Manitoba Hansard — 17 May 1982 (Sitting 56A, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-56a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 17 May, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. MR. CLERK, Jack Reeves: I must once again inform the Ho use of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speake r and ask the Dep uty Speake r to take the Chair in accordance with the statutes. OPENI NG PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Jerry T. Storie (Flin Flon): Prese nting Petitio ns ... Re ading and Re ceivi ng Petitions ... Prese nting Re ports by Standing and Special Committees ... MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Education. HON. MAUREE N HEMP HILL (L ogan): Mr.

Speake r, I would to table a discussion paper on a framework for open discussion and cons ideration of the issue of School Closures; and for the inform ation of mem bers of this Ho use, I would also like to table the press release which I am releasing today on the Sup port Program to Small Scho ols. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Int rod uction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be fore moving to Oral Questions, I'd like to direct the mem bers' attention to the gallery where we have several gr oups and guests.

We have 40 studen ts of Grade 9 standing from Sisler High School under the direction of Mr. Br own. These students are represented by the Hon ourable Member for ln kster. As well, we have 25 studen ts of Grade 3 standing from the Sanford Elem en tary School under the direc tion of Mrs. Brooks. These students are represented by the Honou rable Member for Morris. We have 40 studen ts from the Glen Ullin High School in North Dako ta in the Un ited States under the direction Mr. Bob Joh nson. On behalf of all the honourable mem bers of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Turtle Mountain . MR. A. BRIAN RA NS OM (Turtle Mo untain): Mr. Dep uty Sp eake r, my question is for the Minister of Finan ce. Did the Minister of Financ e have any studies conduc ted as to the numb ers of head offices and payro ll cent res that might be driven from this province by his payro ll tax in an effort to find a more com peti tive tax climate? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Minister of Finance. HON. VIC SCHRO EDER (Rossmere): Mr.

Speaker, before we finalized this Budget, we looked very serio usly at all of the im pacts that it might have and in so doing we discovered, for insta nce, that in the Prov ince of On tario the employ ers with head offices or not having head offices in that province pay considerably larger proportions of their payroll for medical costs than they will be paying in Manitoba under this partic ular premiu m.

There is one differe nce, however, and that is that the Manitoba levy is not a regres sive levy as opposed to the Ont ario levy which is very regressive in that, for an em ployee, there is a fixed hold tax of $684 now for the Medicare premium which the On tario Govern ment says emplo yers are paying about 80 percent of it. The Province of Quebec, of course, has a 3 percent levy whic h is not regressive in the same fashion as On ta rio's because it applies to all income levels. Ours is 1. 5 perce nt; Ont ario is at $1 5,000 and is in the area of 3 percent, I believe.

Albe rta is at $1 5,000, is in the area of 1. 5 percent, as is British Columbia, so I would sugge st that there is no evidence at all that there would be any head offices moving out of the province. There is no doubt that there is one province, Saskatc hewan, which doesn't have either of those levies at this time and, of course, Saskatchewan has a numb er of oil wells , potash and some very well run ning corpora tions down there which would be a substantial amount of tax to the public sector in Saskatchewan. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Turtle Mountain . MR. RA NS OM: Well, Mr.

Deputy Speake r, I know the Minister of Financ e is anxious to discuss the events taking place in On tario, Saskatc hewan and Al berta. We're more inter ested in events that are taking place here in Manitoba and since the Mi nister says that in deed he has had studies conduc ted, wou ld he table those studies for the ben efit of the Oppo sition? 2515 MR. SCHRO EDER: Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago we heard the Op position in here pretty steadily refer ri ng to a neig hbouring province, the Province of Sas katchewan.

Now that the Province of On tario is taxing a bag of potato chi ps for school children, all of a sudden they don't want to hear about neigh bouring provinces. The memb er stood up and asked a ques tion about head offices and tha t impli es that we should be discussing taxation and other costs in other jurisdictions. Ju st the other day, I met with the President of Great West Life who indi cated that he agreed with the Mani toba analysis that wage costs in Manitoba are cons id erably less than, for instance, in Ontario and that is borne out by every federal study on that issue. MR. RA NSO M: Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, my ques tion to the Minister was, would he table the studies which he says he has done ? That's a fairly simple and

Monday, 17 straightforward question. I'll place it to the Minister again. Will he table the studies which he said he has done? MR. SCHRO EDER: Mr. Speaker, those are back grou nd papers that have found their way in the form in which we will publicize them, in the backgr ound pap ers to the Budge t. The backgr ound papers clearly set out the effect of that levy and I would ask the mem ber to look at it and ask him to look at it in compar ison to the other alterna tive, to the alterna tive of a sales tax incr ease and the im pact that would have had on the retail sector in Manitoba.

I sugg est it would have been disastrous; our studies showed that and the back grou nd papers showed that. The studies showed that if we didn't impo se this partic ular tax, we would get no fund s out of the inves tment commun ity, the insurance com munity, the ban king community, the professional com munity. There would be large segments that would n't be paying tax at all, while others would be paying far too much. What we tried to do was get a tax that would be spread all over, inclu ding touching on levels of govern ment. MR. RANSO M: Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the Budget con tains the advantages of one type of tax and the disad vantages of the other. What my supplemen tary ques tion, the further question to the Minister of Financ e is: Does the Minister have a legal opinion which says that the province is en titled to apply this payroll tax to the payroll of the Federal Governm ent? MR. SCHRO EDER: Mr. Speaker, I am just astounded that members opposite would be sugge sting that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba to levy a tax whic h is identical except half as much as the tax in the Pr ovince of Quebec.

To lev y -(I nterjec tion)- The Leader of the Oppo sition has an interesting view of law in Canada. That is, Que bec can levy certain taxes but when the Province of Mani toba does that, somehow that becomes illegal. I would suggest that there is absolutely no logic in that partic ular question. In the Province of On tario - I've tried to explain this to the honour able gentleman and he has diffic ulty unders tanding it. In the Province of On tario, empl oyers are paying close to 4 percent of a levy with an emplo yee at $1 5,000.

On tario can do it, British Columbia can do it, Alberta can do it, Quebec can do it, but someho w our Loyal Opp osition thinks that Manitoba can't do it. Well, I sugge st, Mr. Speaker, that anytime the four most populous provinces in this country can levy a type of tax, that if we can't levy the same tax then we've got some real problems in Conf ederation. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. STER LING LYON (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, very simply so that even the Minister of Finance can understand it, has he an opinion from the legal offic ers of the Crown of Manitoba which states that the Provinc e of Manito ba has the rig ht to levy a tax on the Federal Govern ment? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister 2516 1982 of Fin ance. MR. SCHRO EDER: Mr. Spe aker , I have an opinio n from the Attorney-General of this province that says very clearly that we have the rig ht to impo se this par ticular levy.

I don' t have a copy of the On tario Bud get of this year yet, wher e they are talking about 80 per cent, but I do have a copy of their 19 78 Bud get when premi ums were somewher e around $500 or $550 a family and the ir treasurer said almost three-q uarters of the increase will be paid for by emp loyers in On ta rio. The only diffe rence is, of course, that here we are saying it will be the emplo yers and it will not be reg ressive. It won' t be 4 perce nt for a low paid em ployee and 1 percent for a $50,000 em ployee or less; it will be the same for all. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker , we have heard a gr eat deal about premiu ms in Ontario which are imposed against emplo yees, but what I am asking the Minister of Fin ance very simply is whether the Province of Mani toba has the legal rig ht to impo se a tax upon the Federal Governme nt? MR. SC HR OEDER: Mr. Sp eaker , the Province of Manitoba has, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Attorney-Gener al of the Province, the right to impose the particular levy that it has imposed for Health and Post-Second ary Education in this province on all em ployers in this province, bar none. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, just to make certain, double sure, is that an opinion personally of the Attorn ey Gen eral or pref erably is it an opinion of the law offic ers of the Crown? MR. SC HROED ER: Mr. Speak er, for the informa tion of the Leader of the Op position, the Atto rne y-Gene ral is the chief law officer of the Province of Manitoba. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance has such an opini on, would he table it for the ben efit of the members of the House and the people of Manitoba? MR. SCHRO ED ER: Mr. Speaker , I have exp lained to the memb er that we have the opinio n. Surely, that is sufficient. MR.

LYON: If the Minister has the opini on, would he please table it? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Spr ingfi eld. MR. AND Y AN STETT (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-G ener al which might shed some light on this question. I am wonder ing, rather than wo rrying about tabling a document, if the Attorn ey-G ener al could put on the public record of this provin ce, in Hansard , his opini on, and I would ask him for that opinion as to the lega lity of this particular levy. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Atto rney-General.

Monday, 17 1982 HON . ROL AND PE NNER (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker , previous year? in my opin ion, the Minister of Finance with his usual acumen as a lawyer has already answered the question. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. RA NSO M: Yes, Mr. Deput y Speaker, I think the Member for Springfield should know that it is against the rules to ask for a legal opinion from a memb er of the Treasury Bench. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I bel ieve those are the Rule s. The Hono urable Member for St.

No rber t. MR. G.W.J. (G erry) MERCIER (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker , my question is to the Honour able Minister of Fina nc e. Could the Minister indicate whether , in view of the fact that the payroll tax will not be levied against municip al governm ents and school divisions until Jan uary 1 st of 19 83, would independent schools be in the same position as school divisions? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finan ce. MR. SCHROEDER: No, they would not, Mr. Speak er. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance has ind icated in the Budge t that after Jan uary 1, 19 83, ther e will be dir ect suppor t to mun icipal govern men ts and school div isions to offset the payroll tax. Will independent schools receive similar dir ect suppor t as school divisions? MR. SCHROEDER: We have already heard from in dependent schools and we expe ct to take that matter under consider ation. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a suppleme ntary ques tion to the Honour able Attorney -General, the Minister responsible for the Liquor Control Com mission.

Could the Atto rne y-Gen eral ind icate the averag e price incr ease for beer, win e and spirits as a result of the direct ion to the Liquor Control Comm ission to raise another $20 million? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Honour able Atto rney- Ge neral. MR. PENNER: Yes, that question in effect was ans wered by the Minister of Finance in this House two days ago or th ree days ago. We expect that the price increases will be in the order of 8 percent for beer, 7 percent for hard spirits and about 15 percent on wine. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for La Verend rye. MR.

ROB ERT (Bob) BAN MAN (La Verendrye): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker . I dir ect my question to the Minister in charge of Natural Resou rces and would ask him if he could confirm tha t the fishing limits for nonr eside nts has been cut in half this year from the Natural Resou rces. HON . AL MACKLIN G (St. James ): Mr.

Speaker, yes, I can confirm that the th ree-day tourist or seasonal permit, the limits have been red uced, but if an angler from out of the pr ovinc e, a nonr eside nt, does wish to fish for a quantity of fish, that is a large numb er of fish for food, then of course he can buy a full season's permit which will enable him to get the limit that is otherwise obtainable by anyone who buys a licence. MR.

BANMAN: A supplem entar y question to the same Minister, I wonder if he could inform the House whether or not he has been in contact or his Depar t ment has been in con tact with the different camp operators and guides work ing in the different lakes in Manitoba to advise them of this change and has he discussed it with them at all? MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker , I would have to take as notic e the exte nt of discussions of officials within the department because they have ongoing discussions on a large numb er of issues and matters that are appropriate within the dep artment and agencie s that work closely with the depar tment. I wouldn't have per sonal kn owledge of all of those discussions. I assume that much of that does take place.

What I can indicate to the honourable mem ber is that I've had an opportun ity to meet with some of the people closely involved and we have ende avoured to ind icate to them any chan ges in seasons or limits in respect to either wild fowl or fishing. MR.

BANMA N: In light of the concerns that have been raised in the last little while and some of the cancella tions that some of the camp oper ators are facing because of this particular change in the reg ulations, I wonder if the Minister would undertake to check with the different camp operators that are flying people in from the Un ited States to ensur e that these people are not adversely affected by this particular new reg ula tion, which I say to the Minister, many people were not aware of and see ms to be causing a cer tain amoun t of hardship and some canc ellations among these small tour operators who are hard-pressed already this year to try and keep their operations going. 2517 MR.

MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, if ther e have been conc erns raised by individual lodge oper ators or tour operators, they have not made th ose repres en tations to me. Obvio usly, they may have made them to the former Minister, I don't kn ow. If ther e are representa tions, certai nly, I'll deal with them. MR. BANMA N: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Labour and I would ask him, in light of the New Demo cratic Party's promis e that they would provide security from layo ffs and up to 12 months notice for com pens ation to em ployees would be required in the event of shutdowns or layoffs involving more than 50 peop le, I wonder if the Minister could inform the Ho use what they will be doing with regard to com pensation or requiring Canadian Pacific

Monday , 17 May, 1982 to give 12 mon ths notice of layott to the 1, 10 0 people that are being laid off this summer. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Labour. MR. SCHROE DER: I'm sure that the member isn't aware, being from Stei nb ach, but the CPR is under federal labour legislation. MR. BAN MAN: Is the Minister saying that the election prom ise which was made during the last election that they would req uire up to 12 months notice to emp loyees in this provi nc e and that if their 12 months notic e wouldn't be given that com pensation would have to be paid?

Is he saying that does not apply in this particular instance? MR. SCHR OEDER: Mr. Speaker , the Oppo sition has spent the first 1 O min utes of the question period telling us we can't legislate with in our jur isdiction with respect to emp loyer levies. Now, I take it they're going to spend another 10 min utes telling us that we do have the righ t to legis late within federal labour jurisdiction. There is no doub t that we don't have the right to legis late with in that area. -(I nterjec tion)- The Attorne y-Gen eral is giving me a legal opinion right now that we can' t do it.

He didn' t have to because we kn ew that in the area of federal labour law, the Federal Government is supreme : with in the area of pro vincia l law, we make the rules. MR. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . To the same Minister, just a few days ago he said bankrup tcie s, of course, were excl uded; now com panies under federal jurisdiction are excluded. I would ask him now, in his capacity as the Minister of Financ e, if he could inform the Ho use whether or not the cr edit union system in Manitoba will be subject to the payroll tax? MR. SCHRO ED ER: Obviously, the mem ber hasn't been either present or listen ing.

During the last week or so I've made it very clear that every em ployer in the province is su bject to the levy for Health and Post Seco ndar y Education because every em ployer in the province uses the system. The system is ther e for ali Manitobans, the health care facilities, the post second ary educ ation facilities. All emp loyers pay it, just as all people pay sales tax and other taxes in the provinc e. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Arthur. MR. JAME S E. DO WN EY (A rthur ): Mr.

Dep uty Sp eaker, to the Minister of Agricultur e, in view of the fact that ther e are massive layoffs in the rail system, in the rail road ind ustry, some 1, 10 0 as ind icated by my colleague, the Member for La Verend rye, can he assure me, this House, and the farm commu nity that the movement of gr ain, which is vital to the income s of the farm co mmuni ty, will not be affected because of the massive layoffs in the railroad ind ustry? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Agricultur e. HON . BILL URUSKI (Interlake): Mr.

Speaker, cer tainly we are conc erne d , but the whole matter that the mem ber refers to is related to the downturn in the entir e traffic on the rail line s. We are co ncerne d that grain receive the pri ority that it should in terms of export commitments. MR. DOWNEY: In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Min ister has done nothing to assure the farm com munity that he is repre senting them when it come s to the amounts of people that are neede d in the railway bus iness to move the grain. A further question to the Minister of Agricultur e, Mr.

Speaker, has he personally contacted the Federal Minister of Agricu lture to get the det ails on the pro posed Federal Beef Stabilization Program? Will it, in fact, replace the ill-conc eived program that he has tried to shove down the th roats of the farmer s? Has he had any personal discussions with the Federal Minis ter of Agricu lture to discuss beef stabilization? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Dep uty Speaker, leaving aside the dr ivel that the Member for Arthur likes to preface his questions, yes, I have. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the cur rent marke t conditions, the upswing in the market condi tions, could the Minister confirm at this point that the contri butions made by the producers on each animal that they sell will be as gr eat as the $50 tha t he is prepared to pay out to the beef produc ers on a per head basis?

That the ret urns a producer now gets, calculating 4 percent of an entry fee to get into that program, that 4 percent will equal the amount of money that he is propo sing to pay out on a per cow basis, so the program is therefore of very little use to the produc ers other than to add a marketi ng board system? In fact, they are almost equal at this point. 2518 MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Member tor Arthur doesn't listen very well with respect to the announc em ents that have been made.

He doesn't appear to want to not even th ink or remember that the program is being developed by the produ cers in terms of the levels of compe nsation, the premi ums. All those det ails are being worked on and will be developed by the producer group that has been appointed and they will be wor king on the det ails of the program which they will when they have those det ails agreed to, then they will discuss them with the producer s and bring them to the gove rnment and then we' ll discuss them with the producer s in the Province of Manitoba. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, one further supplemen tary to the Minister of Agricultur e. When did he have those personal discussions with the Federal Minister of Agr iculture re Beef Stabilization Supp ort for the been ind ustry? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I tele phoned the Minister of Agricultur e last week. MR. DOW NEY: Mr. Speaker , he may have telephoned the Minister, but did the Minister answer at the other end and speak to him?

MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, not only did I speak to the Minister in Vita, I have spoken to him several times. In last week's conv ersation, to tell the honourable mem ber clearly, the Minister did not answer the tele phone, but I did tele phone him and asked him; he has yet to return my call. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Morris. MR. CLAYTON MANNESS (Morris): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agri culture. Last week, I asked three spe cific questions, which he took as notice, as regard to the Farm In terest Rel ief Progr am.

I asked him specifi cally how many appl ications had been received, how many had been approved and the total compensation paid under this program. I am wond eri ng if he could give me that answer now. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Agri culture. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, as of last week, and I'm going from memor y, there were 251 applic ations that were recomm ended for approval.

By last Frid ay, there was approxi mately 65 that were approved and may have been more but 65 were approved and letters had gone out to the applicants that their approval was accepted and they could make their arrangement s for the funds that were approved. MR. MA NNESS : Has any compensation been paid under this program to date? MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the letters of app roval went out and the arrangements - the producers makes the arrangements with the i r financial institu tions for those funds and then the funds are disbur sed thr ough those financial institutions from MACC once the arrangements have been made. MR. MANNESS: When will the Minister within his department have an ongoing tally as to the total com pensation paid? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable mem ber wants to kn ow the exact amounts of dollars, some of the payments will be made on a monthl y basis to the fin ancial in stitutions, so it will be an ong oing process.

I will take spec ifically the question as notice as to whe ther any cheques have flow ed to the financial institutions at this point in time. To tel l the honourable mem ber, I cann not say at this point in time that the actual cheques have flowed to financial institution s. However, letters have gone out of appr oval and pay ments are to be processed in the no rmal fashion. MR. MANNESS: Wel l, is it the Minister's intent ion to moni tor the actual payout on a weekly basis or on a mont hly basis under this progr am? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, we are mon itoring the program on a weekly basis.

There is a comm ittee with in the department and MACC that are going thr oug h those applications and are de aling with then 1982 on a weekly basis. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOH NSTON (Stur geon Creek): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Ec onomic Development and Tourism. On April 29th, the Minister repo rted the numb er of projects being worked on with the Small Business In terest Rate Relief Prog ram. She repo rted 14 were dealt with, 8 were approved, 5 were deferred and 1 was rejected.

The Minister also gave a comm itment to advise us the actual amount of cash that had flowed under this program. I wonder if the Minister can bring us up-to-date on ho w many projects have been appr oved and how much cash has flowed in this progr am. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Economic Developmen t and Tourism. HON. MURIEL SMITH (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the information I have is about 10 days old and the total amount paid out is $30,000.00. I'll undertake to update that information and bring it to the House. MR. JOHNSON : Mr.

Speaker, to the same Minister, then the $30, 000 is in respect to the five or the eight that were approved on Apr il 29th. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Virde n. MR. HARRY GRAHAM (Virden): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a question for the Ho nourable Minister responsi ble for the Environ ment. I would like to ask the Hono urable Minister if he has ordered any investigation of the envir on mental people into the effect and damages of salt water spills through pipe line breakages in the oil fields in southwestern Manitoba. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of the Envir on ment.

HON. JAY COWAN (Churchill): This matter, as the mem ber should be aware if he is not at the present time, is one of co-operation between the Minister responsible for Energy and Mines and myself. As a result of spills which took place earlier in the spri ng, there have been investigations undertaken and they are currently ongoing. 2519 MR. GRAHAM: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Were those envir on mental studies initiated by the Minister or by the Minister of Mines? MR.

COWAN: In this instance, they are a co-operative mechanism whic h is undertaken between the two departments and the two departments are working toge ther at the staff level to ensure that, in fact, we have in place repor ting mechanisms which are neces sary for the promp t repor ting of such spills and that we have in place at the same time, response mecha nisms whic h will enable us to deal in an effect ive,

Monday, 17 May, 1982 compr ehens ive and quick mann er to mitigate against any potential damages which may be caused as a result of those spills.

Fina lly, of course, the En viron mental Management Division does undertake from time to time investiga tions of specific spills to det ermine if, in fact, there has been environ mental damage and if there has been such damage, what action should be taken to provide the necessary measures which will be used to minim ize the lon g-term or per manent effects of that damage and to put in place an evaluation mechanism which will ensur e that in the future, we will be able to, as much as possible, anticipate that sort of envir on men tal damag e from occurri ng and take the action whic h is necessary to mini mize that potential damage in the future.

So if the mem ber has a spec ific question as to a specific inc ident, I would be pleased to give him a deta iled answer either today if that is possible, or if that is not possible today, cert ainly in the near future. However, I have outlined to him what I bel ieve to be appropriate general mechanism s which are put in place co-operatively between the Depar tment of Energy and Mines and the Envir on mental Manage ment Division for his information.

I don't think it's necessary in ev�ry instance for one department over anothe r department to take the lead role and to annou nce publicly that it's taking the lead role. However, I do think it is necessary that we pursue our options in this regard in the following way or the way which I have just outlined rather than outline it again, Mr. Speaker. So we have done that, we will con tinu e to do that in the future and if the mem ber can prolLide me with specific exa.mples or specific sugges tions, I'd be glad to accept them. MR. GRA HAM: Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, my final supplementar y, and I would hope that we are able to se.e the report when it is compl eted because the report might be clearer than the Minister's answers. Will the report be available to mem bers of the Mani toba Leg islature as well as to the Manitoba Surface Rig hts Association of Manitoba with their headquar ters in Virden? MR. COWAN: Wel l, again, Mr. Speaker, I am not cer tain whether the member is referring to a specific incident or if he is refer ring to general provi sions that are in place to deal with these sorts of problems.

If he is dealing with a specific incident, then perhaps he can be more direct in his question and I can then det erm ine whether or not that report on that incident will be available to him in that way.

If he is talking about a general situation, I would be pleased to enter into general discussions with him and with other interested parties as I have done in the past and will conti nue in the future to discuss options which are in place now and options which are available to the Envir on ment al Management Division and to the Department of Energy and Mines to deal with prob lems which may be created as a result of these spills. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I had to ask the Honour able Minister of the Environm ent because the Minister of Mines was not in the House, but I would hope that I will get clearer answers from the Minister of Mines. The specific question was, had the envir onme ntal studies been done; the Minister answered, yes. I have asked if those studies, when they are comp leted, if the report will be made available to mem bers of this Assemb ly and to the Manitoba Surface Righ ts Association. Can the Minister answer yes or no? MR.

COWAN: Now, I assume that I must be more clear on my answers, because I recall having told the mem ber just a few moments ago that in fact we do conduc t envir on mental studies on certain spills. I have asked him, in response to his question so as I can provide him better detail with my answers, to be more specific in regard to what specific spills he is inter ested in discussing at this time. If there is a specific spill at a specific time and the Envir on mental Management Division has undertaken an envir on mental review of that spill, then I would be prepar ed to discuss it with him.

