Manitoba Hansard — 25 March 1987 (Sitting 19, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-19

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 25 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M . Phillips: Presenting Petitio ns . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pre senting Reports By Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. E. HARPER: Yes, I am pleased to table the Annual Report for the Communities Economic Development Fund for the year 1985-86 . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , a ministerial stat ement distribution . Madam Speaker , at the last First Ministers' Meeting in Vancouve r in November , I spent much time talking about fairness, and particularly the need for fair treatment for regions, provinces , and individuals who may not have as much political influence as others.

Tomorrow, Canada's First Ministers and Native leaders will meet to deal with another issue of fairness - every bit as important as those we discussed last fall - every bit as critical to Canada 's future development as a united country dedicated to fulfilling its economic and its social potential - and that is the issue of Native self-government. An agreement on self-government won't mean an overnigh t change in the lives of Native Canadians , but it will mean that expectations can stay high and can go hig her.

It will mean that the paternalistic history of bureaucrats and administrators and their relationship with our Native people will become but a fading memory . It can provide an opportunity for Canada 's aboriginal people to regain dignity , to restore pride and to foster hope that they will enjoy the benefits of Canada. We, in Man itoba, have a par ticular stake in these negotiation s bec ause, along with Saskatchewan, we have the highest percentage of Native residen ts of any province in Canada .

We know , first hand, how great the disparities are between the day-to-day lives of abo riginal people and the non-abori ginals within our population. The extent of those disparities is not well underst ood by those of us who have not experienced it on a first -h and basis . Statistics fail to tell us the story , just as they often do elsewhere within the world comm uni ty.

But we will see some of the evidence - in the chronically high unem ployment areas , in the truly high rates of mortality, especially infant mortality - in the disproporti onatel y high rates of involvement with the court system, in the need for public health care, and so on . 548 We also see a part of the story in the income statistics, or more accurately, the poverty statistics , and the statistics on broken homes , family abus e, and the exploi tation and degradation of young people.

We see the eviden ce in the massive influx of Native peopl e to our cities , to our towns , particul arly in the prairi e regions - an influx borne of hope or promise , perhaps, but which often ends in desp air and anger. In the next two days, we will have the best chance - and possibly the last chance - of our generati on to set a new cour se and to help equip Nativ e Canadians with the tools to build a better life , and to control their own destiny .

On March 15, 1983, during the First Constitutional Meeting on Aboriginal Rights, I tabled a statement of prin ci ples on behalf of the Provinc e of Manitoba whic h, among other things , enunciated five princip les which remain at the heart of Manitoba 's position today: The rights of Canada 's aboriginal people include the right to self-government. That right should now be further developed within the context of the Constitution of Canada. The inclusion of that right as a specifically defined right within the Constitution should not derogate the other rights enjoyed by the aboriginal people.

The Federal Government has a special relationship to Canada 's aboriginal people including primary fiscal responsibil ity. It is essential that sufficient fiscal resources be made available to the aboriginal people and the aboriginal institutions of self-government as may be required to provide services reasonably comparable, Madam Speaker , to those that are available to Canadians generally , taking into account the special social , the cultural, the economic needs of those people .

We are gratified to note that essentially these principles are those which now constitute the central discussion points around which , we are confident, a consensus constitutional amendment can be drafted . Above all, it is important at this juncture to emphasize the right of Canada 's aboriginal people to self government . It is an undeniable fact that Indian and Inuit peopl e were self-governing prior to European settlem ent, and that the Metis developed institutions of self-government on the Prairies prior to the entry of the western provinces into Confederation.

The right of self -government has never been extinguished eith er by consent or by conquest and any event should now be articulated within the Con stitution of Canada . A constitutional amendment in Manitob a's view must include the following: 1. An explicit and free -st anding state ment that the aboriginal people of Canada have the right to self- governme nt. 2. A commitment to negotiate the specific con tents of the various self -g overnment arrangements which , it is generally agreed,

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 must be sufficiently individualized in order to meet parti cular needs . 3. An unequivocal statement of the role of the principal

part ies, namely, the aborigin al organizations, the Federal Government, the Territorial Governments and the Prov incial Governments , both in negotiations and in the constitutionalization of self-government agreements . 4. A non -derogation clause which , although necessarily stated in broad terms should not constitute a barrier to the novel arrangements which may be necessary in order to further develop the right of self-government within the Canadian Constitution in order to meet present day needs . 5. A fiscal arrangements and resourcing clause which recognizes the following principles : (

a) The primacy, though not the exclusivity of federal responsibility. (

b) The need to guarantee to Canada's aboriginal people, wherever situated, a level of services reasonably comparable to those available to other Canadians. There is one specific issue to which I should draw the attention of the House . This is the desirability of an immediate conclusion of an agreement on treaty land entitlement. An agreement in principle on this matter has been reached and initialled by the respective parties.

The Provincial Government has raised with the Prime Minister and with the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the urgency of a formal resolution of this matter - a signed agreement. The treaty land Chiefs have been willing partners to the proposed agreement. They have expressed the view that unless a speedy conclusion to the matter, by the formal signing of the agreement, is undertaken by the Federal Government, then they may not feel bound indefinitely to honour their commitment. Should this happen, it could prove extremely costly to the people of Manitoba.

If we succeed, as succeed we must, in establishing within the Canadian Constitution a strong framework for the development of the institutions of aboriginal self-government, we will have taken a significant step forward in our historic obligation which we can no longer put aside, namely, the obligation to restore to Canada's aboriginal people that which belongs to them morally , as well as legally, including, above all, the ir dignity and the ability in a complete sense, to control and to develop their own social and economic lives . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I thank the Premier for the statement he has made in anticipation of his participation at the constitutional talks on aboriginal rights and aboriginal self government, which he will be attending this evening and the next two days in Ottawa .

I share with the Premier the concerns that he has expressed about the history of our Native peoples in Manitoba , indeed the disparities in the lives of Native Canadians versus those of non-aboriginal background , 549 share with him the concern about th e high unemployment rates, the lack of secure economic future that faces our Native people , the problems in health care, the poverty statistics , the broken homes, the family abuse , all of those are indeed a valid bac kground aga inst which we must make our deci sions as to future responsibili ties and future policies , with respect to working to upgrade the status and the opportunities for our Nativ e people.

I w ould hope th at the Premier has available for the people of Manito ba, and indeed this Legislature, a definition of the concept of this government of what is meant by self-government. Because indeed, I think , in embracing such a concept, a concept which in its principle certainly is something that many people would believe is important, to be able to work towards the objective of giving the Natives greater control over their own destiny, over their own future opportunities.

But we, in order to understand that concept , must have a better understanding of what institutions, what services that Natives will be given governance over, as a result of this definition of self-government that the government will be pursuing, that the Manitoba Government will be pursuing.

It's important that we know about the fiscal relationships because I noted within the statement that the Premier is suggesting that the Federal Government's fiscal respons ibility is prime, but not exclusive, and we would want to know what is the Manitoba Government's position with respect to acceptance of some of the fiscal responsibility for what areas, for what responsibilities , for what institutions is the Provincial Government now prepared to take fiscal responsibility as a result of the position that they 're putting forward.

The Premie r has indicated as a specific issue, which he has put forward as an example of cooperation , consultation and accomplishment of mutual shared purpose, the agreement on Treaty Land Entitlement that has been signed or, as he indicates, initialled by the respective parties in Manitoba. I would hope that he's prepared to table that agreement so that we can have an understanding again of what the commitments are on behalf of the people of Manitoba. Indeed the discussions, and the contributions that will be put forward in Ottawa will be of a historic nature .

The valid goals and objectives of the Native people of Manitoba and Canada must, I believe, be aired and indeed worked with towards a satisfactory conclusion. We suggest to the Premier that the information that he's put forward is good information but doesn 't go far enough so that all Manitobans can have an appreciation and an understanding of just exactly what areas the Provincial Government is prepared to give responsibility to Native people to and what areas the Provincial Government is prepared to take responsibility for on behalf of the people of Manitoba.

We all desire to work towards a greater self-control of their destiny for the Native people, and we hope that this can be accomplished given the responsibilit ies that this Premier is undertaking on behalf of Manitobans. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker, a ministerial statement .

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 Madam Speaker, what I would like to present is an overview of the October 10, 1986 board submissions regarding the establishment of IBNR for the "old book" reinsurance assumed business. For the period from 1975 to 1984 , the Corporation was involved in the assuming of the reinsurance business from outside insurance companies, with the majority - 70 percent - of this business being long tail retrocession agreements underwritten on a worldwide all-risk basis. This is referred to as the Corporation's "old book" of rein surance assumed bus iness .

Retrocession is the business of assuming risk from a reinsurance company as opposed to a primary insurance company . Much of the busines s assumed by MPIC up to 1984 has passed through numerous reinsurers with the result that the premiums were discounted for fee and brokerage charges by each handling company. As MPIC did not have retrocession treaties to pass on a portion of these risks to other reinsurance companies, the risk assumed stayed with the Corporat ion entirely. This resulted in situations where losses which were passed on through the various treaties far outweighed the discounted premiums.

The Board Submission reviewed three alternative methods which could have been used to calculate the incurr ed but not reported (IBNR) claims on the "old book" of business. This method selected is based on a Department of Insurance test for adequacy of IBNR reserves for property and casualty insurers. This method was selected due to its credibility in the insurance industry and the belief that it would be the most acceptable alternative to the external auditors . Using this method resulted in the calculation of additional IBNR requirements of approximately $35. 7 million.

This provision, added to the IBNR requirements established in previous years, resulted in a total IBNR of $42.0 million. The submission considered further three financial alternatives for reporting the IBNR . These alternatives were as follows: 1. Set up an additional IBNR of $35 .7 million in 1985-1986 to bring the total "old book" IBNR to $42.0 million . Each year, commencing October 31, 1986, the IBNR would be decreased by the amount of the " old book" underwriting losses . 2. Set up an additional IBNR of $25.2 million which would be sufficient to cover potential claims for the ensuing five years.

At the end of this five-year period , a further IBNR provision would be estab lished to run off the rema ining claims from the "ol d book ". 3. Set up no additional IBNR and report the estimated $25.2 million in underwriting losses as they occu rred over the next five years. The last two alternatives were deemed to be unacceptable to the Corporation and the external auditors as they would not have conformed with generally accepted accounting practices.

Further, it was felt that Alternative Two would have required MPIC to reassess and establish additional IBNR in five years rather than reporting the total estimated requirement in a single year. Alternative Three was unaccept able to the Corporation because it would have resulted in five years of significant underwr iting losses. The Board of Directors accepted the recommendations in the report and the external auditor 550 has subsequently agreed to the Corporation 's method of calculating and recording the IBNR on the reinsurance assumed "old book" of business .

