Manitoba Hansard — 13 May 1982 (Sitting 54A, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-54a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 13 May, 1982 Time: 2:00 p.m. MR. CLERK, Jack Reeves: It is again my duty to inform the House that Mr . Speaker is unavoidably absent and I would ask the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair in accordance with the Statutes. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Jerry T. Storie (Flin Flon): Prese nting Petitions ... Reading and Receiving Petitions ... Presenting Reports by Standing and Spec ial Committees ... MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to make a statement on Crown Oil and Natur al Gas Lease Sale which was held yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the results of the sale which took place yesterday for Crown Oil, Owned Oil and Natur al Gas leases which had been offered by the Depar tment of Energy and Mines. Bids on 30 of 36 lease parcels covering 3, 184 hec tares or 7, 960 acres were ultimately accepted which has resulted in a total of over $430,000 being added to the provincial revenue. I am pleased to indicate that the average price per hectare is a record $132.16 per hectare or $52.86 per acre.

This represents an increase of more than 50 percent over averages from leases sold in previous years with averages of $81.15, $84. 33 and $87.30 for the sales held in 1979, 1980 and 1981, respectively. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that such results are even more significant when com pared to recent sale results in other western oil pro ducing provinces which have shown a marked decline in prices being paid. It is worthwhile to note, Mr.

Speaker, that a new record lease bonus was paid by Ome ga Hydrocarbons Ltd. for a half-section located five kilometres southwest of Waskada when $107,000 or $835.94 per acre or $334.38 per acre bonus was received. In the prev ious record of $470.51 per hectare or $188.20 per acre occurred in October of 1980. Mr. Speaker, members of the Hous e will be interested to know that 24 wells have been drilled to date this year, compared to 6 wells to the same date last year. In addition, 18 new wells have been placed in prod uction so far this year, compared to 4 wells in the same period last year. Thus, in

summary, I'm extremely pleased with the results of this sale and with the increasing level of activity and interest of the petr oleum industry in this prov ince. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Turtle Moun tain. MR. A. BRIAN RANSOM (Turtle Mountain): Mr . Speaker, we welcome the announcement by the Min- ister because it is indeed good news. It is good news that the government has seen fit to continue the po licy which was rei nstit uted by this go ve rnment, Mr . Speaker. Some of the members oppos ite, Mr.

Speaker, may be unaware that the leasing of Crown rights was terminated in 1971 and was not reinstituted until our administration in 1978. In that period of 1971 to 1978, there was a net decrease in the numb er of pr oducing oil wells in this pro vince even though the government had spent some $920,000 of their own in attempting to discover oil. So, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed good news that the government is continuing with this program. I believe, in total now, that the prov ince has proba bly realized somewhere in the neighb our hood of $3 million perhaps in revenues, maybe more, from these leases.

We also get something in the range of $10 million royalties and taxes on oil produced in the pro .Vince. Mr . Speaker, this policy of leasing land coupled with the changes in the royalty structur e which our government made which made Manitoba competitive once again with other jur isdictions in Western Can ada, has caused the private sector to respo nd in the way that they have and we see this development tak ing pla ce now which is, indeed, good news for all of Man itobans and, Mr.

Speaker, we urge the govern ment to continue with those policies and to leave them in pla ce in order that private sector may serve to the welfare of all of Manitoba. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabl ing of Reports .. . Notices of Motion .. . Intro duc tion of Bills . . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Before proceed ing to Oral Questions I direct the members attention to the galleries where we have a number of visiting groups. We have 46 students of Grade 11 standing from the Pierre Radisson School under the direction of Mr. D. Senchuk.

These students are represented by the Honour able Memb er for Radisson. As well, we have a group of 50 students of Gr ade 5 standing from the River Heights School in Brandon, Manitoba under the direction of Mr. G. Tardiff. These students are represented by the Honour able Memb er for Brandon West. 2457 Finally, we have 50 student s of Gr ade 11 standing from the Edward Schreyer School. These students are under the direction of Mr. B. Grant and are represent ed by the Honour able Mini ster of Gover nment Services .. On behalf of all the members of the Legis lative Assembly I welcome you here today.

ORAL QUESTIONS MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition. HON. STERLING LYON (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I have a qu estion for the First Minister. I wonder if the First Minister has knowledge of, and if so, could he tell

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 us what the government's reaction would be to a report that is circu lating to the effect that Mr. Bill Brayshaw of the Northwest Ontario Chamber of Commerce says that Alcan is considering the Thunder Bay region as an alternative site for a giant smelter complex. Mr. Brayshaw says the power plant was orig inally destined for Manitoba but Alcan is having trou ble reaching terms with the Man itoba Govern ment for the $900-million venture. Mr.

Brayshaw is also reported as saying that Alcan sent a letter to Commerce Northwest saying that the company's plans for the Manitoba complex have been shelved. Mr. Speaker, can the First Minister tell us what the reaction of the government is to that report which ju st reached my hand before we came into the Legislature or whether or not he's heard of it? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Fi rst Minister. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opp osition would be well advised to avoid third-hand reports that are based on very very imprecise information.

That is not our information at all. I think it's unfortu nate that on a matter of such importance to Manitobans in general that the Leader of the Opp osition should depend upon that kind of third-hand advice. MR. LYON: Well, Mr . Speaker, I fervently hope. along with all other Manitobans, that the report is not true. I merely asked the First Minister if he has knowledge of facts to the contrary that Alcan has not made this subm ission to Northwest On tario because it is shelv ing the plans for Manitob a. Please let Manitob a know. MR. PAWLEY: Mr .

Speaker, I could n't advise the Leader of the Oppos ition whether or not that they have. What we do know is that our own discussions are going well and are continuin g to proceed on a proper basis. I believe there was some discussion and some acknowledgement by Alcan that, as always, they have been looking at and discussing with other governments; B.C. and other governments in Canada the poss ible sites in respect to Alcan. In fact, there was nothing new in that. I believe it was Mr. Martin of Alcan indicated that had been the case for months and months and months. Nothing new. But what we do know, Mr.

Speaker, and what I can advise the Leader of the Oppos ition that the discussions are continuing and there's been no change insofar as the progress of those discussions between the Al can officials and the Manitoba Government review team. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Roblin-R ussell. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin-Russell): Mr . Speaker, I have a qu estion for the Honour able the First Minister.

It's in light of this message from Howard Pawley wherein he said, "that we can provide an economic climate to ensure that small busi ness stays in busi ness." I wonder if the First Minister and his govern ment are prepared to consider reducing the gasoline tax in a sort of a gradua ting type of scale for those 2458 business firms along the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border who are facing very serious loss of sales and defi nite economic problems today as a result of the reduction of some 27 cents a gallon of gasoline in Saskatchewan. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I had thought that the Memb er for Roblin-R ussell, indeed, would be obtain ing your attention in order to commend the Provincial Govern ment for doing what it has done in respect to the items in its Bu dget insofar as those border com munities that I note he represents insofar as they are being indeed benefited by this Bu dget:

(1) There was no sales tax imposed, as had been anticipated by some of the desired -(lnt erjection) Mr. Speaker, as some of the leadership in the border communities had feared, a sales tax which appears to indeed have been desired by members across the way.

(2) Mr . Speaker, I would have thought that the Memb er for Roblin-R ussell would have poi nted out that for the first time I believe in three years, there has been a freeze insofar as any increase in the gasoline tax in the Province of Manitoba.

(3) The announcement by the Minister responsible for Energy this morning of the record sales pert aining to oil, that indeed the Memb er for Roblin-Rus sell rather than being some way or other distressed should have been commending this gove rnment this afternoon for those actions. Mr.

Speaker, what indeed this demonstrates to the busi ness people along the border, that under very very difficult circumstances, much more difficult cir cumstances than, indeed, confronted by the new gov ernment in the Prov ince of Saska tchewan that accepted office after a pretty healthy situation that they inherited, that this government has been very very mindful of the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by the business people in communities like Roblin and Russell and Birtle and other communities along the border. MR. McKENZIE: Mr . Spea ker, I thank you. Mr .

Speaker, is the First Minister of this province telling me that he is not prepared to look at a graduated scale such as has been the expe rience in Alberta and Sas katchewan for many years, and he's not prepared to sit down with those people along the border in those towns such as Flin Flon, Benito, Swan River, Roblin, Russell, Binscarth, St. Lazare, McAuley, Elkho rn, Kir kella, Reston, Mel ita and all those other towns that are cities situated on the border near Saskatc hewan, and he is not prepared to sit down with them and discus s the serious problems they're facing today? Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, the Province of Sas katchewan is going to reduce the sales tax 5 percent. So you add the 29 or 27 percent difference in gas and then 5 percent sales tax, who is the First Minister of this pro vince kidding when he puts this kind of junk in pri nt and says we have the answers for the serious business problems? Mr. Speaker, I'm fed up. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I sense some sort of - (I nterjection) - I don't know, someone has asked if there's another pigeon at loose in the Chamber, I don't know whether that's the case or not.

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 What I do know is, Mr. Speaker, that

whereas the new Government of Saskatechewan inherited a $1 billion heritage fund, we inherited close to a $300 million deficit from the previous administration in the Province of Manitoba; that I do know, Mr. Speaker, that I do kno w. Mr .

Sp eaker, I also know from my discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and with other municipal people in communities close to the border, which I' ve had opp ortunities to discuss with community leaders in the last few weeks including the Swan River Chamber of Commerce and the Mu nicipal Council from the Swan River Mun icipality, that I would expect they would be quit e relieved that this government took into consideration their very grave concerns about an increase in the sales tax.

Now, in respect to the particular que stion asked by the Memb er for Roblin-Rus sell, I think that he is indeed, totally premature in his fretting of hands this afternoon because if I re call, he asked or one of his colleagues asked a pretty well identical que stion of the Minister of Finance the other day and the Minister of Finance indicated to the member that he was exa mining this very que stion of gas tax. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, you talk about a weak government and a weak Premier, there's a classic example right before our eyes today. Mr. Speaker, can I ask the First Minister another qu estion?

Will he do something for the towns along the border between Saskatchewan and Alberta? Will you grant the little Vil lage of Shell mouth enough bucks to have their Centennial fu nction this year? MR. PAWLEY: Mr .

Sp eaker, some of my colleague s say not to bother but I think any qu estion deserves some kind of response because it may beth at some of the municipalities in the constituency of the Memb er for Roblin-Rus sell may not be receiving adequate information from their Memb er of the Legislature because obviously, the Memb er of the Legislatur e for Roblin-Rus sell is not aware that all communities that are celebr ating their Centennial this year, are entitled to receive per-capita grants from the Province of Manitoba.

So I would ask, indeed, that the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs or the Acti ng Minister of Municip al Affairs take note to ensure that all municipalities, par ticu larly the municipalities in the constituency of Robl in-Rus sell that may not have been properly informed, be so informed by the Department of Mun ic ipal Affairs. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable First Minister for that statement, but may I remind him the Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs has already tur ned down Shell mouth and I wrote you a letter about six weeks ago about Shellmouth and I still haven't an answer today. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Tuxedo. MR. GARY FILMON (Tuxedo): Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the absence of the Hon ourable Minister of Educ a tion, I'd like to direct my que stion to the First Minister. I wonder if the First Minister has been made aware of the fact that the effect of the recently announced 1. 5 percent payroll tax on the Un iversity of Manitoba will be to wipe out the entire amount previously allocated to the university to provide for a tuition rate freeze next year. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Fir st Minister. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance will take this qu estion. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. VIC SCHROEDER (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, while I'm up I might as well answer a number of qu es tions then so that we don' t have to get into a repeat of the qu estions from yesterday. I had taken a numb er of qu estions as notice. First of all, the motive fuel tax changes will not affect propane which will continue receiving the cu rrent pre ferred tax treatment at a rate of four cents per litre for on-road use.

