that this government has the imagination, this government has the understanding, the capacity, certainly the ability and the compassion and the will to bring Manitoba through these difficult times once again. So, I am especially proud to be a New Democrat and to stand in this House and support that Budget that was brought in by the Minister of Finance. It reaffirms my belief, my faith and my trust that I placed in this great party, Mr.

Speaker, when I first made that deci sion to join with other New Democrats before me to make our communities, our province and our country a better place to live and to raise a family.

I am impressed, I have to say, with the arguments that are presented, and with the debate that has been put forward by the members on this side of the House, starting with the Honourable Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Eco nomic Development, the Honourable Attorney General, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Com munity Services right through to the backbenchers who have spoken on this, the Honourable Member for St.

Johns, the Honourable Member for Thompson who is indeed going to win by a landslide next time, the Honourable Member for Brandon West, the Hon ourable Member for River East, the Honourable Member for lnkster. They have put forward a devastat ing and decisive argument that has destroyed the Opposition here. We have seen it day after day and I would say, Mr. Speaker, as an impartial observer, half way through the fight I would say that the left has it here on a unanimous decision, nine rounds to nothing at this point, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: We are sure as hell going to win this round though. MR.

PLOHMAN: Even if we tie or break even on this one, Mr. Speaker, we are still so far ahead on this one that we really don't have to worry about it. The battle has already been won. 2562 I want to stress and to emphasize to my honourable friends opposite that this Budget shows that we do have a direction, that we have a plan, that we know where we are going here in Manitoba and we under stand the implications of what we are doing. We do not take steps without knowing the consequences of those actions before we take them, Mr. Speaker.

Con trary to what the Member for Turtle Mountain expressed on Saturday night in the Provincial Affairs Program when he said that we just stumbled onto certain tax measures, we did not know what they meant, and contrary to the Member for Morris who says that he believes we do not know what we are doing, we don't understand the consequences of what we are doing; I want to assure them that we know where we are going and we know what we are doing. As long as they continue - listen to this as long as they continue, Mr.

Speaker, to believe that we are standing in this House, standing for something that we do not really believe in or that we do not really understand, they will be sitting there in Opposition for a long time to come. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker. I will give the members opposite some gen erous advice and it is free advice, Mr. Speaker, and it

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 simply is this: Do not underestimate our commitment to the people of Manitoba. One can readily see the stark difference in this Budget, the stark difference between our approach to government and the former government's approach to the problems that face Manitoba. Let us look at the approach that the Op position took when they came into government here four years ago, four long years ago, Mr. Speaker. They set the tone immediately. They set their motto, acute restraint, and it became as the years went by, acute protracted res traint, over a period of time naturally.

What did it mean to the average Manitoban? Certainly, you don't like to hear this. You don't like to hear this because that is why you are over there now. That is why you didn't have a second term. What did that mean to the average Manitoban? It meant that those with the least must tighten their belt the most for as long as they could do it. That is what it meant. Mr. Speaker. So. the previous government set about to prove their point that Manitoba needed less government. Manitoba needed less government and those with the least must tighten their belts the most.

As Don Craik said in his Budget of 1978. and I quote from it, "Because of over regulation and interference in the market. the market system has not had a fair chance to operate efficiently in recent years." And he said it inferred. "that the forces of initiatives and com petition were being stifled and choked off by the government." So. government assistance, government initiative was conveniently termed, interference. The Tory Government immediately proceeded to remove this interference and they did it in many ways.

The first thing they did was froze all public construction, hospi tals, nursing homes. schools, public housing. All con struction was frozen in the Province of Manitoba and with it went the jobs, Mr. Speaker. The Health Care and Education Budget was cut back in real dollars. Mr. Speaker. in those first years of that Tory Government. It was cut back and so who was hardest hit during that time? Who was hit hardest by the Tories? They talked to us about hitting the chil dren and the churches and things like that. Well, Mr.

Speaker. they hit the sick. the elderly. and the children through the health care cutbacks and the school cut backs. education cutbacks. The people that could fight back the least. that's the ones that they hit the hardest, Mr. Speaker. Consistent with their goals to force the little guy to tighten his belt the most. they announced in that same Budget in the spring of 1978. they said, "We are asking that all those involved in public sector negotiations recognize that provincial revenues and. thus, our abil ity to pay for wage settlements will grow by 4 percent this year." What did that mean?

That meant that the people in the public service, the wage earners were the ones that were supposed to cut back. Of course. we all remember that political purge on the Civil Service, the bloodletting that was supposed to save dollars. under the guise of saving money. That is happening now in Saskatchewan. We only have to look there. You look there. Talk to Mr. Devine. your idol there. Not only that, they taunted the Federal Government to join them in their acute protracted disregard for the people of Manitoba. They taunted the Federal Government. They repeatedly called for the federal cutbacks.

You don't believe that? You did not taunt them? Look at this in the Budget Address of 1978. This is Don Craik speaking. "Most disappointing of all was the Federal Government's inaction. its failure to match meaningful restraint with its rhetoric for a Federal Government whose spending continues to careen out of control. It is immediately incumbent on the present Federal Government to reduce the level of expendi tures." and that's what they did. We all know what they did.

But then the Tories screamed and they cried and they hollered when the feds cut back. when the feds cut back on equalization payments to this province. -(Interjection)- Yes. they cut back; they listened to you. They cut back in post-secondary education financing, they cut back in health care and we are suffering because of it now. They squealed and hol lered and protested when the Federal Government held back on signing federal-provincial negotiations, agreements. because they wanted some credit for where their money was spent. Well, now we're all suffering because of that. Mr. Speaker.

If Trudeau listened to any argument that you put forward during the four years, Mr. Speaker. during their four years in government, he listened to their calls for restraint and we've got it now. We got it in health care and we got it in post-secondary education and I hope that this Opposition. Mr. Speaker. is proud of themselves because now they have led the way for Trudeau on these cutbacks. They can feel responsible for that; they can take credit for that. They did not stop there, Mr. Speaker. No. Nothing exemplified their callous disregard for the little guy more than their freeze on the minimum wage.

We all remember the freeze on the.minimum wage. Stick it to the little guy again. Nothing, I assert, characterized their utter contempt for those who could least afford a cutback, with a cutback in the minimum wage. That shows where their priorities are, Mr. Speaker. Of course. they cut back on public investment in our province. They sold off government industry at a loss under the guise that it was going to save money and the private sector could do it all by itself. The private sector was going to do it.

Certainly after they had seen their growing steps, growing portions of their first years in companies. now, of course. they can benefit. They benefited from the investment that went into them at the beginning and they supported high inter est rates, Mr. Speaker. What was the result? - (Interjection)- I'm sorry that I'm blowing you all away, Mr. Speaker. But we all know the results, Mr.

Speaker, of their years in office, of these factors; fewer jobs in Manitoba. massive out-migration and we all know about massive out-migration and it wasn't all from the welfare rolls as the Leader of the Opposition said, it wasn't all from that. As a matter of fact, I want the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to know that I had some very good friends and some family that left Manitoba and they weren't on welfare and maybe even some of them voted Tory one time and I'm certainly going to show that statement to them. that it was the welfare people that left the province.

