Manitoba Hansard — 19 March 1987 (Sitting 18, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-18

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 24 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m . OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees .. Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills . .. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, I have two rulings to present to the House that I have taken under advisement.

On Thursday, March 19, 1987, the Honourable Government House Leader rose on a point of order respecting the use of the word "misleading" by the Leader of the Official Opposition . The House Leader pointed out that the word is included in the list of unparliamentary words in Beauchesne and requested that it be withdrawn .

In taking the matter under advisement, I informed the House that the same word is also contained in the list of parliamentary words and reminded members that certainly one cannot accuse a Minister, OT another member, of "deliberately" or "intentionally misleading" - those are definitely considered unparliamentary . I have read the complete text of the Opposition Leader's remarks in which he used the word "misleading." I did not find anywhere in his comments the words "deliberate" or " intentional" or, indeed, any other words which convey the same meaning.

I have examined the context in which "mislead" was found unparliamentary as referenced on page 109 of Beauchesne. In most of the cases, "mislead" was qualified by other words such as "endeavouring to," "sought to," or "wilfully," all of which imply intent or deliberateness. In another case, it was linked with a charge against a member of having provided an answer "which is not the complete truth. " I have also examined those instances in which "misleading" and "misled" were found to be parliamentary as referenced on page 112 of Beauchesne.

I find that in each of these cases , the words were used as part of an unmodified simple statement, which in no way included any suggestion of intent . I have researched this matter with great care because the use of "mislead " or "misleading" is questioned from time to time in this House , but has not been the subject of a definitive ruling . Members would prefer , I am sur e, to have the existing uncertainty removed . Since no refe rence to these words appear in the collected Rulings of Manitoba's Speakers, I have referred to the House of Commons practice .

I note that Speaker Lamo ureux, in his ruling of March 7, 1974, stated to the House that "it is not unparliamentary to suggest that another member has 512 made misrepresentations or has misled the House. What is unparliam entary, and has been ruled on very often, is to suggest that it was intentional, wilful - that kind of concept.

When a Minister or a member tells another member he has misled the House" - that is, accuses another member of misleading the House - "I am sure there is no suggestion that the statement should be withdrawn ." In conclusion , I find that the word " misleading ," as used by the Leader of the Opposition on March 19, is not unparliamentary in the manner and in the context in which it was employed. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: On Thursday, March 19, 1987, the Honourable Member for St.

Norbert, the Opposition House Leader, rose on a matter of privilege respecting the use by the Minister of Community Services of the phrases, "smacking of racist ," and "it's almost a racist assumption" in reference to him . As members know , when a matter of privilege is raised , there are three conditions which must be met. These are: (

a) the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity; (

b) the member raising the matter must conclude his or her remarks with a motion proposing a remedy or solution ; and (

c) sufficient evidence must be presented to suggest that a breach of privilege has occurred to warrant setting aside the regularly scheduled business of the House. In this case, I am satisfied that conditions (

a) and (

b) have been met . I am not, however, satisfied that a prima facie case has been established . The phrases complained of were not used inside the House, but rather were spoken by the Minister outside the Chamber.

Beauchesne's Citation 19(3), as referenced in my ruling of July 11, 1986, provides that: " Statements made outside the House by a member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege .'' In reviewing a number of relevant House of Commons precedents, I note that Speaker Bosley on April 15, 1985, and January 22, 1986, ruled that complaints based on the use of the word "racist" in reference to a particular member were matters of order and not privilege.

Furthermore, Beauchesne's Citation 323(1) states in part : "When the question " - unparliamentary language - "is raised by a member, it must be as a point of order and not as a question of privilege. " For the above reasons , I could not have allowed the matter to be proceeded with as privilege . In any event the Minister , immediately prior to my taking the matter under advisement, withdrew her remarks unconditionally . In similar circumstances, Speaker Hanuschak ruled on August 10, 1970, that regardless of the validity under our Rules of the privilege motion then before the House,

L Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 the Minister's withdrawal altered the status of the matter . I, therefore, rule that the member does not have a matter of privilege . The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I would like to have leave to revert back to Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports, if I could. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister has leave? (Agreed) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, for the information of members who will be debating the Agriculture Estimates, I'd like to table in this House Supplementary Information for the Legislative Review of the current year's Estimates. ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC - loss awareness of Premier MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Premier .

It follows upon questions that I placed to him on Friday, and again yesterday in the House, with respect to whether or not he had knowledge of the massive losses due to reinsurance claims in MPIC in 1984 or 1985; dealing with massive losses that may have been the $12 million, or $14 million that the Minister earlier acknowledged , or indeed the level of $24 .3 million that was evident as a result of the tabling of a report in committee this morning .

Did the Premier have knowledge of the significance of the massive losses that were recorded at that time and that were known to the Minister responsible for MPIC at that time? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the knowledge which I had in 1984-85 was basically that which is contained in the Annual Report of 1984 where it indicated to all members of this House, as well as myself, that there was a problem involving the reinsurance business; and also an indication that this Minister, the present Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, had taken rectifying steps in order to remedy a situation pertaining to the reinsurance portfolio that had existed since 1976. So in 1984 that was the extent of my knowledge.

In the fall of last year I was made aware of the information pertaining to the potential losses to the year 2000 involving the reinsurance fund of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. To the questio n of discussions with the Minister, I have no recollection of any discussions beyond that which I have indicated to you. 513 MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, is the Premier saying that he had no knowledge that the losses were in fact much greater than those that were being reported in the annual report of 1984 that he's referred to; that the Minister responsible kept the knowledge that these losses were $24.3 million, potential losses were $24 .3 million, to himself and did not share that information with the Premier back in October , or in the late fall of 1984? HON. H. PAWLEY: I reject the impression that's been left that the Minister attempted to hide or kept back any knowledge.

I reject that totally and completely, Madam Speaker, and I regret that we've had, in the last three days , accusations involving doctoring of minutes, shredding of documents, cover-up on the part of honourable members, rather than deal with this issue in a forthright manner . Madam Speaker, insofar as the non-preamble to his question, my answer remains the same . MR. G. FILMON: Well, Madam Speaker, it's unfortunate that the Premier did not hear the words himself this morning at committee from his Minister who acknowledged that he had a full and complete understanding of claims incurred of $24.3 million . . .

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: that he tabled . . in accordance with the report MPIC - report given to Board MR. G.

FILMON: My further question to the Premier is: In view of the fact that the Premier has stated that he wan ts to have a full and complete review and inquiry of the MPIC reinsurance losses, that he wants the air to be cleared, that he wants there to be, both in the mind of the public and the mind of the Opposition , complete information and understanding of this issue , will he ensure that members of the House are given the report that was presented to the MPIC Board in the fall of 1986 that led to the presentation of the massive reinsurance losses, some $36 million, in accordance with general accounting procedures in this year's financial statement in this newly tabled annual report of MPIC?

Will he ensure that members of the Opposition are given the complete report that was presented to the board that resulted in that revelation of a $36 million loss? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could respond to that question . This government has been as open as we possibly can in providing the information that is required to fully understand this situation. A committee meeting was requested last Friday; that meeting was held tod ay.

A news conference was held yesterday to try to explain to the public of Manitoba what reinsurance is about.

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 A request was made for minutes of the board meetings from 1982-on last Friday; that information was provided yesterday. So open that full access to the Leader of the Opposition or his representative was available. We have in every way possible accommodated the Opposition . Yesterday , a request was made for the document on which the decision in 1984 was made ; that document was tabled this morning . This morning , a request was made for the document, 1986, which was the culmination of a two-year study of MPIC's involvement in reinsurance.

I gave my word I would take that matter under review . If there are no problems with corporate conf identiality , that paper will be made available as soon as possible; and if there are matters of corporate confidentiality, the same proviso will be provided as was provided with the rest of the board minutes since 1982. So we have been very open. I don't know what else the Oppos iti on would like . MPIC - submissions to Board MR. G. FILMON: My further question to the Premier, Madam Speaker, is: Will he ensure that we are given copies of the list of background submissions that I presented at committee this morning?

These are background submissions to the Board of Directors of MPIC that are referenced in the minutes that we have access to . In reviewing the minutes , we have found that they constantly refer to submissions to the board; we have asked for the subm issions to the board. Will the Premier ensure that in order for us to have a complete understanding and appreciation for how decisions were made, what information was placed to the board, will we get copies of those submissions to the board? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , that list was received some two or three hours ago .

I certainly have not had a chance to review it, but I can assure the members opposite, and all members of this House, that every consideration will be given to providing the information requested. MPIC - files to Archives MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for MPIC.

In view of the fact that we are now before committee dealing with the MPIC rein surance scandal and cover up by this Minister and the government, could the Minister ind icate to me why he would send to the Archives files and documentation which contain answers relative to questions posed at today's hearing and future hearings? Why would he send those current files to the Archives , Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultu re, Heritage and Recreation. HON. J.

WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. 514 I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify some of the issues around the shredding of files, as mentioned by the member opposite, particularly in view of some of the innu endo and slurs and A MEMBER: Libelous slurs. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: ... libelous slurs, yes, of members op posite involving the Minister responsible for MPIC. Madam Speaker , all of us were shocked to learn that any files had been destroyed. Madam Speaker , I would hope that this matter is treated seriously by all members of the House . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please .

The Honourable Member for Pembina on a point of order? MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , we do treat this issue seriously, that's why I asked the Minister why his files were sent, files that are current to discussions now before committee, which the Minister needed for reference . .. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a point of order? MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, Madam Speaker, I very much am on a point of order. Madam Speaker, I made no reference to the shredding of files in my question. I simply asked the Minister why he sent current files, files which are needed for him to answer questions before committee.

Why were those current files sent to the Archives, denying the Minister answers to questions that are being posed? MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. MR. D. ORCHARD: That 's the question, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member knows he does not have a point of order, that he cannot determine which Minister answers his questions, or indeed, the content of the answer. The Honourable Minister responsible for Culture , Heritage and Recreation. HON. J.

WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Files that are scheduled, as are the files for the Minister responsible in this case, are sent as speedily as possible to the Records Centre for storage there , given the fact that it is impossible to keep records going back several years in Ministers ' offices. It's quite a normal practice; it's the case in all of our offices that files are sent as space runs out. In this case, a set of unfortunate circumstances followed, and I would be happy to account for all of that in this House . MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , my question is for the Minister responsible for MPIC.

Does the Minister expect the people of Manitoba to seriously believe him when he says that files current and necessary to answer questions currently before

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 the MPIC are sent (

a) from his office ; and (

b) are shredded so they're not available for the public? Does the Minister expec t the people of Man itoba to believe that malarkey? MADAM SPEAKER: Would the honourable member . like to rephrase his question so it does not seek an opinion? MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, does the Minister responsible for MPIC, after having given three different answers to the reinsurance losses in the short period of time of seven days before this House, does that same Minister expect the people of Manitoba to believe that his documents and records were inadvertently shredded, records and documents needed to prove his case before the committee? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, on a point of order . At sometime the wilful distortions have to stop.

