LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 26 May, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Ho n. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker, I beg leave to file a copy of each regulation filed under The Regulations Act, being Regulation Numbers 1/86 to 93 "86 inclusive; and numbers 52/85 to 270/85 inclusive.

These are being filed under the provisions of The Regulations Act. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URU SKI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to present, for all the members of the Legislative Assembly, a copy of the "Pride of the Land, " An Affectionate History of Brandon's Agricultural Exhibitions," written by Ken Coates and Fred McGuinness. I'm sure that all members of the House would enjoy receiving this document. MADAM SPEAKER: Introduction of Bills .

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before we move to Oral Questions, I'd like to direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where there are 30 students from Grade 9 from Princess Elizabeth School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Rod Balkwill. This school is located in the consistuency of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. There are 17 students from Grade 9 from the McKenzie Junior High School and these students are under the direction of Mr. Procyshyn. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Dauphin.

There are 49 students from Grade 5 and 6 from the Oakenwald School. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Joanne Gibson and this school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. On behalf of all the members, I wish to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Conflict of Interest Legislation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposit ion. 286 MR. G. FILMON : Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

In view of the fact that former Chief Justice Samuel Freedman has been appointed as a Commission of Enquiry to look into the financial dealings and relationships of the Member for Transcona; in view of the fact that a great deal of time will be spent on the topic of conflict of interest, our current legislation and the various provisions thereto appended, I wonder if the Premier would agree to having Mr.

Freedman's terms of reference expanded to making investigation into, and recommendations on, the guidelines, perhaps, and indeed legislative changes that might be brought in on conflict of interest as it pertains to Cabinet Ministers, Members of the Legislature, and senior civil servants. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, but I think it's important that we proceed on with the legislation this Session, that we not delay the proceeding with legislation during this current Session, and not run the risk of delaying for a further report from the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, I'm sure, will add his own comments and recommendations and those recommendations we can consider in the Session of '87. I would like to see some legislation passed this Session in order to ensure full disclosure on the part of all members of the Legislature. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, we have seen the effects of legislation that was brought in that perhaps wasn't adequately considered, or wasn't adequately drafted by this administration in the past. We have the appointment of an eminently qualified individual to do the investigation, I'm wondering what the Premier's concern is with not allowing him to make comments before the changes are made, rather than after the changes are made. HON. H. PAWLEY : Madam Speaker, I'm sure that the Chief Justice will feel free to make his own comments in respect to possible changes.

If there was any mistake, Madam Speaker, on the part of this government, and we are mortals like all others making our share of mistakes, it was to listen to representations by honourable members across the way in 1983 and to permit the watering down of legislation that was brought into this Chamber by the Attorney-General. We ought not to have responded to the heated submissions by the Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader of the Opposition, we should have proceeded and have cleared the legislation as we first present it and that is what I would like to do during this Session. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, the record will show that the Attorney-General brought the amendments in, it was not members on this side of the House who brought the amendments. The question becomes ,

Monday, 26 May, 1986 Madam Speaker, is the Premie r determ ined to go ahead with the legislation without having the benefit of the wise counsel of the former Chief Justice, Mr. Freedman , ha ving made the determination that he should investigate this particular case ? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speake r, there has been a great deal made by honourab le members across the way in respect to conflict of interest. There have been many innuendoes that have been tossed about during the last month or two. We have nothing to concea l; we have nothing to be concerned about.

It is our intent to proceed with wide open legislation. Hono ura ble members may be nervous, and they are entitled to be nervous if that be the direction they wish to proceed , but, Madam Speaker, I would like to return to the original legislation which was introduced by the Attorney-General in'83 - legislation that was opposed by honourable members acros s the way.

I would like to see this time , Madam Speaker , whether honourable members still view the comments, by them, during the last two months, whether they still are intent on opposing what I thought was very progressive legislatio n introduced in 1983 by the Attorney-General. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , that prog ressiv e legislation had no special provisions for members of Cabinet, those with executive authority , nor for senio r civil servants. MADAM SPEAKER: Question? MR. G. FILMON: Will the new legislation cover the special needs to govern the Members of the Executive Council, as well as senior civil servants?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , dealing with disclosure of interest, the conflict-of-interest legislation , I think, is wise in that it calls upon any member of the Legislature , whether it be a Member of the Executive Council or a member of the Legislature without any responsibility in the Executive Council, to declare that interest, whether it be in a committee of the Legislature, whether it be in Assembly, whether it be in the Cabinet room, no exceptions - disc losure of interest , if you are in a meeting that requires your appropriate disclosure of interest .

So, Madam Speaker, certainly Members of the Executive Council have additional responsibilities because they are Members of the Executive Counci l, to disclose interest. But, Madam Speaker , if there is interest, it ought to be disclosed in this Chamber, we are not going to restrict that to the 20 Members of the Executive Council; it will include all members of this Chamber . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, is the Premier telling us that there will be no special requirements upon the Members of the Executive Council , then? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had just listened to my comments , the special requirements of Members of the Executive Council, because they are Members of Exec ut iv e Council and sit on Executive Council meetings, that 287 they disclose any interest they might have at meetings of the Executive Council. That, of course , does not apply to honourable members acro ss the way.

But if there be the voting of sums of monies in this Chamber that result in the benefit of a particular member of this Cham ber, then there is a responsibility on the part of tha t mem ber under the existing conflict-of-interest provisions to declare that interest. Since that provision exists under the existing conflic t­ of-int erest provisions, then I see no reason that any one of us in this Chamber should be worried abou t disclosing our assets . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition . MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , on another topic - (Interjection) - I'm prepared to discuss this at any time, Madam Speaker. We are not the ones who have been accused of a con flict of interest. - (Interjection ) MADAM SPEAKER: Order , please. Ord er, please . Order. Question period is not a time for debate. If the honourable memb er has another question on another topic, he can put it now. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Water rates - Winnipeg Hydro MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , on anoth er top ic.

Did the Premier have knowledge of the potential adverse effect , the major adverse effect, on the City of Winnipeg that was brought upon by the measure in the Budget that calls for increased water power rental rates that will cost the City of Winnipeg $2.7 million . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I would just like to first, rising out of some comments from the Leader of the Opposition , I would have thought that he would have shared the concern - (Interject ion) - MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please .

Is the Honourabl e the First Minister answering the last question of the Leader of the Oppositio n, please? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , we will proceed on to the question though the Honourable Leade r of the Opposition did volunteer a remark that I think warranted a response. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister may answer the last question put by the Leader of the Opposition . Question per iod is not a time for debate . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, insofar as the changes in the water ch arge rates, th e Minister responsible for Urban Affairs is quite prepared to deal wit h that.

There is obviously an additional charge that will be borne by Manitoba Hydro and Winnipeg Hydro .

- Monday, 26 May, 1986 Winnipeg Hydro, according to the information that was revealed on Friday, has a surplus of some $14 million; and the intent of course is that both Winnipeg Hydro and Manitoba Hydro, would share in a fair way in respect to the additional assessment that they would be required to bear, arising from the Budget announcement. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, given the fact that the city's budget has already been struck for this year and this measure will mean an additional $2.7 million charge to the City of Winnipeg through Winnipeg Hydro, will the province be giving a special grant to the city to make up for this particular measure having taken place after they've struck the budget and the mill rate? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, as we pointed out on Friday, the surplus in 1985 was $14 million; that was based on a budgeted surplus of $8 million.

We stated on Friday, and indeed we stated when we met with the Urban Affairs Committee at Cabinet, I informally said to the Mayor, if there was any matter arising out of the Budget, we would be prepared to sit down and talk about those issues with the Mayor. We are still prepared to meet with the Mayor, discuss the impact of our decisions with him, but at the same time it would have been very inappropriate, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, to discuss any specific matter in a Budget, prior to the Budget being tabled in this House.

Corporation tax increases MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This morning, while I was planting on my farm, heard the Minister of Finance being interviewed on Peter Warren, in response to a listener who was a part owner of an apartment block and who made the case that the corporation capital tax increase from .2 percent to .3 percent would cost him , as a part owne r, his corporation, $10,000 or an additional $4 per month for each apartment dweller. The Minister said that the extra tax should come out of profits.

My question to the Minister is, where is an implement company that has large inventory - or any company that has large inventory - and has negative margins, from where is it supposed to source its additional tax requirement? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Ministe r of Finance. HON . E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The member did not relate the comment that was made with respect to that correctly.

What I indicated to the owner of a large number of apartment buildings in the City of Winnipeg, on that referenced radio show, was that the decision as to where the additional tax would come from would be something he would have 288 to review. He was suggesting that all of it would have to come from increased rents paid on those apartments. I merely pointed out to him that there is another option and that some of that increase would be taken from the profits that company may make; so the reference was incorrect.

As was pointed out by the slight change that was made with respect to corporated capital from .2 percent to .3 percent, that there is a provision under the present system that any corporation with less than $1 million of capital is exempt, and I'm told that's the vast majority of businesses operating in the province, and that there's only a small number that come in that category.

The decision on how the tax will be paid is certainly something that is left up to those corporations, but I would merely point out to the member, if you review the overall figures with respect to corporate profits over the past while, you will see that there have been increases in those areas over the past number of years, while there has been little, if any, tax increases, in fact at the Federal Government level reduction on corporate taxes over the last period of time. MR . C. MANNESS: Madam Speak er, the tax is increasing 50 percent and it still hit 4,000 corporations in Manitoba.

My question to the Ministe r, will owners of apartment blocks be allowed to pass through under the regulations of rent control those increased taxes to tenants? HON . E. KOSTYRA : The provisions of the rent regulation are as in the present and any increases that are above guidelines have to be determined through a panel process, and even any that are below the guidelines, individuals can ask for a review of those. I certainly do not recommend and certainly, unlike the member opposite, would suggest that those kind of increases should be passed on to the tenants in a block. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, let not the Minister put words in my mouth. I never said that they should be passed on. I asked if the regulations were in place to allow for it; that's all. Let him be truthful. My final supplementary to the Minist er, why is the NDP Government, directly or indirectly, increasing those taxes that are unrelated to profit, such as this corporation capital tax, and also education finance taxes in general? HON. E. KOSTYRA: The member can't have it both ways.

He was suggesting just the other day that the deficit is at a level that ought to be reduced, and when we look at providing some increased revenues to deal with the demands on health and education, and much needed assistance for agriculture, when we look at some selective tax increases that only impact a small number of corporations in the province, he objects to that Madam Speaker. The other alternatives facing the government would be to provide tax increases on the backs of ordinary taxpayers or senior citizens.

I think the goverment has taken the correct approach in terms of getting additional revenue resources by putting it on a situation or on those who are in the best position to pay those taxes.