Well, I want you to know as well, his blanket statement is that the welfare rolls were reduced. He can go as far as Dauphin and he will find 2563

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 out that they tripled during the last two years of your government. The welfare rolls tripled in Dauphin, the municipal welfare rolls and that is a fact. We saw record bankruptcies and smaller invest ment in this province, smallest investment of any prov ince in Canada, and we had a province that led the rest of Canada; we had the dubious distinction of leading the rest of Canada into a recession. That's what you can take credit for. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we had record deficits in this province.

Deficits and record deficits as they saw that their restraint was not going to get them back into office, Mr. Speaker, and it was not working. The record speaks for itself. We are hardly witness ing here in this Opposition, we are hardly witnessing in an Opposition that can give this government any advice on how to manage an economy, Mr. Speaker. They, Mr. Speaker, are in no position to scorn and chastise our efforts at this time. The last few years should have been a lesson in humility to any govern ment, Mr. Speaker. They certainly should have been, but I failed to see that in the Opposition.

I failed to see any indication that they have learned from that expe rience, Mr. Speaker, from that devastating experience here in Manitoba. I want to say it was devastating not only for the Opposition, it was also devastating for all of Manitobans and for Manitoba in general. So, now they condemn our efforts, but where would they have gone, Mr. Speaker? Where would they have gone? What direction would they have gone had they been able to retain the confidence of the people of Manitoba on November 17th? Where would they have gone? We have seen during the Estimates their desire for more and greater spending.

They were constantly harping during the Estimates that we should be spending more. Or do they believe what they speak? Yes. Just today, they want more in Main Street, Mani toba; they want more in education. Can they really legitimately criticize this government on every occa sion when they turn on the other side and ask for more? The beef producers, certainly there is another example where they want a no-strings-attached han dout and they ask for more diking, for more drainage projects, for highways, for hospitals, for schools and every conceivable service that you could ask for, Mr.

Speaker, they are asking for. Did they ever talk of cutting back when it affects their constituency? No. Their criticism is hollow, Mr. Speaker. Spend more, but then they complain about the deficit. I want to look for a moment at Ontario, only for comparison, Mr. Speaker, where we see almost a vir gin land of Tory rule over the years, where it's been untouched by the Opposition and we see that in Onta rio. What are the Tories doing there where they have not been interrupted? I think that would give us a good idea of where they would have gone here in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a valid comparison.

What have they done? Well, first of all, let's look at their deficit there and, of course, the Honourable Attorney-General referred to 124 percent increase in their deficit. I looked in the papers, the figure I got was 38 percent, but it was certainly much higher than ours was this past year in terms of an increase. In terms of the percentage of their total Budget, their deficit is very close to what ours is in Manitoba, very comparable in percentage terms of their total Budget.

So, so much for the cries from the Opposition about a deficit when their broth ers in Ontario have a deficit that is higher than ours; certainly in percentagewise it is very close. Where are they getting their money? Well, they increased the health care premiums, the highest in Canada, a 17.4 percent increase this past year. Onta rio health insurance plan premiums will be the highest in the country, $648 a year for a family, $54 a month, a 17.4 percent increase in health care premiums. That's what we would have had in Manitoba, that's what we'd have to look forward to, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if we would have an uninterrupted Tory government here in Manitoba. They hit the little guy with the sales tax too. Let's take a look here. "Ontario sales tax even hits attacks Big Macs. This hits everyone including the poor," right out of the Ottawa Citizen. It hits and poor and listen to what the Treasurer for the Ontario Gov ernment said, "I doubt many people will even notice they're paying more, since they probably didn't realize they weren't being taxed in the first place." That's typical Tory logic.

They didn't realize and so now they're taxing baby products, candies, soft drinks, down to 20 cents. We don't tax candy - no. Listen to this, "While $75 dinners at the Canadian Grill Room of the Chateau Laurier are going to be less expensive after Thursday's provincial Budget, the $3 hamburger and chiliburger," for the Member for Sturgeon Creek, "fries and shakes at McDonalds is going to cost more." That is typical Tory priorities. Who is it helping the most? Who is it helping the most?

You know, here in Manitoba where our government has increased the exemption to $6 from $4, we have them slapping a 7 percent tax right down to 20 cents, a 7 percent down to 20 cents. Now that's what they have done there, but let's take a look though. It does have implications. We have the Member for Sturgeon Creek introduce a resolution saying that he would want the exemption raised from $4 to $5, but in Ontario they decreased it to 20 cents, so I would like to know where the real Tory policy is. What is the Tory's policy?

Was that resolution just a smoke screen for the real Tory policy that has just been revealed in Ontario? I think so. I think that was just a smoke screen and the real Tory priorities are to tax right down to 20 cents on meals. 2564 Listen to this, "We are condemned for our health and post-secondary education levy to compensate for Federal cutbacks in those areas. This levy referred to by the Opposition as a payroll tax is criticized as being a hidden tax and a regressive tax." But let's look to Ontario again, to the Treasurer there and see what he has to say about that.

Frank Miller, the Ontario Treas urer says, he is considering a payroll tax to be levied on employers or shared equally among employees. It says right there, the Treasurer, he's considering a payroll tax. Now that says a lot for the genuineness of the scorn that the Opposition has heaped upon us on this tax that is put in place for health care and for post-secondary education. I think that the members opposite, Mr.

Speaker, would be well advised to troop off to Toronto and get a briefing on what the Tory policy is with regard to this tax and a number of other Budget items, so that they could eliminate this double talk that's going on and

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 speak with some consistency on major Budget items. To top it off now, Trudeau and the Tories are back in bed together yeah, they're back in bed together with wage control, with wage controls, wage controls on the public sector. Yes, here we go, "Wage restraints key to Miller Plan." He's going to hold the wage earners in the public sector to 6 percent, 6 percent this year. It's a nice target; it's a nice target to hit the wage earners there. They're going to set the example by holding the public sector down.

That's what they're going to do and inflation runs at double that figure at this time. So there they have the targets again, it's Trudeau and the Tories back together again. Isn't that nice! This is typical of the Tory logic that wage increases are the root cause, that wage increases are the root cause of all the evils in our society. That's their logic, Mr. Speaker. Do they ever stop to look at prices, at ripoff profits? No, just wages. That's the cause. But enough about Ontario, let us look here at Mani toba now.

I think we've seen where the Tories would have gone in Manitoba had they been restored into government here and now we can look at what we are doing here in Manitoba, what we are planning to bring Manitoba, to move Manitoba ahead. The Budget Address had two main goals. First of all, to help sustain and strengthen our economy during some of the most difficult economic times that we've had in many decades in Manitoba and Canada.

That was the first, to help sustain and strengthen our econ omy, so that it is ready to take advantage of an upturn in our economic fortunes and secondly, to provide as much protection and assistance as we can rn relieve Manitobans of the worst effects of national conditions and national policies, such as high interest rates, Mr. Speaker. So we are attacking those two segments; those are our goals and they clearly differentiate, they differen tiate our government from the previous government that was in power here in this province.

Clearly we will not sit idly by; we will not sit idly by while people incur greater and greater difficulties during tough eco nomic times and that is what differentiates us from the previous government here in this province. We are undertaking major initiatives. In the area of housing $50 million, the Budget announced, and I would like to refer to the Tory bible, to the Tory "good book," A Clear Choice for Manito bans, that they refer to so often here in this House and I'm very pleased I have to say that the members of the Conservative Party are looking to this book for advice and for wisdom.