Ho wever, if he is askin g for a general carte blanche com mitment on my part to provide him with envir on mental assessments on every spill, I have to indicate to him onc e again and as concis ely as possible that where we bel ieve the re may be an envir on mental impact of a lon g-term or perm anent nature, we would undertake those assess ments.

The spill, which he may or may not be referri ng to at this time, may be one of those spills where that potential is not cons idered to be one which we would have to take into cons ideration at this time and there may not be that sort of com prehensiv e assessment done on it So, I would again ask him to be more specific as to the exact spill to which he is referr ing and then I can provide him with the detailed answer he deserves. MR.

GRAHAM: As a matter of clarification, I would like to advise the Honour able Minister that there have been innu merable spills, innu merable breakages in the oil field and if the Minister has not done any stu dies into that, let him tel l me now. If he intends to do it, let him tell me that Obviously, the Minister doesn't kn ow what is going on out there. 2520 MR. COWAN: The Member for Virden is absolutely corr ect when he indicates that there have been numerous spills.

I, Sir , would submit that I am correct as well when I indic ate to him that there are different response mech anisms put in place for those different spills and if he would care to be more specific as to which particular spill he is talking about, then I will be more specific in my answer, but I can indi cate to him as I did before that the Depar tment of En ergy and Mines and the Environ mental Management Division have been work ing in a co-operative way to dev elop notif ication procedures and response procedu res whic h will mitigate against potentially harmful effects of these spills.

We will con tinue to do that. That is an ongoing process and one which demands con tinuous action on our part as we attemp t to make our response mechanisms more effect ive. If he is asking for a specific report on that ongoing sort of co-opera tion between the two depart ments, I am afraid that I can only provide him updates from time to time because we are learning from our expe rienc es in this regard. I am aware of the numb er of

Monday, 17 May, 1982 spills which have taken place in those areas and that is why I am having difficulty in answe ring the mem ber in a specific way. If he wants an update on a specific spill, I will be pleased to provid e that to him. If he wants an update on the general situation, I can assure him that we are conti nuing to work co-operatively with the Depar tment of En ergy and Mines and that we are cons ult ing with gr oups who might be affected by our actions as we undertake that devel opment of a compr ehens ive program to deal with these spills. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education. In light of the rather distu rbin g anno un ce ment that was made by the Minister of Fina nce in response to the Hono urable Member for St.

Norb ert with respect to the invidious position into which this gove rn ment is putting independent schools in that it is not treating them, vis-a-vis the payroll tax, in the same way that it is treat ing public schools, will the Minister of Educat ion indicate to the House why independent schools are not being treated in the same way as public schools, given the fact that independent schools teach and look after the education of many thousands of young people in this prov ince? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Financ e. MR. SC HROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The in dependent schools, as all other empl oyers in the prov ince other than school divisions which have their own publicly elected officials and municipaliti es, which also have their own publicl y elected officials being bodies set up by the Provinc e of Manitoba, those were the only bodies that were exclu ded and only until December 31 st, 19 82. They had struck their budget. They are creatures of the Provincial Government and any other emplo yer in the provi nce is in a different category. As I indic ated earlier, in answer to the Member for St.

No rbert, we have been in com mun ication with sev eral of the independent schools and we expect to take this under cons ideration as we will any other specific instances. MR. l YON : Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Educat ion, will the Minister of Edu cation use her good offices with in the Gove rn ment of Manitoba to speak on behalf of the ind ependent schools in order that the discri min atory position into which they have been placed by the Minister of Financ e with his invid ious tax will be broug ht to an end?

Will she assure that the independent schools are not treated in this manner as indicated by the Minister of Financ e? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Educat ion. MRS. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an oppor tun ity to respond to the question raised by the Leader of the Op position. What I would like to indicate is that I want to reiterate what was said by the Minister of Financ e and that is presently school divi sions and municipalities, we have waived the incr eased cost for this Budget year for school divisions and munici palities.

We have undertaken a comm itment to do a review of this prior to the Ja nuary, 19 83 deadl ine with a view to exam inin g ways to help offset the increased costs in the coming year. As the Minister of Financ e indicated, we will receive any com munic ation or information from any gr oup that wants to let us know what their un ique problems are, what thei r needs are, and we will take it all under cons ideration in the review. 2521 MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, a further supplemen tary to the Minister of Education.

Given the fact that du ring her Estimates, she admitted to the House that she had not as yet prov ided any annual incremental increase in the aid to independent schools. Will she now consid er not only giving the incremental increase for this current taxation year, but also including within it a sufficient amount of money to offset the invidious tax which her col league, the Minister of Fina nce, has imposed upon independent schools so that they will in that respect, at least, be on a par with school divi sions in Manitoba? MRS. HEMPHILL : Well, Mr.

Speaker, my Estimates are still up and I think detailed questions related to what is in the Budget, what is in the Estimates, is more appropria tely discussed in detail then. But I can com mun icate what I previously commun icated to the Leader of the Opposition and that is, there has been some incr eased support in this Budget year for inde pendent schools. The increase is in the range of approximately 11 percent over last year's budgetary figure.

That was, they are get ting the increase, receiv ing the increase in trans portation costs as are the public schools and they are receiving the increase in books and print and non-print costs as are the public schools. We have also given additional support to those independent schools offering the Hebr ew lan guage by interpre ting an existing regulation in a much more flexib le man ner than had been done previously so they all are now qualified to receive the $435 avail able for all students that they are educat ing.

These are all additional benefits greatly apprec iated by the association for independent schools. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions havin g exp ired, we will pr oceed to Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE (Cont'

d) MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate of the Hono urable Minister of Financ e and the amend ment thereto, the Hono urable Member for River East. MR. PH IL EYLER (River East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me beg in by saying that we on this side are fully aware that this was not an easy Budget to assembl e. In the face of federal cutbacks of $71 9 mil lion over the next five years, we had to try and meet two goals. We had to try and sustain the eco nomy

Monday, 17 May, 1982 thr ough these hard times and we had to try to protect and assist those who were sufferi ng from the worst effects of recession and inflation. Mr. Speaker, to meet these goals we had to attempt to do three thing s. First, we had to provide for a sti mulative spen ding program. Second, we had to limit the deficit to one which would not impair the provin ce's credit rating on the world money markets. Third, we had to provide for a limited and equitable incr ease in taxes. I bel ieve we have achieved these goals, Mr. Speaker.

As far as stimulative spendi ng goes, we have added an extra $10 million for di rect job cre ation in the next year. We are spen ding $700 million for Capital impr ovements. That is an increase of 40 percent over last year. This includes $69 million in accelerated health care constr uction and $50 million extra for Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corpora tion. These are important for River East. We have a lot of people involved in the building trades and a lot of those peo ple are unemp loyed and they are looking forward to job creation proje cts this year. As far as the Budget defi cit goes, Mr.

Speaker, we bel ieve we have kept it under control. We have increased the de ficit from $277 million last year to $334 million this year and that is an increase of 20 percent, but it will not impair the credit rating of this provi nce. We will maintain our AA credit rating in New York. We still have a large amount of unused tax author ity whic h we are not using. We have the lowest sales tax of all the provinc es with sales tax. We have low gasoline taxes comp ared to those with gasoline taxes. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of tax we are not levying this year. We have.limited our tax increases.

We realize we can not charge all of our spending increases to the deficit, espec ially in the face of fed eral cutbacks. Our tax changes have had two goals. The first of these is to recapture lost federal tran sfer mon ies where possible and the second is equity. The Health and Educat ion levy meets these criteria, Mr. Speaker. Over a quarter of this tax will be paid by the Federal Govern ment either through direct levy on federal bureaucracy or as an indir ect syphon ing off from the corpo rate income tax. Mr.

Speaker, this is accepted practice in Quebec, On tario, Al berta and B.C., and there is no reason why it canno t be done in Manitoba. However, somebody has to pay the tax, and every day the mem bers of the Opposition come in with startling new revelations as to who is going to have to pay it - small busine ssmen , big busi ness men, farmers, ban kers, accountants, lawyers, churches, and to the utter disgust of the Member for Sturgeon Creek, even chili burger stands. Mr. Speaker, one characteristic that all of these gr oups have in common is that they are all the productive people in society.

This tax is not levied on fixed income pens ione rs who are beyond the age of product ion. It is not levied on the handi capped. It is not levied on the unemplo yed who can not find productive positions. It is a fair tax. The sales tax increase that the Opposition seems to be advocating would have hurt these gr oups even more. The Opposition, Mr. Speaker, says that this levy is a hidden tax which will be passed thr oug h at hig her cost to cons umers. They espe cially like to key in on food. So let's look at what would happen in the Safe- way in my area on Hend erson Highw ay.

What would happen to the cost of food in these areas? Mr. Speaker, I called the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Unio n last week and 10 percent of the costs for an average grocery store is attributable to labour. The Health and Educat ion levy is a 1. 5 percent tax on 10 percent of the cost which is attri butable to labour.

I am sure that Safeway will take full advantage of its tax deduct ibility so the final impact is% of a percent of 1 o percent which is the labour cost That amount s to an increase of .00075 and in terms that the Op position perhaps can understand, that is 7 112 cents on every $10 0 worth of grocery. Mr. Speaker, that is not a tax that I am afraid of and it cert ainly is muc h less of a burden to pensio ners than any increase in the sales tax of 2 percent When the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, says that the cumulative impact from the beginnin g of the food chain to the end is as much as 5 percent, that just simply isn't true. He used the words of the Leader of the Opposition - it won' t wash with the public. The levy for Health and Education is an equitable tax, Mr. Speaker. It recogniz es the fundamental changes in our econo my, the changes which have taken place in the last 20 years since they introduced the sales tax. As the economy develops, it is the ser vice sector which is expan ding at a more rapid rate than the goods sector.

The sales tax is a tax on goods primarily and as such, it ign ores a major

section of the econ omy. Our tax hits all empl oyers, not just the goods sector. It raises the same amount of money by spreadi ng the tax load over all the producers rather than a select few and as such, it reflects the eco nomy of the 19 80s, rather than the eco nomy of the 19 60s. The Health and Education Levy is a new tax, Mr. Speaker, and it reflects the ability and the willin gne ss of this govern ment to seek out new solutions to the problems which we are facing today.

To put it in eco nomi c philosophy and to, I'm sure, put it in terms that the Opposition will understand, this is a tax on the supply side and as a tax on the supply side, it is in di rect conflic t with the Nee-Conservative theory of tax incentiv es for the supply side. Mr. Speaker, the Nee-Conser vatives are the disci ples of Laffer who invented an ing enio us curve in which he decided that by decreas ing taxes for the corpora tions and decre asing taxes for the wealthy, they will spend this money and they will invest it in more productive uses in the eco nomy and bring the economy back to health. Mr.

Speaker, there may be time s and places where that will work, but that is not in Manitoba today. It will not work here. This shifts the responsibil ity for the econo my from the govern ment to private enterprise and we, on this side, do not believe in abdicating our responsibility to those groups who have failed to provide the ec onomic leader ship in the past few years. Mr. Speaker, we had supply side cuts under the last govern ment; we had reduct ions in corpo rate income taxes; we had reduct ions in the wealth tax. Mr.

Speaker, the incr ease in private investment and con sumption did not make up for the loss in public invest ment. All we got for our supply side tax reduc tions was a greater deficit which did not stimulate effect ively our eco nomy . When the Con servatives began to look for their extra revenue to cover their deficits, Mr. Speaker, they went to the traditional con- 2522

sumption taxes and in particular, gasoline. In the past two years, the gasoline tax has risen 60 percent. We are in no position to lower this tax now and we cert ainly can't eliminate it as was done in Saskatchewa n. We simply can not afford an extra $1 19 million on our deficit. However, we have frozen the tax, Mr. Speaker. Also, in recog nition of the higher energy value of the diesel tax, we have restored the tradit ional ratio of diesel to gasoline tax at 11 5 percent. Perhaps, most sign ificant of all, Mr. Speaker, we have raised the tax on gasohol from O to 2.4 cents a litre.