The levy for Health and Post-Seco ndary Education will be payable by all employers in the province with no exceptions as it is the case with other levies includ ing sales tax, fuel taxes and so on. The province will pay the levy for Health and Post-Secondary Educ a tion on the same basis as any other taxpayer. 2459 We expect the payments by the province on direct departmental operations to be in the order of $5 mil lion in a full year. The levy for Health and Post Secondary Educ ation will be paid by Crown corpora tions including the Telephone System and Hyd ro.

For those members who are concerned with the impact of the levy for Health and Post-Seco ndary Educ ation on such institutions, I would like to note that the levy which will be yielded from these institutions, is esti mated to be in the order of $3 million. In contrast, a 2 percent sales tax increase, which of course they would also pay, would mean over $8.5 million or close to three times as much. The levy will be paid by other Crown corporations such as Autopac, about $300,000 and ManFor $340,000.00. Regar ding Autopac -(I nterjection)- you don't want the answer? You never do like the answers.

I would suggest that appl ication of the levy with respect to Aut opac ensures that MPIC does not gain what some might regard as an undue competitive advan tage over private sector insurance. With regard to Man For, my own feeling is that the company will fare better with this particu lar levy than with a 2 percent sales tax increase which, as members recognize, would apply to building materials and that would have a tremendous effect on them.

The levy for Health and Post-Secondary Education represents, at most 1 /66th, of total wages and salaries payable and, ther efore, does not appear to represent an undue or harsh bur den on any particular sector. In overall terms, the additional provincial taxation was essential to maintain and preserve Health and Post-Se condary Education in the light of the federal cutbacks. The levy represents the more balanced and fair distribution of these costs across all sectors. While we have not had an opportunity to calculate the

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 overall potential cost of the levy on provincially sup ported institutions, information available to date on hospitals, personal care homes, universities. etc .. suggest that as much as a total of $9 million may be involved for these sectors together. I don' t have a breakout for the universities. In total, payment by provincial Crown corporations are unlikely to exceed $4.5 million to $5 million.

If these preliminary Estimates are totaled along with about $5 million in direct departmental liabilities, the provincial public sector share of the costs could total in the order of $19 million or about 17 percent of a full year's levy proceeds. MR. FILMON: Well, Mr.

Dep uty Speaker, I thank the Honour able Minister for that answer to five or six qu estions that he had in his mind, but I wonder if we could get back to the qu estion which I asked and that is, has he been made aware of the fact that the 1. 5 percent payro ll tax appl ied to the Un iversity of Mani toba will wipe out the entire amount of that which was allocated to the university in order to freeze tuition rates for next year? MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member obviously wasn't listening to answers previously given.

I have explai ned that any kind of a tax increase is expected to be borne by all sectors of society. We are not exempting the universities, nor are we exempting small struggling businesses, nor are we exempting many other sectors that have been suggested. The tax, the levy, appl ies to all sectors and again all sec tors, and especially the university community, is mak ing great use of the Post-Seco ndary Education por tion of the loss that we are incur ring from Ottawa and they will have to pay their portion ju st like every other sector of society will have to pay its portion. MR. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is thoug h, that these people were told in good faith that they had to expect a certain amount of money and they base certain projections and certain decisions on the amount of money that was offered to them by this government in the past including, in this case, a freeze of tuition rates. then by the back door and by some devious means, they're told that this money is being taken away from them. Bang. So they got them to freeze the rates and now they've taken it away. My que stion now, Mr. Speaker. is to the same Minis ter.

Is he aware of the fact that the amount of money that will have to be paid by the increase in the diesel fuel tax that he has ju st announced in his Bu dget means a qu arter-of-a-million dollars increase to the City of Winnipeg Transit System and will drastically affect their ability to maintain their level of service because of the fact that he also, as part of their grant to the City of Winnipeg, they froze the rates for transit fares so consequently, they have no other choice but to cut back on their services, are you aware of that? MR. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speake r, the qu estions of awareness as the member is aware, one would hope, are not appropriate but he is standing there and mak ing all kinds of accusations. I would sug gest to him that with respect to the City of Winnipeg had we raised the sales tax, for instance, there would have been a tremendous difference. I ask the member to go back to 19 67 when the Tories -(I nterject ion)- the Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek would remember 19 67 if his memory is that long - what did they do? -(I nterjection)- not only that. That was a much more significant portion.

They didn't exempt the City of Winnipeg from the sales tax and that cost an awful lot more money per year than this qu arter-of-a- million dollars which is significant. but nowhere near the kind of significance that an increase of 2 percent in the sales tax would have cost. Of cour se, again, Mr. Speaker, we have exempted the City of Winnipeg from the Health and Post-secondary Education Levy for the remainder of the year. I ask the Memb er for River Height s to stand up and tell us what that government did when they raised the price of gasoline in the last few years.

How did they then turn it around and gave a decrease to the univer sities who use gasoline; to the City of Winnipeg who use gasoline? We didn't freeze their revenue, we increased their revenues. We increased their revenues by sufficient amounts so that they wouldn't have to increase their fees. -(I nterjection)- Well, if they want to debate from their seats I'm prepared to do that. If they want to sit and listen then I'd be qui te happy to explain to them because they have very short memories.

They don't recall that they didn't exempt those insti tutions from the increase in the gasoline tax that they instituted ju st - what is it, two years ago in 19 80 -they didn't exempt anybody. They had already made their payments for the year and they expected the city to then adj ust its bu dget without doing any thing for them and now they're standing up and with crocodile tears. -(I nterjection)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honour able Memb er for Vir den on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER MR. HARRY GRAHAM (Virden): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. 2460 I bel ieve it is customa ry in this Legisla ture for que s tions to be asked of members of the treasury bench. Very rarely are other types of qu estions allowed to be asked. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Thank you. Mr. Dep uty Speaker. The Minister doesn't seem to understand that these are unique circu mstances under which his government has frozen the income -(I nterjection)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. ROLAND PENNER (Fort Rouge): On the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, if the members opp osite and the Memb er for Tuxedo do not like the answers that they're getting, they're inviting them instead of using qu estion period for what it was intended, they are

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 getting up and in each instance starting out with some declamatory speech which is not at all - nor was it on the previous occasion the premise of a qu estion. The kind of hectoring that is taking place from those seats opposite, the hectoring of the politically impo tent and the economically frustrated. is leading to a breakdown of decorum in this Hou se. I think that you have a du ty to enforce it.

I am asking for a ruling on whether or not, instead of a short pre mise to a que s tion for information, this type of back-door speech ify ing as a pre mise to a qu estion can be tolerated in this Hous e. -(Interjecti on)- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Turtle Mou ntain on the point of order. MR. RANSOM: Mr . Speaker, on the same point of order. We now have the Government Hous e Leader rising on a point of order to interrupt a member of the Opp osition asking a qu estion. then enter into debate in order to make inflammatory statements against the behaviour of the Oppo sition. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the Rules indicate that que stion period is designed to ask qu estions and that anyone who asks a que stion is eligi ble for a

preamble and that prea mble is to be short. I would also say that answers are to be as brief as pos sible and that que stions directed at the Opp osition are clearly out of order. given they are in no position to be answered. I would ask members to ask que stions and all members as well, to listen to the answers. The Ho nourable Memb er for Tuxedo. ORAL QUESTIONS (cont'

d) MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as part of my brief pre amble I would ju st like to make the point that the Minister fails to recognize that these are two unique circu mstances whereby his government has frozen the income of the people prior to imposing a 1. 5 percent surcharge on part of it. So, there is a difference in the circumstances.

My que stion therefore is. does the Minister intend to make good for this oversight - because I assume it's an oversight - by giving a rebate to the universities and to the City of Winnipeg Transit in order to recog nize these unique circumstances whereby they've fro zen transit fares and frozen the tuition fees, thereby limiting their other sources of income? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker.

I have said each time I got up that I expect the university community and the city to take its portion of the tax increases in the same fashion that the business community will be expected to take its portion. We are all in this boat together. That $71 9 million came out of all Manito bans. not ju st out of the publi c sector. also out of the private sector and not ju st the private but also the public sector and therefore it is going to be done fairly througho ut. I shold say. Mr.

Speaker. that I jus t spent one hour on radio having caller after caller phoning up - ordi- 2461 nary Manitobans saying they were very happy with the Bu dget. They understood it. It seems to me that those members don't understand it. People out there are sup portive of a Bu dget which attempts to maintain and underpin our economy during these hard times and helps and assists individu al Man itobans strug gle through this very difficult period. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for La Verendr ye. MR. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendrye): Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

I direct my que stion to the Minister in charge of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corpora tion. In light of the fact that the 1. 5 percent payroll tax will apply to Autopac. could the Min ister confirm that this will increase the cost of operating Autopac? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Agricultur e. HON. BILL URUSKI (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, we know that a 2 percent increase in the cost of sales tax on repair parts which make up the bulk of the expenses paid by Autopac in terms of the repair bills for automobile s. this increase in cost would be far less than a 2 percent increase.

The Honour able Memb er for La Ver endrye being a car dealer. well knows the escalation of car-part prices in the last few years. They have escalated upwards to 40 and 50 percent and 2 percent on that wou ld be far greater than the payroll tax that is now being sought to include Aut opac. MR. BANMAN: Well. Mr. Speaker. I gather from that - and the Minister can correct me if I'm wrong - the cost of doing business for Autopac is going to be increased because of this payroll tax.

I would also like to ask the Minister in charge of Manitoba Telephone System. when the Manitoba Tel ephone System is applying for rate increases. will one of the factors in the increased costs and the reasons for ask ing for rate increases be the fact that they are now going to be paying 1. 5 percent of their total pay roll to the Province of Manitoba? MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr . Speaker, obviously the member wasn't listening when I pre viously answered a qu estion held over from yesterday so I'll repeat it for him.

The levy for post-secondary education and health will be paid by Crown corporations including the Tel ephone System and Hydro, etc. The levy which will be yielded is estimated to be in the order of $3 million and in contrast sales tax would have been $8.5 million, or somewhere in the vicinity of three times as much, so when the member talks about costs. I hope he puts it in that context.

In coming from Steinbach I'm sure that he would be as keenly aware of the effect of a sales tax on auto mobile sales in this province as any member in this Hous e and he's wel l aware that the tax that we have chosen is going to have a significantly lesser impact on his Riding than the sales tax increase would have had. In fact. I might say members opposite have been sug gesting that we have. in some way, been deceitful because we talked about the sales tax and then came in with this tax. We had so many people tell

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 us about the defects of the sales tax, Mr. Speaker, that we changed our mind. They would be too bull headed to change their mind. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for LaVerendrye. MR. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minis ter in charge of the Manitoba Telephone System, could he confirm that when the Manitoba Telephone System appl ies for a rate increase, with regard to the consumers in this Province of Manitoba who will be paying the rates for MTS, could the Minister confirm that part of the increased cost in doing business for Manitoba Telephone System will be the 1. 5 percent payroll tax which this government has now imposed? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Brandon East): Mr.

Speaker, I understand either that qu estion or a version of that que stion was ju st put to the Minister of Finance and answered by the Minister of Finance. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Question Period the Leader of the Opp osition raised some very serious concerns about the present state of negotiations with Alcan and he, indeed, indicated that accord ing to his sou rces of information that he brought forward into the House and gave a lot of cred ibility to, Mr.