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker , I can't even thank the Minister for providing us with th is statement because it seems to me that this information ought to have been put forward at the committe e meeting yesterday morning. The Minister was in a position to know and understand all of this. It was available , obviously. It's in the form that it was presented to the Board of Directors back in October of 1986.

There is absolutely no reason in the world why this couldn't have been presented to the committee, except that, like everything else, the Minister had to go back and get a story to be able to tell to explain all the discrepancies and the differences between what is being put forward here and what he has said over the past couple of weeks on this particular issue. In the area of just 10 days ago, he began by saying that he was unaware of the seriousness of the reinsurance losses at MPIC. He said that just 10 days ago on the publ ic record, Madam Speak er.

He then changed that , of course, last Friday , under questioning by my colleague from Pembina, to say that he was aware of $12 million or $14 million of losses in October of 1984 , and he said at that time that the board was aware of those losses in October of 1984. He corrected that yesterday, Madam Speake r, to say that the board was unawa re of those losses and didn't see the presentation in the fall of 1984.

Madam Speaker, he is now presenting us with the October submission - a submission , I suggest to you, that he's been aware of for quite some time, he did not make public, and he did not talk about as chairman of the board . He looked for ways in which he could hide this, and he is now putting it forward as new information to try and justify all the inaccuracies , all of the conflicting statements, all of the misleading statements that he has made over the past 10 days. Madam Speaker , I say to you that there are a number of interesting facts that are brought out by this statement.

Firstly, we now see that this presentation to the board resulted in the board deciding that they ought to come clean and present the losses of $35.7 million publicly in their financial statements, so that the public would finally be aware of the massive losses due to the reinsurance dealings of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

But I suggest to you, Madam Speaker , had he dealt with it in the same way, in 1984 , that we would have been made aware , the public would have been outraged, and the public would have saved millions of dollars because the reinsurance losses would not have grow n from where they were in 1984 to where they were in 1986. But an election was in the offing , and instead , this Minister dealt with his senior staff in a way that caused them to put forward a proposal that would obfuscate , and, in fact, hide from public attention all of the information that the public should have known

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 at that time; massive losses, not 12, not 14, but at that time, $24 million . That might have been the extent of it, because at that time, the board and their advisors, had the auditors been called in, might then have decided to get out of the reinsurance business. Instead they continued, and as they continued, we lost at least another $12 million; but, Madam Speaker, without having looked at this report thoroughly, those losses may indeed be higher than the 36 million .

So they may have jeopardized the Public Insurance Corporation, not to just the extent of $12-million additional losses in the past two years, but indeed, to a much greater extent because of the negligence and irresponsibility of this Minister responsible. This Minister, who, in 1984, would not go to the Auditor, would not ask the Auditor whether or not his solution to cover up met generally acceptable accounting principles. He would not do that, but he has done that in October of 1986, because the board insisted on it, the board insisted on making him an honest man .

I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that this report is another in the continuing series of attempts to cover up ministerial responsibility on this whole issue. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Yesterday . . A MEMBER: . . point of order. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Gov ernment House Leader on a point of order . HON. J. COWAN: Yesterday, members opposite seemed to take great offence at the fact that they felt their motives had been impugned by language that was used by myself.

I, in fact, upon your advice, Madam Speaker , withdrew that language on the basis that it did in fact, in their opinion, impugn motives. For the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that anyone had to make an honest man out of any member on this side, who are all honourable and honest gentlemen , is an imputation of motives , and I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw those statements, just in the same manner and for the very same reason that yesterday, when comments were made which they felt impugned motives were withdrawn on members on this side of the House.

So I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that his last statement, that the board had to make an honest man out of the Minister responsible does, in fact, impugn motives and should be ruled out of order and withdrawn. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I have not impugned any motives to the Minister responsible. I have stated the facts that are on the record . MR. D. ORCHARD : Right on. 551 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . Order please. The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK : Madam Speaker , on a point of order, I listened to the remarks from the Leader of the Opposition and I clearly interpreted his remarks as a reference to my character, and therefore support my Government House Leader in requesting that a withdrawal of those remarks be made at this time. MADAM SPEAKER: May I refer honourable members to Beauchesne Cit ation 319(3) , which clearly suggests that it is not in order for the Speaker to permit any member to impute to any membe r, unworthy motives for their actions , and that all members are honourable members and should be referred to as such.

Would the Honourable Leader of the Opposition please withdraw any imputations that the Honourable Minister is anything other than an honest person? The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I have cited the record of this Minister. The record of changed information, of corrected information, of contradictory information , and I referred to the motives of the board , not to the motives of the Minister. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, now we see what members opposite are made out of.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition , very clearly, suggested that it was the board that had to make an honest man out of the Minister.

You, on a number of occasions , Madam Speaker, have indicated in this House that references like that are unparliamentary and that the withdrawal has to be a complete and uncategorical - unequivocal withdrawal to the satisfaction of the member who was offended; and when members on that side stand up, in the way in which they have done on too many occasions in the past , and impute motives to the extent that they have, where they have absolutely no evidence, fact, or reason to do so, is a misjustice to the proceedings of this House , and it will continue no longer.

I, Madam Speaker , would suggest to you that based upon your ruling and the fact that the withdrawal has not been to the satisfaction of the Minister, or to the satisfaction of members on this side of the House , that the Leader of the Opposition be required to categorically, unequivocally, withdraw these imputations and motives. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind all honourable members that all honourable members of this House are honourable and honest members.

I have asked the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to withdraw any imputation that the Honourable Minister is anything but an honest and honourable member in this House. I'm now instructing the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to withdraw any imputation that the Honourable Minister is anything but an honest member of this Chamber.

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I have not, in any of the words I'v e used, questioned whether or not the Honourable Min ister is an honourable man. Madam Speaker , I imputed motiv es to the board, which I think were honourable motiv es to the board, I might indi cate, but I will withdraw any reference that you believ e impugns in any way the Minis ter responsible and I'll let the public decide. MADAM SPEAKER: No tices of Mo tion ... Introduction of Bills . . The Honourable Member for Pembina on a point of order? MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speak er, on a point of order, this is my first opportunity to perus e Hansard from yesterday, and the Honourable Government Hous e Leader, on page 515 of Hansard, has indicated that, "once again, " he's referring to myself, " ... partici pated in a wilful dis tortion of the facts." Madam Speak er, I take offence to those words being recorded in Hans ard and I want the Government House Leader to withd raw those accusations, which are totally incorrect, unparl iament ary, and indeed, bring into question my motives in the Hous e. Will you ask him to withd raw those comments, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: I don't have the Hans ard in front of me, but it's my recollection that we dealt with that as a point ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. . . . that we dealt with that as a point of order yesterday and I did require the Honourable Government House Leader to withdraw those remarks; that "wi lfully dis tort," is cer tainl y unparl iamentar y, and is unparliam entar y, and I did ask the Honourable Government Hous e Leader to withd raw. The Honourable Government House Leader on the point of order. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, you certainly did rule on that matter yesterd ay, but if the Memb er for Pembina wants the withd rawal dir ected particularly to him, specifically to him in thos e remarks referenced on Page 51 5, becau se they are incorr ect and un parliament ary , in his opinion; then, in fa ct, I cate gorically and un equ ivocall y withd raw thos e comments.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that all members of this House - and that was a point that was being made yesterday - that all members of this House should take great care in how they phrase their words, because there has been in fact too much said by members opposite that has been incorrect and unparliam entar y, that has gone by through their statements in this House and that process is going to stop on all members of this House. It will no longer be abided by, by anyone.

MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member does not have a point of order, in that the time to raise objec tions to words and langua ge is at the time that it occurs, not a day later. 552 MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, you even miss them from time to time. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, I heard the Member for Pembina say, very clearly, to you from his seat , that Madam Speaker, and then he indi cated, I believe, that you even miss them sometimes.

Madam Speaker, members opposite , the Member for Pembina, and others on the front bench, for far too long now have been directing comments to you, and I believe, notwithstanding your patience with them and notwithstanding your discipline to be able to ignore them, that that process can no longer be allo wed to continue. It has continued in -(Interjection)- intimidation, whether it is subtle, intended or -(Interjection)- Madam Speaker, members opposite are yelling from their seats.

Perhaps they would care to stand, like honourable gentlemen in this House, and put those words on the record, put their comments on the record. If they have things to say, and they think they are of value to the debate and the proceedings of this Hous e, let them have the courage to stand in their place and put thos e comments clearly on the record. If not, let them keep their mouths shut. Th ey believ e, because the y sit in their seats - (Interjection)- they believe because they sit in their seats A MEMBER: A point of order, Madam Speaker. HON. J. COWAN: They believe, Madam Speaker .

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, there they go again. They yell from their seat s at you. If there is any evidence that is requi red of the way in which they . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: . . . attempt to intim ida te, and to subject members of this Hous e to abus e from their seat, and that includes the Sp eaker, it is very clearly demonstrated by their actions throughout these entire proceedings today. That will no longer will be abided by. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader on the point of order. MR. G.

MERCIER: Yes, Madam Speaker , I don't think the comments of the Government Hous e Leader can be al lowed to go on the record without any contradiction. All members of this Hous e are aware, Ma dam Sp eaker, that comments are made from members in their seats, on this side and on that side. All members of this Hous e are fully aware also that when the government finds itself in a di fficult position, the Government Hous e Leader will raise matters of procedure to try to deflect attention from the more

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 substantive issues of the day, Madam Speaker, whether they're related to MPIC or whether they're related to the Budget, and once again, he's attempting to do that. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on the point of order. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I am afraid that the Opposition House Leader is again imputing motives .

When I stand in this House, as Government House Leader, to bring a matter to your attention on a point of order or in response to statements made in this House, in my role as Government House Leader ; I am serving - what I consider to be - my responsibility and my duty to assist in the insurance that this House is operated in the proper manners . No longer, Madam Speaker, can we allow members opposite from their seats, to yell things, either at you or any member of this House, that would not be parliamentary if they had the courage to stand in their place and make those statements .

Madam Speaker , I assure you , and I assure the Opposition House Leader and all members of this House , that the comments that are made today and the matters which are brought to your attention today are not in any way designed to deflect attention from the very important issues before us.- (lnterjection) There they go again , Madam Speaker . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . HON. J.

COWAN: But, in fact, Madam Speaker, my actions are designed and I hope they have the purpose of making the work of this House more efficient, better, and more in keeping with established parliamentary traditions; so that full factual information can be provided in a reasonable way, and if the Opposition House Leader suggests that because in the past members have made comments from their seats - and I would suggest to you that the making of comments to the Speaker from their seats is a relatively new phenomenon practiced only by them in the history that I've known in this House - but if they suggest that is a practice they want to bring to this House , I will tell them and members opposite on this side will tell them , quite clearly, that we will not let that practice continue if those remarks would be unparliamentary if they were said from their feet.

SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . May I remind honourable members of our Rule 38(2) which is, "The Speaker may permit debate on the point of order before giving a decision, but the debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order." If I could caution all members to refer to that Rule, when they' re advising me on points of order. On the point of orde r then, may I remind honourable members, Beauchesne Citation 117, "Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speake r may be punished as breaches of privilege.

His actions cannot be criticized 553 incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion." If honourable members have any complaints, there are ample opportunities within our rules for dealing with any legitimate complaint and I welcome members using all the rules to the best use that the rules are to be put to . Now, if we can move on. I think I ruled on the honourable member's point of order that he should have raised it when the words were spoken. Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK introduced, by leave, Bill No. 13,

An Act to Amend The Municipal Assessment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'evaluation municipale . ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC - submissions to the Board MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for MPIC. Yesterday, in committee, we provided the Minister with a list of submissions that had been made to the board over the course of 1982 to 1986. This was as a result of our perusal of the minutes that we had been given by the Minister and those minutes, of course , all referred to various submissions that had been made to the board.

I wonder if the Minister can indicate when the members of the Opposition will receive the list of submissions to the board of MPIC . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker . Yes, the member is quite correct. There were, in fact , I believe two requests that had been made to me, which have not yet been fulfilled; the one being the board submission for October 10, dealing with the assumed rei nsurance, and that was provided earlier this afternoon; the other request was a lengthy list of board submissions .

Those are presently being reviewed for corporate confidentiality. When that review has been completed, those submissions that can be made available will be provided to the Opposition; those that do involve some corporate confidentiality, I will invite the Leader of the Opposition or his representative to review them in the same way that we made a provision for the review of all the board minutes . MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, yesterday, when the Minister tabled at committee the October 1984 report that detailed 24.3 million of reinsur ance claims incurred , a report that led to the decision to spread out those claims and not show them on the financial statement s of the MPIC in 1984 and 1985, at that time, the Minister said that the board had never seen that presentation. I wonder if he can indicate whether or not the board of MPIC rather had received a submission earlier, in

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 June or Ju ly, that detailed some 12 million or 14 million of JBNR losses. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: It would indeed be easier to respond to these questions in commit tee when the material is before me and when senior staff from MPI C are present. I should indicate that that particular report that was tabled in the comm ittee yesterd ay, the $24.3 million figure, although it was headed "claims incurred ," it should have properly been headed "claims incu rred but not reported" - that is future claims.

As I indicated in comm ittee yesterd ay, the board, to the best of my knowledge, had not seen that report. That report was only prepared subs equent to September 30, 198 4. The board, however, did deal with the matter of reinsurance assumed at the July 25, 1984 meeting. I believe that may well be one of the submissions that the Leader of the Opposition has requested. That will be provided as soon as we've had a chance to review whether there's any material within that report that is of a confidential nature.

Even if there is, then either the Leader of the Opposition or his representative will be invited to review the entire report with the same understanding that was provided last Friday with respect to the minutes. MR. G. FILMON: Did that report that was submit ted to the board in June or July of 1984 indicate IBNR losses of $12 million or $14 million? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, I don't have the report in front of me, and therefore I can't - I recall it being a three- or four-page submi ssion - I do not recall any reference to a $12 million or $14 million figure reflecting potential claims.

Archiv es - signature on document MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minis ter responsible for the Archives whose sig natur e was req uir ed in order to appr ove the shredding of those three boxes of MPI C records from the Minis ter's Office. MADA M SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Culture and Heritage Resources. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, I was so concerned about hearing the Member for Portage la Prairie suggest that the Mi nis ter for MPI C had Alzheimer's dis ease that I missed hearing the question.

I am fed up, Madam Speaker, with the noise coming from that side of the Hous e and the garbage coming from their mouths. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , on a point of order, I clearly saw the Min ister speak ing with the Mi nister of Education and not at all listening to the Member for Portage la Prairie. -(Interjection)- That's right, they've all got John's dis ease. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. 554 The honour able member does not have a point of order. A dis pute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: If the Min ister would like to now listen to the question, Madam Speaker, I'd be happy to ask her. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. I can't hear. The Honourable Minis ter of Education on a point of order. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has done what members on that side have been doing for the last several weeks, and that is impugning motives.

My colleague, Madam Speaker, indic ated to the Leader of the Opposition why she did not hear the question and, in fact, was saying to me exactly what she said to the Leader of the Oppositio n, and that was it's garbage from that side, and that's why we resent it. MADAM SPEAKER: A dis pute over the facts is not a point of ord er. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a question. MR. G. FILMON: I thank the Minis ter for clarifying and ensuring that we know what she was doing - talking to him and not listening to the other member.

Ma da m Speak er, my qu es tion to the Minis ter responsible for the Archives is: Whose signature was required in order to app rove the shredding of the three boxes of documents from the office of the Minis ter responsible for MP IC? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: I'll repeat the information provided to the House yesterd ay.

Records are scheduled, and in order to be scheduled, whether that be for retention in the Archives or for destructi on, require the signatures of a representative from the Min ister of Finance, from the Minis ter of Government Services, from the Attorney-General, from the Provincial Auditor , from the Provincial Archivist, and from the Min ister responsible for the Archives. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, then, did all of those officials sign the document to app rove the shredding? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Again the Leader of the Opposition is totally mis understanding the issue and not listening to the facts.

I have indicated that there is a process for scheduling documents and all procedures follow along the lines of that scheduling. There are no further signatures required in terms of di sposition of those records. They must be in line with processes put in place. Madam Speak er, where we have seen the destruction of records, as I indicated yesterd ay, presumably is in the pre- 198 1 era, particularly when members oppo site were in government.

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 Madam Speaker, I have answered the question , and while I'm on my feet ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister of Culture and Heritage Resources has the floor . The Honourable Minister. HON . J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Thank you , Madam Speaker . While I'm on my feet, I would like to give a more complete answer to the question raised by the Member for Lakeside since I did not have the information at my fingertips at that time.

He asked a question about letters being sent from the Archives to outgoing members once a government is defeated. I have further investigated that issue and discovered, yes, letters are sent upon a defeat of a government to all Ministers of the Crown for deposi t of records in the Archives . In the case of 1981, a letter was sent on November 18, 1981 to all outgoing Ministers of the Crown. Madam Speaker, only six departments responded and I should mention that the Member for Lakeside's department was not on that list . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please. Order please.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition has the floor . Archives - records on microfiche MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Archivist is quoted today as saying that all of the destroyed records are on microfilm. I wonder if the Minister responsible for the Archives can then order that those records that were destroyed be reproduced from their microfiche so that we can have copies of them tabled in the Legislature? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultural and Heritage Resources . HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

Even if those records had not been destroyed they would not be available for members opposite or for any member other than the Minister responsible by rules and regu lat ions and procedures put in place by members opposite in 1981 , which ensures that Minister's records are stored for 30 years before they can be touched, unless the Minister responsible ensures that special provisions are arrived at. So the issue has nothing to do with the availability of records on this particular issue.

Files are being compiled from other sources for this particular case and no one in any circumstances should ever have access to a Minister's files unless special provisions are given. 555 MPIC - Minister's press conference MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, my question is for Minister respo nsib le for MPIC . Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister called a press conferen ce to be held presumably in his office .

Could the Minister explain why he insisted on those reporte rs invited, a condition of attendance being that they use no tape recorders to tape-record any answers given at that press conferenc e? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mad am Speaker. I will confirm that there was a meeting held with members of the media yesterday afternoon solely for the purpose of a technical review of the document that was tabled in comm ittee yesterday morning .

And I'm indeed pleased that after we spent about an hour-and a-quarter, an hour -and -a-half , going through that particular document , litera lly page by page , figure by figure , that a number of reporters - I would like to believe most of them - had a much better understanding of the complexity of this issue and the decisions that were involved.

I would be pleased at the next committee meeting to go through virtually the same exercise with all members of the committee so that they, too, would understand because it was very clear from the remarks from the Member for Pembina, at the end of the committee hearing, there appeared to be very little understanding of the document that was made available to all members. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I don't recall the Minister answering the question as to why he insisted no tape recorders be used, but I follow your admonition that no Minister should be required to answer such a simple question .- (Interjection)- But , oh, the Minister wants to now. Fine. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , I failed to answer that question because it was a technical briefing.- (Interjection)- I've said that. MADAM SPEAKER : Orde r please. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I don't understand why one would be so concerned about tape recorders when one is simply walking through a document that was presented at committee yesterday morning. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , was the reason the Minister refused and insisted reporters attend only if they did not tape-record the presentation , because of his concern that again a different version of the reinsuran ce story would come out and he and his officials would be publicly contradicted with prev ious statements? MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member that questions ought to seek information and

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 therefore cannot be based on a hypothesis, cannot be seeking an opinion, and may not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representat ions. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , my question is for the Premier.

In view of the fact that this Premier has called his government an open and honest government with the people of Manitoba, can the First Min ister indicate whether the precedent set by his Minis ter responsible for MPI C of an invited press conference, with the condition on the reporters that they do not have tape recorders running, is that the new policy of openness and honesty that this NOP Government will use in time of political crisis when they are attempting to cover up facts from the people of Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , what is agitating the Honourable Member for Pembina and some of the other members across the way is that due to their obsession in respect to this issue they are finding a government that has taken immed iate action in order to be as open as possible. It was this government, Madam Speaker , without any urgings from honourable members across the way , tha t cal led a st anding committee of this Legislature in order to obtain full and complete and open information.

It was this Legislature, the mem bers on this side, that ensured that the Provincial Audi tor be call ed to inv estigate the reinsurance policies including that what took place, Madam Speaker , between 19 77 and 1981 and whether there were any practices undertaken and initia ted by honourable members across the way that ought not to have been undertaken. It was this government, Madam Sp eaker , that as well, made avai lable to honourable members across the way at their request, minutes.

I believ e that is unprecedented on the part of any government and also gave honourable members the opportunity to check the totality of the minutes of Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to ensure that no items had been improperly deleted. Madam Speaker , I reject the sleazy sugges tions on the part of honourable members across the way that this government has been any other way but as op en and as forthright as possible. Let them not judge this side by thems elves. Statutory debt payments - reduction of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Sp eak er.

My qu estion is to the Minis ter of Finance and it concerns statutory debt payments.