Cont rary to press reports, this will not result in higher gasohol prices. In fact, the tax increase was necessary to prevent a useless giveaway of govern ment reven ue. Mohawk Oil stood to make millions of dollar s in excess profits this year due to the previous govern ment's tax engi nee ring. Let's look at the origina l rationa le, Mr. Speaker. Gasohol is a useful exp eriment in gasoline ext endi ng, and alcohol is more ex pens ive to produce than gaso line, and a subsidy or a tax relief is indeed a useful program in this ex peri ment. The question is, how much subsidy do you want to give? How much?

Commons ense, Mr. Speak er, tells us that the level of the su bsidy should decl ine as the price of gasoline rises to meet the cost of producing alcohol. In fact, Mr. Speaker, under the Cons ervative regime the exact opposite happened. The higher the price of gasoline, the greater the subsidy for alcohol production.

The mechan ics of the subsidy derived from the 19 80 Bud get which the Conservatives put forwa rd, the sub sidy was given in the form of a road tax elim ination on gasohol, origi nally 4 cents a litre, but the Conserva tives made the road tax a percentage of the price of gasoline and that tax relief now amounts to 6.4 cents a litre for gasohol. Since gasohol is only 10 percent alcohol, the tax relief for each litre of alcohol pro duced is 64 cents or $2.9 0 a gallon. Mohawk Oil reported to the Free Press on April 29th of this year that tax exemptions were $1.8 0 a gallon.

That was based on the original 4 cents a litre tax rebate, rather than today's 6.4 cents tax rebate. Mr. Speaker, the cost of produc tion must be related to the subsidy. Mohawk Oil estimates that it costs $2.50 to pr oduce a gallon of alcohol and that it is a fair figur e. The Oil and Gas Jou rnal for March 3rd, 19 80, reports that it costs $1. 70 in the Un ited States for a gallon and conver ting U.S. gallons to Canadian gal lons and U.S. dollars to Canadian dollar s, $2.50 a gallon. That is the cost of product ion.

If gasoline costs 42 cents a litre and I checked on Bud get Day, that is what Mohawk Oil was selling its gasoline and gasohol for, that is $1 .90 a gallon, the cost of produc ing a gallon of alcohol is $2.50, then clearly a subsidy of 60 cents and not $2.9 0 is required to make alcohol com petitive at the gas pump. There may be other costs, Mr. Speaker, and I am well aware that Mohawk has brought in alcohol from the Un ited States which did not enjo y a tax subsidy on, but how big are these costs? Are they worth $2.3 0 which is the excess subsidy we are paying them?

It would appear that Mohawk Oil is rec eiving over $2 a gallon in tax relief on its product which is neither necessary nor passed along to the consu mer at the gas pump. By charging the same price as gasoline, 1982 Mohawk Oil is pocke ting up to 5 cents a litre in wind fall profit and laughing at the Provinc e of Manitoba all the way to its Alberta bank. They are gett ing such a good brea k, Mr. Speaker, they want to ex pand pro duction at Minnedosa from 1. 2 to 1. 8 million gallons of alcohol a year.

Un der the tax giveaway engi neered by the Tories, that would mean a cost to the Provincial Treasury of up to $3.5 million above what is currently necessary to make gasohol com petitive at the gas pump. Mr. Speaker, this was irresponsi ble and in comp ete nt tax engi ne ering by the pr evious government. They had plenty of warn ing, Mr. Speaker. I am sure they would read Fortune Magazine. If they had read Fortune Magazine's

article on gasohol from September 24th, 19 79, they would have read, "On a national scale, such efforts would turn into a costly boond oggl e with taxpayers once again the victi ms." That is Fortune Magazine, hardly a Socialist rag, and I would think a respect able journal in their opinion, but they didn't heed the reco mmendat ions of that. Mr. Speaker, we have the highest subsidy under their reg ime for gasohol in North America. The second closest is the State of South Carolin a where the max imum subsidy in Canadian money is $1 .92 a gallon, not $2.9 0 like they engi neered.

The Conservatives like to talk about free enterprise coming in, taking the risks and enjoying profits. Mr. Speaker, where were the risks in this project? Where were the risks? Cer tainly, there was never any risk if they they would lose money; the only risk was that Mohawk Oil would be caught making exorbitant profits at the expense of the Manitoba Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this Bud get has added a tax to gasohol and even with the 2.4 cent a litre tax, I would say there is still room for potential decline in the price of gasohol at the gas· pump.

Contr ary to Free Press reports, the price is not too high. 2523 In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this Budget. I am pleased that it provid es money for di rect job creation. I am pleased that it provid es money for em ployment generat ing construc tion projects. I am pleased that it protects pensio ners and unempl oyed from major impact of tax incr eases; and I'm pleased that it recaptu res a major por tion of the lost federal transfer payments. It 's not a perfect Bud get, Mr. Speaker, but it cert ainly is the best that can be done in these difficult ti mes. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. No rbert. MR. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the budgetary process is one of the most important features of the parliamentary system of govern ment, I bel ieve. The govern ment puts before this Ho use and before the public its br oad intent ions with respect to spendi ng and financ e, and by do ing so, inv ites ours and the public's scruti ny, com ment and criticism. It should impose, Mr.

Speake r, a disciplin e on the gov ernment that would not otherwise be there and brings about, I hope, a more eff icient and effective use of the pub lic's scarce financia l resources. In deed, Mr. Speaker, the process should serve to make the gov ernment deeply and acutely aware of whose funds it is spendi ng and how it is raising it's funds. Un fortun ately, Mr. Speaker, this Bud get de mon-

Monday, 17 May, 1982 strates a lack of sound financia l management in con trol procedures. It saddles Manitobans with a record de ficit, Mr. Speaker, of some $334 million or $335 million and when we think back just a few short months ago, Mr. Speaker, when the now Premier had the audacity to label our Budget deficit as intolera ble and his Minister of Finan ce has now brought in a Budget some 50 percent higher than that of our gov ern ment in our last term of office. It saddles Manito bans, Mr.

Speaker, in addition with some $900 million in borro wing, which must be financed, and which future citizens in this provi nce must make good on those borr owings. Mr. Speaker, it is probably also the largest tax increase in the history of this provi nce. It doesn't rec ogni ze that there is a limit to what producin g Manito bans can reasonably be expected to bear under the present circumstances. Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Bud ge t is in flation ary and will in cr ease unempl oyment. The amendment, Mr. Speaker, I think quite clearly and corr ectly presents the position of Her Majesty's Loyal Oppo sition.

The first paragraph indicates that the NOP in presen ting this Bud get has abandoned its responsibil ity to manage carefully the financial affairs of the provinc e and, Mr. Speaker, the defi cit that is referred to in the Budget will increase, I bel ieve, as other mem bers on this side have indicated. We have before us today a press release by the Minister of Educat ion indicating a program of $1 .75 million for small schools. I'm not disputi ng the pro gr am that has been set out, but I have to ask the question, is it included in the Estimates that are before this Leg islature? I doubt that it is.

I would think that it is anothe r item that is going ·to be added to the even tual deficit of the Provincial Gove rnm ent in this fiscal year. It will gr ow, Mr. Speaker. The interest on borrow ings are sign ificant. Last week, the interest rate increased onc e again and we have some $900 million that will have to be borr owed on the market this year. Mr. Speaker, the second part of the amendmen t refers to a failure to pursue agressively the major economic dev elop ment projects initiated under the previous administration. Mr.

Speaker, there's not only a failure on the part of this gover nm ent to pursue those Economic Devel opment Projects and there was, interes tingl y, a publ ication put out by the Manitoba Cons truction In dustry, I bel ieve, which pointed out in detail the numb er of tradesmen that would be required to work on those projects: carpenters, plumbers, elect ricians, truckers. Mr. Speaker, that is what is needed in our economy at this time is jobs for people. Unempl oyment has increased sign ificantly over April of this year compar ed to April of last year.

I believe the rate some 8.4 com pared to 6. 1 percent and the pros pects are not good, Mr. Speaker, but this government has fai led to pursue those devel opment projects to provid e jo bs for workers in this provi nce. Mr. Speaker, the third part of the amendment indi cates that the NOP Govern ment has failed to provide economic di rect ion and leaders hip. Mr. Speaker, we have heard during her Estimates, the Minister of Eco nomic Dev elopment ex pound on her peculiar philos ophies as it relates to economic devel opment in Mani toba. Mr.

Speaker, we have just heard the Member for River East ex pound on some of his theorie s and his 2524 views of govern ment reven ues. He doesn't want to see any possible source of govern ment reven ues left alone. Mr. Speaker, it's an attitude that seems to indi cate that all the money out there belongs to the gov ern ment and it's only by privi lege that the govern ment allows a few people to keep a few dollar s to look after the mselves. Mr. Speaker, it's an attitude that, I think, will alienate any investment in Manitoba and the dev elopment of any jobs in Manitoba which are badly needed.

It 's more than precise projects or ideas, Mr. Speaker, it's more a frame of mind that the govern ment has at this particular time in its term of office that, I bel ieve, has alienated and will alienate private investment in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the fourth part of the amendment indi cates that the NOP Go vernment has incr eased public cynic ism about gove rnme nt in the political process and has failed to keep faith with Manitobans. Mr.

Speaker, in less than six months, we have seen the approach of the gove rnm ent and its com plete failure to live up to the prom ises which we have asked almost daily about in this particular House, the promises which were made to the people of Manitoba, promises whic h the govern ment simply can not deliver on, Mr. Speaker. As a result they have lost a gr eat deal of credibi lity in the minds of the public. We heard the Prem ier of this province goes around the provinc e for some three or four months talking about an increase in the sales tax, Mr.

Speaker, and then they brought in this particular Budget, which they say there is no increase in the sales tax, but we all kn ow that this is, in fact, a hidden sales tax which will affect the cost of every thing produced in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finan ce, in his Budget and in his answers in this Ho use deals extensively with a comparison of his payroll tax versus a sales tax increase and cites the advantages of one and the dis advantages of the other and adopts the payroll tax as his preferred approach.

When asked in the Ho use about the effects of the payroll tax on people in Mani toba in various areas, he always attempts to talk about the sales tax and to say, "I sn't the payroll tax better than the sales tax?" Wel l, Mr . Speaker, what is distu rbing is that he apparently didn't cons ider another alternative and that is reducing expenditur es instead of adding taxes. Mr. Speaker, this is what everybody else in Manitoba is do ing; establishing prioriti es; establishing prior ities with in thei r available means. But all we hear the NOP talk about, Mr.

Speaker, are the increased reven ue needs of govern ment, needs of govern ment, revenue needs of govern ment; or else we hear the Minister of Fin ance talk on a radio hotline show about how he got this sector of the eco nomy and how he got that sector of the eco nomy and how he's going to get this other sector of the econ omy. Mr. Speaker, it is a mentality and an attitude that I find very distu rbing. Mr. Speaker, I suggest the govern ment has not administered public funds prudently. Mr. Speaker, we can look at the Estimates.

Does the Prem ier's Office need the large numb er of people that he has hired in that office to replace the two or three that were there before? What additional service, Mr. Speaker, are they going to provide to Manitobans, hard-p ressed as they are at this time to made ends meet, and instead are going to be taxed additionally

by the payro ll tax, or are going to lose emplo yment as a result of that tax. A small matter, Mr. Speaker, it came up in the House, but who else but the Prem ier's office can afford the carpet that he has had installed. A small item, Mr. Speaker, a small amount of mone y, but is there any taxp ayers out there in my constituency that are buying carpet at those prices? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. I don't there are probably any mem bers of constitu enciss of mem bers opposite who are buying carpet at those particular prices. Mr. Speaker, we reviewed the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs.

The Minister of Munici pal Affairs advised me in Commit tee in his Estimates, that the re were four persons tran sferred from Munici pal Affairs to the Depar tment of Ur ban Affairs in the creat ion of this new department. Now, Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Depar tment of Ur ban Affairs is 19 . The Minister of Urban Affairs, Mr. Speaker, could not ex plain, to my satisfaction, what all of these people are doi ng in that particular depar tment. He indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the y were not going to be there to second guess the City of Winnip eg de cisions. Mr.

