Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 66B (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-66b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY-EMERGENCYINTEREST RATE RELIEF MR. CHAIR MAN, H. Harapiak: I'd like to call the Com mittee to order . I would jus t like to caution the me mbers, before the su pper break it seemed as if the commi ttee might be going out of control at times and I think as a Cha irman I ha ve a respons ibility to keep order in the com mittee room. So I would like me mber s to di rect their qu estio ns to the Cha ir and possibly this will take away some of the anim osity. The Me mber for Stu rgeon Creek. MR. F.

JOH NSTO N: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Eco no mic Development has on two occas ions upgr aded or given the informa tion on the num ber of loans or grant s that have been approved in the pro gr am of the Inter est Rate Relief for small business. In the paper, I believe it was last week, ther e was ano ther figure given that was considerably higher than the figures that the Minister had given in the Hous e. I mus t realize it was a week later. Can the Minister give us the fig ur es of the nu mber of people tha t have had appr o vals for the small bus ine ss development Inte rest Rate Relief Progr am? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr . Mini ster. HON. B. URUSKI: Yes. Mr . Cha irman, 34 small busi nesses have been approved for assistance by the board. Out of a total of 17 6 applications received, 24 applications have been rejected and 115 applicatio ns are still under review. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Can the Minister tell us wha t is the amount of mone y, the cash flow, on the 34 approvals? HON. B. URU SKI: Yes, the 34 appr ovals are projected to represent assistance commitment s in excess of $400,000, if the clients stay in the program for a full 24-month period. MR. F.

JOH NSTO N: The $400,000 on the 34 appr o vals, it's 50 percent gr ant and 50 percent loan, so I can assu me that the gr ants are $200,000 and the loans at low inter est rate are $200,000.00? HON. B. URU SKI: The loan portion is interest free for two years and the portion that he spoke about of grants is a gr ant. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Yes, I am aware of that, but what I was saying, at $400,000, there is $200,000 outr ight grant and the other $200,000 of the $400,000 wo uld be low interest loans. HON. B. URU SKI: That is correct. MR. F. JOHNS TON: Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to go over the details that we went over in the Econo mic Development Estimates to any gr eat extent, but now we have a situation wher e the Minister has said that 80 percent of the busin esses in Ma nitoba would be helped or cou ld qu alify for assistance un der this pro gr am. The program has a limi tation of $365,000 in sales; $365,000 in sales put s a bus iness in the position of being either a one or two- man operation, maybe three.

We are now assisti ng and it was very disappoint ing to me to have the Minister sugg est earlier today that the program that the Conse rvatives would have been involved in as far as households are concerned, or inte rest rates regarding homes are concerned, or reg arding farms were concerned, wou ld be only those that were our friends that were in the top 20. I submi t, Mr . Chairman, that is a bad state ment and I don' t think that ther e's any way that you cou ld help 80 percent of the bus inesses of Mani toba under this par ti cu lar progr am. It's $1 O mil lion for farms, households and busine sses.

We are in the position of helping busin esses that probably, as the Minister says, may need help but we have completely elimina ted the num ber of businesses in this province that need help that are in the farm implement business. It cou ld even be the shoe repair business; it cou ld be any business; it co uld be busin esses of services to people because the program does not elimina te services. It isn't ju st for man ufactur ing, it does not elimina te services. So, Mr.

Chairman, we now have a situation wher e we're looking at, if the small business part of this program gets a third of the money, we get $2,500,000; on 17 6 applicatio ns, there has been 34 approvals for $400,000.00. It would appear to me that you won't spend the money because the criteria of your program is such that it really can't do that mu ch good. It will be of some help, but it will not help the people that are daily going into receive rship in this province or writ ing bankru ptcies. They are busin esses that are over $350,000 in sales.

They are the busin esses that emp loy people, so your program is not directed towards the assistance of the major ity of the small busin esses in Mani toba that are large emplo yers. The Minister me ntio ned earlier, then the Minister of Economi c Development mentioned earli er- I shoul dn 't say earlier - the other day, that probably one of the most im portant parts of the program is that they wou ld receive kn owledge of those busin esses that had prob lems and they would be able to help them.

But that's secondary as far as I'm concerned because ther e always has been within the department a very large seg ment of the depar tment that worked very sincerely with small business to assist them in managem ent s problems, pr od uction pro blems or acc ou nting problems. So what we have at the present time is a program that is basi cally not going to be as mu ch assistance as is necessary to cur b the recei verships and ban kr upt cies of small business within the province.

What is really ha ppening in this parti cular case is that we have people mak ing app licatio n; the forms regarding the application are such that they mu st prove they don't have any assets. There is one parti cular state men t 2918

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 about the program that are the shareholder s and do the shar ehold ers have any assets. etc. So we really have got a program that is not going to elimi nate the high int erest rate problems for a small busine ss and just to elaborate a little bit on that: it's all very well to say we have a program that is going to help those that are in the real need and we may be helping some very small busi nesses that are in real need, but the program does not assist busin esses that are in real need that em ploy several people.

The pro gr am does not assist th ose com panies that have been hit very hard by high in terest rates. The program, as the Minis ter has said, is not designed to help bad management, but what is bad management today? The Feder al Government has a call on you r mone y as far as taxes are concerned, the Pro vincial Govern ment has a call on your money as far as taxes are concerned; and the cash flow th at's left for any small busi ne sses today that are employing people is very very nil and management is not the big problem.

We also have a situa tion where the management - it doesn't matter how well they receive assistance - as far as consulting is concerned; they jus t don' t have the cash flow. So, you kno w, when I say this, I have a compl ete realiza tion tha t the me mbers of the other side seem to take a lot of pride when they say we wou ld like you to spend mo re mone y. You've been cr iticizing us for spending too mu ch; we would like you to spend more money. Mr.

Chairman, I submit that un less you have a program that will assist small busi ne ss from the point of view of assis ting those busi nesses that are going in to receiver ship and going broke today, that are busi nesses that are over $365,000 a year or $50,000 a year, that are busi nesses tha t emp loy people, you really may be putting your mone y in the wrong place.

I submit si ncerely that the best place that mone y of this type can be placed is in the program for the farm com muni ty or in the program to assist young people with their mor tgages because the best way to help a busi nessman is to see that people have di sposable income wi thin their pockets. In other words, we mu st gi ve people pur chasing power and that is the only way you will assist small busi ness.

As far as I'm concerned, the program that you have com pared to the program of the Small En terpris e Rur al Develop ment Program for small busi ness which the Premier called useless, which this go vern ment has approved a 27 mor e appli cations for, has placed more people in busi ness in the province and emplo ying people; tha t's wher e you should be placing your money. As far as int erest rate relie f is concerned, the int er est rate relie f should be going to housing or young people in housing and it should be going to farmers.

In other words, the dir ection in to small busine ss is, as the Mini ster says, some thing small. It's a start, but it is not going to solve the problem. The probl em can only be solved by ha ving disp osable in come in people 's pockets as far as busi ness is concerned and that seems to be some thing tha t the government has forgot ten . Mr. Chairman, your program regar ding th e Interest Rate Relief Prog ram for small busine ss is not much bett er than they had in Saskatchewan un der th e NOP , it was a di saster; the y only spent about $250,000 on it.

This program is not going to save busine sses in the Pro vince of Manit oba. It cert ainly is not going to make the prom ises of the Premier, that no small busine ss wou ld go und er in the Prov in ce of Man itoba. It is di sappointing to me that now we hear from the Mini s ters that it's only designed to help those really in need, but that's not what the Premier said when he was runni ng. Mr . Chairman, he ba sically said that all of these busi nesses wo uld be helped and it come s from the top. The Premier of the provinc e has a tendency to say anything and he does very ea sily.

An ybody that would make the state ment that the Pr emier made, that he signed on that particular broch ur e -a nd I have said this before and I said it in the Economic Development Comm ittee - that I feel sincer ely sorry for his Minis ters who have to sit here and defend a state ment that is abso lutely im possible to achie ve. Mr . Chairman, I'm sur e that I will arouse the ir e of the Min ister of Resou rces when I make this state ment. When he and I were cou ncil lors in the City of St. James-As sin ib oia and in St.

James, one of the worst thing s that we cou ld ever do is to make a prom ise or to pass a bylaw that could not be achie ved, and when he was Chairman of the Police Comm ission and I was Assistant Chairman and when I was Chairman and he was Assistant Chairman, we thr ew it back and forth lik e a yo-yo. The Ombud sman, who ju st resigned, was the Ch ief of Police and he used to say: "Mr . Joh nston, Mr . Mack ling, please don't ask me to admin istrate laws that are im possible to admini strate." That's poor law, very poor law. It is very poor; it is very stu pid.

In fact. it has the need of a psychia trist for a person to make the statemen t that the Pr emier of this provi nce made. How can anybody build up the confi denc e or the expectations of the small busi ness peo ple of this provi nce the way the Premier did, and the Minis ter of Economic Development will defend him, I'm sur e, but she's been put in an im possible position of be ing able to accomplish the prom ises. You would be better off to make sure ther e was di sposable inc ome in the pocke ts of the people of the Pro vince of Man itoba so that busine sses can sur vive and do better. 291 9 HON. B.

URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I appr eciate the com me nts of the Honour able Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek. I really do, Mr . Chairman, because I appr eciate him so mu ch that I'm pleased that he is the one that really should examine his remarks and maybe hir e hi mself a psychia trist -( Interjec tion)- remarks. Mr.

Chairman, I want to set the Honou rable Member for Sturgeon Creek's com me nts strai ght and the Hon ourable Member for Pembi na 's commen ts straight with respect to com ments made by the Leader of my party, the now Premier of the Pro vince of Mani toba, dur ing the election campaign on October 30th when we annou nced an Emergency Inter est Rate Rel ief Prog ram for home owner s, farmers and busin esses -( Interjec tion )- Mr . Chairman, the Member for Arth ur says "last-ditch effort." The last-ditch effort, Mr.

Chairman, was made by your party when you, in a deathbed repentance, came up with an ill-conceived, ill-thoug ht-of int erest rate program and I will deal with that shortly. MR. CHAIR MAN: Order, order.

HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Cha irman, I want to qu ote from a statement made by the then Leader of the Opposi tion and I quo te from Page 6 of the state ment dealing with the program on interest rate relief: "The NOP are not prepared to use tax dollars except for hardship cases. Ther e wil l be no assistance for those who have purchased hous es well beyond their means in the selfish hope that in flation wou ld enr ich them. Ther e will be n.o assistance for bu sinesses put in jeopardy by poor management or by farms owned by land specu lators.

We expe ct that, on the pessimi stic assum ption that interest rates will no t be mu ch lower in 19 82 and wil l only start to come down sig nific antly in 19 83. The Bu dget for emer gen cy relief wil l be $23 milli on." On October 30, 19 82, that state ment was made. "Thi s is planned as a one -time crisis effort because no prov ince in Canada can afford a permanent interest rate su bsidy, nor could the eco nomy withstand the infla tion that would result from three or mor e years at the present level of interest rates." Mr.

Cha irma n, all this to-do, howling and baying at the mo on, by mem bers of the Oppositi on. They came out as a last-ditch effort dur ing the campa ig n to assist homeowner s in the Province of Manitoba with an emer ge ncy interest rate mor tgage assistance plan by the Conser vatives. Ther e was a program announ ced in response to what was ann ounced by the New Demo cr ati c Party; we did an analys is of th at announ cement, Mr. Cha irman.

While their program covered the ent ire population, eligible home owners of approximately 25, 000 in the Province of Mani toba, the ir ben efits to those 25,000 ho meown ers on an average mo nthly basis, amou nted to just un der $14 per month. While our program doesn't reach that many people, -(Int erjectio n)- well, Mr. Cha irman, doesn't reach as many people, but it does reach the people in the gr eatest need. These kinds of people that the Cons ervatives kept sayi ng, we only want to help those in the gr eatest ne ed, we only want to help those who need it most.

Their program would have helped, yes, 25,000 hom eowners at $13 a mo nth. Mr . Ch airman, our pr ogram can reach an eligible amount HON. H. PAWLEY: You kno w, I would ask your ruling. I heard distinctly the Memb er for Pe mbina yell, "H e's a liar," and I wou ld appr eciate your ruling. If we are going to maintain some sense of digni ty and respect in this com mittee there has to be some standard that we apply. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order? MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, on that same point of order .