That sort of question is clearly out of order in this House or in any other House where matters of this nature are under discussion . . The Member for Pembina knows that question is out of order.

As a matter of fact, you just asked the Member for Pembina to rephrase the question, and instead of rephrasing the question to try to abide by the rules before the House he, once again, participated in a wilful distortion of the facts which have been put before this House; and there is an occasion when all members of this House must stand and put an end to that sort of distortion and those sorts of questions which are not intended to solicit information, which are not intended in any way to further the cause of reviewing this matter, but are only intended to lead to facetious arguments . that the member opposite wishes to continually put forward .

Madam Speaker, you suggested the question was out of order previously; it is out of order now. I'm supporting you in that suggestion, but I also want to make it very clear that not only members on this side have the responsibility to make certain that this question period is used productively, but members opposite do as well , and we will no longer abide by that sort of misuse of this question period . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina, with a question . MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , I believe my question stands and I would like the Minister to answer . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please .

The honourable member cannot determine whether or not a Minister answers a question . The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well then, Madam Speaker , just simply let the record show that the Minister cannot explain his actions . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . 515 Archives - identification of documents MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield , with a question . MR~' G. ROCH: Thank you , Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation, the Minister responsible for Archives and Cabinet document storage .

How are Cabinet documents and those which are sent to the Archives for filing, how are these Cabine t documents identified? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture and Heritage Resources . HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Documents -(Interjection)- obviously, members opposite don 't want to hear the facts on this issues, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister has the floor to respond to the question . HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker , files are scheduled and a code is applied to those files , based on the type of files .

In this case, the files for the Minister of Housing , of which MPIC were a part, were scheduled in 1984 and under the code of H0003. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker , to the same Minist er. Are signatures required to initiate shredding of government documents? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker , all documents scheduled for retention should not be, and except with this particular instance , are not shredded. The shredding of or the processing and scheduling of documents is prescribed in legislation, that is The Legislative Library Act, No. 120,

Part II of that legislation, and there is a dynamic process in place for dealing with every file on a case-by-case basis . The process involves a documents committee , involving representation from the Minister of Finance, the Attorney-General, the Minister of Government Services, the Minister responsible for the Ar.chives, and that committee determines each file on a case-by-case basis. In the event that the file is deemed to meet the criteria specified in the legislation, I refer again to Legislation 120, which delineates which documents can be destroyed and for what reasons.

Madam Speaker , in the event that following this process involving the documents committee , a document is listed for destruction . There is still a process involving a 28-day period of informatio n to the Minister's office before any records are destroyed . A very rigorous process is in place. In the case, Madam Speaker , in the case of this particular incident, it can be, as far as we can tell -(Interjection)- Madam Speaker, I'm having a hard time over the chattering and laughing of members opposite, given the seriousness of this issue. They don't like the truth .

In this particular case, Madam Speaker, there appears to have been an element

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 of human error involved and a breakdown of procedures . MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, in view of the lengthy answer, which was not ruled out of order , I take it that signatures are required . If so, whose signature or signatures are required? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: As records are scheduled, documents must be signed by representatives from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Government Services, the Attorney-General, the Provincial Auditor and the Provincial Archivist as well as by the Minister responsible . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H.

ENNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister responsible for the Archives.

Madam Speaker, having twice experienced the not all-too-pleasant experience of serving an administration that loses the confidence of the people , and then has been asked to leave a ministerial office, I can distinctly remember, usually within that transition period , a few days after a Minister has lost an election, or his government has lost an election. receivi ng a letter from the Provincial Archives requesting that ministerial files be turned over to the Provincial Archives .

Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister is: When has this policy changed, that a Minister active in his responsibility, active in his portfolio, is turning active files over to the Archives? I'd simply ask, when was that policy changed? I can remember getting those kind of lette rs when I lost my min isterial office as a result of an election, within that transition period - 10 days after losing that position. HON. J.

WASYLYCIA-LEIS: In 1981, members opposite will be fully aware of this, since it was during their last year of office - our records management process was put in place, involving all of the steps that I have just mentioned. As well, Madam Speaker, with the passing of The Freedom of Info rmation legislation, every effort has been made to ensure tha t there is steady progress made with respect to scheduling of documents, and the compilation of an access guide in line with what members opposite have been asking for.

I should point out that the situation is quite improved since prev ious to 198 f when, in fact, although we have no evidence of records being destroyed, we do know of instances where Ministers upon leaving office, particularly Ministers in that term of office, walked off with many files. There are no records in our Archives of Ministers' files from that period in some cases. MR. H. ENNS: Just one supplementary question, Madam Speaker. We can assume then in the Opposition, that all the Ministers' files - their current files, are at the Archives. i Is that a fair assumption to be made? 516 HON. J.

WASYLYCIA-LEIS: First of all, all records must be scheduled, and that involves a form and I'd be happy to table samples of that form, indicating the kind of process that is undergone with respect to the scheduling of records . Once a Minister's files are scheduled, then as the office is in need of space and basically as space is required, and the office has time to put the files in the order according to the way in which they were scheduled, then a call is made to the record centre, to request that these records be picked up and stored according to the way in which they were originally scheduled.

Administrative costs - limited to inflation rate MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you , Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday in response to my question regarding increased government administrative costs, the Minister of Finance said and I quote: "In fact overall administration costs in this Budget for all departments are at levels just slightly higher than the previous year, and our rate's lower than the cost of inflation." How does the Minister, therefore, expla in the fact that administrative costs in this Budget are $2.6 million or 5.6 percent above last year's, or 1.5 percent above the rate of inflation? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I don't know of the figures that the member quotes, but the figures that I have indicate that there's about a 2 percent increase overall of administrative spending right across all government departments. I'm sure once we have the opportunity of dealing with the line-by line expenditures that we can get into the details of the spending. As I indicated, overall expenditures are up significantly . Most of the increases go to areas like health , education - $118 million directly to the Department of Health .

There are other areas of government expenditures where there have been increases that are below the cost of inflation. There are some areas where expenditures have been reduced, in terms of trying to ensure that we have the revenues, and the expenditures going in the areas that are of the highest priority for Manitobans. Executive Support Salaries - increase in MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplementary question to the same Minister , Madam Speaker. Can the Minister explain why his executive support salaries went up by 36 percent in this Budget? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: As I indicated, overall administration costs throughout the government went up by levels that are within line. In my particular office, there were increased activities out of the Deputy

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 Minister's Office, which saw the addition of staff in that office, and some reclassifications . But I don't think the increases are tha t large . In fact, I don 't think - I think in percentage term s they're not different from the increases in the expenditures in the office of the member that raised this question. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplementary quest ion, but this time to the Minister of Co-operative Development.

Can the Minister explain increases in his executive salaries of 14.2 percent, which shows a blatant disregard for the notion of responsible government spending, particularly when his department's overall budget went down by 56 percent? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co op Development. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Madam Speake r. The member full well knows why it is the Budget went down in such a significant amount. There were two major agreements which expired, one during the course of the year and one which expired previous to the year, so that is a reduction in the departmental activities.

As a matter of fact, in the other activities as a department, the support activities for co-ops , and that's what the department is there for, the incfeases were increases that allowed them to provide for more support and more assistance to co-operators in this province and to develop new co-operatives . That's why I think for the past three years running, we have had record years of incorporations of co-operatives in this province. We make no apology for putting the resources together that are required to bring a better co-operative movement to Manitoba .

In respect to the increases, she will note that the Executive Support portions of the Estimates actually went up 2 percent. What went up was Finance and Administration , wh ich went up because of the addition of one staff year. Here 's where the member - and I don't believe she's trying like others to wilfully distort - makes a mistake . The mistake, Madam Spea ker . A MEMBER: Order, order. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. If any members have any points they want to bring to the Speaker 's attention, they know the process to do it. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie with a point of order . MR.

E CONNERY: On a point of order, Madam Speaker . The member said that we were "wilfully distorting," and I resent that remark that we are wilfully distorting. I ask that you request him to withdraw that remark . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co op Development. HON. J.

COWAN: On the point of order, and then I would, after you've made your ruling, Madam Speaker , wish to continue with the answer because I think it is important that members opposite understand what is happening in respect to the question that was posed by the Member for River Heights . 517 I suggested that I do not believe the Memb er for River Heights is wilfully distorting, such as some other members opposite may in fact be doing . Madam Speaker, if that offends members opposite , I will withdraw the words but the record stands for itself.

If they are offended by what is happening, perhaps they should talk to some of their own caucus to make certain that that sort of actio n does not take place in this House. If the words offend him, the wo rds are withdrawn. In respect to . . . SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please . On the point of order, I heard the Honourable Minister say that he did not think that the Honourable Member for River Heights had wilfully distorted.

I understand that the Honourab le Member for Portage la Prairie is raising another reference, which I am afraid I did not catch , but I will expect the Honourable Minister, because " deliberat el y distort " and " deliberate distortion" are unparliamentary, to une quivocally withdraw any imputation that any honourable member has wilfully distorted information to this House . All honourable members are honourable members on both sides of this House and should be referred to that way. The Honourable Minister . HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, I appreciate full well your ruling.

I apprec iate full well the sensiti vity of members opposite and wit hdraw those words categorically. I'd expect, Madam Speaker, that when they make imputations and allegations and suggestions that are out of order, that their . . . A MEMBER: Order, Madam Speake r. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . I do hope the Honourab le Minister is not directing the Chair in any way. We are now replying to the Honourable Member for River Height's question . HON. J. COWAN: No, Madam Speaker , I was not intending to direct the Chair . If you 'd just let me finish the one sentence.

I was saying I would hope members opposite would talk to each other in their caucus, so that those sorts of statements are not advertently or inadvertently brought to the House; not to suggest, Madam Speaker, that what applies to one side of the House should not apply to the other and we appreciate your ruling and I unconditionally withdraw those words . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER : Order please . Executive Support Salaries - increase in MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co op Development to reply to the question put. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 The difficulty in what has happened to give the increase which the Member for River Heights references is that one staff year has been added to a complement of seven. And when one staff year is added to a complement of seven, you have a percentage increase of the magnitude that she suggests is out of order .

If the Member for River Heights would look at her own area of administration of her office, she will find that the increases there are in the hundreds of percents, and I don't believe that is inappropriate , Madam Speaker , and I don't believe that she shouldn 't have that sort of staff support available to her, I think she needs it; but I do believe that she should not try to suggest that, in one instance, the increases are outrageous and in her own instance , the increases would not be so. The increases in effect to her budget are in the hundreds of percent over since when she was first elected.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights with a final supplementary. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Oh, the Honourable Member for St . Norbert on a point or order. MR. G. MERCIER: Yes, Madam Speaker .