Speaker, we impleme nted a system of block fundi ng earlier on in our term of office; as a result of which the city was able to spend the money they received in accordance with their own prior ities and based on a great deal of expertise in their administra tion, whether it was in the Water Waste Department, whethe r it was in the Transit Department, the Streets and Traffic Department, the Environmental Planning Department or wher ever, the Minister of Ur ban Affairs is not going to be able to du plicate the expertise that has developed in the city and the experience that they have developed in the operating City of Winnip eg matters.

But one is lead to believe that the only possi bility for the use of these people in the Department of Ur ban Affairs is to seco nd guess the deci sion-making in the city and if that is what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest that this is another example of a wasteful expendit ure of funds.

It is not only an addi tional and un necessary burden on the provincial tax payer, it will become an additional burden on the City of Winnip eg taxp ayer, because what happened pre viously was that city administrators had to spend a great deal of time respondi ng to the position of the Federal Govern ment when they were in office pre viously when they trie d to, and did indeed, second guess the de cisions of the City of Winnip eg. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest these are at least three small examples of a lack of control of expendit ures by this govern ment and an un necessary burden of taxes on the taxpayers as a result. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't belie ve they made any hard deci sions, they made the easy de cisions. They simp ly approved carte blanche the spendi ng proposals that were br ought forward and it resulted in the increase in spen ding that has occurred; an increase in spending which is misleading, Mr. Speaker.

They indicate the re are some 16 and some points percentage incr ease in spendi ng, but if you com pare print over print, that increase is much high er and it's not over yet, Mr. Speaker. We will see throug hout the year more spend ing and a higher deficit than is revealed in the Budget so far. Mr. Speaker, my position is that taxes should not 1982 have been increased in Manitoba. The payro ll tax of the NOP will onl y result in increased unemplo yment as empl oyers, Mr. Speaker, will have to reduce their costs or it will result in higher prices, a hidden sales tax, as emplo yers pass on the increase cost.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely backward and retro gressive step. The Minister of Financ e seems to take del ight each day in exp ressing to the mem bers of this House that the payroll tax applies to every emp loyer in Manitoba, except municip al and school divisions who will start to pay as of Jan uary 1s t, 19 83. Mr. Speaker, it will apply to eventua lly incr ease the costs of food, the cost of clothing, the cost of housing, all items that are exe mpt under ex isting payroll tax and many other items that are exempt under the sales tax.

They seem to take great prid e in adopting the recom mend ation of the Member for Sturgeon Creek that the sales tax on meals be increased to $6, but by applying the payroll tax to the emp loyer, they are undercu tting that sales tax exemption and all other sales tax exe mptions, Mr. Speaker. So it is, Mr. Speaker, a very very negative task. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the economy of this provi nce, we have seen over the last few weeks the anno uncements with respect to record unem ploy ment com pared to last year and getting worse.

We've seen record bankr uptcies, over 13 6 or 13 8 percent increase over the same period of time last year and get ting worse, Mr. Speaker, and the govern ment now want s to take out $70 million this year out of the ec onomy and $110 million next year out of the eco n omy. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the worst possible step that could be taken for our eco nomy at the pres ent time. It has, Mr. Speaker, tremen dous implications and affect ing every empl oyer throughout the provinc e at a time when cash flows for businesses of all kinds are very low, are very difficult. Mr.

Speaker, if the mem bers opposite were out in the real world, I think, talking to empl oyers, talking to people about what's happen ing, it is a very very difficult, very serious situa tion. Many many people in our provinc e are very very discouraged, depressed and the government comes up with a Budget whic h will take all of this money out of the economy and only add to the financial woes of business and ultimately, Mr. Speaker, of individ uals and families where employment is lost. 2525 Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance in question period just the other day wond ered why we were not asking about the small reduct ions in taxes that have taken place. I'm surprised that he would raise that particular matter, Mr. Speaker, because we spent some four years in office reducing taxation in this provi nce, so he can rest assured that we, on this side, wel come any tax reduct ions because that is our objec tive and our method of operating over the past four years. I was surpris ed today, Mr.

Speaker, whe n the Minis ter of Financ e indicated that the independent schools will not be treated the same way as school divisions and with no underta kin g to be treated in the same way as municip al govern ments and school divisions. They have not received, although the Minister of Education tried to leave the impression today that independent schools have received an incr emental increase in funding this year, Mr. Speaker, they have not. They may have received some very small adjustment on

Monday, 17 May, 1982 account of books and on account of transpor tation as she indicated, but they did not receive any increase in their $450 grant per student. Mr.

Speaker , as our leader indicated, these schools are required by pro vincial legislation and the whole approval process to provide the same standard of education thr ough qualified teachers as do the school divisions and they receive a very small gr ant from the Provincia l Gov ernment, a grant that we had pledged to increase this year after we had spent four years in government changing the legislation and putting the whole system of financing on a different basis.

Now the independent schools not only have not received any increase in their basic gr ant but they have been subjected to this payroll tax and are not going to be treated in the manner as school divisions. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope the Minister of Financ e and the Minister of Educat ion and indeed the Minister of Health will get together and come up with a realistic program of assistance for ind ependent schools. Mr.

Speaker , the Hono urable Attorne y-General today in respons e to my question with respect to the direct ion to the Manitoba Liquor Contr ol Comm ission to increase their revenue by some $20 million, which it's not enti rely clear from the Budget, but which I assume pric e incr eases would be effect ive May 30th and he's nodding in agreement. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this $20 million incr ease in revenue will come into place after there has been Federal Government excise tax increases after the most recent incr eases of just the beginning of this month and after the effects of the 1. 5 percent payroll tax are ascertained. That simply won' t be a payroll tax on the effect of the payroll tax on the Liquor Control Comm ission because the comm is sion is going to have to con sider the increased costs that will be passed on to them by truckers and suppli ers as a result of the truc ker's em ployer and the supp lier's em ployer having to pay the payroll tax. Mr.

Speaker , the Ho nourable Attorney-Gen eral indicated that ther e would be an 8 percent increase on beer, 7 percent on spi rits, 15 percent on wines. Mr. Speaker, we'll look forward to seeing those announce ments and I hope they're coming forward very shortly, within a matter of days. We had always attem pted, and I believe the Attorne y-Gen eral and the Liquor Com mission have followed this practice of announ cin g the incr eases in prices some time in advance in order to provide as much notice to the consumer as possible.

But I bel ieve the com mission is going to to have some difficulty even staying within the percentages that the Attorney-General ind icated today. I suspect also, Mr. Depu ty Spe aker , that these price increases will put the provinc e in a very uncom petitive situation with neigh bouring provin ces, particularly, Ontario. I hope that the govern ment has cons idered the effect of these price incr eases on the hotel and hospitality industry, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because an increase of this magn itude is going to make it very difficult for restaurants and hotels to be in a very good position in terms of comparison of pr ices with other provin ces and other states, Mr. Spe aker , and there could be a sign ificant impact on that industry as a result of these increases. I point out to the Attorne y-Gene ral, Mr. Dep uty Speaker, that we made an amendment to the Liquor Control Comm ission Act a few years ago after the strike at the Comm ission which allows Manitobans to import spirits from other provi nces.

Some mem bers may recall what occurred at that time when the Mounted Police stopped a number of motorists par ticularly, I belie ve, in the eastern end of the province and charged those Manitobans with importing beer from the Provinc e of On tario. We subsequently stayed all of those charges and this Legislature passed an amendment to allow Manitobans to import spirits and beer from other provinc es. It may very well be that ther e will be Manitobans who will take advantage of that particular provision as a result of the price increases that the governm ent has imposed. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I read carefully Page 6 of the Budget which talks about the init iatives taken by the Provincial Government and they talk about, "Our $23 million Int erest Rate Relief Program is now in place to provide assistance to homeowner s, farmer s and small business operators." Just today, a couple of other members asked questions about the amount of funds that have flowed through this particular program, Mr.

Speaker , and I belie ve that some $30,000 has flowed to small business which is obvi ously just such a small amount of money that can hardly be of any assistance at all to small busine ss and to the people em ployed in those businesses. We asked the Minister weeks and weeks ago du ring her Estimates at that time when we found out from her that no body had been yet approved and not a nic kel had flowed to rev iew the criteria because it was obvious to us that ther e had been a large number of telephone inquiries, but a small number of applica tions.

Obviously, what was happen ing is people just couldn't qualify for her prog ram, the gove rnmen t's program. We asked her to review the cr iteria for that particular program, but the Minister refused and now we are se eing the results of that refusal to review the cr iteria. Hardly any mone y whatsoever has flowed. Hardly any assistance has been provided to small business thr ough that prog ram, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we have to suspect that hardly any mone y will flow in the future and little if any assistanc e will be provided to small business operators and to the emplo yees that work for them. 2526 Mr.

Speaker , the second initiative that is referr ed to here is, "Ne w job cr eation programs have been announc ed to help stimulate emp loyment in the short run, espec ially for stude nts this summer." Mr. Deputy Spe aker, we reviewed that in the Estimates of the Minister for Labour. We found out from him that the amount of money he was prepared to spend this summer would only provide, under his criteria, 1, 500 jo bs for stude nts. For the same amount of money under our program last year, over 5,000 jobs were created.

We asked the Minister to change his criteria, his career related prog ram, so that what is most important to young people this year is that they get a job. Mr. Speaker , I worked as a gar bage man. I am sure all mem bers of the House, we did anything to get a job in the summer, build roads and whatever. They wer en' t particularly career related, although perhap s the garbage aspect did have some con nec tion with my future prospects in the Legislature - it could have, Mr. Sp eaker - but what is most important to young people is that they get jo bs.

The Minister's program onl y provid ed for 1, 500 jobs under very

difficult criteria. Now, Mr. Speaker , the Minister has apparently lis tened to us and perhap s had his de partment do some investigation and now the government is prov iding additional funds. We cong ratulate the Minister and the gov ernment on recog nizing the urgenc y of the situation of jobs for young people, but we would say to him, if he would change the criteria, he would be able to provide many, many more job s for what he is now spendi ng and wouldn't really require the additional funds. Mr.

De puty Speaker, they go on, on the page, to refer to "Major incr eases in assistance to municip al govern ments and school divisions have been pro vided to ease the proper ty tax burde n." Mr. Speaker, that is worth examin ing. Have they eased the proper ty tax burde n? The Minister of Finance, in his pamph let to City of Winnip eg taxpayers, and I suppose it goes all over the province, says that the gover nm ent is providi ng impr oved assistance to municip alities. That is very interes ting, Mr.

Dep uty Speaker, because I thought I would check that out, not that I don't trust the Minister of Financ e or the gove rn ment, but I wanted to substantiate that statement. I went back and looke d at the tables that I had that showed in 19 77, a homeowner in the City of Winn ipeg Sc hool Division, living in the so-called average home assessed at $7,000 and assumin g the minimum prop erty tax credit, paid net really taxes of $686. 01 .

In 19 81 , that same Winn ipeg resident living in that same $7,0 00 assessed home, assuming the minim um pro perty tax credit, paid net really taxes of $764.34, an increase of only $78.03 over a four-year period, Mr. De puty Speaker. No w, in 19 82 in the Winnip eg School Division, that person's tax increase is $18 0.14 in one year.

They have the ner ve to say in the Budget that ther e have been major increases and assistance to munic ipal governmen ts, school divisions have been provid ed, and the Minister of Finance says ther e's impr oved assistanc e to munici palities, when in one year the increase has mor e than doubled the total increase over a four-year period of time. That Winnip eg School Division, the mem bers Opposite will kn ow wher e the Winn ipeg School Division is because there are a lot of mem bers opposite who represent cons tituenc ies in the Winnip eg School Division.

What is even more concern ing is the fact that having talked to people who live in this Winnip eg School Division - this increase in taxes this year come s at a time when, as I've said, people are loosing their jo bs, companie s are going bankr upt, the cost of living has gone higher, people are having difficulty meeting ends together. Times are extre mely difficult for people out there, and at this particular time the gove rnment has the audac ity to include a statement that they have provid ed major incr eases to ease the prop erty tax burden and to provide improved assistance to municipalitie s.

