Manitoba Hansard — 19 May 1982 (Sitting 58, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-58

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENIN G PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEA KER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Peti tions . . Reading and Re ceiving Petitions ... Presenting Repor ts by Standing and Special Commit tees . . . Ministerial State ments and Tabling of Repor ts ... Notices of Motion ... INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON . H. PAWLEY, on behalf of the Minister of Health, introduced Bill No. 37,

Loi sur le Conseil de la recherche medicale du Manitoba. The Manitoba Health Research Council Act. (R ecommended by Her Honour , the Lieutenant-Gov ernor). HON . R. PENNER introdu ced Bill No. 36,

an Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honour able members to the Gallery wh ere we have 26 students of Grade 5 stand ing from the R.F. Morrison Scho ol under the direction of Mrs. Ch irko. This school is in the constituency of the Honour able Member for Kildonan. There are 26 students of Grade 8 standing from the Warren Elementary Scho ol under the direction of Mr. L. Taylor. This school is in the constituency of the Honour able Member for Lakeside.

There are 26 students of Grade 6 standing from the Ashern Central Scho ol under the direction of Mr. Busch. This school is in the constituency of the Hon ourable Minister of Agriculture. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Op position. HON . S. LYON: Mr. Speaker , I have a question for the First Minister.

In view, Sir, of the alarming statistics on farm bank ruptcies and the statements carried in today's press by the Exec utive Sec retary of the Manitoba Farm Bureau to the effect that hun dreds of farmers are unable to get loans and don't have enough money to get through the year, can the First Minister advise the House, Sir, if the government is formulating any new policies or any new expande d programs, on top of those tha t already exist, in order to meet this growing economic threat to our farm community? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HON . H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, this is a matter which falls under the brood of the Minister of Agriculture. MR . SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Min ister of Agriculture. HON . B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Op position for his question. I wish to indicate to him that we are attempting and negotiating to expand the Loan Guarantee Program tha t has been in place for a number of years but hasn't actively been pursued by financial institutions.

We are in the process of neg otiating agreements with financial institutions in the Province of Manitoba to be able to provide necessary operating credit to the farmers of Manitoba who are having difficulties. As well, those farmers who are being appr oved under the In terest Rate Program or may not fall into it and are having difficulties, we are attempting to chan nel and funn el some of those people under our regular lending program through MACC of loan debt consoli dation and operating credit extensions. Those are the two areas that we are attempting to assist farmers of Manitoba. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Op position. HON . S. LYON: Mr. Speaker , I certainly wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture for his response and forthe encour agement, even though it may be only limited encou ragement, that those measures are able to give to the farm community finding itself, as it does, in the economic straits that prevail today.

Can the Minister of Agriculture or the First Minister indicate to us whether the government is actively considering the further expans ion of such temporary relief programs not only for the farm commu nity, but indeed for the small business communi ty in Manitoba which is con sequently a consequent upon the farm decline facing equal problems? I suggest by way of examp le, can we anticipate that the re might well be an extension, an expans ion of the In terest Rate Relief Program for the benefit of small businesses as well as for any ancillary benefits that might be given to the farm community? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HON . H. PAWLEY: Mr. Sp eaker, I thank the Leader of the Op position for his question. Obviously, we are hoping that there will be a redirection in respect to federal policy pertaining to high interest rates. If indeed there not be some redirection of that policy, we will, after careful monitoring, have to reconsider whether or not existing programs should be expanded in order to meet the pressing needs brought about by a lack of policy federally. 2599 HON . S. LYON: Again, Mr.

Speaker, I think that offers some small measure of encouragement to the two interests about which we have been speaking; namely, the farm community and the small business group. Can the First Minister advise as to whether or not he and his government would be or are considering the need at the present time for any form of debt morato rium legislation and, if so, would it be the intention of

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 the government to have that legislation considered on an emergency basis before this Session ends? HON . H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker. we are looking at that situation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR . G. MERCI ER : Mr. Speaker , I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker. in view of the Globe and Mail report today, formu lated as a result of a survey of Provincial and Federal Govern ment fore casters. that 16 percent of students will be unable to find employment this summer, Mr.

Speaker. and in view of the concern that the Minister of Labour has recognized that we have brought forward to him through his departmental Estimates and he has now included additional monies in his Budget to provide jobs for students. would he agree to consider this matter as an urgent matter and announce the details of that program as early as possible? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Labour. HON . V. SCHROED ER: Mr.

Speaker, I have said throughout that when I introduced the program initially, together with the funding of $2.9 million of which about $2.4 million were for the summer pro gram, that we would be looking at conditions and if necessary we would be changing the program or details of it in order to ensure that we would find creative employment for the maximum numb er of students possible. At this point, having added a further $4 million to that fund, we are not in a position wher e we have exhausted that fund.

I am told tha t app lications are coming in from both emp loyers and students in significant num bers. that the program is being taken up enthus iastically by both employers and students. There have been some excellent crea tive programs prepared by many employers in this province and we are indeed grateful to them for the kinds of initiatives that they have demonstrated in response to our program. I would agree with the honour able member that we are nevertheless concerned. The 16 percent student unemployment rate that he refers to is a federal rate.

I believe that the Globe and Mail report he refers to indicates that some discussions had been held with the federal people in Manitoba, who indicated tha t they felt they would be able to place 1, 500 fewer stu dents than they had hoped to be able to place, and therefore this program was enriched already. We are currently in the process of working together with the federal people with respect to other job creation mea sures in the province. That doesn't mean that we will be able to to tally alleviate unemplo yment.

I don't believe that anyone would argue that is possible, but we will do wha tever we can to alleviate the situation. MR . G. MERC IER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek some clarification. Could the Minister indicate or con firm that he has added $4 million to the $2.4 million program that he previously ann ounced and if so, how many jobs does he expect that additional $4 million to create? I assume that he has not changed the criteria of the program from his original $2.4 million program. HON . V.

SCHROEDER : Yes, we have added an addi tional $4 million to the 2.4 million so that there is a total of $6.4 million in that program . I also indicated on Budget night that we had added a further $6 million for a total of $10 million in new job creation measures. The other $6 million is in abeyance with respect to fall and winter prosp ective employment programs that would be annou nced at that time.

In terms of the criteria for the additional $4 million, it is similar to the first $2.4 million, excepting that I am asking tha t it be geared more to small business emplo yers for whom there is a subsidy of $2.00 an hour, as oppo sed to the other categories for which other emp loyers were qualified with respect to the $2.4 million. in order that more jobs would be created per dollar with the $4 million than there were with the first $2.4 million because of the enrich ment in some of th ose jobs. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemen tary question for the Honour able Attorney- Gene ral.

The Federal Revenue Ministers apparently annou nced that app lications will be invited next week for the establishment and operation of a duty free store in Emerson. My question, Mr. Speaker. to the Attorney General is: has he foregone all jurisdiction with respect to this matter or does he not consider the Provincial Gov ernment to have some ju risdiction with respect to the establishment of the duty free store and the appointment of the operator? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. 2600 HON . R. PENNER: Yes, I thank the Member for St. No rbert for that question.

I am pleased to report that I have been working very closely with the Federal Min ister of Revenue right, virtually, from the day that I took office. Ind eed, the Federal Minister of Reve nue has recognized Manitoba ju risdiction with respect to the liqu or vendor; that has been clear. Since the liquor store will be an important part of the facility, it was necessary that there be close working all along the way.

I am also pleased to report that I have been making representations consistently to the Federal Minister of National Reve nue with respect to the Town of Emer son's desire to, through a nonpr ofit corpor ation, be the operator of that store. I supported the application of the Town of Emerson right from the beginning and I hop e that my suppor t may result in the non profit cor poration of the Town of Emerson getting the right to operate that store. so that there has been close work ing. I hop e that my representations on behalf of the Town of Emerson will have been successful. MR. G. MERCIER : Mr.

Speaker, a final suppleme n tary question to the Attorney- Gene ral. In view of the conclusion of the Jimmy Mann assault case yesterday and in view of the up until now refusal of the Attorney Gener al to answer any questions. perhaps quite prop erly so while the matter has been before the courts, is the Attorney-General now considering laying assault charges against Paul Gardner of the Pittsburgh Pen guins for breaking his stick over the head of Doug

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 Smail of the Winnipeg Jets and incurring disciplinary action by the NHL as did Jimmy Mann? HON . R. PENNER : First of all, with respect, it is not accurate to say that the incident and the charge aris ing out of th at particular game is at an end because of the plea of guilty by Mr. Mann and the sentencing. It is still open to him, if he is so advised, to appeal the sentence. So for th at reason, I am going to be very very limited in my remarks.

But in direct answer to the very specific question involving Smail and Gardner, the answer is tha t I have not been advised by my senior officials including the Director of Prosecutions and the Senior Crown Attorney that there exists the same basis as they thought existed for the laying of a cha rge in the Mann incident and, therefore, I have issued no instructions that there should be a charge. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOW NEY: Mr.

Speaker, following on the con cern shown by the Leader of the Op position dealing with the magnitude of the bankru ptcies within the farm commu nity in Manitoba, and in view of the fact that the basic industry, the No. 1 industry, in the Prov ince of Manitoba is facing astronomical difficulties with the high cost of money and the concerns that we are all aware of, could the Minister of Agriculture assure us and this party on this side of the House that he will immediately contact the Federal Minister of Agriculture either by telephone , telex or make a direct trip to Ottawa to lay before the Federal Minister of Agriculture and explain thoroughly the magnitude of the problem that the No. 1 industry is facing in the province?

MR. SPEAKER : The Honour able Min ister of Agriculture. HON . B. UR USKI: Mr. Speaker, with the Legislative Assembly in Session, it is quite difficult to do that, but I should mention to the honour able member that I have written the Minister of Agriculture after his recent trip here indicating that the fu nds available through the Farm Credit Corp oration could have been available to the farmers of Manitoba. It has been inadequate and that there should be additional programs put into place to assist the farm commu nity. We are attempting to do wha t we can, Mr.

Speaker, with our limited budget and our programs that we've put into place and certainly we will endeavour to, as I have explained, find inn ovative ways in which we can assist the farm community in ... MR. J. DOWN EY: Mr.

Speaker , I would again ask the Minister of Agriculture, seeing the seriousness and the magnitude of the problem, would he directly communicate by telephone or telex or in fact pay for a flight to Ottawa to lay before the Federal Minister specifically the conc erns and if the Minister would agree - I'll ask him if he agrees - No. 1 is the high costs of interest, the high cost of energy but as well the low returns that the farm community is receiving.

Is he as well putting that case before the Minister and I ask him if he wou ldn't consider an immediate trip to Ottawa to lay before the Federal Minister the concerns 2601 of the farm community of Manitoba? HON . B. UR USKI : Mr. Speaker, I thank the honour able member for his suggestion. I believe that the Federal Minister of Agriculture in his own Province of On tario certainly had this case put forward to him several months ago in terms of the severity that farmers have been faced with, with bankruptcies in their financial plight, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that from our point of view we would want to and I will continue to press the Federal Govern ment for assistance. But I as well say to the Honou rable Member for Arth ur, it was his group, while they are now sitting on the other side of the House, who turned thumb s down on a proposal by the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Com mittee to at least discuss openly with the farmers of Manitoba the Market Assurance Plan which farmers would now be able to use, would require and would urgently need in terms of assisting them for the grain tha t they have in store on their farms.

That program should at least have had discussion in the farm com munity and should have had at least a wide discussion rather than having the government of the day and western provinces turn thumb s down without even at least giving that appr oach by the Cana dian Wheat Board Advisory Com mittee to get off the ground and have some discussions there for the grain farmers of this province. MR . J. DOWNE Y: Mr. Speaker, a final question to the Minister.