I want to say how pleased I am to see them parta ke of the reading of Howard Pawley, how ever selectively, and I would just ask them to continue to read of

chapter and verse on a regular basis and to continue to ask questions; ask questions so that they will gain the wisdom that they need to function in this environment, Mr. Speaker. We will see, Mr. Speaker, if the Tories are fast learners, because you know, hope fully faster than the New Democratics. We've seen that the Leader of the Opposition's statement during the Budget Debate, he said that it takes a Liberal a lifetime to learn what a Tory knows intuitively and that a socialist hasn't even a chance of learning.

Well, I would say that we do not want to know; we do not want to know what a Tory knows intuitively because that's where you made your first mistake. I would suggest that the Conservatives would have a great deal of difficulty learning in a lifetime what a New Democrat knows intuitively and that is really sad.

That's right and I would like to take a look at this; if we look at the book of housing by Howard Pawley, Chap ter 5, verses 3 to 6: "An NOP Government would insti tute a comprehensive Shelter Program that would include construction of new housing and rehabilita tion of existing homes." We looked at the Budget and so it was. "This Program would provide an important stimulus to the local construction industry, which has been idle for four years." That's a fact.

"As well, the government would take steps to help Manitobans in difficulty with both interest payments and rent." So said by the Honourable Howard Pawley. 2565 We go on to Verses 3 to 6, the Critical Home Repair Program would be expanded and so it was. Rent con trols would be reintroduced to ensure affordable ren tal housing and so it was. We would take steps to relieve interest burdens facing families buying a home or renewing a mortgage and so it is.

That is only a small sampling of the readings from the book of How ard Pawley, "A Clear Choice for Manitobans" and I recommend this to all Conservatives, I recommend this to all Conservatives to read every day. Read it and ask questions on it, even more broadly than you have been reading it up to now. I recommend this for read ing for you, it is excellent. We have taken other initiatives. What about the con struction program in health care, in hospitals, in nurs ing homes? Let us look what we are doing for this year. -( Interjection)- I wouldn't get into that. Who started the Dauphin Hospital?

The Honourable Member for Arthur knows naught of what he speaks, Mr. Speaker. It was the Honourable Minister -( Interjection)- that's right, he has the documents. -( Interjections)- We've got a little debate going on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but once it clears up, I am sure I have to agree with the side to my left here. Let us take a look in some of the Tory ridings what this government is doing for its priorities in construc tion of nursing homes. Let us take a look.

A 20-bed personal care home at Glenboro, a new 20-bed per sonal care home at Reston, a new 40-bed personal care home at Grunthal, a new 60-bed personal care home at Steinbach, a renovation and expansion of a program at Morden. What are we doing here? - (Interjection)- Do you want us to cut this out now, in restraint? Do you want us to cut these out like you did when you came into government? You want us to cut these back? Let us get our thoughts together here. Think straight, you people, think straight, Mr. Speaker, where are they going?

Now, we are going to go with 3.4 million for archi tectural planning for major hospital upgrading pro jects at Steinbach, Neepawa and Gladstone. -( Interjection)- Yes, excellent communities. Are you going to take credit for the architectural planning, too? A MEMBER: You want the spending, eh? MR. PLOHMAN: They want the spending and then they want to knock our policies and our programs. It is not consistent, Mr. Speaker. There is no level of rea-

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 soning over there; they are hollow criticis ms. We have provided the jobs and the stimulus through the construction program, through health care con struction, through housing construction. We have also provided 10 million in job creation stimulus in this province, in the Student lnternship Program, the Career lnternship Program. We have introduced the Interest Rate Relief Program. We have a Beef Stabili zation Plan that when it is in its final form, Mr. Speaker, will be the best beef stabilization program in the coun try and you can rest on that. -(Interjection)- He knows it.

It is going to appear in Hansard next week. He knows it. It's has to be true. We have expanded the Crit ical Horne Repair that the Tories let die off. They let it die off by not upgrad ing, revising the income levels and the levels of grants and by not advert ising the program, they let it die off to become a cosmetic program, a nothing program, but it is revitalized now under this government. It is going to be a major program for our rural commun ities and for the City of Winnip eg as well. That is what we have done for the people of Mani toba and that shows our prioritie s, Mr. Speaker.

We have increased the minim um wage to assist those who need assistance most. We have put in place rent con trols. We have provided add itional assistance to school divis ions and we have just seen an example of that with the Small Schools Program that was just announced yesterday, $1.7 million to assist those, something that was never thought of and was never done before by any Tory Government. You can be certain of that.

We have, as well, provided additio nal assi stance to municipalities and we have seen an example of that today in the Main Street Manitoba Program to assist rural commun itie s and in per capita grants that we have expanded to rural communitie s. The list goes on, Mr. Speaker.

We could go on and on with these programs, but to provide Manitoba with the stimulus that it needs, we have invested $700 mil lion in this province. $700 million - that is a 40- percent increase this year in Capital investment, a 40-percent increase in the faith that we place in Mani toba, 40 percent more than was placed in this province by the former government last year. That is our degree of confidence that we have. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our deficit is there. Our deficit is there and it is large, but it is not unmanageable. Our province is in excellent shape, Mr.

Speaker, and that is wi tnessed by a senior finance official and, of course, the Honourable Attorney General said so eloquently and the Minis ter of Com munity Services yesterday, they related so well the relative position of Manitoba to the rest of Canada, to other provinces. Let's look what the senior financial analyst says about Manitoba's deficit, "M anitoba's debt servicing cost as a percentage of its Budget are among the lowest in the nation and that figure if 4.5 percent.

Manitoba has a long way to go before its debt becomes a problem for it." The senior official con tinued, "Credit rating institutions and the lenders look at our debt and see that more than half of it is self susta ining for very valuable long-term investments in projects such as Hydro. They also look at our tax potential here and recognize that, again, we have con siderable space left to move." What is he saying? That appeared in Frances Russell's column in Saturday's paper. That is what he is saying -( lnterjection) that's ri ght. So our deficit is there, but we are in excellent shape here in Manitoba.

The people of Manitoba need help now. In terms of our deficit, we are in excellent shape and the comparison that the Attorney-General made yesterday to an indiv idual with a mortgage shows that our deficit is a very small percentage compared to something like that. The people of Manitoba need help now. We prom ised them that help in November and we are delivering now. The sincerity and understand ing of our govern ment cannot be exemplified more than the recent move by our Minis ter and by our government to remove the tax on service stations along the border of Saskatchewan - moving quick ly.

This typifies our human approach to government and that is what gov ernment is all about, Mr. Speaker, to act, to lead and to respond in a reasonable fashion when people are in need. That is what we have done. That is our approach and I would hope that perhaps hoping against hope that eventually the members of the Oppos ition will learn, will be able to one day to join with us in working for Manitoba in a constructive fashion, working together in their role, in their eternal role as Opposi tion here in this province, and I would hope that they would endorse this Budget.

My honourable friends I would ask you to endorse this budget, believe in it, it is certainly the best that we could do at this time, better than you could have done, better than you would have done, Mr. Speaker, endorse it, endorse this Budget, it is a good one. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Jerry T. Storie (Flin Flon): The Honourable Member for Rhi neland. 2566 MR. ARNOLD BROWN (Rhineland): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Someti mes I wonder whether if it's worth while getting up if the score now is nine rounds to nothing, you wonder whether it's worth it, but for tunately not all of us believe in the score keeping of the Honourable Member for Dauphin. He said that he was proud to be an NOP. I wonder if he's been home lately, if he has talked to his people at home, whether he's really been in touch and to see how happy the people are with the NOP , or with any government as far as that's concerned. The people are unhappy. He offered us some free advice, Mr.