Monday, 26 May, 1986 Child abuse MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Community Services. In view of the comments by Dr.

Eric Ellis, a Psychologist who is Chairman of a city child abuse committee, that relative to a possibility of a strike arising out of a wage dispute and indicating that there are currently at least 20 high-risk cases similar to ones which resulted in the death of four children in the last four months, could the Minister inform the House whether infants or children are presently in 20 high­ risk situations? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, I'll take the detailed part of that question as notice, but I have been assured that the negotiations are proceeding in a constructive fashion between the workers and the agencies. MR. G. MERC IER: Madam Speaker, my question is not with respect to the negotiations. My question is with respect to the 20 children who are in high-risk situations. Will the Minister remove these children from these high-risk situations immediately, or assure the House that they are in a safe situation? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, I have already taken that part of the question as notice. lt was the member opposite who linked it to negotiations. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, one would have thought that the Minister would have become concerned about a statement by a person specializing in this area with respect to the fact that 20 children are in high­ risk situations.

A final supplementary, Madam Speaker, given the tact that the regionalized system of treating child abuse has proven ineffective; given the fact that there is apparently a lack of training in child abuse; given the tact that there is obviously, and apparently resulting from a case last week, a lack of communications between regional services dealing with child abuse, in that one agency did not realize a victim of child abuse was even within their boundaries, would the Minister now consider returning to a centralized, specialized team of child abuse so that this problem can be dealt with adequately? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, there is a centralized committee, and Dr. Ellis is a part of it. That committee was asked some time ago to review the procedures we are using, and they have been asked again to review at least the specifics of the current cases. I remind the members that we do have child abuse tragedies. They have averaged, over the past several years, tour or five a year. We have been fortunate for two years to have none, and have had a regrettable occurrence just recently.

I have already asked for a full report on those, and the Advisory Committee is functioning as a central coordinating group on the entire area. 289 I assure the House that the entire issue of child abuse, and how we deal with it as the total community, and through the Child and Family Service system is a top priority of concern for me and the government. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is also to the Minister of Community Services.

Can she tell us, what are the exact numbers of child abuse cases in that the Winnipeg-Northwest Child and Family Services Agency, in fact, had 499 cases, but only 78 of those appeared on the Child Registry list? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to clarify the registry practice. The Child Abuse Registry only records one level of abuse cases; there are, in fact, three. The first level is where there has been an allegation and when the investigation reveals that there is no evidence of abuse, then that is a Level 1 case. Of course, the agencies will have that recorded on their list.

The second level is where there has not been any proven abuse, but where the people involved still have some concerns, either about whether or not abuse occurred, even if it isn't provable, or whether the level of parenting is not adequate. Those numbers are also listed at the agency level. The Central Abuse Registry only has the Level 3, that is where investigation proceeds and where there is significant evidence. You may recall when we set up the Abuse Registry that there was a parallel concern for the civil rights of the persons who were accused.

As a matter of fact, in Ontario they have had a civil rights case that has invalidated the child abuse registry in its entirety. Now we're trying to forestall that here because we feel it is a important part of our service. We did ask the Child Abuse Committee, the advisory committee, to review the procedures we were using and the checks and balances and report whether there were any fine tuning that could be made in our system so that we could appropriately balance the rights of the abuser and the protection of children. That report, I understand, will be given to me this week. MRS. S.

CARSTAI RS: Madam Speak er, a supplementary please. Are you suggesting, Madam Minis ter, that 84 percent of the cases are either allegations or not proven? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I can't comment on the precise percentage, but because we have put in place a co-ordinated reporting obligation on the part of teachers, workers, doctors, police, we are getting many more allegations of abuse than will stand up to actual investigation.

But we felt that because of the severity of the problem and the need to get as early warning as possible, that that wider net was an important piece of the total program and, of course, that went in a couple of years ago when we developed the joint protocols for all professionals working with children.

Monday, 26 May, 1986 Potash mine, Manitoba - status of MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, I direct this question to the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. During the election, we heard a great deal from the former Minister of Energy and Mines about the development of a world-class potash mine in the Province of Manitoba. I wonder if the present Minister can indicate where in the Budget, or has the government decided on a fixed amount of investment in this project? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll take that question as notice. MR. H. ENNS: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Would the Minister also indicate through which vehicle the government intends to make this - I was going to say ill-advised investment, I'll wait to debate that on another occasion, Madam Speaker - but will it be the Manitoba Mineral Exploration Corporation, or will the monies allocated for this venture appear under one of the capital schedules? HON. V. SCHROEDER: I'll take that question as notice, as well. Baseball stadium - status of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR.

H. SMITH : My question is to the Minister of Sport. What is the latest in the Triple AAA baseball stadium? Have the details been worked out; give us some information? MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister for Sport. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, you know there has been a tentative agreement between the city and the province for the construction of a baseball stadium, and certain conditions were part of the proposed agreement, but to co-operate with the city, or with the mayor in this committee, who had to report to a committee - and this is done open ly, they're not behind closed doors - the details were not revealed.

All the details were not revealed, but I've reminded the mayor that there should be an agreement soon and that the conditions would have to be met and there are discussions now at the level of the city solicitor and ours to finish the agreement. But all the conditions will have to be met and I've reminded the city of that. MR. H. SMITH : Will there be the equivalent of an environmental impact study to determine whether or not the community adjacent to the proposed stadium will accept such a development? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, one of the conditions - and that one was made public - there 290 would be a meeting for the people in the area to discuss the Omand's Creek development, the proposed park adjacent to the Manitoba Health Services Commission property and all the way north. The discussion of the parking and probably some plans and so on will be discussed at that meeting with the people in the area. Civil Service positions - impact of Budget MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, I see the Minister of Finance seeking the floor.

I'll give him an opportunit y, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the Estimates tabled last Thursday result in the elimination of 200 public service positions; and if not, how many? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There will be changes in the staffing as a result of various decisions that were made with respect to expenditure changes.

The overall impact would be probably a slight increase in the amount of Civil Service positions generally, although there are some positions that are being reduced in some areas where programs are being changed, or altered, or closed, and in other areas there are new programs being put in place that require additional staff resources. So the net impact of those changes will be a small increase in the number of positions overall. Any positions that have been deleted, or are being reduced, are being done so in co-operation with the employees affected and their bargaining agent.

I anticipate that all the changes will be accommodated within normal attrition and the government will work with the employees and the union to ensure that that does take place. Main Street Project HON. E. KOSTYRA: While I'm on my feet, Madam Speaker, I wanted to reply to a question that my Acting Minister took as notice last Thursday, May 22nd, from the Honourable Member for River Heights, asking a question as to whether or not there was ongoing negotiations with the Main Street project. I can reply, yes, that negotiations have been ongoing for some time and are continuing with the Main Street Project.

In addition, she asked whether or not they were prepared to go on strike tomorrow - tomorrow in that context being Friday, May 23rd. The answer is no, obviously , since there is no strike at the present time, and that was some time ago. Also I'm informed that there is no immediate prospect for job option. Civil Service positions - Impact of Budget MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, getting back to my question, would the Minister provide this House with a list of the positions to be eliminated and the new positions created?

Monday, 26 May, 1986 HON. E. KOSTYRA: That information is provided through the usual process of review of departmental Estimates, but I'll review that specific request to see whether or not it can be accommodated. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, by his answer, is the Minister indicating that there are no finalized plans and that the government hasn't priorized the distribution of these positions, thus leaving the matter hanging as a threat to public servants across the province? HON. E. KOSTYRA: No, Madam Speaker, that's not what I said.

The member is following his script and his questions don't seem to follow the answers I'm giving. The usual practice in this House is that the Estimates of each department are reviewed through the Estimate process and are subject to full review and detailed review by the House in separate committee. At that time the details of staffing of all those departments are made available. What I did indicate was that I will review his specific request to see if there can be an overall statement of staffing changes provided.

In any case, he has the full opportunity to review each one of those staffing of every department in government. The employees are not being left out hanging, Madam Speaker. There is a process of review with the employees affected and their bargaining agent to ensure that employees are relocated and nobody will be declared surplus, outside of government service, as a result of these changes. CRISP Program MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance.

What is the estimated cost of increasing the funding of the CRISP program, as announced by the Minister in the Budget Address? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: I'll take that specific question as notice. I believe the figure for a full year would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $2 million. MRS. C. OLESON: Could the Minister also take as notice, the question that arises from that arises from that statement. In the line of Estimates that include that there is a $300,000 reduction in the CRISP funding; could he explain that please? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can explain that. The changes that took place with respect to CRISP were a very late decision made with respect to the Budget, and the specific Estimates which go to print, so to speak, some time prior to the actual Budget date, did not reflect that change. lt's our intention to look at those increases as a result of savings in other areas to ensure that the overall increases are within what we expended. The member suggests that's 11th hour.

We looked right up to the last moment to look at what kind of 291 measures could be put in place that would assist farmers in our province, and I don't apologize for that, Madam Speaker. Landlord and Tenant Act - changes to MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR. H. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In the paper on Saturday, there was an

article about how a renter went ahead and wrecked a house that he was renting. I would like to ask the Minister if there are any contemplated changes in The Landlord and Tenant Act to deal with this type of tenant. MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank YOIJ, Madam Speaker. This is a matter that is presently under review of the committee that's looking at The Landlord and Tenant Act. lt's one of the things that we are trying to tighten up. We want to make sure there aren't abuses on either side. We don't want abuses by landlords and we don't want abuses by tenants.

They each have rights and responsibilities, and I think those are the changes we're looking at making. Presently, though, there is a clause under the present act that would allow the department, under 103.9, to terminate a tenancy. I don't think this person was perhaps aware that he had access to some help from the department to get rid of tenants, or to help get rid of tenants, that were clearly destroying the proper ty. If he chooses to go court, which he did do, it precludes my department from being able to be involved.

What they want to do when they're looking at the review is make sure that there is some enforcement. Presently, the law as it stands says that we can evict somebody, but we can't enforce it, Madam Speaker. Of course, enforcement is what is very important, so that's where we are looking at tightening up the act. Cook's Creek Diversion Project MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: My question is to the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

Given the fact that the capital expenditures budget of the Department of Natural Resources had been reduced by about $4 million, could the Minister assure this House that the Cook's Creek Diversion Project, a project already approved and under construction, will not be postponed or cancelled? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, details of that nature will be revealed adequately in the Estimates process.