If the Minister of Ag ricu ltur e would repeat the same fig ur e twice in a row, I might not have to resort to calling him a liar. He started out at $14 and he said $13 the next time. What is the fig ure that he wants to leave us wit h, $1 4.00 or $1 3.00? Which is the fig ur e he's putting on the record? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier. HON . H. PAWLEY: Mr . Chairman, I ask for you to make a ruling. 1J une, 19 82 MR. CHAIRMAN: We ruled before the su pper hour , that was on . . the same point of order. MR. J. DOWNEY: On the point of order.

My comment is wha t are we asking for a ruling on, whether the Minister of Ag ricu ltur e is misleading this com mittee or what's the qu estion being put on? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside on the same point of order. Order. MR. H. ENN S: Mr. Chairma n, on the same point of order, whether or not the co mm ent s from the Member for Pe mbina were in order or not, the fact of the matter is he was not speaking as you have di rected us at the outset of this com mittee meet ing, thr ough the Chair man; he did not have the floor.

The First Minister may take objection to the comment made as comment s are sometimes made from the sidelin es, from a memb er who does not have the floor. I susp ect that ther e is not a point of order to deal with. 2920 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I kn ow very well where the comm ent came from, where it was directed and since, Mr. Cha irman, I called the point of order , the member has repeated those comment s very clearly and very proudly for all to hear. I just say to you, Mr.

Chairman, if thi s is the extent to which commi ttees of the Legislature " are going to stoop, to such kinder garten sort of comment s, then we are going to be in gr ave diffi cu lty if this kind of process and trend con tin ue s as we have obser ved freq uently from the Member for Pem bina, but certai nly are observing in that kind of reference in this com mi ttee. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Spr ingfi eld on the same point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr . Chairma n.

With respect to the Mem ber for Lakeside, the comm ents that were made by the Member for Pembina clearly are listed in all our su pporting Ho use procedural pub lications and docu ment s as un parliame ntary expressions; there is no que stion about that. I am sur e the Memb er for Lakeside wo uld be just as conscious as I am of the need to avoid those kinds of remarks whether they are formally on the record or not because of our in ter jec tio n mike system in which Hans ard prints inter jec tions in debate. -(Int erjectio n)- Well, it usually does. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Lakeside has some reservations.

I sugge st he consult with the Memb er for Min nedosa about inter ject ions and unp ar liamentary expressio ns appearing on the record. If we wish to avoid having this Legislature degener ate and the kind of lang uage used her e, then we might as well forget about the whole game. The reason we have those rule s, the reason we have those lists is to avoid the kind of expr essions in deba te that cause rancour and bitterness between mem bers. I realize this is a heated debate.

I realize ther e may be some opportu nities for disag reement among mem bers but certain ly I think we want to avoid those kinds of expressions and it behooves all mem bers on both sides to avoid that kind of langua ge whether they're

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 calling it out across the floor of the Hous e or the Com mittee. whether their mike is on or not. If we're concerned abo ut decorum in debate and scoring points from either side about debate. then it behooves us to use the vocabulary in a lang uage that reflects our status as me mbers and not that kind of lang uage. Mr. Chai rman. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Attorney-General on the same point of order. HON. R. PENNER: On the same point of order. I was fully end orsing the remarks of the Me mber for Spr ing field as to inte rjectio ns.

I do want to draw attention of the Chair to the fact that the Mem ber for Pembina. when challeng ed on the record said, "misleading the Com mittee," which amou nts to the same thing and he can't have it both ways that at one ti me he's off the record, but when he's on the record it doesn't amount to a breach of the dec orum of this Commi ttee and I think that with respect to the Mem ber for Lakeside to su ggest that the re mark was pasteu rized by being an inter jectio n. misses the whole seque nce and this is the point that is being ur ged here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Me mber for Arth ur on the same point of order.

MR. J. DOWN EY: On the point of order. Mr. Cha ir man , the Mem ber for Spr ingf ie ld made comment abo ut the Me mber for Min nedosa making some com ment that was picked up by the micr ophone or by the system in Com mittee that was reported in some par ticular way. Could the Member for Springfield ide ntify or make those comment s so that we kn ow what he's talking about? I don' t kn ow what the Me mber for Min nedosa said that would be picked up by Hans ard. -(Int er ject io n)- no. it's not.

No. the Me mber for Spr ingfield used the Me mber for Minnedo sa. who is not at the Com mittee. as an ex ample as to what was picked up by the microp hone and by Hans ard to use as an example in this parti cular case. Could he ident ify what the Memb er for Minne dosa said? MR. CHAI RMAN : The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTET T: Mr. Chairman. I will ide ntify a Com mittee of the Ho use on Publi c Acco un ts in the spring of 19 76. The memb er can consu lt; I wil l not repeat the remarks. It was an un fortuna te incident -(I nterjectio n)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I wil l not enter into the record remarks that I consider ed and the Chair man of the Com mittee considered un parli am entary. I will not repeat th em. The fact of the matter here is that the Member for Pembina on a point of order accused the Honour able Minister of certain activities which he called fro m his seat as an inter jection and then repeated them. specif ica lly. tha t the mem ber was lying. that he put on the record when he was recognized in debate. Mr .

Chair man. that is an un parliamentary expression and I think 2921 the Minister and this Com mittee have every rig ht to a full unq uali fied withdrawal forthwith. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The same words were used before supper hour and they are clearly un parli amen tary and because the me mber did not have the micro phone at this time. doesn't make it any less wron g. So I would ask the mem ber to - and I asked for co operation before the meeting got started to try and keep the deco rum in Commi ttee - and I'll ask the memb er's co-operation to withd raw the remarks and refrain from making them aga in.

The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORC HARD: Thank you, Mr . Chai rman. I wi ll withdraw the remar k that I put on the record that the Minister hasn' t got his facts straig ht. I won't repeat the un parliamentary phr ase that is so offensive to all members of this Chamb er, but wo uld the Minister care to clarify whether in fact, it is $14 per month he's trying to say, or $13 per month? He has used both figures. Which fig ur e is correct and which fig ur e do we assume the Minister to be using in a truthful manner? MR. CHAIR MAN: The Minister of Agri cultur e. HON . B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chai rman . if the me mber wants the exact fig ur e. it's $1 3.85 per month that I was giving him and I rounded it off at ... MR. D. ORC HARD: Mr. Chairman. cou ld we assu me that the Minister was telling the truth at $13 the first ti me or $14 the second time? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman. I did have the floor when I was making my remar ks.

I in dicated that the ben efits that we were talking about under their pro gr am when we made the ana lysis, would pay ben efits and I started by sayi ng, of appr oximately $14 a month is the fig ur e that I used initi ally, and to give the hon ou rable me mber the correct fig ur e. I wi ll give him the analy sis of $1 3.85 per month in terms of the deathbed Tory plan that was in place, that was going to be the salvation of homeowner s in the Province of Mani toba on the announ cement that they made dur ing the elec tion cam paig n. as compared to, Mr .

Cha irman -a nd as I've in dicated before - that our program wi ll not and would not reach as many hom eowners. Our projec tions would be roughly at an 18 .25 percent mor tgage interest rate. We would be able to reach somewhat less than 5,900 home owner s, in the vicinity of between 5,800 and 5, 900 homeowners. with an average monthly ben efit of $52 .81, if he wants the exact calcula tions tha t were made and he won' t be in a position to call anyone a liar on the basis of 15 cents. Mr. Chairman.

That an alysis that was done in terms of helping many homeowner s, and so indi cated by the Mem ber for Tuxedo and the Mem ber for Stur geon Creek who indi cated that our plan really wasn't going to do very mu ch; we should do nothing for business people. The re was even a sug gestion made. Mr. Cha i rman . and I just want to make sur e that I und er stood the Me mber for Stur geon Creek, on the point that he indi cated or he insin ua ted. ther e were com me nts made from this side tha t. oh well , let's forget about the 20 percent of busine sses that are in the hig her ann ual

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 gross in come sales area because they're really not our friends. Mr. Chairman, if that state ment was made, that was an insin uation agai n by his colleague, the Member for Pembina, before we left for supper. It was he who drew that kind of an in fer enc e from remarks supposedly made by my colleague, the Mini ster of Economic Development. It is he who has stooped that low of trying to pit one segment of our society agai nst another in terms of his analysis of who the assistance under this program will benefit. Mr .

Chairman, I qu oted from the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition with respect to how far our assistance would go in terms of our election comm itments on October 30th. Mr . Chairman, nowhere did we say that we wou ld assist everyone who is in di fficu lty. The statement s were I would have to put it qu ite mildly - conser vative in natur e in terms of being ato ned; the scope of the program was defi ne d in terms of the bud getary amounts that was clearly spelled out at the time on October 30th. The $23 millio n fig ur e was put in to play; the exte nt was limi ted, Mr .

Chairman, and I gave those remarks. We kno w, Mr. Chairma n, that a program for busi nesses whose gr oss sales are beyo nd the 350,000 mark is be yond the scope of the finan cial abi lity of this provinc e.

We kn ow that that responsibil ity should be clearly hand led by our National Government in terms of - they made announc emen ts with respect to the Small Busi ness Developme nt Bond Program that was supposed to assist farmers who were in higher gr oss in come categories and busi nesses who were in higher gr oss in come categories - that they could go in and apply for the Sm all Busine ss Development Bond Prog ra m. But I have to say, Mr .

Chairman, that the financial in stitutions and the Govern ment of Canada really could n't make up its min d on how to work through some of the in tric acie s that they put in to place under this program and ther e was n't very much take- up under this program and it hasn't benefited many of those people and those busine sses in those catego ries. We acknowledge that and we und erstand tha t, but to sug gest as some memb ers have tried in this Comm ittee, that we are not living up to our comm it men ts, we are somehow mi sleading the public , Mr.

Chairman, those state ment s were very clear and if the mem bers wish, the state ment that I qu oted from was from the speech given by Howard Pawley on October 30th, 19 81, and I qu oted from them. The Honour able Mem ber for Arthur now says: "So what?" Mr. Chairman, the "so what" is that we were very clear in defi ning what our in tentions were when we annou nced the program. They were there in black and whi te. Now the memb ers may not like wha t was said because the y didn' t like it so mu ch, Mr.

Chair man, and they, during the final terms of that election cam pai gn, decided they better do some thing about it: nu mber one, rent controls; num ber two, the Inter est Rate Rel ief Progr am, so they did annou nce a program. When one analy zes that program, and talks about adminis trative costs, the way their program would have operated, Mr. Chairman, would have been that our adminis trative costs would have gone up th ree ti mes the amount that we will be spending on adm ini s- tration no w. If anyone talks about a Mic key Mouse progr am, Mr .

Chairman, that was the Mi ckey Mouse program in terms of the benefits tha t would have been paid on a monthly basis to home owner s, if one wants to talk about Mi ckey Mouse. We tal ked about the seriousne ss of the situati on, Mr . Chairman, in terms of in ter est rates and in terms of being able to provide limi ted assistance to people who are in gr eat di fficu lty. We did not say that we would be the salvation of every busine ss, farm and home, whoever are in fina ncial di ffic ulty. We said if it was hi gh int erest rates that were cau sing the problems, we would assist.

There is a federal program which hasn' t worked to assist those who are in the high er gr owth sales area, but Mr. Chairman, me mbers of the Opposition here tonight and this afternoon, I believe - I hop e - may have learne d a bit of a lesson in terms of how far they want to exagger ate their comm en ts or how low they wish to get in terms of their attacks on some of the state ments that have been made. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Sturgeon Cree k. MR. F. JOHN STON: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister jus t fin ished off by saying "exagge rate." I would say tha t the exaggeration came from the govern ment at the present time regard ing the programs that we are speaking of at the present time. 2922 Mr. Chair man , the Mini ster make s a very great point about the fact that the Progressive Conservative Gov ernment at that time during the election came out with an int erest rate progr am for ho meowner s and it was towards the end, as they keep saying, after the N.D. Party had made promises. The prom ises of the N.D .

Party were made when they had full kn owledge of the deficit, and as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, during the last Sess ion of the Legisla tur e when the Budge t was brou ght up, they predi cted wha t the defici t would be and the y had the qu arterly reports from the provi nce. Mr . Chairman, the Progressive Cons ervative Party at that time did not come out and make any prom ises or give any programs until we kn ew the basis of the Federal Gove rnment Budge t.

I heard the comment that somebody sai d: 'That's a lot of crock ," but I can te ll you this, that the gov ern ment at that time was very aware of what the defi cit was, very aware of what should be done, but hop efully, we expected tha t the Federal Government would come out and do some thing to assist the home owner regard ing in terest rates and int erest rates on renewal of mor tgages. When they didn' t, we came out with a progr am.