Speaker, he said that Alcan is rumour ed as wanting to build a smelter in Thunder Bay because negotiations with Manitoba are stalled and he implie d further, and I don't have Hansard in front of me, that somehow that the smelter is shelved. Mr. Speaker, I' ve been in a telephone conversation ju st now with Mr. David Morton, the President of Alcan Canada Ltd ., who says, and I qu ote: "There is abso lutely no truth to the story at all." Mr.

Speaker, since the person who raised this rum our , the Leader of the Opp osition, is the former Pre mier of this Province, he surely should know better than to come around and rumourmonger and try and undermine a negotiating process that is proceed ing very well, Mr. Speaker. He should check out his facts, he should check on more than hearsay, Mr. Speaker, in this spec ific situation and I would hope that he would correct his actions and be a bit more careful in future so as not to un dermine negotiations. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Oppos ition. POINT OF ORDER MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, it will have to be on a Point of Order merely to respond to the Minister of Mines and Energy and to say that we are fervently glad that he has such a report that is in contrad iction of the report that was handed to me as I came into the House qu oting a representative of the Northwest Ont ario Chamber of Commerce, and I merely say, Mr. Speaker, 2462 to the Minister of Mines and Energy that I left the Hous e immediately after asking the que stion and I have put a call into the person who is alleged to have made the report about Alcan and I'm waiting a return on that call at the present time. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm qui te happy to have the news, as will all Manitobans, as reported by the Minister of Mines and Energy and I'll report in due course on any conversation I have with Mr. Brayshaw. But, Mr . Speaker, no one in this House needs any lecture from that particular member about the truth; he, Sir, is a stranger to it. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I believe this is Oral Questions and I thank both honour able members for thei r statements. I believe that it would be an abuse of Question Period to continue in this manner; that this is Question Period and designed for qu estion and answer.

The Honour able Memb er for Minnedosa. ORAL QUESTIONS (Cont'

d) MR. DAVID R. (Dave) BLAKE (Minnedosa): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My qu estion is to the Mi nis ter of Finance. I wonder if he could inform the House what the pos ition of the profe ssional athletes in Manitoba will be in relation to the 2.5 percent wage tax that's recently been proposed in this Bu dget. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the 2.5- I don' t know what he is referring to - I know in On tario, at $1 5,000, it's something like 3.6; in Quebec it's 3 percent throughout.

He would know, certainly, about the impact in Queb ec because I unde rstand the member is a sports fan so I'm sure that he could have checked out what the impact has been on the Montreal Cana diens and the Quebec Nor dique s and the many other fine profe ssional teams in the Province of Quebec and in British Columbia right now we have a hockey team in the Stanley Cup Finals. They also have a tax that is somewhat similar except that it's regressive in British Columb ia.

It's regressive in British Columbia, Alberta and On tario; it is not in Queb ec and Man itoba, but in Quebec it's double the amount of Manitoba's. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know, the Minister rambles on about British Columb ia and all these other places having this tax. That seems to be news to this Ho use when he brought in the 1. 5 the other night. What he has answered then is that all the profe ssional athletes, the Winnipeg Jets and the Blu e Bombers, particu larly, their salaries will be subject to the 1. 5 percent tax. -(Interjec tion)- Well, the team won't but the private corporation will.

Has he any idea what the impact on the financial positions of the Winnipeg Jets and the Winnipeg Bom bers will be with the appli cation of this tax? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the impact will be on the employer, 1. 5 percent of payroll, jus t as it is for all those other institutions they referred to yester-

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 day; and for mining companies and for banks and for insurance companies and lawyers and accountants and real estate agents. 1. 5 percent of payroll. I don't know how clear a pictur e I can draw for them but I started off this afternoon with a very specific state ment that said that this levy will apply to all emp loyers in the province. bar none. and that includes Assiniboia Downs. that includes the law firms some of the members opposite may be engaged in, CPR and Safeway. CBC.

Air Canada, CNR -(l nterjection) Yes. it appl ies to them all and it doesn't apply indis criminately from one opposed to another. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Fi rst Minister. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker. a few moments ago there was a que stion add ressed to me from the Memb er for Roblin-R ussell in connection with when Shellmouth would be receiving some Centennial assistance and I've asked information from my office. particu larly in view of the advice that Shell mouth had not been advised as to any directions. First I would point out. Mr.

Speaker. that Shell mouth is apparently a hamlet. that it is not incorporated. that it falls within the R.M. of Shel lmouth which was incorpor ated in 19 07. I'm also advised that those communicating with us have been advised to contact their own municipality and the Department of Mun icipal Affairs already. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Turtle Moun tain. MR. A. BRIAN RANSOM (Turtle Mountain): Mr . Speaker. my qu estion is for the Minister of Agricul ture.

I under stand that the Minister of Agricu lture will be meeting this afternoon with advisory groups in respect to the Beef Stab ilization Program. I'd like to ask the Minister of Agricultur e if he will be discussi ng the principles of the Beef Stab ilization Program with the advisory groups. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker. I would think that what ever issues that the advisory group wishes to raise with me we will. no dou bt. be discussing all and many issues. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker. since the Minister is now prepared to at least talk about the principles of the Beef Stabil ization Program. will he be prepar ed to accept the advice of the majority of the beef producers with respect to alterations in the principles of the program? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker. I've always been prepared to discus s principles and objectives of the plan I' ve never hidden behind anything. Mr .

Speaker. and not like the honourable members who attempted to lead the people of Manitoba astray by telling them that a plan was already in place and we don' t like it and you should discard it when. in fact. the producer group s are the ones that will be developing this plan in con sultation with the depar tment. with myself. with other producers and are now working on that plan. MR. RANSOM: A final supplem entary, Mr.

Speaker. 2463 Is the Minister now confirming that it is not ju st the details about which he will be talking to the advisory group but. in fact. he is prepared to discuss princip les and to alter the principles if the that is what the vast majority of produ cers want? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker. I have always been pre pared and open to discuss all aspects of the plan. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER (Emerson): Mr . Speaker. a que stion to the Minister of Agric ultur e.

Some time ago, the Minister indicated that he'd send a telex to the Federal Minister of Agricultur e regarding a National Beef Stabilization Program. Can the Minister indicate whether there is any further information from the Fed eral Minister? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker. at this point in time we have no further information. in fact, several days ago I placed a telephone call to the Minister's office to see whether I can make a personal follow-up to that. I have not had a return at this point in time. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, the next que stion is to the Minister of Environment. Several weeks ago.

I asked the Minister whether he had any change in policy regard ing the chemical spraying on Crown lands and road allowances. Can the Minister now indicate whether he has any information on that? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of the Environment. HON. JAY COWAN (Churchill): Yes.

I can indicate to the member that I have consulted with my staff of the Environmental Management Division in respect to his que stion and they are now undertaking consultations with the other departments that would be concerned with this so as I can provide to the member the most comp lete information when I have the oppor tunity to answer his que stion. We are in the process of those consu ltations. I would hope to have more information of a more wide-reaching nature for the member in the near futur e. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for Oral Ques tions having expired. POINT OF ORDER MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Spri ngfield. MR. ANDY ANSTETT (Springfield): Before we enter Orders of the Day, I accepted your admonition not to deal further with a point of order during que stion period and I'd like to raise now a point of order with respect to the privileges and Rules of this House. The point of order is with respect to Citation No. 362, Mr . Speaker. which I'll read out for the benefit of the members, it provides that. "Reading telegrams. let ters. or extracts from newspapers as an open ing to an Oral Question is an abuse of the Ru les of the House."

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 It also provides, and I quo te: "It is not good parl ia mentary practice to communicate written allegations to the House and then to ask Ministers either to con firm or deny them. It is the members dut y to ascertain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of the Hous e." Mr . Speaker.

I have some concern and I raise this po int of order and qu ote this citation because the prel iminary que stion asked at the beginning of qu es tion period today and then the revelation later on that, not only were the allegations false but the statement during the point of order by the Honour able Leader of the Oppo sition. that he had not checked the allega tions and had not verified the facts. Mr. Speaker, I think that constitut es an abus e of the pr ivileges and the time of this House and I think the Honourable Leader of the Opp osition owes this Hous e an apology. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd like to thank the Hon ourable Memb er for Sp ringfield for poi nting out that citation for us, I think it will serve as a reminder to us for the upc oming Oral Question periods. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE (Cont'

d) MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate of the Hon ourable Minister of Finance and the amend ment ther eto, the Honour able Mrs. Smith has the debate adjourned in her name. The Honour able Minister of Economic Development. HON. MURIEL SMITH (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the Budget as presented by my col league the other night and I wish, relative to my par ticular portfo lio, to discuss the impact of the Bu dget on the small busi ness community of Man itoba. Mr . Speaker, there has been a lot of piecemeal criticism coming from the Oppos ition about the Bud get and, Mr.

Speaker, one of the factors that is not being taken into acco unt, that a Budg et is not ju st a collection of small pieces. Mr . Speaker, the Bud get is a total pack age, not only that, it is a package that is related, Mr. Speaker, to the overall po licy and economic program of the government. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members oppo site, indeed, the people of Manitoba, to view the Bud get in that way. We've been asked to look at things like tax conces sions for border communities; we've been asked to consider whether small businesses are worse hit than other groups in the community, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask everyone to remembertha t in the Bu dget there are many provisions targeted especially at the particu lar problems and difficulties of our small business com munity, Mr. Speaker. There has been a corporation tax cut in the small business sector of 1 percent from 11 percent to 1 O percent; there has been an increase in the vendor commission allowable, Mr. Speaker; there is the Interest Rate Relief Program; there are the sales tax selective cuts, Mr. Speaker, that do benefit certain members of the small business co mmunity.

There's been a gas tax freeze; there's been a hydro rate freeze and there's no addition of sales tax. Mr. Speaker, and I submit the single most important factor in the entire Budge t, Mr. Speaker, is that the total package of Capi tal investment and of public spending pr ograms, and of raising minimum wage, and of keeping out social programs intact and grad ually developi ng has been to increase the agg regate demand. It's the agg regate demand, I remind the members oppos ite, that does most to benefit small business and to keep their busi ness in good condition. Mr.

Speaker, when we're dealing with a Bu dget we do well to remember what a Bu dget is. Mr. Speaker, a Bu dget is not a grab bag of pieces of increases and deductions that are meant to keep various members of the community quiet or happy. A Budge t should be a part of a total approach to gove rning and to running the economy of the prov ince. I submi t, Mr. Speaker, that the Bu dg et that was presented here the other night was not a perfect docume nt but was a very fine example of an attempt to have consistent principle s appl ied throughout the Bu dget.

In addition to that, it was a document that treated the Manitoban commun ity as a whole, Mr. Speaker. We did not say what are we going to do for these sportsmen; what are we going to do for the priests; what are we going to do for the students? We looked at the total package, the total community of Man itoba. We said, Mr . Speaker, these are hard times for all of us. But they are parti cularly hard times for people who are on fixed income, for people who are unemployed or in some way in a vulnerable situation. Mr.

Speaker, the concept of community, of our responsibility one with another is basic to the Bu dget that was presented the other night. Mr. Speaker, the spirit of the Budge t was not a promotion of me-tooism - what's in it for me - can I get a little bit ahead of my neighbour ? Mr. Speaker, the con cept that underlay and permeated this Bu dget was how can we as a community in Manitoba ride through these very diffi cult economic times and come through together with people keeping their head up with pride and with hope for the futur e. 2464 Mr.