It is obvious that this Provincial Government has saddled the public with a growing burden of annual debt and that in 1981- 82 the public debt payment was $96.9 million or 4 percent of the total Budget, and in 1988 it will be a staggering $438.2 million or 10 .4 percent of the Budget. 556 Given the fact that this outflow of government revenue for the payment of debt charges takes money away from important services such as health and education, would the Mi nister please tell us what plans he has to reduce these payments which cause such a serious drain in government resources?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the member is well aware, the reason for the interest payments on the debt of the province is a result of the actions that this government took during the very worst times of the recession to ensure that we maintained health and education services and other services for Manitobans, and at the same time that we put additional resources into the impo rtant areas of job crea tion.

Those investments that took place du ring the very worst times of the recession have paid off in terms of what is happening in Manitoba toda y. The fact tha t we ha ve been able to maintain our basic infrastructure, the fact that we have the best economic development in our province, is an indi cation that those policies were sound in terms of ensuring that we had the necessary resources in our province.

In terms of the future, Mada m Speak er, this government has shown by this present Budget that we are looking at bringing about a reduction in the deficit and as we do that, obviously in time, the interest costs related to the debt will decrease. Deficit discrepancy - control over MRS. S. CARS TAIRS: Madam Speaker, to the same Mini ster. In last year's Budget the deficit was annou nced at $489 million but the Third Quarterly Statement showed it at $567 million.

I ask the Minis ter what specific controls has he placed on government departments in order to prevent this dis crepancy from reoccuring in the fiscal year 19 87-88? HON. E. KOSTYRA: As the member is aware and it has been explained previou sly, there are specific reasons for the dif ference in terms of the change in the projections for this year, related to some re-issuing of debt that had to be amort ized all in this current year but that will provide us savings over the longer term. There were additional resources put to health and education because of the demands on those services.

We expect as we work through this year to maintain the projections that were placed before the Legislatur e in the Budget presented last week. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final supplementary to the same Min ister, Madam Speak er. Which departments were the principal culprits who accounted for this overexpenditure of $80 million and what new monitoring controls have been placed by the Department of Finance on those departments? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: The culprits in this instance, Madam Sp eak er, were the people of the Provi nce of Manitoba who used the health care services, used the education services, that the tax dollars go to support. They are the culprits which the member refers to.

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 Treaty land entitlement - agreement re MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you , Madam Speaker. Following on the paper that was presented by the Premier this afternoon, I have a question to the Premier , Madam Speake r. In his statement he said there is an agreement on treaty land entitlement. An agreeme nt in principle on this matter has been reached and initialled by the respective parties, understanding that the respective parties , one of them being the prov ince, Madam Speaker , will the Premier table that agreement?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , when the agreement is signed . MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, will there be a change in the document from the initialling and the signing? Why will he not table the initial document? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speake r, the drafts were initialled . The final agreement has not been signed. There may be some technical changes . I hope and trust, Madam Speaker, that the agreement will be signed and contain the basic elements of the draft agreement that has been init ialled. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, could the First Minister indicate how much land or how many acres are involved in that agreement? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable M ini ster of Northern Affairs. HON. E. HARPER: I should explain to the member that the agreement in principle is a fundamental agreement that we reached and has been initialled . Now, because of the time that we initialled the document, some time has elapsed and we have to take into consideration actions that have happened from that time to now. It's a matter of crossing the ''t''s and dotting the ''i''s, I guess .

The only outstanding part we have to reach with the Federal Government is the contribution arrangement which is a financial contribution. The agreement in principle is reached and it has been initialled, so once we have a complete package - I cannot divulge in terms of content - negotiations are going on in terms of financial contribution, but once we have that I would be able to table the document once the final package is settled. Farmers - deficiency payments MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden . MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture . 557 Grain farmers in Manitoba are very pleased with the federal contributions to their incomes for 1987. Madam Speaker, in 1987 alone, the deficiency payments will put $150 million into the Province of Manitoba and Western Grain Stabilization an additiona l $150 million at least. This will represen t one-quarter to one-third of the income of these farmers, Madam Speaker. In recent weeks, the MACC ... MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FINDLAY: . . . farmers who are applying for an MACC loan have been told they cannot use this deficiency payment money or grain stabilization income on their cash flow projections. This is causing these farmers to have their mortgage applications turned down, Madam Speake r. I would like to ask the Minister if he endorses that policy or did he dictate that policy? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I find incr edible the statements of the Honourable Member for Virden that western Canadian farmers in Manitoba, farmers in particular, are pleased with the federal support to the grain industry . Madam Speaker , he is in fact selling Canadian farmers down the drain with statements such as that. Madam Speaker , the honourable member tries to tie in the small percentage of lending that the Manitoba Agricultural Corporation does in the Prov ince of Manitoba which is about 10 percent of the provincial total lending that the province underta kes to the entire question of loans .

Madam Speaker , I want to take the specifics of his allegations , because I for one minute do not accept the kind of comments that this member makes in this House as being totally in concert with what was represented. If in fact some members of staff are making those excus es for not approving loans, we will want to look at the spec ific policy and I wish the honourable member will provide me with the details of those ki nds of comments so that we can look at this matter further, Madam Speaker . MR. G.

FINDLAY : Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister how many farmers with MACC loans have gone before the Federal Debt Review Board? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speake r, I would not know at this juncture, but certainly I'll tak e the question as notice. MR. G. FINDLAY: Have you, Mr. Minister , instructed your MACC staff not to negotiate with farmers in front of the Federal Debt Review Board , not to nego tiate that settlement? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker , the honourable member should be aware that in cases where the corporation may be in a position of not continuing its financial relationship with the farm fam ily, if management

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 is in fact reasonable, what we have done and what we will continue to do and what we will be providing for is the leadership for the rest of the farm communi ty as to provide a standard lease agreement; a quick claim with a lease-back agreement so those famili es would not be chased off the farm but in fact left on the farm to continue farming. I don't know what the honourable member is talking about in negotiat ing.

The corporation, Madam Speaker, continually is in a process of negotiat ing with hundreds of its clients, because I want to tell my honourable friend that about 20 percent or more of the farmers that we have as clients are in arrears and the situation is difficult. Only now, Madam Speaker, it appears that members opposite see the magnititude and the concern like their Memb ers of Parliament in Ottawa are saying, now there's a problem in Western Canada. Yellowhead Route - federal funds MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Mi nister of Hig hways. I wonder if he could inform this Legislature what the concl usion is of negotiations with the Federal Government regarding the expenditure of funds joint ly, matching funds on the Yellowhead Route and what priority planning his department has in place for the use of these funds. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Hig hways and Transportation. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Yes, Madam Speaker, the Federal Government had indicated after a number of years of pressure on them for federal funding for Hi ghways, and of course they haven't indi cated nearly enough, but they had indicated an interest in contributing to the Yellowhead. They had initially agreed to apportion that. Yes, of course, Madam Speak er, 75 wasn't included in here, but I can tell the members that they had initially apportioned that on a quar ter basis, one-quarter to each of the four western provinces, which would be about $1 2.5 million over a three-year period.

Lately, we've heard that the Government of British Colu mbia is not pleased with that apportionment because they feel they have more mi les of the Yellowhead in British Columbia and are asking for that share to be changed. So, we don't have that finali zed at the present time. It is something that is still up in the air and therefore I can't give the Memb er for Ste. Rose any specific details as to how much money. Of course, we're hoping it will be a $12. 5 million matched , and of course, that isn't nearly enough in terms of the needs of Manitobans with regard to federal highway contributions, Madam Speak er.

Highways - reduction in services MR. G. CUMM INGS: A second question, Madam Speaker, to the Mi nister of Hig hways, and I agree that we don't have nearly enough money for Hi ghways in this province. 558 We had a report yesterday, the TRIP Report that states that 32 percent of the highways in this province are consider ed deficient by the records of our own Department of Hi ghways.

I wonder if this Min ister could explain to the House how it is that the revenues from the Department of Hi ghways have increased drama tically in the last several years, and that thi s year alone we will see an additional $12 million in licence and fees to the users of our highways, an addi tional $2.3 million coming out of motive fuel tax. We have a regular ongoing income of $115 million worth of fuel tax that is collected in this province, and at the same time, we have seen a reduction in the services and the construction in this province.

Will he explain to this Legislature how he has allowed the Department of Highways to become a revenue bearing department? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mi nister of Hi ghways and Transportation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, the Member for Ste. Rose has covered a lot of territory with his

preamble in that question and I would need some time to deal with all of it. The fact is that TRIP Canada is dealing with a national problem. They've also identified that in Prince Edward Island, 67 percent of the highways are deficient; in Newfou ndland, 82.8 percent; in New Brunswick, 14.5 percent; in Alberta, 25.4 percent; and significant numb ers in British Columb ia and Ontario as well. The fact is this is a national problem and needs to be add ressed national ly, and that's what we have said, Madam Speak er.

The Federal Government takes out of thi s province $117 million in gasoline taxes from the people of Mani toba and puts almost zero into thi s province back in the highway system. Insofar as the Province of Mani toba, Madam Speaker, we are still generating less revenue than we are spending in the Hig hways Department. The budget is some $203 million this year. A major portion of that is dir ectly related to highways expenditures. Some is on airports; the majority of it is directly related to highways expenditures, and we do not take in as much revenue.

So it is not a revenue-generating department insofar as the net results of the Highways Department in this province, Madam Speaker. We have increased the budget this year, and it's not enough, and we are continuing to press the Federal Government because of rail line abandonment and increased pressures on our roads, because there's a need, a national responsibili ty. We will continue to press for addi tional highways funding by the Federal Government to assist thi s pr ovince and other provinces to deal with these problems across the countr y.

Child Abuse Program - Anishi nab e MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for St. Norbert. Order please. The Honour able Member for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Mini ster of Communi ty Services.

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 How long will she allow the Anishinabe Child and Family Services to stop providing information to her department about suspected child abusers, partic ularly in view of the concerns expressed by people in that field that this will jeopardize the safety of child ren? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minis ter of Community Services . HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I am happy to have that question because I was very disturbed to receive the letter on Monday the 23rd . We called immediately to get a meeting on April 6.

We did get assurance , and this has been backed up by external evaluators who have been watching the Child Abuse Program developing at Anishinabe, that no children are at risk and in fact they are developing a very good program. What is at question is the reporting obligat ion. We expect we will be able to resolve it at the meeting , Madam Speaker. The issue is somewhat complicated by the fact they are funded federally, and there seems to be a federal opinion sitting in there complicating matters, but our bottom line expectation is that they will comply with the reporting requirement. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker , I take it from the Minister's comments that she is assuring members of this House that no child or children will be put at risk by her delay in requiring this information to be tabled . I would ask the Minister, Madam Speaker, in view of the Premier's announcement about Native self government, how her authority would be affected over the Anishinabe Child and Family Services , over the Awasis Family Services , by introduction of that policy into the Constitution . Would the law-making authority of the province and regulatory role be diminished? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, that is one of the items that would have to be resolved. Not all the Native agencies or groupings take exactly the same attitude to the provincial role, but we have said consistently that the provincial law is the dominant law unless it is negotiated by the Federal Government and the Native agencies and ourselves in a constitutional process. In other words, the provincial jurisdiction prevails until or unless there is a negotiated change .