Our progr am was structured on the basis tha t there would be assistance to anybody that had a mor tgage renewal presented to them over 14 percent and we would pay 75 percent of the dif ference between 14 and 20 percent, I be lieve, and I don' t have it in front of me, and we would have gi ven assistance to $23 million or $22 mill ion to the ho meowner s out ther e that had extreme problems. It's all very we ll for the Min ister to say that their program will assist people who are paying mor e than 30 percent on their mortgages. Mr .

Chairman, there are young people out ther e today and I can gi ve you examp les of two, wher e they were both work ing, they

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 had bought a ho use and their mortgage do ubled. It went from $325 in one case to $650; it doubled. The system or the program tha t you have put before us regard ing 30 percent of in come is all very well to say that they may be able to afford 30 percent of in come, but ther e are many you ng people out ther e. very young people out ther e who had bo ught home s and were budge ting to make the mortage payment, but all of a sudden when the renewal of mor tage came up, it doubled.

Those are the people who need assistance in a very big way and the one that I am speaking of would get $7 a month un der your program. It's very, very, very good for the Mini ster to talk about $1 3.8 5 or $14 or $13 per mon th. He uses an average. Under our progr am, people would have received mu ch more than that and the Min ister keeps continuin g to use an average. Mr .

Chairman, when the Min ister keeps tal kin g about, and the me mbers of the gover nm ent keep talk ing about the fact that the Progressive Cons ervative Party did n't come out with a program until after the NOP, we came out with a program after we knew what the Feder al Bu dget was. The N.D . Party came out with a program with full kn owledge of what the deficit was. They started out at $23 mill ion over the basis of thr ee areas. farms, busin esses and home s.

I remem ber clearly, and ther e is an artic le in one of the papers that says that the Fi rst Min ister says: "Oh no, all I meant was for mortgag es," and then no w as we get in to it, we find out it's for all th ree. So the programs that you'r e speak ing of have now bo iled down to farms, busi nesses and people who need assistance on mortgage assistance because of high in ter est rates or renewal of mo rtgages that in many cases have doub led. We have a program that is absolutely in adequa te and mo stly inadequa te for tho se you ng people who have had their mortgages doubled. Mr .

Chairman. the govern ment would have been better off, as I have said previously and I may be critized. I was the Min ister of Eco nomic Developme nt. We have prese ntly a Min ister of Eco nomi c Develop ment who does her job very tediously.

I told her dur ing Esti mates tha t she does not realize what's going on ou t there and I sti ll believe that, but I can tell you very sincerely that the best way to help the small busine ss is to put the mone y int o assistance to mortgages and assistance to farmers so tha t ther e will be di sposable in come and your program of $23 mill ion over a two year perio d will not make a dent in to assis ting the small busi ness people and your program. as far as mor tgage is concerned for young people on the basis of 30 percent in come, is not really worth that mu ch to those people who have had their mortgages doubled.

I would like to take the Minis ter a little bit to task on the stat ement that he was making earl ier on the basis of what the Min ister of Eco nomi c Development said. The Mini ster of Economic Development said earlier today - and we can look it up in Hans ard - when I said earl ier today I migh t put it "i nfer" that our program was only designed to help those people who may have been our frien ds, I can assure you, that is not the case, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAI RM AN: Poi nt of order , the Honou rable Min ister. HON . M. SMI TH: Mr . Chairp erson, is it in order if I clarify that statement? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may clari fy the state ment ... HON . M. SMITH: What I said and MR. CHAIRM AN: .. . after he finis hes making his statement. MR. F. JOHN STON: Well, I'm fin ished. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Minis ter of Economic Devel opment to clarify a statement. HON . M.

SMI TH: Yes, I said that the programs were designed to help mor e than 70 percent of the farmers and more than 80 percent of the small busine ss people and if the complaint from the other side was that we weren't helping anyone, I sugges ted that they are imp lying that it's the 20 percent of the small busi ness and 30 percent of the farmers who aren't get ting any help.

I did state tha t maybe the gr oup that they asso ciate with and think are all there are out ther e, but in the total context it's still a small percent , I don' t know how you can say if you'r e helping over 70 perce nt of a gr oup of people that you're not doing any thing for them. -(I nterjec tion)- Well, you'r e helping the peo ple who are in most economic need and when you have lim ited reso urces and you're putting in an em er gen cy type program, it seems to me that's the sensible thing to do. Now, you have a dif fer ent opinion as to what you should do with lim ited resou rces.

If you gi ve mor tgage mone y to people who are spending less than 30 per cent of their in co me on th eir mor tage, it's very ni ce for them, but I submit they're not in anything like the eco nomic dif ficu lty and di stress as the people who are having to co mm it mo re than 30 percent of their in come or who earn under $30, 000.

So it's a qu estion of relative need and our program was consc iously designe d and planned to hit the people in most di s tress, not that other people weren't in some dis tress, but when you only have so mu ch to go arou nd you don't jus t look at the people in your imme di ate vicin ity, you try to get data on what the total pictur e is. So I wasn't saying don't help your friends; I was ju st sayi ng if you think we're doing nothing when we're hi tti ng such a large proportion of the popu lation, that you mu st move in a narr ow circle of frien ds. 2923 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Min ister of Agric ultur e. MR. H.

ENN S: Mr . Chairman, I'm speak ing on a point of order that was raised by the Mini ster ... MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no point of order. It was ju st a clarification of opinion. The Min ister of Agricultur e. MR. H. EN NS: Well then, on the same point of clarifi cation. MR. CHAIRM AN: Yo ur name is on the speaker's list - the Mem ber for Lakes ide. The Minis ter of Ag ric ultur e

wanted to speak after your comments, so the Min ister of Agricultur e. HON . B. URU SKI: Mr. Chairman, the Honour able Member for Stur geon Creek raised a numb er of point s in terms of the effectiveness of the progr am that they announc ed versus this program and there have been many accusations by the Cons ervatives that we were spread ing the dollar s too thin. Lim ited dollars too thin was basically the criticism that the Tories have levelled from time to time, and no w saying that we didn' t kn ow our deficit posit ion.

How could the NOP make this kind of a pledge no t kn owing the deficit posit ion, and yet ther e should be $80 mill ion in a program because I th ink their Deputy Leader sugge sted that if there's going to be a progr am, it should be $60 mil lion to $80 milli on. Now, you'r e spread ing it too thin. Now, I think you can't have it both ways. We did an an alysis of your -(I nter jecti on)- well, you'r e trying to; I admit you could cert ainly try.

The rates that we analy zed you r program at, or your announc ed deathbed program, was that at int erest rates of 18 .25 percent the average Tory benefit would have been and I said before about $14 per mo nth com pared, as an average if ther e was a full take up of the plan t, to about $53 per month un der our program. The ma ximum bene fit un der the Tory plan to tho se with lowest in comes and hig hest mo rtgage payme nts would have been $12 5 per month as com pared to $275 per month under this progr am.

The Tory program wo uld have in effect provided - if one could put it ch arit ably - token amou nts of assis tance to larger numb ers of mi ddle inc ome homeowners whose need was qu estionable in the fir st place, while not providing adequa te levels of assistance to those in really true har dship cases, and now you have the temerity to accuse us of spread ing the dollars too thin. In fact, it's clear that our progr am, by uti lizing the 30 percent in come thr esh old, is the better targeted pro gram in terms of provi ding assistance to those in most need.

It is your proposal which amount ed to noth ing mo re than a cynic al effort to buy votes from a broad cross

section of hou seholds who thought they might be experi encing some additional di fficu lties in meet ing their new mor tgage payment s and would still be able to fairly comf ort ably, within the 30 percent in come criterion used by the mortgage lender s them selves to determ ine afforda bil ity, and they could meet those payment s yet. Mr.

Chairman, in the num bers of cases that have been appr oved to date, and we've been tryi ng to deal with some of the hardship cases, the average monthly pay ou t un der this program has been $14 0 a month of assistance provided to date, already $15 a mo nth more than any one would have been eligible under your previously announc ed program to those people who have qu ali fied, and the experience is ther e.

So you have the gall to come here and sug gest that somehow it's not helping anyone and when we said it would only help tho se in the gr eatest need and that's what we've tried to accompli sh, really tryi ng to use so-called Tory logic. Now the Tories are saying no, you should spread it out even fur ther. Well, Mr . Chairman, they want to be on both sides of the fence. Some time s being ·on both sides of the fenc e you get torn apart in the mi ddle. Maybe that's what's happen- 1 June, 19 82 ing to them in ternal ly. So, Mr .

Chairman, those argum ent s that they have put forward about assis ting people, the Member for Stur geon Creek should well realize what his program meant in terms of what annou ncem ent s they were making and what ben efits and who they would go to. He talks about sprea ding them too thin, Mr. Ch ai rman . He shou ld go back and analyze the announceme nts that they made, talkin g about someone who was ill prepared to make those announc em ents.

It was your admin istra tion and your party who was ill-prepared to make that kin d of annou ncement and th at's why you made it as a last-ditch effort before the election was concl uded. MR. F. JOHN STO N: Well, Mr . Chairman, the Min ister keeps ta lking about last-ditch efforts and I wou ld refer to the fact that int erest rates were high when they were 6 percent; in terest rates were high when they were 10 percent; they were high when they were 12 percent The y're always high , but in the last year-and-a-half in terest rates dou bled. That's what the N.D.

Party didn't take int o consi dera tion, that they dou bled and th ere were people out ther e in home s that had them doubl ed when they refinanced their home s. They doubl ed. Our program basic ally said that an ybody that refi nan ced their mo rtgage and it was mo re than 14 per cent, we would pay 75 percent of the di fference up to 20 percent and. with the $40,0 00.00. We were ta king in to consi deration that people got hit hard in the last year- an d-a-half. That's what we were tak ing int o con sidera tion.

We were tak ing in to consid era tion that there were young people that had bought home s. who had bud geted to buy a home , pay $325 a month mor t gage and when it was renewed it was $650.00. We didn' t say to them the fact that 30 percent of your inc ome - we were basic ally saying tha t in the last year-and-a-half mortgages have dou bled and that's what the N.D. Party did n't take int o consider atio n. 2924 They have gone on with their program and I can tell you sinc erely that ther e are people out there, regard less of what their in come was -(I nterjecti on)- let's not get carried away about in come .

Let's get carried away about the fact that in a year-and-a-half thei r mor tgages doubl ed; they doubl ed. The Min ister is saying to me that we shouldn't be consi derate of the fact tha t it di d double . They went on a prog ram that said 30 percent; I kn ow how the prog ram was br ought forward. The program was br ought forward to you by a person who was probably one of the better kno wn, and I migh t say to the Min ister one of the better kn own people who have kno wledge about housi ng in this cou ntry. He's sitti ng besi de you ; his name is Saul Schu bert.

He kno ws mor e about housi ng than most people at this table. HON . B. URUSKI: He di dn 't develop your progr am. MR. F. JOHN STON: Yes. But I can say to you sin cerely tha t when the program was developed, you absolutely -(Int erjec tion )- I can say to you sin cerely that the development of the program was well thought out, but you absolutely forgot that in a year an d-a-half mortgages doubl ed within this provi nce.

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 HON . B. URU SKI: Mr. Chairm an, I apprecia te the Honou rable Me mber for Sturgeon Creek's comm ents. I think if he would have consu lted with the people who he says were consu lted. then you may have had a program. Mr .

Chairman. the fact of the matter is and he make s the case that some mortgages doubled, notwithst anding that happen ing , how can the Member for Sturgeon Creek sta nd here and say that if my mortgage is doubled I can only receive under our program, the Tory program. $1 25 per month based on crit eria and under the NOP program I can receive up to $275 per mo nth based on what portion of my in co me goes towards mo rtgage payments. -(Int erjec tio n)- Well, Mr. Chairman, talk about MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. HON . B. URU SKI: ... spread ing the pie too thin.

It was hi s Deputy Leader, the Me mber for Fort Garry, who accused us of spreading the limi ted amount of mone y too thin , talk about the Member for Tux edo who ind icated that our program was in flation ary, talk abo ut spread ing mone y all over the place and of not benef iting those people in gr eatest need, at least now you can ackn owledge that you'r e admitting that your program was only ther e to broad brush, not really to help people who really needed help. people in the greatest need.

You were willing to sacrifice one of those household workers who may have lost their job, their mortgage has dou bled and the portion of their in come towards their mo rtgage payments. went above the 30 percent rates. Notwithstan ding th at. they could only receive a benefit of $1 25 a month from your progr am; notwith stan ding tha t, you were prepared to say, oh, sorry, but we're going to gi ve it to many more people but we're not going to give them as mu ch, even though those are in desper ate need. That's what you're really adm it ting and I appreciate that. MR. F. JOHN STON: Well, Mr.