With respect to the remarks of the Government House Leader, as the Government House Leader and the Minister of Finance well know, the increases in operating expenses given to Members of the Legislative Assembly last year were done by agreement between the government, the Opposition and the Member for River Heights , and I don 't think it's appropriate that they should reflect - either the Minister of Finance or the Government House Leader - in the way they have on the operation of the Member for River Heights' office. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has a dispute over the facts . It's not a point of order.

HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. J. COWAN: So that the record be clear , Madam Speaker, the increases which were given to all members are not the increases to which I was referring. The increases to which I was referring were increases given only to that member . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Question period is not a time for debate . Question period is a time for questions to be asked and answers to be put . A dispute over the facts is not a point of order , as I've reminded honourable members many times . Mrs.

Carstairs - additional funding MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights with a final supplementary . 518 MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speake r, could I ask the Government House Leader, please, what additional funding I have been given , other than the $500 between $3,200 and $3,700 between the fiscal year last year and this year? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co op Development. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , if the member had listened, she would have heard me say, since she was elected to this House , which is two years running.

The increases are staff increases which were given to her, which were not given to other members of this House . They were given to her particularly to allow her to perform her function, a political function , as the leader of a particular party; and they were given , Madam Speaker, upon request, because it was felt it was necessary for her to perform certain duties. Madam Speaker, we are not begrudging the fact that they were given . We believe they were given and they are being well utilized. What we resent is the implication MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . Order please.

Middle income - definition of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, in his answer or non-answer to a member who questioned him with respect to revelations in a Free Press

article suggesting that the effect of this Budget had the greatest negative impact upon the middle-class taxpayers of our province , and given the fact that this government and this NOP Party has been repeatedly critical of all governments that tend to reflect, tend to zero in on the middle-class when they begin to raise additional taxes, can the Minister provide his definition of what middle income means, given the fact that the average family in Manitoba earns $34,000.00? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

The Member for Morris continues, as does his friends, to use selective statistics when they look at the impacts of this Budget on different classes of tax filers . They use an example of a tax filer at a high income level of over $206,000 that, in essence, doesn't exist, because the tax filers at that kind of level have a good part of their income coming from salary and a good part of their income coming from investment, not purely on salary.

If you look at what happens to that particular tax filer as a result of the Budget, you will see that the impact is quite considerably more than that which has been recently reported. The same thing is true if you look at even the lower end example that his friend used, of $27,000 .00. You could take the same example and have an individual

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 in that class with a child or two children in day care, and you find that particular taxpayer, at $27,000, will actually see a reduction in her taxes if she was a single parent with children in day care . So it is obvious, Madam Speaker, that this Budget has attempted to raise revenue in the fairest way possible . The reality is that the present income tax system has got all of the problems with it that have been exposed on many occasions . We have brought in a revenue tax, under income tax, in the fairest way possible, given the constraints of the existing system. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, the question was very specific . In an attempt to remove these variations, I asked the Minister to define his

interpretation of middle -income earner. My question was specific. Will he undertake to give us a definition, give the House a definition of that, as of right now? MADAM SPEAKER: That question is repetitious. Budget - lower- and middle-income families MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: A further supplementary, Madam Speaker . Would the Minister then indicate whether there was a typographical error in his Budget Address, page D 19, when he said, "Manitoba changes reduce taxes for lower- and middle-income families"? In fact, is that a wrong quote?

Was there a typographical error or does he stand by that assertion? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I stand by that assertion and the facts bear that out. Let me just tell you the kind of lies . . . I'm sorry, Madam Speaker, the kind of information that is being presented - I withdraw that term, Madam Speaker - the kind of information that's being put forward by the Conservatives in terms of this Budget is doing some damage to reality in terms of what is happening for people under this Budget . As an example, the average income for senior citizens in this province, Madam Speaker, is $17,000 .00.

Most senior citizens in this province will get tax reductions as a result of this Budget, and if they would take the time to look at what their counterparts are doing to taxpayers in Manitoba, if they want to talk about the biggest tax grab, I sat down with some senior citizens this week who have income of $15,000 from pension purposes. Their taxable income is $4,910.00 . That is what their taxable income is, and do you know how much more they're paying in federal income tax this year - $109, Madam Speaker . That same taxpayer will get a break under our Budget, Madam Speaker. Budget - balanced by 1991 MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, a new question to the Minister of Finance . Madam Speaker, there is not one chance in a million that the Budget of this province will be balanced by 519 1991, certainly if the government is still in the hands of the NDP. Can the Minister of Finance lay before this House a multi-year Budget that has allowed the Premier of the province to say outside of this House on Friday last that indeed the Budget would be balanced by 1991?

Would the Minister of Finance now lay before us something that we've asked him to do on several occasions, a multi-year Budget that will show where the Budget of this province will be balanced by 1991? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: The financial plan for this province has been laid out in the Budget, it's been laid out very clearly in terms of how we are dealing with the needed services for Manitobans through the expenditures, we deal with how we are raising the revenue to meet the service needs of Manitobans and we show the deficit , the net shortfall between what is required for expenditures and what is raised through revenues.

The member knows full well that there is a significant reduction this year in the deficit of our province by some $150 million, something that is taking place in the province right next to us, that is managed by those fiscally responsible people who increased their deficit from what they went into an election with of some $300 million to $1 .2 million. We will work to ensure that we maintain services in this province . We will ensure that we would raise the revenue in as fair a way as possible .

We won't increase Medicare premiums like they did in the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, by $96 in the case of Alberta per every family in that province. We will ensure that we have the revenues to meet the expenditure needs and bring about a reduction in our deficit, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris with a final supplementary. MR. C. MANNESS: A final supplementary, Madam Speaker . I took no answer from the rambling of the Minister of Finance. I direct my supplementary to the Premier, Madam Speaker.

Can the Premier tell this House whether he made the assertion on Friday last that, indeed , the Budget of this province will be balanced in 1991, did he make that on the basis of some multi-year Budget , some figures that were down on paper, that gave him the confidence in saying that the Budget would be balanced in that year 1991? If so, would he lay that before the House? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, this government is principally concerned, (

a) on ensuring th at vital important social services are maintained, are enhanced ; and (

b) in ensuring that we maintain our record of job creation . The Minister of Finance, in this Budget, has projected a reduction of some $150 million in the deficit in this year alone, Madam Speaker. If we are not subjected to external economic circumstances, and we maintain the present path, then, Madam Speaker, under this stewardship, we will see a balanced Budget. Unlike

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 the Tories, unlike their experience in Saskatchewan, unlike the ir experience in Alberta , where deficits have quadrupled and tripled beyond what was expected , we can see a gradual reduction. Northern Tax Allowance - Thompson and Wabowden MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. In December of last year, the Federal Government announced criteria for the northern tax allowance which exc luded th e communities of Thomp son and Wabowden .

In view of the fact that 46 other northern communi ties in Manitoba and many other communit ies across Canada are eligible for the northern tax allowance , I would like to ask the Minister if he has received any indication from the Federal Government that they are willing to reconsider this unfair exclusion of Thompson and Wabowden? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for that question and I share his concern with respect to the situat ion as it exists for those communities under their recent changes.

I have written to the Federa l Minister of Finance asking him to review that particular situation to see if there can be chan ges made so that the negative impact on those communities can't be changed , so they will not feel the kind of impact that they are going to as a result of that change . MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader . MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you , Madam Speake r. I have some questions to the Governmen t House Leader on Government House Business, Madam Speaker.

Firstly , Madam Speaker, at my request , the Clerk has supplied me, and I'm sure the Government House Leader , with many pages of lists of Annual Reports that should have been filed now in the House . Can the Government House Leader indicate to the House when these will be filed and hopefully they will all be filed by the end of this week? MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. J. COWAN: Yes, as a matter of fact , Madam Speaker , I believe some of the reports on that list have already been filed in the time ensuing since the list was 520 prepared .

I'm not certain if it's up to date today or not; but in any event, as is the practice, the reports are filed as soon as they are available and as soon as possible. If there are specific reports on the list, Madam Spea ker - well, I hear the member s opposite suggest ing from their seats that might not be the practice . I would suggest that they go back through the Hansard s and go back thro ugh the Journals and they will see that when they were in government and when we' re in government that reports do filte r into the House over a period of time.

They will also find references where House Leaders have stood up and asked when will the reports be available and received respo nses similar to this response. If there are particular report s that the member opposite would like to see expedited, then, in fact , I would sit down with the Opposition House Leader and see if we can 't accommodate that. But the reports are being developed and they will be tabled in the House as has been the pract ice in the past as soon as they are available. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, last week's Order Paper showed some nine Orders for Return accepted but not returned , including items such as polls and public opinion surveys commissioned by the province, and leaves of absence taken by provincial employees and civil servants. Could the Government House Leader indicate when all of these Orders for Return will be filed? HON. J. COWAN: Again , as is the practice , Madam Speaker, the returns are filed as they are completed . I will go over the list today to determine what is still outstanding and discuss that matter with the Opposi tion House Leader.

There have been a number that have been returned as of recent and there are others that are nearing completion that could be returned in the near future. There are others that are going to take more time . MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker , with respect to the calling of the committee to further consider the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Annual Report, I would ask the Government House Leader, given the need by Opposition members to have an opportunity to receive and peruse Hansard of today's meeting, to receive the documents requested at today's meeting, to review the minutes and to review the 1986 report on reinsurance, could the Government House Leader indicate when the next meeting of the committee will be called? HON. J.

COWAN: We, on this side, would like to have that committee meet tonight on the basis that there were a number of suggestions during the committee by the Member for Pembina, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition , I'm not certain, but certainly the Member for Pembina , that the committee must continue to meet to review matters that they are aware of and matters which they would like answers to. So, if it's agreeable with the Opposition House Leader, we would have the committee meet this evening? MR. G. MERCIER: Given all of the reasons I have cited in my earlier question to the Government House Leader,

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 it is not acceptable and I think it would be a waste of time for the committee to meet until this information is available and has been perused . MADAM SPEAKE R: The Honourable Government House Leader. Order please. HON. J. COWAN: Then let the record be clear that we did want to have the meeting this evening . This evening was opportune for committee members on this side. We were able to free up our time in order to have that meeting .

However, as has been the practice in the past, and I have appreciated the cooperation of the Oppositi on House Leader in scheduling meetings of the committee , I would be prepared to sit down with the Opposition House Leader and determ ine when the meeting can be next held . But, just so that the record is clear, we would prefer it to be held this evening .