Speaker, I under stand, as do my colleagues, that had the members opposite been prepa ring a Budge t that it would have been a different Bu dget. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing disgraceful or unexpected or wrong about that. Mr. Speaker, that's what our po liti cal process is all about. We' re entitled to have our ideas about how to improve the economy and how to create a fair, secure society in Manitoba as are the members opposite. Now the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, have a different view as to how that should be accomplished. That is their right, Mr. Speaker. Unfortu nately, Mr.

Speaker, because I think they have - well, I'm being judg emental but I'm entitled too, to my opinion - I think they have a narrow view as to what the problems are, as to what the solutions are and therefore, Mr. Speaker, not being able to take the blinkers off, look more widely and look further ahead down the road. I think, Mr. Speaker, that they bring out qui ck jud ge ments on everything that is new and different and they say it's tricky or dishonest or wrong. Now, Mr.

Speaker, they're entitled to say they don' t agree with the pr op osals; they're entitled to say if they were in our shoes they would do it differently; they're entitled to say in their opinion it is not the best solution for the pro vince. But, Mr. Speaker, to say that it is wrong or

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 tricky, to say that it has no validity shows that they are living in a world where they think there is one set of rights and wrongs, one set of rules and that why need they listen or dialogue with other people if they know the truth before they start. I remember, Mr. Speaker, years ago when I was introduced to the history of science; to the history political thoug ht; to the history of economic thoug ht; I was introdu ced to the concept that ideas change over time, Mr .

Speaker, because people are curious; peo ple are searching; people are trying to find under standing and meaning as they live and people who keep their minds open; who keep looking for better solutions to our problems. Those people, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in the world of today there are many views as to how the economy should work and what the best appr oach is. They're aware, Mr. Speaker, that over time it's the interpla y; it's the dialogu e; it's the searching and the openness that produce the best possible result. I submi t, Mr.

Speaker, that they would have more appr eciation of the Bud get as presented if they could approach it in that spirit. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don' t intend to spend my time attacking. Attack can be fun; it can be humiliating; it's rarely productive. In fact, I find it generally a lot of sound and fury that signifies nothing. Mr. Speaker, playing the game of blame for past mistakes, I think falls into the same category. People on the other side have made mistakes. People on this side have made mistakes, Mr. Speaker. It's not the que stion of who made the mistakes that's significant, I submi t. What's important, Mr.

Speaker, is who can learn from the mistakes that they have made and that the other peo ple have made. Mr. Speaker, if we cast back a few years in Manitoba and go through a series of governme nts, we have fou nd significant contributions from each one, con tributions which may not look all that great in the context of today but in the day when those people -Mr. Bracken, Mr. Campbel l, Mr . Robl in, Mr. Weir, Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Lyon and now Mr. Pawley add ressed the problems of the day, each group made significant gains. I think it's foolish of those of us on both sides to ignore that.

The task of each government is to add ress the problems as openly and honestly as they can from their perspective, Mr. Sp eaker, and come up with the best possible solutions they can. Now, one of the lessons that I think I have learnt reflecting on the heated debate of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, about CFI was that both sides were naive, that both sides were willing to hope and run into mega projects impatiently in the hope that there would be a solution to the province's problems. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think, in retrospect, that was the best appr oach and I hope that one of the trademarks of our appr oach, that of being carefu l, of being analytical, of doing careful homework is our demonstration of our ability to learn from that - the failure, the inadequ acy of that former appr oach. I respect, Mr.

Speaker, the belief of the members onposite that the private sector should be the engine of economic development and therefore in the Bud get and in government programs everything possible should be done to give incentive and encouragement to the private sector; that somehow benefits should trickle down that people will then achieve their share of prosperity. -(I nterjection)- I respect thei r belief in that appr oach, Mr. Speaker, but I maintain it is an inadequa te appr oach, it's a necessary component of any appr oach but taken by itself, Mr. Speaker, it is inadequa te.

It is inadeq uate because it doesn't work very well in total. There are too many people left out of the benef its, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes we have to wait too long for any gain and even then it's not se cure. There are some gains and some losses. Our approach, Mr. Speaker, is to recognize the legit imate input of the private sector, at the same time to recognize the legitimate input from the publi c sector and to get the opti mum of both inpu ts so that the total is best. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that may be a difficult con cept to people who are used to going at the budge tary issues on a narrow line and with a certain narrow set of factors but, Mr. Speaker, we've tried the other way and I don't think we got the kind of growth and gen eral advance that we hoped for. It's our belief, Mr. Speaker, that given the tough economic times we're in, given the world-wide reces sion, given the insane interest rate policy of fiscal and eco nomic pol icies ema nating from Ottawa, Mr .

Speaker, that the approach that my party is taking, that our government is taking to go for selective growth, to go for a blend of private and public capital investment, to maintain our social programs and have them go through a gradual development appr oach and to team that, Mr. Speaker, with progressive taxa tion, is the very best and most responsible appr oach to maintaining our economy and being in the strong est possible condition for the economic upturn which we all hope will come. Mr . Speaker, we have had choices to make in designing the Bu dget and in solving our problems. Mr.

Speaker, we've appr oached them with prudenc e, with a great deal of responsibility and with a willingness to go with a measured amount of deficit financing because of the depth of the recess ion we are experiencing. Mr . Speaker, we have not relied solely on our own opinion and our own resources. We' ve consulted with all sectors of society. We have consulted with our traditional friends, the Federat ion of Labour. We've consulted with our traditional friends in the social service area and the farmers but we've also consulted, Mr.

Speaker, with Chambers of Commerce, with the Man ufacturers Association, with representatives of the business community, Mr. Speaker. We aren't sure that their proposals were always superior to the ones we were starting with but we've been willing to show a degree of flexibility. The groups we consulted with, Mr. Speaker, said don't put in a sales tax, don' t unfreeze the Hydr o rates. Now a good argu ment can be made for putting in more sales tax and for unfreezing Hydr o rates, there's pros and there's cons. We had to make a choice, Mr .

Speaker, and when we weighed up the pros and the cons of change in those taxes and chan ges in the other taxes, we came up with the package that we felt was the most progressive, the most fair, the most likely to keep the economy of the province in a healthy condition. 2465 Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder when I listen to the rhetoric from the other side, why they hate the

public sector so prof oundly or why they keep digging up outmoded concepts of eating at the public trough or wallowing in the public trough. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought they would have at least had more self-respect because surely all of us here as po liti cians are paid by our own community, we are paid by the public. Do we think the role that we play in this community is worthless, Mr. Speaker? Do we think we aren't productive in an important way in this society?

Do we think the people who are at home caring for their children and who never get public monies or, if so, very small amounts for the labour they perform, do we have no respect for the labour they perform? Do we have no respect for the workers at very low wages who are carrying out vital soc ial functions in this society? Do we think they are worthless and not productive? Mr.

Speaker, we might if we only valued the produc tion of things and the increase of money but if we have a total view of what is valuable in our daily lives, where we value ideas, where we value cultural express ion, where we value the fact that people are cared for in their daily lives, where we see the economy serving the needs of people, we would not have that narrow view, Mr. Speaker, we'd be looking for the best inte grated answer that we can find. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I was very pr oud the other night to hear my colleague expre ssing what's come to be known as "Vic's View," where he talked not about rapid growth or growth at any price or no growth, he talked about balanced growth, Mr. Speaker . He talked about social and economic equit y, not growth that only the very able, strong and the so-called best peo ple can share in, but growth that gives its benefits to the total community, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sometimes amazed to hear this expression that somehow upper income people, creative, able, pro duc tive, responsible people are only motivated by the level of money they get, are deterred from doing a good job, a responsible job for making their contribu tion by having low taxes. Mr. Speaker, I don't know the kind of educa ted able people we are talking about. The ones I know take many things into account when they're deciding how hard they are going to work. One aspect of what makes them work hardest is whether they believe in what they're doing, whether they enjoy their work, Mr.

Speaker, and of cou rse we all like a good pay cheque. I like a good pay cheque and every one else does too. Mr. Speaker, I don' t know that I want to have a five-figur e pay cheque that's 5, 10 and 20 times over what my neighbour gets for doing admittedly, per haps, more compl icated work but there's a sense in which we all have to eat. We all have to pay for shelter, we all have to make our way in the daily world, we have to pay for our children and, Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I would want to live in a society where only the very strong and able were able to afford those nice ties, Mr.

Speaker, and other people had to give up or live in great depriva tion. Mr. Speaker, it's a qu estion of balance. If there was a lot we cou ld all have a great deal more but when there's a limited amount and when we're in tough economic times, we need a hard-times Bu dget that gets us all to pull together and where those burdens -admittedly the burdens of an extra tax here and there 1982 - are shared because the strength in sharing the difficulty and pullin g together to find the solutions is, I sub mit, Mr.

Speaker, a strength that far exceeds any strength we could get jus t from soaring growth figu res on our economic charts. Mr. Speaker, we believe, and the Bud get reflects our belief, that the role of our government is to balance the market forces so that the human needs of the total community are met, that we effect ively fu nction as stewards of our environment. that we include all the human values, not ju st things and profit.

We also look at qu estions of happiness, the happiness of the retarded youngster, the joy that a person can get knowing they have a job to go to tomorrow, that they have access to oppor tunities to learn and to express themselves. Mr. Speaker, gardens are important as well as farms. We hear a lot about the farmers of the world being the backbone of the cou ntry. Of cour se they're basic and important, Mr. Speaker, but so are the peo ple who grow their gardens.

We want to value all the activities and give people the kind of economic securi ty and opport unity so that they not only earn a living but have a chance to enjoy the fruits of that living. Mr. Speaker, the role of government is to balance out the activities of educa tion, of culture, of ba sic pri mary industry, of small busi ness activity, of tour ism, of healthy families, of the whole mix of things in our community and therefore to criti cize the budge tary provisions, one item in isolation from another, is I submi t, Mr. Speaker, a very unproductive way to look at our Bud get. Mr.

Speaker, to tur n towards the particular prob lems and opportunities for small business. I remember meeting small busi ness people in the smaller towns when the slowdown, the cutbacks were occurring back a few years. They were telling me that people would come into their stores and that they had no spare money in their pockets to buy. If you do not have money in people's pockets so they can go in and make the small business activity boom, you can do all the tax cutting you want at the other end. If you haven't got a demand, a wide demand, the plight of small businesses is serious indeed. Do you not think, Mr .

Speaker, and do the members opposite not think that the high public investment that we are committed to, to put into this prov incer won't stimulate small busine ss, won't prod uce the interac tion among the small busi nesses in Manitoba and won't increase our total welfare, Mr. Speaker? I sub mit, if I were a small business proprietor, I'd rather have a higher turn over of busi ness and a payro ll tax than the other way around. Mr. Speaker, the extra $10 million for job-creation programs is bound to have a stimulative effect on small business.

The $1 million work activity progr ams tha t are in the Bu dget are bound to have a spin-off effect on small businesses. The Interest Rate Relief Program, small in its actual financial outlay, Mr. Speaker, but strong in its offering of managerial help so that small businesses can weather the economic storms of the day and come through in a healthy condition, those programs like that are of direct benefit to small business. 2466 The Hydr o rate freeze, I don't know that we've attracted more businesses to the province because of that, but if we're looking at comparative advantage

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 between pr ovinces, Mr . Sp eaker, why don't the members opposite throw into the mix the comparative advantages that we have? You know, I gu ess if I lived in a border community I would want some targeted tax relief so that there would not be too much a disloca tion between my town and the one across the way and I can see the urgency of looking at something like that, Mr . Sp eaker.