As I say, not all the Native agencies take the same view of that, but they did not get their mandate unless they were prepared to recognize, until such a resolution occurs, that the provincial jurisdiction prevails . Child Abuse Review Committee Report - payment for MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, one final question to the Minister . She has indicated to me, Madam Speaker, that she has received the report from Doctor Sigurdson and Professor Reid with respect to child abuse as of this past Monday.

I would ask her, on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba, who paid for that report: Would she table that report in the Legislature today? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I had delivered to me the first copy that I've seen this morning . I had 559 indicated to the member opposite that we would like to have a couple of weeks to review the report and we will then table it in full. So shortly after the break, we will be tabling it. The Manitoba Labour Relations Act - legislation re MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.

At its 1986 Annual Convention, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities passed a resolution expressing concern that municipal councils are prohibited from contacting their employees and they're prohibited from contacting their const ituents at a time when union organization activities were taking place.

The response of the government to that resolution , Madam Speaker, was as follows : "If your association is still concerned with this issue, we suggest you make representation to the Legislature the n·ext time there are public representations in regard to amendments to The Manitoba Labour Relations Act." My question to the Minister of Labour is: Will the Union of Man itoba Municipalities have that opportun ity in this Session? Will the Minister be bringing forward legislation dealing with The Manitoba Labour Relations Act? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker , this government does much better than that . We meet with organizations such as the union.

We had a meeting in the last two weeks, and we discussed that very issue and pointed out to them that it's not only the law of Manitoba, it's the law of the land, generally, that where , in a free society like Canada , there is authorized collective bargaining, then through the jurisprudence, as has been laid down by the courts , and by the policy decisions of governments , not only New Democratic Party Governments but Conservative Government s and Liberal Governments in other provinces, there has been the development of legislation to protect free collective bargaining to ensure that no employers interfere with that process.

We've honoured that law and it is good law. MLA's - intimidation of MR. J. McCRAE: A new question , Madam Speaker. The Minister speaks about our society being a free one, and I'm going to ask him about how free our society is when our labour law allows intim idation of members of the Legislative Assembly , such as the Member for Turtle Mountain, intimidation by union leaders respecting union acti viti es in the rural municipality of Lorne.

Madam Speaker , the rural municipality of Oakland is now subject to union organization, and I am going to ask the Minister: Will the rural councillors, will the local MLA be allowed to speak to the workers in that

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 area and to the constituents in that area about what will happen to them should there be a union organ ized in that area? Are those people al lowed to speak freely? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Min ister of Labour. HON. A. MA CKLING: Madam Speaker, I'll only speak when I can hear an echo of my voice; all I can hear is babble from the other side. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Mini ster of Labour. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Sp eaker, if the Honourable Member for Brandon West has some particulars of information that he would like to bring to my attention, I'd certainly be glad to look into them . If he's suggesting that a member of this House has been involved in some interference in free collect ive bargaining, I'd be interested in knowing that too. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my last question is a new question to the Attorney-General or whoever answers for him in his place. Madam Speaker, the Minister of Labour need only look at my comments in the debate the other night which ...

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. J. McCRAE: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have a questi on . That's why I'm on my feet . MADAM SPEAKER: Put it, please. MR. J. McCRAE: I was recognized to ask a question and that's what I'm doing, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Great . MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker, the Mi nister of Labour, I regret was unable to hear my voice the other night, but I di d hope that he would read Hansard to get details of the situation that I'm talking about whereby the Honourable Memb er for Tu rtle Mou ntain was threatened and intimida ted by a union leader with the suggestion that he was interfering with their rights, illegally interfering. It's strange to me, Madam Speaker , that when one MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. J. McCRAE: . . . exercises his rights . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please .

I recognized the Honour able Memb er for Brandon West to ask a question, not to debate or to make a speech . The Honourable Memb er for Brandon West . MR. J. McCRAE: My question to whomever it is answers for the Attorney-General, Madam Speaker , is: 560 Will the Attorney-General sit idly by and allo w the elected representat ives of this Province to be stifled by The Mani toba Labour Relations Act? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mini ster of Labour. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker , as Acting Attorney-General, I would like to ind icate to the honourable member that if indeed we determined that a Member of the Legislative Assembly has been interfering with the rights of workers in free collective bargaining, then of course no one is above the law and they'll be de alt with in accord ance with the law. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired . HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Opposition House Leader and I had a discussion following que stion period in regard to the timing of another committee of the Standing Committee on Public Util ities and Natural Resourc es .

You'll reca ll, Madam Speaker, that yesterday we said that we would have preferred to have the committee meet last night, but the Opposition House Leader had some concerns that if Hansard would not be available to them previous to that commi ttee meeting, they did not want to meet last night, and if Hansard would not be available to them today they would not want to meet until after the spring break .

It's my understanding after having discussions with yourself and the Clerk in respect to when Hansard would be available, tha t Hansard will be available thi s afternoon, so it would be my intention based upon the availabili ty of Hansard to call the Standing Committee on Public Utili ties and Natural Resources to meet to consider the Mani toba Public Insurance Corporati on's Annual Report tomorrow Thursd ay, March 26 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 255 . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, let the record be clear that the Government House Leader a few moments ago came over to this side of the House and said that Hansard would not be available until tonight . I said to him that was unsa tisfactory. That does not give us sufficient opportuni ty to review Hansard and, on that basis, I would not agree to the calling of the commi ttee tomorr ow. HON. J. COWAN: Ma dam Speak er, it's my understanding that Hansard will be available late this afternoon . I told the Honourable Op position House Leader that Hansard would be available some time during the sitting today.

Those were my words to him . In fact, it will be available some time during the sitting today.

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 When we had a previous experience with the MTX hearings, where we had to provide Hansard to the members opposite, we provided it to them in a timely fashion, making special arrangements that were made in this instance and in that circumstance the time allowed for the review of Hansard was sufficient to allow the comm ittee to meet . I'm only basing my calling of the committee - and let it be very clear that it is the Government House Leader's responsibility to call the committee, and no other 's responsibility .

I'd like to do it in cooperation with the Opposition House Leader to the extent possible; we've been able to do that most ti mes in the past . There are occasions when we have not been able to do that, but it is my intention at this time given that the Hansards will be ready during the course of the sitting today, and that was what was requested yesterday, to have the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources meet tomorrow at 10:00 a.m . to discuss the report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation .

If the Opposition House Leader is telling me he wishes to discuss that further with me at this time - and he has indicated some displeasure with that - I don 't know why they would be displeased with an early meeting of the committee . I would think that they would want an early meeting of the committee, but I would be prepared to discuss with him his concerns. It my intention, in any event, to have the Standing Committee meet tomorrow. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker , the Government House Leader stood on his feet a few days ago and said they want to call this committee quickly, which they did on Tuesday because they want to have full information and full public discussion of this matter . Let the record be clear: we do not have documents that we requested . We requested as a minimum the Hansard - and it is important that Hansard be available early on in this day so that the member s of the committee have a full opportunity to peruse Hansard and the answers and questions that were given yesterday morning .

I can appreciate that the Government House Leader wishes to perhaps expedite and perhaps even ram the committee meetings through, Madam Speaker, and try to get them over and out of the way, but we want to have the fullest opportunity to review all of the information and material. We're simply asking that Hansard be available and I would suggest if it's not available by 4:00 p.m . or 4:30 p.m. this afternoon , that the meeting should be deferred until the week after next . HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, let the Opposition House Leader be clear and all members of the House be clear, yesterday in the dialogue that took place , I very clearly asked the Opposition House Leader what he required in order to call the meeting today. I asked him if he needed the documentation which had been requested.

Madam Speaker , I asked him , I said in my words on Page 521 in the Hansard were: " Madam Speaker, I've not had an opportunity to review all the requests for the documents, but I would ask the 561 Opposition House Leader, is he suggesting that all those documents should be available before the committee next meets?" The Opposition House Leader 's answer was: "Madam Speaker, if the Government House Leader could indicate Hansard will be available tomorrow , we would suggest the committee meet again Thursday morning." I then asked him again , Madam Speaker, indicating that the production of Hansard is not in my hands - so I couldn't indicate yes or no but I would check .

I said: "I do still have a question . The question is: Because the Opposition House Leader suggests that one of the reasons they don 't want to meet is because they don 't have the documents they req uested, is he suggesting that we not meet until those documents are available?' ' The answer very clearly was: "Madam Speaker" - the Opposition House Leader speaking - "I'm suggesting to the House Leader that we're pre pared to meet on Thursday morning if Hansard is available tomorrow ." Again, the question was asked.

In this instance, I think the Opposition House Leader was perhaps getting somewhat frustrated with the questioning, but his answer was, "Madam Speaker , my answer to the Government House Leader is very simple" - and I take him at his word - "If Hansard is available tomorrow , we're prepared to have the committee meet on Thursday morning. If it's not going to be available and the other documents that have been requested are not available, perhaps the next meeting should be on the first Tuesday morning when the House convenes after the spring break ." The Hansard will be available .

I can give an assurance to the Opposition House Leader that we will forward to him all the Hansard that is available at four o'clock, and I am informed that most of it will be available by that time, in draft form and then we can forward to him the other piec es as they come off of the word processor, so that they can at least start to go through them at four o'cloc k. If the Opposition House Leader agrees to that process, then I would suggest that we once aga in have been able to work out in a coopera tive fashion the scheduling of the comm ittee, but I would seek his agreement. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that if Hansard is available at four o'clock as is descr ibed, a meeting tomorrow is satisfactory. That commitment was not there when the Government House Leader first stood up and unilaterally announced the meeting. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , just so we are clear, what I'm suggesting is that the majority of the Hansard will be available at 4:00 p.m . or 4:30 p.m. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, we are trying to expedite the business of the committee.

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 Madam Speaker, it seems to me they are the ones who are afraid to go to the committee meeting and that seems somewhat strange . However, the Opposition House Leader suggested that perhaps the object ive here is to get the committee meetings over or out of the way; another suggested " ram it through ." I can assure the members opposite that if they do not wish to pass the repo rt tomorrow there will be no move or suggestion on the part of members of the committee from this side that the report should be passed. We are not trying to confine the committee meeting to tomorrow morning.