Chair man, the Minis ter put his fing er on it or has adm itted very clearly in his state ment that our program recogn ized that every body who had their mortgages doubled -a nd they did double in the year-and-a-half - needed assistance. You are sayin g that people that had their mor tgages, there was a percentage of them that didn' t need help. I submit to you very si ncerely that everybody that had their mor tgages double d need some sort of consid er ation. If the Mini ster wants to take a look at it from that point of view, I gue ss that we don' t really have mu ch more to di scuss.

I am saying to you very si ncerely that anybody that had their mo rtgage doubled, that was work ing on a bud get. living in a home, raising a fam ily, should be deservi ng of some consi deration by a program that the government put out . What the Mi nister is saying very very clearly, Mr. Chairman, is what the previous Premier of this provi nce said, is. I don't gi ve a damn who driv es a Cadil lac or a Lincoln or what have you and I gu ess tha t may be true, but he was comple tely elim in ati ng people who had their mor tgages doubled from the point of view that they may be able to afford it.

Nobody can afford a doubl ing in a year-and-a-half if they're bud geti ng. HON . B. URU SKI: Mr. Chairman, ju st one small comme nt. Mr. Chai rman . when I said that "no one can afford" - and he can comment later on - if the me mber doesn't accept that if a family's in come exceeds the normal lending criteria where their mort gage payme nts exceed 30 percent of their gr oss in come. then they would be not in that great difficulty in terms of being able to absorb in creases in their mortgage rates.

But if their housing shelter costs exceed the 30 percenti le range of their in come , then they are the one s in the gr eatest need because that is pretty well the acceptable cut off limi t as to how mu ch of one 's in come should go towards shelt er.

If he doesn' t accept that and says to me, if I own a hous e while my mor tgage payment s are 10 percent of my in come and they've doubled and they now go to 20 percent of my in come, the mem ber is saying to me that notwithstan ding th at, I should receive assistance even though I'm sti ll well below the crit erion tha t is normally accepted by financial lending ins titutions to say that 30 percent is about the maxi mum that we will loan you money on in terms of your in come, towards your mor tgage payments.

If he is sayin g that we shou ld gi ve assistance to those who don' t reach that criter ia then of cour se, Mr. Chairman, I gu ess we have a difference of opinion there. I say that those people who do not reach that th re shold , while their mortgage pay ment s may have doubled, if they have sufficient in come to meet that in co me versus mor tgage payment ratio, then there's a di fference of opinion. MR. F. JOHN STON: Th ere's a very defin ite difference of opinion and ther e is no que stion about that.

I would take a young couple who have bud geted to buy a new home, both work in g, and felt that they could handle the mo rtgage very si ncerely and taking in to consid er ati on their family , their expenses and work ing their way up in the world, etc .. whatever it may be, but I am saying tha t in a year-and-a-half - and that's what this government forgot, comp letely forgot - that mort gages doubled in a year-and-a-half and put an awful lot of people in to very sincere probl ems and those are the people, all of them, who have got problems and the Min ister keeps relating the fact of 10 percent. 20 per cent.

I relate the fact that the mor tages dou bled, period, in a year-and-a-half and there has to be con sideration gi ven to them . 2925 If the Prov in cial Govern ment is going to gi ve con sider ation to assistance on mortgage rates because they went up too high , I think there has to be consid era tion on the basis of all mortgage rates that have been renewed and they have doubled in a year-and-a half. In other words, when you are paying $325 a mo nth and you went to $650 a month, are you tell ing me that those people are not look ing toward some sort of assistance?

Real ly, I'm not going to convinc e the Min ister because he's got his ideology on one particu lar prog ram; I have mi ne. I say that you have not taken in to consi dera tion the fact that the NOP Government has been critical of the in crease in in terest rates that have been caused in this countr y. The NOP keeps sayin g tha t we were in favour of in terest rates and th ey've never been able to show me anything where we were in favour of them. In fact, I have looked up the clauses in Hans ard that they referred to. I showed

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 them to the Me mber for ln kster one day by the pre vious Mi nis ter of Financ e, it doesn' t say that at all. -(I nterjec ti on)- Well, it's there to be read. Well, the Min ister of Res our ces, I will get him the clause and show it to him tomorrow. It was never said at any time that the Progressive Cons ervative Party in Manit oba was in favour of high in terest rates. It's jus t ano ther one of those state me nts tha t come s from the top of "say anything" and I can assur e you that's not what was sai d.

There was no favour itism by the Progressive Con servative Party in Man itoba about high int erest rates. We basically said when we got down to work ing on housing th at peo ple who had their mor tgages doubled, whoever they may be, shou ld prob ably need some help. Now, Mr. Chai rman, let me ju st comment by fin ish ing up, as sa ying th is, the program that you have for small busi ness - and I put in to this that ther e are 34 approved, 24 rejected, 17 6 appr ovals to come forward - are you really tel ling me that you are going to assist 80 perce nt of the busi nesses in this provi nce?

I bet you 80 percent of the busi nesses do less than $365,000 a year. Are you really un der this program, when you've only got 34 approved for $400,000 assist, 80 percent of the busine sses in this provi nce? I assur e you that you'r e not going to be doing it at all. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Min ister of Ec onomic Development. HON . M. SM ITH: Mr. Chairman, I' ve been tryi ng to get my head arou nd all the id eas tha t are floati ng arou nd, I kn ow ther e is one.

The mem ber opposite says I'm out of touch but I keep thinking back to what the me an ing of his co mm en ts are, that if you've had your int erest rates doub led or your mortgage costs doub led, it doesn't matter what your in come, it's hard and you shoul d be helped by govern ment. I gu ess I have two parts to the co mm ent s I'd like to make .

One is, I can't somehow accept that to have doub led your in come if you are over $30,000 a family, say, two young people with $20,000, $25,000 in come each, who experien ce a doub li ng of their mortgage rate, I can't someho w feel that their hards hip is on a par with some family that's under $30,000, say $20,000, and experie nces a do ubli ng of int erest rate on their housi ng because the kind of thing they're going to have to gi ve up is adequa te foo d.

It's maybe new boots and wint er cloth ing for their children, it's even bus fare, let alone a new car or a trip , wher eas people at the upper end, when they have an extra press ur e on their housi ng expenditur es, Mr . Chai rperso n, what they have to gi ve up is the special trip or the extra set of new clothes. It's so dis proportionate. It ju st doesn' t make sense to me, if you'r e in touch with the varieties of peo ple out there, the ra nge of in come tha t they actu ally earn, to say that do ubli ng of mortgage rates hi ts everybody equa lly, it seems to me qu ite lu dicrous.

The other comment I'd like to make is that I don' t kn ow whe ther the Con servatives ever sat down and said that they were in favour of high in terest rates. What I do think they have said, thou gh, is that if gov ernment would just back off a li ttle and get out of the way tha t somehow the market system would correct itself, that we would have prosperity again and every thing would be hun ky-dory .and yet, here we have high int erest rates.

I do n't he ar them saying, look at the que stion of why they have rapidly rising int erest rates, and ins tead of them wanting to hearken back to that gr eat corrective process of the mar ketplace, what are they calling for? They're calling for govern me nt- gov ernment hear this - to give hand outs to people at dcuble, trip le and quadrup le the rate that we would propose or feel we could afford. Someho w it seems to me that their logic goes off in two com pletely opposite dir ections and I don' t think it's ever going to meet.

I think their approach to the problem lacks any coherence and I fina lly decided tha t's why I'm ha ving dif ficulty making sense of it, so ins tead of sit ting her e scratch ing my head and trying to squ are the ci rcle, I'm ju st going to really sit back and rather feel sorry for the fact that they have such an in coherent and in consistent approach to the problem. I ju st did want to comment briefly, ther e was a refer ral earlier on to a civil servant. As I und erstand the proper procedur es in these co mm ittees, Mr.

Chair person, and in the Hous e, that we elected people take responsibility for programs as they're developed or no t developed and that we don' t name, blame, praise or whatever the civil servants, that we're respons ible for what we ask the m to do and for ap provi ng or dis approvi ng of what they propose, so I would ju st ask that it be noted in the record that it's inappr opria te to name a civil servant. I seem to be assisted here by the Member for Lakeside. -(l nterjec tio n)-A quo te from Mao, "But women hold up half the sky" - that's my favorite. I'll observe the quo tation at my leisu re, Mr.

Chairperson. 2926 I do submit tha t ther e may be a joke in tended her e, but that really the issue we're talk ing about is a serious issue. We're talk ing about money, access to hous ing, food, she lter and jobs. We have one analysis as to why we've got the problems and one set of pro posals to cur e them. I wish I could hear more from the other side about what their ana lysis is and what their pro posal is to impr ove it.

In ste ad, wha t we're get ting is -(I nterjec ti on)- but the point is there's an int egr ity to Opposition , wher e you don' t ju st attack from the left, the rig ht, the top, the botto m, inside out. I respect an Opposition that co mes from a consis tent point of view, takes the problem serious ly and the real suffer ing or life experien ces of people out ther e and attempts to adj ust those proble ms, even if they'r e not in a position to imp leme nt.

I welcome that kin d of constructive criticism, but I tell you, if I get com pletely contradic tory recom mend ations and ana lysis, I will cease to have mu ch respect for the role of the Opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Stur geon Creek. MR. F. JOHN STO N: Mr . Chairman, I will be very brief.

The last comm ents of the Min ister reg ar ding the com me nts of mine about a civil servant - usually we are criticized because we are critic al of a civil servan t ! thought I was very com plime ntary of that civil ser vant and I would conti nue to be com plimentary of that particular person or man, never mind this person bus in ess. What the Mi nis ter has been saying regar ding housi ng, she doesn't really care about anybody get ting ahead in this world. Ther e are young people who have decided to move ahead in the world, they bo ught

Tuesday, 1J une, 19 82 a ho use, they bud geted, they kn ew that they were going to have to work hard for four or five years to be able to get thems elves on a plane , that they could afford it, and all of a sudden in a year-and-a-half mort gage rates do ubled and it put them in a position of either having to fall back. The Minis ter's state ments really say to me that nobody should try to get ahead in this world.

We wouldn't be sitti ng here today talkin g about mortgage rates, we wouldn't be sitti ng here talking about assis tance for mor tgage rates to people in the Prov in ce of Mani toba if in terest rates hadn' t doubled in a year an d-a-half. It doub led; it was an emer gency situation that everybody was in volved in and everybody got hur t by.

The only people who did n't get hur t by it are old dogs lik e me who haven't got a mortgage. - (I nter ject ion )- I tell you this very sincerely, ther e's a hell of a lot of young people out there today that tried to get ah ead in the world , tried to make their little ni che in life a little bit better because they worked hard to do so and got their mor tgage rates doubled and that wasn't taken in to consid eration, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I' d lik e to ask, whi chever Mi ni ster is prepared to answer , how the fig ur e of $350,000 gr oss sales was arrived at as a means of deli neati ng between those busin esses that should qual ify for assistance and those that shou ldn't? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter of Eco nomic Development. HON. M. SMITH: That figur e was arrived at by the latest in co me tax figur es for earn in gs for the busi ness sector and was in extrapolation from the data availa ble.

We did say, when describ ing the small bus i ness program, that it was the program where data was most di ffic ult to obtain and we did get the co-operat ion of the banks in giving us qu ite accurate in forma tion. We've made the best gue ss we can on the basis of data available. We looked at a cu toff, as I said, the 80 per cent of small busi ne sses do have gr oss earn ings of $350 ,000 or un der. In designing the program we did n't expect 10 0 percent take -up; there is another percent of expe cted tak e-up , so it was a sort of progressive desi gn. MR. G. FILMON: That's helpful, Mr.

Chairman, I think we're on to someth ing; 80 percent of the busin esses in Man itoba have gross ear nin gs of $350,000 or less or gr oss in comes of $350,000 or less? HON . M. SMITH: Gr oss sales. MR. G. FILM ON: Gr oss sales, okay. Does the Min ister sugge st that the relationship between gr oss in come or net in co me is the same in all busi nesses for whom the gross sales are $350,000.00? HON . M. SMITH: I'm not sur e that I heard all of your qu estion. The gr oss sales fig ur e - we used the data from the Mani toba Bu siness Register. MR. G. FILMON: Sorry, Mr . Chairman, may I just repeat that?