Suppose the Minister of Ur ban Affairs, and he wasn't in the Legi slature during the previous four years, you know, when I asked about this attempt not to tdke any responsibil ity for the tax incr ease, he says it is the city det ermi nes it's own spend ing plans, we are not tell ing them what services they should provide except for the fare incr ease on the Transit .

If the gov ernment is going to attempt to take credit for their major incr eases in assistance to munici pal govern- 1982 ments and school divisions to ease the proper ty tax burden, and their promis e in that doc ument that we've all seen in this House where the now Premier says that he promis es to ease the prop erty tax burden th rough out the provi nce, they are going to have to take the responsi bil ity and the blame for this exorbitant tax incr ease imposed upon the taxpayers of the City of Winn ipeg and I understand thr oughout the whole Provin ce of Manitoba on agricultural land and in rural areas, similar increases have occurred.

We obviously in our Party had a very effective pro gr am for educat ion financing and mun icipal financ ing. I ask the mem bers to recall back. We increased the proper ty tax credit by $1 00 in 19 80. In 19 81 , we put in well over $70 million additional mon ey into the financing of education. We had a real comm itment, Mr. Speaker, to the realty taxpayer and that's why over four years, to the Member for Dauphin, the increase on that average home was only $78.0 3 and in one year, it's more than doubled under this NOP Govern ment.

We are going to make sure that every taxpayer in the Province of Manitoba kn ows these figures and kn ows who has caused this particular problem for them and why this exorbitan t increase is being imposed upon them at this particular time. Mr. Dep uty Speaker , ther e are other aspects of that I want ed to speak on, but obvio usly time has gone by too quickl y. I just want to refer to a statement that was in the Throne Speech by the govern ment.

They said, "Later in the Session, the Budget Address will provide furt her evidence of my govern men t's commitment to improved economic and social justice." We have seen what justice is to them. The tax bills, we've seen what justice is to them, Mr. Dep uty Spe aker , and we'll see what effect the payroll tax has and its just ice. Last fall, 47 percent of the electora te in Manitoba, taxpayers, consumer s and work ers fell for the promis es of the NOP, Mr. Speaker, and their election promis es. "A Clear Choice for Manitobans." They kno w now what a clear choice means and what a NOP choice means.

I suggest to the mem bers opposite that the electorate is not going to fall for those prom ises again, that we intend on this side in Opposition to bring forward as forcefully as we can the plight of all indiv iduals in Manitoba suffe ring under the economic circumstan ces that this government is causing, particularly the young who are unemplo yed, the workers of this pro vinc e, because the workers of this provinc e are going to defeat this govern ment in the next elect ion, because every thing that they have done has caused unem ployment and an increase in costs and it's going to be the workers.

Perhaps, it won't be the labour union leaders like the one in Thomp son who took his people out on strike for weeks and months and then settled the strike after the election and had the audacity to say, having received a very similar amount to what they were offered prior to the strike, that this was the best contr act of its kind in No rth Am erica.

We don't want those kin d of people, but the workers who will see the record of this gover nment and the creation of jobs in this province will not support that side of the House in the next elec tion because it's obvious they are not providi ng any econo mic di rection and leader ship for this province and don't have the kinds of policies that are required in this particular time, kinds of polic ies tha t are requi red to pro vi nce job s 2527

Monday, 17 May, 1982 for Manitobans. MR . DEPUT Y SPEAKER: The Honour ab le Attorney -General. MR. PEN NER: Mr. Speaker, shortly after being elected and tak ing office, I began to look forward with some expecta tions - I would n't say gr eat expecta tions -t o meeting the Ho use and to enga ging in what I hoped would be, at least from time to time, some mean ingful debate. I presu med tha t ther e were at least half a doze n, maybe seven, mem bers of the Opposition with the intelligence enough to eng age in that kind of debate, but day by day I must say that expecta tion, limited as it was, has eroded.

Ins tead of reasonable discourse, instead of cons truc tive criticism - I would have even settled for intelligent pol itical rhetoric. Ins tead of all that, Mr. Speaker, what we have heard from the Opposition day after day, throughout the question period, in Estimates and now in the Budget Debate, have been tired clic hes. kn ee-jerk reactions, dog-earred dog matism which makes the 19 th Centur y look progr essive, jack boot language inside of a straightjacket men tality.

Well I suppose one expects some of that in the course of political deb ate, in the course of the thrust and parry of a Legis lative or Parliament ary Session some of it - but in addition to that ther e have been, Sir, statements made in this Ho use, which outside of the Ho use, because I couldn' t do it inside the Ho use because it's unparliament ary, I have called irrespon sible and in my view, spe aking as I did outside of the House, they were irrespo nsible and tha t's not strong enough.

Statemen ts, Sir . which are astonishing not only, I subm it, in their disregard for the facts, but mainly and wha t I must say for the record, in their careless disregard for the political and economic future of this province. I want to illustrate at the beginning of these remarks by three example s having to do with questions, inde ed scarce ly questions, mor e innu endo than questions relating to the mega projects, bankrup tcie s and the Prospectus.

Ju st to illustrate the point that I've made about the relatively - every thing is relative - low level of political de bate, whic h I submit sadly, we have encou ntered in this House. With respect to the mega projects, for example.

The Leader of the Opposition speakin g in this Ho use on the 30t h of March, 19 82, said for example, "In view of the fact that in the last four weeks under questioning in this Ho use it has beco me apparent to this House and to the people of Manitoba that Manitoba stands a much worse chance, if any change at all, of getting an Alcan Sm elter and according to the most recent reve lations of the Minister of Mines and Ene rgy, that it's back to Square One in nego tiations on a potash mine." And I say what fact, that was a fact made up out of the whole cloth, out of the lurid imagination of the Leader of the Opposition.

No more of a fact was it than that outrageous rumour , which the Leader of the Opposition trum peted in this Ho use just a few days ago, that Alcan had opted to go to Thunder Bay; trum peted as if he was appealing some note of tri umph. Again the Ho nour able Member for Rhin eland in the Budge t De bate, said "You've blown Alcan; you've blown potash; you've blown the Western Grid; we're in 2528 trou ble" and all he was doing was blowing in the wind. All that the Member for Rhi neland was doing was sugg esting to this Ho use his own unfounded suppositions.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Budg et De bate, speakin g of the mega project, said as follows: "My question ... POINT OF ORDER MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Tuxedo on a point of order. MR. GARY FILMON (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker , in the absence of the Honour able Member for Rhi neland, I happen to be aware of the fact that he has not yet spoken on the Budg et De bate and he's been quoted twice by the Attorney-G eneral. MR. PEN NER: Righ t you are. It might have not been the Member for Rhi neland, but it was the Member for Emerson who made that statement.

They are some times in my mind inter changeable. They seem to be cut with the same cookie cutter, painted with the same stencil. On the 26th of March, 19 82, the Ho use Leader for the Opposition said, with respect to the mega projects that, "Mr.

Speaker, is the Minister of Financ e not con cerned about the cr edit rating of this provinc e and about his integrity when he places this type of docu ment," and it was about the Prospectus, "before the Ho use and before the investors of the Uni ted States and indeed of the world and asks for their support, when that information is clearly not true," sugges ting that the Minister of Finance of this provi nc e has told a lie to the investors of the Uni ted States. It's that kind of thing which I talk about when I talk about irresp onsi bility.

The Leader of the Opp osition in the Bud get Deb ate talked about the mega projects and said as follows: "They'r e in limbo, Mr. Speaker , they're all in jeopardy." I have the feeling, Sir, that sometime s it almost appears like they would like these projects to fail. They gloat, they liter ally gloat at every apparent set back for this province. It's like kids, it's like kids saying "I told you so. See, didn 't I predi ct?" That's the kind of lang uage, those are the kind of inn uendo s.

They need to be told that we're not en gaged in kid's games when we are attempting to deal with the economic future of this pr ovince. These are difficult times and they need a measure of responsibil ity, not yet forthcom ing from the Opposition Benche s. Tough times, Mr. Speaker, call for a tough minde d ness, not political petty fogging borne of post-election depr ession. You've lost the game; reco gni ze that we're in a much more serious game having to do with the economy in this province, with jobs for Manito bans, a future for Manitobans.

At least eng age, if you can and some of you can, in some though t out criti cism, some construc tion cr iticism, not the type of thing we've heard. Seco ndly, with respect to bankr uptcies, when I talk about irrespons ibility. Sir , it's positively ghoulish. They sometimes seem to feed on them. They bear each new bankrup tcy into this Ho use like a trophy into the huntr oom, ready to nail it to the wall, ready to lick

Monday, 17 May, 1982 its bone s. "Look another one," say they. For example, the Member for Arthur , when he was speaking on April 6th. asked "Could the Minister of Agricu lture indicate to the Ho use how many farmers have gone bankrup t in the past three months." On the same day the Member for Stur geon Creek wanted to know about Welch' s Lim ited;· wanted to kn ow about Creative Fibre Glass Limited; well kno w ing these facts. but raising them in the Ho use so they could lick on the bone s of these bankrup tcies. in my view.

One has visions of some me mber s opposite search ing the paper each night almost hoping for a new one. Many, in fact. of the matters raised in questions by mem bers opposite have dealt not with bankru ptcies but with receiver ships, and they should kn ow, and I'm talking about the issue of responsi bility, they should kn ow that to deal in the way that they have dealt with receiver ships - and receiver ships are very delic ate things - can be a self-fulfilling prop hecy and dr ive them into bankru ptcy.

I kn ow, of course, and I have heard some of the remarks being uttered across the Ho use in the last few minutes that there were criti cisms about the economy that were raised by the then Opposition, but we were relating to a specific eco nomic program which was being criticized. name ly, that discred ited scorched-earth policy of acute pro tracted rest raint and we were illustrating what that policy had done.

Ther e is not one possibility, if one kno ws anything about bankrup tcies and it appears that many of the mem bers opposite don't, of attri buting the bankrup t cies that have occu rred in the last few monti1s to this govern ment. Bankrup tcies don' t sprout like mush rooms overnigh t. -(I nterjec tion)- No. the y do not. The bank ruptcies that have taken place have been the result of acute protracted restraint. They have been the result of mone tarism with its high interest rates. They have been the result of a struc tural depression in the econo my. They have been the result.

Sir. of a structu ral recess ion in the economy which has been particularly hard on small businesses. Small busi nesses in the face of mone tarism. high inter est rates, have had to carry inv ent ory. Small businesses in the face of declining demand because of the struct ural recess ion have had to carry those inventorie s without movement.

I want to just refer here to begin to relate this to the latter part of my remarks to the fact that given wher e the main impact of the economic recess ion is hitting and gi ven where the gr eatest need for assistance is to help particularly the movement of goods in the hands of small busine sses in this provi nc e, the decision not to impose a sales tax was a wise decision, was a responsi ble decision and I am going to deal with it in a very few moments at gr eater length.

A thir d exa mple of what I call the irresponsibi lity of the mem bers opposite has to do with the question of the prospectus. -(Int erjec tion)- Mr. Speaker, some times when these Points of Or der are raised, what is overl ooked. if it is one thing to call a person irrespon sible. it is another thing to call a statement irresponsi ble. You can't call a person irresponsible; you can mer ely call his state ment irresponsible or her state ment. as the case may be. On March 26th, 19 82. the Leader of the Oppo sition. speak ing in question period because he often speaks rather than questions. "My question. Mr.

Speaker . in light of the attempt by the Minister of Finance to state that he had told the truth in this prospect us.

whereas in fact he hasn't, would the Minister of Financ e care now to confirm tha t this state men t" and he goes on to quote part of the state ment. "is unt rue?" The same type of thing that the Opposition Ho use leader said at another poi nt. You see. to suggest to the financial world - I am making this point again deliberately - that the Minis ter of Financ e of the Province of Manitoba lied to them is the best evidenc e in my view of why the Opposition are not fit to be the government of this province and of why the electors told them so.