We understand that members opposi te would not wish it to be held this evening for a number of reasons which they have put forward, and I would be pleased to sit down with the Opposition House Leader and discuss when there might be another appropriate time for that meeting when all members can attend and be comfortable with the timin g. MR. G. MERCIER: Can the Government House Leader indicate when the documents that were requested today will be available? HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, I've not had an opportunity to review all the requests for the documents, but I would ask the Opposition House Leader, is he suggesting that all those documents should be available before the committee next meets? MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, if the Government House Leader could indicate Hansard will be available tomorrow , we would suggest the committee meet again Thursday morning. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , the development and the production of Hansard is not in my hands, so I can't indicate yes or no. I do still have a question.

The question is: Because the Opposition House Leader suggests that one of the reasons they don't want to meet is because they don't have the documents they requested , is he suggesting that we not meet until those documents are available? MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker , I'm suggesting to the House Leader that we're prepared to meet on Thursday morning if Hansard is available tomorrow. Now that was easily done at our request with respect to the MTX Committee meetings.

I would hope that the same procedure could be followed , and Hansard could be made available tomorrow and the committee could meet again Thursday morning. HON. J. COWAN: The Opposition House Leader will recall, when that was done for the MTX meeting, there was a lot of advance time given. It was an agreement that was reached far in advance of the particular meeting . I understand that Hansard had to make special 521 arrangements in order to accommodate that request. The House was not sitting at the time, so they did not have the other business of the House available to them.

I guess my question to the Opposition House Leader is: What material s does he want prepared before the committee next meets, because that was one of the specifics he indicated was a problem with the commi ttee meetin g tonight? MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, my answer to the Government House Leader is very simple. If Hansard is available tomorrow, we're prepared to have the committee meet on Thursday morning.

If it' s not going to be available and the other documents that have been requested are not available, perhaps the next meeting should be the first Tuesday morning when the House convenes after the spring break. HON. J. COWAN: There are a number of options available to us, and I think what is being displayed here is a difficulty in trying to sit down and answer all the questions and make the arrangements for a committee meeting, which sometimes becomes complex while standing on our feet in this House.

So given the options that have been presented by the Opposition House Leader, I am prepared to sit down with him and discuss when it is the committee should next meet and what should be available to that committee before it does next meet. But it would certainly hav e been our preference and our wish to have had that committee meet this evening so that this matter could be considered in a forthrigh t and immediate manner .

ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate of the proposed mot ion of the Honourable Minister of Finance and the proposed amendment thereto of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition , the Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speake r. I'm pleased, Madam Speaker , to have the opportunity today to respond to the second Budget and the proposed amendment by my leader presented to the Manitoba Legislature since my election one short year ago .

As I stated in my response to the Throne Speech, Madam Speaker, this past year has provided me with an opportunity to grow and to learn, to understand the legislative process more fully and to feel more comfortable in my role representing my constituents in River East. Madam Speaker, my constituents in River East are not terribly pleased with this classic NOP Budget, classic in respect to five consecutive years of $0.5 billion deficits. Who can expect this year to be any different, Madam Speaker , when past expe rience has shown us that the projected deficits have been underesti mated?

It has already been said , Madam Speaker , by my leader and by others on this side of the House that this is the biggest tax grab, the largest overall tax increase in the history of our province. Four out of five Manitobans will be paying more as a result of this $368 million increase in taxation .

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 Every other province , Madam Speaker, as well as the Federal Government, has looked inward to try to reduce the Civil Service and government bureaucracy. However, this government chooses to maintain the largest Cabinet in the history of Manitoba and maintain all the apple polishers and political hacks with no internal belt-tightening. They have chosen the unhonourable way, Madam Speaker, and taxed Manitobans rather than cut costs.

The Minister of Finance in the Budget Address states, and I quote : "Our NPD Government responds to the needs of people." Well, Madam Speaker , let me tell you what some of th e people of Manitoba are responding to the Minister of Finance in th is Budget. I quote from the Winnipeg Sun on Wednesday, March 18, and these are just the ordinary , average people in Manitoba who are saying: "Tha t's a lousy Budget. There was no attempt to curb spending. You can't live in a deficit world forever . Someday we're going to have to pay for it." Madam Speaker, this was a 60-ye ar-o ld retired person who said this. (Mr.

Deputy Speaker, C. Santos , in the Chair .) I quote again, "They are out of control. They are not accountable for the money they spend , and then the little people who are being step ped on have to pay for this." This was a 45-year-old office work er, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I quote a third quote , Mr. Deputy Speaker: " This Budget is not fair to the poor, the low incom e and the unemployed . The NOP are taxin g us to pay for their blunders . They should curb their spending ," a 55-year old CN employee, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have to say that the real people in Manitoba are voicing real concerns . I don't know how thi s government can say that they are attempting to respond to the needs of the people of Manitoba . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had a little research done on how this NOP Government responds in the way of hiring government employees in the province . I'll tell you that statistics I have been able to obtai n indicate to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there 's been a great increase in government employees and the bureaucracy in this Province of Manitoba .

I just want to quote a headline from the Winnipeg Sun this morning that said " The Federal Governmen t is decreasi ng the number of bureaucrats ." The number of bureaucrats in the Feder al Government is on the decline, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and public service employment is the lowest in 13 years in Ottawa. But I'll tell you what's happened over the last few years in the Province of Manitoba as far as public service emp loyment. When the NOP came into power in 1981, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there were 14,371 government employees. Today, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , there are 20,558 government employ ees, an increase of 43 percent since the NOP Government has taken over in 1981 - apple polishers , political hacks. If I can just go back to the four Conservative years when the Conservatives were in power in this province, the actual number of government employees decreased, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So this is the way our NDP Government responds to the needs of the people of Manitoba - wonderful. 522 If that's not enough, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, let me just go to some of the departments in the Estimates this year and tell you what's happening in the Depa rtment of Health . In the Department of Health , the salaries in the Estim ates are $83.4 million -(Interjection) - no, in 1987. Those are the salar ies. In 1981, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the NDP Government took over, the total salari es in the Department of Health were $38.6 million, an increase of 116 perce nt in five short years since the NOP Government has been in power . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , if that's not enough , in the Department of Highways, even though the budgets are being cut in the Department of Highways wit h this NOP Government, there has been a 52 percent increase in salar ies in the Department of Highways. Mr. Deputy Spe aker, if that's not bad enough when they're decreasing spending and decreasing budgets , the Executive Council in this year 's Estimates , there 's been 142 percent increase in salaries since the NDP Party took over in 1981, the Premier's Offic e. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I ask you : Is this what the real people in Manitoba want for their tax dollars? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'd be quite remiss if I didn 't talk a little bit about agriculture in this Budget. I notice that the Member for Kildonan, in his response to the Budget, he stated: "Farmers," and I'm quoting, "The Opposition has expressed its concern when it seems politically approp riate and expedient to be concerned about farmers ." Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker , nothing could be further from the truth from that. Our Agriculture critic and our Conservative caucus on this side of the House , over the past year, have been pushing hard for the removal of education tax from farm land .

In fact, it was one of our election promises in 1986, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. We, on th is side of the House , have continually asked the Minister of Agriculture to take some pos itive steps to do something concrete for the farmers in this province . Last Session, Mr. Deputy Speaker , when we were debating The Family Farm Protection Act, 25 members on this side of the House spoke on that bill and our concerns for the farm community in Manitoba . Where was the Member for Kildonan, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during that debate?

In fact, where were 21 other NDP caucus members when we were discussing that bill? There were only eight members on that side of the House who were interested in the farm crisis last year, Mr. Deputy Speaker . But after the fact, after we've embarrassed them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, into finally taking some positive action on behalf of the farmers, the 21 members over there are now hopping on the bandwagon when it seems politically appropriate and expedient to be concerned about the farmers in Manitoba. Moving onto Health, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I guess the new Ministe r of Health or the up-and-coming Minister of Health , the now Minister of Urban Affairs, we seemed to spend an awful lot of time on his response to the Budget dealing with health issues in the province. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will quote him as saying: "We are headed rapidly to a two-tiered health care system in this province ." Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I did suggest in my response to the Throne Speech that, yes, we are heading towards a two-tiered health system here in

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 this province . I don't believe it 's anyone's fault but this NOP Government that's caused this problem . The re's a two-tiered system forming here, one for the rich and one for the poo r, because our standards of services here can't compare or compete with other areas , other provinces . Peopl e are having to travel out of prov ince, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to get the care that they need . So when the Minister of now Urban Affairs - probably the upcoming Minister of Health - suggests that, I agree with him wholehear tedly.

Another area th at the Minister for Urban Affairs, the Member for Conco rdia, mentioned was preventative health care , Mr. Deputy Speaker . Just let me quote what he says about preventative health care : "I believe that the preven tat ive health care is one of the ways in which we can take some of the extreme pressure off very, very expensive institutional care in this province and indeed in this country, because it is in our long term best interests." Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the NOP Government should look at practising what they preach .

If you look at the Estimate Book this year , as far as health promotion - and let me tell you what health promotion is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Health promotion in the Budget provides the nucleus for coordinated planning and delivery of health promotion programs, focusing on the reduction and prevention of life-style related diseases, also coordinates the development of services to the well elderly. Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, although the budget in the Department of Health has increased by $118 million , health promotion, the very thing that the Member for Concordia has been saying is one of their priorities , has decreased by $150,000 in this year's Estimates . So tell me where their prior ities are, Mr. Deputy Speaker . The third area in health that I'd like to speak on briefly is the increased home care assistance , and I'm glad to see that money is going into that very important area . But once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to go back to my comments in the Throne Speech Debate .

I did indicate at that time that there were three areas in the health care system that were of import: one of them was access; one was delivery; and one was actual medical service provided. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker , accessibility once again means very little if the system that you are accessing cannot provide the best available service . I'm glad there 's more money going into home care, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, but tell me: Where is this government going to find the providers to give this much-needed home care when right now - I am told by people who are using the system and people who are working within the system - we cannot find people who want to become homemakers, who want to become home orderlies? The jobs are there , the positions are there, and we can't fill them. We can 't find the people . So it's going to be very interesting, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, to see what this innovative government is going to do with all of the increased funds to find those people to fill the spots, to look after the people in this province who need that care the most. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that this Budget will go down in the history of this province as the most irresponsible and ill-conceived Budget ever perpetrated on the people of Manitoba. If the intent of this NOP Government was, Mr.

Deputy Speake r - and I expect 523 that it was - that all Manitobans, without except ion, were to feel the full weight of the total mismanagement of this government , they have indeed accomplished their goal. This Budget, Mr. Deputy Speake r, has not only penalized the so-called affluent in our province - all those wealthy peop le who earn over $30 ,000 a year - they've penalized tho se people with a 2 perce nt net tax increase. The business communit y, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , have repeatedly stated that the payroll tax stops business from creating jobs , also the middle income or the average Manitoban and the lower socio-economic group of Man itobans that this NOP Government professes to support - what hypocrites! The NOP has at least been above board and up front, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with their lack of interest , disd ain and contempt for the affluent and for the business community .