If he feels so strongly about that Market Assurance Program, then I again ask him would he proceed to Ottawa today to present that idea to the Federal Minister and ask him to advance it so that it, in fact, could be debated and discussed within the farm community? If he feels so strongly, then I invite him again to proceed to Ottawa to present it. HON . B. UR USKI: Mr. Speaker, what I have said - and if the honour able member doesn't agree and I've made this statement publicly a number of times in the past - I spoke to the Farm Bureau about it and we discussed this matter.

There was general consensus from the members of the Farm Bureau tha t it should have had wider discussion and at least that the farm community could have been better informed and could have made their decisions on it, rather than having a few groups turn thumbs down and pour cold water on it. That is one option, Mr. Speaker. That isn't the only program that might be available to the farmers, but that's certainly in the area where the grain industry has and is faced with low international markets.

This would be one way of assisting the grain industry in terms of providing necessary cash flow for people who have to go out and borrow operating capi tal at a time when interest rates are as high as they are and were suppor ted by his party. MR . SPEAKER: The Honou rable Gov ernment House Leader. COMMITTEE CHANGES HON . R. PENNER : Just before we reach Orders of the Day, I have two annou ncements. First of all, Mr. Speaker, some committee substitutions for Public

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 Utilities which is meeting tomo rrow at 10 :00 a.m. The Member for Kildonan will be substituting for the Min ister of Co mmunity Services and the second substitu tion, the Member for Springf ield will be substituting for the Member for The Pas. My second ann ouncement is that May 24th is the Queen's birthda y. If we don't get a hol iday we'll all run away and in concordance with the tradition of this House th ere will be no sitting of the Hous e as I under stand it by convention on Monday, May 24th. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memberfor Tuxedo. HANSARD CLARIFICATIONS MR. G.

FI LMON: Mr. Speaker, I wonde r if I could make a couple of corrections in Hans ard in some remarks which I made yesterday. On page 2578, the last paragraph of my speech I was quoting John Kenne dy and it says in Hans ard, "A rising tide lifts all votes," it should be "boats." Mr. Speaker, and on page 2577 in the third paragraph I'm referring to a story about developing or acq uiring a small business in Manitoba and I said, "that first you start with a big business," it says, "the big business." MR . SPEAKER: I thank the honour able member for that correction. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Minister of Finance and the pro posed amendment thereto by the Honour able Leader of the Op position, the Honour able Member for Elmw ood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I rose yesterday at 5 o'clock but for some strange reason didn't get the floor until today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome you back to the Ho use. Because of the fact of your recent illness and also, Mr.

Speaker, because when I spoke on the Throne Speech at tha t particular moment the Deputy Speaker was in the Ch air, so it's really my first oppor tunity this Session to greet you and wish you well in the Legislative Session. Mr.

Speaker , I think that one of the reasons tha t members on this side of the Ho use have been talking about some of the political events in some of the other provinces in relation to Manitoba is because of the fact that the recent Budget in On tario and the recent election in Saskatchewan are major political events and I think that Manitobans, and Manitoba politicians in particular, are extremely sensitive to wh at is going on in our neighbouring provinces.

In particular, in Saskatchewan there is such a political upheaval or earthq uake that I think it is very easy on the part of Cons ervatives and New Democrats to draw the wrong conclusions from the so-called lessons or events that took place in our neighbouring province.

I think that one of the questions that we have to examine and one of the decisions we have to make is are we going to, in the next few years, do anything that would resemble the actions of the Ontario Govern- ment in their Budgetary annou ncement and, in par ticular, are we going to follow some of the strategies that were indicated in the election campaign in Sas katchewan? I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, that the people who are most vulnerable to that particular strategy will be the Cons ervative Party in Man itoba at the time of the next election, because they will draw the conclu sion that it pays to imitate the "success" of the election campaign conduc ted by their brothers in our western province. Mr.

Speaker, similarly I think that no one on this side of the House should fall to the weakness of overesti mating the kind of campaign tha t was conduc ted by the Saskatchewan Cons ervatives because some peo ple will think that success justifies anything and that anyth ing that occurs in a neighbouring province can easily be transmitted, duplicated and imitated here. Mr.

Speaker, when I've watched political events over the years, as a student on, I used to think years ago that if the Labour Party won in Great Britain it helped the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, or that if the Democrats won in the Un ited States it would be a good thing for us in Manitoba, that somehow or other this spilled over or emanated into the Province of Manitoba. Of course, it would be easier still to make tha t deduction in terms of Saska tchewan.

I hop e that the Con servative Party of Manitoba adopts the pro gram of Premier Grant Devine as their election plat form in 19 84 and the last thing -(I nterjection)- well, you see, the Honour able Member for Emerson, he's going to bite on that. He thinks tha t if they come in with a program of no sales tax or no gas tax, that's a guaranteed barn burner and it might be his barn, as my bench mate says, which will burn. That barn may burn -(I nterjection)- some people may burn them for insurance purposes, but I am talking about for political purposes. 2602 So, Mr.

Speaker , I would like to take a look at wha t happ ened in our neighbouring province and to warn members on this side not to be adversely affected by wha t happ ened in Saskatchewan, not to be too con cerned about wha t happ ened in Saskatchewan in terms of certain deductions. In terms of certain thi ngs, yes, we have to be concerned. In terms of the program of the Saskatchewan Progressive Con servative Party, I think that should be ignored to the largest extent possible by the New Democrats in Manitoba.

I urge the members across the way to adopt Grant Devine's program holus-bolus, bring it in, promise to eliminate the sales tax, promise to eliminate the gas tax, prom ise all sorts of things, and promise to balance the Budget, last but not least. Mr. Speaker, I hop e that occurs because my own thinking, of course, would be more in tune with the moderate stance put just recently at tha t so-called Tory brainstorming down east.

Robert Stanfield, who was a Leader of the Federal Cons ervative Party, made a fairly intelligent statement which probably was ignored by delegates to that conventi on. -(I nter jection)- No t entirely ignored, say one or two Red Tories op posite, but they are swamped in a sea of blue or purple. -(I nterjection)- It was filed, I see, filed for the record. I think it was Mr. Stanfield who said and I am not sure of his exact words, but I assume that wha t he said in effect was tha t the Tories should n't simply swing to

Wednes day, 19 May, 1982 the right and imitate wha t hap pened in the Un ited States and that they should not believe that everything that private enterprise does is good. They shou ld, in fact, realize that people in business are out to make a buck. -(I nterjection)- You voted for Stanfield. I th ink in those days I would have voted for Robl in as oppo sed to Stanfield. In fact I th ink, Mr. Speaker, that the Cons ervatives made a big mistake, they did vote for Stanfield, and I th ink they probaby would have beaten Trudeau if they had voted for Duff Roblin. Of course, there were a few problems.

Wha t if Duff hadn' t won a seat? That was a problem. Of course, the federal judgment of some of the members in this House isn't very good, because I recall that the hero of the former Member for Morris - the present Member for Morris, one of his early heroes was Ro bert Stanfield, but the hero of his predecessor was Jack Horner.

Jack Horner was the man that was backed by Warner Jorgens on and perhaps our friend from Lakeside and others, they thou ght that he was the man, he was the big cowboy who was going to ride out of the west and show people wha t to do and lead the count ry to freedom and free enterprise, a good man. -(Int erjection)- The Member for Portage la Prairie agrees as well. There is only one th ing happened.

As he was gallop ing out east he suddenly joined the enemy, he sud denly became one of the posse; let me put it this way, one of the Tory posse that was riding down east to arrest the Prime Minister and some of his gang sud denly joined the outlaws and became one of the group that he was dedicated to overthro wing. That was a tragedy and big Jack Horner is now a Senator. He may become the President of the CNR -(l nterjection) he is not a Senator, right. So there's an open ing. But he may be getting a reward, which is the Chairman ship of the CNR, which isn't bad.

It's not a bad oppor tunity for a person who is look ing for employment. So, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the Tories are now going to be confr onted with a real problem in Mani toba, and that is, which way to go. Are they going to follow Sterling Lyon on the right, keep right and have that rural Cons ervatism ascendant in Manitoba once again, or is the Party going to shift a little to the left or to the centre in the days of Roblin and others? (I nterjection)- No, they are not. Well, I kno w that they are not and I shouldn't tell them but I am hoping that they keep their wheel on the right side of the road.

Mr. Speaker, words, great qua ntities of words about the Budget per se are going to be made by colleagues of mine today, tomo rrow and the next day. I want to talk more about the future and about wher e this Budget is going to lead us. -(I nterjection)- You are going to kn ock us off tomorrow night? Mr.

Speaker, I th ink that the false conclusion about the Saskatchewan election is this: that two programs were put before the people of Saskatchewan with two leaders and the people of Saskatchewan chose one over the other and they were attracted - this is a false theory - they were attracted by the Cons ervative program. Mr. Speaker, that government will never implement that program. We here in this Cham ber almost every day were baited and berated for our program and for our promises which are now being implemented.

I mean, look at the terrific program that the Minister of Municipal Affairs delivered yesterday to this Cham ber and all th ose other prom ises that are now being brought to realization, but the Saskatche wan government canno t deliver on those particular promises. Mr. Speaker, I would say that there were two rea sons why the Saskatchewan Govern ment lost: first of ali, that they lost touch with the people, which is a very broad statement; and secondly, because they were in power for 11 years; that's why they lost. Mr.

Speaker, if you look at the performance of the government and try to read some of the articles that have been written and some of the analysis, I mean all of us were shocked at the result. Nobody predicted that result. Maybe some of us predicted that one party would win or the other, but nobody in this Legislature could foresee the magnitude of the response. I must say that I, myself, when I looked at the num bers that were printed in the Globe and Mail, I guess it was, I was shocked at the magnitude of the numbers because there were many seats that were not close.

I say the first reason that caused the downfall of the Saskatchewan Government that has to be watched by our governmen t, that wasn't watched by their government, in Manitoba is of course keeping in close touch with the grassroots. That is the ultimate duty and responsibility of a government and, Mr. Speaker, every government has that problem, every government. In Ottawa, you have a Prime Minister who sur rounds himself with 60 or 80 emp loyees run by Lloyd Axworthy's brother Tom, who is a nice guy, who is from Winnip eg, one of the Axworthy boys who has made it big.

One was a hotel owner, one is running the PMO and one is a Federal Minister. Of course, the problem there is that by listening to the people around the Prime Minister he loses touch with his caucus and his party and the general public. Mr. Speaker, the last government, the Lyon Gov ernment lost touch as well. I think they lost touch by associating with the wrong kind of people. They were associating with what they consider to be the right kind of people the upper classes, the big dinne rs, the $12 5 a single for that Dinn er '82 held on February 9th -(I nterjection)- well, ours won't be $12 5 a shot.

It might be $12 5 for eight or for a family, but it certainly won't be per ticket. Mr. Speaker , the Member for Fort Garry was quoted in Janu ary of '82 on the question of whether the party was in touch or not. I am looking at an

article here in the Free Press which says, "G rassroot Tories feel left out," and a number of people were quo ted at that time. They mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that there were only two general meetings in the last four years. Len Domin o - remember him - Domino - he used to be an MLA and he was quoted in this article. Bill Neville, a very astute political scientist, he was quoted. Deputy Party Leader, L.R. (Bud) Sherman, he was quo ted in this particular article. He said this, "It is probably true.