I would like to point out. incidentally, that dealing with the prospectus. Professor McCallum you know Professor McCallum. the one who gives you advice from time to time - said on CBC in the morn ing that. in fact. the prospectus was a careful and proper prospectus. Now. we have the Bud get debate. Ins tead of a reasoned analysis. instead of a balanced. com parative approach, we get rhetoric. In stead of construc tive criticism. instead of positive sugges tions. you get the kind of mind less bom bast del ivered the other day by the Member for Roblin -Russell.

"Fright ening Budget," he said, seeing spooks in the nigh t. "Social ist doct rinair e Budge t," - he wouldn't kn ow a Socialist doctrinair e Bud get if he tripped over it. "Taxing the little guys," he said in his contribution on Friday in the Budget Debate. In fact, what he said was in fact as follows. "The tragedy of these taxes that are being levied in this Bud get, Mr.

Speaker . that con cerns me," listen to this, "they're taxing the food; they're taxing the clothing and they are taxing the little guy that's walking down the street." 2529 I though t he was descri bin g the On tario Bud get and the Leader of the Op position who day by day sounds more like a nor th of 49 Gen eral Haig talks about "drunken sailor spendi ng." He says that on the 12 th with his poor sense of timing. only to be em barrassed on the 14 th by his Tor y friends on the other side of the border in Ontario, who accor ding to a Globe and Mail analysis incr eased that provin ce's deficit year over year. print over print, by 12 4 perce nt. 12 4 percent, prin t over pri nt.

That is what the Member for St. Nor bert was talking about just a few minutes ago in this Ho use. wasn't he? He was saying, let's comp are print over print. Wel l, in Ontario, print over print was 12 4 percent. Talk about drun ken sailors. Go d Almig hty, he even beat the Ar gen tinia ns. -(I nterjec tion)- I live in the world. I like to be consider ed a citizen of the world. A little worl dliness wou ldn't do you any harm. Look, he's smiling. It is a gr eat day. -(l nterjec tion)- Mr. Spe aker, let us consider for a moment the situa tion with which we had to deal. the context.

We inhe r ited. as a govern ment. the chaos that was left over from their scorch ed-earth policy and ther e is no other name for it. The Minister of Finance in his Budget Add ress has described that and it bears repeating and I will repeat it. He said, "In the last half decade. Mani toba had the dub ious distinction of record ing the low est increase in real output of any provinc e. the smal lest gr owth in invest ment of any province and the worst rate of job creation of any province." That was the inh eritance with which we had to deal. That was the result of a deli berate policy; it was the result partly

Monday, 17 of a deli berate policy, a chosen policy. It wasn't solely the result of extra neous factors. Ther e was a calcu lated choice of policy made in 19 77 and it was the worst possible pol icy for the time. Now, dealing as well as we were and are with a very bad phase of the busine ss cycle in which cle arly the need to stimulate the economy is the paramount duty of any government and more and more that is being recog nized, except by the Opposition who talk to us about spend ing like drunken sailors, who talk to us about fiscal irrespons ibility.

Speak ing in the Ho use on the 29th of April, 19 82, the Member for Tur tle Moun tain and I will quote the whole passage, "Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister.

In light of the fact that hardly a day goes by without another busi ness decla ring bankr uptcy in the provinc e, and in view of the fact that unemp loyment is escalating rapidly, and in light of the fact that the First Minister made prom ises during the election to farmers, to small busi nesses, to home owners, to those that were unem ployed, to th ose tha t were th rea tened with unemp loyment, will the First Minister advise the Ho use when he's going to stop issuing press releases; when he's going to stop talking; when he's going stop shuffling paper and when he's going to take some action to fulfill the promis es that were made and to deal with the economic situation that exists in the province?" Now stri pped of its pejorative lang uage, the ques tion, what is to be done, is an approp riate question and let's deal with it as we've attempted to deal with it in arriving at this Bud get and in presenti ng this Bud get.

What, indeed, in the face of this situation, the result of acute protracted restraint, the downturn in the business cycle, what is to be done? Let's look at the alternatives. Let's try to reason this out. One alternative is to conti nue acute protracted res traint. Wel l, no thank s. The other alternative is to stim ulate the economy in some reasoned measure and, as presented in the Budge t, Sir, we have done that. Ther e have been something like, in addition to the expan sion of programs that was made manifest in the Esti mates, an additional $60 million of job creation.

Money, $50 million, that will be spent on badly needed housing, but that necessari ly means, if you just stop to think about it for a mome nt, even that modicum and it is relatively a small amount of ec onomic stimulus in the situation. That neces sarily means some mixture of deficit financing and new taxes or all of one or all of the other and we don't like new taxes any more than anyone else. But, clearly, that is neces sarily - once you've made the choice as the electors made the cho ice no more acute protracted restrain t, get the economy going.

On ce you've made that choice, then you have to make the choice of how you're going to pay for it. Are you going to pay for it with new tax dol lars solely? Are you goin g to pay for it with deficit solely or are you going to have some reasonable mix of the two? Now note, Sir, that the real deficit, counting the $25 million taken out of that fund that was buried for I don't kn ow how many years, was $277 million for fiscal 19 81 -82. Now if that's indexed, that is, if you just take into acco unt the incr eased cost of doing busi ness, you're really dealing as the starting point with $307 million.

All you would be doing is running in the 1982 same spot; ther e would be nothing in terms of the exp ansion of program. Ther e would be nothing in terms of job creat ion. Ther e would be nothing to stim ulate the economy and you would still ha ve a $307 million dollar deficit. Now, anyone who think s that you can deal with this situation without some additional revenue , anyone who expr essly or impliedly think s otherwise, be it the Tories or the Free Press, are clearly in my subm ission playing political games with the economi c impera tives of reces sion.

So, what were the tax alterna tives, increase corporate and perso nal? Can you imagine the howls had we done that and we did n't? The Minis ter of Financ e explai ned very carefully why we did n't. In crease sales tax, the On tario answer, carefully ex amin ed by us and firml y rejected as the ans wer at this time at the very bottom of the business cycle firmly and properly rejected by us at a time when there's a need to help small business which is the heart of the busine ss economy of this province.

The sales tax is regress ive, it can be ameliorated if it becomes a necessity, but if it can be avoided, it should be avoided and we avo ided it. It' s wrong for now and so the levy - well, let's take the Chevy to the levy and see what we've got. It's been called - and I think a brilliant example of ign orance a hidden sales tax. I would like the mem bers opposite to listen to this.

Take the example of the Manitoba Telephone System which was used by the Leader of the Opp osition in his Budget Deb ate, in his Budget speech, and I have the report for 19 80-81 - the sales of services on which sales tax was paid was approxi mately $21 O million. Now, increase the sales tax two points, it means an additional charge to the ratepayers on the bill of $4.2 million. The payroll of the Manitoba Telephone Sys tem for the same year was $91 million. At 1. 5 levy, that's an additional cost of 1. 3.

Even if every penny of that were passed through and there's no need to pass it through, but even if every penny were passed through there would still be a saving to the users of Manitoba Telephone System of $3 million. Don' t tell us "h idden sales tax" unless you're prepared to do your homework. When the Leader of the Opp osition come s with these fright ening stories. It's not a hidden tax, it's out in the open wher e you can see it. Wher e if you want to take the time, you can deal with it. If you want to use your intell igen ce and you have some - I heard it, but not in this Ho use - you can deal with it.

That's what you should be doing and so with every example that's being used ther e has been a failure to differentiate, for example, between payroll costs and other costs which go into the product. The Honour able Member for Roblin -Russell with his stories about piggies go to market, I mean that was all hog wash. That's all it was because he kept on movin g those pigg ies to marke t as if every cost was a labour cost and forget ting all of the other costs that go into the bottom line of the prod uct.

Then, they say and the Leader of the Opp osition, in another example of unme asured irresponsibility, talks about the tax as if it were a tax on empl oyees. They dr ag out - and God Almi ghty you could see the fear and the trem bling, the sickne ss unto death - the nuns, dr ag out the rabbis, dr ags out the chur ches. How come he didn't reach for widows and orph ans? 2530

Monday, 17 May, 1982 He was having a bad day, I suppose. Righ t? It 's a totally and I'm quoting, "It's a totally universal tax," said the Leader of the Opp osition, "that applies to every emp loyee in Manitoba." And tha t's echoed by the Free Press. It 's an emplo yer tax.

They kn ow it's an emp loyer tax and to suddenly buy and he has used the term "rabb its from the disappearing hat" which if you analyse it, it doesn' t make a hell of a lot of sens e "r abb its from the disappearing hat," which if you ana lyse it doesn't make a helluva lot of sense, "rabb its from a hat." You know, that is a rabbit from the hat type of slight of hand to change the word "emplo yer" to "emp loyee" and to suppose that for a moment the people of this province won't catch on. The fact that it's an emplo yer tax is what they don' t like, that's what it is.

Face up to it and I've heard, -(lnt erjec tion)- yes, yes, that's what they don' t like. They're true born natu ral constitu ents. The major emp loyers of this province will have to pay out of some of those profits that they've making a little more in a red istribut ive Bud get. They wanted, if anyth ing, they wanted a sales tax. Hit the little guy. Com pare our Bud get to the Bud get in Ontario, a tale of two cities, Tory Toronto and I suppose wonderful Winnip eg.

Look at the Tory Budg et, look at it, be hone st with yourselves so that onc e and for all you may reject and disr egard some of the rhetoric that you've been using and get back to the land of reason. A MEMBER: This isn't On tario. MR. PE NNER: Wel l, you'd like it to be, I'm sure you would. That's the kin d of things that you are project ing. In creased health insurance prem iums, now that's a Tory tax. School supplies, student supplies includ ing exercise books and workbooks, loose leaf paper, drawing books, music manuscript paper, school bags, classroom supplies, that's a Tory tax.

Look agai n in terms of snacks, candy, they'r e robbing the kids. Candy, conf ections, soft drin ks, snack foods, any thing over 20 cents, and nickel and diming the little kids to death in On tario, that's a Tory tax. Face up to what's happen ing -(I nterjec tion)- Yes, is that what you would do in Manitoba? Well I can just see the Leader of the Op position if he were here saying, "H eaven to Betsy no, we wouldn't do that." Wel l, what would you do? What are the choic es? let's look at them again. Acute protracted restraint. No way, no way. So what would you do? How would you stimulate the economy?

Cut spending, you're spen ding like drunk en sailors, you're fiscally irresponsible. Well, Mr. Speaker, after listenin g to the incr easing strident calls of the Opposition; particularly those, but not only from ranch country constituents, that the $20 million in our Beef Sup port Program should be giv en away no stri ngs attached. We heard it day after day, give them mone y, giv e them mone y; never mind the condition s, give the mone y. Did n't we hear it in this House, day after day? Talk about drunken sailors or raunchy ranch ers' No, Mr.

Speaker, all of this talk about fiscal irres pon sibility doesn' t wash from people of that kind. Mr. Speaker, economic stimulation by a com bination of prudent spending programs, selective tax cuts paid for by a tax measure that to a considerable extent is paid by Ottawa is not spen ding like drunken sailors. As that old philosopher from Pictou County onc e said, "It 's damn good management and it bugs the hell out of them." And said the Leader of the Opp osition, "Oh boy, the deficit, the deficit is up to unmanageable levels. Al most unmanageable levels." He saved him self a little bit of room ther e.

A mischievous statement if I ever heard one. What does the net public debt in the Province of Manitoba represent. Let's let the people of Manitoba kno w in reality what their money has purchased. The debt total is $4. 7 billion. Now just listen for a momen t, it won' t hurt, I promise you it won't hurt, it might help.

It may be like chicken soup to a dead man, you kn ow, it might not help but it can't hurt, right. $4. 7 bill ion, but of that, less than 30 percent is a gener al purpose deb t; that is, the rest about $3.4 billion is accumulated capi tal, it's the wealth of this provi nc e represented by assets which today have a far gr eater value than they've ever had.

You kn ow, Sir, to replace one power dam today would cost us $3 billion, and for $3. 7 billion we've got a whole stri ng of power dams; we've got a telephone system; we've got highways; we've got schools and universitie s; and we've got human capi tal, we've got wealth. -(I nterjec tion)- Yes, we all did for heaven sakes face up to it instead of playing polit ics with this question of the deficit.