We are trying to expedite the free flow of factual information in a complete way. I have indicated to the Opposition House Leader that the Hansard - what portion of the Hansard is available - will be forwarded to them at four o'clock. I assume that it will be most of the Hansard at that time, and that which is remaining will be forwarded to him as it come s off the word processor. I'm asking him if that is acceptable to them so that we can have the meeting meet tomorrow morning . NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

May I have leave of the House to make a short non political statement? MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourab le Member for Lac du Bonnet . MR. C. BAKER: Madam Speaker, recently a team of oldt imers, called the Sagkeeng Oldtimers, from the Fort Alexande r Reserve attended an international oldtimers hockey tournament at Montreal, Quebec. They won five games, includ ing the semi-final one against Norway and a final against Finland. I'm sure all of the House would like to join me in congratulating the Sagkeeng Oldtimers.

COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, committee changes. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Elmwood, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources , H. Smith (Ellice) replacing G. Doer; B. Uruski replacing R. Penner; L. Harapiak (Swan River) replacing H. Harapiak (The Pas). HANSARD CLARIFICATION MADAM SPEAKER: Th e H onourable Member for Springfield. MR. G.

ROCH: On Monday, March 9, 1987, No. 8A, on page 217, line 7; "oil" should read "road." 562 On Monday , March 23, 1987, No. 17A, on page 482, lin e 36; "our" should read "a." On page 483, line 21 , 4.5 should read 4.25. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAV BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate of the Honourable Ministe r of Finance and the proposed amendment thereto of the Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition , standing in the name of the Honourable First Minister . The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I regret that due to commitments I have this evening, and also of course the Minister of Finance who will be speaking later on this afternoon, that I will have to limit the remarks since I was only a small way through my speech last night.

So what I have to do regrettably, Madam Speaker, is to summarize the remarks that I was going to make this afternoon in a shorter version and hope that it will assist honourable members across the way in coming to a fuller appreciation as to the direction of this government and the aspirations of Manitobans in general insofar as realizing their objectives as a provincial community and the priorities that are there. Madam Speaker, we dealt yesterday with the many, many demands that have arisen across the way.

We have not had an opportunity, as I indicated, to tally the total amount of those demands urgently presented to us day by day by honourable members in the Opposition; but I'm sure when we have that opportunity it will certainly be enlightening as to the extent of the duplicity on the part of Conservative members in this Chamber. (Mr. Deputy Speaker , C. Santos, in the Chair.) They know not what they represent; they speak on Tuesday for increased spending and enormous magnitude; and on Wednesday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they demand a reduction in the deficit and reduced taxes .

They are in fact obviously a leaderless, visionless, policyless Opposition which I think typifies, regrettably I must say, because more and more Canadians do regret this, a bankruptcy of attitude and of policy development on the part of what has historically been one of the major parties in the Canadian political scene. Madam Speaker - I'm sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker - I don't have my glasses on. The Honourable Member for Gladstone has offered me hers.

First , I do want to though deal briefly, because I know the Minister of Finance will deal at some length in regard to the taxation changes; 70 percent of Manitobans are in the category of earning less than $35,000.00 . Although some of those in the capacity of earning $35,000 and less will pay more as a result of this Budget - and we've always said that - in order to ensure that basic social, vital services are provided. Yet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Budget is progressive, to the ext ent that those who make the larger sums of money will now be contributing more than they did in a progressive fashion .

I was somewhat puzzled by that professional body, non-political body , the Manitoba Institute of Chartered

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 Accountants, and the reaction that we received from right and left and centre from members of tha t professional organization, who were offering political advice, that what we should be doing is cuts, undefined cuts, decrying of different taxation changes . I wonder if they could for a moment, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in their realm of objective professional characters - indeed that organization is - provide us any advice as to whether they have offered at any time any recommen dations to the Federal Liberal Government prior to 1984 or the present Conservative Government in Ottawa , whether they have taken issue with the major tax breaks in this country that mean that the less well-off carry a heavier burden than they ought to of taxation. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicated clearly in his Budget that those in the categories of $75,000 , $100,000, $150,000 by way of salary have in fact enjoyed breaks as a result of the Wilson budget in the last two years, where ordinary Canadians are paying larger and larger shares of taxation that ought to be borne by those in the $75,000-$150,000 bracket.

When I hear the Institute of Chartered Accountants , and chartered accountants in the province , suddenly becoming the spokesperson for the average Manitoban, I can't help but wonder the reason for their muteness when it comes to the federal budget . I must say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the comments by a chartered accountant by the name of Glen Lillies - and I admit I don't know Mr.

Lillies; maybe honourable members across the way know of him , who provided an exclusive analysis to the Winnipeg Free Press - whether or not he has supplied his criticism of the very tax breaks that he descr ibed so very, very vividly in the

article for the wealthy, that are not provincial tax breaks introduced by this New Democratic Minister of Finance, but rather are tax breaks resulting directly from the intr oduction of tax breaks from the well- off by former Ministers of Finance, both Liberal and Conservative , in Ottawa. Has he sent such submiss ions to Ottawa? I suspect not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What we will be dealing with during the course of the next while is using every opportunity to ensure that there is a balanced and fair presentation of the philosophy of this Budget.

The Toronto Globe and Mail and of course we wouldn't read such an editorial, I'm sure, here in the Winnipeg Free Press or Winnipeg Sun about the Budget - but I must say that I was pleased with the commentary in the Toronto Globe and Mai l, and not a New Democratic paper , by the way, I say to the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, who is looking at me somewhat puzzled , but a Conservative newspaper - a Conservative newspaper , I believe , in the best historical sense. I would like to read, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Globe and Mail

article just last week. "This week's Manitoba Budget also demonstrates political entrepreneurship by jumping out ahead of the federal Tories." I could have told the Globe and Mail that's not really much of a problem, however. I don't know why they're surprised by that in tax reform. " 'There is unfairness,' " says the Globe and Mail, " 'in the federal system because of the proliferation of exemptions and credits,' said Manitoba Finance Minister Eugene Kostyra. So Manitoba imposed a 2-percent flat tax on net income, including capital gains and added surta x to large corporations." Then the Globe and Mail

article 563 continues, " When Federal Finance Minister, Michael Wilson, unveils his White Paper on Tax Reform this spring, Manitoba and the federal New Democrats want to be well placed to cla im any credibility it may be due." So there you have it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I had wanted to spend some time dealing with the agricu ltural situation , but I know that my Minister of Agriculture will outline in detail, during the proceedings of this Session, the initiatives that have been undertaken by this government pertaining to the agricultural situation, including those items specified in the Budget introduced last week by the Minister of Finance. I had wanted as well to deal with the scare tactics that are used by honourable members across the way, and I must say, not to his credit , the Honourable Member of Parl iament for St. Boniface, they talk about fed bashing, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. It seems to me there's quite an element of provincial bashing that takes place from time to time , particularly by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, Mr. Duguay, I believe, who 's been waiting some time for a federa l Cabinet post. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I found his comments not to be helpful and not cons tructive or positive insofar as a Manitoban wishing to attract industry to the Province of Manitoba, to dump on the people of the Province of Manitoba in the way tha t he did . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , just in concluding my remarks , I felt that it would be - yes, because the Minister of Finance needs considerable time to elaborate and ensure that you receive a very complete and full presentation prior to the vote this evening. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker , one other item I do feel that is worthy of comment. Because I was somewhat annoyed, and I thought there would be some motions of him , emergency motions possibly, from even members across the way.

As a result of comments by the Energy Minister in the Province of Alberta today in the paper, Conservative Alberta, protesting the fact that the government of the Province of Manitoba was intervening on behalf of the consumers of the Province of Manitoba to ensure that the consumers of the Province of Manitoba would receive fair gas taxes , the Minister of Energy in the Province of Alberta says: "This is not what was intended by deregulation; deregulation was intended to benefit the prod uce rs of Alberta." Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have just a few short words that I wish to address to the Minister of Energy in the Province of Alberta, to the people of the Province of Manitoba and to thi s New Democratic Party Government , and I would hope I would be speaking on behalf of all 57 members in this House . Deregulation of the natural gas industry doesn't mean privileges for the few , doesn 't mean privileges only for the producer s; it is intended to ensure equity and fairness for the consumers of Canada, including the consumers of the Province of Man itoba.

But I believe that those remarks by the Minister of Energy in the Province of Alberta disclosed a rather interesting mot ive, regrettably on the part of that Minister . He had overlooked the tru e reason for deregulation. It may very well be - and I want to take my cap off here to the Federal Government - that the deregulation may turn out to be a good thing for the consumers of the Provinc e of Manitoba . But what we insist , Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the rules not be changed

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 now, or altered, or tinkered with, just because there's a concern that it might work to the interests and the bette rment of the consumers, rather than a few producers in the Province of Alberta. Mr. Deputy Speaker, again, I commit ourselves to ensure that the consumers of thi s province will not be unnecessarily ripped off to the extent of $50 milli on a year, as a result of untoward price demands on the part of Inter-City Gas. In sum mation, I say to the honourable members across the way, thi s is a Bud get that you can vote for with your heads high.

This is a forthright Budget; it is a progressive Budget; it is a Bud get that is orientated towards serving the real needs of people, rather than special interests, the strong, the powerful. It is a Budget with a vision; it is a Bud get which expresses confidence in the Province of Mani toba; it is a responsible Budget for the year 1987. I believe and I don't reflect on any previous Budgets over the last 20-25 years, that this is certainly one, if not the most courageous and fairest and forthright budg et introduced in the legislative Chamb er of the Province of Mani toba. A MEMBER: One of the most greatest .

HON. H. PAWLEY: I might just say, by way of summation to the Honourable Member for Morris, it's looking better every day. We had the British Colum bia Budget, big hik es insofar as medi cal user fees. We see dispr oportionate increases in income tax for the poor in the Province of British Columb ia. Then the Alb erta Bud get came do wn last Thursday - a 27-pe rcent increase in Medi care premiums; payroll tax in the Province of Alberta, a 27 -percent increase; health insurance premiums in the Province of Alberta.

The honourable members haven't got up in this Chamb er yet to explain the 27-p ercent hike in payroll taxes, health insurance premiums taxed directly to the Alb erta residents and how that happened. We got rid of that tax way back in 196 9- 1970 because, Mr . Deputy Speak er, thi s is a government that believes in pr ogres sive taxati on. If we want to fol low the phi losophy of the di nosaur represented by some honourable members across the way, there's a simple way we could have the lowest income tax. There's a simple way we could have the lowest sales tax.