Monday, 26 May, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: Did the Honourable Member for Springfield have a supplementary? MR. G. ROCH: Why can the question not be answered now? Those people are all wondering what's happening over there. They have been told verbally that the project has been cancelled; has it or hasn't it? HON. l.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, as a newcomer to this House, it seems to me that there must be several hundred questions that would be posed if we decided to use this arena at this time to answer specific questions. lt is my understanding that those questions would be more appropriately answered during the Estimates process. MR. G. ROCH: What you're saying then is that you will not reassure the people at this point, one way or the other, despite the fact that your officials in your department have told them verbally that the project is cancelled. HON. L.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I would only say that there is no indication on my part that the project is cancelled. But, to answer specifically, the degree to which we will be dealing with the various projects which are under the auspices of the Department of Natural Resources, I do not feel would be appropriate at this time. EXPO '86 office - staff ing MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Everybody should be forgiven once.

To the Minister of Business Development and Tourism. lt is evident that Expo '86 is going to be a resounding success and, because of the short-sightedness of the government, we're the only western province that is going to be without a pavilion; will the Minister then tell us who is hired to work in the office that we have in the Canadian pavilion? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't have the particular name of the individual here. I will take that as notice.

But there was an implication that we had nothing happening there and that we were different from every other province. Of course, people such as the Member for Sturgeon Creek, know full well that there are other provinces in similar circumstances, excepting that we believe we have gotten a very good location, and that we're getting some very positive results from our particular location. MR. E. CONNERY: To the Minister, again, are there. people from the Province of British Columbia going to be working in the pavilion, or will it be Manitobans that will be working in the pavilion?

If it is Manitobans, will they be government employees? HON. V. SCHROEDER: There are a number of Manitobans who are with the Department of Indust ry, 292 Trade and Technology, who are within the Civil Service in various areas of expertise, who will be at the site at different times, depending on the particular private sector corporations who are there from Manitoba at a given time.

People with expertise in the food­ processing sector would be there when the food­ processing companies are there; people from the agricultural implements sector will be there when the agricultural implement manufacturers are there, and so on. I don't know off-hand that we will be hiring anyone from B.C. My recollection is that all of the positions are being filled by people from Manitoba; there may be one or two from B. C., but I'll get back to the member on that. MR. E.

CONNERY: I think the suggestion has been that it's going to be an opportunity for a lot of government employees to have a trip to Expo and have a holiday at government expense. Could the Minister then tell us how many suites or hotel rooms has the government rented, and for how long of a period of time? HON. V. SCHROE DER: Madam Speaker, I sometimes wonder about the schizophrenia across the way.

On the one hand, they don't want us there and, on the other hand, when we point out that we have a presence there geared specifically for the economic development of Manitoba, they make the suggestions that somehow the people working there are somehow holidaying, and that is simply not accurate. - (Interjection) - Quite frankly, the member from the deep west there, Arthur, suggests I'm going to take a holiday. The last place I would want to be this summer is at Expo. I would like to be working here getting my departments in order and so on. I don't expect to be at Expo.

But the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology has, to my knowledge, at least I believe, two suites in an apartment block in a suburb of Vancouver, and the calculations were very very clear that those suites would come in at much less expense than had we gone with hotels downtown or any of those extravaganzas which other provinces have entered into. We are quite prepared to give the numbers to the members opposite to let them see what Alberta is doing, what Saskatchewan is doing and other provinces are doing. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance, standing in the name of the Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technolo gy. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to begin by congratulating the Finance Minister for an excellent Budget, a Budget with an emphasis on continuing the strength of our economy

Monday, 26 May, 1986 and jobs; with an emphasis on the agricultural sector; with an emphasis in our health, social and economic development. He again makes the point which has been made by him before, and others in this New Democratic Administration, that social and economic development must go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

I guess the best example of the attempt to do one without the other is the Province of British Columbia and its, I believe, insane attempt to move completely away from social development, only to attempt to bolster economic development, and they've managed to fail in both areas. This government has been a success in the past and especially - I guess everyone knows, Madam Speaker - in the area of social development, the New Democrats have been able to deliver the goods in the past. That's no surprise.

We have in the past year, while Canada as a whole had more people in poverty, here in Manitoba we were moving in the opposite direction of having fewer people in poverty, something we are very proud of, Madam Speaker, because we say that we look toward a society where there is greater fairness in the sharing of goods and services, not only goods and services, but also power, also decision making. I believe we are moving toward a society in Manitoba where we are able to do more sharing in all those areas.

Everyone knows we've been able to deliver the goods, be it on the pension plan, be it on Medicare, be it on protection for workers and, of course, some areas are possibly social development, possibly economic development. Every time we have raised the minimum wage in this province we've had the doomsayers from the Tory party stand up and say: this will not work; you're heading in the wrong direction; you're going to ensure that young people don't have jobs and so on.

When the statistics come in at the end of the years when we do these things, we've demonstrated that in fact we've done better than we were doing under a Tory Government, and we have provided a little more fair sharing of goods and services for those people who are at the low end of the income scale. So we've been able to do those social things - some social and economic. We've also been able, I believe, to deliver the economic goods and that is something that, quite frankly, the polls showed four or five years ago that we didn't have the kind of credibility on that we wanted to achieve.

We believed we had some answers for Canada and for Manitoba. Now it is clearly demonstrable, by practically every major economic indica tor, that fair sharing can be a part of greater economic development, and we have demonstrated that we are delivering the economic goods. You can look at things such as population statistics - I referred to them before under the great Conservative burgeoning of the economy during the late 1970s and early'80s. They had fewer Manitobans left here the day they left office than the day they came into office in 1977.

Gross provincial product has increased significantly and has done well, as compared to other parts of the country. Unemployment rates, by region - and I refer to the Budget in brief, a very good document, the source in this particular instance is Statistics Canada - it shows 293 we're in the lowest area in the country . The unemployment record here has been pretty good - second, third lowest, sometimes lowest. This is at a time when we're not losing population, this is at a time when we're gaining population at a faster rate than at any time since World War I.

This wasn't accompanied by a drop in population, it wasn't accompanied by people fleeing the province for other places, such as happened between 1977 and'81. Capital investment, again, Manitoba stands out as the area with the strongest capital investment increase from 1982-86 and, Madam Speaker, this is before Limestone. Limestone's implications come this year, and a few years down the road but, in the last few years, we have been anywhere between No. 1 and No. 3 in this country, and that's changed from No. 9 and No. 10 when the Tories were in office.

All of those kinds of indicators demonstrate that we can deliver, and in fact are delivering the economic goods for Canadians. I'd like to deal briefly with Limestone, basically for two reasons: No. 1, there are still some Manitobans who are still not convinced of the soundness of that investment. I believe that is largely because of the Progressive Conservative rhetoric from the opposition benches. I gather that, as well, from the heckling in the House.

I heard the Member for Portage la Prairie referring to Limestone in quite derogatory terms, suggesting that it was going to be something that would be very very costly to future generations. In fact, if you refer to the Progressive Conservative plan for economic growth, which they unveiled during the election campaign, they referred to Limestone as a bubble of pretense. They talked about Hydro development in general as being a few thousand jobs, perhaps a few dozen permanent jobs and, thereafter, an extra burden on the farms and small businesses and hospitals and schools where Manitobans really work.

That was their projection of what happened in respect to Limestone. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, is now in the Chair.) I think that is an incredible distortion of the reality of what is happening at Limestone, and I would like to refer to the report of the National Energy Board. I should say before I do so that there are many other examples of Conservative quotes saying we should not proceed with Limestone, but what if we had not proceeded? What would we say to the Manitobans who had taken the time to inform themselves as to the issues, as to the reality, and not to the bubbles opposite?

What did the National Energy Board, which is an independent board, not set up by us but by the national government, what did they say about whether or not we'd gotten the best price for our power? Because frequently, there are suggestions and innuendos made by the Conservatives that we didn't get the best price; we were just so desperate we just went out there and bargained away our heritage. This is what the Board said and I'm quoting directly.

"The Board is satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, the export price is the best price that could be negotiated by the applicant in its particular United States market." The best price which could be negotiated - not the second best, not an average price, the best price that could be negotiated. Would the price be greater than prices to domestic organizations which used similar amounts of power - because there have always been, in fact, some of the older interruptible contracts were at

Monday, 26 May, 1986 cheaper rates - so in this case, again there has been innuendo from members opposite that somehow prices would be lower to the people using it in the U.S. than people here in Manitoba. What did the Board say about that argument? lt said, and I quote again, "The Board is aware that the export price would be substantially greater than the rates paid by the applicant's large industrial customers. " "Substantially greater ... " No question that we're not getting more than what we would get if we sold that product in Manitoba.

Now, the Board, of course, does not have jurisdiction to determine the timing of the construction of our dams. lt can, however, comment on the proposal. This is what the Board stated about the proposal as a whole. "The Board's assessment of the export proposal has not, however, turned up anything to suggest that the utilities generation expansion decisions are wrong. ·· The Board, after using its expertise to determine whether this project made sense, came back and said there was nothing to suggest that any of the decisions of our utility were wrong.

Nothing, not a thing, including all of the rhetoric the Tories gave them at that time. The Board went on to agree with Hydro's contention that a two-year advancement of Limestone would be more profitble than a one-year advancement. Of course, it also said a one-year advancement would be more profitable than no advancement. What did the Tories have to say about that? This is Gary Filmon, Winnipeg Sun, October 12, 1984. "Our objection isn't to the sale; it is to an early start-up of Limestone. " We can go on and on with those kind of quotes; it is an early start of Limestone.

What does the Independent National Energy Board have to say about the early start-up of Limestone, and whether or not that will be profitable to the people of Manitoba? This is what they say. "The Board has carefully examined the cases representing both the sale sequence and the 500 megawatt sale sequence cases. For the sale sequence, from Manitoba Hydro's perspective, the excess of revenues over costs for the two-year advancement would be about $20 million more than for the one-year advancement.

From the perspective of Canada, as a whole, corresponding benefits would be in a similar range as those for the one-year advancement. While it is true that the cost­ recovery period associated with the proposed export is a long one, the estimated revenues will substantially exceed the estimated costs over the period of the export. " That's what they're saying. They go on to say that bringing forward by two years the Limestone Dam will provide, in total, substantial increases in profits to Manitoba Hydro.

I quote, "The results of the Board's analysis for the sale sequence showed that Manitoba Hydro could be estimated to derive net revenues of about $385 million from the two­ year advancement case ". Mr. Deputy Speaker, a $385 million net revenue to the taxpayers, to the people of Manitoba, because we chose to advance the hydro-electric dam by a two­ year period, and the Tories are still saying we shouldn't have gone ahead with it. What kind of dereliction of duty would it have been to the people of Manitoba not to proceed with it.

If anyone read that document, looked at the background to it and then said, we will be Chicken Little and we will not proceed with a project which we 294 are told by independent experts will provide us with a profit of $385 million, what would have been the reaction of the Manitoba taxpayers? They'd have thrown us out of office and we would have deserved to have been thrown out of office if we could not understand that a two-year advancement would make a profit to Manitobans estimated at $385 million.