Does the Min ister sug gest that the rela tionsh ip between gr oss in come and net in come will be appr oxi mately the same among all busin esses for whom the gross sales is $350,000.00? HON. M. SMITH: No, but it was felt that was one of the criteria tha t cou ld be looked at by the board because the financial dis tress criteria would help deal with some of the other variables. MR. G. FILMON: Can the Min ister tell me, or her staff advisers, what is consid ered to be the gr oss sales for, say, a travel agency?

Is it the total amount of travel that they book through the agency or is it the total amount of co mmi ssions that they rece ive? -(I nter jection )- HON. M. SMITH: That's precisely the point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The Minis ter of Eco nomic Developme nt. HON. M. SMITH: The defi nition that we're usi ng would be the total travel sales. We'd be using the same meas urement s that are be ing used in the In come Tax and the Busi ness Regis ter because that was the basis on wh ich 80 percent was ... MR. G.

FILMON: Okay, well, that's very in teres ting because I just want to point out the real weak nesses and pitfalls of the manner that they've taken as a very very broad brush sort of gr oss view of the busine ss. If she were to use the figur e of the total travel that an agency booked as the gr oss sales that agency, out of $350 ,000 of travel booked, would only receive $35,000 to pay the entir e cost of its rent, its ligh t, heat, power, utilit ies, salaries and everyth ing else. So ther e is no agenc y shor t of a one person opera tion that cou ld possibly qualif y for any assistance in this provinc e,

whereas presumably if . . MR. CHAIR MAN: Order, order. The Mem ber for Tuxedo. 2927 MR. G. FILMON: I think th e Min ister asked for some valid assessment and analysis of her program and I'm trying to do that in as rational a manner as I can. If they used, for ins tance, the total amount of insur ance that somebody sold - like somebody sold me one policy for coverage of all of my busine ss holdin gs, so on and so forth, for $400,000 for which the comm ission migh t be $1 ,000 - if they used tha t as the basis then one policy wo uld elimi nate all of the insu rance ...

Now, I don' t assume that they did th at, I wou ld assume that they wo uld consider that the gr oss sales of an insur ance agency would be the gross comm issions , okay. So I'm saying to you that ther e's a vast di fference because now we have an insur ance agency whose gr oss com missions are $350 ,000 as the limi ting factor for whether or not it's eli gi ble for assistance and, if so, then you'r e talkin g about a very substantial agency that migh t em ploy a dozen people, have a ni ce downtown office and all sorts of other amen ities, so ther e's an entir ely dif ferent appr oach.

If you then take that in to a com parison between a store in a mall such as Polo Park that is selling blue jeans, try and use the gr oss sales

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 figure of $350,000 and eq uate that to what they migh t be paying. you migh t find an entirely di fferent aspect of profi tab ility of busine ss or net in come. What I'm saying to you is that the figur e of $350,000 is a tot ally unr ealis tic yards tick to apply on a broad brush basis to everybody for the basis of comparison or decisions as to whether or not they receive assist ance. Mor e particularly, it probably elimi nates the very pe9ple who should be in consid eration for assis tance today because it's the people who. in order to stay in busi ness. have to carry an inventory.

So if you'r e using an agenc y in come. such as an insur anc e agency, wher e they carry no in come, wher e ther e really is very little ju stification for them having any bank loan wha tsoever. You may be giving them help because they carry a small opera ting loan, but you may be ignor i ng the very people who have to carry inventor y in order to have their very lifeblood exist ence. and in fact I susp ect that you are.

In fact, I sus pect that the criteria by virtue of the $350,000 as a gross figur e and a broad-brush approach will virtually ensur e that people in retail and whole sale busi nesses. who should reaso nably expect to have some assistance, because now it's the cost of their carr ying an inv ent ory which has double d by virtue of the in terest rates doubling in a year-and-a-half, that has seen so many of them go out of busi ness.

That's why all the stores on Portag e Avenue are closing their doors and I'm sorry for exaggera ting. why I mean signi ficant numb ers of stores on Portage Aven ue, sig ni ficant numb ers of stores and retail busine sses. jean stores and on and on and on. hardwares and agri bus i ness. car dealers hips, machin ery dealer ships, fertil izer sales and so on and so forth, anyb ody who carries inventory of any sort is now faced with a massive problem that has chan ged drama tically in a year-and a-half .

I say that your program doesn' t add ress that whatsoever by virtue of that 350,000 cut off and the people who are going to get assistance under it are probably people who should n' t have bank loans for any justi fiable reason, for the most part anyway. MR. CHAI RM AN: The Minis ter of Econ omic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Well. until the last comment I was really appr ecia ting the thoug htful analysis from the Member for Tuxedo. but the last comment has left me qui te astoni shed .

He's really sayi ng that 80 percent of the small busi nesses in Manit oba really shouldn't sur vive the cur rent dif ficult ti mes. -(I nter jection )- Well. he said tha t the one s that come un der the $350,000 shouldn' t get help from banks. No w. we're addr essi ng the problem of 80 percent of the firms by numb er. mo st of which we kn ow will have fewer than four emplo yees. The reason they were selected as the gr oup that had the gr eatest trouble was because they have had more difficu lty get ting loans from banks; they don' t qual ify for Small Busi ness Development Bon d.

Now in fact. of the gr oup that we have been appro ving, we have the whole range of types of busine ss. admit tedly the small ones. Now when it come s to the larger on es. we know the program is broad brush. that it isn't refined in terms of selecting all the variations that the Mem ber for Tuxedo has qui te help fu lly identified. That is one reason why we have put in a board. to build in some of that analy sis and dis creti onar y power.

We've asked the board to very care fully iden tify for us what the un met needs are of the people who don' t qual ify un der the cur rent criteria, so we can either vary the criteria or start to design other programs to meet their needs. We kn ow that we're seei ng many of the bank rupt cie s that are occur ring now aren't because of poor management. they're caught in the whole chain of events with high in ventory costs.

But fran kly, that is why we've been critical of a marketplace economic structur e and why we've been tryin g to put in place a more plan ned economy where we can trim off some of these ups and downs and plan things out over a longer period of time so that no body, no firm, no hous e holder or no farmer should have to go thr ough dou bling int erest rates in a year. or extraord in arily high inventory costs because someone down the line insi sts that they carry high inventory and so the would-be pu rchasers don't have enough mo ney in their pockets.

That's our whole criticism of a system that has buil t in to it. recession and boom as part of its very nature. Our whole economic critique is that that's a very in hum an. un fair, unr eliable and una cceptable eco nomic system. That's why we are doing the emer gency programs, beefi ng up our sti mulus to the econ omy type programs, our public investment. dur ing this period of time and put ti ng in place as qui ckly as we're able, som!'! structural chan ges in the eco nomy . but we can't convert from what is by and large a market economy to a mor e stable, balanced economy overnigh t.

We're doing what we can in as care fully though t out and respon sible way as we can. MR. G. FILMON: Well. I can assur e the Mi nis ter that they can' t convert the economy until they under stand it and they obviously don' t und erstand it by virtue of thei r progr am. which takes such a ridiculous prime criterion that doesn't make any sense whatsoever and demons trates a total lack of und erst anding of who in the marketplace is having di ffi cult y and why.

All you had to do was talk to any body in busi ness and they would have told you that. 2928 How many people have qu alified for assistance un der that - I kn ow the figur e was gi ven earl ier and I've lost my notes - under the Small Busine ss ... MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter of Agricultur e. HON. B. URU SKI: Mr . Chairman, 34. MR. G. FILMON: 34. and what's the pay out? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter of Economic Developme nt. HON. M. SMITH: The actual pay ou t is 13 9,000.00.

Well. of that. $200,000 will be when people qual ify for thei r second and thir d in stallment and they can reapply for a second year. so that's the equiv alent of 400,000.00. Now. the program is sti ll escalating in the nu mb er of applications comi ng in and the nu mb er that are pro cessed. When we hit a tapering point, we will then assess whether we have made our criteria too nar row

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 or not. MR. G. FILMON: Can the Mini ster gi ve us some indi cat ion of what types of busi nesses those 34 busi nesses are in? HON. M. SMITH: My staff in form me that we have the full range of variety. We have had some clothing con cerns, man ufac turing of cabinets and machin ery, hote ls, construction, restaurants, plumbing busine ss, grocery stores. So we're get ting qui te a mix. MR. G. FILMON: Where do you have retail busine sses in there? How many retail busi nesses do you have or how many whole sale busi nesses do you have, both? HON. M.

SMITH: I don' t have the breakdown that fine, but I can und ertake to get it for you. MR. G. FILMON: Well, it seems to me, Mr . Chairman, that there's an obvi ous weakness in there. Did the Minis ter say that ther e would be $400,000 payable to the 34 busine sses that have qu alified? HON. M. SMITH: Pote ntially, if they reapply for the second year of the program. MR. G. FILMON: So that on average, these busi nesses are getting some thing over $1 2,000, say? HON. M. SMITH: $6,000 a year is the ma ximum. MR. G. FILMON: Well, I would sug gest, Mr.

Chair man, with all due respect, tha t this is a program that is not aimed at the target that is and should expect to be in di fficulty and should be expected to be in di fficu lty beca use of precisely what I said. The busi nesses that are in di fficult y are those that have to carry inventory.

The one s that have been named, aside from the clothing concern - and I don' t kn ow in what manner that person is in the clothing busine ss - it seems to me that they are not busi nesses that are carr ying invent ories and that's the whole crux of the problem in the marketpla ce today, is you can't be in busi ness at retail or wholesale level unl ess you have a selection of goods to offer your customers. You can't have an em pty store and say, what do you want, I'll order it in. It just doesn' t work. The refore, if you have to have some inventory on hand, it has to cost you int erest.

If it cost you so mu ch last year or a year-and-a-half ago, it's double today and that's the di fference between be ing in busi ness and bei ng out of busine ss for 99 percent of those people who are hav ing di fficulty. That is wher e they've entir ely mis sed the ma rket with this program and I suggest that it is going to have to be shor ed up, entir ely changed and the criteria are going to have to be set to fit the need in the ma rket place, not to fit some convenie nt figur e that's taken ou t of the gr oss returns that are available from the compu ter in Man itoba.

I can't believe that a program wou ld be structu red based on such a simp le premis e. That's all I have to say. I think it's totally in effective. HON . M. SMITH: Yes. Well, I don' t kn ow whether the Memb er for Tux edo has a recomme ndation for what he wou ld do. We said that we were going to enable the smaller busi nesses who have no other method of assistance to get some lifeline for a whi le. With some of the larger one s that have inventory problems, in some cases we've been able to help them refinance because of kn owi ng a few more of the ropes, as it were, in terms of where they can go.

In some cases, by helping them to manage their in ventory a little better, you can provide another bit of assistance.

The combi nation of where we, ins tead of back ing off in the economy wher e we've raised minimum wage, kept our social services going, in creased our public investment by 40 percent and have done some straight eco nomic sti mulu s thi ngs, we feel the combi nation of those economic measu res, as well as some redis tributiv e work through the tax system, is the best that we can do in the cu rrent eco nomi c situation, but we see as the problem the un derlying economi c sys tem that we're operati ng und er, at least in its unp lanned aspects of it.

So, as I say, I think our analysis and our appr oach to the longer term problems hangs together and has some toughne ss and in tegrity to it, but we don't und erestimate the size, the com plexity, the di ffi cu lty of the problem we're dealing with. Of cou rse, it's enormous. MR. G. FILMON: Mr . Chairman, I wonder if I could ask whichever Min ister chooses to answer, how many applications have been approved under the housing component of the scheme. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mi nis ter re sponsible for Housi ng. HON. A. MA CKLING: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, 430 appli cations have been received; 118 approved; 60 not approved; 252 still in process. MR. G. FILMON: What is the amount that has been comm itted of the 118 approved? HON. A. MACKLING: The amou nt in dollars? 2929 MR. G. FILMON: Yes, for the fir st year, I suppose. HON. A. MACK LING: Well, I don' t kn ow whether we can project that, whether we have the dollar figur e on that. You kn ow there's so mu ch per month and then if the projection is for the year ... MR. G. FILMON: There's 12 months in a year. HON. A.

MA CKLING: If the 118 that have been appr oved are on the program for a full two years, that would inv olve $350,000.00. MR. G. FILMON: I believe that the Mi nis ter of Agr icu l tur e in earl ier address ing the magnitude of this pro gr am ind icated that the un iverse that were elig ible in the governme nt's view, within the criteria that have been structured, is 5,800 to 5,900 home owner s. Is that correct? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Min ister.

HON. B. UR USKI: That's if ther e was a full take -up under the program at an in terest rate of 18 .25 percent. MR. G. FILMON: Well, I think the Min ister said that ther e were 5,8 00 home owners who were eli gi ble. Is that true or is that not true? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairm an, I gave the me mber the exact figur e in terms of how many would be eligi ble at that in terest rate that I gave him.