There's a simple way by which we could eliminate the lowest gasoline tax. All we do is charge each individual a poll tax, $4,300 each Manitoban. It would cover the total cost of expenditure of government. We wouldn't have any income tax. We'd have no income tax at all, no sales tax - one straight poll tax. I'll say that by way of descripti on to the Honourable Memb er for Morris: They need to ensure equity and fairness within a tax regime. We still have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a long distance to travel because there are major tax breaks within the overall tax system that only the Federal Government can eliminate.

These tax flows - what do you call them? - tax flows that Mr. Lill ies referred to in his paper, that's a federal tax break, not a provincial tax break. Let's get rid of it. Let's get rid of a lot of those other major tax breaks so we can have a fair and decent tax system that ensures that we all pay according to our ability, and those of us that earn more, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, 564 contribute more, as we ought to morally and every other way, towards the taxation system. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It appears that both sides of the House have saved the "Big Guns" to the very last. I heard the First Mi nister make some remarks concerning the Budg et vote, for everybody to vote for this Budget and hold their heads high. I think the First Min ister is in for an awful shock. I will not be intimidated, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government House Leader made some remarks that we on this side did not have the courage to stand in our place and to speak our minds. Well, you're going to get at least one, and possibly more, that will stand in their place and speak their minds. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it's an exciting day in the Ma nitoba Legislature because I think for the very, very first tim e that rather than government members supporting the Bud get vote, they will be supporting the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition. They will have their problems, Mr. Deputy Speaker, inasmuch as there are many truth s, facts and policy that have been stated by the Leader of the Opposition that just will not allow anybody with any moral strength to vote against the amendment. The amendment, and I would just like to make reference to it, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, where the motion of the amendment was: "Regrets that in presenting its Budget, the government has: ( 1) Imposed the largest tax increase on the people of Manitoba in our province's history." A fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a fact - cannot be voted against. Anybody with any moral strength has to support at least No. 1 of the amendment. No. 2 of the amendment: The government has "Introduced new taxes and cost increases which will destroy our ability to attract investment and job creati on." A true fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Anybody with any moral strength will not be able to vote against No. 2. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, No. 3: "By refusing to introduce any efficiency or imp roved management has again increased expenditures at double the expected rate of inflation thi s year." A fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Anybody with any moral strength could not vote against No. 3. And, No. 4, Mr. Deputy Speaker: "Has commi tted Ma nitobans to ever-increasing tax burdens in future as a result of its incompetence and fiscal misma nagement." Mr . Deputy Speaker, a fact, and anybody with any moral strength cannot vote against. So I think it is an exciting day, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

There's going to be - and I don't want to make reference to anyone in particular - but I know that there are some backbenchers that will be supporting - at least I believe that there's some backbenchers that will be supporting the motion on that side of the Leader of the Opposition so that they can walk with their heads tall. Up until just a few minutes ago, I thought that the First Min ister might be supporting the amendment, but in listening very, very care fully, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 have my doubts at this point. I thought that he might have embarrassed his Finance Minister , but I guess we'll have to just wait and see. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's the first opportunity I've had to speak on either the Throne Speech or the Budget. I would like to just advise that I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Budget. As I didn 't speak on the Throne Speech, I know that the rules permit me to have double the allocated time that normally somebody has, so I'll just carry on and it will allow me to make all of the statements that I wanted to make.

I wanted to congratulate the Speaker of the Assembly who is just out for I guess a rest. I know that the job is very, very difficult on occasions for the Speaker and for the Deputy Speaker , but with the assistance of all the members of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Beauchesne, I am sure that we can carry on in a manner that will not take away from the dignity of this Chamber. I would advise at this point that I'm not going to do anything to irritate the Member for Roblin-Russell , because when he gets mad, I would rather that he was my friend than my enemy.

After listening to him yesterday when he was speaking on the Budget, I'm glad that he's my friend and I wouldn't want to irritate him as this Budget has irritated him. I would like to also take this opportunity to just say a little special thank you to Pearl McGonigal and her husband, Marv, for serving this province in Pearl's capacity as the Lieutenant-Governor. What a wonderful team - and Pearl's support staff - a job well done . Where do you go after serving in this high office? I wish her well and good luck in the future. Our new Lieutenant -Governor, Dr. George Johnson, is a unique person.

He has contributed in so many different ways to the honour of Manitoba that time would not allow me to list them all, but I must mention one specific instance . I had a wonderful - and I say I had - a wonderful const ituent in the name of Olive Madsen . Olive had some kidney problems . I had invited Olive to come down to the Legislature for lunch one day. George had some contact with her family , he had been the family doctor many years before, and he took time out of his busy

schedule just to come and have lunch with us and give Olive some words of encouragement because she had just gone through a kidney transplant and she really did require and need some words of encouragement . She walked out after lunch and she was just so pleased that Dr. Johnson had taken this time out of his busy

schedule just to speak with her and have lunch with us. Olive is no longer with us, but I know that when she departed this world, she was most pleased with our new Lieutenant-Governor who was the Deputy Minister of the Department of Health at the time and a gentleman. I wish Dr. Johnson well in the future. I am also most pleased with the Page who 's just standing up at the door. His name is Daniel Boyko. I go back a long ways with Daniel Boyko. Well, I'm not sure about the school and I have no idea on how he was chosen to be here, but I can tell you something about his background.

His Uncle Dan , who he is named after, was my brother-in-law. Dan is no longer with us, also, but a fine person and a great heritage for Daniel 565 Boyko , our Daniel Boyko , to follow. I wish Daniel Boyko much success in his job as a Page in this Legislature , and I hope somewher e in the future that Daniel will take his place in socie ty and possibly even learn something here in the Legislature and become a member and contribute to the society in which we live . I should have been keeping track of the time because I think that there might be some correction. Have I spoken about five minute s, Mr.

Deputy Speake r? About five minu tes? I should n't ask questi ons, because I find out that if I ask questions nobody is listening . Just before we get into the Budget , I have som e remarks for the Min ister of Fina nce, and it all is encompassed in the Budget, concerning some discussions and some questions that I asked of the Minister of Urban Affa irs concerning a group of peopl e in my constituency in south St. Vital who are looking for some tax relief for large lot owners and suburban properties in the form of a special tax , a special levy, a special category, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Minister of Urban Affairs has rejected the request and I have no idea why, but if he wants to use some political motives , and I think that maybe . . . A MEMBER: Aren 't you suppo sed to listen to cit y council? You tell us to. MR. A. KOVNATS: Well, I'm asking you to listen to me and the people that have requested it, but I think for political purposes , and maybe for no other reason but political purposes , I would strongly recommend that this government at least give them some conside rati on. They're not asking for something that's out of the quest ion. Their requests are legitimate , Mr. Deputy Speaker .

They do not have the same services , and if you listen and you do allow them this special category - maybe I' m speak ing against my own politi c al background because a lot of these people are my friends - but I wouldn 't mind if they said thank you to the New Democratic Party Government for changing their mind and allowing this special category and maybe a few votes go towards whoever is going to run against me in the next election. I welcome the opportunit y, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why should these owners not be given the opportunity of a special assessment?

It was their choice to move out to these locations in the rural area so that they could have larger land holdings . We have others who have lived there for many, many years. They moved there when they just happened to be there , and if we are going to increase the assessment and ultim ately th e taxes on some of these location s, we've got some elderly senior citizens and I don't think you can just break it down just for the senior citizens, but they should be given the considera tion th at they have comi ng to them . These are the founders of our coun try.

These are the ones who have done so much to make Manitob a a place we want to live in. This governm ent on the other side is doing every thing they can to m ake Manitob a a place that we don't want to live in. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. A. KOVNATS: I just wonder whether it 's gas pains that are causing tha t "oh-h ," but I guess not.

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 Well , you know what? The honourable Minister has just made some remarks, Mr. Deputy Speake r. I am his MLA and he does l ive in my constituency when he is not in his own constituency in The Pas, and t o this day, t don 't know how he voted in the last provinc ial elect ion . It's freedom of choice on how you vote , Mr. Depu ty Speaker, and that is all that I'm asking for these peopl e in south St. Vital that because they 've had the freedom of choic e to move into that area , not to be penalized for that choice.

These people do not have any of the amen ities, or very few of the amenities, that we have in the City of Winnipeg . The concept of them being wealthy land barons is absolutely false. They are just average everyday people who love the fresh air and the abilit y to move around on their own properties . The spokesman for the group had stated that the city taxes should be seen to be fair and should be equitable wit h respect to the services that they receive. I'm going to speak on the services that they receive, Mr.

Deputy Speaker - rather than speak on the services they receive , let me speak on the services they don't receive. They don 't have city water and hydran ts for fire pro tect ion , and this , a bit of a repetition to the Minister of Urban Affairs, but I want the Minister of Finance to hear about it and some of the other Ministers who assist this Min ister in making a choice . They don 't have sewers . They don't have transit service. They don 't have paved streets and sidewalks . They don 't have flood protection because they are outside the flood protection zone.

They don't have the same benefits from the capital expend iture from the City Budget. They don't have parks and community club buildings . They don 't have limited - well, they do have limited street lights , and a very low level of mosquito larviciding and very tow leve l of mosquito fogging . I guess that would please the Minist er of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health because of his strong feelings against mosquito control. There are further restrictions in living out there, but it is their choice . It's a freedom of choice that I want them to have.

Further restrict ions - there 's no insurance on their basement because of the possible flooding. There's no fire insurance. It's much higher, the fire insur ance, because they don 't have the fire hydrant serv ice. The response time for the fire and ambulance is much longer than it is in the city. Police protection is lim ited . There 's no cable TV. There 's no Meals on Wheels , things that we just take for granted when we live in the city. These are people that are asked to pay highe r taxes than the people who are receiving these benefits . Mr.

Depu ty Speaker , I don 't wan t t o prolong it inasmuch as this bill will be coming to committee before too long, I would suggest , and presentations will be made by these people not only in my area, but p eople fro m Headingley, River East , I believe , and St . Boniface will be making presentations to this Minist er and to the committee. I hope that they will be given a fair hearing and then the bill will probably go through . If they are given a fair hearing, there could be some political votes that go you r way or go the way of the New Democrats . I won't be unhappy about that, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because I think that something fair would have been done . 566 Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the last election , the motto of the NOP was " Stand Up for Manitoba ." I want them to stand up for all Man itob a, Mr. Deputy Speaker , particularly this group I have out in South St. Vital. I'm still not quite into the Budget that I wanted to get into , but I' ve got to go through this . I haven't had an opportunity of speaking at the MPIC meeting and I just want to get my feelings on the record concerning the shredding procedure of MPIC.