One of the reasons the Tories are sitting on the other side is that they have this kind of Chicken Little mentality. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Opposition will now join with us in supporting this very important Manitoba project against the numbers of which they have never presented one iota of evidence. I recall previous Industry Minister, and I quote - taking the liberty of changing only two words - the Member for Sturgeon Creek said this in February of 1980: "Mr. Speaker, it just makes me sick when Manitobans criticize Manitoba. I tell you this.

The reason they have got into that habit because we've had the Conservatives around for so long preaching doom and gloom. You know, the Conservatives keep continually running down the greatest province in Canada. We've got more water, more sand, more culture, more everything in this province, and I defy any one of them to sit down and start writing the good things in this province and if they can't come up with a 40-minute speech or a two-hour speech, they ought to be ashamed of themselves, but it's always run it down and mix it up.

" That's the Member for Sturgeon Creek and the two words exchanged, of course, are Conservative for NDP. Just so that I can demonstrate that it's not so bad to have two words wrong, I quote from the Member for Sturgeon Creek later on in that year, May 1, 1980. "Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that wrote the

article also used semantics. If they want to use word, it was as far as Schnieders is concerned, I guess that could be regarded as something that might have been wrong. There were 2 words wrong in the 10 and I looked over my speech very well, 2 out of 10. " I think the point is well made. 1t is time we had the Opposition standing up and speaking out for Manitoba, instead of preaching the doom and gloom and Chicken Little that they've been doing for the last number of years. I would hope that they would begin to do that at about this stage.

I cannot help but comment on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. lt was pretty clear, No. 1, that the laudable efforts of the Minister of Finance to provide advance information through the lock-up system - something which no previous government has done, be it Liberal, Conservative or NDP - those laudable efforts in terms of their impact on the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition of that Budget were a total waste of time, effort and money, unfortuna tely.

We're waiting, however, for the Member for River Heights who may well demonstrate that, in fact, there has been some benefit to the province in going through that exercise. His predictions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, haven't improved at all from the past. For those members opposite who have a great deal of faith in the predictions of the Leader of the Opposition, I want to go through some past predictions of his. Remember the speech he gave in March of 1983. lt is very important because this goes to the heart of the differences between the New Democrats and the

Monday, 26 May, 1986 Conservatives in this province. In the depth of the recession we never abandoned social development in this province. We never abandoned our vision of a fair Manitoba with fair shares for all. At that time, we had to do some tough things, things that they said were going to ruin this province. We said we will move along, we will have confidence in the future. Here is what he said about the Budget in 1983.

"This recovery will come for North America and world wide, but it will pass us right by, and the reason is that, of course, nobody looks upon Manitoba as a safe, secure, reasonable place to invest anymore." Nobody looks upon us as a reasonable place to invest anymore. He said it twice. I take it that was the chorus effect.

That was the Leader of the Opposition who, if his predictions are not better in the future, will become the next ex-Leader of the Opposition, certainly never a Premier of the province, when he makes those kinds of predictions which are so clearly wrong, which so clearly misunderstand the ability of Manitobans together to work through difficulties and not just to attack the government and pretend that if it wasn't for the government all the problems would be solved, given that we were in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930's Depression, some people have said the worst depression since the 1930's recession. lt was a very difficult time and we stood together and with the business community and with labour and with working Manitobans, men and women, we came through that recession, as I've indicated, in much better shape than this country as a whole.

When you compare what we did here in Manitoba together with what the Government of B.C. attempted to do in B.C. with their economy on their own, it is clear which philosophical way one must go to develop the future. We had the prediction a few years back from the Leader of the Opposition that rent controls were going to drive our entire - I'll quote directly from him: "They have bureaucratically entrenched rent controls. I'm not opposed to rent controls.

We had rent controls, and good rent controls in this province." I just, as an aside, say that was his definition of good rent controls, and I would suggest that the results of the 1981 election, in areas that had apartment blocks, speak for themselves, speak very, very eloquently for themselves in terms of whether we had good rent controls or bad rent controls.

He goes on and says, "lt will destroy all of the building construction for rental accommodation in this province in the next few years and it will destroy building trades jobs in this province, all of the building construction for rental accommodation down the tubes," is what he says. Did that come to pass? Of course not. lt didn't come to pass because we had a Manitoba where people wanted to work together and did work together and we worked our way out of the recession; and we had long since figured out that chasing people out of the province was not the way to develop this province, and they came back.

When people came back there was a need for more rental accommodations and those rental accommodations were being built and they are being built. During the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, he came forward with the one innovation of his speech 295 by talking about where he would have cut spending. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the feeling that the Member for River Heights had something to do with that. This is the first time in four-and-a-half years that I have heard the Member for Tuxedo, the Leader of the Opposition, come here and give us some positive alternatives.

Now, maybe I wasn't listening all the time. Sometimes, quite frankly, the comments from across the way were very difficult to follow; but anyway he made some spending reduction suggestions, the $40 million on the Jobs Fund, and we'll be going into that at a later time. I'm not going to take the time of my speech on that. He had several other areas where he would have cut spending from what we've done.

Basically, I think a total of much less than $60 million in cuts, and of course the health and education levy itself would have taken up a decrease in taxes of at least $100 million a year; so that would have made up for that, although I understand he also indicated that he wouldn't have eliminated the health and education levy for all employers in the province , which of course would have been a complete and utter abandonment of a policy, the No. 1 promise the PC's made over the last three years to Manitobans.

Right after the election, not only don't they like a Throne Speech that says this is where we stand, this is what we're going to do because it happened to be the promises we made, they come into the House and the first major speech on economic development, you have the Leader of the Opposition saying we would have abandoned our first promise to the people of Manitoba. Of course, they haven't even been elected. They say it's because of a $55 million increase in the deficit for last year.

If anyone calculates out the cost of that - first of all, they knew every penny, other than that $55 million, of debt they would have to deal with in 1986-87. Knowing that, they still made that decision to say they would eliminate that tax and do all those other wonderful things. That $55 million works out, the interest on that, to less than $6 million.

For that $6 million that group would turn around and abandon a $100 million promise and try to pin it onto that kind of a change, knowing full well when they made their rebuttal to the Budget speech, that interest costs overall have come down far more than that $6 million since the time they made their promise on the health and education levy. They would suggest that it's on that basis that they can just say, well, no, this is the No. 1 thing we ran on, but we're going to jettison it. I have said in the past, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that what we have across the way is the "Fun Party," the "Party Party," the group that has it both ways. They spend the money and say they wouldn't tax and say they'd have lower deficits. They've being doing that year after year after year. This time, admittedly with a couple of new wrinkles, it's the first time they've admitted they wouldn't have eliminated the health and education levy; and they've made some suggestions for decreased expenditures, which are things we can discuss rationally in the future.

At the same time, we had members from across that whole array of a coalition of sort of from the far right to the far, far right to the middle, making all kinds of suggestions about more spending.

-. Monday, 26 May, 1986 Last Friday, and I haven't gone through Hansard, but just jotted down, because I was hoping to have a chance to talk a little bit after the Leader of the Opposition spoke, there was the Member for Pembina. There's a fiscal Cons ervative for you, and what was he up on? He wanted us to spend at least $19 million more on roads, highways. That was just to get us back where he felt we were last year and last year he said we were too low, so I'm sure if you asked him how much we should spend there he would add another $50 million, but let's give him just the $20 million.

We had the Member for Arthur telling us we should cut down $20 million on education tax. That sounds like a pretty good deal, a Santa Claus down there, $20 million. We had suggestions on drainage; we had the Member for Charleswood standing up and decrying the fact that we are not spending enough money on urban affairs, that the urban affairs budget has not been dealt with fairly, and we have, I believe, 60 percent of provincial revenue coming out of the City of Winnipeg and we should have a proportionate expenditure here. I'm sure you heard him say that as well. That's in the tens of millions of dollars.

So we've already eaten up every penny the Leader of the Opposition has suggested he could save. it's sort of the leader throwing a couple of items into the pot and he has all these fiscal Conservatives busy spending faster than he can throw it into the pot. it's an incredible scene we have across the way, where they are all things to all people.

Any constituent comes up to you and says, "I want some spending, " they're in the House saying, "Let's spend more, let's spend more in Portage on the institution; let's spend more in Springfield on drainage works; let's spend more in northeast Winnipeg on the Concordia Hospital; let's spend more. " Every particular area is saying, more, more, more, and then they pretend that they care about the deficit and they can do something about taxes. What a bunch of- you know, that is schizophrenia, the schizophrenia that - in fact, I look at a Free Press

article dated Saturday, May 5, 1984 - everything I said then is as exactly true, with minor little adjustments of the changes that the leader has made, as it was then. I said at that time the Tories are infected with negativism, they are obsessed with doom and gloom, they are almost totally devoid of constructive criticism . . . A MEMBER: Opportunist? Did you mention opportunism? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: No, I didn't say opportunism, but then they lost their opportunity to win that election probably as a result of that total negativism of theirs in terms of what we do, and their terms of total opportunism in terms of coming along and saying yes to everybody who comes along and suggests that they need spending for their particular area. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not going to be long this afternoon; I'm not going to use my 40 minutes. I know that we have a number of our people who will be getting their first opportunity to get into a Budget debate.

I want to repeat that I am very proud of what our government has accomplished over the past four years, where we are heading. I believe we are heading in the 296 right direction. The Minister of Finance indicated in his Budget that our debt payments had become a smaller proportio n of overall debt payments in this country since we took office. The Budget, in brief, indicated - (I nterjection) - Well, actually, there are a number of financial houses who look at that fairly closely.

The Budget, in brief, indicates that in terms of debt charges per capita, which have something to do with past expenditures - debt charges per capita- Manitoba is more than $100 per person below the all 10-province average. That's something I don't hear the Member for Morris saying to his constituency when he talks about our financial position. I don't hear the Leader of the Opposition pointing out that there is no province to the east of us who pay as small a proportion, as small a dollar payment on debt costs, as people in the Province of Manitoba. They don't talk about that.

They talk about tax increases, deficit increases which are there, which have been there with all governments in this country. The deficit increase in Saskatchewan, as an example, has gone from a surplus position in 1982-83,

whereas we came into office in 1981-82 with a deficit of over $250 million which you people never refer to. You people came into office in 1977 saying you were going to reduce the deficit, and you had a larger deficit the year you left office than the year you came in even though you had done every single rotten thing to our economy. You cut back on nursing homes; you cut back on health care; you cut back on education.