Depending where int erest rates are, it co uld vary anywher e from 3,000 to 8,000, dependin g wher e the in terest rates wou ld go at any point in time in terms of the program, but at an 18 .2 5 percent in terest rate, I gave him the figur e of between 5,800 and 5,9 00. That is correct. MR. G. FILMON: What does the Minis ter consider is the oper ative in terest rate today? HON. B. URU SKI: In and ar ound between 18 and 18 .5 percent. MR. G. FILMON: You're sayi ng at today's in terest rate, it's 5,800 to 5, 900 people eli gi ble and that we have approved 11 8 and we've received 480 applications, okay.

Ther e's kink s in every program says the Member for Dauphin. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Chairman, the me mber should kn ow that there have been 4,000 applications sent out. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you for that in formati on, Mr. Chai rman. We've got several of them that we ordered for people in our caucus roo m. At what int erest rate wou ld ther e be 8,000 people eligi ble for assistance under the plan? MR. CHAIRM AN: Mr. Min ister. Could you repeat the que stion please? HON. B. URUSKI: I'm sorry I di dn't hear you. MR. G.

FILMON: Earl ier he talked about between 3,000 and 8,000 depending on, I think , in terest rates and other factors. What factors would make 8,000 people eligi ble for assistance under the plan? HON. B. URUSKI: Well, the in terest rate would be at least 20 percent or more during the two-year period and over the whole period. MR. G. FILMON: 20 percent, okay, and was the 350,000 projected figur e for two years? HON. B. URU SKI: Yes. MR. G.

FILMON: So, if 11 8 approvals commi t $350,000 worth of fu nds, some body with a calculator could assist me as to what 5,900 approvals would co mm it and I sugg est that it is well beyond anything ... HON. B. URU SKI: Mr . Chairman, the member should realize that of thos e applica tions tha t are he re, these are probably the har dship cases in terms of the cases in gr eatest need, that everyo ne won't receive the max imum benefit or that benefit, but it will vary some - 1 June, 19 82 wher e between the ra nge of a minimum of $10 a month in terms of elig ibil ity to the maxi mum of $275 per month. MR. G.

FILMON: Mr . Chairm an , is that because the har dship cases have been selected fir st out of the 480 that have applied or why? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mi nis ter responsible for Housing. HON. A. MACKLI NG: Well, Mr . Chairman, obviously the hards hip cases are the one s that are going to be on our door step fir st. They're the one s whose home s are th reatened with fore closur e if we don't act and the program is wor kin g in respect to 11 8 applicants who'd otherwise be in trouble. Now I do n't see why he should be critical of that progr am. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairma n, I'm not be ing critical.

I'm tryi ng to elicit reasonable inf ormation so I can make my analysis of what's happ ening. HON. A. MACKLI NG: Mr. Chairman, why I used the term 'critical' earl ier on in respect to this same debate, he talked abo ut our programs be ing in flationary. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chair man, I'm glad that the Min ister has repeated that false statement that was earl ier made by the Minis ter of Agr icultur e. I did not refer to this program as being inf lationary.

I referred to this govern ment 's Estima tes as be ing inf lationary beca use they are 18 percent over last year's expenditur es and will ine vitably, with the settlement of the MGE A and the doctors thr own in , be 20 percent over.

I regard anybody, whether they be busine ss, perso nal life, or a government that says that they're going to spend 20 percent more this year than they did last year as bei ng in flationary and governme nts, as leaders who are try ing to convinc e people that they should live with in their means, going over the CPI by over 7 percent in one year, are abso lutely be ing inf lation ary and ir res ponsible in th eir spending , there is no que stion abo ut tha t, but I am not singlin g out this program as being in flationary.

This may be one of the programs that I think has some merit depending on how it's run. 2930 Now, get ting back to the point at hand, Mr. Chair man, I wou ld think tha t if the Minis ter would check with his department he would find that the appli cants who applied for SAFER and SAFFR did not necessar ily come in, in tho se who were eligi ble for the maxi mum amou nts fir st. I don' t think that had mu ch to do with it; it had to do with their kno wledge of the pro gr am, their kn owledge of the eligibili ty process, their kno wledge of the application process, so on and so forth.

It wasn't automa tic ally th ose who were in grea test need who applie d first. In fact, we had the whole range of people who were elig ible fro m a matter of $5 up to a matter of the ma ximum per month all the way thr ou gh the progr am and they came in random form . So I don' t think that the Minis ter's sugg estion that, ergo, because the fir st 11 8 came in and the 350,000, all the rest will be very min imal. That's not so at all and they won't even tail off in terms of their need. Ther e will sti ll be people in need a year from now who find out that they are eli gi ble for the prog ram, they meet

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 the criteria, so on and so forth. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter respons ible for Housing. HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr . Chairman, that's why I will not be crit ical of the previous governme nt when it spent money advertising this SAFFR and the SAFER Progr ams. We have spent mo ney advertising the Interest Rate Relief Prog rams and I trus t that mone y won' t be criticized as inf lationary spending and so on because we think that people have to kn ow about these programs.

It's true that a lot of people don' t kn ow about their entit lement to the programs, but the point tha t we make is that the people who are thr ea tened with the loss of their home, they find out about the progr am because we are giving the inf ormation to the banks and the lendin g in stitutions when the mort gage is be ing demanded. We are doing our best to get to the people who are in trouble; we are deali ng with the crisis cases in those num bers and the dollar take up is mu ch high er.

It's true ther e will be people that may be entit led to some margi nal relief righ t no w that aren't get ting it, but the design of this who le program in all th ree areas is to help people who are otherwise going to lose their assets because of the crit ical high int erest rates. We th ink the prog ram is be ing very successful to that extent. It's certainly not going to help everyone to the extent that we would all like because we're limi ted in fund s. MR. G. FILMON: Mr . Chai rman, I sug gest that the governme nt's figur es of 5,800 to 5,9 00 are a horrib le exaggera tion .

I sug gest that the criteria will not necessarily ensur e that those who should deserve assistance in preventing them from losing their home s will get the assistance. I sugg est that there will be pits, loopho les and cracks that people will fall between as a result of the criteria that have been laid out that will cause a problem. We'll gi ve it the oppor tun ity to prove its me rits as the year goes by but I believe that, based on the ini tial returns, ther e are proble ms showi ng up.

I would hope that this government will be alert to the problems and ensur e that in their desir e to show how mu ch they are doing they haven' t ign ored the people who really deserve assistance. HON. A. MACKL ING: Mr. Chairma n, I kn ow that in the estima tes that were provided by the previous ad min istration in respect to SAFER and SAFFR, the y estimated that ther e would be mu ch greater take- up, but the estima tes were never reac hed bec ause, although the nu mbers may be rig ht, the people don' t kno w about the progr am. I'm not critici zing the media; I'm no t criticizi ng anyone.

Some people just don't learn about these programs and it takes a good deal of govern ment concern thr ough conti nued advertising to get across to people these programs are there. As I say, I'm not criti cal, I'm not crit ical about what hap pened with the previo us ad minis trati on's advertising or the fact that all of the expected take -up, what did n't occur in respect to SAFFR and SAFER , and I don' t think that we should be su persensit ive about not a full take -up, at this time, of Inter est Rate Relief Prog rams. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr . Chairman.

I was promp ted to want to get in to the debate because of the point of clarifica tion be ing made by the Minis ter of Economi c Devel opment but, sinc e that point in time, let me sim ply put a few observa tions on the record from back home at the ranch. Mr. Chairman, if the government and the Min isters involved are sensitiv e or feel that the Oppo sition is bei ng unr ealistic or ind eed un reasona ble in their expectat ions of the kind of help tha t farmers. home owners. busine sses, were led to believe would be available to them un der this program then, Mr.

Chai rman, let there be no misund erstanding about why. My colleag ue, the Mem ber for Pembi na . prior to the su pper hour adj ournment got in to a li ttle bit of a hassle her e. It wasn' t his words that he was using, he was reading and repeating document ed stateme nts made by the New De mocratic Party, by their spokes man. by prin ci pally their Leader, now Premier, in what I would have to say, in my 16 , 17 years of politics, su rpasses by far the most blatant prom ises made in any of the five elect ions that I've been in volved in by a politic al party seeking office. 2931 Mr.

Chairman, the docu ment ation was there. I appreciate what takes place during elect ion cam paigns , but ther e was none of the program develop ment tak ing place or explained that would take place, as we're now heari ng from the di fferent Minis ters explaining the lim ita tions of the program. in fact, some of the mechan ical problems in admin istra ting these programs as poi nted out very capably by the Me mber for Tuxedo. No, Mr.

Chairman, they were very straig htforward compr ehen sive state me nts, not abo ut talk ing as the Minis ter of Eco nomic Develop ment now says about reaching a percentage of people in trouble. By the way, we assume, so readily and so easi ly, her figur es of percentages -80 percent of the busine sses that are in trouble, 70 percent of the farmers having troub les. We haven't asked, I suppose we could start.

I think the Me mber for Tux edo in a very short qu esti oning period showed how qu estiona ble the use of those kind of figur es can be, the kind of data base that the Mini ster has used in the form ulation of this program in terms of reaching those people in need. Mr . Chairman, I' m not going to argue those figu res, I just simp ly mentioned that's que stiona ble to beg in with. Even then - I have to come to this point- she says but it was never our in tent to help those people who were frien dly to us. -(I nter jec tion )- That's exactly what she said and her clarification only reiter ated that. That, Mr.

Chairman, un fortuna tely remi nds of - (In ter jection)- no. no -(Int erjec tion)- I sat in the Hous e, and the public record and the Hans ard will show wher e a Leader of the New Demo cratic Party, a Premier of this province, says I don' t want any repres entation from south of the river. I don' t want any of those people in the south west corner of Man itoba; I don't want anybody represented by the gold dust twins of River Heig hts, were the actual phr ases used by a Premier and Leader of the New Demo cratic Party.

That's the kin d of garbage that even in a mother ly way, I get from the Min ister of Eco nomi c Development. -( Inter jec tion)- Yes. you may have to qua lify that a little bit, but Hans ard will show that she said that it was

our fault that we perhaps, associate with that 20 or 30 percent of farmer s who are in ju st as gr eat trouble, whose busine sses are going ba nkr upt, whose farms are be ing lost because of hi gh int erest rates, but because the y happen to be frien dly to us and because their sales are over $70,000.00. Mr. Chairman, Hans ard will record what the Min ister has said, not on ce, but then has, on a point of order, on a point of clarifi ca tion, took a point in time to try to clarif y it. Mr. Chair man, that's fi ne, that's not at issue here.

What is at issue is the points raised by my colleag ue, the Mem ber for Pembi na. It was on that basis that the New Demo cratic Party went to the election in November of this year. It was that material that was mailed to every hou seholder in my constituency that said that every ho me, that every farm, that every busi ness wo uld be saved from the ravages of high in ter est rates. Mr. Chairman, it went fur ther than tha t, it sai d: "We will not need higher taxation or a 1. 5 payroll tax to fund that.

The profits of Man Oil, that we've yet to create, is going to do tha t; the profits of Hydr o that is now repor ting and te lling the governme nt that they are looking at a $60 mill ion - $70 mill ion deficit is going to fund the mo ney for that govern ment." That is the kin d of no nsens e and ir responsible electioneeri ng that took place in an election that I'll remind you, Mr. Chairma n, wher e the decision was decided by a mere th ree percentage point s of the popular vote; 44 per cent voted Con servative, 47 percent voted NOP . Mr .

Ch ai rman, I make the case that, at a time of acute frustration in the gen eral popu lation, at a time of hards hip , at a time when people are going ba nkru pt, at a time wher e busine sses are being lost, tho se kind of prom ises su rely have a ring of hop e and a ring of faith and certai nly, in my ju dgment , infl uenc ed a goodly num ber of voters, as well they should. Mr. Chair man, I won't abuse the privi lege, but I could go beyond that. They made other outrageous prom ises. They made prom ises that said that no one will be laid off in this Pr ovince of Man itoba without 12 months' notice.

That is such a non sensical, ir respon sible prom ise when memb ers opposite say: "Well what are you promising?" I can tell you, we never made those kin d of promis es. (I nterjec tion )- We had no deal sig ned as you kno w. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, do I have the floor? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ENNS: We said that we hop ed that with the major development taking place with Alcan , with Lime stone, with potash, that some of our problems could be resolved. Read the literature.