We were too heavily preoccupied with the business of government and did lose touch to a certain extent with the grassroots." Well, it was a qual ified and a moder ate statement, not a reckless remark, but I th ink it was probably accurate. Harold Piercy - remember him - he's the fellow who always tries to run against my colleague, .the Minister of Finance. He, too, said that he thou ght maybe there wasn't enough grassroots communic ations -(I nterjection)- well then, yes, we 2603

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 only have our new Member for River East and I'm not sure -(I nterjection)- oh, Mr. Piercy ran against you, didn't he? He doesn't remember, but I th ink he ran against the Member for River East. Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Gov ernment had that problem.

One of their workers was quo ted in Maclean's Magazine as saying, "We lost touch with the people." She said, "The govern ment stopped lis tening to the people and worried too much about just being good administrators." And she said, "Hell, I've been with groups that have tried to get action from the government and we didn't get to first base, couldn't get in to see their own Cabinet or get any action from them. So, Mr. Speaker, that I th ink is the first problem of every government and that certainly was a problem of the administration in Saskatchewan. The other thing, Mr.

Speaker, the other reason why they lost I th ink is simple as well. Eleven years in power, that is a long time. Mr. Speaker, if you think of the history of Manitoba Governme nts, 19 48 on, you had the Campbell Govern ment which lasted 10 years and wh ere are they now? Whe re are the Liberals now? Gone , gone with the wind. Mr. Speaker, when I came into this House in '66, there were 14 Liberals sitting over there, led by Gil Molgat, and there were only 11 New Dem ocrats and the Liberals slowly went down from 14 to 5 to 1 to 1 and, finally, then there were none.

The Robl in Govern ment was in power, depending on how you want to count it, for either 9 or 11 years. Duff Roblin was in from '58 to '67 and then Walter Weir came next. So in a way it's one government, and in a way it's two governmen ts, but I think the sins of the Roblin administration were visited upon the heads of the Weir administration and some of the fallout that accumu lated in the 19 50s and '60s befell the Weir administration. So there you had a Tory Govern ment, a series, 9 years or 11 years, depending on how you want and then they were gone and that seemed like an awful long time to me.

I mean I lived through that like most of us, it struck me that the Co nservatives were in for an awfully long time - 11 years; that's how many years the government of Allan Blakeney was in. Then you had the Sch reyer Gov ernment and the Sch reyer Gov ernment was in for eight years. Good govern ment, Mr.

Speaker , but in spite of its program and in spite of its accomplish ments which were legion, and in spite of the popu larity of its leader - you kno w, there was a poll taken one time, I'm told, before '77 in which they compared Sterling Lyon and Ed Sch reyer and the poll was 83 to 17 in favour of Premier Sch reyer and I don't th ink a lot of the members on the opposite side would dispute that. They might not quite believe it but they would admit that Premier Schr eyer was more popular than Mr. Lyon, always was, is now and ever shall be. But it didn't win the election; it didn't win the election.

You canno t only win with the leader, you canno t only win with the program, you have to win with a whole four-year package, with a whole team, with a leader, with a program and with a little bit of luck, last but not least. Mr. Speaker -(I nterjection)- but did not switch party colours. Mr. Speaker, the point that I make here is this, that there is no shame in losing. In fact, it is not only not a shameful th ing, it is a healthy th ing for a government to change and for another group to get in.

The tragedy of modern times federally is that the Cons ervatives, who finally got into power federally under Joe Clark who finally got in after, I don't kno w how many years in the wilderness, blew it. That's the tragedy because there was a lot of ho usecleaning that had to be done , should have been done and it would have been good for the country, but in six months they blew their cha nce and went back into Op position and are now knocking on the door. But, Mr.

Sp eaker, it is unfortunate, it is unfortunate that for the good of the country there wasn't another administration, even a two, or three, or four-year change would have been healthy for the political process. So, Mr. Speaker, I say that's what happ ened. The government lost touch and the government was in for 11 years and that's why they lost. Mr.

Speaker , some people will say, well, you kn ow, there's lots of other things that you have to consider and one of the things that I th ink should be most mistrusted by politicians are polls, professional polls. -(I nterjection)- Well, the Member for Rhin eland says, "He doesn't kn ow." But the Member for Rhi ne land was not in the Cabinet but he was in the govern ment last fall when a decision was made to call an election. -(I nterjection)- No, I wasn't, I was refer ring to the double "I's. " Mr.

Speaker, I'm saying to the Member for Rhi neland that somebody came running into caucus one day, the Conservative caucus, and said, "God, we've got the poll results, we'll kill them if we call the election now." Is n't that what happened? And some said, "Well, we better wait until spring. Let's not do it now, let's wait until spring," and the others said, "No, the poll results are favourable, we've got to go now." 2604 Mr. Speaker, you have to be very careful about poll results. I just gave you an example of Premier Schr eyer being infin itely more popular than Mr.

Lyon before '77 and yet the NOP lost because there's a whole lot of other factors. The same th ing was true in Saskatche wan. Blakene y was far more popular than Devine; nobody ever heard of Devine. -(I nterjection)- Yes, and they assumed that Allan Blakeney would take the party into victory, sweep the party along into victory because ther e was a somebody running against a nobody. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's obviously only one factor; that couldn't have been the basis of the elec tion result. Polls, Mr.

Speaker, have been I think relied on heavily, relied on heavily in the post-war period and they've been wrong again, again, again and again. In the Un ited States, Harry Truman in '48, he was supposed to get killed by Thoma s Dewey and he won. Walter Weir called an election in '69. I wasn't sitting there, I'm sure that some of the members who were in that Cabinet and in that caucus had poll results which showed without doubt that if the election was called in '69, in the mo nth of Ju ne, that they'd win.

They'd win easy, they'd beat Molgat, they'd beat this young guy, Ed Schr eyer, who wasn't even the leader at that time. They called the election before the NOP had its leader picked. That was a great time to call an election, so they called an election. In 19 77, I'm sure thatthe NOP polls showed without doubt a victory and I have no doubt wh atsoever, Mr. Speaker, that in '81, in the fall, there were those who were relying heavily on the polls to show that the party should go at that time. -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, well, the Member for lnkster is saying something else.

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 He's saying that they should have gone then because they kn ew they were going to lose in the spring and that therefore -(I nterjection)- well, then we would have had 57 seats or 50 seats. -(Int erjection)- You see, Mr. Sp eaker. the Member for Pembina assumes that it is his personal charm that ensures the delivery of that seat. Mr.

Speaker, I am telling the Member for Pembina th is, that in the month of Ju ly, on Ju ly 1s t, 17 5 Doerns are going into Morden to celebrate our family's 90th Ann iversary in this country and we are going to see what we can do to take a few of those votes away from the Member for Pembina. I th ink we will all buy some real estate and go down there and up the NOP vote another 17 5. That should, at least, dou ble it. Mr.

Speaker, one of th ings that was done, one of the promises made that has already been delivered, a wild promise that was made that has already been deli vered by our neighbours to the west, and this is one that I say to the First Minister and the Cabinet they should avoid like the plague, other than they have had to make some adjustments on the bordering towns of Manitoba, was the elimination of the gas tax. Mr. Speaker, I really th ink that was a popular th ing at the time, but surely that is not the kind of policies that we need in this country, either in Saskatchewan and Manitoba or anywh ere else.

I mean, wha t is worse at this point in our history than encour aging people to drive their cars? Wha t is worse than that? Is n't this the very moment when we should be encour aging energy conservation and a lesser use? -(lnt erjection) Well, if I had the money, Mr. Spe aker, I would buy one of the horses from the Member for Lak eside that he is selling for horsemeat. I would rather ride on those horses than see them chopped up and sent to wher ever they are, probably sent to some of the restaurants that we eat at in this particular city. But surely it is not a good idea, Mr.

Speaker , to encou rage people to use their cars and so on. What is that going to cost? One hundr ed and thirty-nin e million dollars they are going to have to come up with for that election promise. They are going to eliminate the sales tax, they are going to eliminate the sales tax. Well, we will see about that. We will see, No. 1, whe ther they eliminate it and No. 2. for how long. For 60 days, 30 days or 90 days? Mr. Speaker , they are not going to deliver on those promises. I don't care how many taxes they remove, I am not interested.

Let them remove all the taxes in Saskatchew an, but I can tell you by the time another year or two goes by they are going to be putting on those very same taxes and they are going to be adding new taxes. If they imitate the Lyon Govern ment with acute protracted restraints, they are going to be in big trouble, big trouble, because I have a list here, Mr.

Speaker, and it looks, according to th is, that they promised to eliminate $700 million worth of taxes; sales tax, gas tax, income tax, oil tax and then they are going to spend $900 million more: mortgage assist ance, 10 0 million; farm purchase, 252 - God, I hope that isn't state farms; incentives to oil compan ies, 12 million; and irrigation grants, 600 million; $964 mil lion, total 1. 6 billion. Well, they are going to do that? We will see. Mr.

Speaker, whatever they eliminate, they are going to put back, and they are going to be in trouble because they are going to take those taxes off now and they are going to add them on in the next few years just before the election. That is not a good stra tegy, Mr. Sp eaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess the other thing to be noted is that there were some mistakes made by the Saskatch ewan Gov ernment .

I am told one of the biggest mis takes they made, which was exactly identical to wha t was done in th is province, just before the election the Crown Corporations flooded Saskatchewan with full page ads about how wonde rful everyth ing was. Does that sound familiar? Does that ring a bell in this Legis lature? You don't remember -(I nterjection)- well, that's true. There is a difference. The Member for Lakeside is ho nest enough to recognize it.

He says in Saskatchewan it was the Crown Corporations that paid for the ads; in Manitoba they paid for the ads, the government paid for the ads, so that is a distinction. In Saskatc hewan, there were apparently a lot of ads put out by the different Crown Corporations. In Manitoba, of course. there was a flood of ads and what silly ads. Do you remember those ads? "You're sitting on a gold mine." That has to be the winn er of the year, the Dim Bulb Award -(I nterjection)- and all those other ads, Mr. Speaker -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, the debate is getting rough. Mr.

Speaker, in Saskatchewan they spent a lot of mone y right on the brink of the election and the peo ple didn't like it, and in Manitoba, of course, the same th ing happ ened as well. I have a list here of th ings that were done in the last couple of years of the Cons erva tive administration in Manitoba and it was attacked heavily by our side and I was one of those who was most vocal on this issue because I believe it is wrong in principle.

There is a fine line between information and propaganda; there is a fine line between having to notify the public of what is going on and, on the other hand, simply propaga ndizing on behalf of the government. 2605 Constitutional pamphle ts, remember that, had to send out that pamphl et to everybody? Forty thousand bucks. The SAFER Program, promo ted with an ad campaign; remember the SAFER Program with the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek? Eighty thousand bucks. Economic Development "Stay in Manitoba" TV campaign and other campaigns, two times $65,000.00.

The Wh ite Paper promo tion, 10 0 grand; and then the worst of all. of course, the indus trial benefits, pre-election expend itures $1 50,000. 00. That was part of the election campaign that was designed to hit on the eve of the election so that the govern ment could piggyb ack that and go into the campaign with some inertia. Then the colors, of course, red, whit e and blue, just like those licence plates and -(I nterjection)- well, the Member for Pembina says, "S hould have been." Did he consider orange and black? Did he consider dago orange and black? No. I will tell you something else, Mr.

Speaker, the Sas katchewan Government is starting out on another Civil Service vendetta. The other point is that they are making a fundame ntal mistake, they are firing people in Saskatchewan on the following basis - I am now looking at the Globe and Mail, May 13 th, and it says, "The Cabinet obtained a list of Saskatchewan civil servants who contributed money to the NOP at the federal level in 19 79 and that list was used in deciding

Wednesday, 19 who should stay." Mr. Speaker, is that freedom of association? Is that not a democratic right that a per son should be able to contribute to a political party -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, I ask the Member for Lakeside, would he tap telephone s? Would he obtain lists from the Federal Government and hound these employees? That surely is not a very democratic approac h, Mr . Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker. I simply say in concl usion that if you look at two of the major -(Int erjection)- Mr. Speaker , of the two provin ces that border -(I nterjection)- could the Mem ber for Pembina allow me to continue?