After you did all of that, and people starting leaving, your tax base shrank and you had a larger deficit than the year you came in although that was a raise in debt, that was why you came into office. You spent three years ranting and raving across this province about the deficit and you wound up increasing the deficit over your four-year period from when you came into office. We didn't say we were going to decrease it. We said we were going to be rational about our expenditures, we were going to be prudent, and I believe that we have been.

I believe that the investment climate in this province demonstrates that very clearly . Our expenditure increase is one that is reasonable related to what is happening in other parts of the count ry. We have the third lowest expenditures per capita in this province. That's something I never hear opposition spokespeople talk about. We have largely increased our agricultural expenditures, which is a very good thing for our agricultural community and for the rest of us because we all depend on agriculture and Polder Ill and those other kinds of things so much. So it's been a very good Budget, I believe.

I believe it is heading us in the right direction; it is not out of line. For example, our spending increase, in fact, I believe is a little lower than the increase in Ontario. They have had to increase taxes here and there; we have had to do those kinds of things. lt is not an unreasonable Budget. 1t is one that I would hope that just for once the opposition would leave aside its strident partisanship and come forward and support this Budget which they know, in their hearts, is going in the right direction as we did over the last four years. We were the province in the west which shone.

We were the province in the west which bloomed, which had investment, which had increases in population and

Monday, 26 May, 1986 all those other indicators. We are the province where there is a better level of living today than there was a few years ago. We are the province where there is less poverty today than there was a year ago. That kind of thing, I would think, and the continuanc e of those kinds of economic policies, should very clearly be things which should demand of the opp osition, if it is fair, if it is reasonable, if it is impartial, to stand up and support this Budget. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, C. Santos: The Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This is my first op portunity to speak during this Session, and I would like to start out by wishing the Speaker well in her onerous task of keeping proper decorum and impartiality in the Chamber. I would also like to welcome and bring my best wishes to all the new members and congratulations to all the members who were successful candidates in the election. I also wish to take this opp ortunity to thank the electors of Rhineland for returning me once more. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to rehash the election, but I must make a few comments about the election in Rhineland, following the comments made by the Minister of Trade and Technology where he claimed that even in Rhineland it was getting to be respectable to vote NDP, or words to that extent. We had a clean fight in Rhineland, and I commend the campaigns of the Liberals and the NDP who helped keep it clean. The NDP candidate was a good friend of mine and popular in his own community where he won every poll.

Strange NDP policy, however, was generating in Rhineland when the team promoting the candidate did so by saying that the NDP and their candidate were totally opposed to abortion, and they went all over the constituency saying this, and that they were opposed to day care. At an all-candidates meeting in Altona, the Rhineland NDP team strongly stated, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that they thought it was the mother's duty to look after her child and that too much money was being spent on day care. lt is too bad that Madam Speaker is not in her Chair because I assured them at that time that the Member for Wolseley certainly would not agree with their sentiments. That is why I say that we had a rather strange campaign by the NDP in Rhineland, but that's enough about the election. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Budget last Thursday might have been termed disappointing and a disaster by most responsi ble Manitobans in sp ite of the fact that Manitoba had a good year.

The farming sector had one of the largest crops ever, except for a few areas. As a result of that, the business community did well, and revenues will increase by approximately 8 percent, an excellent time, an opportunity to decrease the deficit. This government believes that it is acceptable to have a $500 million deficit year after year. They don't seem to realize that the debt service charges rise in accordance with the debt. This government has no guts or fiscal responsi bility. What will they do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if interest rates should again rise above the 15 percent level?

No 297 doubt, the credit rating will go down as a result of not getting expenditures under control, and we will pay higher interest rates on the monies that we have borrowed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I agree that in some areas such as agriculture, an injection of capital is needed because of falling commodity prices and higher input costs. The agricultural community must survive, because it is the backbone of this province. We should explore every avenue in order to keep agriculture viable.

We must initiate much more research into agricultural products that could be grown in Manitoba, and assist in the marketing of these products. We all see the handwriting on the wall. Countries that were major importers of wheat a decade ago are now exporting. Who ever thought that India with its millions of people would ever be exporting food? But they are. China is fast becoming more self-sufficient. What will happen if the Russian socialists ever learn how to produce wheat? All of Western Canada would be absolutely devastated, because we have few options other than wheat.

We should be focusing our attention on as many alternate crops as possible, pulse crops such as corn, sunflowers, peas, beans, sugar beets, vegetables and fruits that we can grow should be encouraged, and assistance given in marketing wherever required. I sincerely hope that this government will help sustain the sugar industry in Manitoba. Canada has to import every kilogram of sugar that is not produced by sugar beets. Canada should become self-sufficient in sugar. This would take 800,000 acres of prime wheat-growing land and divert it into growing sugar.

Crops like this could be of great assistance in avoiding the problem of overproduction of grain which is upon us, and will increase as years go by. lt is imperative that this government address itself to the problem of a glut of grain on the market that is rapidly bringing the agricultural community to bankrupt cy. The government must assist in alternate plans in order to keep the agricultural community viable. Another area in which cutbacks in expenditure occurred is highways. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this province, where almost all of our trade relies on good transportation systems, roads are essential.

Many roads that were reasonably good have not received attention and, if attention is not forthcoming, these roads will be ruined and new roads will have to be built. That is very expensive, and it is much more prudent to keep these roads under proper maintenance. The provincial road system, especially in the constituency of Rhineland, has received very little attention during this government's regime and many of them require urgent attention. I am sure that every member can say the same thing.

When is this government going to realize that, in order to keep the economy viable, a good trans portation and road network is essential? Where was the Minister of Highways when this Budget was approved? This certainly is a reflection on his capability to speak for Manitobans. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to express a few concerns that I have on purple fuel, especially gasoline. The agricultural community and farmers are all experiencing quite a few losses as a result of theft of gasoline. The one deterrent that we did have was purple

Monday, 26 May, 1986 gasoline and, now that this is going to be eliminated, I can see where theft of gasoline is going to become very prominent and is going to become one of the larger expenses that the farmer is going to be faced with. So I hope that the government will be able to devise some way which will make it less easy for people to come and steal gasoline and not be detected. At the present time with the purple gasoline - if the police find that you've been driving with purple gasoline in your car, then of course you have to pay a fine and you're sentenced.

But what is going to happen once we drive with clear fuel? lt is a concern out there in the farming community, in spite of the fact that they did recommend what the government is instituting. The corporation tax increase will act as a deterrent in attracting jobs. The corporation tax and employment tax are the two most detested taxes by businessmen in Manitoba, and I know. I have paid the corporation tax, and I know how onerous and difficult it was to pay that particular tax, especially during those years when interest rates were 20 percent and higher. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, time will not permit me to go into all aspects of the Budget. I do, however, want to make some comments on Community Services and Corrections. The Minister of Community Services, unlike the Minister of Highways, has some clout with her Cabinet colleagues and has been able to receive a $19 million increase in her expenditures. Before I delve in any depth into this department, I want to tell the Minister that I attended the opening of a residence to house some severely handicapped and mentally retarded persons in the town of Altona yesterday.

I congratulate the efforts of the Board which has taken on the responsibility of supplying the needs of the mentally handicapped in that community. A ME MBER: Was Muriel there? MR. A. BROWN: The Minister, unfortunately, was not there. But not only has this community provided a workshop, residence, teaching facilities, but now they are going to look after the severely handicapped of the community, and the Board certainly is to be recommended and congratulated for their efforts.

The Board wishes me to extend their gratitude to the Minister for her assistance in this project and, at the same time, wishes me to inform the Minister that, to date, they have received no monetary assistance from her department. Maybe the Minister can check into this. Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the last year's Estimates, I asked the Minister what the total cost was in dividing Winnipeg into six areas for the purposes of Child and Family Services. The cost at that time was some $2 million, not including the cost of rental payments required to house the various offices in each one of the areas.

The answer I received was that rent was paid by the Department of Government Services, and she had no idea what that figure was. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find it extremely irresponsible for the Minister to go ahead and completely disrupt the existing Childrens' Aid Society system, as it was at that time, a single-delivery system as in Toronto and in most large cities, and divide the Childrens' Aid 298 Society, or the Child and Family Services as it is now called, into six areas without knowing what the cost was going to be.

Before the division, we had many teams of experts operating within the system and, although the system was not perfect, by and large a good job was done with many volunteers taking

part in the service. The Minister dismantled all these teams of experts and dispersed them into the various areas where they were no longer operating as teams. The Minister made the statement that we have too many experts in the field. Mr. Deputy Speaker, she sure is in need of some of that expertise now. The happenings of recent weeks says it all. The hopeless disarray in which these areas work, caseloads are increasing and workers are threatening to take strike action because of hopeless caseloads, burnout and no sign of improvement. Why are these situations happening? Why are caseloads increasing?

One area in which caseloads are increasing is when parents place their child in temporary guardianship or sign over guardianship to Family Services. This happens when parents cannot cope with a child who either steals, is on dope, runs away repeatedly to hang around with undesirables, or refuses to attend school or for whatever reason. We used to have reform schools who did a pretty good job of looking after children such as that who are difficult to get under control. Then we had the school for boys because reform schools, that was a word which was no longer acceptable.

We had a school for boys and a school for girls but now we have neither. Now we have group homes where there is no discipline, no responsibility taught. The child comes and goes at will, attends school at will, does not receive the counselling promise, receives spending allowance and clothes, but no incentive to resolve the problem.

I would like to tell the members present of a certain instance - and I brought this instance to the attention of the Minister last year and this instance still has not been resolved - this was a family who had a boy who was stealing; first of all he was stealing at home and later on he was stealing all over the communit y.

The parents could not cope with him, so they signed him over to the Child and Family Services to become his guardians for a period of what was hoped to be three weeks where he would be receiving extensive counselling by a psychologist, by a psychiatrist, or whoever, to try to solve this particular problem. Seven months later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that boy had only received 15 minutes of counselling. He had been shifted from foster home to foster home. The counselling that he had received had not been done by a psychiatrist or a psychologist. He had not received any professional counselling at all.

The parents wanted to get this boy back into their home because absolutely nothing was happening to him and because no work was being done with him, they wanted him back home. Yet, the Child and Family Services said no, we still have not treated this boy; he is ours and you cannot have him. There are many parents such as that, Mr. Deputy Chairman , and these parents have organized themselves into groups and they call themselves Tough Love. I attended one of their meetings and so should the Ministe r. This is one of the reasons why caseloads are growing because nothing is ever resolved.

This is unfair to the child, to the parents and to the taxpayer who pays for it all.

Monday, 26 May, 1986 Recently a case where a child was placed in a foster home and sexually abused and died as a result of this attack, shows how the entire system of placement and adoption has deteriorated. There used to be a very extensive screening process. I know, because my wife and I we adopted two children and we had to go through a very extensive screening process before we were allowed to adopt these children, in spite of the fact that they were my niece and my nephew whose parents had been killed in an automobile accident. At that time there was follow up.