Bu t you know if we carried that principle to its logical extre me, every program that we have in a province would have to be phased and only the people who live in the geographical centre of the province would actually get the program as designed, everyone else would have an arg ument to phase it. Mr. Speaker, there might be some abstract principle of ju stice that would be involved here but I don't think anyone would seriously recommend that we try to run our provincial ju risdictions in that way.

If we're going to look at comparative advantage between provinces, let's look at the whole package of options and of obl igations. Mr . Speaker, the suppor t that the Bu dget has brought to credit unions is a direct benefit to small businesses, many of which depend for their credit needs on that system. The package of capital activi ties is bound to impact in the increased amount of activity for small businesses, the Core Area lniative Program, the Northlands Agr eement which we hope will soon be conclud ed, the Dest ination Manitoba Prog rams, the Western Int er-t ie, a re-gener ated Man For. Mr .

Speaker, we have also taken another small but promising initiative, put $1 million into venture capital that we will be making available to small businesses, particu larly in the areas of manufacturing and pro cessing.

There has been a shortage of venture capital for operations like this yet it is a field of business activity we vitally need in Man itoba and the latest studies that we've had access to from the Un ited States are showing us that the greatest job -creation impetus - the greatest input if you like - to the economy is coming in the small busi ness formation area where you get the innovative person, the small operation that puts together a very aggressive, imagi native operation and, Mr. Speaker, this is the begi n ning of a program which can grow and develop as we have more experience with it.

These are real and sub stantial helps to small business and they are propos als that should be taken into account when we are looking at the overall impact of the Bu dget. Mr. Speaker, have you heard the members op posite referring to the corpor ate tax cut of 1 percent that we have targeted at small businesses? Have you heard mention the increase in the vendor's commission? Mr. Speaker, I am hearing, "Yes," over there. What I am ask ing the members op posite to do though, as well as to identify these things in isolation, is to look at the total pattern.

Small busi nesses tend to be competitive among themselves within a province. An imposition of a tax tends to affect them all somewhat similarly. They're not as affected by interprov incial competition as the larger scale businesses. Mr. Sp eaker, the total tax package that has been proposed in the Bud get is based on the principles which we see as pervasive through out, the ability to pay. Now what does that mean? It doesn't mean that you will somehow say that sports stars should be exempt, or university professors, or priests or rabbis. No, it's based on the assump tion, Mr.

Speaker, that when times are toug h the people who have the most should contribu te a little more, and the people who have the least are entitled to be maintained at a decent level. This is the principle, Mr. Speaker, that we have adhered to since our founding as a party. It 's a princi ple, Mr. Speaker, that I think every one of us including the members op posite practise not only in their daily life and their family life, but somehow, Mr. Speaker, it's a principle when translated to the political level and to the level of gove rnment activity, they fail to recognize.

I can't, well I gu ess I can understand, Mr. Speaker, how people can be so decent and cooper a tive and really understanding in their personal lives, can turn over and somehow be very mean and suspi cious and greedy, I must ad mit even carried to that extreme, mean-minded when it comes to the political level. I gue ss I do understand it, Mr. Speaker, in that I think people understand when they're face to face with the people they know best the human responses have a chance to act, but somehow when we get up onto the level of political debate, it's as if there's a cru nching of gears.

There's not enough oil in the sys tem: there's not enough willingness to look wide and look far and see the connections. I look forward to the day, Mr . Speaker, when every politician in Manitoba is happy to espouse that ability-to-pay principle in the tax system. Mr . Speaker, when we talk about reasonable com parabil ity to other provinces, it's not fair to pull out one tax in isolation. Mr. Speaker, one has to look at the total package. One also has to look, Mr. Speaker, to the kind of problems that each province has. Now, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have different shapes of economy.

We have different cu rrent problems. Just qui te baldly stated, one province is deal ing with a deficit and another with an enormous surplus. Now, Mr. Speaker, would n't it be foolish to expect govern ments in the two provinces with comp letely different problems to have identical budge ts, to have identical tax systems. To me, that would be ludicr ous, Mr. Speaker, so I would ask when criticism is being made of our Bu dget in terms of its relation to other provin ces that the total package be looked at and not one tax pul led out of isolation. 2467 Mr.

Speaker, we have introduced a levy for health and educ ation. Mr. Speaker, somehow people think if you call it payroll, it's somehow bad and nasty. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if business people or the political Opp osition have thought how over the years they have been recruiting workers who are healthy when they get there and, if they're unhealthy they go away and get better somehow and then come back. Then, when they're old they leave and retire. Now, Mr.

Speaker, do busi nesses feel that they have no respon sibility for maintaining the health of that person, or do they realize that they have a vested interest in good healthy workers? Mr. Speaker, it seems to me a very simple and obvious truth that we all share in the bene fits from having healthy and productive worker s. I have never heard anyone say they want our health system to go into decline. We've hit a sudden disloca tion in the federal funding, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me a very original and responsible appr oach to maintain-

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 ing our health system, to maintaining the health of our work force in Manitoba, to introduce this shared levy so that we all contrib ute to maintaining a system that we're proud of. Mr. Speaker. the same with educ ation. Why is it. Mr . Speaker, I'm not sure how our businesses got away so long with thinking that the training of the work force is the public responsibility

whereas they only want workers when they have their basic training. Now I know, in fact, most busi nesses found that they've had to do a lot of training on the job, Mr. Speaker. I don't find that surprising. I think training for work, lifelong training, upgrading during a work life should be a normal part of business. It seems to me that as we're finding out more and more about why some of the newly emerging economies of the world are showing so much success, Mr. Speaker, cou ntries like Japan -years ago, like the U.

K. with its appr entice system -but now cou ntries like Japan, that we're very envious of because of their economic performance. We're finding in looking closely at systems like that that a great deal of input is given to the training of workers, to giving them security on the job, to balancing out the ups and downs of the marketplace by putting people onto maintenance or training programs when the market is down. Mr.

Speaker, we have a great deal to learn from societies where business and the well being of the workers are looked at as a unified whole and if we in our Bud get and in our govern mental programs can contrib ute to that greater feeling of community and of mutual responsibility, of mutual respect, then I for one will be very proud of our achievements. Mr. Speaker, we hear groans about a high-income surtax, but I just can't think of any reason that I would respect for maintaining an individual's right to a very high income in times such as these.

I cannot see that the money incentive will produce so much benefit to the individual, to the firm, to the province if it means that at the other end we have increasing numb ers of people living in terrifyingly degr ading and insecure situations, Mr. Speaker, I really can't.

I think if people ever faced up to what that drive towards higher and higher income at the expense of the poor really meant; if, before they went out for high-cost meals or luxurious holidays, they had to go and observe the strain on people's faces as they won dered if they had enough money to buy the groceries, the fear they have of the landlord coming and trying to collect rent for which the y know they don' t have enough money. Mr.

Speaker, there's a degradation of the human spirit occur s when people are caught in the poverty cycle and I for one don' t want to have my jollies from getting a high paycheque when I know full well that kind of suffering is going on. I'd like to see a program here in Man itoba, Mr. Speaker, and I think we've made important steps in creating such a pro gram, where the benefits of all are paid attention to and in hard times we have an ethic of sharing the hard times and of spreading the benefits. Mr.

Speaker, I think that the Bu dget represents a very careful and thoug htful appr oach to building a fair society here in Manitoba and yet not one that provides too rapid a shock to any one sector. I also assure the Opp osition, Mr. Speaker, that as our programs unfold, we will be watching very closely which groups are 2468 having the toug hest time. We, in our depar tment, Mr . Speaker, have developed an outreach program to assist businesses in the greatest difficulty and it'll give me great pleasure in a few days to give a fuller outline of that type of program to the entire House. What I want to illustrate, Mr.

Speaker, is that we are happy with our Budget but we don't intend to sit on our laurels. We intend to keep very open and sensitive to emerging problems and we will be taking action within our capacity, Mr. Speaker, to build the kind of fair society that we know we can have here in Manitoba. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Memb er for Swan River. MR. D.M. (DOUG) GOURLAY (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to partic ipate in the Budg et Debate at this time. I should take the opp ortunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance in presenting his first Bu dget.

I know that it hasn't been an easy task for the Minister to put this information together, especially, in the par ticular times that we find ourselves in today. Ob viously, the Bu dget had a number of surprises. I, for one, have to admit that I was somewhat pleasantly surprised that there was no increase in the sales tax.

Anyone that lives next to the Saskatchewan border where we do have a lot of competition and we do have a lot of busine ss that comes in from that province into the Swan River constituenc y and so, you can appr e ciate, I'm sur e, the effect that where the sales tax is higher on one side than it is in the other, certainly has immediately given some concern. Now, over the long haul I guess those things ironed out. I'm not sure when the sales tax was introduced into the Province of Sas katchewan but I know that it was in effect a numb er of years before it came into Manitoba.

I think it would be in the late 50s perhaps it was introduced in Saskat chewan. In those days the people were not so mobile and, although we had no sales tax on this side and there was 5 percent on Saskatchewan's side, I'm sur e even in those days that there was some concern on the businesses that were located in Saskatchewan. You know the Premier and his Cabine t led us to believe that there definitely would be an increase in the sales tax.

I think he spoke at many places and even in the House here, and indicated that there would be a definite increase in the sales tax; there was the insi nuation that there would be an increase in sales tax. The Premier indicated earlier that he had met with the Chamb er of Commerce in Swan River and he had met with the Mem bers of the Town Council. I would ju st like to quo te from the Swan River Star and Times, Apr i l 23 issue where "deep concern was expressed in regard to the proposed provincial sales tax increase in that 30 to 40 percent of Swan River's business comes from Saskatchewan with its 5 percent tax.

Mr. Pawley said that his gove rnment would like to avoid this increase but, with federal transfer cutbacks and a slowdown in the economy, they have no alternative." This was Premier Pawley qu oted in the Swan River Times when he met with the Chamber of Commerce. They're referring to the sales tax. However, he agreed to look into the situation of border towns and perhaps some arrangement could be made. Well, I gu ess some

arrangement could be made but, I' ll get into that a little later. Now. in the Winnipeg Sun - this was today's issue and I'll ju st quo te a little bit of it - "Even more note worthy was the period leading up to the Budget during which Premier Howard Pawley drop ped all kinds of signals and flew plenty of kites hoping to catch the political breeze.

The Premier had us all conditioned to accept an increase in the sales tax so that the mainte nance of the status quo now seems like a gift from heaven." I think there was some trickery - and I don' t fault the government. they probably had some motive behind that - but I think that for the time being anyway I'm pleased because I would be bombarded with inquir ies from the busi ness community in my consti tuency had there been an increase in the sales tax at this time. So, the Premier has obviously made some arrangements for those border towns by not introduc ing increased sales tax at this time.

After having said that I wonder ju st what we have? In my opinion. we have some good news and we have a lot of bad news. First of all, I would like to go on with the good news. I think there are some measures that are of benefit to Man itobans and I think that it should be recognized. Those. of course. are some of the minor sales tax benefits that were announced with the purcha se of fire truck s and related eq uipment; energy conservation materials; and assistance to car buyers but that has not been clearly identified.

At least, I'm not aware of how that is going to work but I'm sure that we' ll be br ought up-to-date shortly on how car buyers are going to benefit from the sales tax program. Of course, the exemption of meals in restaurants increased from $4 to $6, I think is very significant and I appreciate and I think we all do on this side that move was made. Of cour se. the Member for Stur geon Creek did introduce a resolution and it was unanimously agreed to by the Hous e to move it to $5 but, it . . . MR. JOHNSTON: We were waiting for your amend ment, Howard. MR.