This Budget clearly indicates to all Manitobans that the average and the middle class and even the poor and underprivileged and those who can least pro tect themselves have not escaped this contemptuous lack of concern with the 1 percent increase in sales tax, the tax that the NOP has stated is regres sive and unfair and places the burden of taxation on the backs of working Manitobans . The increase d sales tax, increased Autopac rates , increased telephone rates, increased Hydro rates, increased highway and licence fees, increased cigarette and liquor taxes will be borne by all Manitobans, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the rich and the poor . If I can just tell you what some of those ordinary Manitobans are saying again from the paper , some quotes - there's more ,.there's many. On one small page there are many quotes th at indicate what this government has done and what the average people in Manitoba feel about this Budget, Mr. Deputy Speaker . One quote, "Hey, it's a well-planned Budget and if we have one more like it, the NPD will finally rid itself of the last stumbling block , the taxpayer." "This Budget really irks me. My wife and I are trying to get ahead but with this how can we?" It goes on, Mr.

Deputy Speaker . "I think this is the most terrible thing that ever happened to Manitoba . I'm packing my bags and heading to Alberta or B.C. to set up my business." It gets even worse, Mr. Deputy Speaker. "I think it's time we got rid of the NOP. They're taxing the little guys to death and bleeding the province ." These are two classics , Mr. Deputy Speaker. "I'm a card -carrying member of the NOP but I think that's going to go in the garbage now.

I can 't blame anyone for moving." Listen to this one, "Seeing we already have world class taxes and Kostyra is doing such a fine job of raising them, I've just come to the conclusion that'll be the last time I vote NOP." If you want to get really nasty, I'll quote the very last one, Mr. Deputy Speaker . "I think they 're all donkeys. This 1 percent increase on sales tax is ridiculous." Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker , what can I say? Those aren't my words. Those are the average people of Manitoba that are voicing their opinions about this very ill-conceived Budget. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if the 1 percent increase in sales tax in itself is not enough insu lt, what could be the

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 possible rat ionale for applying sales tax to vital energy conservation material such as insulation? This is just another example of the hypocrisy of this NOP Government who is continually bleeding its concerns about the environment and conserving our unrenewab le resources such as gas and oil for heating. What do they do, Mr. Deputy Speaker? They tax the very materials that would make our homes energy-efficient. What a wonderful legacy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this NOP Government is leaving for future Manitobans .

Thanks to members opposite, and their socialist views, we now have the honour of being the highest-taxed citi zens in Canada with the exception of Quebec. I have no doubts, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this NOP Government is determined and will take all the necessary steps in the near future to ensure that Manitoba replaces Quebec in the No. 1 position as the highest overtaxed province in Canada. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am confident that based on what I have seen in my short time in this House , with the scandalous waste of taxpayers' money on MTX last year and right now on MPIC that the members opposite are well on their way to ensuring first place honour for the citizens of Manitoba. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, just to ensure that there is little or no chance of recovery from the scandalous waste and mismanagement of tax dollars, the NOP financial genius, the Minister of Finance , supported by the Premier and memb ers opposite have increased the payroll tax to make sure that no prospective business will want to locate or relocate in Manitoba to provide any relief for the overburdened taxpayers of Manitoba. However , Mr. Deputy Speaker, help is on the horizon .

The Minister of Energy and Mines, the Member for Transcona tells us he is unconcerned and he is steadfast in his determ ination to go into the production of potash in Manitoba in the next seven years while the market is depres sed, and in Saskatchewan potash workers are being laid off. But that's not all, Mr. Deputy Speaker , there's more help on the way from the same Minister. He also tells us not to be concerned that we are spending billions of dollars , and are mortgaging future generations of Manitobans for years to come to produce Hydro.

What seems to have escaped him, is that there are no real confirmed sales of this Hydro. All indications are that the Western Power Grid is dead , Mr. Deputy Speaker , and that our American neighbours to t he south continually remind us that they are prepared to buy Hydro, yes, but only at the same price as their cost for producing thermal energy which is less than our cost of production. I cou ld go on, Mr. Deputy Speaker , at great length with all the ill-conce ived costly measures that this government has been involved in.

However, they' ve all been well documented in this House and further, nothing can con vince me that the members opposite would show any concern for the economic dilemma they have placed this prov ince in than they have since being elected to gov ernme nt , ignored and overtaxed all Manitobans . My greatest concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that when the walls come tumbling down and Manitobans throw this inept government out of office, how will their succ essors ever recover from the terrible economic dilemma they have placed this province in? 524 Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the Premier and the Minister of Finance can continually be heard saying they will not cut and slash programs to reduce the deficit. It seems that they would rather cut and slash the pocketbooks of all Manitobans , those already badly hemmorhaging as a result of high taxation placed on them by this government. It seems , Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Premier would rather skulk and sneak around the issue not unlike the pickpocket or the purse snatcher and pull the biggest tax grab of all time. We know who the lookout man in this operat ion is, too . It's the Minister of Finance.

I can't help but reflect that this Premier and his cohort, the Minister of Finance, will be forever known by Manitobans as " Pickpocket Pawley" and "Tax Grabbing Gene. " The poor and the underprivileged, the working man in this province, average Manitobans that this government stands up for are not laugh ing today . As a matter of fact , many of them are on the verge of crying. What a hoax this government has perpetrated on the public, Mr.

Deputy Speaker - average Manitobans misled into believing that this government would look after them and care for their interests has turned upon them and taxed them unmercifully. The iron y is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that whatever financial gains that might have been made through this government's support of organized labour is simply being taxed away. I wonder how the union movement in Manitoba must feel today, after this Budget , having whatever economic gains that they have made being taxed away by the very political party that they support. Just in closing, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'd like to quote from Thomas Paine , and he says, " Publi c money ought to be touched with the most scrupulous conscientiousness of honour . It is not the produce of riches only, but of the hard earni ngs of labour and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery . Not a beggar passes or perishes in the streets whose might is not in that mass." Mr. Deputy Speaker , as Peter Warren would say, Opposition , think about that . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney General. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker .

Since this is my first opportunity to speak in a formal way since the beginning of this Session , I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to congratulate the new Lieutenant-Governor , a person known to us all as a scholar and a gentle person .

I have no doubt , indeed I think there is no one in this House who has any doubt, that he will do a splendid job and maintain the dignity which the previous incumbent brought to Government House . (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) I note - and indeed I was measuring my phrases to anticipate the return to her Chair of Madam Speaker - and to you , Madam Speaker , welcome back to the weird and wonderful world of the Legislature, where at times I suppose the sound track sounds like something from deep in the heart of the jungle, but we're kind of used to that at this juncture from this

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 side of the House; but you have continued to demonstrate, Madam Speaker, the unique abiliti es which we all saw in you in your ability to manag e, at times, a difficult position. I'm going to move right into a consideration of the Budget, although towards the end of my remarks, if time permit s, there are one or two other thing s that I might want to say. Madam Spea ker, with respect to the Budget itself, I want to state at the outset that I am unequivocally and unashamedly proud of the concepts underlying this Budget.

It's a Budget, in my view, informed by a particular point of view to which I, for one, wholeheartedly subscribe, to which my colleagues wholeheartedly subscribe and to which, clearly, the Opposition does not. That point of view is simply, let those who can best afford it pay, so that those who need some measure of economic or social assistance can receive that assistance. Madam Speaker, let me put the matter somewhat more personally. In my particular circumstances, I will pay more, my spouse will pay more. We accept that, in the first instance, as a moral obligation .

I cannot, for one, look about me and see the continuing misery of the very poor, the condition of life for many on the reserves in this province, the pressing problems of the disadvantaged in society, the urgent needs of many, if not most, family farms , the pain and social cost, Madam Speaker, of unemployment generally , but particularly of youth unemployment. I cannot, in all conscience, see all of that and the pressing need to maintain and, if possible, extend health services and education , schools, universities and colleges .

I cannot see all of that and say, within the limits imposed by the federal tax system to which we are tied , that I should not pay my fair share. As a member of a human and, I hope, humane society, I have a moral obligation to do that . Madam Speaker, while I disagreed with much which was said opposite, there were really very few things which actually offended me, but I did, and I must say this frankly, find particularly offensive some of the remarks made yesterday evening by the Member for Brandon West.

I don't want to say that I'm quoting word for word, but, in essence, in some passages of his speech last night, the Member for Brandon West spoke of the government putting its hands in their pockets and taking their money. Madam Speaker, that kind of concept - and that's why I started out by saying there's a conceptual difference which divides that side from this - is not only social Darwinism at its worst , in the member's case, one could argue that it is perilously close to hypocricy .

I don't really want to personalize, but inadvertently the Member for Brandon West furnishes something of an example of a point I want to make.

Prior to his being elected, he earned a considerable portion, if not all of his income, as a government employee, i.e., he in fact was paid directly with the taxpayers' money, as all of us in this House are paid with the taxpayers' money, paid because we live in a social organization, not in the jungle, a social organization which, among other things, requires that we have a governed society, a society of laws and that we have government services in a whole number of significant areas, Madam Speaker, a society in which it is commonly agreed by most , but apparently not by 525 the Member for Brandon West, that the best way of paying for those services and for those government employees, of which the Member for Brandon West was one, is through the tax system.

The best that we can do in those circumstances is to try to make that system as fair and as balanced, as equitable as possible . To carry this point beyond the personal - because I said I didn 't really want to personalize - the money which people receive, the incomes which people receive in this society, whether as wages , Madam Speaker, or profit, salary or dividends , is received in a great measure because there is an infrastructure of social services which makes that possible.

You cannot conceive of being and continuing to be in business, of being an employee, of earning money in any way as a farmer, as a labourer, as an entrepreneur without the social infrastructure which society must create and support. None of us therefore have the right to say, as the Member for Brandon says, this is my money ; keep your hands off it; it's my money. This is a tax grab of our money. Each of us has a share of a social product. If you think about it for a moment , you will realize that is true.

If you don't accept that, and some of you apparently don't , then you don't have any notion whatsoever of the economics of any society, no matter how that society labels itself. Each one of us receives a certain share of a social product. It is not possible for us to live by ourselves. We do not earn our income, no matter from what source , by ourselves . We earn it.

If we're a cattle auctioneer , because there are other people in that business producing cattle to be auctioned, when we can go down a road that somebody else builds and pays for, to a point of sale and we can make that sale, and we have a whole infrastructure to deal with the economies of that particular occupation, for exampl e. Madam Speaker, in the Thron e Speech Deba te and now in the Budget Debate , the members opposite demonstrated again , as they have in each one of the past five Sessions, why in fact they are in Opposition and destined to remain there, or their successors are destined to remain there.