And what are the carrying charges? -(Int erjec tion)- Yes, today. 4.5 percent. -(I nterjec tion)- You prete nd to be an econom ist but you've got a long way to go if you do n't kno w about the way in which - the carrying charges, Sir , the carrying charges are 4.5 percent of the total expenditur es. Now tha t is compar ed to a Federal 22 perce nt. I would readily admit we have no pr oblem in 2531 joining forces here - that amounts to fiscal irrespon sibility, that is the Ottawa, the federal imp ulse, the federal carrying charges on the debt of 22 percent is fiscal irrespo nsility.

We kn ow, and I'm sure that you kn ow, that the 4.5 percent of our total expenditur e which goes to carry the debt is easily a manageable amount. Ask any home owner. My God, you kn ow, if you want some advice, go to the people on the street. Take somebody who has a $20,000 income after tax, a $50,000 home, and a typical situation a $35,000 mort gage at, let's say, even 16 percent is paying $5,600 interest per year on that deb t.

That is 25 percent of that homeowner 's budg et is going to carr y that home owner's mortgage so that the homeowner can have shelter, can have a place to live, and yet has an appre ciating value, and tell that homeowner that we're fis cal ly irres ponsible wit h 4.5 percent. He'll say, "Ho gwash." Mr. Speaker, for the deficit , and for ind eed the accumulated deficit, but for the program particularly that was brought forward on behalf of the gov ernment by the Minister of Financ e, what are we getti ng? We're get ting jobs . We'd lik e to have more but ther e are jobs in that progr am.

There is economic stimulation. There is steps that have been taken to preserve the basic eco nomic infrastructure. Yes, they're not enoug h; we kno w they're not enough; we would like to do more. We're a small province in a world that is suffering the structural ills of capitalism. Let's -(l nterject ion) yes, yes, ther e's no question about it. Even the Bond Street exper ts on Wall Street are tel ling us that. I just want ed to see what your reaction would be. You kn ow,

Monday, 17 1982 if I had just said structu ral defects, they would have said, "Wel l, structural defects ," because they don't under stand those words, but you throw in capitalism and, oh, God Almigh ty. Penner the Red has emer ged from under the bed and he's here to play spooks. There are structural problems because of the red istribution of the world's wealth, occasioned in part by what the OPE C nations did with oil prices for a period of time, occasioned in part by the proper and meani ngful demand of the people of the Third World for a share in the world's produc t.

Ther e is a redistribution whic h is strainin g our economy, showing its cracks, showing its wea kne sses and in that situation, ther e is little that we can do, but we were not going to sta nd pat. We were not going to con tinue acute protracted restr aint. We were going to show the people of Manitoba that they are getting the kind of program for which they voted and I am proud of that fact. I am proud of the Bud get brought forward by the Minister of Fina nce on behalf of the governmen t. We do say, we have faith in this province, that it is a great province. There are gr eat people.

We are pro viding the cir cumstances in which, when the upturn beg ins as it will later this year, the economy of this province will be in a position, the Bud get of this provi nce will have created that position wher e something mean ingful can be done, and you will see. Do n't be disappointed when it happens. You will see that Manitoba will onc e more, under the prudent leader ship of this government, be a leader in Canada in terms, not merely of the advance of the economy, but in terms of social programs.

If you would onl y have the honesty to say, your drun ken sailor spending is what you are giving in social pro grams; say it, but tell us wher e this drunken sailor spen ding is. You tell us to spend money on cattle support programs without strings, but what have you said about our social programs. How are they to be paid for? Tell us, how are they to be paid for? Where would you cut? Don' t tell us about half-a-dozen civil servants in the Department of Urban Affairs. The Depar tment of Ur ban Affairs was run right into the gr ound . You know, it had a fairly decent Minister and an underpaid secretary.

That was the Depar tment of Urban Affairs under the previ ous governm ent. Wel l, Sir, I have attempted to say in the 40 min utes allocated to me that it is time to end this series of irresponsible statements that seem to tr iumph or enjo y or wallow - that's the word I am look ing for - wallow in the economic misery of this province. Come out of it, look forward, analyze the situation; if you have got a better program, offer it. But all of this business, this kne e-jerk reaction, this socialist under every bed is nons ense; the people aren' t buying it. There are half-a-dozen intelligent people over ther e.

I would name them, but the others would feel bad. Each one of them think s that I meant them, you see. Mr. Speaker, again in closing, let me congr atulate the Minister of Fina nce. He has presented a Budget which, I hear it and other mem ber s on this side hear it, the people of Manitoba say, you did a good job. We did a good job and we will conti nue to do a good job. That is what we were elected for. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Garry. MR. L.R. (Bu

d) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I was not going to ent er this de bate until a little later in the week, but I am prom pted to rise and speak now after the highly flamboyant, high ly theatrical and highly fictitious performance of the Attorney- Gener al. No, Mr. Speaker, the Atto rn ey-Gen eral looke d at the Ontario Budge t, not the Manitoba Budge t, not the situation here in this provi nce.

He looked at the On ta rio Budget and he picked out a couple of items which I think none of us in this Ho use would be particu larly incli ned to fasten on as sources of reve nue , all things being equal, but accounted for and accomm odated in the spectrum of taxation appr oaches. No doub t, ther e are government s from time to time that may find it possible to justify them. I think in particular of the smaller items that he talked about, such as take out food and childr en' s candy and wee ping his crocod ile tears, Mr. Speaker , he said, that is a Tory tax. Mr.

Speaker, there are two funda mental flaws in that particular rhetorical position taken by the Attorney Gener al and a numb er of fund ament al flaws in his comments in general, but those two fundam ental flaws that perhap s he should have though t about before he offered that kind of declamation and tha t kind of dr ivel, as the Honour able Member for Pembin a says, is: One, what about pun itive income tax levels? That is an NOP socialist tax. What about minin g and mineral resour ce taxation that was dr iving invest ment and minin g activity out of this provi nce? That is an NOP socialist tax.

Wha t about penalties for doing bus iness? What about discourageme nts and disinc en tives to priv ate enterpr ise? What about that very pay roll tax which is a disincentive to em ployment and to busine ss? Mr. Speaker, that is an NOP tax; that's a socialist tax. So, let us not spend our time concern ing ourselves too much with what the Attorney-General describes in flamboyant fashion as a Tory tax. In the first place, Mr.

Speaker, as I said, ther e are two flaws in that argument because first of all, we can ident ify many NOP taxes, many socialist taxes which are killin g this province, killin g this countr y and have kil led a numb er of major western economies includin g Gr eat Br itain's. But, over and above that, Mr. Speaker, there is a seco nd flaw and that is when he talks about it being a Tory tax, I think he needs only to look no further than just the superficial paper work on that tax itself and he has to admit, if he will hone stly and candidly, that's an NOP tax.

A tax on kids' candy, a tax on take out food, a tax on pets, a tax on every a::: tivity, a tax on every kind of purchase, that's an NOP tax. If he doesn't think that kids' candy will be taxed through that payroll tax, then he is living in the fool's paradise that so many of his colleagues in that party have lived in for so long. 2532 There is no way, Mr.

Speaker, that the Attorn ey Gene ral or the Member for Thomp son or the Minister of He alth or the Member for Elmwood or anyone else on that side of the House or anyone on this side of the Ho use or anyone anywhere in Manitoba can operate a business and absorb that payroll tax and not increase his or her costs of doing business. Ther e will be price increases. He might as well face it. They live in a paradise, Mr. Speaker , that harks back to Harvard Square in the middle of the Vietnam War. They live in a paradise that harks back to that do-good ism, th ose crocod ile tears of the mid-1 950s and the mid-1 960s.

I

Monday, 17 May, 1982 don' t know when they are going to grow up and face reality. There is no way that those businesses, even the kids' candy business, the activities in those busi nesses as a result of this payroll tax will not result in higher pr ices, in higher costs, and if the Attorney Gen eral is worried about that kid and his ntckel candy, he better start worr ying about that kid and his seven or eight or ten-cent candy because that is what it is going to go to. Mr. Spe aker , how soon they forget. The Attorney Gener al berates us, Sir , for the questions that we have raised on this side of the Ho use.

He takes great pride and he felt that he was amusing everyone in his - and that's part of politics and part of perfo rmance in the Ho use and I give him cred it for a good performanc e, no depth, but a good perf ormance. He takes gr eat pride in berating the Progressive Cons ervative Op po sition for the questions that we have asked, Mr. Speaker, because we have asked a few questions of concern and root concern to Manitobans relative to the affairs in every sector of our activity and our lives today. How soon they forget, Mr. Speaker .

Obviously, the Attorn ey-Gener al never spent one afternoon or one evening in this Legis lature between 19 77 and 19 81, ne ither in the gallery, nor in the NOP caucus room, nor even in the corrido rs. That must be obvious from that kind of criticism of our perf ormance, Mr. Speaker. He doesn' t like us to ask questions about bankr upt cies. He doesn't like us to ask questions about unem ployment. He doesn' t like us to ask question about problems in agricultur e. Mr.

Speaker, wher e was he and wher e were his colleagues who were applauding him while he spoke and many of whom were in this Chamber , some who weren 't, but many of whom were in this Chamb er during those four years when that party, now on that side, which was in Opposition, raised every conc eivable, contrived, fictional excuse for laying down positions that · were dem onstrably untrue, for accusations against the Govern ment of the Day, the Progressive Con servative Govern ment, which were not accurate or truthful, which constit uted nothing but a barrage of propaganda aimed at manip ulating public opinion and media opinion and stirring up Opposition and stirring up emotionalism, even to the exte nt of orche strating demons trations by strik ers and picke ters in the halls of this buildin g.

Wher e was the Atto rney-General in those days, Mr. Speaker ? He come s in here and talks so proudly today about what this Opposition has done because we have asked a few questions, but wher e was he between '77 and '8 1, when they in Op position made a travesty of some question periods, some comm ittee hearings and some of the work of the Government of the Day simply by orchestra ting.

The Minister of Mines and Ener gy was one who was involv ed in dir ect orch estra tion with respect to some of the incidents of those days simply by orch estrating and manipu lating emo tionalism in such a way as to produc e distortions and propaganda and misrepr esentat ion having to do with business, having to do with health care, having to do with social services, ha ving to do with interpro vincial relations, having to do with federal-provi ncial financ ing, having to do with fiscal and mone tary approach, having to do with agricultur e, having to do with urban 2533 affairs, having to do with educ ation, having to do with every activity in this provinc e.

So, Mr. Speaker, let him go back and read the reco rd. He's a good reader, he's a good student, he's a scholarly man, he's an intellec tual man, he's got some educ ation. Let him go home and read the record of the last four years. Mr. Speaker, he doesn' t like us to ask questions about bankrup tcies. Where was he when the gr eat man ifesto, the gr eat election document of the gr eat new NOP Go vernment was written - "A Clear Choice for Manitobans" - policies of the Manitoba New Democr atic Party whic h promis ed in effect that ther e would be no bankrup tcies?

In effect, that's what it promised, that ther e would be no bankrup tcies. Cer tainly, ther e would be no sufferi ng from bankrup tcies. Where was he, Mr. Speaker, when this document was being writ ten with respect to em ployment - emplo y ment problems and job oppor tun ities and unempl oy ment arising from busine ss closures and layoffs?

Where was he when this document was being written with respect to rel ief for agriculture - farmer s and beef producer s with particular problems of the day who were seek ing solutions through consensus and thr ough consultation, not through doct rinaire abstract hypothe ses develop ed in some back room some wher e and imposed on them? Where was he when this document was being writ ten and wher e was he dur ing the ele ction campaign when it was bei ng circulated? I happen to kn ow, Mr.

Speaker, that this docu ment was circu lated in the Cons tituenc y of Fort Rouge just as I am sure the Attorne y-Gener al kn ows of things that his party was doing in my constituency, Fort Garry. It was no secret that the NOP was circulating this document in Fort Rouge, the home constit uency of the Attorney Gen eral. Did he move to stop it? Did he move to say, look these are ridicul ou

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-56a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 56a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	964ea787ae94d75f3a638d0d9ad00cebf8c37a99

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