The social worker came and saw us every once in a while and dropped in to say hello, to see if everything was all right. I felt very good and I felt secure about our adoptive system and about the system that we had for placement of children in foster homes but this is no longer there. No follow-up appears to be done. The Department of Corrections seems to be run - no follow-up seems to be done. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe this is a shame, that we have let that particular department, which was doing a reasonably good job, deteriorate to the extent that it has in this province.

The Department of Corrections seems to be run as another welfare agency. Sentences mean nothing anymore. A two-year sentence means the inmate will be out in three months. The Fine Option Program is not working too well because too many of the people who have the option of jail or fines, choose to pay a fine, but then conveniently forget to pay the fine and have to be arrested repeatedly because of failure to pay the fine. Criminals are thumbing their nose at the way the system is run. The police are kept busy arresting and re-arresting and sentence people for failure to pay their fines.

All of this adds up to a tremendous cost for the taxpayer. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the way that Corrections has proceeded leaves the government no alternative but to place Corrections under the Attorney-General's Department where it used to be and hopefully more respect for the law would be achieved as a result of this move. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as a result of some of these happenings, both in Family Services and Corrections because caseloads are not resolved but dragged on and on, hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted, but the greatest wrong being done is to the child who needs the attention and help and does not receive the help. Mr. Deputy Speak er, every department of this government should investigate whether monies are spent prudently and we know that millions of dollars can be saved eliminating ways and promoting and rewarding prudent management. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not want to go into every department.

I know there are many people who want to speak on this particular Budget, but I did want to say that there are ways that this government can find of cutting back on the deficit and still providing the services which this province so desperately needs. We cannot continue on in the way that we are at the present time, continuously going on with a $500 million deficit and the tremendous cost of servicing this debt which we will be encountering. The people of this province demand more accounta bility. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Memb er for River Heights. 299 MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Budget presented to this House last Thursday evening is a Budget of betrayal. I am outraged by the betrayal of trust that this government has perpetrated on the citizens of Manitoba. Manitobans are not being told the truth, and I, as the representative of the Liberal Party in Manitoba, demand that the people be told the real facts of our economic plight. This Budget is deceitful and in the long term, it spells disaster for this province. MR. G. MERCIER: You should be positive, Sharon. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: First, let me set the record straight with respect to, and I quote, "Manitob ans endorsed our initiatives over the past four years." The word-change required, Mr. Deputy Speak er, is: "tolerated" your initiatives. Let not this government forget that 59 percent of Manitoba's voters rejected your positions absolutely; 14 percent of them voted Liberal, even though they knew we couldn't form the government. However , they wanted to grab this administration by the lapels and force you to accept reality. I don't question, like some, your right to govern.

I do question your right to continue with a tunnel-vision mentality which refuses to accept our economic problems and to plan for the future. This Budget announces a deficit of $489,400,600.00. lt makes no mention of the fact that certain debt items are not included. The Provincial Auditor has stated several times that the deficit of Manfor, some $13.5 million, should be included in the deficit yearly, in that no payments have been made since 1972. However, it is not included, nor is the $65 million shortfall of the Manitoba Development Corporation. These two items alone bring the deficit to $567,400,600.00.

The debt is announced at $7.3 billion. However, currency fluctuations alone will add an additional billion, so our real debt is $8.4 billion. If one adds another billion for Limestone for this year alone, we will be soon looking at double digit billion dollar debt. Throughout all of this, we ask this government where is your plan? Where is your intellectual honesty? When will you tell the citizens of this province where you expect this province to be financially after two years or at the end of your mandate?

Les Manitobains s'attendent a un gouvernment qui soil fort, resolu, et qui ait a coeur les interets des citoyens presents et a venir. Le ministre des finances a demontre de la timidite dans son budget, et les Manitobains meritent mieux que c;:a. (English translation) The people of Manitoba expect their government to be strong and decisive, to act in the best interests of the citizens of today and tomorrow. In this Budget, we heard from a Finance Minister who is faint-t\earted. The people of this province deserve better.

This government has added $257,709,500 more to work with this year than last; nearly one-quarter of a billion more, and yet they have still racked up a deficit of over one-half a billion dollars. How dare you stand there bold-faced and speak about the strength of our economy, and place us further in debt! How dare you

Monday, 26 May, 1986 quote the Royal Bank at us, when you know full well that they have said that our economy will remain active because we are spending $3 billion on Limestone, and that when it is completed in 1993, they have concerns about our economy. Wise financial planners would begin saving now, so that we will have the resources for a down-turn. There was little wisdom in the Budget presented last Thursday night. If you had increased this Budget to keep pace with inflation, you could have started the downward spiral by removing some 106 million from the deficit.

If you had been really courageous, and controlled expenditures, or cut costs, you could have reduced the deficit by some $250 million. Throughout the campaign, you told us that your campaign promises added up to some $25 million. How come you need 10 times that much to fulfill them? Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us look carefully at the areas the Finance Minister told us would receipt help. Agriculture - the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks must have a cruel streak to have worn cowboy boots on Budget Night. Surely he did not think $1 2 million would provide much relief. He brags about a 21 percent increase. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in the 1985 Budget, agriculture accounted for some 1.6 percentage points. This year it has grown to a whopping 1.8 percentage points. The farmers will receive the magnificent amount of one-fifth of one percentage point. If they were not so desperate, they should turn their backs in scorn. However, they are in terrible need, so they will accept this meagre amount, this pittance, this insult to the backbone of our provincial economy.

In contrast, Community Services got $19 million; Education, $34 million; Employment and Economic Security, $23 million; Health, $73 million, while our farmers got $12 million. If all the money going to these other departments was going to provide services, perhaps they could be forgiven. However, for example, the Attorney-General's administration and finance

section of his part of the Budget went up 23 percent over what was estimated only one year ago. We heard in this Budget a great deal about federal transfer pyaments, and the unfair treatment the provinces are receiving at the hands of the feds. My party and I will support the government's demands fo a more equitable share of this country's resources. However, I am appalled at this government's treatment of its own junior governments. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Finance Minister calls for a return to co-operative federalism. I say look to your own house first, Sir, and provide us with some co-operative provincialism.

In this Budget, Municipal Affairs is cut by some one­ half million dollars, and Urban Affairs by almost 7 million. In the scheme of things, it makes federal cuts look like small potatoes. This government has pushed the burden of taxation on to their junior governments in a far more serious way than the Federal Government has to them. lt reminds me of the school bully who, when defeated by one of his peers, beats up on the little kids. This government calls for the need for tax reform, and I agree, but let's not be hypocritical about it.

Don't boast about the benefits of Manitoba Properties Incorporated which is in itself a tax loophole, and then pretend to be holier than the rest of us. Be forthright instead of smug. lt is not only more honest, it's smarter. 300 Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Finance Mtnbter calls on us to make, and I quote, "Manitoba an even fairer place to live." How, therefore, does he explain that the Budget of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, already six months behind in complain ts, has been cut? How does he explain that the budget of Legal Aid has been cut by three-quarters of a million dollars?

These programs exist to provide fairness, and yet they have been denied while others grow. Our new Minister without Portfolio has been given almost $300,000 of funds, and yet it remains a mystery to this House as to just what he is to do. This Budget speaks of, and I quote, "Manitobans have a right to be proud of their achievements in education, perhaps the best investment we can make for the future. " I wish it could be so. Education was giv en a 5. 1 percent increase, with no recognition given to the plight of many rural divisions who have increased their tax bills by 25 percent.

Our universities, which have been losing departments, and watching others in danger of losing accreditation, were cut to below inflation at 3.8 percent. Community colleges were cut further to 3.5 percent, while fees increased by 8 percent. Youth unemployment remains at 15 percent plus. Education is the only means by which we can break this cycle, and yet this government denies our young people help. This government appears to have accepted the payment of income security, instead of helping individuals to provide their own securi ty.

There were choices to make in this Budget, but each time a choice was made, it came down on the side of bureaucratic decision-making and the keeping of ultimate financial control in the hands of government. All farmers could have been helped through the elimination of education tax on farmland. This government would prefer farmers to come cap-in-hand for Farm Aid. Small business could have been given the opportunity to save through plans similar to RASP's, but this government opted for small business loans, government-directed.

Parents that could have been options for day care, but this government will continue to believe they can do it best. The removal of the payroll tax could have created new, permanent jobs in the private sector, but this government will continue to mastermind through the Jobs Fund. Elimination of the sales tax on clothing and footwear of less than $300 could have put more money into the hands of welfare recipients, pensioners, and the working poor, but this government prefers to provide handouts.

Our health care system will continue to hospitalize and provide inappropriate care to those in need of personal care beds because hospitals received an 8 percent increase, but care homes met only inflation at 4 percent. Manitobans are afraid to be sick, afraid that they will have a bed in the hall, fearful of our losing specialists as we did in ophthalmology because of a lack of teaching beds. The Honourable Member for Arthur, in commenting upon my remarks to the media in response to the Speech from the Thro ne, indicated I had used unparliamentary language.

I will accept that criticism, however, I can assure you that my thoughts with regard to our Finance Minister were much more severe. Mr. Deputy Speake r, the Finance Minister has presented to this House a Budget which is deceitful, and a betrayal of our citizens, now and for the future.

Monday, 26 May, 1986 I cannot support a document which seeks to appease when urgency is required; a document without focus when careful planning is essential; a document which, in the last year of a mandate, might, but should not, be tolerated. However, this is a document which was delivered immediately following an electio n, and, as such, is both shocking and an affront to the people of this province. We sit in this House to lead, not to follow. There was no leadership to be found from our Finance Minister in Budget '86. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to take

part in this debate on the Budget, Sir, and since I did not speak during the Throne Speech De bate, I would like to place on the record my congratulations on your appointment, Sir, and of course that of my colleague, the Member for Wolseley, on her elevation to the high Chair of Speaker, as well as to all my new colleagues in the caucus. I welcome them to our government, and I know that the contributions they are now making, both as individual M LA's and as members of the Treasury Bench, bring certainly a lot of insight, experience and dedication to the people of this province.

I want to welcome all the new members to the House from opposite benches, and it's, I guess, very nice to see some change occurring in this House, but clearly, I would have preferred that the change in terms of numbers had been a little bit greater in terms of the favouring of this side of the House, but nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the will of Manitobans is very clear. There is a majority, a clear majority government in the Province of Manitoba, and we, in fact, as was portrayed by the Minister of Finance, are governing Manitoba with a clear sense of direction tor the future. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to speak about this Budget because I think from the reactions of members opposite, I guess the saying, "a picture speaks 1,000 words," - it was very clear on Budget night and thereafter, that there was, if anything, shock.