Mr. Speaker, of the two provin ces, I don't think too many of us are going to be impressed with what happ ened in On tario recently, no, neither our side nor their side is going to be impressed with what happ ened in On tario. That isn't the way to go, high er health premiums, considering a heat tax. Rememb er the Roblin Gov ernment and the heat tax, Mr. Speaker, and meals over 20 cents. Did you ever get a meal for 19 cents? The Member for Sturgeon Creek, when he comes home every night and gets a double cheeseburger with a double order of Tabasco sauce and a slice of cheese, tha t is $4.95 a shot.

No wonder he wanted the exemption moved up to $5.00. Mr. Speaker, I simply say in conclus ion that in Sas katchewan both parties may think that there was some merit in the approach of the Co nservative Party in their election campaign but I say, in fact, what hap pened was you simply had a government that was in power a long time, 11 years, that eventu ally unfortu nately lost touch with the people. So, let us not, in the New Democratic Party, think there is anything to be learned from Grant Devine and his Conservative Gove rnment.

What we shou ld do is look at the record of the Blakene y Gov ernment, which was outstanding in nearly every area of administration, of econom ics and of social policy and realize that they did mak e some mistakes and make sure that we avoid them. MR . SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Gladstone. MRS . C. OLESON : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to echo some of the remarks of other members who have risen and welcomed you back to the Hous e. It is an honour for me to address this Assembly today and add my sup port to the amend ment made by the Member for Ch arleswood, the Leader of the Opp osition.

Unl ike the previous speaker I do not intend to discuss matters of other provinces. I intend to discuss the Budget of Manitoba, which is most important to this party. This is an interesting Budget and interesting more from what it does not say. There are good things about it and I wou ld be remiss if I did not say so, but the Budget does not address the difficult financial times with which Manitobans are faced.

In times of high unemployment, high interest rates and uncertain economic future for many businesses, this govern ment has cho sen to make life even more difficult for the employers of our province and also, ultimately, for the employees. The other day, as one of our members was exp ress ing his view on this Budget, one of the members oppo- 1982 site was heard to remark that this Budget represented, "a Rena issance." Well, Mr.

Speaker, this government, in my humble opinion, has not exactly reached wha t I would call the age of enlightenment about the work ings of the business commu nity or the problems of the farm communities of the Province of Manitoba. At a time when the Minister of Agriculture could help the farm community with a promised Beef Stabilization Plan, which could be a real help in a crisis situation, and an In terest Rate Relief Program, which could be a real help in a crisis situation, we find ou rselves with two ill-conceived bandaid programs which allow for little, if any, help to the farmers of Manitoba.

I would also like to discuss the minimum wage. "Minimum wages are being increased to help main tain the standard of living for our lowest paid workers," so stated the Budget Address, on Page 6. We all agree that workers should be well paid for what they do, but we also believe that people want to be employed. By raising the minimum wage, you have caused every employer in Manitoba to take a long look at his opera tion, his staff and make realistic business decisions on who he will hire, whether or not he will hire more staff, remain at the same staff level or whether or not in fact he will cut staff.

I quote from a submission from the Manitoba Restaurant and Food Service Association on Page 2, "Debate about the econ omic effects of minimum wage have been widespread. While growing economic evidence shows th at minimum wage increases constrain job creation and the province's ability to compete internationally, proponents con tinue to believe tha t the minimum wage can be used to help the poor. We believe that the minimum wage is an inefficient instrument for reducing poverty.

A high wage floor limits employment opp ortunities among the disadvantaged, the inexperienc ed and th ose with limited skills and ability. Suppor ters of the minimum wage forget that the many factors which cause and sustain poverty, such as ill health, large num bers of dependan ts and unsteady work histories are unas sailable by the high wage floors. Minimum wage increases are of no benefit to those without jobs.

"During the time of high unem ployment increases in the minimum wage force employers to contract their labour force further, resulting in reduced national income and mor e appl ications for welfare and UIC benefits." This new minimum wage is to take effect at the time when students are hoping to obtain summer jobs - faint hope. Fast on the heels of this setback the employers and emp loyees of Manitoba were treated to the news tha t they will now be faced with a payro ll tax. This will likely go down in history as the Sch roeder sneaky tax.

In trying to come up with some way to pay for ill-conceived election promises this government had to come up with something, after all, they made all thos e promises. Remem ber, Mr. Speaker, they made those promises to the people of Manitoba during last fall's election. They did not tell the people how these promises were going to be paid for.

They led them into the hop e and belief that times would be so much better under this so-called "kind but firm" administra tion and I quote "kind but firm" from the Minister of Northern Affair's Throne Debate speech where he said that this was a "k ind but firm" govern ment. The NOP "kind but firm" goverment would give them 2606

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 everything they wanted and in some cases more than they wanted. The people voted in the NOP band not knowing who was to pay the piper. After last Tuesday's Budget, many are still unclear as to who will pay the piper and how much they will pay him. We can rest assured that we will all have to pay. The payroll tax bothers me more than anything else this government has done because it is so devious. It purp orts to affect only one segment of our society - the emp loyers. In fact, it will affect everyone in the prov ince indirectly.

The members opposite do not seem to understand the fund amental structure of the business community. An employer, like any other person in our society, is con cerned with making his or her living for their family. If expens es with in the business are increased, he must pass the increases along to the customer. If he does not, and canno t, the expe nses become more than the income generated by the business and the business fails. It is as simple as that. Small businesses in Manitoba are having a tough enough time to struggle to stay viable during the pres ent economic times without further expense.

The expense to the employer is one facet of the problem. Time and paperwork is another. Many large employ ers will have to hire additional staff in their payroll departme nts and in turn, of course, pay payro ll tax on the emp loyees hired to work on the payroll tax. Most interesting of all, Mr. Speaker , is the fact that such a large percentage of the employers in Manitoba are publicly-funded organizations, be a case of shuf fling money from one department to another and back again, sort of a large money recycling bur eaucracy with the ultimate losers being the taxpayers of Mani toba.

It could be called the Schr oeder shuffle. Without really trying very hard and without provid ing a compr ehensiv e list, I came up with a list of at least 24 publicly-fu nded organizations, either gov ernment or private dona tions. I won't read the list to you, it's lengthy and it's not comp lete. We could go on all day and add to a list like that. It is interesting to note also the reaction to the Budget. For example, the May 12 th edition of the Brandon Sun had some interesting headlines which more or less summarize the feelings of the majority of people in rural Man itoba.

One headline said, "Busi ness Afraid Surtax Will Spell End For Some"; another said, "Pa yroll Surtax Worries City Officials"; another said, "Budget Offers Little To Farmers"; and yet another said, "S ingles Out Business." It is all summed up by Brandon Alderwoman Margaret Workman who is qu oted as saying, "Somehow, someone is going to have to pay." Yes, Mr. Speaker, we all kno w who will have to pay, it will be the people of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Memb er for Rad isson. MR. G. LECUYER : Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I wel come this oppor tun ity to place my commen ts on the record pertaining to this government's first Budget. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Minister of Finance for drafting a Budget which Man itobans will accept with understanding because it is a pragmatic effort to face up to the reality of Manitoba's economic climate. Mr. Speaker, no government wants to impose additional burdens on any sector of the economy and this is especially true when times are difficult and the economy is struggling.

This govern ment is most cons cious of these factors and the peo ple of Manitoba can rest assured that it did not take lightly its respons ibilities when making difficult deci sions having to do with the management of revenues and expenditu res of this province. On the other hand, our government will not shirk its responsibilities or simply ch oose the easy course of inaction which has been demonstrated by the previous government of Manitoba. As was so well explained by the Honour able Member for Osborne the other day, all alternatives were care fully weighed.

In fact, even before I look at these alternatives, I look at this year's Budget compared to last year's Budget. I see it's twice the thickn ess but it's got a whole

section that deals with recent statements and, if time wo uld so allow me, I' d also take time to go over some of the recent statements that appeared in the newspaper, but I don't think the Opp osition would like to hear them. But I'm just giving this as an example of who's spending money carelessly. The paper maybe is cheaper this year, it's not as thick but it says a lot more. We could have chosen to limit spending to the level of the former administration's last Budget, a status quo, a no-action type of Budget.

That appr oach in itself taken into account the inflationary factors which would already give rise to a deficit of over $300 million, whil e at the same time providing no additional stimu lus towards economic recovery. To make such a cho ice wou ld have meant we were opting for the laissez faire sta nd aside appr oach of the pre vious administration and most definitely would have meant a cutback in the level of social programs. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an

article which appeared in the Free Press in September of 19 81 , and I quote. It says, "In 19 77, the Tories won the big gest victory in recent Manitoba history (49 percent of the popular vote) by promising to reduce the debt, balanc ing the Budget, cut government spen ding and gener ally remove the dead hand of governmen t so that the private sector could flour ish and return Manitoba to economic health." Well, Mr. Speaker, Man itoba's debt in the last four years has risen from $3.2 billion to over $4 billion and, until this year, they have the record of holding the highest deficit.

They've had that distinction of holding a deficit, providing a deficit, for all four of their years in government. Is that holding to a promise of a balanced Budget? Further, in the same

article of Septe mber 11, 1981 , and I quote: "Gove rnment failure to prime the pump over the Tory years contributed to Man itoba's econ omy performing tenth out of ten on all major eco nomic indicators in both 19 71 and 19 80.

A spin-off from this was the highe st provincial out-migration during the postwar period." In 19 79 and 19 80, Mani toba actually lost popu lation and on Septe mber 2, 19 81, I quo te - in a 50-page documen t, Ch allenges for Manitoba, released prior to the October, 19 77 provin cial election, that PCs outlined 15 1 programs for change - "The general direction of these policies reflects the kind of government we will be in Manitoba after the election," Sterling Lyon said. However, inter- 2607

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 views with specialists and community spokesmen determined only 81 promises have been kept. In the year that ended July 1. 19 80, the province's popu la tion count in one year fell by 3,200. Well, Mr. Speaker. if they like to talk about promises. what did they do with their prom ises? Barely 50 per cent. or just over 50 percent, of them were kept in four years, not in one year. in four years. Mr. Speaker. During the last election. we promised Manitobans that we would revitalize the economy, the construction sector. the manufacturing sector and the farm sector.

We prom ised we would help the people of Manitoba maintain their jobs and that we would assist people who were in danger of losing their home. their busi ness or their farm due to high interest rates and the recession. Both of these factors, I might add, to which they, the Tories. contributed. Furthermor e. Mr.

Sp eaker. we were not elected on the promise of a balanced Budget, but rather on the basis tha t we would intervene with compassion and confidenc e in the people of Manitoba and confidence in the abundant resources of this province, rather than just to sit back and wait or roll over and die like tired dogs, which seems to have been wha t they've done while they had the responsibility of governing this province. So we cho se a course which involves addi tional spending because we are convinced that this is in the best interest of Manitobans and for the future of this province.

This must be done or else we do like they; tha t is, we elect to let this province slide further back which would then put us in the position of having to recover lost ground rather than surging ahead when the recession is over. To go after additional revenues was a painful deci sion, but a wise one. We waived seriously the option of increasing the sales tax, but had to reject this alterna tive as being a regressive step, for it would indiscrimi nately affect everyone - widows, senior citizens on pension, unempl oyed people and th ose on fixed salar ies.