Speaker, and I would say that we are going to accept such for what ever it was worth. He was also mentioning the politica l purge which was occurring in Saskatchewan at the present time. I don't think that anybody really can walk away with clean hands when we're talking about political purges. Certainly the NOP Government in Manitoba have done their share of purging so they cannot claim that they walk away with clean hands. The Member for Dauphin also mentioned that the former Conservative Governments had callous dis re gard for the little guy.

I would just like to tell the member that in spite of the fact that we had di sregard for the little guy, as he calls it, we did provide him with one thing and that was jobs. I wonder what they're providing him with at the present time. It certainly is

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 -(Interjection)- handouts, high taxes, and unem ployment. So much for that, Mr. Speaker. I was home during the weekend and I'm glad to report that the moisture conditions are good. The crops are getting off to a good start and indeed we should be looking forward to a good season ahead. Unfortunately, there is no optimism on behalf of the farmer though. The high cost of farming, the high cost of interest, will again take all the profits and govern ment coffers will not be swelling because of the sale of agriculture commodities.

More businesses are releas ing employees because of lack of sales and there is no sign of increase of business activity anywhere. As a matter of fact, orders are decreasing and there will be more layoffs. On the bright side of things, I talked to one chap during the weekend and he said that he knew that his boss was hurting and he had asked that the 1.5 per cent which his boss would have to pay on tax on his wages, he asked his boss to deduct it from his salary. Mr. Speaker, it's activities such as that that give us hope for the future of this country.

It's too bad that more employees, unions don't see it that way. They will however, and the longer they wait the more of a cut in wages they will have to accept. That's what I think. Many employees in the United States have accepted the fact that they will have to work for less money and that means only one thing in Canada, we will become less and less competitive. The employer is hurting more every day and if conditions don't improve by this fall many more bankruptcies will occur. Many more workers will be out of a job. Members opposite think of employers only as the large companies.

The oil conglomerates, the railway companies, the automobile industry, but they seem to forget, Mr. Speaker, that 60 percent of the labour force is working for small business. It's the small businessman, the farmer, the small manufacturer that is hurting the worst in spite of the fact that the large companies are also hurting. This Budget has increased the employer's cost of doing business and it is the employee in the long run that will be hurt because his employer is forced out of busi ness. This Budget has attempted to give some assis tance to small business and farmers and for this we are thankful.

The corporation capital tax raise from $750,000 to $1 million is a helpful move. Reducing the income tax rate in small business from 11 percent to 10 percent is a positive move. Removal of provincial capital gains tax on the sale of family farms up to a maximum of $200,000 is a positive move, but not enough to generate a lot of sales. What we need to do is eliminate all capital gains tax and I hope that the province is going to challenge the Federal Govern ment to do the same as what they have.

These mea sures on the Budgets are too small and will do little to alleviate the problems that business and the farming communities are coping with. We have to build a larger tax base and this is most important. We have to do this right away. We can't keep on raising taxes to the taxpayers of this province. We have to increase our tax base. That means that we have to go along with Alcan. What does it matter if they want to purchase their own power plant as long as we have the jobs, as long as we get that large a tax base? Why should we get hung up on an issue such as that? It's becoming less and less important.

What happened to the potash industry? You let that agreement lapse and with a different government in Saskatchewan now, I am afraid that you may have some difficult times getting the kind of agreement that we had arrived at as far as the potash industry was concerned. What about the Power Grid? We seem to hear very little about the activities. The Power Grid that was just about ready for completion and we don't hear any thing happening in that respect at all. Of course, all this development would have brought a lot ancillary industry as a result. Mr.

Speaker, what we need are some incentives and I would challenge the members opposite to look south. In North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Oregon and other states, you can now get 13 percent long-term interest rates for first-time homeowners - (Interjection)- 13 percent long-term. Now that cer tainly is incentive for people to build. This is in North Dakota just across the line from us.

They also have low interest rates on small business available over there and members opposite should avail themselves of the programs that are available over there and take a look at them and see if they couldn't be doing the same thing in Manitoba. I am certain that a lot of these things could be implemented here. 2567 Mr. Speaker, sometimes I am disturbed about some of the statements that are made by members opposite. I checked the list of candidates in the 1981 general election and how they were listed on the ballot paper. Mr.

Speaker, members opposite are mainly school teachers and academics and I have nothing against school teachers or academics, but it seems to me that many of them are pretty fa'r removed from the busi ness world, from the farming operations and, indeed, from the real world. This becomes apparent in state ments and speeches made by members opposite. It became especially apparent during the Crow Rate Debate, the Metric Resolution, where a statement was made that the going metric really had cost Canada very little and we were realizing only benefits.

Obviously, the person who spoke at that particular time did not have to buy any scales, did not have to buy a cash register, was not concerned about the education costs, the billion dollars that the Federal Government spent in order to bring in metric. When he was talking about benefits, there will be no benefits until such a time as when the United States, our larg est trading partner, also changes to metric.

I would challenge any of the members opposite to figure out the grain exchange market and how it relates to our own market or the price of sugar which is based on the London daily price plus a combination of the Chicago price, the Toronto price. This determines the price of sugar plus the freight rate from Toronto into Mani toba.

You get some very complicated equations and when members opposite are saying that we have not been affected by metric and that it has only been beneficial, they really don't know what they are talking about and until such a time as when the United States turns metric, we will have to cope with these situations. This Budget does not generate any business activ ity anywhere. As a matter of fact, more businesses in Manitoba will go under. The tax and diesel fuels will

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 have a disastrous effect on independent dealers, especially those living close to the American border. One dealer phoned me during the weekend and he said his diesel fuel sales already were down 40 percent from last year because of lower prices in the United States. This extra charge, Mr. Speaker, on diesel fuel will put him out of business. There is no doubt about that. He was wondering whether he would receive the same concession given to dealers along the Sas katchewan border. His problem is identical to the problem along the Saskatchewan border.

Are you going to give him that same concession? Low construction com panies, who have bid on the roads and other contracts, bid on the former price of diesel fuel. Now, will they be given an allowance that will compensate them for the extra cost of diesel fuel? If not, many construction companies whose bids have been accepted will be in serious trouble. There are very few construction com panies left in Manitoba and concessions will have to be made in order to keep them in business. I trust the government will give this immediate attention because some of these contrac tors are ready to begin operations.

Raising the price of diesel fuel will have a large impact on everyone in Manitoba. Freight rates already are high and this will increase the cost of groceries and everything the consumer purchases. Some busi nesses will be able to pass this increase on to the consumer but the farming community cannot pass on this cost and it will be just another added cost to the farming operation. Price of fertilizer, chemicals and the price of hauling diesel fuel will definitely be going up. My area will be affected more than other areas because potatoes are hauled to Alberta and Saskat chewan.

The freight price on delivering sugar beets to Manitoba Sugar in Manitoba will increase substan tially and the price of delivering corn to Gimli will go up, especially for those who have to hire people to haul their corn to Gimli. Southern Manitoba will bear the brunt of this price increase in diesel fuel because of all the special crops that we produce. We cannot, however, blame all the problems on this government because, Mr. Speaker, many of our prob lems do come from the disastrous policy in Ottawa. However, Mr.