Because I have no doubt , most of my colleagues have no doubt , most of the members opposite have no doubt , that at least as far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned , there will be a successor. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology unashamedly yesterday quoted Spiro Agnew, but John Crosbie had done so a few weeks ago when he spoke of them as the "nattering nabobs of negativism " ; which in fact , leaving aside the alliteration, the cliche is true for most of them .

Again , I say most of them , because there are those who genuinely make an effort to advance a construct ive view of what should replace that which they disagree with in our view of things . Congenitally, I suppose I should say philosophically, they're incapable of constructing a credible alte rnative. I'm going to go into that in a momen t. First , however, a word about one of their central assumptions, namely, that they have the divine right to govern.

Now, it's very difficult to assume that you have the divine right to govern if, in four out of the last five elections, you'v e been condemned by the electorate to sit over there as Opposition. So they have a profoundly myopic view , that in the last two elections, we stole the election from

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 them. You see, how can it be? If you have the divine right to govern, what has the divinity done to us? Well, it's not the divinity, we ought never to defame the divinity. It must be something else . It can 't be our own wonderful political philosophy. They stole the election from us.

For example, the Member for Pembina, the prime carrier of the view that the election was stolen, he has this conspiracy theory, which he plays to fairly well , and sometimes - let's give credit where credit is due - he plays out that conspiracy theory very well, namely, that the books have been cooked, that we've hidden the facts , that we've delayed the reports and , but for that, they would be sitting here and we would be sitting there.

First of all, Madam Speaker, they would be sitting here and Manitoba would be in the wonderful position of Saskatchewan and Alberta and B.C., where all of those wonderful things that a Tory Government can do are now unfolding . Nonsense! This, first of all, underestimates the intelligence of the Manitoba electorate by a country kilometre. This assumption that somehow or other, by some kind of a Machiavellian manipulation, the people can be fooled.

I suppose they think that way because they operate that way is a debasing of the intelligence - I don't think you'll find debasing in Beauchesne, Madam Speaker; if you do, I withdraw it - a degradation, a denegration - that's it - a denegration of the intelligence of the Manitoba electorate . They are there, they will continue to be there, and they have been there purely and simply because they are incapable of putting forward a credible alternative, nor can the Member for River Heights incidentally.

Incidentally , we should recall - my colleague , the Member for Transcona, the Minister of Energy and Mines , often reminds us of this - that wonderful legacy, which the great Liberal of our times , John Turner, left to us in the tax system when he indexed the personal exemptions. Madam Speaker, that indexing of the personal exemptions single-handedly accounts for virtually all of the current deficit, which is the preoccupa tion of the current government.

I know that the Member for River Heights is not madly in love with John Turner , but she's madly in love with libe ralism and that's where this notion comes from. It's not Federal Government overspending, which has created the deficit, which is of concern to all. In fact, in many sign ificant areas, there is not enough government spending with respect to agriculture. Let any one of them over there say that the Federal Government is spending too much on agriculture . National day care is yet to be put on the agenda and paid for. Equalization payments are insufficient.

Let them over there say that the equalization payments are enough. Established program funding is insufficient. So it's not Federal Government overspending which has created the deficit . It's the great contribution of the great Liberal, John Turner, when he was Minister of Finance . He didn't do much better when he was Mini ster of Justice . Well, there ought to be a credible alternative. Let's look at the t hree major components: spending, taxation, deficit. Let's help them out, why don't we help them out, okay. Now they say, first of all, that we're overspending.

Let's first of all note that the actual 526 increased spending in this Budget on programs is 5. 7 percent, marginally above inflation; but , if you would take into account the 9.8 percent , for example , in health, 21 percent increase in child care, you will see that in those areas, which just in the natural growth will be spending more than inflation, the average increase in programs is at or slightly below the cost of living, so that we're dealing with a maintenance and, here and there, a slightly improved level of spending, okay. But they want more. The Member for Arthur, why do you want more for agriculture?

Have you and the Member for Virden put your heads -(Interje ction)- 100 million, well that's $50,000 , okay. You can have the $50,000.00. Do you want to spend it? Okay, we'll add the $50,000 in at the end. I'll even add $100,000 to give you one more cop. Okay. You want 100 million? How much do you want for agriculture - 100 million, 200 million? How much do you want for agriculture? Be brave, come on , be brave about it. How much do you want for agriculture? Okay, we'll put down 100 million . For highways, the Member for Morris wants to twin 75, right? Do you want 20 million? Okay, done.

You've got $120 million, 100 million more. How much more do they want for agriculture? A MEMBER: Drainage 300 million. HON. R. PENNER: 300 million for - I'll tell you what, let's make it a lump sum - 300 million for highways and drainage, 20 million more on education. Do you want more? The Member for Fort Garry wants more for the universities, more for the schools , another 20 million. The Opposition critic for Health, the Member for River East, wants more for health - 50 million. They don't like the taxes, the hated levy. Okay, let's remove it, credible alternative , 185 million gone, okay.

They don't like the increase in the sales tax. We don't love it either, but you apparently want to get rid of it, 1.85 million - gone. Okay, be brave, come on, accept these alternatives. We're helping you out; we're pointing you in specific directions. Right, the deficit - last year, got to bring down the deficit, got to bring down the deficit, every single speech. So we bring it down, not much, we bring it down 26 percent , okay 26.7 percent, not enough. You want another 100 million, you've got another 100 million. Okay, now all you've got to resolve for us is $600 million to $700 million. That's all, okay?

Now we're sitting here and we're waiting for your resolution of the $600 million question. Okay, we'll get rid of all of these "apple polishers." Gone. Now, there's a contribution - right? And you will if the government, which you will never be, hire them as consultants at double the price. Right? We know your techniques. We'll get rid of the entire advertising budget, because there's no sense in government communicating anything to the peop le because, if the people know about government services, they're apt to take advantage of them. Okay, so there's $4 million. All you've got left to raise is 596 million.

We'll give you, from your point of view, the so-called "apple polishers" and the advertising budget . All we ask is that, before the debate is through, you tell us where the $596 million-plus is coming from. If you want to be a credible alternative , that's what

Tuesday, 24 March , 1987 you 've got to do. But you know, CO?ongenitally incapable, philosophically incapable of doing it. Now - oh , I forgot! I forgot they're astu te businesspersons , okay? None of "youse" guys has ever been on a board of directors , you know. I wonder how many directors they 've got over the re inci dentally, as if that were a point. Maybe, becaus e none of us have ever been on a board of directors - not quite true - that's why we're doing so good -(Interjection)- I'm coming to that.

We've come to t-he conclusion, maybe you've come to the same conclusion, that membership on a board of directors doesn't necessar ily qualify. Let's hear it for the members of the board of the Canadian Commercial Bank, okay? What was his name, used to be Leader of the Opposition? Well, I won't mention the judge's name but you will remember who was a member of the board of the Canadian Commercial Bank at a time when it was doing those wonderful things that cost the taxpayers of Canada $1 billion and more. Let's hear it for the Board of Directors .

Let's hear it for those people over there who say, as the Member for Riel said, why don't you listen to the businesspeople? Well, tell us. Apparently you are listening to the businesspeople and you 're going to tell us how to come up with $600 million - oh, excuse me, $596 million. Let's hear it from the wonderful members of the board of directors of the Northland Bank, friends of theirs, every damn one of them. Oh well, let's be fair. Wait a minute, why pick the losers?

Let's hear it from and get the advice from those wonderful members of the board of directors of the banks which are gouging us in the interest-rate spreads on credit cards and in the interest rate spreads in the past three or four years . Let's hear it for these wonderful people. Let's get our advice from those wonderful people. Member after member - not the Member for Emerson, he's a bit smarter, and not the Member for Morris, he's a bit smarter - but the others, those wonderful cowboys in the back bench , why don't you listen to businesspeople? God help us! SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. R.

PENNER: Oh Helmut, you're okay. It's okay if you call them by their first name. You can't call them by their last name. Madam Speaker, perhaps to be a credible alternative, if you don 't really want to look at these paragons of commercial virtue, the members of the boards of these corporations which are gouging the people of Canada through the credit card scam and through the interest rate spread scam, if you don't want to listen to them, perhaps you want to list en to your kissing cousins in B.C. and Alberta. My colleague has spoken about it at one point in question period today.

Perhaps you want to - let's see, we'll get rid of the levy, and what will we do? I know. We'll charge families health care premiums. Why don 't we do that? That's better than charging the levy - oh my goodness, the hated levy, but the wonderful health care premiums, 432 up from 336 in Alberta per family and up to 504- a-year per family in British Columbia. There 's the credible alternative of their kissing cousins . They can get up - I don't want to do them a disservice - and say, we wouldn 't do that, not us. What would you do 527 though, you see? Come on, be brave, tell us. We want it on the record.

You've got $600, excuse me, $596 million to raise approximately , more or less. You might quarrel and say, maybe it's only 500.00 . What would you do? You cannot avoid that kind of responsibility. Madam Speaker, just a few more words about the Budget, and then there are one or two other things that I want to ref lect on in terms of . . . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Judge appointments? HON. R. PENNER: What was tha t, Albert? Say a word about that? Okay Albert , you want me to say something about that? Madam Speaker, for the record, my position with respect to judicial appointments has been seriously misrepresented.

For example, at page 206 of Hansard , the Member for Lakeside, after going on a bit about it, said , and I will quote: "They didn't like the political spectrum that Mr. Lyon came from, and that coming from an Attorney-General who acknowledges in his Chamber " - it should be this Chamber - "that he once was a member of the Communist Party, ran for the Communist Party. Is he suggesting that our judiciary all be of the same mindset?" Just say to the Member for Lakeside , who notionally is here because you can 't pretend that he isn't, that he does me and himself a disservice .

You know, there was effective consultat ion with respect to appointments under Chretien, und er MacGuigan and under Crosby. When McGuigan was Minister of Justice and we formed the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench, there were five appoi ntme nts to be made. I insisted - yes, I insisted, it's a matter of record - that at least one of those five be a person who was then a leadi ng Tory from Dauphin, who had campaigned actively against our Minister of Highways. I insisted that he be appointed, because of the quality of that person .

We were creating a unique division of the Court of Queen 's Bench, and I said we want nothing but the very best and I number him among the very best. Don't tell me about insisting that people who are appointed have a particular political label. The first full time provincial judge who I appointed or recommended to my colleagues in the Province of Manitoba for appointment was a Tory, and the same for the First Minister, then the Attorney-General. Don' t tell us about political appointments with respect to the judiciary. That is not the point .