I would hope that the error in the shredding pro cedure has been corrected. I would hope that -(lnterjectio n) well, it says error correct ed . I would think that if it's such a large error possibly the staff that had committed the error have been replaced -(Interjection)- well, you know - and I would hope that they would be replaced by Civil Service competition . I can just see the ad for the Civil Service competition : Part -time job requested, shredding main part of the job , only required before elections and before inquiries ; if you can follow regulations as to shredding procedure, do not apply . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , we have a problem . I'm not going to stand up here and deny and make any statements about the validity of the Minister 's statements - he is an honourable man - and I will accept what he has said . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm probably the only one in all of Manitoba who believes the Minister . There could be some others who believe him . I would think the Premier has to believe him. I would believe that the Minister responsible for shredding has to believe him; it put her in an awful position. She is a nice lady and she has had to get up and defend the error of this shredding.

I would think that all other members of the New Democratic Party Governmen t will be supporting this Minister and believing his statements . There are many others who belie ve in fairy tales. I think the Minister when he started his speech or his opening statements at the hearings for MPIC yesterda y, he shou ld have started off with "Once Upon a T ime " because it was a bit of a fairy tale . Once upon a time there was a little boy by the name of Pinocchio . As you know Pinocchio was that little wooden boy in one of the Disneys whose nose grew as he evaded the truth . I don 't want to make any accusations.

If Pinocchio was the one tell ing this story instead of the Minister , he would have a nose as long as a baseball bat . Mr. Deputy Speaker , how can you drop three boxes of government documents into a shredder by error? One box maybe, two boxes mayb e, thre e boxes never, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Accidentally ? N o way. You can 't expect the people of the Province of Man itoba to believe that and we will keep remind ing them. - (lnterjection) Twenty minutes? Okay. The Minister of Finance has stated he has tried to raise revenue in the fairest possible way.

A fine statement - tried to raise revenue in the fairest possible way. Do you remember a TV program called " Get Smart "? Is there anybody here old enough to remember a TV program "Get Smart "? Possibly there is. It was about a spy, Maxwell Sma rt. He had two well -know n sayings, " Missed by that much, " and "Sorry about that, chief. " I guess the Minister has been watching old reruns because his Budg et has missed by that much and he's sorry about that, Manitobans. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.)

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 The Minister of Finance and the New Democratic Party Government has in the Minister's second Budget taken Manitoba and Manitobans from a position of mediocrity to a position of national and international prominence.

Astounding increases in taxes and national and international scandal; increases in the sales tax ; increases in the cigarette tax; increases in liquor , beer, wine; increases in the payroll tax; increases in the net income tax; increases in the corporate capital tax; increases in diesel fuel tax; increases in fees for government services, licence drivers and plates; increases in Hydro rates; increases in land transfers. Did I leave any out? -(Interjection)- Oh, concede, concede. Well, the Honourable Minister of Finance will be having an opportunity after I do to carry on - (Interjection)- Pardon?

Sure he will , I know he'll bring it up. You know, Madam Speaker, this government and this Minister has taken us from back in the pack to where Winnipeg tops the tax polls . For the average Winnipeg family of four the income tax hikes outlined in the Provincial Budget will give the Provincial Government the power to reach in and take the dollars that have been allocated for essential purposes by Manitobans to help cover the mismanagement of this government. The new net income tax of 2 percent, along with the additional surtax on incomes over $30,000 makes Manitoba the most expensive province for urban families .

How many families are probably planning to leave Manitoba and establish elsewhere? I know that they're talking about it. Mr. Minister, you're not listening . It's part of my speech anyway. It just comes out even though you weren 't listening. You're not listening to the people of the province, Mr. Minister, the taxpayer . There are none so deaf that will not hear. I go through this on occasions. I have a hearing aid that I can turn down so that I don 't have to hear. I don't know how you do it, I don't know how you turn it down without a hearing aid, Mr. Minister, but you 're very qualified and you can do so.

The Minister has quoted that consultations have taken place with business, labour and community leaders to justify the government's financial decisions. Those meetings were window dressing . The Minister only heard what he wanted to hear. He had made up his mind and was preparing to tell Manitobans that the recommendations he had heard, even though he had made up his mind, were the recommendations that we are receiving here in the Budget . Mr. Minister, we will be reminding the voters in the future about your inability and your lack of interest in listening to the taxpayers .

I know that the Minister made no forays into the Niakwa area to listen to my people. Better luck next time, Mr. Minister. But I had sent out a circular letter , Mr. Minister, a questionnaire, and you'd be surprised at the answers that I got back . They don't want higher taxes. I'm sorry, let me correct that . They don't mind paying fair taxes, but they don't want to pay unfair taxes, Mr. Minister. The Minister is bringing in a very punitive tax bill this Budget. There is a danger that the future development in business and investment will never ever take place. Why should outside investment come to Manitoba?

What initiatives do they have to come to Manitoba? Tax laws in Manitoba are so different from everywhere 567 else. If I was looking to establish a business , this would be the last place I would bring a business after this Budget. With this Budget, I'm sure that there are established businesses in Manitoba that are looking to move out of the province . We have created -(Interjection)- Sure , why not? Sure, they'll move to Quebec. The New Democratic Party Government is doing everything they can to support everything that's happening in Quebec.

At least when they're there , they say that; when they're here, they don 't. The NOP Government has created a perception that they are anti-business . A perception - this is a perception. People out of the Province of Manitoba have a perception that Manitoba is anti-business. We, who live here, know it's a reality . An increase in payroll tax, Madam Speaker. I wish that you had been here earlier, Madam Speaker ; I said some very nice things about you . And you know what? I meant it. And I had asked for special consideration in extending the amount of time that I had .

An increase of payroll tax from 1.5 to 2.2 5 percent, a so· percent increase . You know , I'm going to carry on, but if you would just let me know when five minutes - what happens - the red light starts to flash? MADAM SPEAKER: Three minutes. MR. A. KOVNATS: At three minutes, and I've got about 10 minutes left, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER : Nine . MR. A. KOVNATS: Nine minutes, okay. Business had asked that this payroll tax not be increased, Madam Speaker. We are committed - the Conservative members are committed to reducing and eliminating the payroll tax to promote business here in the Province of Manitoba .

They're not listening, Madam Speaker . They just went ahead and increased it to discourage businesses from coming to Manitoba. We should be creating jobs here. Increasing the business tax or the payroll tax is doing nothing but discouraging people from coming to Manitoba . I can see a b ig sign, the Member for Roblin-Russell , his area is right at the Saskatchewan bord er, putting up a big sign, "Keep Out ," you know, we'll be leaving , we'll be going over to Saskatchewan . The payroll tax is discouraging anybody from coming into the province and we're putting up these signs.

All they're saying is that we don't want you in Manitob a because we're just going to stick it to the ones that we've got. Madam Speaker, the Premier announced that by 1991 there will be a balanced Budget, or at least the New Democratic Party Government will endeavour to have a balanced Budget. I cannot assure that Premier that he'll be around as the Premier of the Province of Manitoba in 1991.

I hope that he's not , but if he was, and at the same rate as they have increased taxes over the last two years and pro ceeding and project ing into 1991 , four years from now , with an incre ase of 1 percent on the sales tax each year, because we've had it for the last two year s, we will have a sales tax of 11 perc ent by 1991 .

Wednesday, 25 March, 1987 If the payroll tax increases in the manner in which it's increasing now of three-quarters of 1 percent, by 1991 the payroll tax will be 5.25 percent . I shudder to make these announcements , Mad am Speaker, but there has to be a warning and I'm warning the New Democrats, not the people coming into the province, although I want them to pay heed because there will be a time when they can come into the provinc e and start a business.

Workers Compensation, Madam Speaker - you kn ow I was speaking so nice of the Minister, and we have a new Minister who's in charge of Workers Compensation - The Workers Compensation Act doesn't allow the government or that Minister to operate the class fund at a deficit. We've been operat ing that class fund at a deficit for the last four years and we've gone down from a positive position to a negat ive position, Madam Speaker . Over the last four years, the increases in Worker s Compensation have gone up 68 perce nt, three 20 's and one 8.

If we project by 1991 at the same rate, the increases in Workers Compensat ion will go up another 80 percent to a total of a 148 percent increase . Is this what people are going to come into the Province of Man itoba to take into the ir hearts and say, " Isn't that wonderful! We will be bringing our business into Manitoba because Workers Compensation has gone up 148 percent in the last eight years."? Cigarettes - and I know I'm going to be coming very close to some people here - I think it's freedom of choice to smoke.

I don't think that by taxing and taxing and taxing that we should be forcing people not to smoke. We have people who it' s a small enjoyment for them. I know that there 's some dangers in smoking, Madam Speaker , some cancer dangers, but I think that there 's got to be some freedom of choice . If the rate of incr eases on cigarettes go up in the manner in which they have been going up, by 1991, in four years, Madam Speaker, you will be paying $5.36 for a package of cigarettes, not a carton, one package. It's going to be cheaper to get cancer .

It's just getting to that point, Madam Speaker , that it's just awful with the increases. Beer, a $1.80 a dozen increase in the next four years, taking away all the little enjoy ments out of life . Madam Speaker, energy conservation . Is the Minister here? -(Interjection)- No, okay. I know the Minister was here and I won 't say that he's not here. A 7 percen t cost increase on insulating materials , Madam Speaker, the increase in the amount of the sales tax - this is where we have taken sensible energy conservation measures and thrown them right out the window.

I have a special feeling for energy and energy conservation. I wanted to ask the Minister about the extension of hydrogen power because of the extension of electrical power, and it's something that will be the salvation of this province but I haven't heard anything more about it. All I know is that Hydro is expanding and we are supporting the expansion - it started too early - but we will have some problems because of it.

But I wou ld hope that the honourable Minister will take some special interest and give us the opportunity of knowing where we are going in energy somewhere into the future , particula rly in hydrogen energy. Home insulation will definitely slow down , Madam Speaker , and it's going to affect the ones who need it the most, the old age pensioners , the senior citizens, 568 who will not be able to afford to buy this insulation because of the increase.

It's going to give them the opportunity of sitting back and saying maybe we won't spend our money on that , we might need it for something else ; and come wintertime, when they're putting on that extra sweater and they're not as comfortable as they should be, we'll blame the Minist er of Energy and this Minister of Finance for taking away the opportunity of these senior citizens putting in extra insulation into their homes so that we can have a comfortable home for these people .

Madam Speaker, I am very, very disappointed in the Budget brought in by the Minister , and I have stated before how I will not be voting for his Budget but will be supporting the amendment made by my leader. I encourage and I welcome , and I'll tell you, I think that it has to be considered that the members of the government , the New Democratic Party members, also support the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition because it is a fine amendment and meant to be in the best interests of the people of the Province of Manitoba . Thank you very much, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for St.

Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the Budget. I hadn 't,

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-19
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 19.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	747b57def872ea73f477e6b8fb88bda5c3618234

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