Speaker, the NOP have advocated ownership of the oil industry in Canada for many years and unfortunately the Liberal Government adopted their policy and the result is a disastrous national energy policy. The collapse of the $13 billion Alsands Project, the Coal Lake Project and the Alaska Pipeline can be attributed directly to our National Energy Program.

American capital which is despar ately needed to develop these projects is staying in the United States and as a result, the Americans are developing their own oil industry and doing it at a much lesser cost than what our super expensive mul tibillion dollar projects would have cost. As a result of this. the Americans now have much cheaper gas than we have and this spread in price will probably increase because among the other things, we have saddled ourselves with paying for Petrofina for many more years to come.

This means we will be less competitive and our inflation rate will increa se. while the Americans have their inflation rate under control, 4 percent this morning. That was the report on the radio. Private foreign capital is staying home and this has always been the main source of much of Canada's development. Meanwhile, in Manitoba, we are trying to spend our way out of trouble. This Budget will surely feed infla tion and as a result, we can look forward to a continua tion of high interest rates and a slowdown of the economy in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker.

I have no choice but to suppo rt the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Oppo sition. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. MR. COWAN: Yes, I have to tell you right from the onset. Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased and honou red to have this opp ortunity to address this, the first Budget Debate of the new government.

It is an honour to participate in the debate as a member of the Treasury Bench and it is a pleasure to participate in the debate, not because it is a Pollyanna Budget, but rather because it is a well thought out, well conceived Budget which addresses some of the serious eco nomic problems which confront all of us as Manitobans. There is no doubt in anyone's mind, either in this House or outside of these Chambers, that this is a tough Budget. It is a tough Budget because we need it at this time to develop an economic mechanism to sustain and strengthen the provincial economy dur ing tough economic times.

Let it be clear. These times are not of our liking, nor are they of our making. How ever, as a Provincial Gove rnment, we know that we have the responsibility to address international and national problems from the provincial perspec tive. So while it is not a Pollyanna Budget which attempts to gloss over very serious problems in the economy. it is a series of well thought out measures designed to build for our future. 2568 For that reason. I wish to commend this Budget to the Legislature and through this opp ortunity, to speak to the people of the province. I wish to commend it to them as well.

I do so, not out of partisan motivation, but out of a sense of loyalty to my government. I commend it to you on the basis that I believe it is the best possible Budget for these times. As with any Budget, there are two sides of the equa tion which must be addressed when discussing that economic blueprint. There are the mechanisms which are designed to raise revenues and on the other side, there are the expenditures which a gov ernment is anticipating.

If any Budget is to stand the test of time, then it must balance these two sides of the ledger with each other in a rational way, but as well, it must bal ance these two sides of the ledger within the context of the demands of the day. There are times when a balanced Budget, when expenditures and revenues equal each other, is the app rop riate mechanism to meet and confront the circumstances which. a gov ernment faces. There are times when a surplus Budget, where you have more revenues coming in than you have expenditures going out, is in order and those are times which are welcomed by almost any government.

The Member for Morris asked, when was the last time we had one in this House. Well. I will tell the Member for Morris that we have not had one in this House during the reign of his government when they

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 were in power. The Member for Tuxedo says, they were close, but the fact is in four years of Conservative Gover nment in this provi nce, there was not a bal anced Budget and that government came to power on the promise to the peop le of this provi nce that they would provide such a Budget and they unable to do so, but I don't want to be sidetracked from ·my remarks at this time. I want to address that issue more specifi cally a bit later. Who's tried the hardest, the Member for Morris said. My goodness, Mr.

Speaker, we are now basi ng our perceptions on the gover nment as to who tries the hardest as if it's an Avis and a Hertz Rent-A-Car com mercial. Let us be serious about the Budget that is before us and let us be serious about our ana lysis of the Budget that is before us. So there are times when you want a surplus Budget, and let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, who has the surplus Budget before the people of their province at this time. It is the Gover nment of Saskatchewan and it is not because of any measures of the new Gover nment of Saskatche wa n.

That is the last ba lanced Budget they wi ll have in a long, long time once that new govern ment gets through with its shenanigans in that pro vince, but under 11 years of a New Democratic Party administration in the Provi nce of Saskat chewan, they were able to be, out of the eight provinces which have brought forward Budgets to date, the only province which was able to bri ng forward a surp lus Budget and we wi ll address that issue a bit later. So there is a time when a deficit Budget is required.

It is required to allow the government to provide the services and programs which it feels are necessary and warranted. It is necessary when a government knows that revenue in creases cannot possibly match expenditure demands. There is no secret about it. This is such a time. This is a deficit Budget.

It is a deficit Budget because the times demand such a Budget, not because we wanted a deficit Budget, not because we place any great faith and stock in a deficit Budget, not because we didn't want to be able to raise revenues in order to meet the expenditures, but because of the economic times which we confront as a new government following on the heels of four years of mismanagement of the economy of this provi nce by the previous Conservative admin istratio n. That is one reason why it is a deficit Budget and they cannot deny that, nor should they attempt to deny that because it just won't wash.

This is a deficit Budget because the times demand such a Budget. There are things that we must do as a Provi ncial Gover nment to assist the peop le of this provi nce to meet head-on the economic problems which are created by int ernatio nal, natio nal and provi ncial for ces. It is interesting to note that Manit oba is not alone in this regard.

As a matter of fact, if one were to take the time to compare the Budgets of the different prov inces as they bring them forward this year and there are eight who have done so already, one wi ll find that out of the eight provi ncial Budgets which have been tabled to date, there is only one that does not have a deficit Budget and that is the Budget ofSaskatchewan which has a surplus Budget and was able to bring forward a surp lus Budget because they had invested wisely as a government in the future of their province many years ago.

They haven't suffered through the last four years of misma nagement, the likes of which we have seen under the previous Co nservative administratio n. So when the Leader of the Opposition stands in this House the other day and says to us that other jurisdic tions are not bringing forward these deficit Budgets , that other jurisdictions are attempting to go the oppo site way than are we, I have to question the facts upon which he bases that assumpti on.

As a matter of fact, if one looked at those eight Budgets, one wi ll find that only Prince Edward Island's Budget calls for less of a deficit than does the Manitoba Budget. Let's look at the record. Alberta is calling for a $2.45 billion deficit.

B.C. is calling for a $360 million deficit, New Bruns wick is calling for a $420 million deficit, Nova Scotia is calling for a $390 million deficit, Ontario, the home of true blue Toryism is calling for a $2.23 billion deficit Budget and so, with Prince Edward Island calling for a $1 00,000 deficit, we have the second lowest deficit out of the eight Budgets which have been tabled to date.

So don't try to paint this Budget, as they have done, as bei ng out of line with what is happe ning in other juris dictions and I wi ll tell you that we have not chosen such a small deficit, which we have, because we value carte blanche a small deficit. We have chosen the deficit which we have because we know that it pro vides to us an opportunity to perform some of the programs and policies which we would like to have put int o effect, not all of them but some of them and to do so in a reasonable way.

In other words, we have chosen to put those pro grams in place, to spend the money, at the same time to increase revenues to meet those expend itures and to increase those revenues as much as we felt was possible to keep the deficit to a workab le amount and that, Mr. Speaker, I would· suggest to you is called fiscal responsibil ity and that is what this Budget is all about. It would be easy to bring forward a Budget that didn't have tax in creases in it.