There were predictions by members opposite in terms of how well the financial affairs of this province have been managed - very clearly - and especially, Sir, in terms of the support that this government has provided to rural Manitoba and particularly the farming community and still maintained the basic services th at we, as Manitobans, have come to enjoy and, not only enjoy, but also believe that health care and education are a right. lt is not a privilege as would have been the case in this country at the turn of the century.

Sir, the Opposition was predicting massive, massive deficits or massive taxatio n, one or the other - they wanted both. For days on end, we've had nothing but questions of saying, spend, spend, spend, and, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, on the other side you have the likes of the Member tor Morris and other aspirants to be Ministers of Finance to say, you've spent too much, including the Member tor Fort Rouge, of all people, who came to this House and wanted us to put more money into agriculture, more money into health care, more money into educat ion, and said, hang on to the 301 deficit, reduce the deficit and reduce your spending. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they cannot have it both ways. I have not yet heard of any specific cut in services that they're prepared to accept.

They're prepared to accept more programs, more money, whether it be for health care, whether it be for education, whether it be for the farming communi ty, they want more programming and that's fine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but let's just understand what they are really saying. In the last number of weeks, when it comes to the farming community and agriculture in particular, Sir, we have heard members of the Opposition saying, why don't you bring in massive million dollar programs to assist our farming community because they are in great difficulty, because grain incomes are down and they cannot survive? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in this country it is recognized, historically, that there is a split jurisdiction in terms of how the province acts and how our central government, our national government, acts in terms of the support to agriculture and to its economy and on two fronts, Mr. Deputy Speaker, two fronts, both in the shared cost programming of health and education. We've had an attack on those services by the Federal Government and, in fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, supported by members opposite that somehow it is fashionable and we have to cut that sharing of those programs so that everyone in this country will pay for those programs through increased taxes at the provincial level. That's the kind of position that members opposite have taken. As well, Sir, on the farming side, here we have members opposite coming and saying, yes, you'd better bring in multimillion dollar programs, Provincial Governments, because farmers can't withstand the decrease in grain prices; they can't survive. Mr. Deputy Speaker, who, in fact, brings in the initial prices on grain?

Is it the Province of Manitoba? Is it the Province of Saskatchewan or the Province of Alberta? Neither, Sir. lt is the Federal Government which does set the tone in terms of what grain pricing should be, Sir. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Federal Government did have a choice because the asking price on grain is just that, the asking price. You can either say that we will - and you look at the records now what grain is selling at Thunder Bay and at Montreal ports - look at those numbers. They're not selling $430 a tonne or $160 a tonne. The asking price at the ports is $247 a tonne for a No. 1 wheat. MR. H.

PANKRATZ: The asking, what's the selling? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's precisely what I was saying, the asking price. Now if you want to set a trend and a signal out to the farming community that you're prepared to let them go, you lower the asking price. And then what happens? All the fin ancial institutions, both public and private say, I'm sorry. The new numbers are now, not $160 a tonne for wheat, they're now $130 a tonne and we will be making our calculations on that basis. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I've said before and I will say to my honourable friends, they should have been able to convince their colleagues in Ottawa to at least maintain initial prices at $145 a tonne on wheat, with little or no risk to the Federal Treasury, little or no risk; and had they maintained them at where they were,

Monday, 26 May, 1986 there would have been some risk, and we have said that. But would the risk have been worth it? We are going to pay out that money anyway, but to a lesser extent, through the back door a year later, through Western Grain Stabilization - part of it, one-third farmers' mon ey, two-thirds taxpayers' money , Mr. Deputy Speaker. We're going to pay it out. So would it not have been a better move to have maintained initial prices where they were, to protect the farming community in terms of national income stabilization? Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the members opposite in their remarks, have said - and I'll repeat it again - they wanted the provinces to come up with multimillion dollar programs, in light of what the American Farm Bill has done for their farmers. Mr. Deputy Speaker, $21 billion of income support from Congress to the farmers of the United States, not from the State of North Dakota, not from the State of Nebraska, but from Washington, Sir.

If my honourable friends can't understand where the capital of the United States is and who provides the income support for their farmers and who, in the same parallel, should be providing income support for Canadian farmers, it is Ottawa, Sir. lt is Ottawa, and historally has been and should have been the . . . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to relinquish all my control and let it be on the record, where the Honourable Member for Arthur said, do you want to relinquish your control? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, provinces would have not gotten into this bidding game of income stabilization and treasury pitted against treasury between provinces, had it not been for successive Federal Liberal and Conservative Governments who have moved away from providing the kind of income support to the farmers of this nation that they should have. In fact, Sir, it was documented very well last year at the Ministers' Conference in St.

John, Newfoundland. lt was documented that although the level of funding to agriculture over the last number of years has risen fairly dramatically, it was very clear from those statistics that the reduction in spending took place at the federal level and provinces have had to come in and take up the slack. In terms of national share of support for agriculture, the provinces over the last decade - and I don't lay it on whether it's Conservative Government there now, Liberals, we're just as guilty - in terms of saying, yes, we will have two types of policies.

We will have one for Eastern Canada and we will have one for Western Canada. lt has been accentuated by the Conservatives now in Ottawa, especially on grain, Sir, that maybe some of the new members opposite from the Opposition benches don't realize that, but in fact their colleagues in Ottawa this Session or this last past Parliament, passed

an act providing income stabilization with no producer contribution for wheat grown in Eastern Canada. They've done that, Sir. I wonder why. Why, if it's a good policy for Eastern Canada, why it shouldn't be a good policy for Western Canada? I wonder whether members opposite even know that has happened or whether in fact . . . I have not heard them speak out.

What I've heard them speak out on is that this government and this administration should 302 in fact be assisting their colleagues to lower their deficit by adding a greater deficit in the Province of Manitoba because clearly that's the implications of what they have been saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. (Madam Speaker is now back in the Chair.) This government has provided leadership in the area of farm policy, in the area of support. We've put out money where our mouth is when it comes to the farm community, and it hasn't been enough.

We were the first and will be the first to stand up here and say that we will not be able to deal effectively with the crisis that is out there for several thousands of Manitoba farmers. I don't think I'm saying anything new in this House that I haven't said anywhere in the Province of Manitoba and I think I've travelled rural Manitoba over the last number of years practically - not to every community, but - (Int erjection) - I'm on my second one. The Honourable Member for Morris asked me whether my car has been wrecked.

I can assure the honourable member that, in terms of the mileage, I've far exceeded the government guidelines because of the transportation, in terms of - (Interjection) - Yes, there are guidelines. My car drove over 200,000 kilometres before it was taken back in. Madam Speaker, when I talked about leadership, I want to give the honourable members some insight as to really what they were after. They were after, in the last number of weeks, to say that the province should do more to provide operating credit to the farmers of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, we took decisive action by providing over $100 million of operating credit over the last three years and we will continue to do more in this area. In fact, our Budget in the last four years has more than tripled through our lending corporation and it will increase substantially more by this Budget and by these Estimates. Madam, - people have changed chairs there - when you compare the activities of a parallel corporation, a national corporation that should be bringing leadership into Canada, we've had nothing but contraction in terms of their scope of lending to the farm community.

FCC in 1983-84 approved just under 500 loans in the Province of Manitoba. In 1984-85, they approved 188 1oans; in 1985-86, just over 100 loans. That is almost a shutting down of that corporation in Manitoba, virtually shutting that corporation down. In contrast, Madam Speaker, if my honourable friends look at the last annual report they will see our activity in the over 2,000 loans approved per year. That isn't leadership. In fact, some circles on the opposite side, and even in some of the farm organizations, want to privatize the Farm Credit Corporation.

Talk about taking the Federal Government off the hook, in terms of their responsibility to the farm community of the provider of long-term credit, of the farming sector that has generally been the upper and larger sized farms, in terms of Manitoba's case. That is not leadership, Madam Speaker, and in fact instead of the provision of operating credit, they have basically walked away from that area. In the fall of 1984, we had a new Federal Government. We met with them along with the other 10 Ministers of Agriculture across this country. There were 12

Monday, 26 May, 1986 recommendations made to the Federal Government by all Ministers, not just NOP Ministers , but Conserva tive Ministers - and I think at that time there wasn't even a Liberal administration yet in Ontario - these were primarily Conservative administrations , the Socred administration and one NOP administration who made recommendations to the Federal Government on a number of financial areas which we had agreed to which were totally rejected . Madam Speaker, we are now going through a set of reviews following on the Premiers' Conference, and I want to make some predictions .

A year-and-a-half later, we in fact are rehashing the financial stress that our farmers are going through . I want to tell you that before the next Premiers' Conference, I venture to say, Madam Speaker, we will be at or near - and I don't think we'll be there - some of the recommendations which were made in October of 1984. Now, Madam Speaker, that is progress. Maybe that's progress for my friends opposite and their colleagues in Ottawa. That certainly is not progress, in terms of enlightened action on behalf of the Federal Government, to agriculture and the farming community across this country .

But yet, we will see calls by members opposite saying yes, we should in fact , as Manitobans, be prepared to put in $10 million, $20 million, $30 million , $40 milli on in every Budget , in addition to the $70 million that we will have this year, into agricultural spending because farmers are in financial difficulty. MR. J. DOWNEY: I am telling you to put it in the right places. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , I am pleased that the Member for Arthur says, I am telling you to put it in the right places. Madam Speaker , what did they commit themselves to do in the election campaign when they sought office?

Madam Speaker , what did they commit themselves? Two areas . Now let's find out how that would have helped Manitoba farmers. They said half of the provincial levy on education tax would be taken off, about $500 on average per farm, about that. The second one was to expand on the Young Farmer Rebate Program - right? - an interest rate subsidy, basically those two areas . I want to ask my honourable friends opposite whether or not the farmers of Manitoba would have been in a different financial predicament had you formed the government. Absolutely not. - (Interjection) - In fact, they would have felt better.

Now we hear them - they would have felt better. Madam Speaker, I am sure pensioners in this province felt better when our dear Prime Minister said that health care was a sacred trust and then tried to slash pensions for our elderly citizens. They really would have felt better - (Interjection) - he wanted to slash pensions . MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would submit to a question . HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , yes, I will subm it to a question. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur with a question. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Did I understand the Minister correctly, Madam Speaker, when he indicated that the removal of half the provincial levy of education taxes off the farm community would be of no help to them ? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speak er, I was making the analogy - {Interjection) - Madam Speaker , if the honourable gentlemen want to speak, they will have their right to speak . Maybe they don 't like my rem arks . Madam Speaker, the Budget was very specific in terms of the assistance to people who are in the greatest need , the Child Related Income Support Program 303 A MEMBER: And all the farmers . HON. B.