That is the course followed by On tario's Tory Govern ment - head stuck in the sand policy - as it was with the previous government of this province over four years. Ins tead, we opted for a levy on employees' salaries as being the least painful way to underpin the economy. We did so to maintain our health services and our services in the secondary educational sector. After all, they haven't compla ined at all during the Estimates. They are getting more than 50 percent of the additional revenues being spent in the health field, more than 50 percent, and all I've heard them say was. we want more, we want more.

This approach of ours, Mr. Speaker, we believe is a sound, fiscal manage ment policy for it will bring in some of the additional revenue required to implement a progressive and a positive stimulus to protect this province's basic strengths and to enhance Man itoba's ability to take advantage of national economic recovery when it comes. Obviously, no matter how a government obtains revenue, it has to be borne at least to some degree by its people.

I say to some degree because only a por tion of this additional revenue will be reflected in the individual pocketbooks, as part of it will come from the taxes tha t wou ld normally go to the Federal Go v ernment and those who pay taxes will be in a better position in 19 82 than 19 81 due to indexing.

For those members who keep complaining that we are taxing food I want to remind them. as was pointed out by my colleague from River East the other day, for anyone going to a supermarket and buying $10 0 worth of food this levy will represent less than 10 percent; wher eas, if you compare this to what happens in On tario, or as was pointed out by my colleague from Elmw ood a while ago, if the Honour able Member for Stu rgeon Creek goes and buys $4.95 of chiliburger, compared to the new tax they introduced in On tario it would cost him 35 cents just for that.

People will be able to shop a whole month in Manitoba and still not have to bear more than wha t it would cost them in On tario to buy a chiliburger with the tax they put on over there. Some of the members across cry in their beer because ch urches and charitable organizations will have to pay this 1. 5 percent levy on employees. Mr.

Sp eaker, let me remind the Opp osition that a sales tax increase of 2 percent would have been a much greater burden, after all, churches, parish rectories and char itable organizations purchase supplies of all sorts, whether it be curtains or carpets, candles, paper, etc.; they would have to be paying that 2 percent sales tax. The point is, they would have to pay even more if we had resorted to a sales tax increase at this time. Maybe we will think about that next year. Mr.

Speaker. the other day I heard the Member for Niakwa complain because this Budget will mean an increase in the cost of beer and spirits, especially, he complained of the effect this would have on the drunks and the alcoholics. This, Mr. Speaker, is sheer hypocrisy, I say he is concerned only about himself. I don't want to knock him too hard and I especially hop e he doesn't drown at the four-foot level of his pool.

Seeing he indicated he was considering running again in Radisson, I hope that was a challenge he will not shy away from when the next election rolls around because I am certain that as a result we will have another NOP seat in this House. Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Nor bert said that taxes should not have been increased at all because this will cause a loss of jobs.

I say that is simplistic rhetoric, especially coming from members who have endorsed high interest rates and inaction in their past four years; especially when one considers th at during the Estimates period I heard literally every one of them asking for more money to go into their constituency, for drainage ditches as did the Member for Morris and the Member for La Verendrye, as did again the Member for Morris the other day asking for more money on educational spending, or as some members, yesterday when we announc ed the Main Street Mani toba Program, said that's not enough.

When we talk about the Beef Stabilization Program, they say, that's not eno ugh. When we talk about the In terest Rate Relief Program, they say that's not enough. All the time they say, spend more money and now they say we are spending too much money. I wonder wha t the members across want. Do they kno w? I don't think they are trying to represent the best interests of Mani toba here. How many jobs, Mr. Speaker, have been lost as a result of those policies?

In fact, I believe this Budget will help slow down the loss of jobs and create new jobs through construction programs which will remain permanent assets of this province and create perm an- 2608

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 ent jobs as well. Do the members opposite really believe that bank ruptcies would decrease if we just stood idly by? At least, Mr. Speaker, the additional revenues will not be used as the previous administra tion did when they spent $1 50,000 of taxpayers' money to let them kno w they were sitting on a pot of gold. Yes, the province has many assets, Mr. Speaker, which can and must be made to bear fruit. We have the advantage of being a very young province with many renewable resources, resources yet untouched. Mr.

Speaker , we have barely completed the period when the hardy settlers came here and we all know that their dreams and the great future of this province had not yet been fulfilled. As a government we should not treat this province and its people as though it were a home for the terminally ill. In fact, Man itoba is still as a newlywed couple who se future ach ievements is in the making through investment, hard work and yes, with some risk taking. The Leader of the Op position says tha t times are tough and we ain't got enough. It makes me think of the old song.

Man itobans are suffering; the economy is morbid; everything is pessimistic; everything is seen in black. So, what does he propose? He proposes that we let them suffer; he proposes that we let the economy die. -(I nterjection)- Yes, he proposes that we sit back and wait and things will get better on their own, or he also says the private sector will do it on their own. Has the private sector been able to cope on their own in the last few difficult years or aren't they the ones also crying for politicians to do something besides debating and being assured of a salary?

They are pleading for action, for compassion and for assis tance because right now, they can't do it on their own. Economic stagnation over the past four years has kn ocked holes in the Conservative argument that all that was required for growth and prosperity was for the govern ment to step back and let private enterprise do the job. Well, Mr. Speaker, the record of the past four years is not a glowing one. According to Statis tics Canada and the Conf erence Board, Manitoba's economic growth for the period, 19 77 to 19 81 , was 8.7 percent. We kn ow what it was the four years before that.

We kn ow it was 80. 1 percent and the four years before that, it was also 80 percent. The growth in the manufacturing sector for the same four years was 33. 7 percent. You want to kn ow wha t it was four years before that? 12 0.5 percent, and the prod uct capital expend itures for the years 19 77 to 19 81 , 49.3 percent. Again, do you want to kn ow wha t it was for the four years prior to that? 98 percent. Don't tell me that their Budget and their policies were made for the flourishing of the economy of this province. Yet, Mr. Speaker, according to an

article which app eared in the Free Press on September 2nd , 19 81 , "Manitoba's debt has been accumulating stead ily during the Tory years from $3.2 billion to over $4 billion." Finally, even they, Mr. Speaker, came to the recog nition tha t in a province such as Manitoba, lacking any major private economic engines, the Provincial Gov ernment itself must act as a catalyst and a pump pri mer for developm ent.

Therefore, in their last Budget the Tories increased spending by 15 percent, even though only a few months before, in October of 19 80, the then Minister of Finance had promised in this Ho use that it would be held down to 8 percent. In sp ite of that, Mr. Speaker , wha t did they provide? They provided acute protracted disaster in Manitoba. Does the Op position really believe that it's not worth, nor right, to take a chanc e on the people and the future of this province? Doesn't the Go od Book say - I'm going to make reference to the Good Book.

The Go od Book says that we must use the talents we have to make them mul tiply and grow. They pretend to care for the farmers, but when I listen to them I begin to wonder. Some times I really think they believe that we haven't got enough. Their attitude seems to be - yes, Mr. Speaker, their attitude seems to be let's keep the little we have for ourselves and our friends and hide with it until the storm blows over, then we'll come out strong and rich. Do you kn ow how many people will be left around in Manitoba when you come out of hiding? Ther e won't be many, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the way I see it, and I would like to make this as a comparison, if I or anyone else had in his yard, or on his farm, a number of fruit trees and we were undergoing a period of drought and I had access to water, even if it cost me money, I would give these trees a little bit of water because I'd kn ow that when the rains would come the trees would still be alive and would be able to carry on on their own. What you're suggesting is, there's drought, the trees are th irsty and they will die if there is no rain, if I don't give them any water. Well, you say, let them die, we'll plant new ones.

How much is that going to cost you when you have to plant the new trees, and how much crop are you going to get when the trees are dead and it takes you five or six more years to make them produc e? Mr. Sp eaker, that I believe is what they're suggesting for Manitoba. Thank you. MR . DE PUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Lakeside. MR. H. EN NS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure, a privilege to again be able to participate in a Budget debate, a few more than perhaps I would like to remember but nonetheless a privilege to do so. Mr.

Dep uty Speaker, I don't find it at all out of order or inappr opriate that in the course of the Budget Debate that members tend to take in the waterfront. That is as it should be, that is traditional and it is an opp ortun ity for all 57 members, Treasury Benchers and others, to put on the record tho se thi ngs that they feel are of importance, th ose matters that are of con cern to their constituents, to their party, even if they don't always bear direct relationship to the motion to which we are speak ing, namely, the Budget. Mr.

Speaker, the Budget, as presented by this government, their first government, perha ps makes it easier than is usual to supp ort a non confidence motion in it, and I indicate very early on in my speech that's the position, of course, that I'll be tak ing. 2609 Mr. Speaker, it is really a Budget that is bereft of any demonstration of will on the part of this new young government, this new young government that has been elected on that slogan - "Great people, great futur e, Manitoba and the NO P." Mr. Sp eaker, just in

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 terms of hard politics, one expects new governm ents in their initial Budgets to do the courageous thin gs, even tho se thi ngs tha t perhaps are sometimes not all that popu lar, but certainly to take advantage of the time that's in their favour, four years running, to try to tackle some of the serious problems that the economy of Manitoba faces, the Government of Manitoba faces, in their initial Budget, particularly in their first few years. Mr. Speaker, there's been a great deal said, not only in the Budget debate but throug hout, about election promises. Mr.

Speaker, I intend to dedicate a few moments to that matter too. Perhaps we've been neg ligent, Mr. Speaker, in allowing members opposite to get away with suggesting to us that all political parties make election promises. In fact, I forget which particu lar speaker it was but one speaker did make mention that, well. political parties are expected to make elec tion promises at election time and then not always be held accountable for carrying them out. Well. Mr.

Sp eaker, let me remind honour able members opp osite that yes, the government party that I was part of made some very specific election prom ises prior to the election of October '77. We promised, Mr. Speaker, that we would reduce taxes: that was a specific promise. Mr. Speaker, not within months or years, but within weeks, because among the other promises that we made, that we would call the Ho use together in a special Session, as in fact did the now Premier promise, to deal with the problems facing Manitobans. We made a similar promise in October of '77, except the difference is we carried it out.

We brought the House together, Mr. Speaker, and in that very first Session we repealed gift taxes, succession duties; we reduced personal income taxes, corporate tax: took away the mineral acreage tax. We brought into competitive structure our royalty structures on mining and oils. Mr. Speaker, a promise made, a prom ise kept, not six months later, immediately. Mr. Speaker, I put on the record another promise that we made. We said we would repeal the Family Law, the ill-conceived family law that was passed by the NDP Admin istration. Did we carry it out? Did we carry it out?

Oh yes, we said we would repeal it and we did. My colleague, the Attorney-Ge neral, brought in a Family Law tha t we hear very little about. There have been no great demo nstrations in front of the building as they were orch estrated then in that first Session. I'm told that the Family Law, before the law that is now in place, is generally acceptable as being among the most progressive family law legislation on the books of any jur isdiction in Canada. Mr.

Speaker , I see no signs, I hear no signs, and there are no signs from the Go vernment Hous e Leader tha t they're going to bring major modifications to the Family Law in this Session or the next Session; do you, do you? Well, Mr. Speaker, I just pointed out a promise made, a promise kept, even in the face of very agitated opposition orchestrated by the then Op position, which is fair again. Th ere's nothing wrong with tha t but, Mr. Speaker, a promise made; a promise kept. Mr. Speaker, we told the farmers, the rancher s and other citizens of Manitoba that we would make avail able the sale of Crown lands.

Did we carry out that promise, Mr. Speaker ? Did we carry out that promise? Of course we carried out that promise, unlike members opposite who didn't mention a word of that in the Novem ber 17 th election. Not a word about it, but then let their ideology carry them out and cancelled that program. We prom ised we would sell Crown lands and we kept that prom ise; we made that promise and we kept that promise, thousands of acres, in fact.