It would be easy to bring forward a Budget that didn't have tax cuts in it, which we have provided so as to make the tax burden of the peop le of this provi nce somewhat more equit able. It would have been easy to do those things but we did not choose the easy way out. We chose the responsi ble way out and we will continue to do so because this is a respo nsible government that knows full well gov ernment has a role to play, government must finance that role and government must do so with responsibil ity.

So we have brought forward a Budget that we feel provides for that sort of a deficit, that sort of increased revenues and does so without inflicting undue harm on either individuals or the provi ncial economy. 2569 It's interesting to listen over the past number of days and today as well to the Conservative Opposition rant and rave about the methods of taxation we have chosen or to rant and rave about the deficit which we know and they know, if they are to be honest, must be a part of this Budget.

Over the past four years, I per sonally have grown used to listening to the their knee jerk, doctrin aire, ill-conceived and tradit ional opposi tion to any deficit and I have listened to that kneejerk, doctrinaire, ill-conceived and ideo logical response to any deficit even when four years running, they brought forward deficits as part of their Budgets and that, perhaps, is the greatest cause of their failure to win the recent election. It is perhaps the greatest reason

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 behind them being the first one-term government in the hi story of this province. You see, they were trapped in their ide ology; they hated deficits. They thought they were despic able and yet at the same time, each and every instance, they brought forward a deficit. So what happe ns when you are as a govern ment stuck in that sort of Draconian environment where you hate the very thing which you must do; you do it badly. That stands to reason. You do it badly. Their ideological op position to deficit budgeting para lyzed them into becoming an ineffective government.

In spite of their acute protracted restraint, and I don't want to have to list the litany of destruction that imposed upon the people of this province once again; it's only too well known. But in spite of their acute protracted restraint and their numerous cutbacks, they brought forward that deficit Budget in each of the four years of their government and they did so because I watched them each and every time, Sir, with great shame and with increasing embarrassment.

They did so, not because they wanted to use deficit financing as they created in a positive way to streng then and sustain the provincial economy, they did so because they were unable to meet even their own self-stated goals of a balanced Budget: they were unable to make revenues meet expendit ures. I want to give them credit where credit is due. It must be said at this time that they faced the same interna tional, national and provincial economic difficulties that confront us at the present time.

The situation hasn't changed that much, except perhaps in the last couple of months it has gotten worse, but instead of using the budg etary process to confront those prob lems head-on, they chose to hide their head in the ideologic al caverns for the past four years. That was their choice. I would suggest to you that it was a choice they made, knowing full well the effect that lack of action on their part was going to have on this province, but they chose to do it and because they chose to do it, the people of this province suffered for their refusal to enter the 20th Century.

So we hear them time and time again throughout this partic ular Budget Debate talk about the ruination of the provincial economy that they foresee as a result of the deficit which we have before us today. I would suggest to them that if they want a clear illustrat ion of ruination caused by a provincial budg etary deficit, they need only look to their four years of government in each and every Budget exercise, because they were unable to use a deficit Budget as a means to stimulate the economy and that's the type of deficit Budget you have in front of you today.

That's the type of budge tary process we brought forward. They did it out of shame; they did it in an embarrassed way. We, Sir, do it because we know it is necessary and we know that given the economic circumstances of the day, we can make it work on behalf of the people of this province and we will make it work. -(Interjection)- Thank you, I needed that. So for four years, they drove the province to the brink of economic collapse by their laissez-faire 19th Century ap proach to governing the affairs of this pro vince. You know, I have done, Mr. Speake r, what I di dn't want to do.

I dwelt on some of their mistakes of the past. I did not want to do it because it's not neces sary. Those mistakes, in hindsig ht, are only too ap parent and obvious and I believe that the people of this province dwelt on those mistakes and opted dur ing the recent election cam paig n when on last November 17th, 1981, they unceremoniously ki cked those persons out of their office. In a massive rejec tion of their record, they ki cked them out of office because they were unable, in four years, to do what we have been able to accomplish in six short months.

They laugh, and it is easy to laugh on that side of the House, indeed it is. But that is where they are now and that is where they shall stay because what I say to you today, Mr. Speake r, is true and it will be proven out as we govern this province for a long, long time because we do so, not out of embarrassment and not out of shame and not out of a lack of will, but we do so because we know there are things that must be done and we know that we and the people of this province can do them.

So, the New Democratic Party and the present adminis tration rejects the Conservative ap proach to government which is both outmoded and outdated. Since assuming office, let's look at what we have done. Since that assum ption to office, we have acted quickly to stimulate the economy of the province. Just today, another election campaign was fulfilled as my seatmate, the Minis ter of Munici pal Affairs, stood in his place and announced the Main Street Manitoba Program.

I am pleased that he was not stampeded in the precip itous action by the members op posite, that he took his time and he brought forward a well reasoned, a well-rationed, a well-thought out program which will benefit all of the mun icip alities who wish to take advantage of that unique economic op portunity to build a better rural Manitoba for all Manitoba. So, we want to stimulate the economy of the prov ince and, at the same time, we want to protect the quality and the level of services for Manitobans.

The major init iatives that this government has brought forward in six months include and let me list them off in short order for you because I don't have time to dwell on each and every one of them in the detail which they deserve, but I do want to put on the record, in a very concise and clear form those things which we have done to sustain and strengthen the economy of this province and to protect the quality of service for all Manit obans. 2570 There is a $23 million Emergency Interest Relief Program for homeowners, businesses, and farmers. MR. FILMON: Which isn't helping anyone. MR.

COWAN: Well, the Member for Tuxedo says, it isn't helping anyone. Perhaps, it is not helping him because perhaps he does not find him self in the dire straits which many Manit obans find themselves in after four years of Conservative Government and who need that program; but for those who need it is a help and it is a welcome relief and it is something to which they are grateful to their Provincial Government for. We have increased grants to munici pal govern ments and school boards to ease the prop erty tax burden.

I might add, as a representative of a northern constituency and as the Minis ter of Northern Affairs, these increased grants in many instances have dir ectly assisted northern communities who, after suffering four years of Conservat ive Government, were faced

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 with revenue reductions on the part of the Provincial Government because of lower population figures. So they have been of benefit and they have been of spe cific benefit to those who need that assistance the most.

We have developed improved property tax relief for pensioners; there is a $17 .5 million Beef Stabilization Program for beef producers which will be coming forward; there are rent controls measures which pro tect renters throughout the province and I am inter ested in hearing what the members opposite will have to say about that Rent Control Program because I remember the debates previous when they disbanded the Rent Control Program and put in place an ineffec tive and ineffectual mechanism which they said would protect renters in this province, but which the renters of the province told them was not true, during the recent election, when they voted for the New Demo cratic Party's program of rent control.

So we brought that program forward, we have kept our faith with those individuals who have voted for this government for that reason. We have also, and I give all due credit to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance for this, brought forward a minimum wage increase that allows low wage earners a decent, livable increase in their wages which match inflation.

I don't want to repeat the statis tics which he provided when he announced that increase, but if in fact I were sitting on that side and I had heard what my government had done during four years to the low wage earners in this province, I would have been, not only shamed but I would have been pleased that the New Democratic Party Government has the guts to do something to correct that inequita ble situation which they foisted upon the low wage earners of this province; so we did that. You recall earlier that my own department, we implemented a temporary Emergency Winter Works Program for northern communitie s.