GOURLAY: Well, you jus t heard the Memb er for Sturgeon Creek saying that he suggested it should go to $6 and I can only congratulate the government because they have in fact. brought it to $6. Being in the fast-food busi ness myself and it always has been a problem because in the fast-food business you don't have a lot of high-pr iced meals but you get into the area where it's ju st on the borderl ine whether it's taxa ble or not and certainly it is a nuisance. By raising it now to $6 eliminates a little bit of a problem that we have in that particu lar kind of industry.

Well, to go on with more of the good news. the Capital Gains Tax Rebate for farmers is certainly wel come news to farmers, I'm sure. Although, it's not a big item, to a maximum of $200.000 in the Capital Gain and I know that those farmers that will be affected will certainly welcome this. The gasoline tax freeze until the end of the year, I understand will save us some $6 million or $7 million, the balance of this year. So, all consu mers will benefit somewhat from that gasoline tax freeze. The Corporation Capital Tax exemptions for small busi nesses raised by one-third up to $1 million.

Again, that's certainly a good move and we appr eciate that. 1982 The reduction in Man itoba In come Tax on small busi ness is from 11 percent to 1 O percent, again it's not a big item but as our leader mentioned yesterday, it's certainly a step in the right direction and again it's part of the good news. But wha t re ally have we got? I think we've got a monster here in this 1 percent payroll deduction or the hospital and education levy, we've got a monster there.

We really don' t what it's all about yet and I'm sure a lot of the busi ness community, particul arly a small busine ss. really don't appreciate or under stand the impact that will have on them. I know a lot of them do and there's been a lot of reports in the newspaper about the unhappi ness of many of the small busi nesses with respect to this 1. 5 percent payr oll deduc tion.

It understandably, will bring in something like $1 10 million and this pretty well equals, I understand, what 2 percentage points would have raised on the sales tax but it's a little different kind of an arrangement where people that normally woul dn't pay sales tax on some items certainly will be payi ng this tax. Nob ody will escape from this tax and it will get passed on and on wherever possible. However. in a lot of cases those least able to afford it will be stuck and farmers, of course, are one of those groups that certainly won't be able to pass on any amount of the 1. 5 percent.

Food costs and other consumer goods will certainly go up and how many times will the 1. 5 percent be added on throughout the system? The employer tax is identified as a new levy for health and post-seco ndary educa tion. School divisions and municipalites will be taxing themselves so they can receive more govern ment grants. Sounds like some kind of phoney boloney monopoly game.

But in the case of the Town of Swan River, they have a budge t close to $200,000 for tax roll deductions and I haven't worked out the mill rate increase that this payroll deduction will create but I know that it will be several mills that they will have to add on to their taxes in order to levy this deduction. The Minister of Finance, when I asked him a qu es tion yesterday, said that they were going to reimburse the municipalities for this inconvenience, or to offset the cost to the municipalities but we haven't got the deta ils on how this is going to work at the present time.

But certainly the payroll deductions are causing much concern in the busi ness world and I would jus t like to briefly comment from an

article in today's Sun. "Bus inessmen Angry" and it's written by John Ber trand and he's talking here: "Barbara Mo rrison. spo kesman for the Canadian Federat ion of Independent Busine ss says the new payroll levy will really hurt many small operators." -(I nterjection)- Yes, this is a quo te from the Sun. "This Bu dget really sticks it to the little gu y.

I don't know if people will go out of business because of this but our members are really going to be hurting this year." So this is from a spokesman from the Canadian Federat ion of Independent Bu siness. -(I nterjection)- Spokesperson from the Ind epen dent Business. Sorry about that. 2469 My leader indicated yesterday that the Manitoba Telephone System has a payroll of about $10 0 million, I think he said, which relates to a tax of $1. 5 million, and of course the only way that Man itoba Telephone System can recover this kind of expenditur e is to

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 increase the telephone rates, again the consumer has to pick up this tab and I gu ess you can say the same thing for Manitoba Hydro although their rates have been frozen at the present time. Their payroll will be in excess, I would think, of over $10 0 million so you can see it's a very significant tax to the Hydr o consu mers in this province. I don' t want to belabour you with a lot of quo tes from newspaper articles but I felt that Frances Russell had an excellent account of the Bud get speech the other night in an

article she said: "Schroeder's fancy footwork may not last," and she says: "Provincial Finance Department officials have calculated that between the direct payment Ottawa will make on its Man itoba payro lls and the amount of revenue they' ll lose because of the tax deduc tibility, the Federal Government will end up paying about a quar ter of the estimated $1 10 million to be raised," a qu arter of that.

"At the moment Qu ebec is the only other province to have such a payroll tax but other provinces jump on the bandwagon and there are five provinces still left to bring down their Bu dgets, Ottawa may move to close the loophole.

The Federal Gov ernment has retaliated before when provinces have tried to punish it through their taxing policies." So I would now refer you to Page 7 of the Bu dget Address where the Minister of Finance says, "We are moving ahead with the Federal Government and the City of Winnipeg in core area renewal and we are making every effort to comp lete the new Northern Development Agreement with the Government of Canada as soon as possible." This all comes at a time when the province here is negotiating or trying to complete negotiations with respect to a new Northern Development Agreement.

At the same time they're really shoving it to the !eds in their Bu dget, so I wonder jus t what kind of co-operative feder alism the Govern ment of Manitoba is practising. They claim they feel that this is the right way to go, the co operative feder alism way, but it would appear that they are really chewing at the heels of the federal system and I wish them well in their negotiations because certainly we really need the Northern Devel opment in place as soon as possible.

Those are some of the comments with respect to the payroll deduction and as I said earlier, I'm sure a lot of the businesses out there in rural Manitoba really don't appr eciate the full impact that this part of the Bud get will have on them in the months ahead. Now there was reference made to the high income surtax and, as was indicated, this is something that is not new to the province. It was introduced by the Schreyer administration a numb er of years ago and it was sub sequently cancelled I believe, in 19 78.

I don't think many of us are really concerned about the state of affairs of high-salaried people, they probably feel they can pay the surtax. But I think the bottom line in this is, how many of the professional people will leave the province? How many professional people will not come to Manitoba that we would like to attract here because of this surtax? I think we'll have to really look at this one fairly closely if this is, in fact, having some impact on chasing away professionals from coming here or, indeed, resulting in many profess ionals moving from the Province of Man itoba to escape this surtax.

The diesel fuel tax will be increased which will have a very significant effect on the trucking industry and, of course, we have a numb er of truc king firms that are located right here in the Province of Manitoba, right here in the City of Winnipeg.

I haven't talked to any of those people yet, I know that I will likely be running into them from time to time but I'm sure that we 'll be hearing qu ite a bit from the trucking industry with respect to the increase in diesel fuel which, again, is going to be passed on to the consu mer, the cost that's created through the trucking industry; cert ainly that will be passed on to each and every one of us. The special 2 percent on banks under the corpor a tion Capit al tax and the insur ance corpora tions increase from 2 percent to 3 percent on premium revenue, other than life, sickness and accident insu rance.

Well again, accord ing to an ar ticle that I read ju st yesterday I believe, it says that this could result in the cred it monies drying up. Of course the insurance compan ies claim that they are not really making any money on their premiums and it will ju st result in passing along higher costs to the insured in order to pick up this cost to them so I'm not sure that we' ll gain very much on this item. The NOP plans to have major increases in pub lic spending without any mention or cur bs on control of inflation and this has to be of serious concern to all Manitoban's.

The mem bers opposite talk about the high interest rates continuously and, of course, this is a serious problem.

Everyone will recognize this but we also have to recognize that the threatening and con tinuing high inflation rate is probably ju st as serious as the high interest rates and so if you bring down the interest rates at this time it naturally will result in escalating the inflation rate even higher. 2470 The Finance Minister is pred icting a deficit of some $334 million in the cu rrent year but there's no mention of the cu rrent MGEA negotiations and that settlement, I am sure, will cost the province somewhere between $20 million and $30 million.

What about the additional Health Services contracts that will negotiated this year? I think that we can look forward with dismay to the serious situation we're in with respect to the deficit and I' m sure that it will be much higher than the $334 million and it has been sug gested that it probably might go higher than the $400 million. All indicators would point to the fact that the Bu dget is certainly going to be higher than the projected $334 million that the Finance Minister pointed out to us on Tuesday night.

The Finance Minister indicated on Bu dget night that our total borrow ing requirements for 19 82-83 would be in the neighbourhood of $900 million. Mr. Al Mcla ughlin, who is the Manitoba Chairman of the Investment Dealers' Association predicts the province will have to pay about 15 .5 percent to borrow the money on the Canadian market on a 5-year term. All I can say to that is I hope we can get that money for that period of time at that interest rate.

When you look at the type of spending that we are contemplating by this government and there is little of any evidence of renewed econ omic development and expansion of our resource base to provide long-term meaningful employment, such as through project that we were negotia ti ng prior to the ele ction in No vember, such as Alcan and the potash mining and the Western

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 Power Grid.

I'd jus t like to briefly refer to some of the items in the Bud get on Pages 6 and 7: "To help offset economic and financial pressures and to help protect the job s of Manitobans we have undertaken the following impor tant initiatives," and the Minister lists here a number of them: "The $23 million Interest Rate Relief Program is now in place to provide assistance to homeowners, farmers and small busi ness operators." Now we have con stantly que stioned the Ministers with respect to this Interest Relief Program and very few appl ications have been appr oved to date and very little money has been paid out to date under this program, yet we know that there have been many homeowners that have faced difficulties in renewing their mortgages; there's been a lot of farm bankru ptcies; and there's a continu ally growi ng list of small business operators that are in financial difficult ies and many bankrup tcies have already been listed.

I think we have a record number of bankruptcies in the cou ntry since January 1 st of this year.

"N ew job creation programs have been announced to help stimulate employment in the short-ru n, espe cially for students this summer," and we know that the Finance Minister indicated the Career-Related Stu dent Assistance Program and it has been brought to the attention of the House the many difficu lties that communities have been experiencing with respect to this program where they have been wanting to partic ipate in this program, like they have during the last three years, and they fou nd that it worked qui te suc cessfully and they're running into many problems with this Career-related Student Assistance Employ ment Program.

Although the Minister has said, of the $2.9 million that have been all ocated to this prog ram, if that money is not all used up the program will be changed so that the money will be utilized but that may be too late for a lot of employers to make the full use and benefit from this program. And certainly I would hope that the Minister, if he hasn't already done so, would take a real close look at that Career-related Program before it's too late to help a lot of the students this summer and also helping the employers as well.

"Minimum wages are being increased to help main tain the standard of living for our lowest paid workers." I would like to know who these people are. Many times there have been que stions asked to identify the peo ple that are work ing at the minimum wage. No w, I indicated earlier that my family is involved in the fast food busi ness and we employ quit e a number of stu dents and other young people in the busi ness, some of them on a part-time basis, qui te a few of them on a part-time basis and qu ite a few of them of course work with us on a yearly basis.

But we find that we start these workers at the minimum wage, but if they are any good to us we can't afford to keep them at the minimum wage, we want to hang onto them. So if they're any good to us, they don' t stay at the minimum wage very long. After talking to other people that hire similar student s and young people, I think the situation is the same in many areas, so it's never really been properly identified to members on this side, who are the numbers of minimum wage people that are really hurting out there. So it's an area that is very difficult to identify.