In fact , for the record, Member for Arthur is a likeable enough chap - I'll say that for the record - and I would just want him to listen to this. With respect to the forme r Leader of the Opposition , the only thing I said about him personally was that he was capable and competent , the same words that were used by the Member for Lakeside . I said that I didn't think he should be appointed for other reasons, and the only point I made in particular was about this question of consul tations.

So I'll say just two or three more words about that because - and I wouldn 't have except for the Member for Sturgeon Creek said , what kind of nonsense is this? What right has anyone to be consulted by the Federal Government with respect to judicial appointments? Well, I just want to tell him, in fact, what right we have.

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 Incidentally, in Saskatchewan, when the Conservatives came to power they got into a slanging match with the Trudeau administration on judicial appointments, and they dug in their heels and they refused to allow any appointments to the Saskatchewan Cou rt of Queen's Bench and Cour t of Appeal until they had straightened it out to their liking, the Tories against the Liberals . It was handled, incidentally, very unpleasantly . But what was the issue? It is true that, under

Section 96 of the Constitution, the Federal Government has the righ t to appoint judges of Court of Appeal and Court of Queen's Bench. But under

Section 92(14) of the same Constitution, the administration of justice, including the constitution of the courts, is our responsibility. That is, the feds cannot appoint to a Court of Quee n' s Bench if there's no Court of Queen 's Bench. We have to set it up. The example that I gave you, we were the ones, and we were the only ones, who could decide to increase the size of that court by five so that there could be five appointmen ts made , right? The reason I'm saying this is although the feds pick up the salary , we pay the entire cost, $3 million a year, to support that court.

That's not ou r provincial court, just the federal courts , $3 million a year, and just completing a $20 million capital expenditure entirely devoted to the federally appointed judges . For that reason, the constitutiona l convention of consulta tion has grown up in this country and until recently has been followed and, in my view, it should continue to be followed.

Interestingly enough, the present Minister of Justice , with whom otherwise I have a very good relationship - we work cooperatively in a whole number of ways - we have been supportive, one of the other, in the constitutional issue involving aboriginal rights. He, the current Federal Minister of Justice , speaking in British Columbia at the Canadian Bar Association mid-winter meeting, said, "I'm going to get things better next time. I'm going to bring in some improvements." Well, there' an acknowledgement of the fact that he didn't get it right the first time .

More than that, there's a vacancy on the Supr eme Court of Canada . The appointment must come from the Province of Quebec . What is he busily doing? He's there for press reports, consulting with the Liberal Attorney-General of the Province of Quebec, Herbert Marx. Now he's dealing with a Marxist there, you see? One of the Marx brothers. He's dealing with Herbert Marx. How do you like that? To deal with Herbert Marx when he can 't deal with me.

The fact of the matter is that the only central issue I made there, and I make now, and I'm sorry that the Member for Sturgeon Creek - I don't think he speaks for everyone on that side - thinks that the provinces have no rig ht to have any say in judicial appointments . We cannot and will not subscribe to that. I'm glad to see that the Federal Minister of Justice is moving away from his position that he took in terms of the appointment which became the subject of some comment in this House, and about which I would have said noth ing if the Member for Lakeside hadn't made that ridicu lous statement concerning me.

I'm glad to see that he's moving off from his position and I think that may resolve the issue. I hope it does . Madam Speaker, as I've said, I wanted to address a few remarks with respect to this Budget; to greet you, as I have , to welcome you back to the House, to 528 indicate to you that you will continue to enjoy my support. You will have noticed, no doubt, that I am one of the quietest members in this House , and always have been, but that's just my nature. It's sort of a pleasant and a passive kind of temperament. Albert and I are very much alike, you know.

At least on one side of my family we -have a common heritage. We may be related, Albert. Did you ever think of that? You sure know how to hurt a guy, right? I'll tell you, I think Harry Enns and I are related -(Interject ion)- to the Member for Lakeside. That's just on one side of my family , you know. So, Madam Speaker , in closing my remarks, I want to just reiterate one specific point that I made which was central to all of my remarks.

We approached this Budget from a philosophical point of view and, obviously, we then had to articulate it in very complex and difficult circumstances because we had to mesh whatever we were doing on the income tax side with the federal system. There is no doubt, and the Minister of Finance has agreed, that there are imperfections in the net tax, but we had to net into an existing system ; and, as the Minister of Finance advised this House, the Federal Minister of Finance would not change the form to accommodate areas where we thought there should be accommodation .

We have been told by the Federal Minister of Finance that there will be federal tax reform . We'll believe it when we see it. And if there is real honest deep-going federal tax reform, then some of the anomalies that exist in our attempt to reform the tax system within limited provincial means will be accommodated, as I'm sure they will.

And, Madam Speaker, we are determined to maintain essential services in the area of health, in the area of education , and services to people in the area of income supports, in the area of economic stimulation, which accounts for that wonderful record which the Province of Manitoba has, and we're going to do it in a fair and balanced way, and I feel good about being able to stand up in this House and support that kind of a Budget. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

I rise to speak on the Budget and hope that I am able to get a few minutes on the actual content of it and the direction that they're taking this province fiscally; but the Attorney-General, some of his comments beg a response, and I guess it's either fortunate, or unfortunate, that I have the opportunity to follow him today .

My first comment, Madam Speaker, would be thank God - and I say this with all the sincerity in the world - thank God I'm one of those cowboys in the back bench; not a highly educated intellect who just gave one of the most repulsive speeches that I've ever heard come from a man who is supposed to be intelligent. I, for the life of me, Madam Speaker, would hate to be educated to that degree.- (Interjection)- Good speech, the Minister of Agriculture says. And for that highly educated individual, and I don't want to get into personal degradation, but I want to say that the people

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 of Manitoba are quite pleased to thank those country cowboys for stopping the ill-conceived direction that he was going to take us on the French language issue in this province and stuff down our throat a constitutional change which was opposed by 85 percent of the people of Manitoba, led by a man of high integrity who is now the Appeal Court Judge, Sterling Lyon, Madam Speaker.

That's the history of this province and I can tell you that I'd far soone r talk about the past of my good friend, the Honourable Sterling Lyon, who did not come from the communist background that this man came from and still, Madam Speaker, subscribes to, as admitted in this House. Yes, Madam Speaker . And the Member for Swan River, whose parents came to this country, should have warned him. They may have left the feuda l system of Russia, but not to come to this country to join , Madam Speaker, an individual who wou ld take it away and give it to the state and never again be able to own land .

That is one thing that he should pay attention to when he's joining political parties in this province. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order. HON. L. HARAPIAK: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, let the records clearly show, unlike the statement made by the Member for Arthur, ill-informed, again as he is, my parents were born in Canada. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. MR. J. DOWNEY: -(Interjection)- Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Mines and Energy continues, he refers to me as a dumbo.

That's line; I can accept that; I don't have any problem with that. I don't have to degrade him; I never have. I never have, Madam Speaker. That's fine if he wants to play that kind of game. And I do apologize to the Member for Swan River in not indicating that it was his grandparents, not his parents, who he referred to, and I apologize for that. I, as well, want to make one further comment. By the way, the Attorney-General, Madam Speaker, was making light of some of the things and he was asking the Opposition to give him some ideas as to where the money would come from.

Yes, he says, we'll give 50,000; it's 50,000 to the saving out of my constituency where they're taking the RCMP out of. Oh, we'll give them 100,000 so they can have another cop. You don't treat that kind of a matter that lightly when you come from a constituency that is losing the protection of RCMP that they've had for 50 years. You see they stand up in their place - the Premier stands up in his place, or last night he said from his seat that it's RCMP, that's one of the things we're spending money on. It was kind of a low blow, I thought .

The health and vitality of a community, the strength of a community and the protection of the people and the properties is part of that RCMP funding. That's part of the health of a community. That's the kind of 529 health I think he must talk about.

Sure it's health of the body and health of the system that we expect to be treated with, but part of the health of a rural community , Madam Speaker, is the protection with RCMP that has been enjoyed in my con stitutency in those communities that are being stripped of it or asked to pay double for it by t his New Democratic Government, led by this Premier and by this Attorney General, Madam Speaker . That's the kind of a constituency that I represent.

That's part of the health and the vital services that I expect to maintain for those constituents, but according to him, that isn't; that doesn 't come within the purview of the health of Manitoba or the health of my constituents . It seems you have to go to a hospital bed where you have to get some kind of doctor treatment. Madam Speaker, I tell you this very plainly for the Premier to hear, that if he thinks he ever has a chance of swaying the people of southwest and western Manitoba to his political persuasion with his carrying on, he'll wait a long time.

I tell you something else, for the edification or for the information of my learned friend, again, with some kind of a degree that he's got .. . - (Interjection)- oh, that's right, a Rhodes scholar. There's something else - for the highly educated Attorney-General and for the lawyer, the Premier , who has difficulties writing out a will - there's one thing that some of us country cowboys learned, and that is to tell the truth, Madam Speaker. What have we seen, Madam Speaker, in this Assembly over the past few days? What have we seen come from the current Minister of Municipal Affairs?

And I have to raise the question with the Premier, Madam Speaker . All the municipalities throughout Manitoba, can they now trust what 's coming out of the Department of Municipal Affairs after what we have seen demonstrated, how he has handled the Public Insurance Corporation? Is that the kind of confidence that he expects to be carried through now to the other portion of his portfolio? The public out there are asking questions - through you, Madam Speaker, to the Premier.

It's not the Opposition that are now raising the questions as to "yes, the information has changed over a period of a week ." No, it's not the Opposition only that are asking the question about the Minister's files happening to get through, and for the Attorney-General, the shredder, or you may say, if you 're a country cowboy, through the hammer mill. It's not the Opposition who are bringing he and his government into question over the MTX affair and now the Public Insurance Corporation affair . It's not just the Opposition. When will he realize that, Madam Speaker?

In fact, I would say if he is so confident in the Budget that we're now debating, and if he's so confident that he is right in covering up what is happening within the Public Insurance Corporation, then I would suggest he put the test to the public and call an election, Madam Speaker .

I would say I would challenge this government on the record of the Budget that they have just introduced on the biggest tax grab that this province has ever seen ; on the MTX affair; on the $30 million that went to Saudi Arabia; on the upwards of $50 million exposure of our Public Insurance Corporation, with the former chairman of the board sitting as representative for Swan

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 River and who was, apparently , a part of this whole plan to cover up the facts that are supposed to have been disclosed to the public . Yes, Madam Speaker , we have a Minister responsible, as a Minister of the Crown is supposed to be responsible, for the Public Insurance Corporation that has been and is under question, and still tries to maintain his responsibilities in a credible manner . It won't wash with the House , Madam Speaker , the Opposition, and it won't wash with the public .