It was not as much as I would have like it to have been, Mr. Speaker; it was not as much as perhaps it should have been, but it was a mechanism by which we could very 1 speedily and very quickly provide temporary, but needed, employment in almost all Northern Affairs communities who so despe rately needed that sort of employment and the wages in their own communities which it brought forward. So, impressive as that list may be, it is only a short list of things which we have already accomplished.

Over the next number of years, and some of the issues are addressed in the Budget and some will be addressed as we continue throughout our delibera tions and our debates in this House, we will be bring ing forward long-term investments which will benefit the people of this province for years to come, and that is part of the Budget, too. The Budget is spending money as well as providing revenues. So, we talk about a multi-million dollar program to construct new health care facilities and we know that is necessary and we know that is important.

For that reason, we are pleased to inform those that we will be bringing that program forward. We talked about Criti cal Home Repair Program which has been revitalized and expanded and will provide needed employment to construction workers and, at the same time, will assist homeowners to improve their homes. We talked about 2571 a new multi-million dollar program for the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation. I remember when that was mentioned in the debate, perhaps, the Minis ter of Finance will dwell back upon that.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek kept mumbling, "more public housing, more public housing," he said The fact is that there is a need sometimes for public involvement in construction programs. We know that the construc tion industry is ailing; we know that there is a need for public housing; we know that we can play a role and we are not afraid to accept the responsibility to do something about those economic conditions which exist today. This will allow for a number of new initiatives to assist both home builders and homeowners who need affordable quality housing.

There is also a multi million dollar Job Creation Program which will directly assist unemployed Manitobans and help them find productive and meaningful work during difficult eco nomic times. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could indicate how much time I would have left? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Approximately 15 minutes. MR. COWAN: Some say too much; I say not enough, however, I am certain we will have numerous oppor tunities during the course of this and other sessions to discuss these in detail.

But I do want to talk about the ways by which we're going to raise some of those revenues because we know that all these new initia tives and these innovative programs will have to be financed by the government, and as in administration who understands and appreciates the value of coun ter cyclical economic activities on the part of any provincial government, we· have undertaken these programs, developed these policies, knowing full well that we would have to both increase the deficit to a reasonable amount, raise revenues to finance these programs and raise them in what I would suggest to you is a reasonable and a rational way.

So that brings us to the other side of the equation; that brings us to the revenue side of this present Budget. Now, one has to consider the revenue provi sions of any budget to be twofold: the first is the ways by which we may gain new revenue; the second is the way by which a Provincial Government can make more equitable the payment of taxes by Manitobans and provide economic stimulus through selective and well thought out tax cuts. This Budget addresses both issues in that rational way which we know is neces sary to deal with these tough difficult economic times.

There are special tax cuts and related assistance to help consumers and to stimulate small business. One feature which the Opposition does not mention all that often in their tirades against this Budget, they don't mention the freeze that we put on the automatic tax increases on gasoline which they brought forward and which would of this year rob Manitobans of $7 million.

We've frozen that; we have put $7 million back in the pockets of Manitobans so that they can use that money to stimulate the economy, to provide the eco nomic stimulus that we know is necessary for this province to get back on its feet after four years of their mismanagement and their ad valorem taxes which only sought to increase the revenue which they

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 needed, but were afraid to bring forward in this sort of open and honest way. So we've frozen those. Let's hear them talk about that, the next person who rises to speak. Let's hear him discuss that issue. I guess they may be too embarrassed to talk about this positive feature of the Budget among other positive features.

I recall listening to them during the Budget Addresses when they as a government took great delight in saying to us members of the Opposition, "Do you know what you're going to vote against when you vote against this Budget?" Do you recall that? -(Interjection)- The Minister of Finance recalls it. Now, I don't think that was the most honest way to conduct a Budget Debate. I think it was a bit of shammery, a bit of trickery, perhaps, a bit of a con or attempt at a con, but I do know that they did it time and time again.

I would not impose that sort of illogical and somewhat deceitful debate style upon them now that the circumstances have changed. However, if they were speaking to this Debate from this side, from our perspective, they would be taking great glee and delight in telling us how we would be voting against this freeze on the ad valorem gasoline tax. They would take great glee and delight in telling us how we would be voting against a reduction on several taxes on small businesses.

They would be overjoyed being able to stand here and tell us how we'd be voting against a removal of the provincial capital gains tax on the sales of family farms. The other day, this issue was brought forward. Today, I listened to this issue being discussed when one of their members was debating, and what did the member on that side say as he addressed this positive feature of the Budget? They said, "Too little, too late." Well, if it was too late, it was four years too late.

It was four years too late because they had the chance, they had the opportunity, the only thing they lacked was either the insight on how to do it or the will power to provide that sort of benefit to small farmers in this province. So it's only too late because they insisted on dragging their feet. In our first Budget in this House, we, by the reduction, the elimination of that provincial capital gains tax on the sales of family farms have fulfilled another promise of the election campaign and have brought needed relief to small farmers.

So don't tell us it's too little and it's too late without hanging your own heads in shame for your lack of will power to have done that when you had the opportunity and the power to do so. They would tell us in great detail how we would be voting against the exemption for restaurant meals which has been increased not by the 25 percent which they suggested, but by 50 percent to a maximum of $6.00. I'm not saying that they should do that.

I didn't like it when they did do it and I certainly wouldn't do it them, but if they were in this place, they would be saying those very things and that, Sir, would not be the most honest way to approach this Budget Debate but it was their way. Yes, they would have taken great glee in pointing out to us - if any of the new members should have any doubt about it. just read back through the Hansards of any Budget Debate during the past four years when members of their side stood to give their presentation during that Debate and they provided exactly that type of illogical debate.

But I want to talk about the positive features of this Budget. You know, it's funny that we don't hear them offer support for those innovative and progressive mea sures which I have just outlined. Where do they stand on the freeze on ad valorem gasoline tax? Where do they stand on the reduction of taxes for small busi nesses? Where do they stand when they increased the exemption? Where do they stand on the provincial capital gains tax on the sale of family farms? They may suggest that they would approve of it, but they never did it when they had the opportunity.

But these are all questions they must answer, not to this Legislature or to those assembled here, Mr. Speaker, but to their own constituents when they discussed this Budget in their constituencies. I want to talk very briefly about the tax which they have directed most of their venom and their bile and their opposition against and that is the levy on health and post-secondary education. Why is it that the Con servatives are so opposed to this tax?

One has to question what motivates them to such vile outbreaks against this tax, drawing up pictures of rabbis, priests and kids with candy bars paying this tax and at the same time knowing full well that a reasonable and a responsible government had to raise revenues at a time when expenditures were increasing. The fact is that we take no pleasure in having to raise those revenues in that way, but we did it in a courageous and a responsible way. -(lnterjection) "ln a forthright and upfront way," as one of the members from the backbench suggests should be on the record and it is now on the record.

They agree that indeed it was a forthright and honest way to raise that revenue. We felt, as a province and we discussed a number of ways of raising revenue - that we should bring forward the fairest and the most equitable way by which we could increase our revenue sources. I believe and my government believes that the levy on Health and Post-Secondary Education is just such a tax. Of course, the added aspect of this tax, which should endear the tax even to the Conservatives, is that part of that levy, part of the impact of that tax will be borne by the Federal Treasury.