When it suits them they get up and say, "Oh, some body actually got 21 quarters," or "somebody actually got 18 quarters." Yes, we sold lots of Crown land and we'd continue selling Crown land. We'd continue sel ling Crown lands under the qualifying conditions that we had laid down, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we indicated in the election that we would get the government out of land banking, that we would restore the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Cor poration to its traditional role. Mr. Speaker, did we carry out that promise? We carried that promise out. Mr.

Speaker, we pass over too glibly this idea of who is carrying out the promises and then we should be held accountable for not reminding members opp osite about tho se unbelievable promises that this group made to get into government offices? Mr. Speaker, not just verbal promises, not just promises made in the heat of a debate, but promises with the clear signature of Howard Pawley, a determined picture of the future Premier beside it, that says there will be no layoffs and, if there have to be layoffs, th ere will have to be 12 -months notice given.

There will be legislation brought in to prevent all these things from happ ening, Mr. Speaker, those kind of nons ensical promises that were made. Well, Mr. Speaker, if I really want to start reading the whole thing and talk about the profits that ManOil are going to provide - Manoi! profits are going to stop high interest foreclosures. There ju st isn't that much oil in all of Manitoba to do that and anybody kn ows that who has been near them. Well now, Mr. Speaker, the biggest promise that we made was simply to prom ise less government.

We made that promise, we stand by our promise and that really is the final analysis, the big difference between them and us. We don't have to call each other socialists or neo-cons ervatives, but that is the fundamen tal and the intellectual difference between their appr oach to public affairs and our approach to public affairs. 2610 Mr.

Speaker, we told the people of Manitoba that we ho nestly believe that Manitobans could do with less government, that the amount of government we were getting was beginning to seriously interfere and hinder the kind of things and decisions that individu als should do or ought to do for thems elves. I want to dwell on that point for a little while because less gov ernment does not mean no government; it does not mean no government. I do not have to repeat the litany. I do not have to repeat the long litany of accomp lishments in the public sector that have been carried on by Cons ervative admin istrations. Mr.

Speaker, virtually every important social program in place here in the Province of Manitoba, whe ther it is of benefit to our farmers, whe ther it is of benefit to the educational system, whether it is of benefit to the health system, has been put in place or had its roots put in place by a Conservative administration and, by the way, an administration that I was very proud and very privileged to be part of, namely, the Duff Roblin administration.

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 Mr. Speaker , so the question is, when is enough government? When is government enough? That is a -(Int erjection)- Mr. Speaker, I am trying to carry on a reasonable debate with honour able members. I am trying to suggest that, in fact, the hone st difference between us - and I am trying to suggest that is not a particularly fixed position - when it's enough and when it's not enough, I don't kno w.

I don't have the tax figures, perhaps the Minister of Energy or the First Minister has them more readily available, but I suspect that we in Canada are tak ing about 40 cents out of every dollar for government purposes - in that figure. I understand tha t in Sweden, for instance, it's closer to 60 or 65 cents. I understand tha t in the Un ited States, it's probably 26 to 28 cents. I don't put these figures on the record as being accurate but I believe they reflect roughly the range. So the question has to be asked, when is it just about enough.

I mean because the larger amount tha t you take, the less individual choices I can make for myself and for my family to do certain things with. Now, Mr. Speaker, we don't all want to do the same thi ngs. I don't particularly get a big thrill out of eating onion and ch eese sandwiche s at the Labour Temple on Su nday afternoons and listening to somebody. If somebody else wants to do it, that's fine.

Maybe I want to invest my time and effort in dev eloping a ranch, or maybe I want to spend my time and extra money on buying a car, or maybe I want to do some other foolish thi ngs, but thi ngs that I want to do, not that a govern ment agency or a group of bureaucrats tells me wha t I should do. Mr. Speaker, to do that I need to retain at least 60 percent, 65 percent or 70 percent of the income that I earn or else I can't do it. It is not only that but it's the innovation of the individual appl ication of th ose monies tha t is the main economic generator of jobs in this countr y and in this province.

Unle ss you understand that things are not going to work. They will work the other way, of course, unless you believe that the state should take more and more of you r resources and simply hand back wha t they believe ought to be a living wage or a living return. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that way. I don't believe that and I believe that is a matter that ought to concern Man itobans. I believe that is a matter that will continue a lively debate in future elections in this province. It isn't just a matter of econom ics, it's in other areas about when government is enough or too much. Mr.

Speaker, I may wish to get out of politics someday and I may wish to, you kn ow, believing the comments of the Minister of Economic Development, have a less rapacious attitude towards wha t I need to recover in the sale of farm products. I may want to raise some chic kens and sell them for somewha t less and she says - I kno w I'll get a cha rge out of the Member for Wolseley if I say tha t, but she says it in such a nice mothe rly way - "family sharing." I want to sell a quart of milk to her constituents for 60 cents instead of the prescribed 85 cents. Mr.

Speaker , if I do that the Attorney-General of this province will put me in jail. The Attorne y-General will put me in jail. I may wish to raise somewhat more than the 10 0 turkeys that the law now lets me raise. I may want to raise 200 turkeys and if I do that this Attorney -Gen eral will put me in jail. Now, Mr. Speaker, I cite these cases just as we have laws and I would get a rise out of all of them if 2611 we talked about the right-to-work legislation.

We have an unemp loyment problem, we have unemployment in this pro vince, 10 percent of Canadians are unem ployed but no politician dare raise the question of the right-to-work legislation and, Mr. Speaker, I make a deal with my friends op posite, the Socialists. Let me make it perfectly clear, when I talk about government having overextended itself in the affairs of individuals, I am not talking simply New Democratic Govern ments.

I was Minister of Agriculture when I introduced some of those Marketing Boards I'm talking about. -(I nterjection)- Yes, governments of Liberal per suasion, governments of Conservative administrations, governments of NO P, governments of any descrip tion, in my judgm ent, can overextend themselves into the affairs of individuals and business to the extent wh ere you really have to begin to question the role and I'm simply raising that as a question. So, Mr. Speaker , when we promised in '77 less goverment, tha t really was philosoph ically wha t we are talking about. Mr.

Sp eaker, the one election prom ise that we also made and that we failed in, but members oppo site will never raise it because it's not philosoph ically in their bent to raise it, we also promised the people of Mani toba that we would take a hard look, take a hard stab at deregularizing our economy to some extent. We set up a committee to study all the reams and reams of regulations that over the years have developed over the various pieces of legislation and we believed that th ere was room for substantial deregularization in this country, in this government, in this province of ours.

In many sectors of our activity, in the truck ing industry, you name it, we failed. We did not do it, Mr. Sp eaker, not all governments can carry out all the prom ises that they made but I tell you, and I admit candidly that was certainly among our failures, one however that we are never reminded of by members opposite because they are the great Centrists, they are the great planne rs, they want to control and they want to reg ulate more, more and more of individual Manitoban's lives as time goes on. Well, Mr. Speaker, so much for election promises. You kno w, Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the Budget.

What is missing, of course, in this first Budget is the fact that despite record borrowing commit ments of between $700 million and $900 million, des pite a stab at increasing revenues, and tha t's all he can call it and a very unfair one at that, ther e is no overall th rust, there is no overall strategy to the Budget. Mr. Speaker, members opposite have also tried to have it both ways on issues of major resource-related developme nt projects kn own as the mega projects.

On the one hand they like to portray them, if it suits them, that was something the Cons ervatives just though t up 30 days before the last election, rushed some fast ads into print and started wo rking on the mega project. On the other hand, as we heard the Minister of Ene rgy indicate to us in the Public Utilities Comm ittee when we were dealing with Hydr o, when we were talking about the Western Grid, he quite cor rectly said that has been a matter of some discussion, of some negotiation for decades.

In fact, th ere is no question in my mind tha t the pre vious NOP adminis tration in the Schr eyer years certainly had some dis cussions or contacts talking about the potential of

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 developing a similar Western Grid project. But, Mr. Speaker, it was the government that I was part of, it was my colleague, Don Craik, that took that thing off the ground and started rolling with it. Mr. Speaker , we did that, not in the last year of our admin istration, we knew, Mr. Speaker, having laid out our strategy about relying on a mix of public and private development, that that was essential, particularly in view of the general economic situation that faced, not just Manitoba but the country. Mr. Speaker , why did we kno w?

We should kn ow tha t, all of us should kn ow that, and if we take time to check a few figures, it's understandable. Mr. Speaker, it is fair game to play the com parison game as to how we stand, whether it's with taxation levels or with different services provided between the different jurisdictions in this country, the different provinces. We've heard a lot of that during this Budget Debate. We've heard more about Ontario, for instance, in the last little while than we'll hear in a lifetime. However, that's fair game, that's fair game. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's also fair game that the provinces that we are perhaps most often compared to, whether it's in this Legislature or by the general public as they visit back and forth, are with our sister prairie provinces, Sas katchewan and Alberta. Mr. Speaker , it's been a diffi cult league to travel. It was difficult for us when we were four years in government.

It 's going to be difficult for the New Democratic Party administration, not because they're New Democrats, not because they're Con servatives, but because of the way the resources have been allo cated under this part of the conti nent and the simple fact that Aloerta is richly blessed with oil. Mr.

Speaker, this manifests itself in the following way, that while we are charged with the responsibility and we want to, any government, certainly look after our teachers, as well as they do in Alberta or Saskatchewan, we have to pay our nurses, our health care workers at least com parative scales of pay or else we lose them and our official Op position in the Ho use of the day, as we will be doing, would be the first one to remind any government. Hey, our nurses are leaving the Province of Manitoba to Alberta.

That's why our Minister of Health had to, in the last year, negotiate a fairly attrac tive package to the nurses in order to maintain - you kn ow, the wave kind of rolls in from the west - the B.C. workers settle first, followed by Alberta and Manitoba has little option but to follow. Mr. Speaker, it's not just a matter of trying to keep up with the others, it is a genuin e desire on the part of any gov ernment to do that. We want, and I'm prepare to ackn owledge that the New Democrats want to as well as the Cons ervatives, treat our senior citizens as best and as well as we can. Mr.

Speaker, I ask you to remember only these three figures: in the Province of Alberta, the total revenues for the operation of their public affairs, they derive fully 55 percent from resource-related industries, of their total revenue expenditures of the Province of Alberta, 55 percent come from natural resources, principally oil, of course. In the Province of Saskatch ewan that figure is some 26 percent, a little less oil augmented by potash, uranium, mining, but it's 26 percent. Mr. Speaker, do you know what that figure is in Manitoba? 1. 8 percent. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we knew that; we knew that from the first day we took office in October and we knew that unless we put our fullest energy into somehow bringing up that resource revenue figure to maybe 5 to 6 or 7 percent, that was the only way that a province like Manitoba could keep pace with our sister provin ces, provide the level of services that we all want to provide without the imposition of onerous burden of taxation that would begin to work in such a negative way. So, Mr. Speaker, that is why we put so much time and effort into the developme nt of the mega projects. Mr.

Speaker, if we made a mistake it was a mistake in not getting that message across. We were accused, we allowed ourselves to be accused of "we were doing this for business sake, or we were doing this for Al can; we were doing this for potash. We were doing this so that we kn ew the kind of imposition, the kind of burden on the Manitoba taxpayer that would continue to rise in order for us to maintain our health care services wher e we want it, in order to maintain our educational systems wher e we want them, to maintain the kind of relief that our municipalities required in terms of their property taxation.