That's why I'm saying to the Premier, if he thinks, if he truly believes that he is right in what he is doing and the Budget is right -(Interjection)- Yes, that's right. My colleague reminds me they have a 13 point lead in the polls . Then let's put the test to the people. Why wouldn't he put the test to the people? I challenge the Minister from Swan River to write an open public letter to his constituents saying he's asking his Premier to go to the people, that he now feels that he is able to come through and landslide that riding.

I want to give a little bit of history of what 's happening, Madam Speaker, in the Swan River Valley. I was at an occasion up there where there were 500-and-some Conservatives at a gathering of which my leader was the guest speaker - the current sitting member, and will be the sitting member for some time, Mr. Brian White who is the M.P. for that area . There were 500- and-some Tories at a fund raising dinner not too many weeks ago; but about two weeks before that, Madam Speaker , the Honourable Member for Swan River had an occasion to meet in the same home .

Well, they should have been asked to only pay 25 percent of the rent because they only had a quarter of the people there , Madam Speaker , and that's what's happening in the Swan River Valley. Yes, Madam Speaker, the Minister feels he's doing a good thing by moving in a lot of his socialist friends from the outlying areas who will vote for him in the upcoming election. He's trying to stack it up so that he's got some support. I can indicate some programs and I will deal with that at a more approp riate time.

Well, my colleague, the Member for Morris, I think did an excellent job in asking some of the questions as to where we are going as a taxpayer in this province . Where are we headed?

In fact , I made the same kind of comments last year during the Budget and projected where the taxpayers of Manitoba may in fact end up if we're to continue to see a half billion dollar annual deficit, if we're to see this same kind of runaway spending - and I'll deal with the Attorney-General and his irresponsible comments not too long ago about putting up some big figure that where would we tell them where they could get it from - but where are we going with the financial affairs of the province? I say this . If they're looking for a constructive solution, Madam Speaker, I would hope they would listen .

I said it before and I will say it again. My colleague has asked for a longer-term projection as to how we're going to deal with the debt that continues to grow. Are they ' prepared to put in a type of legislation that says that this Assembly will ask the taxpayers to put forward a certain percentage of the taxes they pay, be it payroll tax, be it sales tax, to start to retire the massive debts that are on the backs of our people? Are they prepared to do that?

Go through the debate of doing it onc e in the Legislature and let the political parties that will follow 530 tell the public that there are some responsible politicians who are prepared to put legislation in place that will commit a certain percentage of the taxes that come in to that debt retirement. I don't think it's an irresponsible recommendation .

I think it is going to have to happen if we're going to deal with this amount of money that is being asked for by the governments of this country, by this particular irresponsible collection of incompetents, Madam Speaker, to give the public the assurance that it is being dealt with. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.) Because we are now in a position , and I want you to pay careful attention, where five points on the sales tax raises how much money? - $500 million . Is it $100 million per point?

Okay, approaching it but awfully close and we'll be there before long with the growth, and I projected last year at what point we would get. We're to take 10 percent on the sales tax to pay the carrying charges . Let's use the figure of 4.5 points; 4.5 points today on every dollar that is spent on sales tax goes to carry the debt, to bring it into the terms of which the average person going to buy a pair of shoes or a suit of clothes or an overcoat or whatever it may be, whether it's an automobile , that 4.5 percentage points out of the sales tax goes to carry the debt.

It doesn 't buy one hospital bed or hire one nurse or pay one doctor or educate one child or do any of those things. A MEMBER: Or build a road. MR. J. DOWNEY: No, let's not talk about the physical expenditures; let's talk about people services. And he stands in his place and the Deputy Premier stands in her place and says it is her priority to take the taxpayers' money to spend it on people services. Well, then why don 't they sinc erely start to deal with it, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

I plead with the government to come to grips with it, quit playing the quick political game that they've played over the last five years . You bet your life that I'm not happy in Opposition . I'm not going to rest as long as I'm in Opposition till we do the responsible thing and change the people who are supposed to be - or who are responsible for the taxpayers ' money .- (Interjection)- Well, it is my job , for the Member for Inkster, who adds to the lighter side of debate every time he stands, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It is my job , as an elected official, to try and do the best for my constituents and all the people of Manitoba , and I say the best that I can do is to try and change the government. Because when you get 4.5 points out of the sales tax going to do nothing more than to pay the banks and pay the international finance companies for the carrying of our debt , then we are in an extremely serious situation, and I wish that they would come to grips with it.

That's why I'm again recommending in this Budget Speech , as I did my last one, let us bring legislation forward that commits a certain percentage of the taxes paid by the people out there to go to retire our debt . Let's debate it once and let's put it in place and let's tel l the people of this province that, yes, there are some politicians who believe that there is a commitment to

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 get this thing unde r control. But at the rate we're going, Mr. Deputy Speaker , with this NOP administration in Manitoba, I'm afraid that the forest will have burnt down before the rain comes . That's what I'm afraid of. We're going to lose the forest before the rain comes . I want to deal a little bit with another issue, which comes directly out of the Budget and I haven't had the opportunity to check as broadly as I'd like to, but let's deal with one specific aspect of this Budget and that is the new taxation that is now -.placed on hydro.

You know, here we have the government standing up saying we're not going to implement any user fees on anybody for health . We're not going to introduce user fees for anything , but we'll put a tax on hydro . I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a 4.5 percent tax on hydro , the once in-a-1 ifetime tax . Am I incorrect? I'm correct. (lnterjection)- Well, anyway the way I understand it, it's a one-and-a-half - with a 4.7 percen t tax on hydro . It' s a tax on hydro is what it is. Tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who in Manitoba doesn 't use hydro? Who doesn 't use hydro? A MEMBER: Everybody uses hydro . MR. J.

DOWNEY: Everybody uses hydro, so it' s an imposition on, yes, the children, the elderly, the people who are unable to make a reasonable living in our society. Those people who are below the level of income that he says that he's not hurting. Well, the Member for Inkster calls the Member for Arthur a fool from his seat. I'll tell you I would have expected better of him and now it's just proven why he does add to the lighter side of debate when he stands on his feet.

It is my clear understanding that the users of hydro are being taxed in the Province of Manitoba by this administration.- (Interjection)- Well, they say it's not a tax. I maybe hit an area that I should refer to in my MR. D. SCOTT: . . want it to be truthful. , MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, yes, it is I a tax . It is a form of taxation, sure it is. The Minister -of Energy says now it isn't. Well, one form of taxation or another , it is still taking from the users of hydro and everybody in Manitoba uses it. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: . . . both sides of the House. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, but the point is that the people who are hiring employees at Simplot now lay them off, and what were the reasons? Because of the increase in hydro charges imposed upon them, as a form of taxation - if they're hung up on the words - but it's still a form of taxation. Okay, I can tell you, I'll bet you and I asked the question - I would hope I could get the chance in question period, but I'll ask the Minister of Energy and Mines, seeing as he's sitting here.

Are the people who they're selling the hydro to in the United States, do they pay the same levy as those people who are the users of it in Manitoba? I will ask that in an appropr iate time during questi on period . But I would almost say, Mr. Deputy Speaker , that, yes, they are exempt from it; that it isn't on the export of hydro; that it's again 531 the burden on the backs of the taxpayers in Manitoba and it is not being charged to those people who are using our hydro outside of this province; again, a direct charge on the backs of those people who have to use hydro.

I say whether they're young people, whether they're old people, whether they're low income , high income, it is again a direct tax. I take excep tion to the taxation of a major power structure that should be to the benefits of the people of Manitoba and not discouraging the use of it. That will do a lot to encourage people to come to Manitoba to use our hydro. There 's an area which the government continues to think that it's important to defend their Budget . Every time they go to defend what they do, they run and try to compare it with another jurisdiction . You know , it's an interesting concept.

What they 're doing is better than everybody else, but let's do some comparison . Again, the Member for Swan River yesterday rises in his place and tries to make a lot about the reduction of 40 percent spending in agriculture in Alberta . Well, I'm sure that will have an impact on agri cultu re in Alberta, but let's bring it into perspective . Is the 40 percent reduction that they're going to go about in Alberta reducing the barley subsidy from $20 a tonne that they feed to $12 a tonne? In Manitoba , Mr. Deputy Speaker , there isn't such a subsidy to encourage the feeding of cattle or livestock in Manitoba.

Is the reduction in the 40 percent for agriculture in Alberta going to increase the price of a litre of diesel fuel from the farm from 16 to 18 cents, where it's some double that in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Let's bring this thing into relative terms . If you're going to use Alberta figures , then use them fair ly. Let 's use them fairly. Let's talk about Saskatchewa n. You know, they make a lot about what's happening in Saskatchewan and the deficit. Do you know whose pockets a lot of that money went into? It went into the pockets of the farmers at $25 an acre at 6 percent.

Do you know where the money of the Manitoba taxpayers wen t into? It went to the sheik in Saudi Arabia. Yes, or it went into some former manager's pocket who had to golf in Montr eal and run Manfor, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You know, it wen t into Flyer Bus at 100 million a crack, so we had to spend 2 million to get rid of it. Let's bring this who le thing into perspective. What are we talking about in this Budget for the farmers of Mani toba? I do give them one little bit of credit on moving on the education tax, because in principle it's the right thing to do, probably the only princ ipled thing they have done .

But you know who they got the principle from? The -:-ories. It was our electi on promise and our commi tment, ,:hether they did it or whether we got the chance to do it af:cr they were turfed out of offic e, but it's our policy and l'rr, glad , and for the Attorn ey-Gen eral, I'm glad they took it. I'm glad they took the advice that they got from us, because my colleagues, not only the colleagues from rural Manitoba - I'm sorry, the country cowboys, as he refers to them . . . A MEMBER: Who said that? MR. J.

DOWNEY: The Attorney-Genera l, yes, the country cowboys, but it was the urban support that we had that I compliment as well. It wasn 't a city /rura l T wh fte

Tuesday, 24 March, 1987 thing. It was the genuine feeling of a Conservative group of people to do what was in the best interests of all Manitobans and take some of the education taxes off the farmers. I compliment the government for picking up one suggestion that they have gotten. Too bad they wouldn't pick up more and have the Budget turned around so that the people could carry some of the weight. My colleague from Virden did a good job in pointing out what the Federal Government is spending in agriculture, some $534 million.

And even if you used the figure that the Premier likes to play with , $160 million, including all the MACC loans , and all those things that farmers have to pay back, like the Beef Stabilization Program and all those things, it still only comes to less than half . In a joint responsibility, it's kind of like horse and rabbit stew - one horse and one rabbit . That's the kind of 50-50 that this government believes in; but in this case it's the Federal Government that's putting up the horse and we know who's putting up the rabbit .

I won't elaborate any more on it, but I can tell you, and I ask the Minister of Agriculture this question and why he hasn't had his planted question asked: When does he expect the Federal Government to pay out the sprin

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-18
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 18.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	92b61e1b644887c60ce7f2469196a487fc430a13

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