We know that large corporations will receive about 53 percent of that levy back from the Federal Treasury. 2572 Now, we don't want to sock it to the Federal Government. That was their style of government; that is not our style of government. We do not want to impose unfairly on the Federal Government. That was their style of government; that is not our style of government.

We want to work as much as is possible in an equitable way with the Federal Government, but when they reduce our revenues in the way in which they have reduced our revenues, then we feel it is our responsibility as well as our right to get those revenues back for the people of this province and we have done so in a fair and equitable and, as the member for the backbench of the Conservative Government said, an honest and a forthright way. We have done so through this tax. We have done so because we know full well the advantages of this tax. What would they have us do? Would they have us increase the sales tax?

Would they have us increase personal income tax? Would they have us increase the taxes on small businesses instead of reduce them

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 which we did in a responsible way? I can only guess that they would have us do so because they are so vehemently opposed to this fair and equitable tax, Sir, that they have not been able to distract their attention from it for the last week ru nning. So given the recent cutbacks by the Federal Gover nment in equalization payments for Manitoba, we decided that this tax was not only necessary but it was a reasonable and responsible approach. Let me indulge in a bit of a prophecy.

That is some thing that a member in this House should do only rarely and when they are certain that they are correct. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you as certain as I stand here today that while we are the first province outside of Quebec to impose this levy in this way, we are not the last province outside of Quebec to do so because it is the fair and equitable way in which to provide taxation revenues to the provincial economy. There will be other provinces who follow the in novative and the equitable way that we have proceeded in raisi ng revenues as part of this budgetary process.

Well, the Member for Roblin says it taxes food, clothing and shelter. If I had another 20 minutes leave, I would run through their arguments about - let me see - if a person raises a chicke n, there is a 1.5 percent increase on the wages of the person who raises the chicken, sells the chicken to the transpor ter. There is a 1.5 percent in crease on the wages of the transportation company. The transportation comp any then takes it to the store. There is a 1.5 percent in crease on the wages of the store owners and then by the time it gets to the consumer, it's a 350 percent increase in taxation.

But let me tell you, this is the difference between the sales tax and that tax. The sales tax at the Safeway store on the chicken also includes the tax on the profits that comp any is making and the profits that the transportation compa ny is making and the profits that the initial producer is mak ing.

So, in fact, if you had a choice between a 1.5 percent sales tax and a 1.5 percent levy for health and post-secondary education on gross payroll, one would have to choose the method which we have chosen because it is efficient, effective, honest and I use their words, Conservative words, which they provided to me during this debate - forthright and honest and an open way to ensure that the people of this province have, in fact, the programs which they need, the pro grams which are of benefit to them.

We, as a Provincial Gover nment, through an in nova tive approach to the budgetary process, Sir, have pro vided the stimulus to the economy which is necessary and has been lacki ng for so many years as the Con servative Gover nment of the Day drove this province to the brink of economic collapse. We have turned that arou nd. We have begun the process and as I stand here today, Mr.

Speaker, with both pleasure and honour to be able to address this Budgetary Debate, I know that given this opportu nity one year from now when we are able to bring forward our second Budget, we will be able to talk about the positive impacts of this Budget on the provincial economy during the past 12 months. I look forward to that opportunity, Sir, with pleasure and with honour. Thank you. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Harry M. Harapiak (The Pas): If I might just in terrupt for a second, I would like to direct members' attention to the Gallery on my right where we have an honoured guest.

The hono urable guest is the Consul-General of the United States of America, Mrs. Lillian Mullin. On behalf of everyone, let me welcome you to the Chamber. The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. BUDGET DEBATE (Cont'

d) MR. FILMON: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to participate in the Budget Debate.

It is always an enjoyable opportunity because of the flexibility that one has in speaking to the Budget as well as the Throne Speech, to perhaps not be constrained as we are during the normal course of events by the rules of the House that confine us to a particular topic, confine us to the question and answer period that we have at the begi nning of each after noon where the Minister of the Environment gets an opportu nity in response to questio ns from me to go on for 15 minutes or 12 minutes or whatever he chooses without any opportunity for a rebuttal because then when I stand up for a very slight rebuttal in my pream ble, the Attorney-General in his capacity as the Gov ernment House Leader stands up and says that I am violati ng the rules of the House in some way.

So now, the opportunity is mine, the opportunity to follow the Minis ter of the Environment on the heels of his speech with very little limitation. I have almost 40 minutes in which to takei apart everythi ng that he has had to say. I must indicate, however, Mr. Speaker, that as my colleague, the Honourable Member for Robli n Russell said, he didn't say much. He took 40 minutes to say it, but he didn't say a great deal. He is suffering from, I think, the great problem that most of the members opposite are in addressing this Budget and that is, that there isn't a great deal to recomme nd in this Budget.

In fact, it is a difficult Budget to defend. For a while there up until the last day or so, I thought that perhaps we weren't going to get any members of the Treasury Bench, other than the Mini ster of Finance himself and the Minister of Natural Resources who went on day two. We wouldn't get any other members attemp ting to defend it. It was just that difficult a Budget to defend, but fortunately they have realized that they have been having great difficulties, that not only the Oppositio n, but members of the media and indeed the public at large is very, very upset with this Budget.

They have now to stand up and give us the rationale and the reasons behind all of these various moves they have made because it is, after all, an int er esting Budget, Mr. Speaker. 2573 The fact of the matter is, it is an int eresti ng exercise in attempted manipulation of public opini on. I'd say there was a great deal of deception that led up to the overall announcements that were made.

These trial balloo ns, these broad hints that were dropped for weeks ahead of time about a potential 2 percent in crease in sales tax; broade ning the base of services for which the sales tax was collected; the suggestio n, in some areas of the media, that we might be back int o gift taxes and succession duties. There was a very, very carefully orchestrated campaign to try and con vince the public of Manit oba that this was going to be a tough Budget on people. Prepare people for the

Tuesday, 18 May, 1982 worst -and it's not an unusual tactic, it's not a kind of move -( Interjection )- oh no we didn't do it in our term in government but the Federal Government has done it very, very capably. Last year the Minister of Finance, federally, was suggesting that he was going to de-index the personal deductions, and he was going to do all sorts of drastic things but then, when he didn't do all that, well people said it wasn't so bad.

I remember on Federal Budget night watching coast to-coast television interviews with the sort of average man on the street and, to a person, the reaction was it wasn't all that bad until people realized, within a few weeks, just how drastic that Budget was, how devas tating it was for Canadians. Now it's looked upon as perhaps the worst Budget in history but because of the careful manipulation that Federal Budget on Budget night, to the average man on the street, the reaction was it wasn't so bad.

Well, I tell you the same thing is true of this Budget because of all of the chicanery, because of all of the exercise in preparing the public for the worst, the initial reaction has been well, maybe it wasn't so bad, until people really start to delve into it and find out just exactly how badly they've been hit. Unlike the reac tion that the Member for Niakwa said last night where, you know, you beat your head against a wall and then when you stop it feels so good you think that it's been great.

Well I think that people who have stopped beat ing their head against the wall are soon going to real ize that this Budget is a disaster. Despite the cynical approach th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-57a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 57a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	18c91d703938c1aed17bdfbde8945961c4207a35

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