Major increases in assistance to municipal govern ments and school divisions have been provided to ease the property tax burden. So we're wanting to hear more details on just how the government pro poses to help the municipal govern ments and school divisions, particu larly now with the payroll deduction scheme that will be introduced come the 1s t of July. The hydro rate freeze has been continued for a four th consecut ive year. Well, I don' t think I need to make further reference to that. I think we're certainly all appreciative of the fact that our hydro bills are not going to be going up for another year.

But we come to the $17 .5 million being provided for the Beef Income Stabi lization and certainly there has been much debate in the agricultural Estimates and very few answers were forthcoming as a result of all the debate that took place on this $17 .5 million item bud geted in the Estimates this year. There's all kinds of articles in the papers these days from the farm people, from the beef cattle people that are not partic ularly happy with the Beef Income Stabilization Pro gram that has been put before them.

The Minister, of cou rse, has announced that he has appoi nted a Stabi lization Committee of some 25 producers throughout Manitoba to look at this Beef Income Stabi lization Program. So I know the Minister has said today that he is meeting with the mem bers of the Stab ilization Committee. He hasn't really said that he's going to change the principles of the program that he has introd uced. He has always been wanting to maybe look at the details of the program.

But you know, the Minister has to know that the majority of beef producers of Manitoba are not happy with the princip les of this program and they're asking for some very major changes.

I think the onus is on the Minister to look at the que stions that are being raised by the beef producers. 2471 You jus t have to go back a few short years when in the previous administration - and I'm glad the Member for Rup ertsland is here because he'll ap preciate this - our Minister of Resources spent a lot of time with members of his staff working with the fishermen of this province to try and come up with a new policy for fishermen. A policy was struck and instruct ions went back out to field staff to advise the fishermen as to the contents of the new fish policy.

Well, we all know what happene d with the proposals that went out to the fishermen, they were not happy with the proposals. There was a lot of hue and cries from particula rly members of the NOP because I recall at that time there was a federal election on and they took advantage of the election campaign to put pressure to bear on the Minister of Resou rces at that time, to really take a look at the program that he was propos ing and he did this.

The Minister I think, fairly examined what the fisher men were saying and so a stop was put to implement ing the policy at that time even though there was a large percentage of the fishermen wanted changes, but there was a lot of political interference at that particular time resulting in that there was no change made in the policy. I don't see that there's any great difference now with respect to the Beef Stabi lization Program, where probably 95 percent of the producers do not want to participate in the stabilization program that the Minis ter is trying to force upon the beef producers.

Then there's a number of spending programs for the children's dental program; there's the $4.3 million to cover interest forgiveness for the Credit Un ions; there's $1 00,000 for the Department of Labour and Manpower for ed ucation centr es and the list goes on and on; health care facilities are being expanded under a stepped-up $69 million construction program this year and this is primarily at the Health Sciences Centre; Critical Home Repair is being expanded; $5 million will be spent on the Law Courts constructio n. A lot of these programs were already under way when the government changed.

But there's another big item here that will be inter esting, the $50 million for the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation to undertake an important set of new initiatives. We know there will be a lot of money spent on rental units and this is okay. It will stimulate the building trade for a short time, but this will also create an ongoing expense to the taxpayers of this province to maintain these. So it's a very short-run injection and it's costing a lot of money all these pro grams, and yet there's no overall blueprint for devel opment in the province. What about the hydro?

This is something that gets kicked around qui te a bit and dur ing the Committee meetings dealing with the Annual Report of Manitoba Hydr o that commenced this week, it was indicated that Limestone if delayed to 19 87, would cost $3 bil lion. If it was to start u p in 19 82, it would cost $1. 5 billion so it ju st dou bles if we wait until 19 87 to start the Limestone project.

But if you follow the NOP phi losophy of the 19 70s, they would say that we should be proceed ing with Limestone now so that we can save $1. 5 billion, but the government opposite is not saying that we should get on with Limestone right away because they fully realize what would happen. So really what's the holdup on the hydro? The Minister of Resources speak ing the other day, was gl oating over the fact that the NOP had moved wisely in the 19 70s and that we were now benefiting from the hydro stations that were put in place at that time.

Well, certainly the hydro stations are there and we are not moving on Limestone at the present time so if he was using the same philosophy then we should be proceed ing with Limestone now. But I'd like to refer you to Page 7 of the last Annual Report of Manitoba Hydr o for the year ending March 31, 19 81 where it has a pie there, shows where the dollars went to. In the 19 80-81 report it shows that 52 cents of every hydro dollar went for interest payments on the debt load that hydro was servicing.

So, I would say that the 52 cents on every dollar that's going to interest costs certainly relates to the fact that a lot of the hydro stations were built as economic stimulus to the province. There was no sale for the generated power resulting from the stations that were built and so I think that it's fair to say that had the Go vernment of Manitoba in the 70s more wisely planned the con struction of the hydro projects that we would have hydro bills that would be some 30 percent lower today than they cu rrently are.

So, I think it's fair to say that we really have to be careful with the hydro construc tion even though we could save a $1. 5 billion by build ing Limestone now rather than 19 87. If we don't have a firm market for the power, it could be overwhelming for the taxpayer of this province to even think of such a ridiculous movement. Mr. Speaker, I want to just conclud e my remarks by referring to the Pawley document here that was circu lated at the time of the election. This item is signed by Howard Pawley and he says: "We can build a dynamic futur e in Manitoba.

We can turn around the harsh economic circumstances of the past fou r years. We can tap our sources of energy wisely. With ManOil and Manitoba Hydr o we can develop programs to gua ran tee that no Manitobans lose their homes or farms due to high interest rates. We can provide interest rate relief and an economic cli mate to ensure that small busi ness stays in business. We can ensure that Mani toba and its farms remain in the hands of Manitoba farmers through the development of an effective Farmlands Protection Act. We can improve the qualit y of life in small towns and rural communities.

Manito bans are great people. Together we can build a great futur e. That's a promise we can gua rantee." Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that with the Bu dget Add ress we received on Tuesday night, there's no way that these gu arantees can be assured with the types of spending and lack of an economic blu eprint for Mani toba to follow. It deals only with more spending and some taxation. It does not outline any plan or thrust aimed at getting our economy to a certain defined goal in the next four or five years. Mr . Speaker, I appr eciate the op portu nity to make these comments on the 19 82 Bu dget.

Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Johns. MR. DONALD M. MALINOWSKI (St. Johns): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and also I would like to thank my colleagues for their confidence in me. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Honou rable Minis ter of Finance on his first Budge t. This is always a difficult task for any Finance Min ister, but I have great confidence in our present Minister of Finance. I'm sure it is the best Bu dget that could have been pres ented at the present economic crises. What is, of course, lacking in the Bu dget is a great input from the Federal Gove rnment.

Un der our federal system the kind of Bu dgets pres ented at the federal level has strong bearing on the kind of Bu dgets that even the best of Provincial Govern ments can present. Well. maybe some hon ourable member from the other side, they don' t believe it, but, unfortunately my colleague from Elm wood said it's true -(Int erjection)- no. we're not depe nding only on them. This is not true. We're trying our best. 2472 Mr. Speaker, there was absol utely nothing in MacEachen's Bu dget to help the cou ntry out of the present economic crises. There was nothing in it to ease the strain and high interest rate.

There was virtu ally nothing in the Federal Budge t to reduce unem ployment from the present high level of over 1. 2 mil lion or I believe, if I'm not mistaken, even more than that in the present time, the highest figur e since the grim depr ession days of 50 years ago. This is a very serious matter right now, Mr. Speaker. Mind you, it's not only here in Canada, but if we were talking about the United States who have the same situation; if I'm not mistaken, down there they have app roximately

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 over 1 O millions unemployed accord ing to the last figur es -(I nterjection)- my colleague from Pembina says that he doesn't know. Well, he's very poor in mathematics, I know that. I noticed that when he was a Minister. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, with so little input of a constructive nature at the federal level the Manitoba Bu dget nevertheless contains many featues that will benefit most of the people in the province - I would n't say all, but most of the people. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a big difference between our philosophy and the Tory's philosophy. There's no dou bt in my mind.

The big difference is, Mr. Speaker, that for them, for instance, they would like to put a few persons and pull millions of dollars from millons of people. For us, it's absolutely the opposite, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We are giving millions of dollars to the millions of people from the bank or from the pocket; from the pocket or from the bank -(I nterjection)- well, of course, our pocket, I'm talking about us. No, I have three pockets, Mr. Speaker , the Honour able Mem ber for Pembina is interrupting me, I don't know why, he must be out of order though. Mr .

Speaker , Canada is one of the most fortunate of countries; it is rich in resources; it has great pot ential for a rich and full life for all its people. Just think of what could be done if there were full cooperation at the federal level in putting into effect constructive policies aimed at serving the needs of all the people from coast to coast. I'm not talking about only our province, Mr . Speaker, the Province of Manitoba, but I'm tal king as a whole, all Canada.

As it is, many Canadians have difficu lties with their family bu dgets today but Prime Minister Trude au always has some ready advice for these people. For years he said every day of the week he tells people to practice restraint; cut down expenses, this is the answer; our Prime Minister. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, if your income is too small, spent less, bought less goods, I don't know how this is sup posed to help a depr essed economy which we are facing today. The Go vernor of the Bank of Canada, Gerald Bo uey, is also full of advice, all kinds of advice he's giving to the people of Canada.

He also asks people to cut their bud gets; he also asks them to practice restraint and stop complaining about high interest rates. But how? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Tur tle Mou ntain on a point of order. MR. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to draw Rule 29 to your attention, Sir, which says, "A member add ressing the House shall not read from a written previously prepar ed speec h accept in the case of (

a) a Minister of the Crown making a statement of policy; or (

b) the Leader of the Op position or a Leader of a recognized opposition party making a statement of policy." I know, Sir, that this rule, on occasion, with new members to the Ho use is sometimes overlooked. I think that under the circumstances, if the Memb er for St. Johns is going to read from a prepar ed speech that we should simply have the speech filed and entered in the record. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for El mwood on the same point of order. MR.

RUSSELL DOERN (Elmwood): I think that the member has a right to refer to his notes and he can do so at length and extensively and I think this is accep table to the Ho use. I have seen people read from notes and read from speeches on both sides of the Hous e in the last few weeks so there is nothing new here. I think that the House Leader of the Offi cial Opp osition is simply impeding or impairing a member from making his remarks; he should allow him to proceed. 2473 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ru les clearly state that a member is not to be reading from a prepared speech.

However, from my position it was not clearly evident that the member was reading. You are allowed to refer to notes and with that admonition I would ask the member to continue. The Honourable Memb er for St. Johns. MR. MALINOWSKI: Thank you very much, Mr . Speaker, talking about reading. A previous speaker, if I am not mistaken, was ju st holding a paper all the time like that and according to Howard Pawley, what he said, and he was reading and reading and reading, all the time, even during the qu estion period, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to my notes and I believe I am entitled to do so. On top of it, Mr.

Speaker, those gentlemen from the other side, they are preaching every day they believe in free speech, and all of a sudden the Ho use Leader of the Opp osition - I am ju st referring to my notes because sometimes I have difficulty with the names and figur es and dates, that's why. If I will give some thing in Polish they won't believe it. Mr . Speaker, they are attempting, you know, with your permission I may say a few sentences in Polish, may I? May I have leave of the Ho use? Do you want to hear it? "Panie Przew odnic zacy.