We did not say that no busin ess was going to go ban kru pt, nobody was going to be laid off without 12 mon ths' notice, that no farmer was going to lose his farm. Sir , we di dn 't make those kind of prom ises. Those kind of prom ises were be ing made by this present government and they're going to have to live with them. Like my dear aunt , who is waiti ng for me to pass the rent control bill, because she's assured that, for the next four years, like the Hydr o freeze, ther e will be no in crease in rental rates anywher e in Winni peg, and I will be there to remind 1J une, 19 82 her of that.

That is the expectation of this govern ment , no 9 percent, no 4 percent, there will not be a 2 percent raise in housing costs once we pass that bill. That is the expectation that you have raised and our job will be to keep you hone st about that. -(l nterjec tion) Tha t is a matter of percepti on. Unf ortunately the Rent Con trol Program that was well adm in istered by my colleague, the former Min ister responsible for Hous ing tha t, in effect, and it can be stated, kept rental rate in creases reasonable in this provinc e during the last two years.

Ther e were exceptions, there were problems, there were ano mal ies, but, Mr. Chairman, I will ch allenge me mbers opposite at any time to check the record of those ju risdictions that have, in fact, the kind of rigid rent control legislation in place, as com pared to the record that took place in Mani toba du ring these years, and we' ll match that four years from now as to the kin d of rent in creases that take place under the rent control laws. Unfortunately we fell victi m to the politics of the busine ss because, in the perception of the people, rent contr ol meant freeze.

Ren t through arbitration, the di fferent other processes that we set, meant no control. Mr . Chai rman, I'm not be ing unfair. I kn ow exactly what has to be done but I'm tel ling you, that's what the perception is out there. My job, as a politi cian, is going to be to simp ly rei nforce that. Mr. Chairman, it is these kin ds of prom ises, the kind of prom ises that we have in this program, that has led to a level of exP.ectati on that is entir ely out of touch with reali ty, that is going to ensur e that this admin is tration will be the second one -term admin istration in the Pro vinc e of Man itoba. MR.

CHAIRM AN: The Member for Arth ur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, some commen ts that were made some time earl ier in this Comm itee gave me reason to ask a qu estion of the Minis ter of Econ omic Developmen t. At the par ticular time that the co mme nts were made the Premier was in the Commit tee at that time and seemed to support and reiter ate the kind of comme nts that were made. I don't kn ow if they really got on the record but it's a qu estion that I have; it's a fairly int eres ting concept.

A comment was made that one of the reasons the minimum wage was raised in the Provi nce of Man itoba, that that was a major sti mulu s to the economy. Could the Min ister of Eco nomic Developmen t fur ther back that up, and cor rect me if I have a misun derst anding , tha t she really believes that the inc reas ing of the minimum wage is a major sti mulu s to the economy? MR. CHAIR MAN: Madame Minis ter. 2932 HON. M.

SMITH: The raisi ng of the minimum wage provides a sti mulu s to the economy because the mo ney in the pockets of the people who receive it is im med iately spent on rent and food and cloth ing and transportation and all the necessities of life. This pro vides the very sti mulu s that the Me mber for Stur geon Creek was saying that he wanted for small busin ess. He wanted disp osable inc ome in the pockets of peo ple so the y would spend it at small busine ss. It's not the only way an economy can be sti mula ted but it has the virtue, not only of sti mu lati ng the eco nomy but of

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 assisting in meeting their basic needs. The very peo ple wh o have the most difficulty with it and that's one of our prime goals for being in government because we feel those are the people who deserve, by their daily labours, the contr ibution of their time and ener gy at whatever work they perform, to have some share of what the economy produces; so tha t's our view of what the interrelationship of incr easing min imum wage to some stimulus in the economy.

It's not the only kind of stimul us; it's not a large one but, qua litatively it's very im portant, partic ularly to those people who receive it. MR. J. DOWN EY: Mr. Cha irman, that being the case, that the Minister sub scribes to the principle that a raising of the minim um wage is a major stim ulu s to the economy, then why wou ld the Minister rest rict the increase in the min imum wage to such a small amou nt? Why didn't she see and why hasn' t she giving a lot larger incr ease to the min imum wage?

I think it's the objective of the New Democratic Party to increase the economy and stimu late the eco nomy; why wo uld she sub scribe to such a lower rate? I can't under stand it. She is, I am su re, a Minister of Econo mic Develop ment and stimul ation, as the Minister of Natural Resou rces said. If that is the principle she sub scribes to then why would she not increase the min imum wage even higher if that's the principle? MR. CHAIRM AN: I think you were getting off track here. MR. J. DOWNEY: I agree, Mr. Cha irman, I have one other que stion. MR. CHAIRMAN: One other qu estio n? MR. J.

DOWNEY: But I think that's some thing that I think the Minister should ... MR. CHAI RMAN: Possibly at a different time. MR. J. DOWNEY : . . . think she's making that kind of a statement and reassess her principle. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Does the Me mber for Arthur have another que stion? MR. J. DOWN EY: One of the other conc erns that I have, Mr . Cha irman, and that is that the Minister of Economic Development has indi cated that there are 70 perce nt of the farmers eligible for this parti cular Interest Rate Relief Program and that some 80 percent of the small businesses are eligible for this progra m.

That being the case, why was there jus t $1 O million put in the program? As my colleague , the Member for River Heights, in dicated that 5,800 people or small busin esses - I'm sorry - home owner s wou ld qu alify, 70 percent of the farmer s, that being 20,000, approxi mate ly 21 ,000 people would qu alify. How many small businesses? I can't, for the life of me, fig ur e out how they could introduce a program with a good intent and meaning to su pport people with high interest rates and now asking for $10 mil lion . Something doesn't match up.

I, again, go back and what is supporting is what my colleague for Lakeside said, that the Me mber for Pemb ina has said, tha t we have seen a maj or mislead ing of the people of Mani toba. With the comm en ts they are making, they're saying publicly 70 percent of the farmers, 80 percent of the homeowners and wha t ever percentage of the small businesses are eligible for the program - make publi c, it's been talked about her e all night.

Yet we're only voting $10 mil lion and it's really perpetuating what I said earlier in Com mittee, perpetuating the kind of misleading statement s tha t were made dur ing the cam paig n. Here we are, as a Legisl ative Commi ttee, sup porting the New Demo crats and they're misleading. I'm real ly upset about it, Mr . Cha irman, because it is not in the best interests of Mani tobans. It's not in the best interests of the secu rity of those people wh o would have to do other things to find financial supp ort when their mor tgage doubles.

It's not good leadership when it comes to a farmer who is expecting supp ort when he's going to lose his farm; he shou ld be now. I have to leave this Com mittee and say don't live in hopes of the government helping them because there is no help. By the time you get thr ough the bu reau cratic red tape, find out that there aren't any funds .ther e after you do go through the hoops, why mislead them? Why not come out with a state ment? The Minis ter of Eco nom ic Development has asked for some positive criticism and I'm saying, why is she cont inu ally telling them that there is su pport?

Why is she sayi ng, "I'm sorry, it's a last-ditch approach; we have enough mo ney to serve 250 farmers; we have enough money to help 250 small business people and 250 home owners and that's it; we've almo st reached our quo ta to use up the $10 million? " Why doesn't she do that? 2933 The Minister of Agr icultur e - and I warned him ear lier, I said the worst thing he could do was to mislead the farmers and lose the faith of the farm co mmu nity. He's already done it -(I nter jecti on)- no, he's done that in the farm comm unity with the Beef Prog ram; he's done it with the Inter est Rate Relief Prog ram.

The Ministers are asking for construc tive critic ism. What I'm saying is come out with a state ment saying our Inte rest Rate Relief Program is used up; there are no mor e funds. We have enough applicatio ns, the rest of you can ju st go fi nd funds elsewhere. Now I have no problem with that but come clean, admi t that the Interest Rate Relief Program that they introduced falls far shor t of what their election promi se was. It falls fur ther short of what the real problems are; it has been docu me nted her e tonight.

It falls far shor t of really being of any meanin gfu l support to the farm com mun ity, to the smal l business co mmu nity and to the home owner. It isn't a program of any meaningful ness to anyone in any sense of word that is going to help them. So that's what I would sugg est and ask the Minister if she wouldn 't do and the Minister of Agr icultu re, too. I think the small business commu nity, the homeowners and the Minister of Agricultu re, I think all those people who come within those ju risdictio ns, should be told tonig ht.

They should be told in a press state ment tomo rrow, we have used up the funds tha t are availa ble. Sorry, we were un able to help you in the way in which we assessed or thought we cou ld -(In ter jecti on)- well, she's asked for mean ingful critic isms

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 and sug gestions. I'm tr ying to help her, I really am and I'm si ncere, particu larly the Min ister of Agriculture, because I'll tell you, they won't forget. I'm sorry I have to bri ng this to their atte ntion - come straight forward and tell them that the program you 've in troduced falls far short of your election prom ise, even falls far shor ter than even attemp ting to scratch the sur face in atte mpting to help the problem that is created by high in terest rates and make a state ment tomorrow.

I think that the Mi nis ter who asked for the constructive criti cism would be held in a better light. There's one other comment I have that I think is worth co mm enting on and that is a comment the Min ister of Ag riculture has made. He's made the comm ent that the Federal Gover nmen t's Small Busi ness Devel opment Loan is a program that's in place to help the farm com mu nity. I, Mr. Chairman, challenge or request that the Min ister of Agricul tur e use his office, fir st of all, to find out how many Mani toba farmers have been assisted with the Sma ll Busine ss Development Bond.

How many have been helped, nu mber one? How many people has he made representa tion to, to the Federal Minis ter of Agricul tur e? Because I don' t kn ow specific ally of any farmers in the last six months or a year that have received assistance through that pro gr am? The Min ister of Agr icultur e feder ally stands up and he says, my answer - after he bashes at the ba nks and after he has a go at Bill Davis because of the agr icul tur al problems in Ont ario - they are now Bill Davis's proble ms and fir st they were the banks and they were everybody else's. Mr.

Chairman , I ask the provincia l Minis ter of Agri culture to request how many farmers in Mani toba have received sup port un der the Small Busi ness Development Bond? How many people he has made representation to, if, and the Minis ter led the comm it tee to believe, I think thr ough the co mm ittee to the farm com muni ty, Mr . Chairman, how many farmers could now expect to apply and get supp ort for that program because it's obvious that the farmers who are grossi ng over $70,000 need some su pport as well? It isn' t within this minis try, within this govern ment, to get it.

So I would hope the least he could do is tell the farmers if there is any hope of get ting money thr ough the Feder al Minis ter - Small Busi ness Developme nt Bond Program. Those are straig htforward que stions , I would think he could answer them. MR. CHAIRM AN: You've asked qu estions of all three Min isters .. MR. J. DOWNEY : That's righ t, I would hope all thr ee Minis ters could answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: ... so I'm not sur e wh ich one I should call, so I' ll go to the Minis ter of Eco no mi c Development fir st. HON. M. SMITH: Yes, Mr .

Chai rperso n, I seem to hear the message fro m across the way , that if you can't do everything perfectly ri gh t away, do nothing and tell the pub lic that you 're not going to do anything because it's not worth tr ying. Okay, $23 million over 2 years of which because we had less than a fuH year remai ning this year we put in $10 mi llion and we've designed the program accord- ing to what's pred ictable, what is measu rable at the moment.

The usua l take -up rate on prog rams like this, we got the size of the total gr oup we could help and what proportion were li kely to take it up and then what we could afford to gi ve to help. Those figur es are as well designed as we can make them in order to target what assistance we have. But if the experien ce in the fir st five or six months of the program shows that we're not getting that patte rn, we will moder ate the pro gr am. It's never been claimed to be mo re than an em ergency progr am. What we would most like to see is the di sappearance of the necessity for it.

We'd like to have the int erest rates come down. Now, of the sma ll busi nesses ou t there that qua lify, not all of them are in eq ual difficulty. Some of them have ma naged by good gu esswork or good calcula tion, to have put in a crop, or ju st ma naged to acq uir e the righ t mix of mac hin ery, that they're able to tigh ten their belts and get thr ough the dif fic ult ti mes. Not all small busi nesses have precisely the same profit-loss state ment and we recogni ze that. We recogn ize that some are able to manage their way thr ough it.

With the sma ll busi nesses, particularly, an essential compo nent of the program is the -(I nter jec tion )- just a minu te, you asked a qu estion, here's an an swer. If they receive the counseli ng where they acq uir e some better skil ls in terms of riding out the dif ficult time s - not all the problems are resolvable that way, but qu ite a few are. Good management can do a lot, but can't do everything. So yve've never claimed in the sm all busi ness portion of the program that the money was the sole aspect of it.