URUSKI: No, Madam Speaker, it is not all the farms. Even members opposite will admit that while farmers are having a difficult time, there are a number of farmers who are prepared to ride it through with no land debt, . .. MR. J. DOWNEY: What choice do they have? HON. B. URUSKI: . . . no machinery debt. Their income will be contracted, Madam Spea ker, but they will ride it through. Mad am Speaker, the honourab le member says what choices do they have. Madam Speaker , I want to tell the honourable friends, and I told them before , yes, any measure of tax relief will assist any group in society, no doubt about it.

But, Madam Speak er, the Budget Speech was very clear, and is very clear, in terms of who our priority is in terms of whether or not, in terms of handling our finances of this province , we are going to channel the limited resources that we have to the people in greatest need . It is those in the greatest financial difficulty and have families , Madam Speaker .

Those will be the ones in terms of the - and will receive , Madam, anywhere from two to three times the type of support that was pledged by my honourable friends opposite during the election campaign on a per family basis of those who will be eligible - (Interjection) - yes, it is true that not everybody will get the benefit. But, Madam Speaker, my honourable friend s opposite , they want to piecemeal their approach. Their approach to tax reform is to piecemeal it to allow those who have the greatest ability to pay to have the greatest breaks .

That has generally been their approa ch to tax reform and to the whol e area of tax measures in this country . We will bring about, Madam Speaker, municipal tax reform in this province. We have committed ourselves to it, Madam Speaker, but it will be done in a co­ ordinated fashion right across-the-board so that any decisions that are made will not be made piecemeal. Any decision that will be reached, we will know the implications of the pros and cons of making that deci sion. That won't be done - and we've said this - tor at least a year or two in terms of our mandate, but we are committed to that reform.

We have said so in the past. So, Madam Speaker, members opposite , in terms of their crit icism of this Budget as not being enough, we have not yet seen anything from them that in fact would have, as an alternative, said we will be assisting the

Monday, 26 May, 1986 agricultural sector and the general economy of the Province of Manitoba more. On the other hand , we should be reducing our deficit even more. Madam Speaker , ca n you just imag ine the commitment that the Leade r of the Opposition made to spend some - how many? - $300 million to $400 mill ion more in actual spending in their election campaign on social programming? I don't know, the Member for Morris, had he been the Finance Minister, his hair I'm sure would not have been the colour that it is today, Madam Speaker.

It would have been a shining grey - ju st like yours, Madam Speaker - in one Budge t because his own leader would have driven him grey by the virtue of commitments in terms of social spending that he hoped to have garnered support fro m Manit oban s for. Talk about the penchant of the Member for Morr is wanting to reduce the defic it in any way; in fact, even saying to Ottawa, cut thos e tra nsfer payments to Manitoba, you've got to lowe r your deficit , and let them suffer here in Manitoba . Let Manitobans suffer . Madam Speaker, this issue - (Interjection) - did he say that? He didn't have to say that.

It was clear in what he was implying , Madam Speaker, that Manitobans should pay the costs , they have been spending too high. Ther e has been too much spending on this whole health care and teaching our children to be better educated and this whole area of education. You know, we've gone too far in this whole area . MR. J. DOWNEY: I heard your Minister of Finance at noon today on the radio saying he was going to implement user fees in medical selectively . HON. E. KOSTYRA: That's not what I said at all. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker , the Honourable Member for Arthur says he heard the Minister of Finance speaking at noon. I happen to have been driving into Winnipeg as well . MR. J. DOWNEY: You were late for question period then . HON. B. URUSKI: No, I wasn 't late for ques tion period, Madam Speaker. No, I happened to have been here at 2 o'clock in time for question period .

But I did hear the Minister of Finance, and I want to tell the honourable friend that when it comes to deterrent fees imposed on the citizens of Manitoba , he was unequivocal in his oppositi on to that kind of approach of health care and finan cing . Madam Speaker, I wish the members oppos ite would in fact - and I'll give them some good advice - refrain from siding with their colleagues in Ottawa on the whole question of transfer payments. I wish they would refrain, quite frankly, Madam Speaker. The Federal Conservatives committed themselves to 50-50.

There should be a campaign, Madam Speaker, in this province , of all members of this House saying 50-50 , no less , when it comes to health care and ed ucation. No less. Instead , what we hear from members opposite is saying cut more .

You are just playing with semantics, as the Honourable Member for Morris would say; you are just playing on the words. 304 Madam Speaker , we are not pla ying on the words when, in fact , certai n Mem bers fo r Parl iament take into account Manitob a reve nues, Manitoba income tax revenues , as part of the calculation of transfer payments and they say this is what Otta wa is giving Manitoba, Madam Speaker.

That is bordering on - I will ref rain from using the kind of word I would like to use, Madam Speaker - it is almost treasonous, it is - (Interjection) - in terms of using those kinds of words and those kinds of comparison. Madam Speaker, if the word I have used - I see my House Leader shaking his head - I will in fact reflect on the word and I will say the word is too strong and I apologize to any members that I may have hurt.

Certainly their actions are clearly not becoming members of Parliament representing all regions of this country , and they shou ld refrain from using those kinds of selective comparisons which are inaccura te, Madam Speaker ; they are totally inaccurate . I think some of our own colleagues in this House have attempted to use those kinds of comparisons, of trying to take into account Mani tob a income tax figures as part of the whole transfer compa rison . - (Interjection) - Totally, Madam Speaker. - (Interjection) - No, not the tax credit .

I'm talking about the cost-sharing, the transfer paymen ts from Ottawa and including Manitoba tax figures as part of the whole transfer payments. That is not right, Madam Speaker. Members should refrai n from using those kinds of compar iso ns because they are not accurate and it doesn 't behoove them although it may, in fact , Madam Speaker, allow them to score a few politica l Browni e points. Madam Speaker, just remember when they were government here and when there was a Liberal government in Ottawa.

Madam Speaker, there were assaults and attacks week in and week out on tha t Liberal administration when they were cutting back on expenditures. They have totally reversed themselves in terms of the ir pos ition. I remember the former Min iste r of Agriculture. There wasn 't a week did n't go by when he'd be firing off a press release condemning the Liberals in Ottaw a for the ir lack of attention and their lack of support for the agricultural community, saying he was going to fight.

Madam Speake r, how quickly one's approach changes when you move from one side of the House to the other ; it really changes very fast . Madam Speaker , it is unfortunate that the Member for Turtle Mountai n, who I believe - I say this without any fear of contradiction - was one of the membe rs on that side of the House who was highly respe cted. I hope that the new Member for Turt le Mountain can , in fact, be able to fill, at least in some small part, the shoes that were left by his former colleague . He, at least, was very clear and fairly consistent in his approach to this whole question of cos t-sharing.

He would have been prepared to sid e with our Minister of Finance, and in fact he did, to condemn Ottawa for the cutbacks. Madam Speaker, he would have gone and said that 50-50 is the right approach to health care and education in this country . Madam Speaker, we don't hear that from members opposite . We don't hear that. Madam Speake r, I regret that he decided to leave public life - (Interjection) - I don 't believe that he will. One of my colleagues says he'll be back . I don't

Monday, 26 May, 1986 believe he will . I think he has played his cards; he fought his battle; he lost and he said that's it for me. At least , Madam Speaker, he was very clear in his outspokenness in terms of the unfairness of the federal approach, regardless of who was there nationally . Madam Speaker, this Budget, I want to say to my colleague, the Minister of Finance - I want to thank the Minister of Finance for the diligence and hard work in putting this Budget together.

It took, no doubt, many hours, many days of preparation in terms of making sure that when you have very little in terms of maneuvering room, that you make the most of the funding that is in place and, clearly, this Budget does that. Madam Speaker, I want to say in conclusion that if the Federal Government continues its projected move in terms of expenditures and cuts into health care and education, this Minister of Finance and this government will not have the kind of - we will be hard-pressed to be able to provide future Budgets of this magnitude .

I know that it's coming because I know that the Federal Government is now - and it isn't just to Manitoba, it is right across this country - and there will be Conservative Premiers and other Conservative Ministers of Health and Education, and across-the-board who will oppose and who have already sided with our Premier to oppose those kinds of shifts in cost and those burdens will unfairly be placed on Manitobans.

If Confederation means anything, Madam Speaker , that's where the strength of a national government saying that the services, regardless of where we live in this country , shall be provided regardless of the income ability , the generating ability of that part of the province (sic) to provide those services . That is what equalization is about; that is what equa l sharing in terms of health care and education is abou t. That is what Confederation is all about , Madam Speaker . Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield . MR. G.

ROCH: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Manitoba 's Budget for the fiscal year 1986-87, recognizing that while on the surface it does not seem like a bad Budg et, it is pretty well a stand-pat Budge t which does not do much for Manit obans, and one which assumes , unfortunately, that Manitobans are accustomed to and indeed have become conditioned to half-billion dollar deficits. In fact , it is in the area of debt servicing that the largest increase of all occurred , an increase of roughly 29 percent .

Madam Speaker , although this government assumes that people have become conditioned to $0.5 billion deficits , the fact is that as a recent Federal Budget , which was presented to Canadians last February, proved that Manitobans have not only recognized the seriousness of growing deficits, but also realize that something must be done about them and that they are prepared to deal with them. People are finally realizi ng that, if left unchecked, the burgeoning deficit will continue to eat away at larger and larger portions of a shrinking pie called "revenue ".

This year alone we see that roughly one-third of all new funds spent will be used to service this prov ince's 305 ever-growing debt. Is this the kind of legacy that we want to leave to our children and grandchildren? I certainly hope not. If this trend continues , less and less money will be available for essential and other programs, while more and more money will be required to pay for the interes . charges at the international moneylenders.

It is ironic, indeed, that while this government professes to represent the little guy - a gross misconception if ever there was one - it is busy lining the pockets of the fat cat international financiers . While the Minister of Finance tried to make a big "to-do " about the increase of 21 percent in agricultural spending , Madam Speaker , one must note that this is 8 percent less than an increase of 29 percent required to service the "Gnome s of Zurich" and elsewhere and represe nts only approximately $1.2 million on total expenditures of almost $3.9 billion.

Therefore, although they are trying to create the impression that much is going to be done for the farm community - and it is high time after all these years that this government finally realizes that a crisis in agriculture actually does exist out there - if past performance is any indication, one can expect that 90 percent, if not more , of those truly in need will not get to see 1 cent from any of the various so-called "farm assistance programs ". Indeed, it is to be hoped that those who manage to qualify do, in fact, receive bona fide assistance so that th