Spr awa jest bar dzo powaznej natury jesli chodzi o bu dzet, w szczeg ol nosci o budz et Manitoby. I ten budzet jest zasad niczy nie tylko dla jedn ostki, ale obejm uje wszyst kich mieszkancow Man itoby. A nawet promieniu je na mieszkancow innych prow incji. Panie przew odnic zacy, zdajemy sobie z tego sprawe, ze to jest bardzo powazna rzecz w naszym zyciu codziennym, dlatego musimy skupic nasze mysli nad tym, aby przekonac naszych kolegow z partii konserwatywnej o slusz nosci takiego a nie innego bud zetu. Tym bardziej, ze czcigodni czlonkowie z opozycji nie wierza w postep socialno demokr atyczny.

A teraz jeszcze Panie Przewodniczacy, chcialbym sie zwrocic do kolegow w sprawie systemu, tu chcial bym sie przeniesc do Polski. I'm going to Poland now if you don't mind. Sytuacja w Polsce jest rzeczywiscie bardzo powazna i ten bud zet ktory Min ister przedstawil wlasnie we wtorek bylby bardzo pozytywny i bardzo pomocny w tej cwili w Polsce, gdzie ludnosc cierpi na brak zyw nosci. I te zywnosc od czasu do czasu z moim Kotite tem przesylamy do Polski." (Translation) Mr. Speaker, the bu dget is a serious matter. It is basic not only for an individuals but for all Man itobans.

It even has an influence on people in

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 other provinces. Mr. Speaker, we realize, of course, that the Budget is a very serious matter affecting our every day life and hence we have to convince our honourable colleagues from the Conservative party of the goodness of this Bu dget and not any other, espe cially as the Honour able Members of the Op position do not believe in the social democratic progress. And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my colleagues with regard to the social system. Here I am referring to Poland.

The situation in Poland is really grave, and this Budge t which the Minister introduced this Tuesday would be very positive and very helpful at this time in Poland where the people suffer shor tages of food. And this food from time to time I, with my committee, ship to Poland. (End of translation) Mr. Speaker, they are ju st looking my way and they probably don't understand everything that I said so I have to come back and continue in English. Well, more or less I will give it to you.

But again, to translate it I have to make a note and then I have to go back to my notes, otherwise, you will not know what I am saying. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Bu dget provides an income of over $1 00,000 a year for our millionaire Prime Minis ter, also, $1 00,000 for incompetent Governor of the Bank of Canada. So they are ju st telling us that we should ju st cut our expenses and we should ju st fit to the Bud get that they are propos ing and telling that we should follow their Bu dget but, Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty the Queen paid us a compliment on her recent visit when she brought us our Constitution.

She said Canada has become a caring and sharing nation. I'm not sure if we deserve the com pliment. Some progress has been made in that direction but not everywhere. Too much of our wealth is still being distrib uted on the basis that those get the most who have the power to grab the most, which is not fair. There are not enough to care enough to share enough of the blessings of this great cou ntry on some ju st basis. The aim of our party certainly certainly, is to make this a caring and sharing cou ntry if possible. Another Bu dget I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is our cou ntry's training Bu dget.

For years on end we have been told there is a shortage of trained people in Canada. Recently in the House of Commons the qu es tion was asked, why is Canada bringing in trained people from other cou ntries when we have so many unemployed in Canada. Good qu estion. Mr . Speaker, Lloyd Axworthy, the Hon ourable Minister of Employ ment and Immig ration replied that Canada through out its history had always brough t in skilled workers from other cou ntries because we didn 't have enough trained people in this cou ntry. That kind of a thing I can't understand. Why?

Canada is not a poor or undeveloped banana repub lic; we have all kinds of ways and means to train our people. Sur ely we can provide training for our own young people. Why do we have to look all the time outside and bring people from different countries? People are not born fully trained and prepared for all trades and professions. Mr. Speaker, as a priest I have many baptisms, I baptize many babies and, believe you me, one of them it wasn't preferred to be a engineer or teacher or doc tor or lawyer, some of them, I may say, politician - but I don't remember which one.

Naturally, talking about the politicians I am talking that they will be a good ND Per. They know where a good party is. Mr. Speaker, but I do not have the magical power to make those babies fully qual ified mechanics or computer opera tors or engineers or anything else. Young people need the opportunity and incentive to get training in skills required in the country. We have to create such an opportunity and in our Bu dget is a place for it, we will do it.

Members from the opposite naturally don' t believe in something like that; all the time they believe in free enterprise and for God's sake for centuries you did n't do it, and it looks like to me that you will be unable to do it. Mr. Speaker, even right now if a young person graduates from the university he's looking for a job. It's very hard for him to find a job, why? Because the first thing is, experience; you have to have experience.

For God's sake where the young person who is going to university and ju st finished his degree whatever it might be, is applying for a job, the first qu estion - or rather not que stion - this is a condition, Mr. Speaker -(I nterjection)- of course it is like that - experience. Give him a chance and, Mr. Speaker, who is not giving them this chance to get experien ce? Private sector - they would like to have a person already stand up and produce and make money, no chance otherwise. Mr. Speaker, the members from the other side they will never understand our position, never.

Probably they will never - I'm jus t telling you nothing but the truth, but you won't listen -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to this Constitu tion which we received not so long ago. This Constitu tion is to gu arantee us certain human rights but much will have to be done, Mr. Speaker, so that one of these human rights will be the right to a job and the right to get the necessary education and training required for many jobs. We should create something like that. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I will deal a few minutes with our war Bud get which the honourable members from the other side, they don' t believe it. They are saying it's no good; probably it's no good for them. But as I said in the beginning it's good for many people, the majority of the people. Absol utely so. Mr. Speaker, we are now spending over $5 billion a year on armaments and related war expenditur es. Mr. Speaker, but still of our militarians and some of our editorial writers and poli ticians are crying for more arms because they think if they will be able to produce more arms then they are creating more jobs. Mr.

Speaker, they feel Canada isn't spending enough, Macleans magazine seems to have become the world jour nal they would like to tell us what to do and how much we're supposed to spend. Peter Newman, its Editor, has publi shed many editor ials calling for increasing war expenditu res. He deplores the fact that Canada isn't spending more, he wants us to spend more money for armaments. In one of his editorials he makes the insulting remark that Canadians have become spineless freeriders relying on their country for military protection and I am qu ot ing his own words, Mr.

Speaker, "The que stion is will all this massive armament make us strong when our economy is so weak and shaky today?" There are over a million unemployed in Canada MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of Or der. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member 2474

Thursday, 13 May, 1982 would say from whom he's quoting, if he'd identify the source of the qu ote? MR. MALINOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Honour able Memb er from Turtle Mou ntain is not lis tening, I was qu oting Peter Newman, it is enough? Okay. Mr. Speaker. they are standing armies of 25 million unemployed in the western cou ntries; there are many bankru ptcies. We are in a serious economic crisis almost on a par with that of the hungry Thirties, almost or maybe even worse.

A shaky economy and standing armies of millions of unemployed do not make a nation strong. no matter how much they spend on armaments. doesn't make any difference. Perhaps if the west concentrated more on solving unemp loy ment and created more sound economic conditions they would n't need to fear the threat of co mmunism. But this is the point, that they are ju st putting more armaments here and there because they are scared, they were -(I nterjection)- No. no. Mr. Speaker. you can't under stand this kind of a thing. Mr.

Speaker, if the many billions spent in armamments were instead spent in provid ing decent living conditions for all the peop le of the world they would have little interest in joining rebel group s to overthrow the govern ments. We are witnessing right now in Argen tina. what's going on down there. And. if I'm not mistaken, they are Conservative. Mr. Speaker, aren't they? This Gur khas in Arge ntina. of course they are. Recently, Mr. Speaker, Macleans magazine had a feature

article by the editor. it was titled "Is World War Ill Inevitable?" This scare thing and this title seem to be trying to get people to accept the idea of war, even the possibility of nuclear war. Following the line of President Reagan and Alexander Haig, Peter Newman says - is the member listening, Peter Newman, I'm jus t talking about him because you may ask me again - says "NA TO has to demonstrate its willingness to use nuclear weapons." To make sure we get the message he repeats this madness twice in the same

article "The only truly cred ible deterrent to nuclear war is willing ness to fight one." Mr. Speaker, Peter Newman has no kind words for the people in the peace movement and I am a peace lover; he has no use for the people in Europe or any where marching in anti-nuclear protests; he believes they should all solidly behind the historical war ideas. Mr. Speaker. we know that the leading member of the NATO alliance was the first nation use the atomic bomb, the Un ited States.

We also know that there are those who. not only, believe in using nuclear weapons but there are even those on the lunatic fringe who believe a nuclear war could be won but a noted U.S. General, General Om ar Bradley said, "The only way to win an atomic war is to make sure it never starts." So, what kind of a Bud get would governments pres ent after a nuclear war or would there be any govern ment after nuclear war? So many people who talk so much about fighting and nuclear war haven't enough imagination to realize what such a war would be like. Bu t, Mr. Speaker, I know. I went through the war.

Many Canadians don' t even realize what war looks like. maybe only a few members who are present here in this Chamb er were in the army overseas during the war. You just sigh, but I went through the war. Mr. Speaker. I hate to distress honourable members with this grim subject but it is something that has to be faced. A film has been now widely shown across Can ada. It is called: "If you Love this Planet." I don' t know if some members saw it or not, that film, but it was here in Winnipeg. This film is based on the book by Dr .

Helen Cald icott, Nu clear Madness, gives a very stark and realistic picture of what a nuclear war would mean. To get the picture you have only to imagine Winnipeg being hit by a nuclear missile and the whole of the city within five miles beyond was destroyed completely and all the people in this area killed, or worse still, wounded and in great agony. Mr. Speaker. we have to also visualize one thing. that all the hospitals would of course be destroyed and most of the doctors and other medical personnel would be among the killed or wounde d.

Any sug ges tions of using nuclear weapons in a futur e war must be regarded as a bad idea; almost as suic ide. It is some thing we must fight against, this kind of idea. The editor of MacLean's Magazine said: "Canadi ans are prepar ed because they are not more warlike." They would like to see something like that. Alexander Haig has said the same thing about the people in Eur ope who, by the thousands, are joining in the anti nuclear protest marches. These large protest marches are one of the most hopeful signs of our times. The people in Europe, Mr. Speaker, know what war is like.

In my former homeland. six million people were killed in the last war; six million of them. Many more millions died in Britain, in France, Germany and the rest of Eur ope. People on this continent have never experienced war except those who were in the armed forces, as I said before. but very few. But the people of Eur ope who have had millions of their people killed or crippled, the people who have seen many of their cities bur ned, destroyed by bombing, and now they know what war is like. They have plenty of reason to join in the anti-war protest marches.

Canadians who value peace should also join these protest marches. 2475 Mr. Speaker. I believe this Legislature and every Legislatur e across Canada should voice a strong pro test against the testing of nuclear missiles on Cana dian soil. I am talking especially about the Province of Alberta. I daresay most Canadians are op posed to this madness. There is pl enty of evidence of this by the many publi c protests that have taken place, not only in Canada, but all over the world. Mr.

Speaker, the western countries have over the years. spent many billions of dollars on military wea pons to fight Communism but these are the wrong kind of weapons with which to fight Commun ists, Mr. Speaker, but these are the wrong kind of weapons and I say it again, Mr. Speaker. In some of the western countries the unemplo yed are growing. We know that in much of the non-commu

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-54a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 54a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	75d482e77080f1ab8c7ccb25f59b9c7e1d56d9cc

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