To do that we needed some revenue other than simply going back into the pockets of the taxpayers. That is wha t we were work ing for and if we didn't do that job well enough, Mr. Speaker, that is our responsibility and that is why perhaps we are on this side of the House, but the aims were genuine, they were sincere and they were cor rect for the Province of Manitoba. It is not good enough for the Minister of Energy and Mines to suggest to us, we ll, there were some parts of deals that we didn't like. Mr.

Speaker, the other day, and we will have more of that, again at the Public Utilities Meeting, we had the opp ortunity of asking the Ch ief Executive Officer of Manitoba Hydr o wha t is wrong with the Alcan deal or wha t is wrong with the Western Grid deal? It is easy for the Honour able Minister in a vague way to make reference in this Ho use that there were details of the plan that weren't necessarily in the interests of Manitoba. I ask him now - I don't think he has debated the Budget Speech and I ask him now, Mr. Speaker - will he tell us wha t is wrong? Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be that parochial.

If they didn't like our nego tiations, if they didn't like our plans, if they were wrong, thr ow them out, but, Mr. Speaker, these pro jects are going down the tu be. 2612 Mr.

Speaker, for the honour able members op posite to say they were never there, I will tell you that is really saying a mouthful because Ministers from two sister provinces signed an agreement, sent the recommen dations up to their governme nts accepting the basic outline for the Western Grid, which would have enabled Limestone, which would have enabled you to at least keep one of your prom ises and perhaps one of the most important ones, by the way. I have never lost sight of the fact that econ omic activity can be generated from a multi-billion dollar project in our northland on the Nelson River. You see, Mr.

Speaker , that is wha t sustained them, plus the fact that the 19 70s, of course, generally were better eco nomic years, but an injection of the equivalent of $200 million to $300 million annually into the economy of Manitoba, no econom ist is going to dispute the kind of

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 spinoff effects that had on our economy. The fact that we didn't have that in all of the four years that we were government and that my colleague could still come up with 30,000, 35,000 new manuf acturing jobs is a mira cle in itself. So, Mr. Speaker, I genuinely ask the Minister of Energy and Mines, okay, you don't like the principles that we dealt with, if you don't like dealing with the Chicago boys of IM C, that's all right. You want to make a deal with Sask Potash, go ahead and do it, but do it. If you don't like dealing with Alcan, all right.

If you want to play around with Kaiser and with Rey nolds, they are bigger multinationals than Alcan are and more American-based. Alcan is a multinational, but 60 percent Canadian-owned. If you don't like deal ing with Alcan, fine; get Reynolds in; get Kaiser in. These were the kinds of glib answers that he gave us in the House here. I don't care, Mr. Speaker. Maybe some of our noses will be out of joint a little bit because it isn't exactly our plan, but that would be childish, that would be very small. I am simply asking him to do it. I am simply asking him to recogn ize, Mr.

Speaker, that a province like Manitoba that doesn't get much more than 1. 8 percent of its revenue requirements from resource-related industry, it is absolutely essen tial that we move in that direction. I am shocke d and I am disturbed that in a Budget that calls for $700 million to $900 million of borrow ings, there is nothing there of great substance - I shouldn' t say that -a side from some public housing I believe, but even public housing while it is perhap s a needed social program, but it doesn't generate into the long-term future jobs.

It generates a few sh ort term construction jobs and then in effect becomes a cost, an additional drain on the public Treasury. Mr. Speaker, if you are going to borrow $900 million, why isn't there a $200 million water development pro ject in th ere? Why are we not building the Holland Dam, the Pem belier Dam? Why are we not developing something in this province if we are going to be bor rowing tha t kind of money? Why are we not starting Limestone with those kind of borrowing requirements, Mr. Speaker? You see, Mr. Speaker, that is what I talk about, a lack of form, of strategy to this Budget.

We are borrowing unprecedented numbers of millions of dollars, 900 million, and yet I won' t be able to sho w my constitu ents, I won't be able to sho w my children some tangi ble wealth-prod ucing benefit projects for that money. Mr. Speaker , I appr eciate it tha t it is far too early in the life of a government to pass any definitive judg ment on the i r perfo rmance as a whole. What we can certainly begin to guess at, in this their first Budget, in this thei r first Session, the kind and the style of gov ernment tha t we are going to get. That leaves us with every reason for concern, Mr. Speaker.

Ministers answer questions far too glibly. Mr. Speaker, there is noth ing wrong with no answer. No rules in the House command an answer, but, Mr. Speaker, they dance around answers as did the Minister of Agriculture with my friend, the Member for Arthur. You know, he talks loosely about having ongoing discussion with the Federal Minister of Agriculture on the various agricul tural plans, the beef plan particularly, and, Mr.

Speaker, when just in the course of a few questions asked in Han sard in this House, it develops tha t it is questiona ble whether the Minister of Agriculture ever talked to the Honour able Mr. Whelan. Mr. Speaker, that kind of cute playing around with questions, and more important to the farm commun ity, tells us something about the style, the substance of this government. The kind of questions that the Honour able Minister of En ergy and Mines has been giving us on the major projects or the Minister of Finance, so ably dubbed by my colleague from Turtle Mountain as "Baffle-gab." Mr.

Speaker, that makes for a few points here in the House. I don't even think it is impressing too many people that watch it on TV, but, Mr. Speaker, I' ll tell you, time marches on and we will be back a year from now; we will be monitoring some of the answers and some of the actions of this gov ernment to see what progress has been made. Mr. Speaker, the Budget is bereft of an overall stra tegy. It commits the future of Manitobans to an unprecedented level of indebtedness and, Mr.

Speaker, I could even buy it if I believed their rhetoric, if I wanted to believe what I think they honestly believe and I think th at is wha t must make them so uncomfor table. They do bel ieve, Mr. Speaker, they do believe tha t at a time when the economy is poor tha t it is a public responsibility, society's responsibility to pump it up and to pour some money into it. Mr. Speaker, fine, if you want to go along with that belief. I may disagree with it but at least I want to see it demonstrated.

I would like to see $250 million of that $900 million going to buy a quarter interest in the proposed potash development, as we had proposed. I would like to see $200 million or $400 million to start up Limestone. I would like to see some of those signs of public sector involvement in major real growth projects. It's not there, Mr. Speaker. All we are going to be left with, all Manitobans are going to be left with at the end of it is a big bill with a big bill and a heavy interest cha rge against it. Well, Mr.

Speaker, for those reasons, I have absolutely no difficulty in supporting the amendment as put forward by my leader. 2613 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON . I/. SCHROE DER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House, members of this Treasury Bench are busy working, are busy ensuring th at this province is being proper ly run and I don't expect that every single one of them will be in here at all times listening to the entire debate. I am not going to comment on some of the absences in the honour able members' benches, but maybe he should look at them.

I would like, to begin with, to thank all the members on both sides of the House who participated in the debate up until now. Un fortunately, I won't have time to deal with all of the points which have been raised in the debate, but I would hope to cover most of the major ones and particularly tho se raised by the Leader of the Op position last week. The Leader of the Opp osition gave the House his standard speech of indignation, comp lete with the usual references to ch icken coops and drunk en sai lors and patched -up magicians and qu ick tricks and vultures, Uriah Heep, but while that makes for interest-

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 ing theatre, I regret to say that there was very little substance in his remarks and virtually noth ing that could be considered positive or constructive. It seems as if he has learned noth ing from last November's election and, in fact, is trying to refight it but with the same rhetoric that he used in 19 77 and in the four years that followed. The people of Manitoba found out what it means to have four years of his party's brand of nong overnment and they made it clear last fall that they had enough.

They supp orted our party and they support it now because we are not afraid to ackno wledge that Mani toba faced then, and faces now, some serious eco nomic and financial difficulties. The people of Mani toba kn ew that we were prepared to make a genuine effort to try to do something about those difficulties as opposed to my friends opposite.

They wanted a gov ernment which was prepared to face up to reality, not to turn its back on problems - remember the Blue Sky Budget - or to make them worse by using Manitoba as the testing ground for its simplistic neo-conservative theories, theories which have been tested and have been found wanting elsewhere, wherever they have been tried. The people of Man itoba don't want a do-no thin g government. They want a government which is pre pared to act in the best interests of this province and our Budget for 19 82 shows we are determined and comm itted to doing just that.

As I've said on May the 11 th, the Budget reflects some hard choices and some hard decisions, but they were decisions which had to be made and I believe now, more than ever, that they are the right decisions for the futur e of Manitoba. I would like to deal with some specific items referred to by the Leader of the Op position but before I do so, he and members opposite in the past few months have been making a great deal of our election promises and the fact that we haven't fulf illed all of them in six months of a four-year term. -(I nterjection)- Well, any of them the member says.

I can enumerate eleven that we have already kept and by the time we are through our four years, we will have do ne our best to keep all of them. But let me remind especially some of the new members op posite because they may not even have heard of the promises that the Leader of the Op position made back in 19 77. Rememb er the prom ises about balanced Budgets? The Member for Morris must surely remember those promises. On October 3, 19 77, the Leader of the Op position was in Rossmere and he talked about unempl oyment, pretending that he would do some thing about it.

Four years later, we had more unem ployment than we had on October 3, 19 77. You kn ow, he said more and more of our young people - listen to this, this is a direct quote from the Leader of the Op position - "M ore and more of our young people will have to leave Manitoba if they are to find the opportun ities they will need to build their own prosperous and independent lives." He was such a fortune teller. He was so right because when that group of neo conservatives came in, because of their policies, we had a drop in our popu lation from '78 to '81 .

A drop, the only province in the country that was put in that position, so much for his promises, and people remembered that on Novem ber the 17 th. And he said, October 3, 19 77, "Today in Winnip eg alone, there are more than 1, 300 senior citizens on the waiting list for nursing homes; 1, 300 people who cannot get the care that they need because we have not built enough nursing home s." And what did he do when he came to power? He froze construction of nursing home s and then he eliminated the lists so that we would n't have the count.

That is the kind of promise-ke eping we had from that government and that is why they are now on that side. And then he said, same evening, October 3, 19 77, and let me tell you a third fact, "Today in Winnip eg, less than one young family in th ree can hop e to afford to own their own home." Now what did he do to improve that situation? He supported the high interest rate policy of Trudeau. He did everything possible to ensure -(Int erjection)- Mr.

Speaker, we have heard members op posite sitting there and supp orting, standing there and saying, "Reaganomics may not be perfect, but at least it's someth ing; we should do something." I am qu oting your House Leader from earlier in this Session. And from the time when you were in govern ment. Can we now on Nov ember 17 , 19 81 , after four years of their government, could we have more people owning their own homes in this province? Absolutely not. That was the kind of prom ise that the Leader of the Op position was making then and he was striking out promise after prom ise.

"There is today in Manitoba a need for clear and helpful gov ernment action to permit people to own their own home s," that was the Leader of the Op position in 19 77. What did he do? He did absolutely noth ing for four years and then he went on and he said older neighbourhoods all over Winnip eg are going down hill. Housing values are falling, people are becoming frightened to walk the streets at night. What did he do about that? Noth ing, absolutely noth ing. He said we must make a change to a government that will work to preserve these neighbourhoods. What did he do?

He did noth ing, absolutely noth ing and four years later they were thrown out as they just so justly deserved to be thrown out. 2614 The Lead er of the Op position referred to govern ment spending and I would like to re call, remind members opposite that in his government 's Th rone Speech last year, in their last Throne Speech in many years, it was stated that even though the Federal Gov ernment was going to cut back transfer payments, he and his colleagues were "determined that the level of services provided to Manitobans shall be maintained and improved." That's what he was saying then.

What have we heard in this Debate? We have heard that the members op posite and certainly the Leader of the Opp osition would have ignored that commitment and imposed cuts. In other words, instead of trying to protect essential health and high er education servi ces, th ey would have made them the primary target of their cuts. The members opp osite like to talk about fiscal responsibility but I do not believe they kno w the mean ing of the word.