The cou nseling, the access to resour ces that they maybe di dn 't tap before is an im portant component. Now, I don't think we've ever claimed for the pro gr am mor e than tem porary em ergency assistance while we plan for what is needed next time arou nd. I hope at this time next year we can all qui te happily say we didn' t need the full 23 mi llion because the in terest rates have come down; we've gone past the worst of the rece ssi on; things are pick ing up and people are mana ging on th eir own. I hope that's the report we can make, but we're not in contr ol of all those factors.

So we've designed the best we can with the things that are kn owable and predic table and we're willi ng to move in either dir ection, cutti ng back if it's not neces sary or extending or developing the next range of programs if it should prove necessary within our means. I think it's been a responsib le appr oach to the progr am. 2934 If we'd co me out with criteria where we'd used up all the money in four months and had nothing left for the rest, that would be ir responsible.

If we've made the criteria too tigh t so that people can't qua lify and that we can afford to loosen up, all well and good, we'll be happy to do that. But we've done, on the basis of the data that the very few plan ning people that were arou nd and could addr ess the problem could come up with, this is the way we've designed the program and I thi nk we can be qui te proud of the work that's gone int o it. That's not to say we think it's perfect or that we're not going to be imp roving it as we go. HON. B. URU SKI: Mr .

Chairman, the Honou rable Member for Arth ur raised a que stion whether we made repre senta tions. He shoul d recall my com ment s

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 that I said that the federal program was supposed to be work ing for busi nesses and farmers and it was not.

I did make specific proposals and representations to the Minis ter of Ind ustry and Commer ce, Trade and Commer ce, the Honou rable Herb Gr ay in February specifi cally on this very issue and raised the conc erns -w e had di scussed these items with the fin ancial in sti tutions in the Province of Manit oba -t hat there was no take up, that the fina ncia l ins titutions were reluctant to partici pate in this program and there were proble ms with it that they obviously either were not prepared to resolve or that ther e sho uld be amend me nts made. I made specific proposals to the Federal Government.

They were not acted upon by them, but we did make representations di rectly to the Min isters respon sible in ea rly February when we met with them here in Man itoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Me mber for ln kster. MR. D. SCO TT: Thank you very mu ch, Mr . Chairman. I don' t want to get hackles up. I jus t want to go throu gh for a cou ple of minu tes and high light a couple of concerns that I've had of co mm en ts that have been raised, clarify a few issues as well.

Yo u mu st go back and recog ni ze that when the program was brou ght out in itia lly, and it was in iti ally announc ed - and I have th e press release from October 30th. It was gi ven in my constituency; I should have some idea of what was said in it; it was given in Tyn dall Park.

One of the rea sons for the program was the obvious problems that people were having with high in ter est rates and we did not have a Provincial Government at that point in time, prior to the elect ion, that was in ter ested it seemed in tr ying to alleviate the struggles of an awful lot of people, par ticul arly home owner s, sma ll busine sses and farmers had in relat ion to the high in ter est rate policy.

We had the Mi nis ter of Fi nance at the time, Brian Ransom, say that in su pport of high in te rest rates - and this is wher e he supp orted high in ter est rates with his qu ote on May 8, 19 81 , in the Legislature of Man itoba - he stated that the best advice available today is that the mone tary policy of the Bank of Canada is basically soun d. Now, the mon etary policy of the Bank of Canada wh ich he claims is basically sound was one of high int erest rates. So, if that is not saying that a person's in favour of high in terest rates, I really don' t kn ow wha t is.

The main challenges that they had at tha t point was that they they were challenging the Feder al Government because they were spen ding too mu ch mone y and wanted more acute protracted restr aint on behalf of the Fede ral Governm ent.

Fur thermor e, on May 22nd , a cou ple of weeks later on, he stated that "I am advised" - this is the Min ister of Fi na nce at the time, Brian Ransom, "I am advised that the conseque nces of the Centr al Bank, following a very di fferent cou rse of action than they are now following, would lead to an even worse situa tio n." And that is, once again, a statement ba cking up a federal policy of high in terest rates.

Now, we've had a lot of allegat ions as to what was prom ised in our Emer ge ncy Inte rest Rate Relief Program and we had the headli nes of the thi ng, "Emer gen cy Inte rest Rate Pro gr am for Home owner s, Farmer s and Busi nesses" - "emer gen cy" right on the very top so that people would not be mi sled and thinking that they're be ing led by some sort of a carrot on a stick dur ing the election cam paig n. At the end wher e the most imp or tant part of the state ment is, second paragraph from the end, Mr.

Pawley stated very clearly that the NOP are not prepared to use tax dollars except in hard ship cases. There will be no assistance for those who have purchased hous es well be yond their means in the selfish hope that inf lation would enr ich them. There'll be no assistance for busine sses put in jeopardy by poor managemen t and ther e'll be no assistance for farms owned by land speculators. In the campai gn I went to people very specif ically and they asked me if they would qua lify and I said basically if you did not buy over your head you will qua lify for assistance when your rate goes up.

I talked to people then who said, well, listen we're looking at losi ng our home ; I've jus t lost a job; we bought on the basis of both of our in comes and I said, listen, I'm terribly sorry but I can't, as a political can di date, stand in front of you and tell you that the government is going to come in and save your home, because you went in and bo ught with the hope and the in tentions that int erest rates would n't be going up. I told qu ite a .few people this, anyone who investigated or talked about the program and went in to any di alogue with me whatsoever. I had full su pport.

I had no person - that wo man he rself stood in her doorway and said that she agreed with me, that they got them selves int o a problem and it was not the pu rpose of the Province of Manit oba to come and bail them out. So don' t think that we went ar ound with some sort of a carrot that the mem bers of the Opposition are tryi ng to claim that we did and what the Member for Lakeside, on the rent contr ols program today, tried to eq uate rent controls with rent freezes - no one is as foolish as to contem plate that kin d of an extent of any policy.

The only people foolish enough to make long-term freeze commitmen ts was the previous govern ment going in to hydr o rate freezes for a period of five years. I think that it is foolish for any government to come in and say that we are going to freeze an item of any sort, that we're going to freeze it for X num ber of years, a num ber of years in the futur e - one year at a time possibly - but to get in to five-year freezes or six-year freezes or whatever, it ju st make s no sens e what soever to me.

As a matter of fact, it turns around and works against the people's wise use of those resour ces whi ch are be ing frozen. 2935 Another point I'd like make is that the program tha t we have actuall y in troduced is even better than that which was promis ed dur in g the cam pai gn. During the campai gn we promised that the program will subsid ize mon thly mortgage payments for mi ddle and low in come Man itobans who are spen ding a major part of their in come on mortgage and tax payments. A sub sidy will be a combi nation of gr ants and loans which are in terest-free dur ing the emergen cy period. Well, Mr .

Chairman, when you look at the Inte rest Rate Relief Program for home owners today, which we are referring to he re, there are no loans; it is a straigh t gr ant program. We have even made the pot sweeter when we went to draw up the fina l details of the pro gr am. It is better than it was in the ini tial stages, in that ther e are no loans that peo ple are going to have to pay back.

Tuesday, 1 June, 19 82 I mi gh t add one other point as we ll, tha t when the program was ini tially being conc eived which was last sum mer, we had reference that a civil servant was someho w or other involved in that by the name of Saul Sc hub ert; that is absolut ely false.

That program was develo ped by the mem bers of the caucus and the caucus at tha t time - we cons idered the caucus to be the present elected mem bers of the 31 st Legisla tur e of Manit oba, or the previous Legis lature of Manit oba and nomina ted candid ates - so we had in excess many times, of 60 people out for week end sessions, ham mer i ng throu gh the development of programs. That is how our election policy came about.

We did not wait until the very last day, the dying days of a campaign, a deathbed repentance as has been so often stated , to cook up a program that the y no w claim - and the Member for Sturgeon Creek claimed - that we came across, offered this program when we kn ew the government was in a strong deficit position; they were sayi ng constantly who is going to pay for it? All of the time they were sa ying who is going to be paying for this program and what happens? They came up with a $60 mil lion program, a prog ram they started ta lking about int erest rate relief for home owners on un iversality.

Now, did we he ar the Conser vatives back in years gone by ever push univ ersal ity in Medic are, in Denti care? Did we see un iversality from the Cons ervatives? Now they'r e wanting to come in with a un iversal pro gr am, ta lking un iversality with mortgage assistance, not recog nizing that the people who are in most need are the people who need the most assistance. Even the Free Press reporters, when Mr. Pawley made the statement on October 31s t, the day after he made the state ment in Tyndall Park the Free Press started the

article off with, "Homeowners caught in dir e straits because of spir aling mo rtgage rates, have been prom ised a relief in the form of a $23 mill ion emer gency fund if the New Democr ats are elected in the Manit oba election next mont h ." People in dir e straits does not im plicate a program that we're ju st going to be tossing mone y out to everyone and their dog.

Under the P.C. prog ram, un der the so-called Pro gr essive Conservative or forward-backward party progra m, the maxi mum bene fits were going to be $1 25 - the maxi mum bene fit - but they were going to be giving bene fits to everybody no matter what their mo rtgages were. If a person had a mo rtgage left of only $5,000 and the mo rtgage rate double d so that they are paying sti ll a relatively small amount of their in come on that mortgage, they were going to step in and assis t them over - was it 14 percent? Or 15 per cent, I belie ve, was the figur e used?

Our program recog niz es she lter as a prio rity in peoples' lives, recognizes the need for a decent home and recog ni zes the investment that people put int o a home, the long years it takes to acqu ir e a home in today's society. We recog ni ze that a program that was going to be givi ng over twice as mu ch assistance to people who were most in need - $275 versus $1 25 - is really qu ite an impr ovement over what the Conser va tives had ever even cont empla ted in bringin g forward.

When we look at the program prepara tion of the previous govern ment, we look at their commi tment s to housing, we look at what hep pened in the residenc e of the senior citizens in the Bluebir d Lodges whe re, I belie ve, in the fi rst seven years of exis tence of those lodges, their rents went from $37 a month to $52 a month. Then in the next four years, their rents went fr om $52 up to $110- in four years - they over doubl ed in the four years under the P.C.s.

They talk about a form ula that was put in place with us in consu ltation and in coopera tion, I mu st add and under some du ress lik ely as we ll, by the Canada Mor tgage and Housing Corporation and that agree ment allo ws for a maxi mum of 25 percent. All I can say is, thank goodness there was a ma ximum of 25 percent of the total in come of the in di vidual or else we probab ly would have had higher rate incr eases than what actually came throu gh. The agre ement clearly stated a maximum of 25 per cent of their gr oss in come and we ch arged that.

Now when we were char ging that, people were paying $50 a mo nth, not over $10 0 a month as they are cu rrently. -(l nterjecti on)- Now, un der the Conser vative plan - and we've had mu ch mo aning and gr oan ing her e about their plan and how it was su pposed to have help ed people more and which concl ude d in provi ng that it would help people mu ch less - we would have had another 34 bankrup tcies in the provinc e because we had no pro gr ams whatsoever offered by them for the small busi ness com mun ity or for the farm commu nity.

I'm qui te su re that of the applic ations that would have come forward, we wou ld not have as mu ch emp hasis and as much push in a. program as we curr ently have, tryi ng to make pe ople aware of the program to try and get the up-take a lot hi gh er. We had th eir demons tration in the last government un der the CRISP progr am, where there was su pposed to be a $21 mi llion program and we're lucky if ther e is $7 milli on being covered to the end of th eir term in office.

So I think that clearly ind icates a problem with any program that we have to apply for and I think that what you have to do, is you have to gi ve consi deration that an awfu l lot of people don' t perus e the reg ular newspapers; they're not paying atte ntion to the ads tha t the government or any one else puts on the rad io and that we have to work that much harder to make the people aware of the programs. Other than going door to-door to famili arize the people with the programs, it' s very dif ficult. But an yway, Mr.

Chairman, in con clusion, I jus t want to clear the record on some mis stateme nts that have been made earl ier ; clear the record as to wha t our elect ion commi tment was and clear the record as to some com parisons between what our promises were, what our comm itme nts were and to what the fee ble com mit me nts of the Opposition parties were. 2936 Thank you very much for the time, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter of Agricultur e. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I move Comm ittee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee rise. SUPPLY -CROWN INVESTMENTS MR. CHAIRMAN, J. Storie: Comm ittee will come to order.

We'll conti nu e with the Esti mates of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-66b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 66b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7510b7ab38ae5569dd028f07e8c664dc50283870

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