One of the keys to resp onsible gov ernment is providing services that people can depend on and maintaining a reasonable measure of stability from year to year in programming and in policy. Clearly, what the mem bers op posite are now sa ying, although they did not say it in the election campaign, is that after a few years of turning the tap off and then

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 desperately turnin g it on full blast - that's the Tory tango, th ree steps backward and one step forward - they would now if they were again on this side of the House, turn it back off because after all, they would be four years away from an election. Why would n't they cut it off? That's wha t the y like to do. They would turn off the tap now and, hop efully, they would try again the year before an election to start up extra spending. Last year, the spending increase was something like 18 percent and that is exactly the opp osite of what our economy needs.

The majority of the people of Mani toba understand that and that's why the Member for Sturgeon Creek and his colleagues are now sitting on that side. The Leader of the Op position spent a great deal of time talking about the provincial economy and he argued that the Budget had no clear stategy for deal ing with the problems we face. It 's somewha t interest ing to hear him talk that way.

His government seldom conceded that there were any economic problems. certainly no serious problems in this province when they were in office and even if they did ack nowledge them, they would never have dreamed of mounting any sort of consistent strategy for doing anythin g about them. They were the advocates of the do nothing stategy, except when it came to cutbacks. There, they were very effective. In fact, they tried to set the mselves up and the people of Man itoba with them as Canada's example of Reaganom ics at work and the people of Manitoba paid dearly for that experi ment.

The damage which was done to our economy was outlined clearly in the Budget. The Leader of the Opp osition talked about qu ick tricks. Nothing exemplified that approach better tha n his govern ment's desperate attempt to sell the people of Manitoba on the so-called mega projects. In foot ball they call that kind of desperation, last minute maneuvre, the long bomb. Well, Mr. Speaker, that approac h certainly bombed out here in Manitoba. There is no quick trick or quick fix for dealing with the economy and the economic problems we face.

It will take hard work, substantial resources and it will take solid co-operation between the public and private sectors. The members opposite tried to pass them selves off as the only party which is concerned about the health of the private sector. That is ridiculous and most of the mem bers of the business community in this province are well aware of that fact. They know that members op posite sup ported the Federal Goverment 's high interest rate policy. They kno w that we oppo se that policy and have introduced an In terest Rate Assistance Program.

They kn ow that the members opposite thr ough their cutbacks did major damage to the Man itoba economy, damage that was felt by virtually every business in the province. In contrast, they kno w that our government has intro duced a number of tax red uctions to help small busi ness and has empha sized our con cern about the need for a solid program of public investment to protect our economic foundations and lay the groundwork for future expansion. The Member for Sturgeon Creek is sitting th ere and mumbling quite a bit.

I would have thought that by this time in the Debate after having heard all tho se com ments about Saskatchewan that we would have heard something about On tario from that group. Now there was some economic stimulation. Right? There was a Finance Minister who kn ew how to do something about the economy. Business is in trouble, so wh at does he do? He eliminates the taxes on corporations in On tario, eliminates the tax on small business cor porations. In come tax, isn't that interesting.

If the Member for Stu rgeon Creek could read, I would sug gest to him tha t he read some of the letters to the editor in the Eastern papers these days people pointing out for instance, that particular tax removal help s precisely those businesses who are surviving quite well. 2615 The businesses that are paying income tax at this point are surviving quite well; those are the ones that he is helping. The ones that he is hitting are the ones that aren't paying income taxes. Those are the ones tha t are suffering and wha t is he doing for them? Tell us.

Why don't they tell us about the sales tax increases in the Province of Ontario? They don't want to talk about that; they don't want to talk about that at all. Mr. Sp eaker. our Budget sets out a realistic - (I nterjection)- the Member for Sturgeon Creek mumbles and grumbles and groans. He has had sev eral oppor tun ities.

First of all, he talked once legiti mately, as is the right of every member in this Hou se, on the Budget and then he talked, somewhat illegiti mately, half the time talking about the very same types of issues he was trying to put on the record the first time when he brought them out yesterday. -(I nter jection)- I was here. What he is forgetting, when he is mumbling about On tario, is that in fact in On tario the On tario Govern ment says that 80 percent of the Medicare premium down there is paid by the employers.

The Medicare premium now for a married person with two children is $648 per year; 80 percent of that is over $500 per year per employee. Now. why don't we hear some thin g about that? You don't have anythin g near that if you have an employee at the average industrial wage in Manitoba, at $1 5,000, that employers will be required to pay here. So, that is not unreasonable. We are not a province that has just an unlimited source of income. We are not prepared to go along with the supply side econom ics. the Reaganomics that is being prac tised and inflicted on the people of On tario; we will not do that here.

When it comes to taxation we feel that the people at the lowest end of the ladder are the ones that we should n't be increasing taxation on and if taxes are passed on, we are not going to start off by putting them on them to see whether they can pass them off on business. That is not our phi losophy and never has been. Mr. Speaker , our Budget sets out a realistic eco nomic strategy which provides the kind of leadership this province so badly lacked for four years. We are not prepared to rely exclusively on some mega myths created by the members op posite's P.R. machine.

We want to see if those projects go forward and we would like them to go forward and we are work ing toward that end, but we feel that the key to our development is to take a much more broadly-based approach with carefully developed policies to strengthe n all sectors of our economy and that will take time. There are no quick trick solutions that the Leader of the Opp osition likes to talk about. We ackno wledge that it will take time, but it will also pay off in solid results and more

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 stable growth in the long term. Members opp osite may not recognize it but that is the basis for a realistic and responsible economic strategy and one which this government believes is what the people of Mani toba really want. One of the major difficulties facing the province, in formulating its Budget for 19 82 and the years ahead, was the stark reality of major federal cutbacks in sup port for health and post-secondary education and equalization.

Best available estimates suggest that the costs of those cutbacks represent some $719 mill ion for Man itobans over the next five years or an annual average of over $14 0 million. Our government has taken the position that provision of high quality health and education services along with restoration of other basic programs and services, which were permitted to wither under the former administration, was one of our fundam ental commitments to the people of Mani toba.

In essence, contrary to the suggestions of the Leader of the Op position, we simply were not pre pared to reduce health services and educational oppor tun ities for the people of this province as a result of the Federal Government's cutbacks. The Leader of the Op position made his position quite clear when he suggested that for the province to, "turn around and increase funding in the face of such revenue cutbacks and then to turn around and to increase taxes, in the face of such revenue cutbacks from Ottawa, and still be running the highest deficit in the province's history is not only irresponsible, Mr.

Speaker, it's perverse." That is a statement that your leader made. These comments make it eminently clear to all Manitobans just what the Progressive Con servative appr oach to confr onting the dif ficult chal lenges facing the government and people of Mani toba, in light of the national recession, compou nded by federal cutbacks, would be; further cutbacks in essential provincial programming and far too little attention being paid to the longer-term implications of such cutb acks in basic programming and services for the long-term health of this province.

In stead, our government committed itself to pre serving and protecting Manitoba's potential insofar as it is possible, within our limited resources, so that when the national recession ends Manitoba busi nesses and individuals can be in a position to take advantage of a national upturn in economic for:unes.

Faced with the cutbacks in federal supp ort and the challenges inherent in restoring the quality of public services for Manitobans, our government opted for a mix of selective tax increases and decreases designed to secure needed additional revenues and, at the same time, to provide additional relief and support to small business. The major tax imposed in the Budget is, of course, the 1. 5 percent levy for Health and Post-Secondary Education. Ju dging from his remarks, the Leader of the Op position would prefer to see massive cutbacks in essential provincial programs rather than any tax increase.

Again, he would do well to look back on his governmen t's record where, after four years of acute protracted restraint, he and his colleagues left this province with the legacy of inadequate and under funded program ming and an increasing deficit. Is that what they promised the people of Manitoba in 19 77? Did the y go around telling us that in four years they are going to have underfunded programming and a larger deficit?

That is the group that is telling us after six months that because you haven't kept your prom ises that we made over a four-year period, that some how we have done something wrong; that is the group that couldn't keep any of its prom ises in fou r years that is telling us that you must keep your prom ises, all of them, in six months; that's the group.

The simple reality facing the Leader of the Op posi tion and his colleagues is that, despite acute pro tracted restraint, the sluggish economic conditions contributed to a slowdown in revenue growth to the point that increased deficits were virtually unavoida ble because of their very policies. I would also remind him that our expenditure increase for 19 82-83 at 16 .4 percent is somewh at lower than the '81 -82 increase of 18 percent under his stewardship, although even during his Throne Speech last year he was referring to cutbacks in federal pay ments, kno wing full well they were coming.

We told him as the Member for Transcona said, we told him, we warned them in '77, '78, '79, don't do this , you're destroying the economic fabric of this province. We were the first province in the country to get into the recession and I pointed out in the Budget Speech the dif ficulties we were having in terms of having a popu lation decrease, the only province that had that from '78-8 1, we wound up having the lowest rate of job increases in the countr y. We were at the lowest ebb in terms of this country and that is the legacy that gov ernment left us.

I would suggest that any realistic observer of the P.C. record in Manitoba would be left with the ines capable conclusion that major tax increases in '82-83 would have been unavoidable even if his govern ment's policies would have been contin ued. Mr. Speaker, the Hous e Leader of the Con servative Party well kn ows the numbers in terms of the Estimates of Expenditur e that were on his table on November 17 th of 19 81, he well kno ws that.

He well kn ows the difficul ties that we were facing when we took office. 2616 Again, judging by the comments of the Leader of the Op position, his favorite option to secure the needed additional revenues for the province would have been an increase of two or three points in the sales tax; or maybe doing something innovative like the Province of On tario who said, as the Member for Dauphin so eloq uently described it yesterday, he made sure that the kids going to McDonald's would pay the 7 percent sales tax on a hamburger, but all the beaurocrats going to the Grill Room at the Cha teau Laurier would have their sales tax reduced from 10t o 7 percent.

That's the kind of Budget to fight recession, tha t's the kind of Budget to fight recession you see from a Tory Government, that's a Tory tax. For our part we examined the relative impacts of the two levies, the sales tax increase that the members of the Op position would have preferred, and the levy for Health and Post-Secondary Education. We concl uded that the levy which we have introduced was the pre ferred course for securing needed additional revenues.

We published a Budget paper evaluating the relative merits of the two options and it's a document which I would recommend as good reading material for members opposite. The Budget paper lists the most important factors influencing our decision to proceed

Wednesday, 19 May, 1982 with that levy in lieu of a major sales tax increase. These include, firstly, the desire to spread the burden as fairly as possible over all sectors of the provincial economy, th ereby reducing the potential adverse impact on certain sectors. The Budget docu ment included information on the impact of a 2 per cent sales tax increase on the new 1. 5 percent levy on various typical businesses. I'm sure that members opposite have seen that paper but in case they haven't I'll try to explain at least some of them over to them.

The information suggests that the levy will impact far less heavily on busi nesses such as hardware stores, building contractors, food stores, hotels, motor vehicle dealersh ips than would the 2 percent sales tax increase.

In contr ast the new 1. 5 percent levy will ensure larger contributions for such busi nesses as banks, insurance compan ies, law offices, other professional offices, adver tising comp anies and the federal government, thus in our view the new levy will spread the burden as fairly as possible over all sectors of the provincial economy and avoid the excessive impact of the sales tax increase on other vulnerable sectors. You kn ow, Mr. Speaker, I would have expected, especially the members from Western Manitoba who had the gall to contact me and say, we would like to have our Cham bers of Com merce me

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-58
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 58.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	934fa5f6247e5b72de562ea5a59682eefa695f46

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